NASA Authorization For Fiscal Year 1967

HEARINGS
60lOllTrEE ON
AERONAUTICAL Ali!) SPACE SCIENCF8' UNITED STATES SENA.TE

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
s.
, -,'~, -~,'.f":::.:::::-~- t" \ >( -..,.,
2909--/
--",
,'", {.:-.~_
"
,~TlVlll
,-;<=-~:':>;:/.~_.:.,
f,
A BILL TO AIJTHOBlZE APPROPRIATIONS TO THE NATIONAL iUlKONAUTICS AND SPACE .A.1lMiNISTIllTION FOR R.iiUBCH Al'm DtmIlLOPldNT. . CON~UOTION OF FAC~ ..AND
oPEB.,lfiOlt:'3;, ANJ),.J'OB tmIER~.

';"..-<-"':"i-~
-, : ,'., "
o",;--,:~~,,~.~,:~:,;::.~-',:,-<,.,,--;..,'<
"-"<~7; .'~
-.1'
"J,,~,tI'diiil;"";f
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
HEARINGS
BEFORE TlDII
COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES UNITED SrrATES SENATE

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
s.
2909
A BILL TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS TO THE NATIONAl. AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
FEBRUARY 28, MARCH 1,2,3, AND 4,1966
Printed for the use of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences
u.s.
59-941
GOVERNJIENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 19618
For:sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C.. 2CK02. Price $2.25
SENATE COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico, Chairman RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, Iowa STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi LEN B. JORDA:'o<, Idaho STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio GEORGE D. AIKEN, Vermont THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Florida WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota HARRY F. BYRD, IR., Virginia JAMES J. GEHRIG, Staff Director EVERARD H. SMITH, Jr., Professional Staff Afem/"r WILI.IAM J. DEACIIMAN, ProfesBional Staff Mem/Jer Dr. GLEN P. WILSON, Professional Staff Member CRAIG VOORHEES, Prof"sional Staff Member DONALD H. BRENNAN, Research Assistant SAM BOUCHARD, Assistant Chief Clerk

CONTENTS
Opening session, February 28, 1966: Opening statement, Senator Clinton P. Anderson, chairman_________ Letter of transmittal to Vice President from NASA_________________ Text of S. 2909, an act to authorize appropriations to NASA for fiscal year 1967______________________________________________ Section analysis of S. 2909______________________________________ Statement, Senator Margaret Chase Smith________________________ Testimony ofJames E. Webb, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration_____ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _____ _ _ _ _ __ __ ___ ___ _ ___ _ __ Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Deputy Adminigtrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ _ __ __ __ :Morning session, March 1, 1966: Testimony of Dr. George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for ~lanned Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space Administration_____________________________________________________ ::\Iorning session, ::\,Iarch 2, 1966: Testimony ofDr. Homer E. Newell, Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration _______________________________ ___ __ ____ ____ __ _ Gerald M. Truszynski, Deputy Director, Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition; accompanied by Thomas V. Lucas, Director, Program Coordination and Resources :Management; and Norman Pozinsky, Director, Network Support and Implementation__________________________________________________ :Morning session, March 3, 1966: Testimony ofDr. l\1ac C. Adams, Associate Administrator, Advanced Research and Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, accompanied by A. O. Tischler, Director, Chemical Propulsion Division; Boyd Myers II, Deputy Associate Administrator for Operations; Charles W. Harper, Director, Aeronautics Division; and Willis H. Shapley, Associate Deputy Administrator__ _____ _ __ _ __ _ _______ __ _ _____ _ __ __ ___ _ __ ___ Harold B. Finger, Manager, Space Nuclear Propubion Office, AEC-NASA; Director, Nuclear Systems and Space Power, NASA; Director, Space Nuclear Systems Dh-ision, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission_______________________________ !dorning session, March 4, 1966: Testimony of Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., Director, Defense Resesrch and Engineering, Department of Defense, accompanied by Daniel J. Fink, Deputy Director, Strategic and Space Systems; and Thomas F. Rogers, Deputy Director for Electronic and Information Systems_
~_
Page
1 2
4 6 8
11 63
101
276
380
434
540
634
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES Adams, Dr. ::\,1ac C., Associate Administrator, Advanced Research and Technology, N ASA__ __ _____ _ ____ _ ___ ____ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ ___ _ __ _ Finger, Harold B., ::\Ianager, Space Nuclear Propulsion Office, AECN ASA_ _ __ __ ___ ________ __ _ ____ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ ___ __ __ __ __ _ Foster, Dr. John S., Jr., Director, Defense Research and EngiIwering, Department of Defense_ _ _ _ _____ __ ___ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ ______ _ _ ___ ___ Harper, Charles W., Director, Aeronautics Division, XASA __________ 467, 434 540 634 468
IV
CONTENTS
Mueller, Dr. George E., Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flicrht Page NASA - ___ - ____ - - - - - ________ - - ______________________________":. _~ 101 Myers, Boyd II, Deputy Associate Administratorfor Operations, NASA_ 463 464 Newell, Dr. Homer Eo, Associate Administrator for Space Science and ' Applications, N ASA_ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ ___ _ ___ ____ __ __ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ 276 Seamans, Dr. Robert C., Jr., Deputy Administrator, NASA____________ 63 Shapley, Willis H., Associate Deputy Administrator, NASA ______ 451,472,473 Tischler, A. 0., Director, Chemicnl Propulsion Division, NASA ___'____ 457,45S Truszynski, Gerald M., Deputy Director, Office of Tracking and Data Acquisit ion ______________________________________________ -- _ __ _ _ 380 Webb, James E., Administrator, NASA _______________________ ------11
1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. :32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 38. 37. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.
LIST OF FIGURES Major MSF milestones ________________________________________ _ Manned Space Flight manpoweL ______________________________ _ Manned Space Flight Saturn I-B manpoweL _____________ - - ____ _ Federal expenditures, defense, atomic energy, and space as n percentage of the gross national produck ____________________________ _ NASA Manned Space Flight fiscal year 1967 budget estimate ______ _ Manned Space Flight general objectives ________________________ _ Manned Space Flight specific objectives ________________________ _ Manned Space Flight specific objectives time phasing _____________ _ Major MSF milestones _______________________________________ _ NASA Office of Manned Space Flight __________________________ _ Manpower management ______________________________________ _ Mission operations organization ________________________________ _ Launch opera tions changes ____________________________________ _ Saturn/Apollo Applications ____________________________________ _ Saturn-Apollo Applications organizational relations ______________ _ Roles of Manned Space Flight Centers for Saturn/Apollo Applications ____________________________________________________ _ Advanced Manned Missions Experiments Office __________________ _ MSF experiment program _____________________________________ _ Planning managemont ________________________________________ _ Phase A (Advanced studies concept/feasibility studies) ____________ _ Phase B (Project dcfinition) ___________________________________ _ Phase C (Design-Final definition) _____________________________ _ Phase D (Development and operations) _________________________ _ Procurement manag;ement- ___________________________________ _ Manned space flight incentive contract conversion _______________ _ Scien?e ..community/manned space flight reporting and review actIvltIeS ___________________________________________ - - _- __ -_ Space medicine ______________________________________________ _ Manned space flight/Government relation (DOD) ________________ _ Manned space flight/Government relation (HEW, Commerce, AEC_ Man?e.d Space. Flight/industry relationships ______________ - - - - - - -_ Gemml executive group_______________________________________ _ Apollo executive group _______________________________________ _ Operations executive group ____________________________________ _ Manned flight awareness program _______________________________ _ Saturn/Apollo contractor and Government meeting on manufacturing technologv ____________________________________________ ----Saturn/ Apoilo contractor manufacturing technology information Gemini III launch ____________________________________ - - - - - -Gf~i~r~bfectf;e""s~== ==== ======= == ============= ===== ==-======== = Extravehicular activity, Gemini IV _____________________________ _ MCC-H during Gemini IV ________________ - -- _-- - - - - - __ - - - -- - -Earth orbit rendezvous, Gemini 7/Gemini 6 _____________________ _ Incentive contract summary ___________________________________ _ Gemini II delays ______________________________________ - - - - - - -Two-month launch interval study __________________________ - - - __ Significance of medical data through Gemini VIL ________________ _ Contribution of Gemini medical iuformatiou _____ - _- ______ - - - - - - - Apollo program objectives ______________________________ - - - - - - -Launch vehicle development in Apollo program __________________ _
111
107 110
112
116
155 155 156 157 158 162 163
164
164 165 166
167 169
168 168
173
171
170 170 171
175
173
177 179
176 179 180
181
181
183
183
184
185 187 188

188 189 191 191 186 186
196
196

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.
CONTENTS
Apollo space vehicle capability _________________________________ _ Apollo program phasing _______________________________________ _ Apollo flight development phases_______________________________ _ Primary objectives, Apollo/Saturn 201 __________________________ _ Primary objectives, Apollo/Saturn I first manned fiight ___________ _ Manned Space Flight program management _____________________ _ Launch vehicle and spacecraft supporting certification review phasing_ Apollo scheduling system _____________________________________ _ Apollo scheduling system _____________________________________ _ Control levels _______________________________________________ _ Change control system description _____________________________ _ Levels of change authority ____________________________________ _ Apollo data management system_______________________________ _ Apollo incentive contract status ________________________________ _ Interchange of management experiences and techniques ___________ _ Apollo technical support ______________________________________ _ Manned Space Flight total employment ________________________ _ Marshall Space Flight Cente~Test area _______________________ _ Mississippi Test Facility-Test stand complex___________________ _ Mississippi Test Facility-Saturn V second stage static test stand __ Michoud Assembly Facility ___________________________________ _ Manned Spacecndt Center ____________________________________ _ Manned Spacecraft Cente~Anechoic chamber __________________ _ Manned Spacecraft Center-Environmental test chamber_________ _ Manned Spacecraft Cente~ Flight acceleration facility ___________ _ Manned Spacecraft Center-Flight acceleration facility ___________ _ Manned Spacecraft Cente~Mission Control Center _____________ _ White Sands Test Facility-Lunar module test site _______________ _ White Sands Test Facility-Apollo command and propulsion module tcst site ___________________________________________________ _ 78. Kpnnedy Space Center-Launch complex 39 (area A) _____________ _ 79. Kennedy Space Centr-Launch complex 39 (area B) _____________ _ 80. Kennedy Space Center-\"ehicle assembly building_______________ _ 81. Kennedy Space Center-Launch complex 34 ____________________ _ 82. Kennedy Space Center-Launch complex 37 ____________________ _ 83. Exploitation of presently programed capabilities _________________ _ 84. Apollo capability exploitation program-Considerations ___________ _ 85. Present Apollo capability _____________________________________ _ 86. Extended Apollo capability for experiment supporL ______________ _ 87. Basic Apollo missions-AAP capabilities ________________________ _ 88. Derivation of A~llo Applicl7tions ?bj~ctive~-------~-------------89. :'.lanned Space Flight-SpeCIfic ObJcctlYeS tIme phasmg ___________ _ 90. Apollo Applications-Specific objPctivcs ________________________ _ 91. Apollo Applications-Synchronous orbit operations meteorological Research Laboratory _______________________________________ _ 92. Apollo Applications-Synchronous orbit operations orbital telescope_ 93. Apollo Applications--Cargo and personnel transfer operations _____ _ 94. Apollo Applications program-Propellant-handling techniques ______ _ 95. Apollo Applications-Extravehicular activity ____________________ _ 96. Apollo Applications-Extended lunar exploration ________________ _ 97. Apollo Applications-Mission concepts _________________________ _ 98. Apollo Applications-Basic hardware procurement initiation for follon-onflights ____________________________________________ _ 99. Apollo Applications alternate funding options ___________________ _ 100. Apollo Applications program cost variation______________________ _ 101. Apollo Applications major 1965 accomplishments ________________ _ 102. Apollo Applications major 1966 planned activities ________________ _ 103. Apollo program progress indicators _____________________________ _ 104. Apollo program-The job ahead _______________________________ _ 105. 1966 planned major activities spacecraft ________________________ _ 106. 1966 planned major activities launch vehicles ____________________ _ 107. 1966 planned major activities spacecrafL _______________________ _ 108. 1966 planned major activities spacecraft-Checkout ______________ _ 109. 1966 planned major activities launch vehicles-Saturn V __________ _ 110. Basis for confidence __________________________________________ _ 111. AS-201 mission sequence _____________________________________ _
v
Page
197 198 199 200 201 202 203 205 205 206 206 207 208 209 209 210 211 213 214 214 216 216 217 218 218 219 219 220 221 222 222 223 223 224 226 226 228 228 229 230 230 231 232 233 235 235 236 238 239 240 240 241 242
243
243
244 245
246 246 247 247 248 249
VI
112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 12a. 124. 12;";. 126. 127. 12S. 129. VlO. 131. 132. 133. 134. lar,. 136. 137. 13S.
CO~TEXTS
Page
AS-202 mission sequencc _____________________________________ _ AS-203 mission sequcnce _____________________________________ _ Mission sequence ____________________________________________ _ Launch crew training _________________________________________ _ Launch crew tmining~Tcchllieal material ______________________ _ Flight controller tmiiling ______________________________________ _ Apollo flight crew trainillg ____________________________________ _ :'.[SF progralll evolution altc~rHatives ______ .. ____ . _______________ _ Earth orbital progmm~Apollo and Apollo Applicatiolls SystellliL __ _ Earth orbital progmnL _______________________________________ _ Lunar programs~Apollo ______________________________________ _ Lunar progral\ls~Power systellls ______________________________ -_ Plalll'tnry progmllL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________ - - -Plal\('tary prugrallL _______________________________________ - - -J\ISF progrnm c'I."olution __________________________________ - - - - MSF capability growth ____________________________________ - - -CIltf'goriPs of Earth orbital stlldif's _____________________________ _ NASA Orbiting Resl'mch Laboratory (0 ItL) conccpts ____________ _ Caj(gories of lllnar stlldiciiL ___________________________________ _ Cakgories of plalletary studies ________________________________ _ l\lSF vehides study area ______________________________________ _ Saturn vehicles uprating/improvemf'nt techniques ________________ _ NASA l\Ianned Space Flight fiscal year 1967 budget estimate ______ _ Kennedy Space Center-Apollo propulsion module ____ ___________ _ Kennpdy Space Center~ l\Iobile service structurc ________________ _ Mississippi T"st Facility~Navigation lock and bascule bridge _____ _ l\Iississippi Test Facility~Saturn V first stage dual position test _____________________________________________________ _ 130. Space scipnce and applications~ProgmI\l content ________________ _ 140. Luna!l photograph of lunar snrface _____________________________ _ 141. Facsimile of lunar surfacp _____________________________________ _ 142. SpaC'P sciplH'c and applicaj,jons-Spac(~ missions, lunar and planetary_ 14:~. ~puce sciPllce and applic!\tions~Space missions, physics and astronomy __________________________________________________ _ 144. Space scipncl' und appli('aliollH-~i"pa~(' missions, meteorology ______ _ 145. Space .scil:llee and applications-Space missions, communication and navlgatlOn ________________________________________________ _ 146. Space seh'nee and applications~SplLcC missions, launch vehiclps ____ _ 147. Spacc science and applicationH~Flight missions __________________ _ 148. Space science and applications-Program content ________________ _ 149. Program contpnt-Physics amI astronomy ______________________ _ ],50. Areas of significant OGO I and II measurcments _________________ _ 151. Program content~Lunar and planetary _________________________ _ 152. Hanger photographs __________________________________________ _ 153. MarilH'r IY-:VIars photographs _______________________________ - -154. Operational lise of data by WeathPr BnrptnL ____________________ _ 154a. Program content~ Meteorology ___________________________ - - - -154b. TO~ system concept _____________________________________ - - - -155. Tiros IX view of thc glolml circulation _________________ - __ - - - - -156. Nimbus 1 ___________________________________________________ _ 157. Program eont('nt-Commllnications and ATS ____________________ _ 1.5S. 1't'levising Gemini 6 and 7 reco'l."eries __________________________ -150. Program eontpnt~ Bioseicnce ______________________________ - - - -160. Automated min!' an:tlysis apparatus ____________________________ _ 161. Tnrbidostat continllolls cultnre equipmPllt for hycirogmlolllOlHtS_ - - -162. Program cont.ent~:'.lann('d spacp sei('ncc ________________________ _ 163. First photo e\"('r oiltainod of GcgellschpilL __________________ - - - -164. i"ynoptic t<'rrain photography ______________________________ - - - -165. N ABA scientist-Astron:tuts _______________________________ ----166. Program eonknt--Sustaining ulli v('rsity program ____________ - - - -16i. NASA p]"('doetoral training _________________________________ - - -168. Hpgiollal di~(rill\l(ioll of :0:ASA lraill(,(>s 1!Hlii--66 ________ . ____ _ l6!). I'II~tail\ing ulliY(>J"~ily progralll-ll!'s(':treh __. ______. __ _ liO. Hp~car!'h fal'iiili('s dollars Twr capita ___________________________ _ lil. Pmgram eon1<'lIt--Ltnlll!'h y"hieie dm-!'loplll('I$ __________________ _ 172. Program eontl'lIt---1.allnch y('hiei<: prOClIl'liIlWnL _________________ _
~and
250 250 251 2.')2 2"') 0_ 253 254 255 256 25G 257 258 258 259 25n 260 261 261 262 263 264 265 266 2B!) 26!) 2i1 272 27!l 302 303 339 aan 340 340 a41 342 343 344 346 348 340 3.51 :{5:{ 35:l :{54 ;{5;"j
~)56
:357 :l;"j8 :3;")!l :360 :){i 1 :H11

:~():.!
:W:l
:lli;~
:l\i;,
:wr.
:H\,
:lti7
:lliti
:l(iS
a(i$

173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 18l. 182. 183.
CONTENTS
VII
Page
Administrative operations budget- _____________________________ _ Fiscal year HJ67 construction projects __________________________ _ Tracking and data acquisition _________________________________ _ ;'\ASA automatic data processing responsibilities _________________ _ NASA tracking and data acquisition stations ____________________ _ Tracking and data acquisition support of Gemini 7/6 mission ______ _ :Mariner IV mission supporL _____ - ____________________________ _ Tracking and data acquisition fund requirements ________________ _ Apollo support stations __________ -- ___________________________ _ Manned Space Flight network implementation for Apollo _________ _ Tracking and data acquisition personnel for Manned Space Flight support ___________________________________________________ _ 184. Instrumentation ship schedule _________________________________ _ 185. Apollo reentry ships-Hurricane damage and salvage operations ___ _ 186. Apollo-Instrumented aircraft (type C-135) _____________________ _ 187. Communications requirements for Apollo mission controL _________ _ 18S. Communication satellite coverage for Apollo support _____________ _ 189. Tracking and data acquisition-NASA direct manpower __________ _ 190. NASA-DOD cooperation _____________________________________ _ 191. Tracking and data acquisition _________________________________ _ 192. NASA automatic data processing responsibilities _________________ _ 193. NASA tracking and data acquisition stations ____________________ _ 194. Tracking and data acquisition-Support of Gemini 7/6 mission ____ _ 195. Mariner IV mission support ___________________________________ _ 196. Ranger IX support ___________________________________________ _ 197. Tracking and data acquisition program-Fund requirements ______ _ 198. Instrumentation ship schedule _________________________________ _ 199. T-2 tanker and Apollo tracking ship conversion __________________ _ 200. Apollo reentry ships-Hurricane damage and salvage operations ___ _ 201. Apollo-Instrumented aircraft (type C-135) _____________________ _ 202. Apollo support stations _______________________________________ _ 203. ~Ianned Space Flight network-Implementation for Apollo _______ _ 204. Station at Guam for Manned Space Flight support ______________ _ 205. :Manned Space Flight support-85-foot-diameter antenna sites _____ _ 206. Deep space network planned support ___________________________ _ 207. Added facilities for deep space support __________________________ _ 208. Goldstone 21O-foot-diameter antenna construction completed _____ _ 209. Satellite program support _____________________________________ _ 210. Satellite support stations ______________________________________ _ 211. Tracking and data acquisition Rtation, Rosman, N.C _____________ _ 212. Communica.tions requirements for Apollo mission controL _________ _ 213. Communication satellite coveragp for Apollo support _____________ _ 214. Tracking and data acquisition NASA direct manpower ___________ _ 215. NASA-DOD cooperation _____________________________________ _ 216. NASA-OART budget- _______________________________________ _ 217. Advanced resparch and technology _____________________________ _ 21S. OART program distribntion ___________________________________ _ 217. Aeronautics advanced R. & D _________________________________ _ 220. V/STOL transition research wind tnnneL _______________________ _ 221. Propulsion systems L'l.boratory _________________________________ _ 222. Advanced research and technology _____________________________ _ 223. Lifting reentry vehicle M-2 ___________________________________ _ 224. Solid rocket motor firing ______________________________________ _ 225. Progress in nuclear rockets ____________________________________ _ 226. 227. ====================== ===== ===.== ====_ 228. Strpss corrosion of titanium ___________________________________ = 229. Physiolo!!:ical data from aircraft flights __________________________ _ 230. ::\Iariner IY-TY processing ___________________________________ _ 231. Advanced rpsearch and technology _____________________________ _ 232. Aeronautical simulators _______________________________________ _ 233. Air traffic controL ___________________________________________ _ 234. Y/STOL stability and controL ________________________________ _ 235. Helicopter resenrch ___________________________________________ _ 236. Hplicopter research ______________________________ - -- _________ -_ 237. Helicopter resparch _____________________________ - --- - - - - - _____ _
370 371 381 382 383 384 385 386 387
388
388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 410 411 413 414 414 415 416 417 418 419 419 421 421 422 422 423 424 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 432 435 436 437 437 438 439 440 440 442 442 443 444 444 445 446 482 483 484 485 486 4S7 488
~~~Y;I~~eS;~~~_8_ ~~~t!~~=
VIII
CONTENTS
Page
238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 27l. 272. 27:3. 274. 275. 276. 277.
Subsonic and transonic aerodynamics ___________________________ _ Progress in space group _______________________________________ _ Lifting reentry vehicle M-2 ___________________________________ _ Lifting reentry vehicle HL-I0 _________________________________ _ Project fire __________________________________________________ _ Solid rocket motor firing ______________________________________ _ Meteoroid penetration rates ___________________________________ _ Pr01ress in nuclear rockets ____________________________________ _ SN P 8 Na K pump testing __________________________________ _ Status of SNAP 8 testing _____________________________________ _ Electric propulsion ___________________________________________ _ High temperature polymers ___________________________________ _ Fluid mechanics of blood flow _________________________________ _ Advanced space suiL ________________________________________ _ Human factor systems program ________________________________ _ Mariner IV-TV processing ___________________________________ _ Reentry communications __________________________________ - - -Lasertracking _______________________________________________ _ Supersonic aircrafL _________________________________________ -_ Stress corrosion of titanium ___________________________________ _ Human endoradiosonde _______________________________________ _ Physiological data ___________________________________________ _ Automobile braking studies ___________________________________ _ Outgrowth of aircraft operation study __________________________ _ A utomobile braking studies ___________________________________ _ NASA-OART budget ________________________________________ _ OART program distribution ___________________________________ _ Planning process ____________________________________ - - - -- - ---Program cycle ______________________________________ - - - - - - -- -Aeronautics ____________________________________________ - ____ _ Program emphasis ______________________________________ - _ - _ -Operation of jet VTOL aircrafL _______________________________ _
Exp.ansio~l ?f p~opulsion systems laboratory _____________________ _ Crlllse etficlcnele,L ___________________________________ - - - - - - - -Relation of internal to external forces ___________________________ _ Hypersonic propulsion research facility _ .__________________ - _ - - - -Perceived noise levels ______________________________________ - - - -Approximate annoyance zones _________________________________ _ Advanced research and technology _____________________________ _ Earth orbit launch weights __________________________ - _ - - - - - -- -Rechargeable space batteries ________________________ - _ - - - - - - - -Solar photovoltaic arrays ___________________________ - _- - - - - - - -Projected SK AP 8 applications ______________________ - - - - --- - --. Discipline group _______________________________________ - - - - - -Effect of atomic structure on friction _________________ - - - - - - - - - -Life support __________________________________________ -- -----Human factors systcm program ____________________ - - - - - - - - - - - -Recycling lifc support system tesL _________________ - - - - - - - - - - - -Interior of simulated vehicle for life support tcst _________________ _ Opticalradar __________________________________________ ------Statistical data compressiOiL ______________________________ - - - -Impact of integrnted electronics ________________________________ _ Propulsion module conccpL _________________________________ - __
~)~b~OJ~~i:~~~~~============================================
488 490 491 491 492 493 493 494 495 496 497 497 498 499 500 501 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 510 511 512 513 513 515 516 516 518
518
520 520 522 522 523 525
278.
279. 280. 28l. 282. 283. 284. 285.
528
528
529
5:30
5:31
532 538
286.
287. 288.
5:34
289.
290. 29l. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298.
584 5:-\6 5a7
~~~~I~t~~iJ;t ~""eight~_-::1978=___________________________________=_ = == = Manncd Mars landing === == === = ======= ===== == ========== =
Manned Mars landing, 1986 ___________________________________ _ Nuclcar rocket vehicle for manned planetary landing missions _____ _ Manncd plnlH'tary flyby missions ______________________________ _ 2!l!l. Interplanetary mission summarv _______________________________ _ aoo. N lIclear rocket program parts_ ~ _______________________________ _ rcactor _____________________________________________ ao!. Graphitctest log ______________________________________________ _ _ a02. Reactor :30:~. Enginc system tesL ___________________________________________ _
538 565 566 5(j7 567 569
5{18
570
571 572
518
5n
574
CONTENTS
304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 360. 360. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. Graphite reactor _____________________________________________ _ NRX-A3 test results _________________________________________ _ Nominal design values ________________________________________ _ Phoebus IA reactor at test celL ________________________________ _ Increased test cell C capacity __________________________________ _ Growth of fuel element performance ____________________________ _ Facility feed system for Phoebus reactor ________________________ _ Nozzle comparison ___________________________________________ _ Phoebus 2 nozzle development_________________________________ _ Nuclear rocket engine ________________________________________ _ Reactor test_________________________________________________ _ Breadboardengine ___________________________________________ _ NERV A/EST turbopump_____________________________________ _ Hot bleed port nozzle _________________________________________ _ Nuclear rocket systems experimenL ____________________________ _ Cold flow engine system ______________________________________ _ Cold flow engine tests ________________________________________ _ Ground experiment engine ____________________________________ _ Exhaust duct elbow fabrication ________________________________ _ E--MAD handling equipmenL _________________________________ _ Electropneumatic engine system actuators ______________________ _ Pressure, acceleration and temperature measurement _____________ _ Cable and cable assemblies ____________________________________ _ Platinum resistance temperature _______________________________ _ Engine configurations_________________________________________ _ Thermal cycle failure of tungsten ______________________________ _ Improved tungsten-uranium-eioxide fueL _______________________ _ Tungstn uranium-dioxide fuel, 1962-63 ________________________ _ Tungstf'n uranium-dioxide fuel, 1963--64 ________________________ _ Comparison between solid-core reactors _________________________ _ Cavity reactor concepts _______________________________________ _ Liquid nuclear fuel re.actoL ___________________________________ _ Coaxial flow gaseous nuclear fuel reactor ________________________ _ Cavity reactor concepts research, part A ________________________ _ Cavity reactor concepts research, part B ________________________ _ Isotopic thruster_____________________________________________ _ Nuclear rocket program _______________________________________ _ Nuclear rocket technology utilization ___________________________ _ Operating range of power sources ______________________________ _ Space power systems under investigation________________________ _ Nuclear heat source __________________________________________ _ AEC thermodelectric generators _______________________________ _ Nimbus B(SNAP 19__________________________________________ _ Apollo lunar surface experiment package ________________________ _ Brayton turboelectric ________________________________________ _ Manned Orbital Research Laboratory __________________________ _ Brayton cycle research turbine, 6-inch diameter _________________ _ 500-watt SNAP 10--A system __________________________________ _ Shipping of reactor systems ___________________________________ _ Shipping of reactor systems ___________________________________ _ Shipping of reactor systems ___________________________________ _ SNAP 8 power system.. _______________________________________ _ SNAP 8 experimental reactor _________________________________ _ Status of SNAP 8 testing _____________________________________ _
IX
Page
~~g: SNAP ~ lube/coolant pump ___________________________________ _ ~~!~ 8 N:K~J~~:======================================== SNAP 8 condenser ___________________________________________ _
SNAP 8 turbine alternator _______________________________ - ____ _ SNAP 8 turbine failure __________________________ --- -- _- - -- - --SNAP 8 boiler ____________________________________________ - --Ground prototype test facility _________________________________ _ Advanced nuclear power technology ____________________________ _ Advanced systems ___________________________________________ _ System weight ______________________________________ - ________ _ Two-stage potassium turbine rotor _____________________________ _
575 576 577 578 579 580 581 581 582 583 584 584 585 586 587 587 588 589 590 591 591 592 593 593 595 596 597 598 598 599 599 600 600 602 602 603 604 604 606 607 609 609 610 611 612 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 618 619 619 620 620 621 621 622 622 623 625 626 626 627
cm~TEXTS
e
Page
370. Potassium turbine after 2,000-hour endurance tesL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 371. Thermionic system weight_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 372. Thermionic diode in operation__________________________________ 373. Nuclear reactor thermionic converter __ _ ____ ___ ____ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ 374. Thermionic fuel transport- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 375. Electromagnetic pumps for liquid metal systems__________________ Illustration 1. Voyager planning_____ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Illustration 2. NASA obligation to universities________________________ Illustration :3. University research reporL____________________________ Illustration 4. Predoctoral training _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Illustration 5. University research facilities____________________________ Chart 1. ERC_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Chart, 2. ERC_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Chart 3. ERC _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Table 1. AEC space program _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Table 2. Rocket propnlsioll_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Table a. AEC progmms____________________________________________
628 628 629 630 6:30 631 314 3:11 3:32 46.J. 465 465 li47 548 5-18
a:12 aa:3

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1966
U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 235, Old Senate Office Buildmg, Senator Clinton P. Anderson (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Anderson, Stennis, Cannon, Smith, Curtis, and Jordan. Also present: James J. Gehrig, staff director; William J. Deachman; Everard H. Smith, Jr.; Craig Voorhees; Dr. Glen P. Wilson, professional staff members; Donald H. Brennan, research assistant; .Mary Rita Robbins, clerical assistant; Mrs. Eilene Galloway, special consultant to the committee; Frank Krebs, assistant to Senator Cannon; and Sam Bouchard, assistant chief clerk. OPENING STATEMENT
BY
THE CHAIRMAN
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Today the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences begins its hearings on the fiscal year 1967 NASA authorization bill, S. 2909. These hearings will continue through the remainder of the week, taking testimony from NASA personnel through March 3 and from the Department of Defense on Friday, March 4. Last year the committee held separate hearings on the technical programs and the budget request. This year, inasmuch as the Administration is not proposing any major program starts in fiscal year 1967, but rather is concerned principally with the execution of previous commitments, I believe that we can successfully complete the hearings in the time I have indicated by consolidating the scientific and technical, program management, and budgetary aspects of the NASA program. So that the committee will have the maximum information available to it and sufficient time to question witnesses, I have asked each witness to prepare a comprehensive background statement for the record and limit his oral presentation to a summary statement highlighting current program status, significant developments, problem areas, changes, and budgetary considerations. This approach will permit us more time to pursue items of particular interest with each witness. The session on Friday, ~Iarch 4, with the Department of Defense representatives will be a closed session; however, provision will be made for publication of the unclassified testimony.
1
Because of the success of meteorological satellite applications and NASA's continuing technical role in this activity, we have asked the Environmental Science Services Administration to submit a statement for the record rather than to have Dr. White make a personal appearance as he did last year. Today Administrator Webb and Deputy Administrator Seamans are with us and will be principally concerned with: 1. The overall policy decisions made by NASA in connection with the funding of major programs. 2. The highlights of the NASA program, schedules, and the general direction of agency planning. 3. Overall policy considerations underlying recent organizational changes within NASA and NASA personnel requirements. 4. A review of the bases for legislative changes. Without objection, I will place in the record at this point a letter to the Vice President from NASA; a copy of S. 2909, the NASA authorization request for fiscal year 1967; and a section-by-section analysis of the bill. (The documents referred to follow:)
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, Washington, D.C., February 2, 1966. Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, President of the Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Herewith submitted is a draft of a bill, to authorize appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administrat,ion for research and development, construction of facilities, and administrative operations, and for other purposes, together with a sectional analysis thereof. It is submitted to the President of the Senate pursuant to rule VII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Section 4 of the act of .Tune 15, 1959 (i3 Stat. 73, 75), provides that no appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration unless previously authorized by legislation. It is the purpose of the enclosed bill to provide such requisite authorization in the amounts and for the purposes recommended by the President in the Budget of the United States Government, 1967 (p. 91) and the Appendix thereto (p. 867-873). The bill would authorize appropriations to be made to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the sum of $.5,012 million, as follows: (1) for "Research and development," $4,246,600,000, (2) for "Construction of facilities," $101,500,000, and, (3) for "Administrative operations," $663,900,000. The bill is identical to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-53, 79 Stat. 192) except for the necessary changes in dollar amounts and the substantive and editorial changes hereinafter discussed. Two changes have been made with respect to the "Research and development" program line items. In each case the change consists of the combination of two of the fiscal year 1966 Authorization Act's program line items into one. That act's "Communication satellites" and "Applications technology satellit~" program line items have been combined and appear in the enclosed draft bill as "Communication and applications technology satellite'S." The combination of last year's "Nuclear-electric systems" am! "Solar and chemical power" program line items has resulted in a program line item denominated "Space power and electric propulsion systems." Further with respect to the "Research and development" program line items, it is noted that the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, in its report on the NASA authorization for fiscal year 1966 (S. Rept. 188, 89th Cong., 1st sess. at p. 32), requested that the Voyager program be carried as a separate program line item in ~ubsequent years if NASA continues to support the program. The President's budget for NASA for fisc!11 year 1067 proposes no commitm?nt to Voyager flight hardware, the work planned being; confined to certain deSign studies. As such, the propo~ed work remainR ItIl integral part of the "Lun~r and planetary exploration" program as presently constituted and, therefore, It
is not being recommended that Voyager be carried as a separate program line item in fiscal year 1967. If, in the future, Voyager is recommended to the Congress for funding as a flight program then NASA will comply with the Senate committee's request and make it a separate program line item. Until then, it is considered more appropriate for the Voyager study effort to remain a separate project to be described in detail as a part of the current "Lunar and planetary exploration" program line item. No funds are being requested for "Construction of facilities" at Ames Research Center. Consequently, this installation has been omitted from subsection 1(b) of the enclosed draft bill as a loeational line item. However, the Electronics Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have each been inserted as such line items because funds for construction at these installations are being requested. In addition, the post office address of the John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA, has been changed to Kennedy Space Center, Florida, as a consequence of a post office so indentified having been established to serve the John F. Kennedy Space Center. Furthermore, the name of the facility located at New Orleans, La., has recently been changed to the Michoud Assembly Facility, and the enclosed bill reflects this change also. Section 3 includes two departures from the text of comparable section of last year's act. One is substantive and the other merely editorial. The enclosed bill, if enacted, would authorize the transfer of 1 percent (rather than the onehalf of 1 percent provided in last year's act) of the "Research and development" appropriation to the "Construction of facilities" appropriation, and the use of such funds, after the requisite determination, finding and notification have been made, for construction projects not otherwise presented to, and approved by, the Congress. The justification for this change is inherent in the way that this reprograming authority is now used. The program of this agency has matured to such a degree that, for the most part, reprograming authority is used only because of a major and truly significant change in the program or a technical breakthrough of like proportions. Such change or breakthrough very often requires a significant change in the construction program, since, for the most part, construction is the pacing segment of the activity. Changes or breakthroughs of such nature can require new construction authority in excess of that available if only one-half of 1 percent may be reprogramed. In order to insure, therefore, that authority sufficient to meet the exigencies of the program on a timely basis is available, the one-half of 1 percent figure in last year's act has been raised in the enclosed bill to 1 percent. In addition, as previously stated, an editorial change has been made in section 3 of the enclosed bill. As enacted, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1966 provided that a specified sum of "Construction of facilities" funds "other than funds appropriated pursuant to paragraph (12)" may be used for reprograming actions at the discretion of the Administrat{)r of NASA. Paragraph (12) is the "Various locations" line item. However, in prior years, and in the draft bill submitted by NASA for the fiscal year 1966, the reference was to the "Facility planning and design not otherwise provided for" line item, which is paragraph (13) of Public Law 89-53. The apparent error in the cross-reference crept in during the course of congressional action on the NASA authorization bill for fiscal year 1966. The draft bill submitted herewith corrects this apparent error by returning the cross-reference to the "Facility planning and design not otherwise provided for" line item. The enclosed draft bill omits the text of what was section 5 of the fiscal year 1966 act. That text related to the sense of the Congress with respect to the geographic distribution by this agency of research and development funds. The language of the section made it clear that the Congress was making a one time pronouncement intended to guide this agency for some time to come. In view of this it is deemed unnecessary to repeat the language each year. Finally, the draft bill sets forth, in a new section 5, a substantive amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended. In a report to the Congress dated June 1965 and entitled, "Noncompliance with Statutory Limitation on Amount Allowable for Architectural-Engineering Services for the Design of a Facility at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station, Nevada," the Comptroller General took issue with the way in which NASA applied the limitation on architect-engineer contracts contained in 10 U.S.C. 2306(d) to the particular project involved, the construction of a complex nuclear facility. The statute limits the amount to be paid for architect-engineer services to 6 percent of the estimated cost of the project. Prior to the Comptroller General's report, NASA had regarded this limitation as not embracing certain of the engineering work that went beyond the production
_I
4
and o.eliwry of plans, designs, drawings, ano. spf'cifications. This other work would, of course, be subject to the Iii percent fee limitation also imposed by section 2:306(d) on resparch and development contracts. NASA's application of the 6 percent limitation was believed to be in line with f'arlier decisions of thf' Comptroller Genl'ral. Howev(,r, the June l(Hi5 report of the Comptroller CelH'ral ha~ given rise to qupstions as to how the statntory limitation is to be appli!'d in the future to complex research and devPiopm!'nt facilitil's. Since the building of such facilitips today involves far more than the type of traditional architect-l'ngilH'l'r services to which the 6 percent limitation had originally be{'11 intended to apply, i~is evident th~tt a need exists for clarifying legislation. In fact, the Comptrol\,'r G{'lIeral'" r!'port itself suggcsteo. the desirability of legislative action to deal with this probiPm. Section 5 of the enclosed bill would provide the IH'cessary clarification. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration recomm!'nds that th(' (,llclos{,(j draft bill be ('nacted. The Bllreau of th(' Blldg('t has advised that ib enactnH'nt wOlllo. be in accord with the program of thc President. Si ncncly YOllr8, JAMES E. WEBB, Administrator.
[So 2909, Rllth Cong., 2d Cong.l A BILL To authorize appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for research and <.1evelopulCllt, construction of facilities, and administrative operations, and (or other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States oj America in Congress assembled, That therc is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration the sum of $5,012,000,000, as follows: (a) For" Research and development," $4,246,600,000, for the following programs: (1) Gemini, $40,600,000; (2) Apollo, $2,!l74,2()O,000; (a) Ao.vanced missions, $8,000,000; (4) Physics and astronomy, $lal,400,000; (5) Lunar and planetary ('xplomtion, $197,900,000; (6) Biosci!'nce, $a5,400,OOO; (7) Meteorological satellitm;, $4a,600,000; (8) Communication and applications tf'chnology satellitps, $26,400,000; (9) Launch vehicle development, $a3,700,000; (10) Lauuch vehicle procurement, $1.,)2,000,000; (11) Apace whicle systems, $36,000,000; (12) Electronics systems, $36,800,000; (13) Human factor systems, $17,000,000; (14) Basic research, $23,000,000; (1.') Space power and f'l('ctric propUlsion systems, $42,500,000; (16) Nuclear rockets, $53,000,000; (17) Chemical propulsion, $37,000,000; (18) Aeronautics, $33,000,000; (H)) Tracking and data acquisition, $279,300,000; (20) Sustaining university program, $41,000,000; (21) Technology utilization, $4,800,000. (b) For "Construction of facilities," including land acquisitions, $101,500,000, as follows: (I) Electronics H{'search Center, Cambrio.gf', Massachusetts, $10,000,000; (2) Coddard Apace Flight Ccnter, Greenbelt, Maryland, $710,000; (:1) .let Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, $350,000; (4) .lohn F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA, Kennedy Space Center, Florida, $37,876,000; (!i) LangiPy Hcs{'arch Centpr, Hampton, Virginia, $6,100,000; (6) Lpwis H{'search Center, ClevPinnd and Sandusky, Ohio, $16,000,000; (7) ~lann('d Spaeecmft C{'nter, Houston, Texas, $13,800,000; (8) Gl'orge C. l\1arshall Hpacc Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, $5S1,OOO; (\l) l\licholld AHHl'mbly Facility, Ncw Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana, $700,000; (10) Mississippi Test Facility, Mississippi, $1,700,000; (11) Wallops Station, Wallops Island, Virginia, $205,000; (12) Various locations, $6,478,0()O; (13) Facility planning and design not otherwise provided for, $7,000,000.
(c) For "Administrative operations," $663,900,000. (d) Appropriations for "HesE'arch and denlopment" may be used (1) for any items of a capital llature (other than acquisition of land) which may be required for the performance of research and development contracts and (2) for grants to nonprofit institutions of higher education, or to nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific research, for purchase or construction of additional research facilities; and title to such facilities shall be vested in the Lnited States unless the Administrator determines that the national program of aeronautical and space activities will best be served by vesting title in any such grantee institution or organization. Each such grant shall be made under such conditions as the Administrator shall determine to be required to insure that the united States will receive therefrom benefit adequate to justify the making of that grant. ::\one of the funds appropriated for "Research and development" pursuant to this Act may be used for construction of any major facility, the estimated cost of which, including collateral equipment, exceeds $250,000, unless the Administrator or his designee has notified the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the House of Representative-s and the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the Senate of the nature, location, and estimated cost of such facility. (e) When so specified in an appropriation Act, (1) any amount appropriated for "Research and development" or for "Construction of facilities" may remain available without fiscal year limitation, and (2) maintenance and operation of facilities, and support services contracts may be entered into under the "Administrative operations" appropriation for periods not in excess of twelve months beginning at any time during the fiscal year. (f) Appropriations made pursuant to subsection l(c) may be used, but not to exceed $35,000, for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses upon the approval or authority of the Administrator and his determination shall be final and conclusive upon the accounting officers of the Government. (g) No part of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection l(c) for maintenance, repairs, alterations, and minor construction shall be used for the construction of any new facility the estimated cost of which, including collateral equipment, exceeds $100,000. (h) When so specified in an appropriation Act, any appropriation authorized under this Act to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration may initially be used, during the fiscal year 1967, to finance work or activities for which funds have been provided in any other appropriation available to the Administration and appropriate adjustments between such appropriations shall subsequently be made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. SEC. 2. Authorization is hereby grant!}d whereby any of the amounts prescribed in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), and (12), of subseeiion 1 (b) may, in the discretion of the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, be varied upward 5 per centum to meet unusual cost variations, but the total oost of all work authorized under such paragraphs shall not exceed a total of $94,500,000. SEC. 3. ~ot to exceed 1 per centum of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection 1 (a) hereof may be transferred to the "Construction of facilities" appropriation, and, when so transferred, together ,,;th $10,000,000 of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection 1 (b) hercof (other than funds appropriated pursuant to paragraph (13) of such subsection) shall be available for expenditure to construct, expand, or modify laboratories and other installations at any location (including locations specified in subsection l(b, if (1) the Administrator determines such action to be necessary because of changes in the national program of aeronautical and space activities or new scientific or enginering developments, and (2) he determines that deferral of such action until the cnactment of the next authorization Act would be inconsistent with the interest of the Nation in aeronautical and space activities. The funds so made available may be expended to acquire, construct, convert, rehabilitate, or install permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment. 2'\0 portion of such sums may be obligated for expenditure or expended to construct, expand, or modify laboratories and other installations unless (A) a period of thirty days has passed after the Administrator or his designee has transmitted to the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the House of Rcprespntatives and to the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the Senate a written report containing a full and complete statement concerning (1) the nature of such construction, expansion, or modification, (2) the cost thereof including the cost of any real estate action pprtaining thereto, and (3) the reason why such con-
struction, expansion, or modification is necessary in the national interest, or (B) each such committee before the expiration of such period has transmitted to the Administrator written notice to the effect that such committee has no objection to the proposed action. SEC. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act(1) no amount appropriated pursuant to this Act may be used for any program deleted by the Congress from requests as originally made to either the House Committee on Science and Astronautics or the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space SCiences, (2) no amount appropriated pursuant to this Act may be used for any program in excess of the amount actually authorized for that particular program by sections 1 (a) and l(c), and (3) no amount appropciated pursuant to this Act may be used for any program which has not been presented to or requested of either such committee, unless (A) a period of thirty days has passed after the receipt by each such committee of notice given by the Administrator or his designee containing a full and complete statement of the action proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of such proposed action, or (B) each such committee before the expiration of such period has transmitted to the Administrator written notice to the effect that such committee has no objection to the proposed action. SEC. 5. Section 203 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2473), as amended, is amended by inserting after the semicolon at the end of paragraph 203(b)(10) the following new paragraph: "(11) when determined by the Administrator to be nec('ssary, to enter into contracts for architectural or engineering services for highly complex research and development facilities without re.gard to the limitation imposed by subsection (d) of section 2306 of title 10, United States Code, on contracts for architectural or engineering services;". SEC. 6. This Act may be cited as the "N ational Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, 1967." SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OF A BILL TO AUTHORIZE ApPROPRIATIONS TO THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES, AND ADMINISTRATIVE OPEHATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1
Subsections (a), (b), and (c) would authorize to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration the sum of $.5,012,000,000, as follows: (a) for "Research and development," $4,246,600,000; (b) for "Construction of facilities," $101,500,000; and, (c) for "Administrative operations," $663,900,000. Subsection l(a) for "Research and development" is further subdivided into 21 "line itcms" comprising the various NASA research and development programs. Subsection l(b) for "Construction of facilities," is further broken down into 13 "line items"-ll locational, 1 consisting of a number of projects at various locations, and 1 for facility planning and design not otherwise provided for. Subsection 1 (d) would authorize the use of appropriations for "ResP!lrch and development" for: (i) items of a capital nature (other than the acquisition of land) required for the performance of research and development contracts; apd, (ii) grants to nonprofit institutions of higher education, or to nonprofit orgamzations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific research, for purchase or construction of additional research facilities. Title to such facilities shall be vested in the United States unless the Administrator determines that th!' national program of aeronautical and space activities will best be served by v('sting title in any such grantee institution. Moreover, each such grant shall be made under such conditions as the Administrator shall find necessary to insure that the United States will receive therefrom benefit adequate to justify the making of that grant. In either case no funds may be used for the construction of a facility the estimated cost of which, including collateral equipment, exceeds $250,000 unless the Administrator notifies ::;p!'cified committee'S of the Congr('~s of the nature, location, and estimatpd cost of snch facility. Subsection 1 (e) would provide that, when so specified in an appropriation act (1) any amount appropriated for "Hesearch and development" or for "Construction of facilities" may remain available without fiscal year limitation, and (2) contracts for maintenance and operation of facilities and support services
may be entered into under the "Administrative operations" appropriation for periods not in excess of 12 months beginning at any time during the fiscal year. Subsection I(f) would authorize the use of not to exceed $35,000 of "Administrative operations" appropriation funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses, including representation and official entertainment expenses, upon the authority of the Administrator, whose determination shall be final and conclusive. Subsection I(g) would provide that no funds appropriated pursuant to subsection I(c) for maintenance, repair, alteration and minor construction may be used to construct any new facility the estimated cost of which, including collateral equipment, exceeds $100,000. Subsection 1 (h) would provide that, when so specified in an appropriation act, any appropriation authorized under this act to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration may initially be used, during the fiscal year 1967, to finance work or activities for which funds have been provided in any other appropriation available to the Administration and appropriate adjustments between such appropriations shall subsequently be made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Section f Section 2 would authorize the 5 percent upward variation of any of the sums authorized for the "Construction of facilities" line items (other than facility planning and design) when, in the discretion of the Administrator, this is needed to meet unusual cost variations. However, the total cost of all work authorized under these line items may not exceed the total sum authorized for "Construction of facilities" under subsection I(b), paragraphs (1) through (12). Section 3 Section 3 would provide that not more than 1 percent of the funds appropriated for "Research and development" may be transferred to the "Construction of facilities" appropriation and, when so transferred, together with $10 million of the funds appropriated for "Construction of facilities," shall be available for the construction of facilities and land acquisition at any location if (1) the Administrator determines that such action is necessary because of changes in the space program or new scientific or engineering developments, and (2) that deferral of such action until the next authorization act is enacted would be inconsistent with the interest of the Nation in aeronautical and space activities. However, no such funds may be obligated until 30 days have passed after the Administrator or his designee has transmitted to specified committees of Congress a written report containing a description of the project, its cost, and the reason why such project is necessary in the national interest, or such committee before the expiration of such 30-day period has notified the Administrator that no objection to the proposed action will be made. Section .4 Section 4 would provide that, notwithstanding any other provision of this act(1) No amount appropriated pursuant to this act may be used for any program deleted by the Congress from requests as originally made to either the House Committee on Science and Astronautics or the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences; (2) No amount appropriated pursuant to this act may be used for any program in excess of the amount actually authorized for that particular program by subsections l(a) and 1(c); and (3) No amount appropriated pursuant to this act may be used for any program which has not been presented to or requested of either such committee; unless (A) a period of 30 days has passed after the receipt by each such committee of notice given by the Administrator or his designee containing a full and complete statement of the action proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of such proposed action, or (B) each such committee before the expiration of such period has transmitted to the Administrator written notice to the effect that such committee has no objection to the proposed action. Section 5 Section 5 would amend subsection 203(b) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2473(b by inserting new paragraph (11) in place of that repealed by section 402(a)(34) of Public Law 88-448 (78 Stat. 495). The new paragraph would authorize NASA, when determined by the
59-941-66---2
_I
8
Administrator to be necessary, to enter into contracts for architectural or engineering services for highly complex research and development facilities without regard to the limitation imposed by 10 U.S.C. 2306(d) on contracts for architectmal or engi!lecring services. Sect2'on 6 Section 6 would provide that the act may be cited as the "National Aeronautics and Spacc Administration Authorization Act, 1!.l67."
The CHAIR'\IA~. I will also, \vithout objection, place in the record at appropriate places biographies of witnesses appearing before the committee. Before we begin, I believe Senator Smith has a brief statement. Senator Smith?
STATE.\IEXT BY SENATOR S'\IIT1l
Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a brief statement. "Vhen it was announced in 1961 that a national effort would be made within this decade to place a man on the Moon and return him to Earth, there were many skeptics. Perhaps the most persistent criticism was over the cost of the program. I recall the rumors floating around in the early years which indicated that the Moon progl'llm could cost $40 to $50 billion. It became important, if not imperative, that an authoritative source give an informed estimate of the total cost of the Apollo program. Two years ago 111'. ,tV ebb provided that estimate to this committee. To me, his statement on thl1t oC(,11sion was exceptionally candid and helpful. The estimated cost of the program came to about $20 billion, but :Mr. Webb added that this would increase approximately $1 billion each year the landing was delayed. I requested at that time that a breakdown of the $20 billion estimate be placed in the record. This was done and those breakdown charts have proved invaluable as a reference not only to Senators but, as I understand, to NASA as well. Because the Apollo program represents about two-thirds of the fiscal year 1967 authorization, I believe it appropriate, and I so request, Mr. Chairman, that these same Apollo charts as currently estimated by NASA be placed in the record at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done. (The material referred to follows:)
From the inception of the Apollo program in 1961, NASA has consistentl~ held that the cost of a program for carrying out !1 manned lunar landing, which would build on the Mercury and Gemini experience and rlpvplop and demonstrate in this dpcade practical solutions to major proble ms of manned space flight in areas bpyond near Earth orbit and a national capabilit.y from which could evolve furthpr programs to meet national need~, would be between $20 and $40 billionand closer to the lower figure. The mOtlt careful estimates wc can make at the present time fully support that position. After making all adjustm!'nts up to and including those which were the basis of the 1966 operating plan, thc period within which costs must be incurred to complete the Apollo program-i.e., the development, testing, and flight program of 12 Saturn 1B ami 15 HaturIl V launch vehicles with thPir !18sociated spacecraft, plus the necessary Cost8 of facilit.ips and opcrat ions-('xt!'1HI~ into the first hulf of calendar y!'ar 1\)70, ~illee the laHt 2 of the Haturn V vehieles are targeted for the period after Deceml)!'r 31, 1Hun. The tablc below rletails ollr pn'sl'nt estimate of costs for tbis program. It. is based on an aSHlImption that we will have no follOW-Oil program, in the period
NASA
AUTHORIZATIO~
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
after the lunar landing, to use the Apollo-Saturn system capability for manned space flight missions which our 10 years of work on this program will create. While we regard this as an unrealistic assumption, we have based our estimates on it so that decisions as to the future use of the Apollo resources and questions as to the effect of decisions to stretchout the program can be related to a clear benchmark. This table shows current estimates of runout costs for the engineering, production, test, and launch contracts now in being, with no partial absorption of the overhead operation of facilities and other relatively fixed costs by follow-on contracts or programs. This, of course, would terminate NASA's efforts in manned space flight, and therefore underlines the necessity for consideration of the issues which must be faced as we proceed through the critical period of decision as to the future of manned space flight. Spacecraft _______________________________________________________ $6.642 Launch vehicles_ _ ___ ___ ____ _ __ ___ _ ______ ______ ____ _ _____ _______ __ 8.941 Engine developmenL _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ __ ____ _ _ _ 1. 053 Operations support_ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ 1. 077 Subtotal MSF R. & D _____________________________________ _ 17.713 Tracking and data acquisition _____________________________________ _ .730 Facilities _______________________________________________________ _ 1. 773 Installation operations ___________________________________________ _ 2.502 Total _____________________________________________________ 22.718 The estimate of $19.501 billion provided the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences in March of 1964 was made on a more optimistic basis. It had been assumed that the NASA budget would rise to a level between $572 and $6 billion, remain at that level for 1 or 2 years, and decline some",'bat according to a pattern that would include a follow-on program representing a reasonable judgment as to the best use of the facilities, boosters, spacecraft, and know-how which the program had brought into being. The projection made in 1964 permitted targeting the use of all 27 major launch vehicles prior to the end of 1969 and incorporated the overall judgment of Mr. Webb, Dr. Dryden, and Dr. Seamans that, in cases where this schedule could not be met or exceeded on the time and cost basis estimated, NASA could meet the essential requirements through adjustments which the organization would have the strength and resources to make effective. The decisions to reduce this program to lower funding levels have required an extension both of the time to accomplish the total flight schedule and of the time required to reach the earliest feasible date for the lunar attempt. Further, these decisions prevented us from achieving momentum as early as planned and delayed the acquisition of know-how needed early in the program. ,,,ohen a follow-on program decision has been made, which is accepted as part of the process on the fiscal year 1968 budget, we will be able to review the yearby-year estimates for manned flight activities, including any that may have been added to the work already approved for fiscal years 1968, 1969, and 1970, and then develop a proper basis for allocation of costs between programs. If a follow-on program that involves use of the Apollo system boosters, spacecraft, and facilities is initiated in fiscal year 1968, and if technical and budgetary resources permit the launching of all our major flights successfully on the plan we are now working to, the follow-on program may well benefit from the alternate use of three Saturn IB and 6 Saturn Y boosters as well as associat.ed spacecraft already programed for Apollo. A proper deduction from the above table of costs for the costs of this equipment and its share of sustaining engineering, as well as an appropriate allocation of overhead and facilities costs to follow-on missions, could well see the lunar landing accomplished ",ith accumulated costs very close to the $20 billion estimate we have used since 1961. Until the decision on a follow-on program is made, however, we believe the committee will find our present estimate~, which are based on conservative rat.her than optimistic assumptions, the best basis for its use.
In billions
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Webb, we are very happy to have you here, along with Dr. Seamans and your staff, to give us a good overview of the NASA program. (The biographies of ~fr. Webb and Dr. Seamans follow:)
10
JAMES
E.
WEBB, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
President Kennedy appointed James Edwin Webb, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on February 14, 1961. Mr. Webb is a member of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity, and the National Aeronautics and Space Council. An attorney and businessman, Mr. Webb has served in high governmental and industry positions. He has been active in aviation and education. He is a former Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and a former Under Secretary of State. He has been a vice president of the Sperry Gyroscope Co., New York City, chairman of the Board of Directors of the Republic Supply Co., and a director of Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc.-both with headquarters in Oklahoma City, Okla.-and a director of the McDonnell Aircraft Co., St. Louis, Mo. In private life, Mr. Webb was a member of a number of Government advisory boards, including the President's Committee to study the U.S. military assistance program-popularly known as the "Draper committee." He has been engaged in many public service programs related to his long-term interest in science. Born October 7, 1906, in Granville County, N.C., Mr. Webb graduated in 1928 from the University of North Carolina with a bachelor's degree in education. Later, he studied law at George Washington University, Washington, D.C., and was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1936. In the early 1930's, Mr. Webb became a U.S. Marine Corps Reserve officer and pilot, and he currently holds a commission as a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve. In 1936 he joined Sperry Gyroscope, serving for 7 years as personnel director, assistant to the president, secretary and treasurer, and vice president. Mr. Webb became an Assistant to the Under Secretary of the Treasury in 1946. Later that year, President Truman appointed him Director of the Bureau of the Budget, a position he held for 3 years. From 1949 to 1952, Mr. Webb served as Under Secretary of State in the Truman administration. From 1953 to 1958, Mr. Webb served as president of the Republic Supply Co., and became chairman of the board in 1958. Between 1952 and 1959, he engaged in a number of business activities, including banking, law, and the manufacturing of aircraft and accessories and oil equipment and supplies. In 1959, Mr. Webb reduced his activity in business and returned to Washington where, until his appointment in NASA, he devoted much of his time to public service. Activities in which he continues to be active include: Member, President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, President's Advisory Committee on Supersonic Transport, President's Committee on Manpower, and the Visiting Committee, Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard University; general chairman, Southwest Seminars in Public Responsibility, University of Oklahoma, Norman; trustee, Frontiers of Science Foundation of Oklahoma, Inc.; president and chairman of the Board of Trustees, Urban Studies, Inc., Washington, D.C.; chairman of the board, Meridian House Foundation; trustee, National Center for Education in Politics, New York; and national member, Federal City Council, Washington, D.C. Mr. Webb has been awarded the following honorary degrees: LL.D., from University of North Carolina, 1949; Syracuse University, 1\)50; Colorado College, 1957; George Washington University, 1961; University of Florida, 1963; University of Delaware, 1963; and University of Vermont, 1964. Sc.D., from University of Notre Dame, 1961; Washington University, 1962; University of Kansas City, 1962; Boston College, 1963; Missouri Valley College, 1964; University of Alabama, 1964; University of Miami, 1965, and Brandeis University, 1965. D.P.A. from Northeastern University, 1962. D.C.L. from University of Pittsburgh, 1963. Doctor of humane letters from Oklahoma City University, 1962; Nebraska Wesleyan University, 1965; Rose Polytechnic Institute, 1965; and doctor of humanities from Wayne State University, 1965 . Mr. Webb lives at 2800 36th St., NW., Washington, D.C., with his wife, and son, James Edwin, Jr.; daughter, Sarah Gorham Webb, attends Duke University.
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967 DR. ROBERT C. SEAMANS, JR., DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NASA
11
Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., is Deputy Administrat{)r of NASA, having been appointed by President Johnson and then sworn in on December 21, 1965. He retains the responsibility for the general management of NASA on a day-to-day basis and serves as Acting Administrator in the absence of the Administrator. Dr. Seamans occupied the top career post in NASA since joining the agency on September 1, 1960, that of Associate Administrator. In that position he was responsible for the general management of NASA's research and development program and operations, which included field laboratories, research centers, rocket testing and launching facilities, and a worldwide network of tracking stations. Prior to joining NASA, he was chief engineer of the Radio Corp. of America's Missile ElectrOnics & Controls Division at Burlington, Mass. Born October 30, 1918, in Salem, Mass., he earned a B.S. degree at Harvard University in 1939. He earned his M.S. degree in 1942 and Sc. D. degree in 1951 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Seamans has been active in the fields of missiles and aeronautics since 1941. From 1941 to 1955 he held teaching and project-management positions of increasing responsibility at MIT. These included: 1949 to 1955, associate professor of the department of aeronautical engineering; 1950 to 1955, chief engineer of Project Meteor, and 1953 to 1955, director of the flight control laboratory. He joined RCA in 1955 as manager of the airborne systems laboratory and chief systems engineer of the airborne systems department. In 1958, he became chief engineer of the missile electronics and controls division, supervising all scientific engineering and technical personnel in the division. ,From 1948 to 1958 he served on technical committees of NASA's predecessor organization, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. From 1957 to 1959 he served as a consultant to the Scientific Advisory Board of the Air Force, as a member from 1959 to 1962, and as associate adviser since January 1, 1962. :Dr. Seamans is a member of Sigma. Xi, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Astronautical Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, American Ordnance Association, American Society for Public Administration, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Boston), and the National Space Club. ~lHe has received the following awards: Naval Ordna.nce Development Award (1945); AIAA, Lawrence Sperry Award (1951); Godfrey L. Cabot Aviation Award (1965); XASA Distinguished Service Medal (1965). He is married to the former Eugenia A. Merrill. They have five children and reside in Washington, D.C.
STATEMENT OF JAMES E. WEBB, ADMINISTRATOR, AND ROBERT C. SEAltIANS, JR., DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIS H. SHAPLEY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR; AND GEORGE E. MUELLER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege to be here today to present President Johnson's recommendations for the authorization of funds for the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1967. In one important respect, the hearing today on the 1967 authorization for NASA is sadly different from all those held since its formation in 1958. For the first time in these 8 years of NASA's life, Dr. Hugh L. Dryden is not here to testify. Dr. Seamans and I miss his strong support. All in NASA miss his kindness, his genius, and his wise counsel. He had great ability, coupled with a clear vision and understanding of how the strengths of science, technology, engineering, and management could be brought together and could work in unison within the framework of our evolving governmental
_I
12
processes, to accomplish the kind of large-scale and imaginative objectives specified in the Space Act. This kind of vision and understanding is one of our basic national needs in many areas, and we have, I believe, in the space program learned how this can be done and demonstrated that as a nation we can indeed do it. In this first hearing since Dr. Seamans became Deputy Administrator, I hope you will permit me to say that in him the Nation has a man eminently qualified to carry this responsibility. I am glad that the statements of members of the committee at the recent hearings on his nomination, and the prompt and unanimous action of the committee and the Senate in confirming him, show that the Congress fully shares the confidence the President has expressed.
CHANGES IN OFFICE OF THE AD:\UNISTRATOR
As Dr. Seamans exphtined at the hearing on his nomination, he and I have decided to consolidate our management functions into a single strengthened unit-the Office of the Administrator-in which he will serve both as general manager of the agency and Acting Administrator in my absence. We will both rely on a single central staff in areas that require a NASA-wide overview, such as public affairs, international affairs, administration, and so forth. In such matters, this same staff will also serve the four Associate Administrators. Under this arrangement, we are looking to these four Associate Administrators, \vho manage program offices, to play an even stronger role in solving the central management problems of the agency than they have before. I believe our recent accomplishments show that in George Mueller, Homer Newell, Mac Adams, and Edmond Buckley, and the men who work with them, we have an excellent team of managers to conduct the agency's operations. I n considering the President's requests for NASA for fiscal year 1967, it may be helpful to start with a brief assessment of where we now stand and how we look at the future. Dr. Seamans and the program managers will present the 1967 budget in considerable detail, but since this committee is very familiar with our programs, we will try to avoid telling you things that you already know.
REVIEWS YEAR'S PROGRESS
First and foremost, we have had a very good year. We can report that in spite of serious limits on our resources, the Sp!1Ce program has clearly moved, in the past year, from plans and promise to deeds and demonstration. For example, in manned space flight we have demonstrated with Gemini the feasibility of all the basic requirements for complex manned operations in space, including those for a manned lunar landing. Specifically, we have demonstrated: man's ability to carry into space the essentials of an environment ,.-ithin which he can operate usefully for long periods of time-at least 14 days-and his ability to function outside his spttcecraft for limited times, and we have demonstrated the precise guidance and control required for space rendezvous Iwd docking maneuvers. Most important of nIl, we Ihwe demonstrated the efficiency which can be achieved from It pl'Oper implement atioll of the concept of a complex fully OIlgilwcl'cd opcl'atiollHl system, which incorpomtcs
13
large and intricate but necessarily reliable automated machines and equipment; joins 'with this machine capacity the capabilities of thousands of highly trained personnel all around the world; and ties both of these together with a network feeding into and out of a central mission control system capable of making real-time decisions on matters of the greatest complexity on which the success or failure of the mission depends.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE MOON
In unmanned operations using deep-space probes, we have returned to Earth and delivered to the Nation's scientists and engineers the first high-resolution closeup photographs of the Moon, with Rangeryou will remember that with the three last Rangers, the total photographs returned were 17,200-and the first and only closeup pictures of Mars, with Mariner. It may be interesting to the members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to know that as recently as January 4, 1966, we had radio contact with Mariner at a distance of about 216 million miles, and that is the maximum distance from the Earth that this spacecraft will travel in its present orbit. These long-duration flights have demonstrated that we can build, launch, guide, and maneuver highly reliable unmanned spacecraft with great accuracy over distances of hundreds of millions of miles, and bring back useful and important information.
PAST yEAR YIELDS MORE DATA THAN EVER
From nearer the Earth, with our unmanned scientific satellites, we have returned to Earth and delivered to our scientists more scientific data in a single year than in the entire previous history of the space program. The use of NASA launch vehicles and spacecraft enables scientists who have the best ideas for new experiments to develop those ideas with assurance that at the proper time they will be able to send their instruments to the precise locations in space where they believe measurements should be made. The NASA-university-industry team has, in 1965, demonstrated again, by a wide variety of new discoveries, that scientific data that can only be obtained in space is providing an entirely new understanding of the properties of the environment through which the Earth moves and of many of the Earth-Sun relationships which have a profound influence on the Earth itself.
WORLD'S FIRST OPERATIONAL WEATHER SATELLITE
In our programs to apply what we have learned in space to help solve major problems facing mankind on Earth, we have completed the development of the world's first operational weather satellite. With ESSA I and ESSA II launched by NASA, the latter this morning, for the Weather Bureau of the Commerce Department's Environmental Sciences Service Administration, we are inaugurating regular meteorological satellite operations and demonstrating a major practical use of space technology. In a communications field, we have seen the results of our pioneering with Telstar, Relay, and
14
Syncom demonstrated in commercial operation by the Communications Satellite Corp.'s Early Bird. In less noticed but equally significant work on or near the ground we have demonstrated many things, including: The soundness of the design of the giant Saturn V launch vehicle which will carry our astronauts to the Moon. All three propulsion stages of this giant rocket have been tested at full power. The feasibility of advanced propulsion systems for future vehicles. We have had successful firings of the 260-inch large solid rocket motor. We have had successful ground tests of the NERV A nuclear rocket engine. The use of our knowledge of testing in the air to stimulate conditions the lunar landing vehicle will encounter in landing on the Moon, and successful flight testing of the Apollo abort system with the Little Joe rocket. The use of ground stimulators has been demonstrated to investigate and solve flight problems associated with proposed designs of the supersonic transport.
STRONG SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION
Finally, we have demonstrated progress toward the establishment of a system of manag-ement that brings all our strengths, and those of our associates in industry and universities, into a coordinated, hard driving versatile organization for aeronautical and space research built on a true partnership of these three elements, as specified in 1958 in the Space Act. Last November and December, the world had a public demonstration of how this partnership can react quickly in adverse circumstances and turn failure into success. When the Agena target vehicle for Gemini VI failed, quick decisionmaking and effective follow through by the NASA-Air Force-industry launch team resulted less than 2 months later in the success of the Gemini VI/Gemini VII rendezvous. This clearly showed that we are not the slaves of the weaknesses of our machine,; but that we have the organization, control, and imagination to recombine, redirect, and utilize the elements of complex plans and equipment .to meet suddenly changed conditions. The capability now in NASA which may well mean the most is that which enabled us to turn what in October seemed a severe loss into a profit for the program in December. Thousands of men and women put in tens of thousands of hours of work around the clock to accomplish this. But without strong organization and good leadership, such dedication would not have produced the result the program needed.
SATURN LAUNCH OUTSTANDING EVENT
Senator CFRTIR. :Mr. Chairman, it is not my purpose to question at this time, but I have to be excused to attend a funeral at Arlington. Mr. Webb, it was my privilege to see the launch Saturday of Saturn I. I beg your pardon for the interruption, but I want the record to show that I wish to congratulate you and all of NASA, all of your aSRociates. It was n very, very outstanding event. Mr. WEBB. Senator Curtis, I hope you feel that the statement I have just made about the ability to turn around in a hurry and meet unforeseen conditions and make decisions that permit us to have a success instead of a failure was demonstrated on Saturday.
15
Senator CURTIS. You turned around in such a hurry that we almost were looking in the wrong direction. I beg your pardon for the interruption, Mr. Chairman, but I must leave. Mr. WEBB. Thank you, Senator Curtis. All in all, what this means to our Nation, and to other nations, is that we have demonstrated that we can do the tasks we set out to do. An important value of the space program is this demonstration of national capability in science and technology. That we have this capability is no longer a matter of opinion but a demonstrated fact that is clear to all who concern themselves with the power which nations can and do develop for many purposes from the mastery of a new environment or a new technology. We have put it on view for all the world to see. The world knows today that the United States can digest the space-related problems of long leadtimes, can hold its position in a demanding competition, and can forge ahead simultaneously in both aeronautics and space and in those advanced technologies of which space is the leading symbol. CITES PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S PROPOSAL IN INTERNATIONAL FIELD The world also knows that we can be an effective partner in COOperative undertakings. In fact, a striking example of how the position we have achieved in space can contribute to objectives of the greatest importance in the international field was President Johnson's proposal to Chancellor Erhard in January for consideration of a major new program of cooperation in space technology between the United States and the nations of Western Europe. The possibility is now open for the European nations to use the knowledge they have already gained, by their own efforts in the European Space Research Organization (ESRO) and through cooperative efforts with NASA, to undertake large projects in spacecraft technology which generally appear too big for anyone nation. The idea under discussion is that through the development and production, at their expense, of a large spacecraft-perhaps a probe to Jupiter or a vehicle for solar researchwhich we would launch for them, they could gain for scientists in their universities and engineers and workers in their industries an ability in the main fast-moving fields of science and technology that would serve many of their present and future needs, and at the same time, serve many of our kno"'ll needs. It is too early to know how the President's proposal will be received and acted on, but an advance NASA-State Department team is just now returning from preliminary discussions with the Germans, the British, the French, the Dutch, the Italians, and all other ESRO members. In this matter, the administration is moving very carefully and, of course, we in NASA are acting in full concert with other departments and agencies. Also, we are fully conscious of your own interests and responsibilities in such an undertaking. President Johnson feels that all mankind will be able to live in a better world tomorrow if we can find a way to use an expansion of the scientific exploration of space and the cooperative international development of nonmilitary space technology to prOTIde a new basis for cohesion, for a concert of some areas of policy to better serve many areas of common international interests. NASA already has, in our cooperative projects and other programs with about 70 nations and
16
several international organizations, a strong and successful base for further international cooperation in space. It may be possible, in line with the President's new proposal, that certain of the nations of Western Europe may wish to undertake and finance cooperative projects much larger and more adnwced than any they have heretofore thought possible-projects which would require and generate within their national universities, industries, and laboratories, IL considemble exp!wsion of science and technology of a very advlLnced sort. There is a gI'O',ving understanding, ~dr. Chairman, both in Europe and in this country, that if the European Community is to continue to be economically strong and competitive, it will have to find some way to make a major effort in the years immediately ahead to develop its own indigenous and self-renewing competence in the fields of advanced science and technology which are characteristic of the space program and are moving ahead by leaps and bounds in the United States and undoubtedly, in the Soviet Union.
RUSSIA STEPS UP SPACE ACTIVITY
This leads to a few words about the relation of all of this to the Russian space program. They too have had an extremely active !tnd, as far ns we can tell, highly successful year. In 1965 they launched 52 Cosmos sntellites, nnd they have so far in 1966 launched 7 additional ones. The 52 nre as mnny as in their entire progmm prior to 1965. They successfully flew a three-man spaeecmft, the Voskhod. They have pll1ced two "MolniYI1 communications sntellites in orbit and demonstmted their effectiveness. They have two spacecmft on the way to Venus. We should know within a few days as to the success of these flights.! They launched two Pl'Oton sl1tellites, the heaviest in the world to dl1te, revealing a new Ittllnch vehicle with capabilities about double those of the booster they have used up to now. I have to change that, Mr. Chairman, because last Saturday's flight of SA 201 g!1Ye us Apollo to replace the Proton as the heaviest satellite. Well, I have to take that bnck, too, because Apollo did not fly in orbit. Saturday's flight was a suborbital one, but the Apollo is the heaviest spacecraft lifted to date from the Earth's surface. The Russiltns have also now achieved a soft lUllar landing, nfter 11. number of attempts that ended in failure. On the basis of this record and such other evidence as is avniln.ble, it should now be entirely elear that t.he Soviets have a continuing mnjor commitment to a l()n~-term, b1rge-scnle progmm in space. All si~ns indicate that. we will be seeing more and larger Soviet operations in space this year. Considering nIl the evidence, there is little room for doubt that their progrn.m does, or certainly could, in elude an attempt to land men on the 1roon and plans for a large number of manned and lmmanned flights in Earth orbit. More important. to liS than any other indicution from Soviet space netivity is the deur commitment to n long-term effort. The fact that they Hrc making such It commitment shows the importance they nttach to n<i\'llncing' I,heil' cnpllhilities in space. Unless the United States s~)()n dpcides to f()~l()w throu~h with a strong"progrnm in the vcnrs Hftpr Wp hn\'p nclllc\'f'd a mHnned lunar landinO', we cannot ;lyoid It gnp in our flight sehf'dllie ,vhile they for(re ~hend as the unchallenged coni estullt, ill t he field. h
I Vrtlus 3 TC':whc(l the
~~urra('(1
or
till'
pltlilPt Venus and
'''l'lHlS
2 passed within 224,000 kilometers.

FULL BUDGET SUPPORT IMPORTANT TO FUTURE
17
In my view, whether the successful organization, NASA, which we have built can or will be permitted to meet this challenge is the main question with which this committee must wrestle as it takes up the 1967 budget. Support for NASA for the coming year, as represented by your actions on the fiscal year 1967 budget recommendations, of the President, is extremely important; but full support for this critical year will not be the end of the struggle to maintain a forward thrusting policy and action program in aeronautics and space. The 1967 budget is characterized by a Presidential determination to hold open for another year decisions on the future of the program-decisions which cannot be delayed beyond the period of the fiscal year 1968 budget. Lack of support this year will close off before 1968 some of the avenues which lead to future opportunities. The programs we are now carrying out so successfully, the new knowledge we are acquiring so rapidly, the ending of the period of uncertainty as to what both Russian cosmonauts and American astronauts can achieve in space, and the growing utilization of the long-term values that our investments have created in reliable launch vehicles, spacecraft and assembly, test and launch complexes, all point toward decisions to use rather than to lose the values we have "'orked so hard and spent so much time to create. And so I believe that our presentation of this 1967 budget marks not Just our assertion to you that we have built well as we have created a foundation for space power, but also marks the beginning of a momentous era in which we must decide how we will use this power in future years. I am confident that with adequate support this year, and in the years to come, ""e can hold and use this power for the benefit of Americans and all mankind. With your permission, I would like to call on Dr. Seamans to present the requested authorizations and supporting information. The CU.umIAN. I think probably it ,,"ould be a little easier, l\lr. Webb, if we asked you some questions first, and then went to Dr. Seamans' statement. ~1r. WEBB. All right, :"1r. Chairman. I can, sir, go through the tables if you "ish-I mean if you "ish to have those before you. The CHAIR:\IAN. Well, why not break it up a little bit? l\lr. WEBB. Fine.
ADJT7STMENTS TO THE FISC.\!. YEAR 1966 PROGRA:U
The CHAIR:lIAN. On February 1, you sent the committee a report on planned actions in the NASA fiscal year 1966 program. Without objection, I shall put that report "ith some figures added, along with ~lr. Webb's letter to the President of the Senate in the record at this point. (The report and letter referred to follow:)
X ATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADlIU)sISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE AD~!DnSTRAToR, lYashington, D.C., February 1, 1966. Hon. HUBERT H. IIG~!PHREY, President of the Senate, n"oshington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Attached is a report to thl' Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the Senate of the l"nited Statf's indicating proposed actions hy the X ational Aeronautics and Space Administration to conduct certain programs at leyels in excess of those authorized in the Xational Aeronautics
18
and Space Administration Authorization Act, 1966 (Public Law 89-53) together with the facts and circumstances related to each such action. The report is being made pursuant to section 4 of this act and is being submitted through the President of the Senate pursuant to rule VII of the Standing RulE's of the Senate. The program increases are required to accommodate unforeseen contingencies arising in the normal course of research and development activities. Such increases are reported in three research and development areas; the lunar and planetary program, the bioscience program, and the communications and applications technology satellite program. An increase is also reported in administrative operations, primarily to accommodate incrcaspc\ personnpl compensation requirements resulting from the Federal Employees Salary Act of 1965. Sincerely yours,
.JAMES REPORT ON PLANNED ACTIONS IN TIlE NASA
E.
WEBB, YEAR
Administrator.
1966
PROGRAM
FISCAL
Prepared for the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the Senate and the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the House of Representatives
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The NASA research and development program for fiscal year 1966 as reflected in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1966, is adjusted to reflect internal transfers of technical acj,ivitips to conform to operating practices and the currently planned program levels as summarized below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year Manned 1966 authoriza- space tion act science 1 amounts (original) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
Other program adiust. ments
Fiscal year 1966 authoriza tlon act amounts (adjusted)
Planned fiscal year Increase' 1966 (+) or program decrease (-) amounts
242,100 GeminL ........................ 242,100 Apollo .......................... 2,967,385 2,967,385 Advanced missions ............... . 10,000 10,000 Physics and astronomy .......... 164,500 165,900 "::i;4oo' 214,915 Lunar and planetary exploration .. +1,800 .... _..... . 213,115 31,100 Bioscience ........................ . -400 .......... . 31,500 Meteorological satellites .......... 42,700 42,700 Communications satellites....... . 2,800 '-2,800 0 Applications technology satellites. 28,700 2 -28,700 0 Communications and applications 31,500 technology satellites.................................. '+31,500 Launch vehicle developmenL..... 63,600 .................... . 63,600 Launch vehicle procurement. ..... 178,700 .................... . 178,700 Space vehicle systems............. 35,000 .................... 35,000 34,400 Electronics systems............... 34,400 ................... 14,900 Human factor systems............ 14,900 ................... 22,000 Basic research..................... 22,000 ................. 0 Nuclear-electric systems........... 33,000 ....... -33,000 58,000 Nuclear rockets................... 58,000 .................... 0 Solar and chemical power......... 14,200 ........ -14,200 Space power and electric propul 47,200 sion ................................................. +47, 200 Chemical propulsion.............. 43.700 ............. __ ..... . 43,700 Aeronautil's .......... _............ 42,200 .................... . 42,200 Tracking and data acquisition..... 242,321 .................... . 242,321 Sustaining university program.... 46,000 .................... 46,000 'l'echnology utilizution............ 4,750 .................... . 4,750
======:::::
226,611 2,967,385 10,000 143,500 251,337 36,700 37,400 0 0 34, 300 55,300 178,700 35,000 32,300 14,900 22,000 0 58,000 0 45,200 39,700 41,496 231,065 46,000 4,750
-15,489 0 0 -21,000 +36,422 +5,600 -5,300 0 0 +2,800 -8,300 0 0 -2,100 0 0 0 0 0 -2,000 -4,000 -704 -11,256 0 0 -25,327
TotaL ......................... 4,536,971
-------1-------1-------1--------1------
4,536,971
4,511,644
1 For operating purposes, Manned Space Science is handled as a separate operating account. This reo allnement of program activity results from redefinition of individual tasks being undertaken within the Manned Space SCience program. No change In the size or scopo of the program is Involved. , For operating purposes the Communications Satell!tc and the Applications Technology Satell!te pro grams have been combined into a Single program designated Communications and Applications Technology Satell!tes. This consolidation of program activities recognizes the similar nature of work In these two areas and conforms to the Internal operating structure of NASA. For operating purposes the Nuclear-electric Systems and thc Solar and Chemical Power programs have been combined Into a single program designated Space Power and Electric Propulsion. This consolidation of program activities recognizes the similar nature of work In these two areas and conforms to the Internal operating structure of NASA Amounts dUfer from those shown In fiscal year 1966 column of fiscal year 1967 budget due to Identifica' tion of additional Communications and Applications Technology Program requirements subsequent to preparation of bud got estimates. 'Difference between adjusted fiscal year 1966 authorization and fiscal year 1966 planned program amounts.
19
Three programs, that is, Lunar and Planetary Exploration, Bioscience, and Communications and Applications Satellites are currently planned for execution at levels in excess of the adjusted authorization levels. The facts and circumstances related to these increases are:
5. Lunar and planetary exploration

Project
Adjusted anthorization
Planned
$38, 600, 000 1,000,000 111,637,000 52,400,000 18,000,000 17,000,000 12, 700,000 251, 337, 000
Difference
Mariner ________________________________ - _____________________ _
Supporting research and technology/advanced studies________ _ $38, 600, 000 1,415, Ranger- - -- - - -- ---- - - -- - - - - - -- --- - -- - ----- ---------- ---------Surveyor ____________________________________________________ _ 84, 100, 000 000 L1lIl8I' orbiter_______________________________________________ _ 36,000,000
Voyager _____________________________________________________ _
Pioneer ______________________________________________________ _ TotaL __ ______ _____ _____________________________________
3,800,000 43,000,000 8, 000, 000 214, 915, 000
-$415,000 +27,537,000 + 16, 400, 000 + 14, 200, 000 -26, 000, 000 +4, 700,000 +36, 422, 000
Ranger.-Launch of Rangers VIII and IX as scheduled permitted timely conduct of data analysis, reducing the effort required in fiscal year 1966. Surveyor.-The increase of $27,537,000 is required to support the level of manpower needed by the prime contractor to correct problems encountered in the test program, prevent recurrence of these problems on subsequent spacecraft, and to augment the reliability program both at the contractor and at JPL. Lunar Orbiter.-The increase of $16,400,000 is required, because the prime contractor negotiated definitive subcontracts for more than was planned in the fiscal year 1966 estimates, and because the prime contractor and the subcontractors underestimated the effort required. Mariner.-The increase of $14,200,000 is required to support initiation of a Venus mission in 1967 and two Mars missions in 1969. Voyager.-The reduction was made possible by deferring system design and component development contracts planned for fiscal year 1966, which would have led to fiscal year 1967 procurement of flight hardware. Since the initial launch of the Voyager spacecraft system has been postponed until the 1973 Mars opportunity, a substantial portion of these efforts can now be deferred until a later date. Pioneer.-The increase of $4,700,000 was primarily due to increases in the estimated cost of experiments for missions C and D upon negotiation of the definitive contracts. 6. Bioscience
Project Supporting research and development_________________________ authorization
$15, 100, 000 16, 000, 000 31,100,000 Adjusted
Planned
$15,100,000 21,600,000 36,700,000
Difference
0 +$5, 600, 000 +5,600,000
Blosatellite_ __________________________________________________
TotaL__________________________________________________
I-------I-------I-----~
BiosateUite.-The $5,600,000 increase in this project relates to difficulties encountered with the individual experiments and their effective integration into the spacecraft. These difficulties have caused some schedule slippage and rearrangement "ith consequent increased costs. Communication8 and applications technOlogy 8ateUites
Project
Adjusted
authorization
$4, 500, 000 200,000 100.000 26, 700,000
Planned
$4,500,000 200.000 100.000 29.500,000 34,300.000
Difference
0
Snpportingresearch and teehno\ogy ___________________________ Relay ___________ _______ ____________ ___________________________

Syncom_______ ________________________________________________
0
0 +$2,800.000 +2.800.000
Applications technology satellites_____________________________ TotaL__________________________________________________
I--~----I-------I-----~
31,500,000
20
Applications technology satellites.-The $2,800,000 increase in this project is related to redesign of the gravity gradient experiment spacecraft.
ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS
The fiscal year 1966 financial operating plan for functions supported under the administrative operations appropriation has been established at $611,820,000. The following table compares this plan by object class with the fiscal year 1966 budget request:
[In thousands of dollars] Fiscal Fiscal I Fiscal Planned year 1966 year 1966 year 1966 column congres- operat Change Pay fiscal from raise year 1966 of fiscal sional ing plan year 1966 autl'ori exclusive budget program budget mtion of pay amount raise _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1_ _ _ _ _Personnel compensation ............... 345,207 Personnel benefits ....................... 24,193 Travel _________ _________________________ _ 21,000 Transportation of things ................. . 5,049 49,556 Rents, commodities and utilities ......... . Printing and reproduction .............. 4,869 Other services. _......................... . 108,023 Supplies and materials ... _............... . 23,140 Equipment .............................. . 23,109 Lands and structures ................... 5,235 19 Insurance claims ......................... .
~
347,691 24,807 20,841 4,689 49,795 4,615 107,584 21,156 16,998 5,300 32 591,049 603,508
(+2,484) (+614) (-159) (-360) (+239) (-254) (-439) (-1,984) (-6,111) (+65) (+13) (-5,892)
7,820 492
o o o o o
o
8,312
o o o
355,511 25,299 20,841 4,689 49,795 4,615 107,584 21,156 16,998 5,300 32 611,820
Tota1. .................. _..........
609,400
NOTE.-Differcnce between fiscal year 1966 authorization and planned fiscal year 1966 program, +$20,771.
The fiscal ycar 1966 operating phm for adminiRtrntivc operations will be established at $603,508,000 exclusive of the cost of the Federal Employees Salary Act of 1!l65. This amollnt is $6 million below that requested in the fiscal year 1966 budget und exceeds the authorization by $12.5 million. The amount includes $:3.1 million to support 424 additional positions at the Manned Spacccraft Center ane\ the Kennedy Space Centpr for support of the Apollo program and to provide It moderatc increase in the salary structure. Both of these requirements originated subsequcnt to the submission of the fi8cal year 1966 budgct, and both have been approved by the Bureau of the Budget. In addition, an increase of $8.:3 million is included in the proposed operating plan to finance the higher salaries authorized by the salary legislation, bringing the total to $611,820,000.
FINANCING
Thc fiscal year 1966 planned program for administrative operations and research and development totals $5,123.5 million. This plan will be financed by $5,115.0 million appropriatcd for fiscal year 1966 for these accounts and $8.5 million from funds made availablc by adjustments to prior ycar R. & D. programs.
FISCAL YEAR
1966
AD.l\IINISTIUTl\'}: OPERATIONS
The CHAInMAN. The report shows you lU1Ve established an administrative operations budget plan for fiscal year 1966 that exceeds the fiscal year 1966 authorization by $12.5 million and the fiscal year 1966 appropriation by $19.5 million. This then was further increased by another $8.3 million to finance the higher ~mll1ries authorized by the salary legislation last year. Therefore, the fiscal year 1966 planned amount for administrative operations is $27.8 million above the appropriation. Now, l'vfr. VVebb, what do you recommend we write in this .bill that would help NASA stay within the amount Congress t1uthonzes for administrative operations?
21
Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman, this is a very complex subject, this question of reprograming. As you know, we have requested in this legislation before you for 1967 an increase to 1 percent from one-half of 1 percent of the research and development budget that can be reprogramed to construction of facilities. I do not believe we have exceeded the requirements of the law in any of our reprograming actions, and I do believe that these funds have effectively contributed to the success of the program which we are demonstrating. I think we must have some flexibility in these matters, and I do not feel that we have exceeded what was authorized in the matter you have referred to. This is a very complex question of legal interpretation of the law. I am certain the need to reprogram was there. This has been questioned also in the House in the hearings during the last week. Dr. Seamans has made the presentations to them and answered their questions. Would you be willing to have him give the view that was used on his recommendation for this action? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but we appropriated certain amounts of money. We also appropriated money for research and development. You reprogramed the research money into administrative money. Why? . Mr. WEBB. But in the administrative budget is a great deal of effort that goes into research and supports research. The CHAIR~fAN. I suppose that is taken into consideration at the time the budget is prepared; is it not? l\lr. WEBB. It is, but I think you will find that part of the ability to reprogram is to permit us to take care of the actual needs of the agency. This we have done in this action. The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have authority to reprogram which will give you some $200 million if you take it all. That is what we are worried about, a little bit. We tried to tie it down to where it could not be. Dr. Seamans wants to make a statement, does he? ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS REPROGRAMING Dr. SEAMANS. ~1r. Chairman, as you are a~are, the administrative operations account provides the funds that are necessary for salaries, travel, and those supporting items needed to keep the necessary equipments and so on on hand so that our KASA personnel can get their job done. The largest single factor that entered into this $20 million reprograming that you refer to was the increase in salary, and this amounted to-The CHAIRMAN. To $8 million. Dr. SEAMANS. I was going to say to $8.5 million. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Presumably, when you put in your budget, you put in all the things you need for administrative operations. Dr. SEAMANS. That is true, but the Congress reduced our administrative operations account so we no longer had that available. The CHAIRMAN. So you ignored the Congress and put it back into another pocket. Dr. SEAMANS. We did not ignore the Cop.gress, but we felt it necessary to have the funds not only to match the pay increases, but also to make the effort of our NASA personnel as profitable as
22
possible, which meant they have to have the equipment and the supplies necessary to do the job. The CHAIRMAN. And what effect had the action of Congress if you simply put it aside and put it in another pocket? Dr. SEAMANS. We did not set it aside. We worked within the legislative constraints, but we do have authority to make this transfer and we felt it was mandatory to make it. The CHAIRMAN. You have authority up to $400 million. Did you transfer all of that? Dr. SEAMANS. I do not believe we have that large a sum available for transfer. I believe it is 5 percent of the R. & D. account. The CHAIRMAN. $200 million? Dr. SEAMANS. I believe that is the correct figure, yes. REPROGRAMING AUTHORITY The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that that figure should be reduced in the next appropriation bill? Mr. WEBB. If you want to destroy the flexibility which permits us to get the job done, Mr. Chairman. We have had appropriated to us since fiscal year 1962 $21,024 million. We have taken the responsibility in spending that money to keep you fully informed as to how we are spending it and to place every action that we propose to take before you under your rules for 30 days before we take it so it can be subject to full scrutiny. Now, to reduce the ability to utilize what we have created with $21 billion of authorized funds where we have t1 major test program underway, with maybe $15 billion worth of equipment moving through major edn~ironmental test ~acilities, a~d whh.ere no done cIafn tfhoresee what we nee , It seems to me, IS not a WIse t mg to o. ere WElfe a. single question about the transfer of funds based on the merit of the transfer, I would have very deep concern. The responsibility which we have accepted to get this job done requires flexibility, and I think the record that we have turned in justifies the confidence of this committee in giving us flexibility. The CHAIRMAN. Did you not ask last year for what administrative operation funds you thought were necessary? Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir; insofar as we could foresee them, but we asked for them within the framework that permits us to do reprograming. It was my strong hope that you would not take the action which you did take last year, which reduced the ability to make transfers from R. & D. to C. of F. to one-half of 1 percent. It is not possible to program as large an operation as this precisely 18 months in advance and to go through all of the scheduling and detailed breakdown of accounts that we have to go through with the Bureau of the Budget and then present all of it to you and stick within closer tolerances than we have had in the execution of this program. So the question is whether or not you want us to have the flexibility to really do the job and then treat us as rough as you wish if we do not use that flexibility and those funds correctly. The CHAIRMAN. My problem is: Why do you go to the Bureau of the Budget? Why do you go to Congress? Why do you go to the committee, if after they all act, you set it aside?
1
I
23
Mr. WEBB. We set it aside at our peril and with a required full justification of our actions, but we set it aside only under rules which have been established and which we take into account at the time we make the estimates and present them. FLEXIBILITY FOR ADJUSTMENTS NEEDED The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think it would be proper if we were to hold you to no more than the amount authorized? Mr. WEBB. No; I think that when we go through, from year to year, the kind of problems we face in this program, you should give us some flexibility to make adjustments with your full knowledge and consent during the year. I see no yalue in an absolutely rigid limitation on administrative operations where we operate in 14 major centers, with a great deal of the research and development activity going on in these centers. We do not take these actions lightly, Senator, and we have to get the money from R. & D., where we already need it very badly. So there is a strong compulsion on us not to make these transfers. As a matter of fact, o,'er the period since 1962, we have made relatively few transfers, considering the size, scope, and necessities of this program. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we wrote in some language that specified the number of positions you could have or separately authorized amount not to be exceeded for salaries? Could vou live "ith that? Mr. WEBB. Senator, if that is necessary to satisfy you and vour colleagues that we are going to spend the Government's money effectively, we will live and do the best we can with what you require. In my view, these very large developments such as we have, with the tremendous requirements for meeting new and strange conditions as they arrive, require a different kind of thought and pattern of action and cooperation between the executive and the legrslative branches than other developments have had in the past, that were smaller, were less complex. Now, I would hope we could experiment with an ability to give us what we need to get the job done and a very close examination of whether we have discharged that flexibility correctly, rather than to try to insist in the beginning that we live by some directly prescribed detail. Dr. SEAMANS. Mr. Chairman, last year, when we came before you, we were requesting support for a program involving 34,100 personnel, of which 33,500 were permanent employees. During the course of the year, we found, after an extremely detailed study with the Bureau of the Budget, that we could justify to them the necessity for some modest increase in personnel at Goddard, at the Manned Spacecraft Center, and at the Kennedy Space Center in order to carry out the operational phase of the Apollo program. So we did receive authority from the Bureau of the Budget to increase by 424 the total complement of NASA. We would have been extremely hard pressed if we had not been able to increase our manpower by that amount. PLANETARY PROGRAM The CHAIRMAN. As I understand your curren t planetary program plans, the unmanned Voyager flight to Mars with a landing capsule is scheduled for the 1973 opportunity-somewhere in there. This is many years away.
59-941-66--3
24
Mr. WEBB. Senator, we are conducting studies looking toward a presentation to the Congress next year of the question of whether to move forward with this or not. This budget includes only the ability to find out what we need to know to make the decision next year. So the 1973 date is not foreclosed in this budget, but neither is it approved, and neither does this budget carry the funds to proceed toward that target date. JPL STERILIZATION LABORATORY The CHAIRMAN. Since this is many years away, and in view of the serious limits on resources which you mention, why is it necessary at this time to reprogram funds to construct the proposed JPL Sterilization Laboratory? Mr. WEBn. Because all spacecraft that will go to plfinets and land on them are going to be im~olved in the problem of sterilization. This laboratory that is designed is a very expensive labol'!ltory. It is designed to develop WfiyS and means and methods by which we can do this sterilization withOlit damaging the ability of the spacecraft to do its work. It is very much in the order of the kind of research and development we do so that we will know that we can proceed to go to any of the8e planets with a suitably sterilized spacecraft and one that will work when it gets there. It is not aimed primarily at Mars, although Mars seems to be the planet on which we will first land and take samples with unmanned spacecraft. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, I shall put in the record the letters btlck and forth on this subject. (The documents referred to are as follows:)
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, Washington, D.C., January 25,1966. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
Chail'lnan, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR l\IR. CIL\IHMAN: Enclos('d for the information of the committee is a copy of a letter dated t.O(iay address(,d by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to the President of the Senate, reporting on the transfer, pursuant to section 3 of the National Aeronautics ami Space Administration Authorization Act, 1966 (79 Stat. 1(4), of $940,300 in researcll and d('velopment funds for 1966, to the construction of facilities appropriation to be used for the construction of a sterile assembly and developlllent bboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. NASA recently annOl\l1ced r('vised plans for plandary exploration ullder which the first Voya~('r missions will 1)(' <\efprred until 1!l73. Sterile planetary capsule design is es~ential to these mi"sion~, and a fully IIsa))k facility to obtaitl nec('~~ary information for that purpose must be in cxistence Iwfow capsule design can be started. Pr('sctlt ~chedllips for dpsigning planetary ('xploration capsules require that this facility be operational by Sc>ptcml)('r 1!J6tl. Estimated construction time is scheduled for 6 or 7 mouths and must therefore be started immediately. Very truly yours, RICHARD L. CALLAGHAN,
A8sistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs.
25
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, Washington, D.C., January 25,1966. Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, President of the Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The attachment reports to the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the Senate of the United States on the transfer of $940,300 of research and development funds appropriated to the ~ational Aeronautics and Space Admini:;tration for the fiscal year 1966 to the construction of facilities appropriation to be used for the construction of a Sterile Assembly and Development Laboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The transfer of funds is made under the authority of section 3 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, 1966 (79 Stat. 194) and is submitted to the President of the Senate pursuant to Rule VII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. , The determinations required by the above cited act have been made. Sincerely yours, JAMES E. WEBB, Administrator. REPORT OF REPROGRAMING ACTION CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES Authority: Public Law 89-53, 79 Stat. 194 STERILE ASSEMBLY AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY Installation: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. Program office for the project: Office of Space Science and Applications.
Funding requirements Prior years _____________________________________________________ _ o Fiscal year 1965 CoF 1 __________________________________________ _ $48,800 Amount of this reprograming _____________________________________ _ 940,300 Total ____________________________________________________ 989,100
1 Funded
from fiscal year 1966 facility planning and design.
Description: The Spacecraft Development Engineering Building will be extended and altered to permit the installation of equipment to produce a 15,000 square foot pilot Sterile Assembly and Development Laboratory for the Voyager project. The alterations to the existing 32-foot high bay area and the installation of equipment will produce: (1) a class 100 laminar downfiow clean room of 1,200 square feet, (2) a combination airlock and ethylene oxide decontamination chamber of 325 square feet, and (3) a receiving and cleaning area of 3,500 square feet. The modifications to the existing low bay area and the installation of equipment will produce: (1) a microbiological assay laboratory of 1,450 square feet, (2) an operating and support equipment (OSE) area of 1,100 square feet, (3) a quality assurance, special assembly, and facility control area totaling 6,200 square feet. There will be two extensions to the building, one of 960 square feet for mechanical and electrical equipment, and the second of 400 square feet for an 18 by 18 foot cylindrical sterilization oven. Justification: Sterilization of the Voyager ::\hrs landing system or capsule requires methods of fabrication, decontamination, clean assembly and checkout, encapsulation and heat sterilization of a nature never before attempted on such a large scale. A Sterile Assembly and Development Laboratory is required to provide a pilot facility to perform full-scale research and development testing to (1) verify the adequacy of the sterilization facility concept; (2) develop techniques and equipment which must be used in the full-scale clean operations and sterilization process; (3) develop microbiological assay procedures and monitoring equipment to be used during actual flight mission development acthities; (4) provide a facility to assess efficiency of personnel working under the constraints of a clean room of this nature, to insure proper scheduling to meet the planetary mission opportunities; and (5) to train personnel to work "lith the capsule in the ultraclean environment. Statement of urgency: The requirements, criteria, and concepts for the pilot laboratory were produced through contractor research and development effort under the fiscal year 1966 Voyager activity and, therefore, were not defined ill time to include this laboratory in the fiscal year 1966 construction authorization.
26
This pilot laboratory is required by October 1966 to permit the development of the critical inputs which are needed before May 1967, when 1973 landings systems design effort must start. Consequently, this project cannot be deferred until enactment of the next NASA authorization act.
Cost estimate Item: Land acquisition. ______________________ _ Amount Source of funds to be transferred
Construction ____________________________ $829,200 Equlpment______________________________ 111,100 Design ,_________________________________ 0 Tota!..________________________________

I
Appropriation of fiscal year 1966 research and development. Program Office: Space Science and Applications. Program: Lunar and Planetary Exploration. Amount: $940.300.
940,300
Funded from fiscal year 1966 facility planning and deSign.
Hon. JAMES E. WEBB,
February 11, 1966.
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C.

DEAR JIM: In view of the financial constraints which I understand have been imposed on the space program in fiscal years 1966 and 1967 and the impact that budget limitations may have on the success of the Apollo mission within the projected schedule, I wonder if funds should be allocated now to establish the Sterile Assembly and Development Laboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory as set forth in your letter of January 25, 1966. I am sure that you have looked carefully at this; however, I am concerned about the overall budgetary situation and wonder if you would defer proceeding on this until we have had an opportunity to discuss it with you at the authorization hearings beginning February 28. In the meantime, if you have additional data on the scheduling of this project which would provide further support as to the urgency for the immediate initiation of this facility, would you please send it to me? Sincerely yours, CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, Washington, D.C., February 24, 1966. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As requested in your letter of February 11, 1966, we
will be pleased to discuss, during the hearings on the NASA authorization for fiscal ypar 1967, the scheduling factors that require us to establish at this time a sterile a~s<'mbly and development facility at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dr. Homer N<'well, the Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, within whose area of program responsibility this falls, will be prepared to go into the details of this project when he appears before your committee. I would like to summarize here the key element of our reprograming consideration for this facility. As you have noted, the space program for fiscal years 1966 and 1967 is operating under very real budget constraints. These constraints affect vitally the rate at which we move forward. I do not believe, however, that these budget levels in any way deny the long term and far reaching objectives of the total program. One such objective, that has the firm support of the scientific community, is the unmanned exploration of the planets with a major spacecraft capable of landing on the planetary surface and deploying its sensors in the search for life and in the investigation of the environmental physics, chemistry, biology, and geology of the planet. Such a spacecraft capsule must be completely sterile to assure that the environment being measured is truly that of the planet. The spacecraft and capsule we plan to use for th is objective is the Voyager, currently in process of system definition and design. Earlier plans called for qualification, test, and exploratory flights toward Mnrs in 1!l71; these would have
27
been limited to Mars orbiting missions probably carrying a nonsurvivable atmospheric probe. A survivable planetary landing capsule, we felt, would have to wait until 1973. We were not able to provide for initiating the Voyager effort in the fiscal year 1967 budget, and have had to defer that decision until the fiscal year 1968 budget. Our plans today, however, have firmed up to the point that we can see, if approval is obtained in fiscal year 1968, the capability of having both the orbiting and landing spacecraft systems availaBle for the 1973 opportunity. To do so, however, requires that we maintain our schedule for understanding the implications on the design of the planetary lander of the sterilization requirements imposed by the strict necessity to avoid any contamination of the planetary surface we hope to investigate. The facility at JPL, if available in late 1966, will permit us to understand these implications in time to carry out capsule design consistent with a 1973 Mars lander mission. It is this urgency that has pressed us to undertake this new facility project. With best wishes, I remain, Sincerely yours, JAMES E. WEBB, Administrator.
eRA WLER-TRANSPORTER The CHAIRMAN. And now, as always, we come back to the crawler. How is the crawler doing now? 1fr. WEBB. Would you like Dr. Seamans to speak to that? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Dr. SEAMANS. I am happy to report, :Mr. Chairman, that the design changes were made in the crawler, that the new bearings were installed on the No. 1 crawler within the last month; it has satisfactorily carried the umbilical tower from its outside position to a position inside the vertical assembly building. Within the last week, the crawler has carried out successfully the tests that show that it can climb the slope going up to the launch pad. This is a 5 slope and we had to run the crawler through these very difficult tasks to be sure it had sufficient power in order to carry out that part of its job. The tests are continuing, but so far, the leveling device and the bearings and the drive, the steering mechanism, all appear to be satisfactory. The CHAIRMAN. Now, you resurfaced the crawler way and that cost about $900,000? Dr. SEAMANS. That is correct. We found that the surface we had was such that the loads were increased, that the bearings were overheating, and that by making a change on the surface, we could reduce this level of friction. The CHAIRMAN. The original contract target cost was for $8,332,188, plus a fee. The present estimate is about $14 million? Dr. SEAMANS. Yes, it is. It is actually $13,900,000. The CHAIRMAN. Plus some other costs--i!;uch as more hardwarewhich runs the Crawler project over $15 million? Dr. SEAMANS. The present contract estimate involves a target cost of $9.7 million and overruns amounting to about $4 million for this total. The total I have given you also includes the fee. The CHAIRUAN. You are pretty happy with it now? Dr. SEAMANS. Well, we are satisfied that we used the right approach for this very difficult transportation problem. We feel that we have now a good design. We are not completely satisfied with all the steps that we have had to take to arrive at this position.
28
LEM CONTRACT CHANGES . The CHAIRMAN. I know it is a very difficult problem, one that you have had to work hard with. I noticed in one of the magazines the other day an article on the LEM cost rise, having to do with scope of work and other changes made in the Lunar Excursion lVfodule incorporation contract. It seems the contract, with cost-pIus-incentive fee arrangement, was estimated at $1.42 billion. That total includes an additional $400 million since the contract was first negotiated. Is that LEM cost getting out of hand? Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman, we have now put this on an incentive contract basis. Of course, this has required the resolution of many questions ill a definitive form. Dr. Mueller is going to give you full details on this program. But I would say it is not ont of hand, althou~h we have had problems with this device, us we have had with all of tl1ese llew large devices. The CHAIHMAN. You have not changed the contract? Mr. 'VEBB. We have changed the contract to an incentive form of contract. The CHAIHMAN. Under which they now estimate a cost of $1.42 billion more? Mr. WEBB. The incentive contract involves not only the question of what they receive as profit for themselves and their overhead, but also a current revised and up-to-date estimate of the cost. This has increased, but as to the exact figure, I do not have it in mind. Could Dr. Mueller come np and give it for you if you wish it at this point? The CUAmMAN. I would be glad to hl1ve him do it right now. Mr. WEBB. George, would you stand up, please, and give the correct figure? The CHAmMAN. 11y point is if they are going to have extra costs and had a firm contract, do you take them off the hook by giving them a cost-plus contract? Mr. WEBB. No, sir; they had a cost-plus contract and we have converted this into an incentive contract under which they are rewarded for what they do well and for efficiency. This reward can also go down. For example, in the Crawler contl'l1ct, the fee has been reduced by something like a half million dollars as a result of the troubles we have had. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; from $666,000 to $180,000. 11r. \V EBB. Yes, sir; so we are trying to be good businessmen and provide the incenti,'e:-; of the American business system to th~se contrarts, ~fr. Chairman. But when the cost is required to be lllcreased to denlop the LE2\I, you simply can not put that on the contractor. If the cost is there to do the job, then the Government has to pay for it, bemuse the Government needs this vehicle. The CHAlmIAN. Dr. Mueller'? Dr. l\1UELLEH. The acLun,l costs, the estimated costs to run at the present time, is, as I rerall it, $1.22 billion. But let me be real clear that at, the time of the inllovation of the incentive con tract, we very carefully reviewed the posture of the company at that time. We evaluated the work that had been acrolllplished to that date. We did take into account any esealation of costs that had occurred up to that point in time and redueed their fee accordingly, so that we
29
started off essentially with a new contract that did not forget this fee, but took into account the fact that there were unanticipated costs in the course of the development cycle. As you recall, the original contract with Grumman did not include the total purchase, so that the present contract does now include the cost for all of the vehicles. Because we are incrementally funded, we also incrementally contract on these contracts. So that the earlier estimates did not include the total buy. The actual posture on the contract was one that is within our present and our anticipated budget for the contract and represents essentially our estimate of the runout costs of some years ago. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. }'1ueller.
SURVEYOR
Mr. Webb, do you believe you have solved the Suryeyor problems and that the United States will be able to effect a soft landing on the 1vloon in the near future? Mr. WEBB. Senator, I think we have made as much progress during the last year as able and innoyatiye people in the Hughes Aircraft Co., JPL, and NASA could make. We have our first flight coming up, and the test of that progress will show up in that flight. I do not feel, myself, that we have solved all the problems. I think it is not likely that all of the first four flights that are engineering flights will completely succeed. But we make these flights to find out whether or not this very complex equipment will operate in the space environment. So while I would say we have not solved all the problems, we are in motion with a number of activities looking toward a flight, and I think that whatever shows up in that flight, we will be in a position to solve and we will make the Surveyor succeed.
1969
MOON LANDING STILL POSSIBLE BARRING MISHAP
The CHAIRMAN. I know that you were not any happier than I was to see the space budget cut down. But with this budget, can the United States achieve its national goal of a manned lunar landing within this decade? l\1r. WEBB. First, let me say, Senator, that no one has been more consistant than you have been in gh'ing us the help and support that we needed in endeavoring to get the full requests of the President considered carefully in the Congress. However, neither with all of your help nor with all that we could do have we succeeded in getting what really is needed, in my opinion, to assure the goal. However, we have been able to make adjustments which may make it possible for us to execute the total flight schedule necessary to learn what we need to know before we make the lunar landing with fewer vehicles, both of the Saturn IB class and the Saturn V dass, than we have in the program. If all 15 Saturn V's have to be flown before we make the lunar landing, we are out of this decade, w'ithout any doubt, in my opinion. If we should lose a second S-II stage-you know we did lose one in static tests on the ground-then we shall have a very difficult time turning the program around and deciding what to do then since we shall have increased costs and loss of time, which could be very serious.
30
However, 'barring some major setback, some major failure on a static test on the ground or major failure on a flight, it is reasonable, I believe, to expect that the lunar landing, with all of the things that are needed to be done before that, will be completed by the latter part of 1969. We will, in the meantime, have developed the capability for using these large boosters and our ground-launch facilities and test facilities for further work. We will be carrying forward the know-how, the physical facilities on the ground, the flight equipment and the trained manpower, to then move into further areas. I think that the lunar landing, Mr. Chairman, is mistakenly thought to be the major goal. The capability to operate in space, to see what you can do and what you cannot do, and then to proceed to do the things that you can do that are useful to the Nation is, I think, going to come out in the 1968 budget. We have just enough in the 1967 budget so that we do not have to tell you we are out of this decade, and that we cannot accomplish the lunar landing in this decade. We have just enough, with full and complete performance on every flight, to not have a major gap in the program if we can finance the follow-on use of this equipment in next year's budget. The 1967 budget is, in a sense, a turning of the hump and a preservation of options for 1968. That is all it is, in my opinion. So I cannot say we will accomplish the goals. With over a billion dollar,; of reductions made over the last 4 or 5 year,; in the program as we planned it, and with the mpid progress that the Russians have made, I think we find ourselves in the position where, fo[, about 2 year,;, they are going to continue to stay out in front and we will have a stern chase, even with this program at thi,; level. We are opemting, at the $5 billion level, at least $600 or $700 million below what should have gone into the implementation of the first plan if we were going to carry it out. This is particularly true when we had the reduction of $600 million in the 1964 budget request. NASA CONGRATULATED ON PERFORMANCE WITHIN TIGHT BUDGET The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Webb, it is a very tight budget, and I congratulate you on having the courage to try to do it within that budget. I've felt that the situation may develop where you are going to have to come back and ask for more money. You must keep the program going. Mr. WEBB. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that if we have any major failure, the President, the Congress, and the NASA are going to have to look very, very thoughtfully and carefully at what we do at that time. If everything works perfectly, if we can turn around like we did on the Gemini VI/Gemini VII rendezvous and the SA 201 on Saturday, we are going to be moving fast enough to get over the thin ice of this restrictive budget. But if at any point we slow up, it will be a different situation. If we had not gotten the rendezvous information when we did and that had been delayed for a year, we would have had much more uncertainty about the precision ability of our spacecraft and the engines than we do today. It is this kind of early development of information which gives IOU assurance that I hoped to get 3 years ago and did not succee in getting.
31
The CHAIRMAN. I want you to know that the chairman of this committee, and I think the other members of it, have great confidence in you and your organization. We may be worried about the tight budget, but we do not wish to see you come back. Senator Smith? ORIGINAL BUDGET REQUEST CUT OVER
$550
MILLION
Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Webb, I believe it would be helpful to NASA and to this committee to know what your original request was for fiscal year 1967 in comparison with the $5,012 million request now before us. :Mr. WEBB. We requested of the President and the Bureau of the Budget conducted its examination of that request at the $5,566 million level. Dr. SEAMANS. That is correct, not taking into account a requirement for increased personnel and to accommodate the pay act. Adding that in, it came out to $5.58 billion. Senator SMITH. In other words, about a half-billion-dollar cut? Dr. SEAMANS. A little more than that, actually. Mr. WEBB. $550 million, roughly; slightly over $550 million. Senator SMITH. In the backup materials submitted by NASA, I read the justification for section 3 of your bill which concerns the reprograming request increase for fiscal year 1967 to 1 percent from one-half percent last year. Some of this has already been discussed. Would you have any additional comments on the need for this increase other than what you have already given us, Mr. Webb? NEED FOR MORE FUNDS Mr. WEBB. Senator Smith, I think the justification for this lies in three major areas. The first is that we are approaching the time of very large operations in an environment that has been examined more carefully than at any time before in the history of the human race in the last few years, but still is unknown in many important respects. The design of the equipment and the production of it, the test of it, and then its flight involves leadtimes before flight of about 5 years, and the period of flight runs into several years. Now, \"ith these long leadtimes, and with the constant readjustment of the engineering design based on increased knowledge of the environment itself, and increased knowledge of the equipment through the maior testing program for which we are paying such large smns, really billions of dollars are goin~ into the ground testing which is why the equipment does operate ill space, it means that we are less able at this particular time to tell you precisely what new areas of tests may be required. We are near the margin, I would say, of decisions to go or no go with a particular piece of equipment. Therefore, while in previous years, we had a very large buildup of the construction program for launch complexes and assembly buildings and dynamic test stands and high-vacuum chambers for tests, we now are in that period when we know a great deal more. We have narrowed the problem. But the decision with respect to what you do, having narrowed the problem, is more excruciating, and the ability to turn around fast to make new experiments and conduct new tests is even more important.
32
It seems to me that when you reach the point where the line narrows, this is the time when you must not hold up a vast on-going program that is operating at $5 billion a year for failure to move rapidly to build something you need to make tests. Weare basically an experimental organization, and that is why we succeed. The second area of argument here, if you want to call it an argument-to me it is a completely valid line of reasoning-is that these programs have developed over a number of years and against a pattern of operation between the NASA, the administration-that is, the Bureau of the Budget, the President-and committees in Oongress. Obviously, in Oongress, one subcommittee does not completely agree with another one, one committee does not completely agree with another one. The appropriation does not precisely follow the operation since we operate with plans which cover a period tlHlt begins 6 months in advance and ends 18 months in advance, with a great deal of uncertainty with respect to the equipment and uncertainty with respect to the system that gives the final approval and fixes the finll1 number of dollars. "We do that within the framework of our knowledge of existing systems; in other words, our. estimates and the knowledge that we make to you and the presentatlOns we make to you are with the knowledge that within the system certain rearrangements are permitted and accepted. Now, if you narrow the ability to make those rearrangements beclluse of the question of whether we have violated something Oongress has authorized, you are, in reality, restricting necessary and expert adjustments within a system we have all learned to live with, which is certainly not perfect, but which does permit us to do enough to succeed. The third area I should like to present in justification of this is that we have, I think, performed for this committee and for the Oongress. I think that we have kept the program movillg ahead and can still say to you that we have a very good chance to learn all we Heed to know to perfect this equipment, to fly long missions with men and to make the lunar landillg and to demonstrate this capability within this decade. I think we have demonstrated an ability to turn around fast and to use flexibility in a very responsible way, and under a system where we notify your committee and the House committee of every action that we take. N ow, it would seem to me that if you had to weigh the question of whether you wanted to construct a steadily tightening straitjacket, or you wanted to give some flexibility undl'r this system to mell who have taken the responsibility for over $20 billion of expenditl1I'e, and do it in a fish bowl, with the television cameras 011 everything they do aIld with a full indication to yom committee of everything, I would certainly cast the decision in the light of supporting a system that is working and has made adjustments and which, if it had been in a straitjacket, could not have made those adjustments. So I think those are the three main areas that I would like to present.
AltcHI'l'EC'l' ANO ENGINmWTNG SERVICE COSTS
Senator SMITH. Also, Mr. Webb, section 5 of your bill provides for adding a llew section in the basic NASA Act of 1958 relating to unusual architectural and engineering services. I have read that,
33
your justification for that new section. Do you want to add anything at this point on that, or for the record? ~Ir. WEBB. Dr. Seamans is asking to answer. Would you mind hearing him, and then I will supplement what he has to say"? Senator SMITH. If it is agreeable to the Chair, yes. The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Dr. SEAMANS. By law, we now can only use up to 6 percent of the estimated cost of a facility for A and E work. This has pro yen to be extremely difficult when deyeloping the designs for specialized facilities, as, for example, was the case in developing a nuclear rocket facility for the area out in Neyada. We felt that this was a matter that should be clarified. I believe you are aware that the GAO investigated this, and it was also their recommendation that there should be legislation that would clarify this so that we can all take this matter into account properly. Mr. WEBB. Senator Smith, I would like to add just a word there. The process that we are developing and which this committee has giyen us wonderful support in denloping is to do enough work in adyance so our estimates mean something to you. \Vith respect to Voyager, the money that we will spend this year will be yery valuable in making the decision next year, because we will know a great deal more about the time factors, the cost factors, and the state of the technology and how they can be projected. The same thing is true with respect to these very complex engineering projects. In essence, we wish to spend a small amount of additional money in advance to make sure that when we come before your committee, we give you a thoroughly responsible estimate of what it will take to do the job, both as to time and as to money. I think that is the basic underl~ying factor in many of these matters.
STATUS OF SPACE AGREEMENTS
WITH
SOVIET UNION
Senator S'UTH. Thank you, Mr. Webb. What is the current status of the NASA's space agreements with the Soviets? Mr. WEBB. At the present time, the Soviets are indicating that they will very soon produce satellite weather information to put on the link that connects 110scow and Washington. Weare at the present time exchanging conventional weather data over these links and had been hoping that, before the end of last year, we would have U.S.S.R. weather satellite data. I think we ought to wait a little bit longer, but we are getting toward the end of the time when they should produce this data in accordance with the agreement which they made. Another quite important field is the interest that they and we both' have in environmental control systems, particularly for manned spacecraft. The whole area of bioscience is of great interest to both of us. We have conducted different kinds of experiments, I believe, although our knowledge of exactly what they have conducted is limited. In any event, we have an agreement that there will be a review of the information in this field and that this will be published jointly. We now have a Joint Editorial Board at work defining the material to be put in this publication. This Board examines both the U.S.S.R. input and the U.S. input and, if these are not roughly equal, if the information is not clearly something that can be effectively utilized
34
by authors from either side, we will then have to take such action as the facts indicate. At the moment, these are the two main areas. We have been trying to define exactly how we could determine the validity of the~r m~asurements with respect to the earth's magnetic field wIthout vIOlatmg deep concerns that they have about the instrumentation that they use for achieving such measurements. The problem is that scientists are not willing to accept measurements without knowing precisely how they are made and the kind of instruments that are used, and the Russians have been very concerned about giving the kind of detail, although they are prepared, I believe, to actually give the measurements which they themselves state are correct. Making space agreements with the Soviets is a sort of constant on-going, shall I say, negotiation, discussion, and endeavor to come to a point of agreement but making sure that we do not go beyond what is in fact true cooperation. We are requiring of them to live up to the agreements. In a sense we, I belieye, have been more willing to move ahead rapidly than they have. Their tendency has been to wait until the last moment, to always have some reason for waiting. Senator SMITH. Mr. Webb, do you consider that the agreement, the proposed agreement for exchange of biological or medical information, to be firm? Mr. WEBB. It is firm, Senator Smith, except for the detailed consideration of the information itself, which is to be incorpomted. If we should find that the implementation of what we believe to be a firm agreement is interpreted by them to be something different, then it could become infirm right away. Senator SMITH. That is similar to the weather agreement that we entered into some time ago with them, is it not? When it came to implementing the agreement-Mr. WEBB. Yes; we regarded that as a firm agreement and made the investment in the link connecting Washington with Moscow. They made the investment, also. Senator SMITH. That is the reason I asked this question on the biological exchange. Mr. WEBB. We are proceeding on the basis that it is firm, but we are also not implementing it except on a step-by-step basis, as each side matches the equivalent step of the other. Senator SMITH. Have you seen much indication that they are interested in entering into additional space agreements? Mr. WEBB. No; I would say, Senator Smith, that while we ourselves believe we should press forward with the fullest support for further cooperative endeavors, there has been no indicating of a desire to match us. If anything, I would say there has been an indication of perhaps more concern on their part to go slow. Whether that will change, whether it is related to the overall condition in the world, I am not sure.
NEGOTIATING WITH TIlE SOVIETS
Senator SMITH. Will you carryon all negotiations with Blagonra vov or whoever they have, formerly being the responsibility of Dr. Dryden? Mr. WEBB. Yes, Senator Smith, although I would like to point out that in these negotiations, we have the pnrticipation of the State Department. In NASA we have Mr. Arnold Frutkin, Assistant Administrator for Internationnl Affnirs, who participates actively in
35
negotiations at the highest level and also in thepreparat{)ry work, 8Jld Dr. John Townsend, of our Goddard Space Flight Center, who has the technical knowledge and can speak the technical language. We also have Dr. Homer Newell who you know is the Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications. He is very actively engaged directly in the negotiations and in all the preparation for them. In essence, the policy questions which Dr. Blagonravov 8Jld I discuss must be directly related to what the technical people understand. We have found many times in the past that where it appears that we have an agreement with respect to words relating to policy, it is not understood that way at the technical level. Therefore, on the policy side, I will take up the work Dr. Dryden had, supported by these people. Senator SMITH. Have the Russians accepted any of our invitations to view U.S. launchings at the Cape? Mr. WEBB. Not at the cape. I believe one Soviet official did go to Wallops Island for a launching, but I am not sure. I believe that is correct, Senator Smith, but not at the cape. Senator SMITH. :Mr. Chairman, I have some other questions on international aspects of the program that, in the interest of time, can be placed into the record and answered for the record, if Mr. Webb is willing to do thn t. Mr. WEBB. Certainly. Senator SMITH. Also, I have been following your question on the personnel and administrative expenses. I had some observations and questions in that direction. In the interest of time, if Mr. Webb would be willing to take my observations and questions in conjunction with the chairman's questions, and answer them, I would appreciate that.. Mr. WEBB. I certainly will. Senator SMITH. That will save us some time this morning. (Questions submitted by Senator Smith and answers supplied by Mr. Webb for the record follow:)
ANALYSIS OF BUDGET PERSONNEL NEEDS
Question 1. We have made a comparison of selected fiscal year 1966 budgeted personnel requirements with your current estimate for fiscal year 1966 as a basis for evaluating performance and your fiscal year 1967 budget request. I might add at this point that this analysis does not consider the overall reduction in the administrative operations account assessed by the Congress in the fiscal year 1966 NASA authorization and appropriation actions. The selected comparisons follow:
Fiscal year
budget request
Yearend emp]oymenL __ - __________________________________________________ _ Average cmp!oymen t _______________________________________________________ _ A vemge GS grade __________________________________________________________ _ Number of GS-16 positions. ________________________________________________ _ Number of OS-15 positions _________________________________________________ _ 34,100 33,599 10.2
1,724 1966
Fiscal year 1966 estimate 34,524 33,290 10.4 293 1,776
current
183
Last year, the committee was assured that the only personnel increases betwe,en 1965 and 1966 were at the Electronics Research Center, resulting in an overall NASA strength of 34,100. The NASA strength for the current year is now projected at 34,524, an increase of 424. The committee was further advised that
36
the number of GS-16 johs, increased 179 during 1963, would remain constant. Rather thml remaining constant as propos('(\ to the Congress you have added 110 more GS-16 jobs, an increa~e of 60 pcrcent OYPr the budget estimate. The average GS gmde for NASA was projPcted at 10.2 for fiscal year 1965 with no increase for fiscal year 1()('6. Now NARA propOf;cr\ an an'rage: of 10.4 for fiscal veal' 19l16 with a further illlTCaSp to 10.5 in fiscal vpar 1967. I helieve we unclcretnm! the effed of till' 19(i5 Fc(\eml pa,' raise on t'he personnel budget, but it is not clear why NASA is ('ithcr not ahk to cstimate more accurately and furnish more acpuratp information or to control its perSOlllld operations within the estimate:; presented to tIl(' Congn'sH. It would apppar that the program has attain('rl a lC'v<'l of maturity which would permit both bettpr pstimntillg :\I\ll lw\tf'r control. The reason,.; for the growth except for the ERC arC' not dearly ulIr$.rsLoorl, particularly when one exam]\lps the constant level of the R. & D. bUr\g('t for 1965, 1!)66, and 1!)67. FurthPJ', with the amount of NASA aetivity which is pprfOrlll('r\ un(iC'r (,olltraet--stated to he ahout 90 P('f(,C'llt by N Af4A wiill(,~s('~it i~ not appan'ni why the N ARA direct personncI budgd shoulri increasl'. Th('f<~ is no in(lieatioll at this time of any new programs initi:lt('(\ or ill('r(,:1,,(,8 ill r('spollsibilit~ that support. significan t increas!'s ill grark :.;trLlctuJ"(' or persollllPl, p:lrticubrly aboyc those of which the cornmittl'l' lIIav haYl' $(,!'II illformf'fl. Your on-botird str('ngth at Dl'(,C'1Il1wr :~I, 1!l65, of :1:1,05;) raises a furtlwr question of m:tnpOWl'r requirclIlPnts-asir\t' frolll the planll!'f\ fi~('al y!'ar I !l(i7 illlTe:u'e of 45() at the ERC. \Vith the oY!'rall NASA progmm at the pr('s(mt state of maturity it is not eir'ar what contribution an additional 1,134 people will make hy the tillle til!')" are recruited, employed, and integrated into a productive status in the program. Answer. L Increase in nU1IIbers of pCl'sonnel in fisralycar 1 D66.-The arlditional persOJIIIl'l request('d at the time tile fisml year IU66 hud!-(pt. was pr!'sent!'r\ was nn inen'llse of :lOO to coiltinuc the staffillg at the Electronics Hesearch Center. An arlditiollal 4:24 positions arc shown in the fiscal y('ar l!Hl(i eolullln of the fiscal 1967 bml!-(et to provide for til!' increased manpower n'quirelllPnls at, the l\l:tIllIPd Spaceernft CPlit,!'r awl tILl' KelllH'(ly Space Cunter,N ARA. An uxlllLustive stlldy completcd last fall cOII('('rllillg operatioIlR-ori(,lIt('r\ functions in the malllH'(1 space flip;ht activities resulted ill tllP conclllsion that all :l(ldiLional 1,117 people are required to provide adequate Hupport to the acceleration ill mallned space flight. This requirellH'nt Rt!'IllS from the fact that we have pro!-(rpssed from single manned flights llleaslll"('d ill hours to man!\('!l flights with t,\o nstronaub measured in terms of days. Soon to follow will \w the three-mall Apollo flights based 011 our current scheduit, to mppt the objpetive of a Ilmnll('d Illnar bnrlin!-( all(1 return this decarlP. Our spae!'craft hours in spacc will incn'n~e by n factor of 8, and our manhours in spacc will increasl' by a factor of 12 within the lIext 2 years. As the program progressed from J\Iel"cury to Gcmini and now into Apollo, the operational procedures and requirelllents have become better deJine(l. As a result of the adual operating cxppripnce gain!'d in the performance of the initial Blanlll'd Gemini flights, it is now clear that. additional p(')"sollnd IIIUSt be assigned to malllH'r\ space fli!-(ht activities primarily because of: (I) Inereasin!-( complexity of the fli!-(ht missions and the space vehicle support hard\Yare as \Ye progrpss to Apollo, (2) Increased frequeJJe~' of flight missions and overJappin!-( schedules of the G('mini and Apollo fli!-(hts, (:~) Incrc:t>ipd duration from a maximum of 1 day in Mercury to 14 days in Gcmini and Apollo. To meet these flight operations rcquiwments a minimum of approximately 1,117 additional GovernIllent personnel are lleec$'(i. These additional personnel are beinp; Il~~ign('d to tllo~p or!-(ani?at.ions involved in flight operations, flight crew operations, medical activitieH, and di1'<'ct support auglllentat.ion and provide the capahility lll'cpssnry to accomplbh mission planning; and operations prior to, dUrin!-(, and aft!'!" fli~(ht ncl:,iiy. N\~.\ 11:18 aU('mptpd to pf<lYide for a portion of this rp!juin,llwnt from existing rl'I'OllrCPH. N ARA will ohtain 12i'l trained military p('r"ollll!'l thruugh agn'l'lIll,nt:; Ilt'gol iakd with th(~ DOD. An additional 200 of the requin,d IH'rsonllel will be provide(1 through transfer" from other N AHA cpntcrs. This Ip:w!'::; tJll' halanee of 7S!l p<'opk which call not be met within N ASA reSOllrC(~S and has h('('n ph:u-wd to n'crllit 424 personnel in flscal year 1$66 and :~65 in fi"cal ,,<'ar 1 ()()7. Th .. incr!'as(' of 365 in fiscal vear 1!)(i7 added to tlw ERC increllwlit of 450 is otr"pt. h~' a tnr~!'L reduction of 4(iO positions throughout tlw ag(,I1e.\, making a net incn'ase of 415 in fiscal year H)(i7.
37
2. Increase in the numbers of GS-16's.-The number of GS-16 positions shown in the fiscal year 1966 budget request was 183 as compared to the 392 currently shown in the fiscal year 1966 column of the fiscal year 1967 budget. This increase results from the approval by the Civil Senice Commission of the allocation of scientific and engineering positions at the GS-16 level in accordance with Public Law 87-793. Nearly all of these were in process at the time of submission of the fiscal year 1966 budget. The BOB instructions pertaining to the submission of the budget do not allow for the inclusion of positions at the GS-16 level until they have been specifically approved by the Civil Service Commission. The number of GS-16 positions (183) shown in the fiscal year 1966 budget was the number of GS-16 positions actually approved up to the time of the printing of the budget. In the period since the submission of the fiscal year 1966 budget, an additional 179 NASA positions have been established by the Civil Service Commission at the GS-16 level. 3. IncreaBe in the NASA average grade.-In the development of the fiscal year 1966 budget, Government agencies were instrllcted by the BOB to budget at the GS grade level pstablished for the fiscal year 1965 budget submission. Based on the composition of our work force, this imposed a level on NASA which was inactpquate to support reasonable careel" development for our employees. NASA instituwd what is recognized as one of the most comprehensive manpower and personnel analyses ever conducted in the Federal Government. This 6-month study examined the whole NASA organizational structure and personnel management practices. A computer program was devised which permitted the quantitative evaluation of the impact of management decisions regarding promotion guidelines for professional personnel and recruitment-training policies. After evaluation of alternative management actions, a recommended management plan was presented to the Bureau of the Budget together >\ith supporling data. This plan was appro\'ed by the BOB and forms the basis for the current budget projections for average salary for fiscal years 1966 and 1967. 4. Plans for filling positions.-The difference between the total onboard on December 31, 196.5, and the end-year positions planned for fiscal year 1967 totaled 1,134 exclusive of the ERe increment for fiscal year 1967. This total includes, however, the 789 positions required for support of manned space flight programs mentioned previously and 210 unfilled positions at ERC in fiscal year 1966. There are, therefore, only 13.5 vacancies, or 0.4 of 1 percent of total employment, to be filled over 18 months for all other purposes. This represents less than half of the agency's normal monthly turnover rate.
INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF SPACE PROGRAM
Question 2. What arrangements exist between the Soyiet Union and Jodrell Bank? Does the U.S.S.R. pay Jodrell Bank for services rendered in tracking? Answer. Dr. Lovell has said that the Soviet Union has on certain occasions furnished him the frequencies used in their lunar and planetary probes, thereby giving him an opportunity to track them. We know of no financial or other arrangements between them. Question 3. With what countries does the Soviet Union have international agreements on space tracking, installations, etc.? Answer. The Soviet Union does not, to our knowledge, maintain an international network of tracking or telemetry stations. Volunteer moonwatch and other optical observations are done in the bloc countries and elsewhere, but such a net probably has little operational utility. Examples of Soviet activity in this field are (1) their announcement last September of a 9-day course in optical tracking techniques for bloc scientists at Tashkent and (2) the recent announcement in the Cairo press of an agreement between the U.A.R. and U.S.S.R. which provided that the Helwan Observatory would be. supplied with equipment for tracking satellites. There have been some indications that the Soviets are feeling the pressure of U.S. cooperative programs and are seeking to establish some appearance of a cooperative program of their own, although obviously far more limited by the nature of their system. The above report of an optical training school is an example. A further example is the Soviet participation in the international range established at Thumba in India. Here the Soviets have supplied a computer, a shake table, and a recovery helicopter, but no space flight hardware. In November 196.5 representatives of eight socialist countries met in Moscow ostensibly to consider the possibility of cooperative satellite and sounding rocket projects. Also in November, a Soviet delegation visited Paris and discussed with French scientists the possibilities for cooperation between the two countrie::l
38
in space research and applications. On November 30, a Moscow-to-Paris demonstration of the French SECAM color television system took place via the Soviet Molniya communications satellite. Another indication of Soviet eagerness to appear cooperative in space research in a recent announcement in the Swedish press that Sweden and the Soviet Union have signed an agreement for the exchange of lecturers and research scholars in the field of space biology. Whether truly substantive cooperation in actual flight projects will be offered by the Soviet Union, under meaningful conditions of openness, remains to be seen. Question 4. What in your judgment has been accomplished as a result of the agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union on space cooperation, Answer. In the first illstance, N ABA has with some success sought to contribute to the political objective of maintaining channels of communications between the two countries. More specifically, it is reasonable to assume that we have countered stereotype views of the United States in the Soviet Union and impressed an C'iite segment of Soviet society with our constructive interest, openness, and readiness to cooperate. From a scientific and technical standpoint, I would characterize the results of the agreements with the Soviet Ullion as limited but usdu!. In the communications tests with Echo II, the only project completed, the Soviet side observed the critical inflation phase of the satellite optically and forwarded the data to us. The Soviets did not provide radar data, which would have been desirable, but they had not committed themselves to do so. They provided recordings and other data of thE'ir reception of the transmissions via Echo from Jodrell Bank. On the other hand, the communications were carried out only in one direction instead of two, at less interesting frequencies than we would have liked, and with some technical limitations at the ground terminals used. In the project for joint mapping of the geomagnetic field, we are receiving from the Soviet Union data which is equivalent in quantity and quality to the data we are transmitting, but while our data is available in any case, we are acquiring data that was not previously available in the United States. With magnetometer measurements from OGO-II now available, we are in a position to exchange satellite magnetic data, and we have proposed to Academician Blagonravov that U.S.S.R. and U.S. experimpnters discuss arrangements for this exchange in connection with their attendance at the COSPAR meeting in May. In the meteorological project, there has been the establishment of the Washington-Moscow communications link and its use for the exchange of conventional data. The Weather BurPltu tells us that the Soviet side is conforming to the standards and format laid down by the World Meteorological Organization for such exchanges. The United States is sending surface data for more stations than it receives but is recpiving upppr air clata for more stations than it sends. The Weather Bureau believes that the present exchange improves the quality of forecasts by making data available on a more timely basis than was the case before the establishment of the link.
COST OF APOLLO PROGRAM
Mr. WEBB. I think, Mr. Chairman, if I mi~ht say just a word with respect to Senator Smith's opening statement with respect to schedule and cost, I would like to say I do appreciate her recognition of the thought that we have very clearly stated to the Congress since 1963, that the costs of stretching out this progrnm would be about a billion dollars a year. The actions of the Congress which have now, in effect, been ratified by the President, who accepted the benchmark Congress set last year, has reduced over $1,100 million of the program. We are stretched out with respect to the appnlYed progrnm. It ma:v be that we can make the flights on earlier launches, but we still will have to purchase the vehicles that are ill the approyed program. There is going to be a question, Senator Smith, revolving around that somewhat magic figure, which maybe I should say you yourself have contributed to making magic, of $20 billion. I think we are going to have rather interesting discussions of the accounting procedures that might be used to allocate against flights
39
that may take place after the lunar landing and those that took place~ and as to whether or not we ha,e deli,ered the goods at the $20 billion level. I think I can say that the cost of the program which we estimated for you at $20 billion is now about $3 billion beyond that figure, if you take it program by program. Howeo,er, we may be able to accomplish the goal of the programed flights within the $20 billion. W 6 will have a real discussion, I think, as to what the future program will be and how much of what was done to accomplish the lunar landing actually developed other things which should be charged against future programs. For instance, at the Cape, the land we bought for $100 million is not going to deteriorate in value, and the large ,acuum test chambers, in which we ha,e invested about $1,800 million, have real continuing ,alue. You may remember that my first testimony was given, I believe, under questioning from you several months before you asked for the direct detail in the letter. We indicated then that the stretchout of 5 years would involve at least $3 billion, maybe more. Then, when we fumished the detailed answer to your question and your request that the whole detail be put in the record, we clearly indicated that we were saying we could put the two men on the }';Ioon and bring them home within the $20 billion, but that it was very hard back in 1964, which was the time of ~your original request, very hard to esti~ mate what we would do with these resources and what would be required after that. So we preferred to make a general statement rather than to be completely specific as to the cutoff point of the $20 billion. So I think you will find our position consistent, and you will find the approved program has gone up about $3 billion. Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator Anderson. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cannon?
DEFI~ES
SERIOUS LIMIT OF RESOURCES
Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Webb, in your statement, you say thatIn spite of serious limits on our resources, the Space program has clearly moved,. in the past year, from plans and promise to deeds and demonstration.
What were the serious limits on your resources during the past year? Mr. WEBB. 'Well, Senator Cannon-just one moment. I want to find the table here, if I may. H you examine the budget requests of the President for the years 1962 through 1966, a period of 5 years. you find that the President requested $22,144 million and that Congress appropriated $21,024 million. Now, that does not tell the whole story, because we started out with the 1962 recommendation of $1,940 million by the President on a program which was designed to build certain hardware, to use liquid hydrogen in the upper stages of large vehicles, and to move ahead toward the job, but with a flexible approach to changes within that period of time, taking advantage of technology and building very large testing resources on the ground so that we could prove out each step as we went along.
59-941-66----4
40
The request was reduced by about $115 million for 1962, and in 1963 the request of $3.78 billion was reduced to $3.674 billion, so you have a reduction of another $100 million. In other words, Congress was going along with the buildup of the program, but reducing it something over $100 million a year at the same time. In 1964, when we were ready for the big buildup, for the press forward OIl the basis of what we had under construction and of the equipment under contract, we requested about $5,712 million, but Congress appropriated only $5,100 million. 80 in a sense, we have a turning point there, a clear indication that we could not go up to the $5.5 to $(j billion level, a stretch out of the program in time, and a reduction of the level of effort at its highest point. We were thinking when that request was submitted that we could make the lunar landing in late 1967 or early 1968. In 1965, with the strong support of this committee-and may I say very active work by the chairman-a budget request of $5,445 million was reduced to only $5,250 million, against a strong effort to bring the amount under $5 billion. This was where this committee, I felt at the time, did not wish to come back completely from the $5.5 to $6 billion level to something nearer the $5 or $5.25 billion level. But nevertheless, that was done. We are now in a period where, having ratified, in effect, the $5.25 billion level in the President's request for 1966, which hud a very small congressional reduction of something like $85 million, we now are down, with the Presidential recommendation, given all the problems of the world, to $5 billion. It would seem to me that this shows that the program is not being carried out as we had planned it, and that there has been a serious reduction of resources on the money side. The important point, though, is what call we do about that'? It would have been very hard for us, having laid out the things that needed to be done to develop the capability and to make the lunar landing, to start eliminating items in this as long as we had enough money to carryon all of the things that were necessary, to readjust toward all-up systems testing. We did that. This year, I have not felt wise enough to, say, eliminate 10 percent of the things we are going to do in order to create some reserves as against a second failure of the S II stage. So we are still carrying out all the things we have to do with a reduced budget, and until a major requirement hits us to readjust, we will go forward. But there are limited resources on every program we are conducting.
WORK DONE WITHIN LIMIT OF RESOURCES
Senator CANNON. I think what you are saying now is you have been able to do the job within the limit of the particular resources. In other words, you have not had to short out in some of these areas because of the limit, have you? 1\1r. WEBB. We haye had no backup. For instance, when the Agenll failed lltst October, we did not have It backup booster or an Agenu. In December, it WitS only by the most extraordinary innoyution Hnd iIllllginHtion and hard work by 10,000 people th!1t we put up Gemini VI and its Titan a second time and lallnched it in time to rendeznllls with Gemini VII. 1{oreover, it was only because some
41
years before we had developed an engine which we could let run one second and find out why it was not running right. This is too thin ice, in my opinion, for a great nation like the United Stats to operate on in this kind of effort. Senator CANNON. I think it was last year or the year before that we got into a discussion on this, and if I remember,I asked a question whether or not you could efficiently use more resources than you were actually using at that time. Either you or Dr. Seamans, if my recollection is correct, indicated that what you were proposing was the best that you could design in an orderly fashion. Mr. WEBB. I think that is right, but I think it was in a slightly different context. If you would give me just one moment to look in the book, I would like to go back to that quotation, because this is a very important point. I think what I have testified quite consistently has been that we have constructed a machine that has a brake and a throttle and public policy should determine whether we should speed it up or slow it up, that we are not running a crash program, and that we could efficiently use funds within a certain range. Now, time is very important here, Senator Cannon. I think when you asked that question, my answer was that the program would cost a great deal more to speed up, and you would not save much if you slowed it up. But that has to be related to the time I made that statement, which was after the reduction of the $600 million and after we had adjusted ourselves to this lower level and were operating with minimum resources against each item in the program. I could find the exact statement if you want me to take the time. Senator CANNON. In other words, you had already made the adjustment at that time, and you felt that if you had a speedup then, you could not get an efficient speedup in it for the money expended? ~1r. WEBB. To do an orderly plan, to make a major speedup that would guarantee something more than we were going to get out of the present one, would have taken more than it was worth at that time. Senator CANNON. And if I remember correctly, I think you did testify also that if we spread it out further, it was going to cost more. In other words, the indication was that at that time, you were at the most efficient point in the development of the program. Mr. WEBB. That is right. And I think also, Senator Cannon, at that time, we were in the process of completing our ground-testing facilities, which was a very large program, and we were matching the incoming hardware with that equipment. We had to do that before we could actually make another major change in the program and do it efficiently. COOPERATION WITH WESTERN EUROPE-WILL REPORT TO COMMITTEE SOON Senator CANNON. Now, in your statment, you speak of a major new program of cooperation in space technology between the United States and nations of Western Europe. Then you say the administration is moving very carefully, and "we in NASA are acting in full concert with other departments and agencies."
42
What do you see as the role of the Congress in this activity, and when is it appropriate for NASA and the administration to coordinate these activities with the Congress? Mr. WEBB. Senator Cannon, I think we will want to report to this committee and the House committee what we find from the explorations in Europe. The group who went to Europe got back about 6 o'clock last night. I did have about an hour with them to get some indication of how they viewed the situation. I think very soon we will be able to give you a report on the attitudes that they found. I think, basically, though, our problem here is whether the 200, million people in Western Europe and the 200 million in the U ni ted States can take a system which has involved over 400,000 people in the United States, 20.000 companies, and spent 90 percent of its funds outside Government institutions, and learn from this enough so that the total power of these countries continues to move ahead. It seems to me that what 'we have in NATO and other arranzements is not going to be adequate for the next 10 to 25 years. It seems to me that unless the scientists in the universities of 'Western Europe learn tostudy the Sun, to study the planetary system, and to work with technical people, engineers and others, to do the instrumentation that permits them to learn for themselves both the space environment and what can be done and what call1lot be done in this ellvironment, we are going to have real problems here in the United StatBs. If we can find a merging of interests that does not involve military matters-you will notice I carefully referred to nonmilitary space technology in my prepared statement-it seems to me the Western Europeans will be on a much better basis to jndge what is in their own interest and we will be much better able to find out how far our own interest runs with theirs. I think that is basically what the President has in mind-at least, it is what I am going to try to do. I think we ought to report to you fully and completely as we goalong, but I think you must bear in mind that what we are talking about is about an 8-year leadtime on large spacecraft, and that the exploration stage and meeting of minds might take anywhere from 6months to 2 years, itself. Senator CANNON. What you are, in effect, saying is that the role of Congress probably would be, after having this explanution made, to determine whether we are going to go ahead in the authorization and appropriation. Mr. WEBB. I would add to that, Senator. Obviously, if we are going to pay for a booster to launch this spacecraft, the Congress must be involved in the decision to finllnce thllt booster. Bnt far beyond that, I think we need cllreful consultutions between the executive branch and Congress with respect to what is wise, and I think that those of us in the executive branch will learn a great delll from those consnltations, and I hope it would not be taken amiss if I say I believe thllt some of the Members of Congress would also learn from those consultations. I think it has to be Il collaborative effort to really try to find out how we move into the next period, where science and technology Cl1l1 really do big things. If the Europeans were quite anxio1ls to study their own land mass from spllce, there would be a question as to how far we and they would coopemte in helping arrange for their scientists to do that over their own land mass, for instance.
43
SPACE GAP DEPENDS ON BUDGET ACTION Senator CANNON. In your statement you speak of a clear Soviet commitment to a long-term effort and of the importance they attach to advancing their capabilities in space. You say that unless we decide to follow through with a strong program in the years after we have achieved a manned lunar landing, we cannot avoid a gap in our flight schedule while they forge ahead as the unchallenged contestant in the field of space. In your judgment, when do major decisions have to be made if we are not going to have a gap in our space program? ~1r. WEBB. Senator Cannon, part of the decision, a very small part of it, is in this budget now before you. We are preserving in this budget the ability to keep our production lines going if we act promptly on the 1968 budget. Now, I have no way of knowing how the President will evaluate this in his 1968 budget, or how the Congress will receive it. But we are very close now to the line that divides the ability to have continuity in production and the inability to do it, and therefore, a gap. I wish very much that the requirements of the country were such that we couid assure ourselves this year that there would not be a gap. But I accept the fact that this is not doable within the President's budget, and that he has preserved the options for another year. But that decision must be made in 1968, or we will have a gap.
1967
BUDGET OFFERS OPTION TO AVOID GAP
Senator CA~NON. Well, will. the 1967 budget avoid a gap in the launch schedule if we proceed with the 1967 budget as you present it? lvIr. WEBB. It will. not avoid a gap. It will. only hold open the option to avoid a gap in the 1968 action. It does not assure it at all. Senator CANNON. No, it does not assure it, but if we act on it as it is and then take actions that you would expect to recommend in the 1968 program, you are saying that we could avoid a gap, iH that it? Mr. WEBB. Yes. Senator CANNON. And if we do not take the action on the 1967 budget for your long-lead time items here, then we could not avoid a gap. Is that pinning it down a little more specifically on it? Mr. WEBB. That is true. Yes, sir; the engines for the Saturn V are long-Iead-time i,tems. Unless we at least take steps to buy the long-lead-time requirements for those engines, there is no way you could make it up next year. We have something like $40 to $50 million in this budget for items of that kind which is the barest minimum to assure that we have not already precluded the option and guaranteed a gap. SPACE GOALS AFTER MANNED LUNAR LANDING Senator CANNON. Now, have we established any g.oals for the space program to be met after the manned lunar landing? ~1r. WEBB. Yes, sir; we have, in our space science and applications budget, on-going programs that involve further scientific definition of the environment of the solar system. While the program is incrementally funded, this has been accepted from the beginning, very much as aeronautical research and the use of wind tunnels for the
44
testing of airplanes and so forth. Those kinds of continuing goals for clear and precise definition of the environment and further engineering to accomplish it are there. For instance, We had planned to study the solar cycle over an ll-year cycle, and it has generally been accepted every year that we should have enough orbiting solar vehicles to do t.hat. But there are no large on-going programs financed in this budget. Senator CANNON. We have not established as a national goal any specific program other than just in broad general terms th!lt you have related to? Mr. WEBB. Thn,t is right. DECISIONS FOR FUTURE GOAl,S NEEDED SOON Senator CANNON. Now, what happens to our space effort if decisions to proceed on attaining new goals with new programs are not made soon? I am talking now about specific goals rather than this general broad area that you have just defined. Mr. WEBB. I think we are going to lose a good deal of the momentum and the impetus that has driven the program forward if we do not make some decisions as early as we possibly can. I think that-Senator CANNON. 'What do you mean by that, as early as we possibly can'? 1\11'. WEBB. By that, I mean I would hope that the President's budget is completely authorized and completely appropriated for without the reduetion of any percentage. I would hope then that in the discussion of this, both we and the Members of Congress could address ourselves to a better understanding of what needs to be decided llext year. I would hope in the process of the President's budget next year, he would have not only the recommendations from those of us in the executive branch, but some feel of what Congress would itself accept. In some ways, I would hope for the same kind of thing that we did when the lunar program started, when Senator Kerr and Senator Bridges, as well as the people from the House side, came up and talked with the Vice President, Mr. Johnson, along with a number of people who were involved in the decision, and in a way, together, we said, we will go together. Many people said unless we can go together, we had better not make this decision. Now, this has not had to come about since that time, but I think we are getting very close to the fact that a careful examination of the possibilities is required. Senator CANNON. Well, so far, though, you have not come up to the Congress or to the committee, so far as I know, with any proposal along thnt line. When can we expect this type of proposal? Mr. WEBB. I am operating within the budgetary system, Senator; however, I think it has been made very clear to this committee for tl~e l~lst 2 ye!lrS that the possibility of a 'Voyager mission to Mars was wltlnn the known technology. We last year stated to you that we hoped to fund it in 1967. We were not able to do that, considering the total requirements of the budget and the requirements of our other programs. I do not think other possibilities are unknown. We have stated in our futl\l'e programs task group report what can be done with Apollotype spncecraft in synchronous orbit above the Earth, for instance.
45
We made it very clear that while the :Mercury was very limited and the Gemini itself was limited as a single vehicle with respect to the amount of propulsion it has, the mobility of the people in it and the duration of space flights the Apollo was almost unlimited in terms of space-that you had propulsion, that you could stay in synchronous orbits up to 90 days with reasonable small investments in modifications of this spacecraft. We have indicated all of this, and it has been a surprise to me that the country seems still to focus on each man in space rather than on the main issues, which are what new goals are vou going to undertake with this tremendous capability which has heen built up as a result of these expenditures? NEW DECISIONS NEEDED TO PREVENT SPACE DECLINE Senator CA~"NON. Now, without making these decisions of some of these major programs or establishing national goals, when will we see our natIOnal space program beginning to decline in dollars and in man effort and number of launches and so on, assuming we do not make those decisions? Mr. WEBB. Well, it has already declined from an appropriation of $5,250 million for 1965 to $5,175 million for this current year, and to the President's recommendation of $5 billion for next year. Senator CANNON. Well, we still have a national goal that we are working for now. I am saying, assuming we do not make a decision on follow-on of a national to another national goal, when will we expect to see it, and I am talking about a substantial decline, because in terms of your overall program, a decline of $50 million is not very substantial. DECLINE OF
20,000
TO
40,000
PEOPLE POSSIBLE
Mr. WEBB. It is the number of people, really, Senator, instead of the dollars, which will be a more sensitive indication of the decline. We will see a decline at the current plan for operation of, I would guess, somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 people over the next 18 months to 2 years. Senator CANNON. How many was that? Mr. WEBB. 20,000 to 40,000 people working on the program, mostly in industrial plants in the country. Senator CANNON. And what about NASA itself? Mr. WEBB. Well, our own operations, of course, will match the workload. We have about 35,000 people now, civil service employees, working for NASA. That group will show some decline, although I doubt if it will be proportionate to the decline in industry for the reason that we still will be having to support and direct missions. While the contractors are not working against a 5-year lead time for new projects, we will still be flying missions 'with those they have already produced. So there will not be a proportionate decline, but that part of NASA which is responsible for working with the contractors and working against a 5-year leadtime to produce these things will decline. Maybe I had better ask Dr. Seamans if I am on the right track here. Dr. SEAMANS. I concur with what Mr. Webb has said. To expand on it just briefly, we show expenditures in 1966 in the order of $5.6
46
billion, and in 1967, at a level of around $5.3 billion. This is a reduction in expenditures of around $300 million, which is roughly equivalent to 30,000 people. It is this figure that Mr. Webb was bracketing in discussing a reduction of 20,000 to 40,000. I believe myself that this decrease will be much further aggravated in fiscal 1968 unless we can make appropriate decisions as to what the follow-on program should be. STRONG SUPPORT FROM COMMITTEE Senator CANNON. Well, now, Mr. 'Webb or Dr. Seamans, you referred to the fact that this committee had a main question to decide in taking up this 1967 budget. It seems to me that question has already been decided, that the budget yon have presented here does not propose any new programs. I am sure that yon would agree that this committee has given you very strong support over the years. I am wondering actually what you refer to there as the main question that this committee must wrestle with this year, because I am wOlldering if you are inferring there that perhaps we should initiate or put in a new program this year, or just simply say, "well, we will go along with the idea that we are not going to have any new programs in the budget this year." Mr. WEBB. No, sir, Senator, what I was really thinking about when I wrote those words was that any reduction here in the President's recommendations must come not ont of these programs that are moving to the flight stage, but out of the long-karl-time items that would prevent a gap in the line. Dr. Seamalls and I t'tUlnot, as a matter of administrative decision, adjust to a congressional cut by keeping in the long-lead time items that will affect the years after 1970 and eliminating things we need right now in order to execute presently approved flights, and any rednction in the long-lead time items is going to automatically produce the gap. Second, as you consider the question as to whether you want to authorize and appropriate the full amount requested by the President, I think you certainly want to give some consideration to what you would do with these resources where you are making sure that a gap does not take place. It seems to me you wonld really have to look at what you would do with these resources, and that helps pave the way for 1968. These are two crucial years with respect to the future. FISCAL YEAR
1967
FUNDING OF LONG-LEADTIME ITE:\IS CRUCIAL
Senator CANNON. It would seem to me that perhaps 1968 would be more crucial than this year, would it not? Mr. WEBB. If you eliminate the funds that are required for the long-lead time items, you cannot make them up in 1968. They must be bough t this year, or you are going to have a gap, which will probably be at the minimum a year, and the costs will go up very substantially as you dismantle production facilities and then try to reestablish them again at some future time. Also, Senator, reliability tends to go down when you do that, too because the leadtime to achieve reliability is very long. Furthermore, when the men who have to do this job are done with the learning period, the costs go down and reliability goes up, but when you start that learning curve over again, you have tremendous problems.
47
SOVIET'S BOOSTER THRUST ESTIMATED AT
MILLION POUNDS
Senator CANNON. In your statement you talked about the Russian launches and you said they launched two proton satellites, the heaviest in the world to date, revealing a new launch vehicle with capabilities about double those of the booster they have used up to now. What are the estimated weights of those satellites and the estimated thrust of the new Soviet space booster? Mr. WEBB. Well, the largest devices that they have flown are generally understood to be about 15,000 pounds, up until they flew these proton satellites. They are generally estimated at about 27,000 pounds in orbit, with a booster giving between 2Yz and 3 million pounds of thrust. Senator CANNON. Two and a half to three million? Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir. Senator CANNON. Do you have any estimate of growth that you would expect to see in that new booster that they have started to use now in terms of payload, or do we not have enough information to base an estimate on that? Mr. WEBB. Dr. Seamans says he would like to say a word. Can he do that, and then I will put in my view? Senator CANNON. Yes, sir. Dr. SEAMANS. By comparing what we have been told about this booster with our own experience, remembering that our Saturn IB has a thrust of approximately 1.6 million pounds and a capability in orbit that can grow to 35,000 to 40,000 pounds, you can see that the Soviet capability can go beyond that, inasmuch as they have a thrust at takeoff that is estimated to be 2.5 to 3 million pounds. We estimate that they will be able to place into orbit with this launch vehicle, if they go ahead and develop the upper stages, on the order of 50,000 pounds or more. Mr. WEBB. If I may add one word to that, you will remember the rather extended discussion of the question of whether we should make a direct flight to the Moon with a NOVA-class vehicle, or whether we should try to rendezvous in Earth orbit and proceed from that to lunar landing, or adopt the method we have adopted. The first attempt to bring about a rendezvous between Gemini VI and VII shows you that rendezvous permits the building of payloads in Earth orbit of any size required if you wish to invest in the boosters and develop the ability to launch during precise windows, which is required for rendezvous. My own view is that the Russians will not be limited by booster capability for anything that they choose to try to accomplish in space; that they have built into their systems sufficient options for payloads so that they can select those that are to their greatest advantage; and, that they will have the booster capability to put those payloads where they want to put them. I do not think you are looking at a limit based on this 2.5 to 3 millions pounds. Senator CANNON. Do we know the type of fuels they used in this last booster? Mr. WEBB. I do not believe I ought to comment on that in an open session, if you do not mind. Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Jordan?
48
Senator JORDAN. Going on a little with this colloquy you had with Senator Cannon, do you suppose the Russians are spending a comparable sum to the amount we are expending in space?
SOVIET SPACE GOALS
Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir. My view is that they are spending within 65 to 90 percent in comparable costs-that is, man-hours and material and work-and that this is a much larger percentage of their gross national product than we are now investing. But the efforts are roughly comparable in terms that money usually measures. Senator JORDAN. Do you think their emphasis is on different goals than our goals? Mr. WEBB. Senator, I think they are nearing the time when they must select specific goals if they have not already made the selection. I do not know what they are. But whatever goals they have chosen as of now, they have the built-in capability for many other options so that there is little that they would like to accomplish in space or would choose as being to their advantage that they could not derive from their present on-going program. My own view about their goals, which is not an official Government view, is that they are going to use this capability and the stimulus of this development of space, which has been the most successful thing they have done, to advance their cause, looking toward the domination of the world. Whatever goal they believe will most nearly ad vance that cause, they will adopt. I think one of the very important things that is showing up is how the image of moving toward the future is affecting Soviet youth. They do not have too many things to inspire youth and to make them believe tlmt they are living in a system that is going to do great things in the future. This program is one of the most valuable elements in Soviet society today in that regard. With respect to industry, it certainly seems to me that they are using the developments that they have in this program to work toward innovation, toward adopting new methods, and toward getting rid of some of the shackles of the past in their industrial system, and that they expect their advanced science and technology here to, in a sense, drag the rest of the economy upward. It is their main capability. Now, this would mean they would probably be adopting some pretty spectacular things, on the hasis thut if they can do that, they can surely do all the other things that they require for their industrial buildup oyer a number of yeurs. Senator JOlWAN. It is quite obvious that their program has been much less diversified than ours. Mr. WEBB. No, sir; I do not belieye that is so, Senator. When you look at Cosmos 110, they have made in the last year about twice as many flights as we have. If anything, their program is more diyersified than ours is right at the momen t. Senator JOHDAN. At the moment? Mr. 'VEBB. Yes, sir. Senator .JoRDAN. But as to overall objective? Mr. WEBB. We were more diversified than they for a long time and accumulated a lot of information about the space environment. They now clearly see the necessity for this, and they are out to get
49
the precise measurements that will enable their engineers to design and develop a spacecraft that is very efficient in this environment . .At the moment, their effort is very heavy and large in this direction. NASA'S EXPENDITURES OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT Senator JORDAN. Turning to another matter, what percentage of NASA's expenditures are spent outside of Government, in industries, at universities, and private research organizations? Mr. WEBB. We have used an average figure of 90 percent. Last year and some prior years it ran above 90 percent. By some rough ~alculation, you could get up as high as 93 or 94 percent. In either -case, it is a very large proportion. We are with a central management group which works with the scientists in a uni,ersity. We have not created a single off-campus facility for scientific research. The CHAIRMAN. Is there not one at Boston-Mr. WEBB. This is a NASA center, Senator Anderson, and we are not doing the kind of scientific research done at universities. 'Ve have kept this on campuses, but we have enough capability within -our centers to work with scientists. Senator JORDAN. Could you give us further breakdown of the percent of the expenditure that goes to industry and the percent that goes to universities in research? Mr. WEBB. The expenditures that go to universities run between :$120 and $150 million, on that order of magnitude. The expenditures that are spent with the aerospace industry run a little over $2 billion, and those to the electronics industry run a little under $2 billion. I am speaking now of 1965 figures, whlch is the latest full year. CONTRACTING POLICIES Senator JORDAN. Of the expenditures that go to industry, what percent of those expenditures are you able to let out on a competitive bid basis? Dr. SEAMAXS. We have been increasing the level of the competitive negotiations that we have been carrying out. If I am not mistaken, the last figure was 62 percent. The CHAIRMAN. On a bid basis? Dr. SEAMANS. I am not now talking about advertised bidding. Senator JORDAN. I want three categories here: the published -specifications "ith advertised competitive bids, one category; the incentive, the second category; cost plus, the third category. Dr. SEHIANS. Most of the advertised bids, which are sealed bids ",ith the contract going to the lowest bidder, are primarily for con-struction of facilities. Research and development does not lend itself well to this type of procurement. This runs around 10 percent. The figure that I was presenting to you refers to negotiated competition; that is, where we go out and will have 10 or more companies coming in with proposals and where the Administrator will make a determination as to which companies should receive an opportunity for further negotiation and final contract definition. Senator JORDAN. And what percentage do you ascribe to that? Dr. SEAMANS. That is the 62-percent figure.
50
Senatqr JORDAN. Then, on strictly cost plus, the old cost-plus contract-Dr. SEAMANS. I cannot break it down in terms of percentages, but we now are up to approximately $2.2 billion on an incentive basis, and we have under negotiation at this time on the order of $450, I believe, to $500 million to put on an incentive basis. The amount of contracting on a cost plus has gone down dramatically in the last 2 years. I believe in 1966, it is running on the order of $50 million. Senator JORDAN. This is very good progress. The Secretary of Defense testified before the Joint Economic Committee not too long ago that when it was possible to move out of the area of cost plus into competitive bidding or negotiated competition, the savings were substantial, in the order of 20 to 30 percent in some instances. I think this is very fine progress you are showing here. NASA EXPENDITURES OVERSEAS What percentage of NASA expenditures are made overseas, outside of the United States? Dr. SEAMANS. It is a very small percentage. The operation of our tracking stations is carried out on primarily a contract basis to a number of companies. Of course, these are, in the main, U.S. companies, but their personnel are paid, of course, overseas where they are working. This does provide some very small amount of gold flow outside of the country. But we are not contracting for major services outside of this country. Senator JORDAN. Probably less than 1 percent, would you say, Doctor? Dr. SEAMANS. I believe it is much less than 1 percent. Do you have that, Mr. Shapley? The estimate here is that it is in the order of $30 million. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NASA AND JPL Senator JORDAN. I see. Thank you. Mr. Webb, it has been suggested that NASA should acquire the JPL facilities and dissolve what is called the unusual relationship which exists between NASA and JPL. Is there anything unusual in the relationship between NASA and JPL? Mr. WEBB. Senator Jordan, when NASA was formed, following the 1958 act, it took over certain governmental installations that were operated as civil service installations, like the von Braun group at Huntsville, and added those to the on-going NASA installations. Now, following that, a number of installations were established. They have all been established 11S civil service governmental centers. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory was operated by the Army under contract with the California Institute of Teeimology. We have continued this as the one installation that is not under the formula of civil service operation. There are several reasons for this. First of all, we think it is a. healthy thing to be able to compare this kind of operation with our own, say, Goddard Space Flight Center. Second, it is always difficult within a period when you are carrying out projects like Ranger and Mariner to make a major change. You have here a large number of
51
people who are working there because they are employees of the California Institute of Technology, rather than civil service employees of the Government. I would say overall, this arrangement has been definitely to the benefit of NASA, although they have not been too happy with our requirements and we have not been too happy with their method of operation in a number of instances. I think we have straightened out many of the difficulties and are on a very sound basis now to get the most out of the dollars spent in lunar planetary operation through JPL. JOINT MANNED SPACE FLIGHT COMMITTEE Senator JORDAN. Thank you. Mr. Webb, earlier this year, NASA and the Department of Defense signed a memorandum of understanding establishing the Joint Manned Space Flight Committee to coordinate the Manned Space Flight program of NASA and DOD. Will you explain this new memorandum of understanding, its purpose, the reasons for it, how it functions relative to aeronautics and the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board? :Mr. WEBB. Senator Jordan, the head of the Defense Engineering and Development in the Office of tl}e Secretary of Defense, Dr. John Foster, is a cochairman of this new Committee with Dr. Seamans. Maybe you would like to hear Dr. Seamans, since he is cochairman and has supervised this work, give his view. I can give mine, but I think you will get it more directly from him. Senator JORDAN. I would like it if the chairman would permit. The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Dr. SEAMANS. As you have said, we have the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board, of which Dr. Foster and I are Cochairmen. This is divided up into some seven panels which cover a wide variety of different areas where NASA and the DOD require coordination, and I believe we have developed a very effective relationship. With regard to Manned Space Flight, we felt that this was such a singularly important area and where, as you are aware from your recent hearings, there are some special security problems, we should set up a special committee somewhat separate from the AACB, with the same Cochairmen, Dr. Foster and myself, and with two members each from NASA and DOD. It is the purpose of this Committee to review the total Manned Space Flight effort of both agencies. This includes the Gemini and Apollo of NASA and the Manned Orbiting Laboratory of the DOD. We are examining all three programs from the standpoint of how can we get the most out of them and how can we mutually best support each other's program. We are looking at the various requirements for support services, such as ships and tracking stations and simulation devices, that are required by each set of projects. We also recognize that the importance of the manned program is, in large part, to carry out good and useful experiments, and in a very broad way, we review these objectives at this committee level. However, when we get into the details of the experiments to be carried on, we have set up a Manned Space Flight Experiments Board, which
52
Dr. Mueller chairs and which has both NASA and DOD membershipr to look at the specific experiments to be carried on on Gemini, Apollo" and the MOL. Mr. WEBB. May I add one word, Senator Jordan? Senator JORDAN. Please. Mr. WEBB. This illustrates another point, namely, that when we have difficult things to do, we try to involve our top people in it on the basis that you need to raise to the highest levels those things that need to be decided most urgently. Through all of the work that Dr. Seamans and Dr. Foster do, they will find out any ambiguity in the main problems. We are, ourselves, handling certain of the early procurement of the Gemini for the Air Force. They handle a lot of procurement for us on the Titan boosters, the Atlas, and other items. So this committee not only reviews these programs, but is the means by which the senior people who can take aGtion are kept constantly aware of the emerging problems, even in the development of the hardware--its modifications, the tests, and so forth. Dr. SEAMANS. I would like to make one other comment, Senator Jordan. The NASA representatives on this Committee that you asked about are, in addition to myself, Dr. Mueller, who is in charge of our manned flight program, and Dr. Newell, who is in charge of our space flight. science and application, feeling that these are the two particular areas to consider in carrying out our manned flight operations. Senator JORDAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the new memorandum of understanding be made a part of the record at this point. The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. Senator JORDAN. Thank you. (The document referred to follows:)
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF 'l'HE ADMINISTRATOR,
Washington, D.C. Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense; the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Subject: Manned Space Flight Policy Committee. We have agreed that it is necessary to provide an expeditious means to coordinate, at the policy level, the manned space flight programs of the Departm.ent of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Accordingly, we are submitting herewith for your consideration a proposed memorandulll of understanding which would establish and delineate the functions of a Manned Space Flight Policy Committee to be cochaired by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, DOD, and the Deputy Administrator, NASA. This memorandum would supers('(le the agreement of January 21, 1\)63, which established the Gemini Program Planning Board. The necessary approval of the Director, Bureau of the Budget, for the establishment of this proposed cochaired committee, as required by Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-63, dated March 2, 1961, has been obtained. Subject to your approval of the proposed memorandum of understanding, we nominate tile following as additional members of the committee: Mr. DaniPi .J. Fink, Deput.y Director, Defense Research and Engineering (Stratep;ic and Space SpiteIIlH), DOD. Dr. Alexander II. Flax, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Research and DeveloplIlent), DOD. Dr. George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, NASA.
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 196'1
53
Dr. Homer E. Newell, Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA. Approved:
JOHN C. FOSTER, Jr., Director, Defense Research and Engineering, DOD. ROBERT C. SEAMANS, Jr., Deputy Administrator, NASA. ROBERT S. "McNAMARA, JAMES
E.
Secretary of Defense.
WEBB,
Administrator, NASA.
~fEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. AND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION CONCERNING THE MANNED SPACE FLIGHT PROGRAMS OF THE Two AGENCIES
1. Purpose The purpose of this memorandum of understanding is to establish an expeditious means of coordinating the ::\lanned Space Flight programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DOD). It supersedes the agreement of January 21, 1963, entitled "Agreement between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense concerning the Gemini program," which is hereby canceled. 2. Constitution of Committee It is agreed that a NASA-DOD Committee, to be known as the ~fanned Space Flight Policy Committee, will meet at fairly regular intervals to consider matters described below in this memorandum. The Committee "l\ill be composed of the Deputy Administrator of the NASA and the Director of Defense Research and Engineering of the DOD, acting as cochairmen, and two additional members from each agency who will be approved by the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the NASA. S. Functions of the Committee Acting in accordance with the policy guidance of the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the NASA regarding the conduct of the programs of their respective agencies, the functions of the Committee will be-(a) To resolve those matters concerning the mutual participation in and support of the manned space flight programs of the two agencies which cannot. be resolved at a lower level. (b) To arrive at agreements involving top policy determinations. (c) To facilitate the exchange, at top management level, of viewpoints and information of importance in the coordinated planning of the Manned Space Flight programs of the NASA and the DOD. 4. Management responsibilities Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed as affecting the established management responsibilities of either agency. 5. Procedures l\Ieetings will be informal, but with the advance pf!~paration of a simple agenda. A brief memorandum will be written following each meeting for the purpose of serving as a record of decisions and agreed upon future action items. ROBERT S. McNAMARA, JAMES E. WEBB, Secretary of Defeme. Administrator, NASA. JANUARY 14, 1966. JANUARY 11, 1966.
Senator JORDAN. That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Seamans, I think you had better start your testimony and we will come back to the questions afterward. Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Chairman, I have several questions f0r Mr. Webb.
The
CHAIRMAN.
Mr. Gehrig.
54
SPAcn IMPORTANT TO BALANCE OF POWER Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Webb, I would like to ask a couple of questions, and in addition to that there are some other questions. I shall just give them to the reporter to put into the record, and you can answer them later. Going back to the question that Senator Cannon was discussing with you in your statement, ;you say, "* * * we cannot avoid a gap in {lur flight schedule * * *" wIthout decisions that cannot be delayed beyond the period of the fiscal 1968 budget-Dr. Seamans also refers to this in his statement. Now, this morning, there is an item in the Washington Post that quotes the Budget Director as saying that if our commitment in Vietnam should exceed this year's $10.5 billion, then" appropriate fiscal action" would be taken which would include, among other things, "a cutback in nondefense spending." Now, the question that presents itself is if it looks like the commitment in Vietnam will exceed $10.5 billion, then this would seem to indicate that the decisions we were talking about for the fiscal 1H68 budget would not be made. How should that affect the action the committee takes this year on the fiscal year 1967 budget? Mr. WEBB. Well, Mr. Gehrig, I have great respect for the Director of the Budget. He is certainly an outstanding man, but I do not believe the President of the United States is going to reduce this program for the reasons given. My yiew is that if we find that kind of a situation in Vietnam, we should, if anything, speed up the development of science and technology in aeronautics and space; that continuum that exists from the smfllce of the Earth outward, bt'cltllse it would certainly mean that the power of this N atioll, in a world situation where the technological balance of power is certainly one of the most important indicators of what is going to happen in the future, should be built up in these fields. Our capability for action should be built up rather than reduced if we are getting into that kind of problem in Vietnam, and I am not an expert on Vietnam. SPACE GAP HARMFUL TO WORLD POSITION Mr. GEHRIG. Well, I am thinking to the time when the committee must take this bill to the floor. There are quite a few millions of dollars in the bill that provide for long leadtime items on the Apollo Applications program and some other programs. If people are of the opinion that the decisions to continue such programs next year would be negative, then this might have an impact on what is done this year. Mr. WEBB. Well, I would hope the impact would be for this committee to take the leadership to express the importance of going forward with them and say that the argument that Congress should not support them because, on an iffy basis, we might have some fiscal action that affects the future is not the proper way to make this kind of a decision. I think we ought to face up to the fact that we must not have a gap if we mean to maintain our position in the world, and ~he way not to have a gap is to appropiate for these long-lead-time ltmns. If later, the executive branch takes some action, comes back to the Congress for action that reduces them, I would face that issue at the time, but I would not do it on an iffy basis.
55
UNITED NATIONS PROPOSAL Mr. GEHRIG. In relation to the discussion between the United States and Western European countries for cooperation in space, part of the thrust of your answer was to the difficulties of this kind of cooperation on very large programs. Now, I note that on September 23, 1965, Ambassador Goldberg suggested in the General Assembly of the United Nations that they begin work on a comprehensive treaty on the exploration of celestial bodies. On December 18, he repeated that and said that "Within a few years, the need for a treaty governing activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies will be real. My Government plans to present a definite proposal as to the contents of such a treaty." I wonder if, in the context of your discussion with Senator Cannon, you would discuss this proposal that Ambassador Goldberg made in the United Nations? Mr. WEBB. I would like to furnish that for the record. (The information referred to follows:)
We believe that a treaty regulating activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies is a logical step in detailing the obligations imposed by the Declaration of Legal Principles adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 13, 1963. The negotiation of such a treaty is, of course, the responsibility of the Department of State, and we believe that the Department will wish to explain for itself how it views the role of Congress in this activity. NASA's international and legal offices are, of course, assisting State in this area.
~Ir. GEHRIG. ~h. Chairman, we also have a series of questions here that we would like to have asked for the record, and I will just give these to the reporter. The CHAIR\IAN . Very well. That will be done. (Questions submitted by the committee to Mr. Webb and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
PRODUCTION OF LARGE LAUNCH VEHICLES
Question 1. :\Ir. Webb or Dr. Seamans: In recent months there has been a great deal of discussion about maintaining a production capability for large launch vehicles pending a determination of firm post-Apollo missions. What is NASA doing either separately, or in conjunction with DOD, to reduce th(' number of vehicles and thereby the manufacturing facilities committed to maintaining a reasonable vehicle production capability? For example, could the 8-II stage be substituted for the S-IB stage of the S-IB vehicle? Also, to what extent has NASA examined methods of reducing unit costs of continuing launch vehicle production if it is determined that future requirements require a lowl'r annual production rate? Has any thought been given to using the Titan III-C instead of the Saturn IB launeh vehicle after the launch of the 12th Saturn IB? Answer. NASA and the DOD conducted a joint study and evaluation of all the launch vehicles in the national launch vehicle stable. In the large launch vehicle class only the Titan III-C and the Saturn IB were of comparable size. It was concluded from the study that it was desirable and in the national interest to continue with the use of both of these vehicles. NASA is continuing with studies of its own on methods for uprating the Saturn launch vehicles and for possible adaptations such as use of an S-II stage in place of an 8--IB stage. These are feasibility type studies and there are no current plans to proceed with developm('nt of the added performance capability since mission requirements for further capability do not exist. There are two current efforts which relate to this question. The first is the MSFC vehicle cost reduction effort which is aimed at reducing the cost of the Saturn launch vehicles independent of production rate in which all aspects of manufacture, test, support and standardization are being reviewed to identify
59-941-66--5
56
areas where costs can be reduced altd to develop methods which will achieve this reLilleLiull. The second effort is a series of launch vehicle cost studies presently in progress. "Gnil cost estinmtes at various rates of production are being developed. Here, through identification of those areas of cost which are rate sensitivp, an understanding of Ow cost production rehttionsllips will be reached. A full understanding of the jJroblc~1ll will make it possible to identify and attack those sensitive areas where program changes should be most effective ill cost reductioll. A number of studi('s have been conducted examinillg the feasibility of using the Titan lII-C for Apollo missions in place of the Saturn lB. Tlwse studies have indic:tind the d('~irability of continuing the nSf' of the Satnrn IE for snch missions. For pxample, adaptation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Titan III-C wonld require a substahtial expenditure to integrate the sp:teee)",iJL with the launch vehicle. Snell au expenditure has already t)('en made ill intpgral ing the Apollo with the Saturn lB. A numher of Illlresolve(1 engineering probl('IllS also remain to be sulv('d wiLh rf'g:trd to tli(' f('[tsiilility of adapting tIl(' 1;3-foot diamdel" Apollo spacecraft to tIl(> 10-fool. cliallll'll'r Titan III -C (ilw to tI", excess rtialll~tcr of the payload ov(,r thtt of til(' Jatllle!l v(",i<'l('. FurU[('r, UtI' lowe, payload capability of tIll' Titan TII-(; \\"(lIlld 8P\"('I"('ly l'l'du(c tlw Apollo Illis~ioll capability.
En'lcIE:\CY OF ::\L\l';NED Al'OD UNMANl'OED SPACE FLIGHT
Qupstion 2. Has NASA ill\"('stigated and studied the efficiency with which fuuds are spent on unmannnd space flight prognlllls verSllS manned space flight programs in term", of useful scientific and technological data returned'? What are the results? Answer. The NASA flight program is structured to take maximulIl advantage of th(' canabiliti('R iTl htllld or Illlli('r dpYf'loplllf'nl in thn accomplishment of the total agency mission. Agency objpctives in science and technology are met by the most suitable syst('l\1, whptlwr it Ill' malllied or unmanned spac('craft or groundbased investigation. Space science data requiring long duration flight for sp('eializ(,d instrulllelll:lt ion wlH're the pres(,llce of man dol'S Hot [ldd to the f'xp('rinwnt have hecn, find aft' now Iwing, carried Ollt. with IInmfinnpd spacpcraft. Oil the o! hl'r hand, wlll're til(' prinl'ipal ohj('e( of ex])('rinwnta tion is Illan himsPlf and his ability to o)wmt(' in the envirOllnwnt of space, \\'hpl'e it. is important to k:lrn whut limitntio"s are imposed by the ellvironlllent, it is clear that JIllllllWd spacp luissions ,If,' J"('ljlli,"d. SincI' our nUlJ'llet! :mel Ilnlll:tll1l('(1 flight lIli~sion object in's han' Iwpn clearly different, tlwre It:ll:; b"l'lI ItO Heed to attelllPt cost effectiveness trade-off studies between tlJP two. The same holds trll(' ill the tHell of the technology being broadly developed around the cOllntry U11(1(~I til(> impetus of the space program. Unmfinned spacecraft instrumentation, ,,ith its requirements for reliability, lightweight ficcuracy, and flexibility have reqllired the devplopment of valuable techniques in miniaturization, electronics, and tpst methods. ~1anned space systems, with their requirements for man-rated boosters of large siz(J, life support systems, multipleabort modcs, and realtime mission control are creating new technologips in thcir related fields. Srientifie experimpnts carried on manned spacecmft have been included on a noninterfp]"('ncE', mission-of-oppor! unity basis and have not represnntpd the basic justific:tt ion for the flight, which has be('ll the fundamental ohjPctive of d('\"doping a total manlled capahility ill space to be dpll10nstrated hy ll1amwd lunar exploration within the decade. Question :3. lIas N AHA Htmlied the mix of manTled and unmanned lunar missions needed for the period aftpl" the first manned lunar bnding? What is the optimum mix of manned and unmanned missions for various kinds of lunar exploration effort.? Answer. NASA has not as ypt studiPfI thp mix of mfinned and unmanned lunar miRsions, subseljuPllt to the first IlUlllllf'd lunar landing, in sufficient depth to define the re!ativp roles of PlIch in a cOlltinlling lunar exploration activity. The premilllllPd lunar bndillt.: Sunp~'or and Orbitpr missions have elparly ddined rpquirem('llis that. relate (.0 Apollo. Lun:lr exploration missions that follow the first Apollo manl1ed lUllar hnrling do not h:\\(, nny fiscal year 1967 budget. implication hut will It a\"(' their ini1 inl lmdgc'i. illlpact in fben! ypar 1!JGS. Thus, the agPlley has not had n IlPpd as ypt to dpvdop a firm position on the mix of nmunPlI and unmanned lunar l'xploration flights. Rtudips underway will aSRist in dpvPloping such a position for fiscal yP:lr 1965. In the light of the IUllar data return expected from Suneyor, Lunar Orbiter, and
XASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
57
Apollo flights we are examining the nat.ure of follow-on lunar exploration activity, including the means of implementing the projected program. The results of these studies will assist us in identifying the "optimum mix," of manned and unmanned missions for follow-on lunar exploration.
LARGE 1\iANNED SPACE STATIONS
Question 4. It was recently reported that NASA is studying a large 20- to 30man space station that would be used both for laboratories and a basis for manned planetary expeditions. 'Vhat is the nature of the activity in NASA on such large manned space stat.ions? Has the agency arrived at any fundamental position which would emphasize large stations rather than, say, a smaller six-man orbiting research laboratory? What is the earliest date that you envision such larger stations would be put into orbit? A.nswer. In our study of advanced system concepts and their feasibility, we have analyzed a broad range of space station concppts including both the 20- to 3D-man station and 6- to 12-man space station through contracted and in-house studies. Within the context of our continuous review we are looking at the 20- to 3D-man station and its utilization for future manned space flight. At the present time our contractual study effort is orient,ed toward smaller space stations in the 6- to 12-man range. Xo. During the last year and a half NASA's in-house and contracted study activity has emphasized a station in the 6- to 12-man rangf'. These studies presently indicate that a station in this size range could satisfy our initial post AA.P experimental requirements. Configurations of this size could also provide, if desired, thE' flexibility of ha"ing stations in different orbits; for example, one in a high-latitude orbit and one in synchronous orbit. Present studies have not yet defined missions requiring stations beyond the 6- to 12-man size. rntil such missions can be defined it is not possible to forecast any confident operation dates for larger stations.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE ACTIVITY
Question 5. l\ir. Webb, what role does the Department of Stltte play in NASA's negotiations for international space cooperation with the Soviet Academy of Sciences? When the State Department negotiates agreements in the United Nations, what contribution is NASA asked to make toward these negotiations? Answer. At the direction of the President, the Administrator of NASA is responsible for pursuing the negotiations with the Soviet Academy of Sciences in consultation with the Department of State and other interested agencies. The Department concurs in all proposals and agreements, and representatives of the Department are present during thc actual discussions.. When the Department of State negotiates agreements in the United Nations, it does so in consultation with NASA. It calls on ~ ASA for technical advice, and NASA personnel, particularly Dr. Dryden before his death and l\Ir. Frutkin, the Assistant Administrator for International Affairs, have served as delegates and U.S. representatives on behalf of the State Department at various U.N. deliberations in the space area. The X ASA General Counsel and his deputy have also taken an active part, particularly in the deliberations of the Legal Subcommittee of the U.N. Committee on the PeacefullJses of Outer Space. . Question 6. l\lr. \Vebb, has NASA prepared any reports on the legal problems of air space and outer space? All countries exercise the right of overflight in orbit. Does the United States consid(>r it has that same right during the preorbital phase of the flight? "Yhat is the policy of the United States on overflight of foreign lands during the prf\orbital flight phase (launch phase)? Answer. NASA had funded two studies of the law of outer space. Both studies have been undertaken bv the American Bar Foundation. The first, for which the project reporters wer-c Nicholas Katzenbach and Leon Lipson, was isslled in October 1960, and is entitled "The Law of Outer Space." The second study is underway at the present time, and the proj('ct reporters for the American Bar Foundation are Prof. Harold Taubenfeld of Southern :\Ieihodist University and Houst.on Lav of the foundation. With the possible exception of Grand Bahama Island, NASA programs do not involve the "overflight" of foreign territory, unless, of course, a mission aborts or a launching is otherwise defective. The term "overflight" means flight through
58
the air space of a subjacent state. In fact, NASA space vehicles do not traverse foreign territory, short of an abort situation, until the space vehicle has attained a height of at least 200,000 feet (over 35 miles), again with the possible exception of Grand Bahama. Although no precise definition of where outer space begins and the air space ends has been agreed upon, there would be little contest that 200,000 feet (over 35 miles) is in outer space. Since the principle that outer space is free for exploration and use by all and is not subject to national appropriation (or national sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control) has been unanimously adopted at the U.N., no agreement from a subjacent state is required before its territory can be traversed by a space vehicle in outer space. The abort or orbital decay situation where fragments might enter a subjacent Rtate's airspace and impact the Earth gives rise to two questions currently the subject of negotiation before the U.N. (the Legal Subcommittee of the Outer Spac!' Committee). One question relates to liability for damage caused by the return of objects launched into outer space, the other involves the obligation to return such objects. Under the Declaration of Legal Principles unanimously adopted by the U.N. on December 13, 1963, states are internationally liable for damage caused by objects launched by them into outer space. In addition, the declaration provides for the return of such objects found beyond the limits of the launching state. Although the detailed conventions on these two subjects have not been fully worked out, the declaration establishes clear principles regarding liability and the obligation to return. The United States considers that these principles are in fact expressions of international law and are binding. To insure that the Department of State is fully apprised concerning any international implications of NASA launchings, NASA regularly briefs the Department in advance concf'rning launchings for the succeeding 2-month period. These briefings include information on trajectories and any passage over territory prior to injection into orbit. In vi(~w of the foregoing, it has not normally been necessary to enter into agreempnts with fordgn countries covering overflight by NASA space vehicles. However, we aw informpd b.v DOD that the long-range proving grounds agreements wit h t Iw United Kingdom do cover the matter of overflight of these islands, which includl', of cours!', Grand Bahama Island. Question 7. Mr. Wpbb, with rpgllrd to our international space activity your paper treats at WIllP length our relationships with the Western European nations. What of our rplat ion~hips with other nations such as our good friends to the north, Canada, and ollr good friends to the Far East, Japan, and our friends to the south '? AnHwpr. As for Canada, NARA has already launched two topside sounding ionosph!'ric sntellites instrumented, fabricated, and funded by the Canadians. Our pre8pnt agreement calls for the launching of three more ionospheric satellites rluring the present solar cycle. We have an agreement with Canada for conducting communications experiments via satellites, and Canada expects to have a ground station ready this year capable of both narrow band and television experiments. In 1965, we npgotiated an agreement for the continued operation of the Churchill Research Range at Fort Churchill in Manitoba, especially suited for scientific rocketry in the auroral zone. Unrler its terms, the National Research Council will take over operation of the range from the USAF, and NASA wiII become the U.S. cooperating agency. With Japan, six sounding rockets have been launched in a cooperative ionospheric research project. NASA satellites have served for cooperative communications experiments with a .Tapanese ground station, and you recall the live television coverage of the 1964 Olympic games. Japan expects to have a ground station ready this year for direct readout of ionospheric data from NASA and Canadian topside sounders. We have repeatedly told Japan that we would welcome proposals for more extensive Japanese-American cooperation. In Latin America, we have ionospheric and meteorological sounding rocket projects with both Argentina and Brazil. Agreements with Argentina and Brazil provid(' for the establishmpnt of an inter-American experimental meteorological sounding rocket network (Exametnet) with launching stations in a north/south chain through the Western Hemisphere. We look for participation by other American countries. (~u(,Rtion 8. Mr. Wpbb, what is the status of our agreement with the Soviet Union to exchange satdlite weathpr information? AnswPf, A useful pxchange of eonvpntional (nonsateIlite) data takes place twice daily ovpr a Washington-Moscow communications link financed on a shared-cost basis. The fact remains that almost a year and a half after the
59
communications link was established in expectation of an imminent exchange of satellite data the Soviets have not yet produced such data. However during discussions in New York in October 1965, Academician Blagonravov :.eported that Soviet satellite data would be available on a continuing basis within a few months. Obviously, a continuing delay will require reconsideration of the value of the link as it now exists. Academician Blagonravov also recognized in October that ~>ur existin~ agreement c~s for coord?nated l~unching!l of. meteorologicai satellites and saId that he anticIpated no dIfficulty In coordlllatmg orbits. Although a polar orbit will not be available for the first Soviet weather satellite Academician Blagonravov indicated that the Soviets plan to go to the pola; orbits required for this program.
APOLLO FUNDING TO JANUARY
1966
Question 9. Would you please furnish for the record the total amount of money authorized, appropriated, obligated, and spent on the Apollo program to January 1,1966. Answer. Prior to fiscal year 1964, authorizations for R. & D. did not contain separate program identification below the appropriation level. It is, therefore, not possible to identify explicit authorizations for the Apollo program. Similarly, appropriations for NASA are at the R. & D. appropriation total with no identification of the specific programs for which the funds are appropriated. It is, therefore, not possible to identify specific appropriations relative to the Apollo program. Within the appropriations a vailable to NASA, $9,749,905,000 has been allocated to the Apollo program through fiscal year 1966. As of January 1, 1966, $8,524,151,000 of these moneys were obligated. As of the same date, $7,294,529,000 has been expended. Question 10. What is your estimate of the rate at which funds will be required during the next 4 years? Answer. The rate of fund requirements for the NASA program is directly related to the objectives selected and the new projects initiated in pursuit of those objectives. If no new major projects are initiated during the next 4 years, the current program now underway is carried through at its present level and on its current schedules, we estimate that the NASA fund requirements for fiscal year 1967 through fiscal year 1970 will total something over $16 billion. The costs of initiating and carrying out new projects during this period would increase this estimate. Question 11. Is the cost of the Apollo program increasing beyond the $20 billion estimated in 1963? Answer. As pointed out in response to Senator Smith's question on page 8 and by Mr. Webb's discussion on pages 35,38, and 39, current estimates for the total Apollo program of 12 Saturn IB and 15 Saturn V launches with the associated spacecraft and operations costs through fiscal year 1970 are conservatively targeted at $22.7 billion. This estimate is based upon the assumption of no follow-on program being initiated to utilize the on-going production, engineering, and test capabilities, the launch and operations facilities, or the research, development, and management capabilities of the manned space flight centers. The $20 billion estimate detailed in March of 1964 assumed a major follow-on effort and, in addition, did not reflect the subsequent program stretchout made necessary by the reduction in resources available for the Apollo program. Question 12. Have any unforeseen probleIns and delays during the conduct of the program resulted in sharp increases in cost? Answer. As in any major R. & D. program, unforeseen technical problems have arisen in the execution of Project Apollo. Up to now the majority of these have been solved without a major impact upon the schedule for the manned lunar landing. Individual cost increases have occurred but, within the total estimate to completion, are in general offset by reductions. The phasing of costs across time has been affected by the schedule stretchout which resulted from reductions in prior year budgets; this stretchout is estimated to have resulted in a total increase to the overall program cost of $650 million. Question 13. Have higher wages and prices caused an increase in the cost of the program? Answer. Since the inception of the program, there has been a small but steady increase in nearly all wages and prices associated with the program. While some portion of this has been included in earlier estimates, accurate projections in this area are difficult to make. The wage and price escalation factor can become especially important when necessary work must be postponed or when the total program is stretched out, since an incr('ment of work delayed 1 year may cost as as much as 3 percent more than it would have had it been executed earlier.
60

GEMINI FUNDING
Question 14. 'What was the cost pstimate of the Gprnini program at its initiation? Is your fiscal year 1966 budget estimate of $1.3 billion for thp total Gemini program still good? If not, what and how much change is expected? Why did the Gemini program costs increase so sharply? Answer. The initial estimate for Gemini, prior to complete program definition, was approximately one-half billion dollars awl was based on an extrapolation of data then being developed in the first. 1; .S. manned space flight program, Mercury. The spacecraft envisioned at that time was not as sophisticated and versatile in operational capability as the Gemini spacecraft now being flown. In 1964, subsequent to firm program definition and specification, the Gemini estimate was !'stablished at $1.3 billion. Rince 1964, this estimate has remained stable and we have en'ry confidence of tompleting the Gemini program within this total. ApOLLO l' non HA M Question 15. Is the Apollo program-i.e., the actual task of landing a man on the Moon and returning him to Earth-turning out to be more romplicated than you estimated or more simple? Answer. The Apollo program, as conceived 6 years ago, involved an unprecedented management effort as well as a highly complex technical effort. Every effort was madc in thc original planning and organization to cope with these tasks. The management task marshalled a tcam of hundreds of thousands of people in Goyprnmcnt-opprated field centers and contractor facilities toward achieving our ultimat!' goal. It has been a monumental task. Y pt, our management concepts have been sound, and our efforts are being rewarded by keeping our program on scht'dule and wiLhin the estimated costs. From a tpchnieal standpoint the Apollo program has continually met the optimistic milnstOllCs whieh hav!' been planned. Although there have been setbacks during the tp('hni('al development of i\u('h items as booster engines, spacecraft f('action ('ontrol SystPIllS, and LH 2 /Lox stagps, we have been able to overcome thpsp probkms qllic'kly by focusing manpowpr and teC'hnical compet!'nC'y on weak arcaH as t Iwy \\"Pl"(' i(\pntified. The succpss of mnet.ing and solving problmm; in our Raturn I fligbt program and en/!:illP /!:rolllld firing test program gaye us great confidence in successfully accomplishing the upcoming flight test program on the uprated Saturn I and \" space vchicks. From past experience it is anticipated that as problems develop in the oncoming program we will be able to solvc~ them in a timely manner. The Apollo program space operational concepts have been proven in part by the succ('ssful manned Gemini fli/!:hts, ancl we have every confidence that we are pursuing our efforts in the right direction. We want to emphasize though, that the Apollo program has been and is predicated on a continual successful completion of program milpstones. Any unfor!'seen major catastrophe could impact on our pro/!:ram schedulps and funding. 'Ve havc found that our task, so far, has turnerl out to be about as we ('xpected, and we are confident that our goal of landing and returning a man from the Moon can be achieved in this decade.
SOVIET SPACE GOALS
Qupstion 16. Coulf\ you giye the commit.tee your thoughts (or find out for the committpp) what Ollr best infonnntion is as to the Rovid space gonls with respect to the Moon? Are they trying to land on the 1\loon? Did thpy at one time have a /!:oal for landing a man on the 1\loon and abandon that goal? . Answer. On Hw basis of this reconl lIn(l such other eyidence as is available, It should now be entirPly clear that thc Ho\"il'ts haye a continuing major commit~ent to a lon/!:-tenn, large-scale progl"Llm in space. All signs indicate that we WIll be seeing more and larger ~ovi('t operations in space this year. Considering all the ('Viflence, t.iH're is little room for douht that their program does, or certainly could, ineludC' an aUmllpt, to land men on the i'vloon and plans for It large lluJI\lwr of m:lIlnpd and lIlUnannec! flights in Earth orbit. qllC'~tioll 17. 1)0 you tl'link t\w Rllssians have abandoned for til(' time being :1\\ attl'n'pt, to n'\I(\p,"volls two spacpcraH in orhit? :\IIS\\"('J". 111 tlw Iil!,ht of the vpry aggressive lind far-reaching Rovipt, Rpacc dIort., it, iH vpry 1I11likdy that, they have ahan(IOlwclall plan8 to ignore t.lw (\pvuiopIlIt'nt of orbital n'lHle"voltH tecliniqllPs. 'Vith tlH'ir proven Hpacecmft, ancl lalln~h ,"chide capability, the Soviets could hl' looking to rendezvous as a kl'Y factor III
61
a.ny really large or important manned space mission, pither in Earth orbit or at. lunar distances. Qm'Stion 18. Do you think that the Soviet 'Union instead of trying to land on the Moon first, will send men to fly around the :\loon-a circumlunar mission'.' Answer. A circumlunar flight is well within th(> t.echnological capability that the Soviet Union has demonstrated in its space program. The splpction of such a mission objective by the Soviet Union would reflect the values that they stress among the many that flow from an effective program of tPchnological development. If, in their judgment, an early circumlunar flight would sen'e their interests then it is quite likely that they would program such a mission.
IMPORTANCE OF ApOLLO MANAGEMENT
Question 19. Mr. Webb, on page 12, and again on page 14, the second last paragraph, you speak of your system of management. Do you regard the development of the capability to manage a program as large as Apollo a significant fallout of the space program? Would you discuss the importance of learning to manage large programs such as the Apollo to our national strength and leadership? Answer. To reply to your questions on the importance of what we have learned and what we have achieved in the space program with respect to the management of large programs, it is desirable to begin by placing our management problems and efforts in historical perspective with those that preceded and conditioned them. In 1939, the last year before our buildup for World War II, our gross national product was $80 billion and the defense budget about $1 billion. During World War II we as a nation developed a very real competence in producing ships, aircraft, all kinds of specialized equipment, new items like radar, and, of course, atomic weapons. At the end of the war, we gave consideration to the organization of our efforts in atomic energy, in science and technology, and also had the problem of organizing certain other large efforts such as the Marshall plan and the military assistance program. And then we had to organize to fight in Korea. Later, after we knew the Russians had learned to make atomic weapons and ballistic missiles, WP bpgan a major effort to prod\\('e missil(>s of our own and to bring into play the strengths of our universities and industries through the largescale combination of science, technology, engineering, and management. This effort was accelerated with the Russian sputnik success, but with an important new departure--the various activities related to aeronautics and space research and development which were not required for military operations or research and development to meet military needs wen' brought together in a new organization, NASA. The assimilation into ~ASA of t.hese activities, each wit.h its own ongoing programs and diverse methods of management, had hardly ~pn completed when the Russian success with Gagarin brought the :\lay 1961 decision to embark on a 10-year program to devplop prepminpncp in space basPfi on an even more vigorous application of the method that had proved succpssful before; namply, a large-scale effort involving scipnce, tpchnology, enginpering, and management. The decision was made to utilize American industry to the fullest extent possible and to encourage the accomplishment of the scit'utific research on t.hp campuBf's of universities in close associat.ion with gractl.late education. A real effort. was made to meet the requirempnt in the 195R Space Act. to expand the Nation's capability for scientific and engineering work relatpd to aeronautics and space. In the NASA effort, Dr. Dryden, Dr. Seamans, and I, each from a different background, brought a combined experience which I believe succeeded in developing an effective management system and placed it in a position to insure the derivation of the greatest value from the other three elements-science, technology, and engineering. Under this system, about 90 percent of NASA's dollars are spent "ith industry, a small percentage with universities, and less than 5 percent for direct personal services in its own centers. The relationships between NASA and its contractors, between NASA's prime contractors and their subcontractors !llld suppliers, and between the individual decisionmakers in this complex have been based on three main factors: (1) we have required that the responsible program manger in NASA be qualified technically to make the tradeoff judgments necpssary and also, in addition to his technical responsibilities, to be responsible for both cost and schpdules; (2) we have attempted to insure that the program managers and decisionmakers in NASA are supported by highly qualified technical organizations fully&.responsive to them, at the NASA centers; and (3) we have stressed the
62
necessity for rapid and effective decisionmaking based on both individual competence and the development of judgment at each level of management in the system. An illustration of how these factors have been integrated in the actual management of the program is our requirement that on each contract of major consequence members of a source evaluation board must report their evaluation of the various contractor proposals to the senior officers of the agency in person and must be prepared to support in person their judgment as to the effectiveness of the methods undpr which the evaluation was conducted, the actual conduct of the process of evaluation, the results which came out of the process, and the qualifications of the contractor proposers to do the work within the cost and technical requirements. The senior officers of NASA, in the past Dr. Dryden, Dr. Seamans, and myself, then made a thorough examination of all these factors through questioning of the members of the board, evaluated all special factors to be taken into account in the negotiation or administration of the contract; and decided the award. This has meant that each person dealing with a contractor's proposal knew that the decision would go to the highest levels of the agency, that his own judgment as to the methods used and the results achieved would be brought into question, and that he would be required to support his actions and the results of his work. He also knew that he could, in turn, evaluate the judgment of the three senior officers of the agency because all facets of their decision could be scrutinized by all those below them who had participated in the source evaluation process. The fact that we have learned-with techniques like this and many othershow to manage effectively a program for which over $20 billion have bpen appropriated and effectively obligated within 5 years, with every unit working in the program becoming stronger as a result of its participation, and with our ability to manage the effort continually improving is, I believe, an extremely important value which the country has received as a result of the N ABA space program. More and more large systems, such as the Government and commercial communication satellite systems, the operational weather sat<>llite system, and the commercial supersonic air transport system, and others, are becoming feasible because of our national efforts in science and technology. Management must keep pace and constantly evolve to makp such RYRtl'mR possiblp and make them effective. The management experience and methods developed in NASA have real significance in this regard
POLICY FOR INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATION
Question 20. Mr. Webb, what is the policy framework in the executive branch of the Government for U.S. activities in international space cooperation? Answer. The policy framework which governs the executive branch in pursuing international cooperation in space is that provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which makes clear that Congress intended that U.S. space activities be carried out in cooperation with other nations. In following this injunction, we have sought to maximize international participation in, and contributions to, all aspects of our program-so long as meaningful, substantive activities could be dcfined, consistent with our own national objectives, valuable to the cooperating countries as well as ourselves, and with a truly cooperative rather than foreign aid character.
RELATION OF SPACE PROGRAM COST TO COST OF OTHER PROGRAMS
Question 2l. "lhat answer would you suggest to those who are disenchanted with the space program and who charge that the United States is wasting billions of dollars on their manned lunar programs and other space programs, and that we would be better off to spend that money on some of the pressing problems we have here on the ground? Answer. A strong national effort to explore and use space is essential to our security and to our position of world leadership. The technological balance of power and the capacity of the United States for effective leadership among the nations of the world depend in large measure on continued progress in our space program. If we did not have a strong, ongoing space program, the Soviet lTnion would be the only major space power in the world today and would have the uncontested opportunity to use space for whatever purposes it wished-and perhaps even to deny other nations the ri!!:ht to explore amI nse space. Moreover, an active Soviet space program, and relative inactivity on our part, would bolster the Soviet argument that only communism can mobilize the scientifie and technological resources necessary to meet the great challenges of the 20th century.
63
Our national space program bas been carefully planned to protect us against technological surprise in space and to demonstrate to all the determination and capacity of the United States to lead in all vital fields of modern science and technology. Our space program is meeting well these high priority needs today. Nothing else that we might do could replace the space program in developing the new technology, equipment, personnel, and operating experience needed to keep the Soviet Union from effectively using successes in space to help spread communism throughout the world. We are also getting many other valuable returns from our investment in the national space program, including new scientific knowledge; practical benefits such as those produced for all mankind from our weather and communications satellites; unique experience in the organization and management of large-scale research and development programs which is being drawn upon to help solve many problems facing modern society; and a general quickening of the Nation's pulse as we respond to one of the greatest challenges ever laid before any generation. In this connection, it has been pointed out that if the stimulus of the space program and the new knowledge and the new technology it produces lead to no more than a I-percent increase in the gross national product per year it will be paying for itself in full. The space program would be a sound investment in progress even if there was no significant international competition. But the strong bid made by the Soviet Union for space leadership ever since the late 1950's does have an important influence on the urgency and the scope of our effort. So long as the Soviet Union continues on its present course in space, a major American investment in space exploration and use is not only prudent and productive, but absolutely essential to our security, peace, and freedom, and therefore deserving of the highest priority in the national interest. When asked whether we can afford to continue making a major national effort in space, the only answer we can make, after careful consideration of all the possible consequences, is that we cannot afford the much higher cost of lagging behind the leading Communist power in this vital new field of human endeavor. The tremendous advances we have made in our current program, and the great capability we are building for future progress, may lead some people to forget what it was like to be behind, as we were at the beginning of the space age; but no one in a position of responsibility in the Nation today can fail to weigh the dangers and the lost opportunities and the extra costs that would result from falling behind again.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman, before Dr. Seamans proceeds, I think I should tell the committee, with the greatest degree of concern and sadness, that we have just had a crash in St. Louis and two astronauts were killed. l We have decided to withhold their names until their next of kin have been notified, but this will have some effect on our program and is one of the kind of things for which we have to maintain a capability for flexibility. The CHAIRMAN. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) The CHAIRMAN. Will you proceed, Mr. Seamans, to read your statement?
STATEllENT OF ROBERT C. SEDANS, JR., DEPUTY ADIIINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADJIINlSTRATION
Dr. SEAMANS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in my testimony today I would like to discuss NASA's fiscal year 1967 budget request in terms of the decisions which led to its formulation, the implications of those decisions in the process of drawing up the program plans for fiscal year 1968, and the directions toward which we are looking in the future as they are affected by these decisions.
I
Elliott M. See, Jr., snd CharleS A. BBlISett IL
64
NASA AUTHORIZATIOX FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
I would also like to submit for the record folll' prepared statements on se\'eralareas in which your committee has shown interest, without reading them at this time. (See p. 84.) Dr. Mueller, Dr. Newell, Dr. Adams, and Mr. Buckley, the Associate Administrators who carry a major burden of responsibility in the planning, management, and execution of the :NASA program, will discuss in detail the specifics of the authorization request now before you; each is an effective and proven mannger of resources and an effective proponent for a key element of our national aerollautics and space progrnm. The il,1lthorization request before you totals $5,012 million, $163 millioll less than was appropriated to NASA last year. Of the total, by far the largest element is for research and development; we are requesting $4,246,600,000, It sum $265 million lower than our current fisc ILl year 1966 operating plall, to continue our current programs in mhnned flight, space sciences, satellite applications, aeronautics, advanced research and technology, tracking and dltta acquisition, and technology utilization. We are requesting $101,500,000 for construction of facilities, the necessary investment in laborn,tories, research facilities, and launch complexes to cnrry out the total NASA mission. For administrative operations, we are requesting $663,900,000 which is an increase of $52 million over the fiscal year 1966 operating plan; we must cover here the costs of additional personnel at ERC, KSC, and GSFC, as well as the effect of the pay raises and our increased needs for service contractor support.
FISCAL YEAR 1967 REQUEST REPRESENTS STRINGENT BUDGET
This aut.hori,mtion request represent.s a very stringent budget, renlisticltlly gem'ed to the total situation thn.t the N n.tion faces in fulfilling its commitments in Vietnn.m and in moving n.heltd at the same time with essential domestic progmms. It is particularly stringent in the light of the vast and complex undertaking entailed by our objective of national preeminence in all fields of aeronn.utics and spn.ce. There hn.ve been many difficult decisions to make in shaping the NASA program for fiscal yen.r 1967 within the constraints of the totn.l budget. As Mr. Webb indicn.ted, we have given up, for this year, the opportunity to start major new projects we felt should be recommended. We hn.ve sought, but have been unable to follow, the best n.dvice of the scientific community as to the directions in which we should focus our capabilities. Promising areas of research n.nd development will not be supported fully nnder level-oI-effort constmints. Bluntly put, we have deferred unt.il fiscal year 1968 the final major decisions as to the ultimate direction of NASA's progmm. The fiscal year 1967 budget maintains the momentum needed to reach those decisions.
BUDGET REFLECTS PRIORITIES OF NASA
PROGRA~I
We n.re presenting the budget that reflects 0111' best balanced provision for four essential priorities, priorities which must rn,nk together as the core of the NASA progrn.m: The need to press forward the development of the Nation's capn.bility for mn.jor Manned Spaee Flight opera.tions, to be demonstmted by a I1lI1I1ned lunar landing within this decade.
----------
XA8A AUTHORIZATIOX FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
65
The need to continue those important projects in space sciences and "pace applications that ar!3 al~eady underway and that have already made such valuable contnbutIOns to our fundamental understanding of the universe and to the use of space systems for human benefit. The need to maintain the flow of advanced research and technology effort that is at the heart of the Nation's ability to undertake future projects in aeronautics and space explorations. The need to take certain steps now to avoid an otherwise certain gap in our future space capabilities and achievements. I will now discuss each one of these four elements. Within the constraints of a $5,012 million budget plan, we have proyided for these priority needs-but have provided for none of them at the level of support we would deem most desirable.
MA~NED
SPACE
FLIGHT
SCHEDULES
We are this year beginning the first real flight activity in Apollo, starting with suborbital and Earth-orbital tests with the Saturn I-B. The first suborbital mission, Apollo-Saturn 201, was successfully conducted last Saturday, February 26, as was discussed here this morning. By next year, we expect to have tests of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the operational booster for the manned lunar landing. In all, the Apollo program includes development, procurement, and launching of 12 Saturn I-B and 15 Saturn V vehicles with their associated manned spacecraft. Chairman ANDERSON. Off the record. (Di",cussion off the record.) Dr. SEAMANS. The fiscal year 1967 funds we plan to allocate to this effort ",ill, we believe, be sufficient to maintain the schedules needed to carry out a manned lunar landing and return before the end of the decade-if we encounter no unforeseen problems. This is the problem :\fr. Webb. spoke of. As you know, there have been unanticipated difficulties in the past but our very able manned space flight team has been able to solve them or work around them up to now without a major impact upon the program schedules. We are committed to the concept of all-up systems testing which, if successful, provides more data per flight mission and therefore reduces the total number of missions required to qualify and prove the reliability and effectiveness of the entire system. However, a failure of a major component would require a profound reassessment of onr working schedules and of onr ability to meet the announced deadline for the manned lunar landing. We have no margins of t.ime or of resources to counter the effects of setbacks or failures. We are working toward a success schedule, and we feel that. our confidence is well placed: the Saturn I flew 10 flights without a failure; we have successfully completed the Apollo abort. tests; we have launched Apollo-Saturn 201; we have fired all the stages of the operational Apollo vehicles; our management team and management approach have demonstrated their effectiveness. But it is unlikely that we conld stand another S-II stage failure during tests, for example, and reach our current targets. There is no leeway left, and, as \ye enter into this next phase of heavy flight activity, we will require full support, perseverance, and dedication to achieve our goals.
66
SOME PROJECTS TERMINATED
This past summer, the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences undertook a detailed study of the directions to which NASA should look in the future, both near and long term, in the realization of its potential for the scientific exploration of space. In several critical areas, the fiscal year 1967 budget cannot meet the high expectations and rapid rates of progress recommended by the Board. Specifically, the Board recommends development of the Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory for continuous observations of the Sun during the period of the solar maximum. Faced with budget constraints, we had to make the difficult decision to terminate the AOSO project and not continue the spacecraft design effort into the next phase of flight hardware development. The Board recommended, over the long term, a major increase in emphasis in our programs of planetary exploration. The key to this recommendation was the assumption that we would be undertaking missions to Mars in the early 1970's, using the Voyager spacecraft system for planetary orbiters, probes, and landers. The Board felt that an automated biological laboratory landed on Mars should have the highest NASA scientific priority. In the 1967 budget, we are stretching out the Voyager program and allocating funds only for the continuation of the system design. If we are able to initiate a major effort on the Voyager program in fiscal year 1968, there is the possibility that we could meet the 1973 Mars opportunity with a landing capsule; however, the magnitude of the task encompassed by an automated biological laboratory appears to defer that mission to the period after 1975. In general, the Board recommended a significant increase in our level of activities in the space sciences: in general, we have had to cut back and reduce our level of activity in fiscal year 1967 considerably below that currently underway in fiscal year 1966. However, we are able to continue with the important projects that we have underway, such as our astronomical, geophysical, and solar observatories, the Explorer satellites, the biosatellite, and the lunar Orbiter and Surveyor projects.
ADVANCED RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
The third area I wish to emphasize is advanced research and technology. The advanced research and technology effort of NASA, that includes our support of aeronautics, is fundamental to the future of the national program. We have been able to maintain a broad but restrained level of effort in most of the areas of concern. We have, however, had to reorient several promising projects away from hardware or end-item goals toward lower key technological investigations. For example, we have terminated the M-1 engine development; we are, however, maintaining an energetic program in investigation of high-energy, liquid-fueled engines. The work on the SNAP-8 system is now projected at a slower pace. 'We are maintaining a low level of effort in the large solid motor area. By contrast, we are able to show a total increase in the level of resources applied to aeronautics over last year; although the R. & D. increment shows a decline, we nre recommending a major facility project at the Lewis Research Center
67
that will give us a full-scale capability for research on supersonic jet engines. Viewed overall, our advanced research and technology program is receiving minimal funding; further cutbacks or further reductions in the level of resources applicable to this investment in our future would require a great readjustment of our total program planning assumptions. Unless the critical elements and techniques of the future are under development today, the engineering tools for decisions on the feasibility of future projects are missing. The F-l engine, for example, was initiated in 1958 as an advanced technology project; in 1961 the F-l engine development was proven to be a critical factor in the planning of a Saturn V launch vehicle capable of sending men to the Moon.
MAINTAINING OPTIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES
The fourth point I wish to mention relates to our maintaining options for hardware that we are presently developing and to our need to avoid creating, through lack of adequate application of leadtime resources, a major hiatus in program activity. In the program of planetary exploration, for example, we have instituted a Mariner mission aimed toward Venus in 1967 and a heavier, more sophisticated Mariner mission for Mars in 1969. If in next year's budget we are able to support a Voyager 1973 Mars mission, these two intermediate missions will have provided continuity and important new scientific data in the program area stressed most forcibly by the Space Science Board. In the area of chemical propulsion, we now plan one additional firing of a half-length 260-inch solid-rocket motor at increased thrust levels-this assumes the utilization of an already fired case. We hope we can thereby preserve the option of undertaking full-length motor development if warranted by the results of the phase I program.
APOLLO APPLICATIONS
Perhaps the most critical gap that we face is in the area of manned space flight. The Apollo applications effort, recommended for funding at a minimum level in fiscal year 1967, represents another major decision to defer until fiscal year 1968 important considerations affecting the future of the program. As you know, Apollo is much more than a manned lunar landing effort; it encompasses an important program of scientific and technological experiments and tests and, most important, is providing a wholly new capability for a wide spectrum of space flight operations. It is the exercise of these capabilities of the Apollo-Saturn systems for new missions of scientific and technological illlportance that we are calling Apollo Applications. In the last half of fiscal year 1966 and during fiscal year 1967 we will define those new and useful missions that will be able to take advantage of unique opportunities provided by the capabilities of the developed and available Apollo flight hardware. The Apollo Applications effort represents that next family of major manned flight missions which we expect to be recommending for approval and authorization in the coming years starting in fiscal year 1968. We believe that the Apollo Applications work is of critical
68
KASA AUTHORIZA'froX FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
importance since it is necessary to any further definition of a new major goal comparable to that of Apollo itself. In the application of Apollo systems to new missions in addition to initial manned lunar landing, we believe we will develop the hard facts, identify the major problems, and be able to outline a course of action Rssociated with the next major steps of space exploration. There are three basic elements to the Apollo Applications effort that we foresee: We believe we can improve the basic Apollo space vehicle capabilities with minor modificntions to extend the manned time in orbit from 2 weeks to 45 days and longer-I believe up to 3 months. We can pro(~ure additional Sp!lCecraft and launch yehicles for new, or followoll, missions beyond the time frame of the current Apollo schedule; that is, adding to the 12 Saturn I-B's nnd the 15 Saturn V's that are already under procurement. The CHAlInIA~. Off the record lust a moment. (Discussion off the record.) Dr. SEA!\IA~S. Third, if the progrnm can be carried out Along the lines of our most optimistic s('hed\llin~, m' will find that, \\-ithin the approved and programed Apollo schedule, there are up to nine vehicles that can be used for alternate missions in the period 1968 to 1970. I would like to stress two points: First, while there is a possibility that some hnrdware from the appro\-ed Apollo program mny be made Ilvailnhle for alternate missions-and it is therefore prudent to phm for its most effective use-at, the same time, we must remember that \\-e nre todn.V only at the heginllin~ of u major lIe"- pro~rnm ,,"hi('h will require the best nse of our resources, and the highest lltltIlugement and technological skill,." and which mny yet pro\"e to require the full complement of vehicles now programed. ~ecolld, although we are planning to keep options open for a smooth transition from Apollo to Apollo Applications, we kno,,- that we will not be able to exercise all of these options at once nor at their fullest rate because of resource limitations in fiscal years 1966 and 1967. The task before us, then. is one of definition, particularly the identification of the scientific and technological experiments and operational missions that require the presence of man in space; it is this planning that will be at the heart of the decisions taken for the fiscal year 1968 program. To recapitulate, then, the priorities of manned space flight, space sciences and applications, advanced research and technology, and program continuity are very tightly balanced within the framework of a $5,012 million budget. Any setback, any lack of support will assure that at least one of these priorities cannot be met.
FUTURE LIES IN FIRCAL YEAR 1968 DECISIONS
The future of the NASA program lies in the decisions for fiscal year 1968. At that time, we must ('onsider the full-scale initiation or Project Voyager, the unmanned planetary spacecraft system whose first mission would be the 1973 Mars opportnnity. At that tim~, we must consider full-scale initiation of Apollo Applications miSSIOns, based upon the selective definition efforts now underway. At that time, we must consider increases in the levels of effort of selected program areas where important work has been deferred.
69
We cannot look today toward the initiation of a permanent manned space station, or a lunar base, or projects for manned planetary exploration; our operational, scientific, and technological experience will have to mature further before we could make such a reeommendation. However, it is becoming clear that in fiscal year 1968 the Nation must begin to choose among the major options that the NASA program has prm'ided. I believe, as the chairman indicated in his January 27 letter to Mr. Webb, that in the year ahead, we must identify the major meaningful objectives that will serve as the national focus for the years to come. I will not speculate today on what those objectives might be; but I feel I can say with some assurance that if such goals are not chosen, then this major and totally new element of national power for creative use, this intricate and successful structure of flight systems, production capability, test and launch facilities, and dedicated men will haye to be disassembled, ,,'asting the opportunities for its application to the wider objectives of space exploration. Fiscal year 1967 we see as a period during which we can plan, define, and select; fiscal year 1968 must be the year of choice. The CHAIR~rAN. There has been a change in schedule & bit and they have a quorum on the Senate floor and we have ~u to meet. Off the record. .. (Discussion off the record.)
M-l EXGINE
The CHAIR:'Lo\.N. In your statement you say that we are maintaining an energetic program in the investigation of high-energy liquidfueled engines. On December 3, 1965, Mr. Webb wrote the comInittee of the decision to terminate the M-1 engine development and proceed with the pursuit of this new program and he said that NASA would reprogram some of the M-1 funds made available to NASA last year. The Congress, in authorizing the .M-1 funds last year, specifically stated that if such funds were not used, they were not to be reprogramed. I, as chairman, asked that you not proceed with that program until you discussed it with the committee. I would like to put into the record the correspondence on that. (The documents referred to follow:)
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS MiD SPACE ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, Washington, D.C., December 3,1965.
Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Science8, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We have recently requested and received apportionment of $2 million of fiscal year 1966 funds held in reserve by the Bureau of the Budget for application to the phasing out of the M-1 engine project along the lines that we described to the Congress in our testimony during the last session. It is my desire to acquiant you ",ith our reasons for this decision and to outline our proposals for further work in the advanced liquid propulsion area. The ~I-l engine project was initiated in Hl62 to develop a large hydrogenoxygen upper stage engine that could be used in post-Saturn launch vehicies. No specific requirements for such launch vehicles have been adopted. J 01 the absence of such requirements a thorough review has been made of the basic technological contrilmtions that could be expected from continued effort va the l\I-1 project as compared "ith research on other liquid propulsion concepts. The concepts incorporated in the 1>1-1 engine are now several years old and still more advanced concepts, promising perfor;nance ad\'antages over the M-1 engine approach, have recently become apparent. These newer concepts can be explored
70
in smaller scale and, hence, at lower funding rates than would be necessary for efficient continuation of the M-l work. We have, therefore, concluded that the M-l engine development should be terminated after uncooled thrust-chamber tests, now underway, are completed. This phaseout will be consistent with the plan presented to the committees during the last session of the Congress. Because of problems and delays in the fabrication of injectors, the M-l thrustchamber testing schedule is presently several months behind that contemplated at the time we concluded that the project could be phased out within fiscal year 1965 fund availabilities. In order to insure that significant technological results will be in hand prior to termination of the project, we have recommended, and the Bureau of the Budget has concurred, that $2 million of the fiscal year 1966 funds being held in reserve be provided for completion of this test program. We will now notify the contractor, the Aerojet-General Corp., that upon the expenditure of the available funds the M-l project will be terminated. We have further proposed that early work be initiated to explore and develop eertain of the newer, advanced concepts that appear to hold great promise for high-energy, liquid engines. The two concepts being considered are (1) the toroidal combustion chamber with regeneratively cooled nozzle, and (2) the twostage high-pressure combustion chamber using advanced cooling and a conventional bell nozzle. These engine types offer advantages over current engines of conventional design in that when used in conjunction with the plug nozzle exit configuration they will provide improved altitude compensation; more compact structural arrangement, and lower overall engine system weights. Both engines would use oxygen-hydrogen propellants. It is proposed that the concepts bc explored at the 200,000 to 300,000 pound thrust scale in order to utilize presently available equipment and test facilities. In addition to research and development of components, it is proposed that investigation be accelerated in the areas of cooling, materials and fabrication methods, propellant injection and combustion characteristics at high pressures, and nozzle flows in order to supplement the advanced engine work. NASA has recommended that this advanced, high performance engine technology effort be initiated with $3.5 million of the fiscal year 1966 funds presently being held in reserve. If approved and supported by additional funds in the fiscal year 1967 budget for continuation of the effort, we will initiate this activity through contracts that will be open for competition within the industry. I would emphasize that the plans outlined above, except for the $2 million testing extension of the M-l contract prior to termination, will require additional funding in fiscal year 1967 and subsequent years to accomplish their objectives. Their execution along the proposed lines is contingent upon inclusion of sufficient funds in the fiscal year 1967 budget to warrant their initiation. As for the SN AP-8 and 260-inch solid rocket motor effort, both of which are in the same category as the M-l, we are still reviewing the possible avenues of activity open to us and have not yet come to a final determination. Trusting that this will meet the needs of your committee and with much respect, believe me, Sincerely yours, JAMES E. WEBB, Administrator. DECEMBER 17, 1965. Mr. JAMES E. WEBB,
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C.

DEAR JIM: I appreciate your letter of December 3 outlining the termination plan for the M-l engine project and your thinking on the initiation of a new effort on high-performance engine technology. I noted with considerable interest the extensive technical review which NASA has made of its high performance engine technology program which apparently underlies your present determination. In reviewing your letter two questions occllr to me: First, what is the relationship of your proposed program to the DOD program outlined to the committee by Dr. John S. Foster, Director, Defense Research and Engineering, in his letter of October S, 196.5? Dr. Foster's letter appears on page 361 in the committee hearings on national space goals for the post-Apollo period. The coordination of N ASA- DOD spnce efforts is, as you know, of great intr>rcHt to the committee. Secondly, YOIl will recall that the fiscal y<'lLr 1966 funds authorized for the M-l project were reserved by the Congress solely for that purpose. In reading
7I
your proposal to allocate $3~ million of fiscal year 1966 1\1-1 funds to a new high performance liquid engine technology program it is not clear how you will proceed under that restriction. Is such allocation contingent upon authorization of additional fiscal year 1967 funds by the Congress so that an opportunity will exist to review the new high performance engine technology program in some detail? As you know, this matter is of considerable interest to the committee, and I trust you will clarify my understanding as well as keep the committee advised as the program develops. Sincerely yours,
CLINTON
P.
ANDERSON.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, Washington, D.C., January 7, 1966. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairma1t, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In your letter of December 17, 1965, you raised two questions concerning our thinking on the initiation of additional effort in the area of high performance engine technology. With respect to your first question. Dr. Foster's letter of October 8, 1965, described a national program for advancing the technology in the area of large liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen engines; the additional effort that NASA has recommended to its ongoing chemical propulsion program represents a major step in the implementation of this national program. For 6 years, NASA and the Air Force have been carrying out their respective segments of a jointly planned and coordinated advanced engine technology program. This joint effort has progressed to the point that warrants consideration of eventual breadboard engine demonstrations. The Research and Technology Division of the Air Force Systems Command and the Propulsion Division of NASA's Office of Advanced Research and Technology are responsible for the direction of this work. Their technical results and their joint plans for the future are reviewed periodically by the Launch Vehicle Panel of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board. Excellent relationships at all working levels assure that the work of each agency complements that of the other and that the total effort remains carefully coordinated. With respect to your second question, concerning our plans for the use of fiscal year 1966 funds for this advanced engine technology work, I would like to emphasize the statement in my letter of December 3, 1965, that this effort is contingent upon the availability of funds for its continued support in fiscal year 1967. We, therefore, plan to present the combined fiscal years 1966 and 1967 program for congressional review in the regular hearings on the fiscal year 1967 authorization bill. This will permit full discussion of our proposed program with your committee prior to any obligation of the $3.5 million of fiscal year 1966 funds for additional work in this area of advanced engine technology. With best wishes, believe me, Sincerely yours, JAMES E. WEBB, Admini3trator.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you comment on that? Dr. SEAMANS. I would be happy to. I believe last year you authorized $7.5 million for continuing the M-I engine development. Within this, we have used $2 million to terminate the M-I properly and to get the maximum return for the taxpayers' investment. We are recommending, but we have not yet initiated, the use of $3.5 million for the purpose of an advanced technology program that would be aimed at a large propulsion system using high-energy fuels. We believe that there are a large number of opportunities that we see over the horizon for higher pressures, for toroidal combustion chambers and the like, and we felt in view of the stringent budget, it was better to focus further ahead with our effort than it was to continue with the M-l.
59-941-66---6
72
The CHAIRMAN. You do not regard that as reprograming the 11-1 money? Dr. SEAMANS. We have not reprogramed it, because we wanted to bring this before the authorization committees of the House and Senate before proceeding. It is our hope that you would consider this to be an appropriate use of those funds. The CHAIRMAN. I have put in the record the correspondence we have had about this; the Congress had reason to believe that it would not be reprogramed. Dr. SEAMANS. It has not been reprogramed, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith. S-II STAGE FAILURE PROBLEM Senator SMITH. Dr. Seamans, you said in your statement that YOIl could not stand another S-II stage failure during tests and reach our current targets. I think it would be helpful for the record if you would amplify on that problem so we can understand it a little better. Dr. SEAMANS. I would be happy to. (The information referred to follows:)
On September 29, 1965, the S-II structural/dynamic ground test stage was destroyed while the stage was uncil'rgoing the final major structllral test at Seal Beach. The stage was to have been subjected to a planned load of 140 percent of limit load, the maximum load calculated to bc experienced by the structure und!'r specific operation conditions. Huptllre occurred within 2 percent of the pn'dicted st.r('ss the stage would wiU1Htand, indicating nn optimum strnctural dpHign. As a result of this structural tpst, the dt'Hign of the stage was proven flightworthy as to expected static load conditions. However, it was not the intent to destroy thhl stag(~ but to use it for dynamic testing. Hine!) we were now one stage lighter ill our t{~st program, the question of how the dynamic test program was to be satisfied had to be resolved. After carefully analyzing various possible choices, we finally settled upon a solution which calls for the S-II all systems test stage to perform this task upon completion of firing testing at the lHississippi Test Facility. This solution appears to be the best choice in terms of program risk, because it offers minimum schedule impact, program cost, and additional work. The present S-I1 ground test stages are now tightly scheduled to accomplish the remaining ground tests of the program in support of the first Saturn V flight. Although the possibilities are remote, a catastrophic failure of any of the S-II ground test articles would impact on our early flight schedules since other test articles are not readily available. Analysis of such a failure and the availability of another test stage would determine the length of the program delay for the early Saturn V flights.
REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATION INCREASES Senator SMITH. As you point out in your statement, administrative opemtion has increasetd $52 million over last year's operating plan. How much of that increase is for contractor support? Dr. SEAMANS. Approximately $20 million. Senator SMITH. And how much of the totnl $663,900,000 is for contmctor support? Dr. SEAMANS. I do not believe I can give you that figure here. I can supply it fur the record. "VVe lun'e cOIltl'l1cior support t1t a le\-el of around $::100 million, of which the largest percentage comes out of research and development.
73
Senator SMITH. If we could have a statement on that for the record, it would be helpful, Dr. Seamans. (The information referred to follows:)
The total of $663.9 million includes $127.5 million for object class 25, "Other .ser..-icE's." This object class includes sen'ices perfonr.E'd by contractors and by other Government agencies. The estimate includes $15.2 million for reimbursements to other agencies, e.g., reimbursement to the Air Force for range support .at Kennedy Space Center and reimbur~ement to the Ci ..~il Service Commission for security investigations. The remaining $112.3 million of contractual support includes $71.2 million for senice contracts, $20.2 rnillion for maintenance and repairs, $11.2 million for custodial and protctive services, and $9.8 million for .all other contractual senices, which includes a wide range of sen-ices, such as costs of off-job training, health sen-ices and occupational medicine, etc. Of the total increase of approximately $20 million in "Other senices" about 75 percent is for services in support of the Apollo program.
SPACE-RELATED
I~VENTIONS
Senator SMITH. Dr. Seamans, I have briefly reviewed the material you submitted for the record concerning NASA's technology utilization program. Some of these innovations are to me so worthwhile I would hope that they would receive maximum reader attention. I have just read about this Lunar Walker and Sight Switch in the medical and biological field. 1Ir. Chairman, would there by any objection to having these case histories in technology utilization appear at this point in the record? The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? There is none. It. will be put in. (The information referred to follows:)
LUNAR WALKER
A proposal was made to NASA to develop a remotely operated instrument earrier, called the Lunar 'Walker, which was designed to meet NASA requirements for use in unmaIUled exploration of lunar and planetary surfacE's. Two years ago the principle of this walking vehielc was considered as potentially adaptable to the needs of limblcRR or crippled individuals. Now it has been adapted tQ such use by a western company in cooperation with a university, HEW, and NASA's western operations office. The walking chair moves on reciprocating legs. A subject can easily control the walking chair manually or by a chinstrap. In the chair, a crippled person can travel over terrains that heretofore have been impossible in an ordinary wheelchair. The apparatus has been shown t.o be adequate and safe for traversing sandy beaches, for clearing curbs, and might possibly be adapted for climbing stairs. A model is now being tested and evaluated by a rehabilitation center in southern California.
SIGHT SWITCH
A switch actuated only by voluntary movement of the eyes has been developed for NASA by an Alabama company. The sight switch, properly relayed, c.an be put to a variety of uses, among them: remote operation of a mechanical page turner, call board, room lights, thermostat, TV, radio, etc.; also, with mOdifications, it could be employed to operate industrial machines, control panels, electric typewriter keyboards, and other devices. A company has adapted the sight switch to a motorized wheelchair, which will enable a paraplegic, without any body or limb movements, to control a wheelchair with his eyes. The prototype chair is now available for test and evaluation purposes.
Dr. SEAMANS. Senator Smith, one of the materials I submitted is in the area of technology utilization. I think it is called the technology utilization program. It is there you saw this. Senator Sl\UTH. Yes.
74
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cannon? OGO PROGRAM REDUCED Senator CANNON. Doctor, the OGO program has been reduced from seven to six planned flights. Now, we put in the seventh, as you will recall, last yeal". What is the basis for this change? Dr. SEAMANS. This ties in with the whole problem that we face with regard to available budget resources. We had so many overriding priorities along the lines of my discussion here that we felt it necessary to trim the OGO program. We did not do this, however, without great reluctltnce and also without cltreful examination of the use of the Explorer series of scientific slttellites. Senator CANNON. How much money was spent on that effort before the cancellation? Dr. SEAMANS. Let me say that there was no termination or cancellation. This is a program that is funded incremently. It is a program managed by Goddard and Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge is managing the contrnctor effort. There will be no losses incurred in view of our failure to go ahead with No.7. Senator CANNON. So that actually, no funds have been expended insofar as No.7 was concerned? Dr. SEAMANS. Very small amounts of money on, say, design of the experiment package, but a very smltll amount. Senator CANNON. Can you segregate that as to what the amount was and supply it for the record? Dr. SEAMANS. Yes; we certainly can. Senator CANNON. That is all. (The information referred to follows:)
No direct funds have bcen expended on OGO-G. However, $269,000 of the "Physics and astronomy supporting research and technology" funds have been expended for definition and feasibility studies relating to experiments applicable to future OGO type spacecraft.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Jordan? Senator JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I have several questions having to do chiefly with the statement that Dr. Seamans made on page 67. It gives me some apprehension: "Viewed overall, our advanced research and technology and program is receiving minimal funding," and so on. I have several questions I would like to submit for the record and have Dr. Seamans answer them at his convenience. Tue CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done. (Questions submitted by Senator Jordan to Dr. Seamans and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
LEADERSHIP AND NATIONAL SECURITY
Question 1. Dr. Sl'JlmanS, in your statement yon say that the program yon are presenting for advancecl research and technology is receiving minimal funding and tha t further cutbaeks or reductions in advanc(1d research and technology would require great adjustmpnt to the total program planning assnmptions.
75
What is the impact of this minimal funding for advanced research and technology on the U.S. position in advanced technology? Will we retain our leadership in advanced technology with this budget? How do you regard the U.S. position in advanced research and technology in terms of our national security? Answer. The budget for advanced research and technology was determined after full consideration of all of NASA's objectives and plans within budgetary constraints. We believe the amount budgeted is minimal for maintaining our position in a rapidly developing field. This is only possible by continuing review of all elements of the program to keep a balance of effort on key technologies and on those with the greatest payoff. Although our advahCed research and teohnology program is primarily for providing the technological base for future NASA missions, it is also of value to agencies directly concerned with national defense. We maintain close contact with the Department of Defense to insure their knowledge of our results. This includes the work on reusable and maneuverable spacecraft reentry vehicles and advanced structures.
AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question 2. Do you belive that the request for aeronautical research and <I.evelopment of $33 million-about $8>f million less than last year-is sufficient to keep the United States in the forefront of aeronautical advanced research and technology? Answer. The NASA total effort contributing to aeronautics is greater this year than in any previous year. The $33 million for aeronautics is only part .of the contribution to this field. We also asked for a little over $21 million for new aeronautical facilities. The in-house work in aeronautics is considerable; we estimate about $40 million in "Administrative operations" supports aeronautics. The total of R. &; D., C. of F., and AO is $94 million. In addition, the aeronautics work is supported by other programs as the delineation of .our work does not reveal the applicability of technology from one area to another. We estimate conservatively that $30 million in other OART programs is also applicable to the aeronautics program. This raises the total aeronautics effort, in effect, from $94 to $124 million. We are, therefore, increasing the total effort on aeronautics even though the R. &; D. portion decreased from its value in fiscal year 1966. This decrease, it may be noted, came primarily from a delay in the time of availability of the B-70. We believe that aeronautics should continue to receive increased emphasis and we are planning to do the work necessary to keep the United States in the forefront of aeronautical advanced research and technology.
ALTERNATE MISSIONS
Question 3. Dr. Seamans, in your statement you mention the possibility of "'up to 9 vehicles" from the Apollo program being available for alternate missions between 1968 and 1970. How many are Saturn IB's and how many are Saturn V vehicles? Answer. Three Saturn IB's and six Saturn V's.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gehrig? SIX-PERCENT ARCHITECT-ENGINEER LIMITATION COST Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Seamans, going to the legislative change requested in section 5, which grew out of the contract that the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office had with Vitro Engineering, is this the only instance in which NASA has exceeded the statutory 6 percent limit on architect and engineering costs? Dr. SEAMANS. I am not sure I can answer that question. I believe it is, bu t I would have to check to be certain. I know that it was on this effort that we came face to face with a very real problem. We have, as you
76
kno'v, a joint program with the AEC. We have carried in om budget some of the special facilities required for nuclear propulsion. We are not allowed to go over the G-percent limitation for A-E work. The Atomic Energy Commission is allowed to go over and there was even consideration of having AEC fund the work so that we could, you might say, legally go over the 6 percent. But we felt this WItS a subterfuge and it was much better to face up to this matter head on and present it to the authorizu,tion committees this year. The CHAIR;\IAN. I commend you for that. ~1r. GEHRIG. What were the difficulties with this contract? What is differenUn this contract and the facilities built under this contract from many of the other construction projects that you have? Dr. SEA~IANS. Well, it is a question, really, of the technical uncertainty that you fa.ce in facilities of this sort. Certainly we ha,-s some facilities such as the environmental facility at 01U' :Manned Spacecraft Center that require almost as much original work as in the research and development itself. But in the nuclear area, as I am slU'e you know, there are some very special provisions that have to be made and it is for this reason, I believe, that the Congress have provided the AEC authorization to go over the 6-percent level. :Mr. GEHRIG. Is the Department of Defense also subject to the 6-percent limitation '? Dr. SEAMANS. Yes. :Mr. GEHRIG. Could the change you re9uest in section 5 be limited to the construction of nuclear-type facilIties? Dr. SEAMANS. We would prefer to have somewhat more latitude in certain of om special test facilities as well. However, the issue really came to it head with regard to the nuclear facility. Mr. GEHRIG. Does the Department of Defense or do other agencies have difficulty with this limitation in executing their construction programs, do you know? Dr. SEAMAX~. I would want to refer to somebody who is more familiar with their programs than I in this particular matter to answer that. .Mr. GEHRIG. I wonder if vou could answer that for the record. Dr. SEAMANS. I would be happy to. (The inform a tion referred to follows:)
NASA is not awar~ of what problems, if any, other agencies may have with the limitation. Howevpr. it is a fact that the Atomic Energy Commission is not subject to a 6 percrnt statutory limitation. This a!!;ency is requesting a discretionary exemption from the limitation because the architect-engineer problems connected with researeh and de\'elopment facilities, which we face routinely, are more complicated than those enconntered by at least those a!!;encips not in the research and development. fjpld. In that respect NASA's problems are ~ore closely comparable with those encountered by the Atomic Energy CommiSSIOn.
UNIFOR~I
APPROACH TO CONTRACTING POLICY
~lr. GEHRIG. Since this except,ion to the 6-percent limitll,t,ion has Government-,,,ide impact, whnt discussions and clearances have heen llndertllken with ot her agencies 10 ns,;ure thllt the Government lllaintains n uniform nppronch in its contrlleting policies? Dr. SEAMANS. Of course, this WitS not presented to the Congle...;,; without full review with the Bureall of the Budget and 1 am sure they took on the responsihility for this type of coordinlttion.
77
).Ir. GEHRIG. If the Congress passes section 5 of the bill, how many projects per year do you feel would be affected by this limitationby this new authority, I should say? Dr. SE:DIANS. That is a very hard question to answer, projecting into the future, but we do have each year important facilities for carrying on our special research and development and those that are not of the "brick-and-mortar" type but that do require special instrumentation could be affected. . The CHAIRMAN. But you did testify that the Atomic Energy Commission has this permission? Dr. SEAMANS. Yes, they do. The CHAIR~IAN. And they have it because these things are somewhat unusual? Dr. SEAMANS. Yes. The CHAIR~IAN. They have just let a contract for a new type of reactor structure. I asked some questions as to why they picked out a particular finn. The answer was they thought it was the only finn qualified in the country to do it. It is a little bit different from the ordinary construction job. Dr. SEAMANS. Yes, their construction, as I indicated earlier, is of course different from any other construction, because they must contend with nuclear radiation and so forth. The CHAIRMAN. And when the project requires nuclear reactions, you need the same sort of authority, don't you? Dr. SEAMANS. That is the basis for our recommendation. However, I wish to point out that it is because of the technological factors involved, and we do have special technological factors in the design of our shock tubes and wind tunnels and research facilities as well. We have been able to live within the 6 percent, however, in the past. ~Ir. GEHRIG. Now, the AEC is not covered by the 6-percent limitation. They are exempt. But as I understand it, they have quite a body of criteria and controls built up which provide guidance as to what the architect-engineering fees can be. Has NASA built up or is XASA preparing a series of criteria and controls to implement and administer this legislation? Dr. SEAMANS. Yes, and this is a matter that could be reviewed in more depth if you wish.
~IARS
LANDING lIIISSIONS
)'Ir. GEHRIG. Dr. Seamans, in your statement, you say:

If we are able to initiate a major effort on the Voyager program in fiscal year 1968, there is the possibility that we could meet the 1973 :Mars opportunity with a landing capsule; however, the magnitude of the task encompassed by an automated biological laboratory appears to defer that mission to the period after 1975
That is a very important sentence insofar as future planetary efforts are concerned. Do you mean that by deferring the Voyager decision until the fiscal year 1968 budget, there is only a possibility of landing a capsule on Mars with the 1973 Voyager and that a 1973 Voyager would probably be a Mars orbiter mission? Dr. SEAMANS. No; this sentence indicates that we believe that in 1973, we could not only have an orbiter, but that it could carry a landing capsule that would make certain environmental measurements, such as pressure and temperature, within the atmosphere and
78
on the Martian surface. But we do not believe in 1973 that we could carry the type of biological instrumentation that could determine whether life forms exist on the surface and if so, what these life forms were. Mr. GEHRIG. So the sentence is directed then only to the automated biological laboratory? Dr. SEAMANS. Yes. Mr. GEHRIG. And that you do plan nm"" to land a capsule on Mars with the 1973 Voyager? Dr. SEAMANS. We say we believe there is a possibility of carrying out such a mission in 1973. This, of course, will have to await decisionmaking during the year and will be reflected in the 1968 budget. Mr. GEHRIG. You are saying that if the decision in the 1968 budget is to do the 1973 Voyager, that Voyager would have a landing capsule, but it would not have the automated biological laboratory? Dr. SEAMANS. We are saying that we do not feel it could have the automated biological laboratory. It might have a landing capsule. Mr. GEHRIG. I see. Does the last part of the sentence mean that an automated biological laboratory to land on Mars will have to be launched during a Mars window that appears after 1975? Dr. SEAMANS. I believe the option is actually open for the 1975 opportunity as well as opportunities that occur after that. ONE NEW FLIGHT PROJECT REQUESTED FOR FISCAL YEAR
1967
Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Seamans, in your statement, you say we have given up for this year the opportunity to start major new projects we felt should be recommended. Are there any new flight projects being requested for fiscal year 1967? Dr. SEAMANS. Yes; there is one and it is a small one. I think it comes to around a million dollars and it has to do with the development of special horizon sensors. This comes within our advanced research and technology program. We have, as you know, had difficulty in the last OGO mission with horizon sensing, where the infrared sensors picked up the clouds rather than the horizon. We feel it is an area that should receive special emphasis. NUCLEAR ROCKET DEVELOPMENT Mr. GEHRIG. How would you evaluate our current progress m nuclear rocket development? Dr. SEAMANS. Well, we of course are extremely gratified by the progress that has been made recently. We have gone from essentially a reactor test to our breadboard engine test, where the pumps and everything are self-contained and are not part of the ground support equipment, and we have been able to carry out two firings of about 7 mmutes each. We have gone up to roughly 50 percent of full power and the system has responded in a completely nominal and highly satisfactory: manner. Mr. GEHRIG. This was a clear.... demonstration of the technical feasibility of the nuclear rocket engine, was it not? Dr. SEAMANS. It certainly indicated that we are over the difficult problems we had with the design of the reactor itself and that the whole concept is technically feasible.
79
:Mr. GEHRIG. In your judgment, is a nuclear rocket engine essential to the growth of our national space program? Dr. SEAMANS. It is certainly essential to the growth of the program if we wish to go out distances beyond lunar distances with large payloads. The payoff here clearly comes when considering a planetarytype flight with large payloads. There is no other way in sight to obtain the high specific impulses that are available with nuclear propulsion. LONG-RANGE OBJECTIVES FOR 26G-INCH MOTOR
Mr. GEHRIG. In your statement, you mention the reloading and subsequent firing of an existing 260-inch solid motor case. What will be the technical objective of this particular firing as related to the objectives of the tests recently concluded? Dr. SEAMANS. The purpose of this is really twofold. In part, we will have objectives, technical objectives that we have not yet met. We will go for a much higher thrust. We will go for around 5 million pounds of thrust. We will not demonstrate vector control, but we will work toward that direction with a nozzle that is compatible with vector control. We will make measurements that will determine how best we could implement an automatic abort system needed if the large rocket were to be used for manned flight. We will put special slivers in the grain which will give us a better burning curve as a function of time. These are all important objectives. But the other side, I think, is equally important that we will be maintaining our technical competence in a very important facility for the future. Mr. GEHRIG. What are the long-range objectives for the 260-inch solid motor program? Dr. SEAMANS. This is one of the important matters that must be considered this year, and we must have a plan in fiscal year 1968. This is one of the areas where planning is required. Mr. GEHRIG. Do you have any plans now or are you contemplating firing a full length 260-inch motor? Dr. SEAMANS. We have plans, but the funding in this budget does not permit a full-length firing. That would have to be reflected in the 1968 budget.
STRUCTURING OF A MANNED SPACEFLIGHT PRoGRAM
Mr. GEHRIG. Has NASA given any thought to structuring a manned space flight program using the Saturn V-Apollo system and a Titan III-C-MOL system? Dr. SEAMANS. I judge you are thinking here of the possibility of putting up a very large payload with a Saturn V and then using the MOL configuration for reentry? Mr. GEHRIG. Or for a smaller laboratory? Dr. SEAMANS. We, of course, as I indicated earlier in responding to Senator Jordan's question, are working closely with DOD to see how we can best maximize our Apollo-Saturn program and the MOL program and certainly this is a matter to which we will continue to devote attention.
80
I was not quite sure from your question whether you were referring to proper utilization of both projects or whether you had in mind some actual joining of the two together, like rendezvous in space. Mr. GEHRIG. I am thinking of the first; that is, we have the options now of using the Saturn V-Apollo, the Saturn IB-Apollo, and the Titan 3C-MOL as a laboratory. What I am asking is really, is there anything you could not do with the Saturn V-Apollo-Titan 3C-MOL combination that you can do with the Saturn V-Apollo-Saturn IBApollo? Dr. SEAMANS. I guess the thrust of your question is whether you need to have the Saturn IB in addition to the Titan III. We feel that this is not the time to make that decision; the Apollo Saturn IB configuration does have potential uses that could not be satisfied with the Gemini-MOL-Titan III-C. The Gemini-1fOL-Titan III-C is a special purpose project for near-Earth opemtions. On the other hand, with the Apollo-Saturn systems, we have much greater flexibility and I would like also to emphasize strongly the fact that the Apollo ties in with the S-IVB stage on both the Saturn IB and the Saturn V. So is the Saturn IB is eliminated, we then will find that the S-IVB effort is considerably reduced and this will have a cost impact on the Saturn V that is quite appreciable. Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Seamans, what I was thinking of was the Bureau of the Budget memorandum to the heads of executive departments, Bulletin No. 66-3, in which the thrust of this is that the various Itg-encies search for alternative means of reaching goals at the lenst. ('ost. Is it correct to infer from your answer that you are applying these cost effectiveness techniques to find out if you can reduce the (.ost of the ovemll program? You have the same problem, I might say, in manned and unm~1nned systems. You have the manned systems coming in and you have the ImnlitIlned systems; and of course, you have the question, by using the manned systems, can you eliminate any of the unmanned systems, or vice versa. Dr. SEAMANS. The answer to your question is "Yes," we are addressing ourselves to these kinds of problems, including the question of how much of the program should be manned or how much unmanned, for om scientific objectives. We are also looking at the costs of carrying out our objectives in a variety of ways involving the use of different large vehicles. I cannot say that this work is nearing completion. This is a continuing kind of work that must be carried out and the BureaH of the Budget has been quite specific in looking at the fiscal year 1968 program. Thev want to have much more detailed information along this line than they hu "e in the past. Mr. GEHRIG. So there would be much more detail along this line available to the committee next yen I' or in the ensuing year? Dr. SEAMANS. That is correct. Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Ohairmnn, I have a few more qHestions here. One T would like to state now and then ju~t giye the others to the r('port('r. In the colloquy that Senator Jordnn had initinlly, there wns a discu~sioJl of how much money NASA spends outside of the United State~. I wonder if yon would have prepnred for the record a smnll table showing for the' past se\'ernl yeurs how llIuch money, how ml\ch of the NASA expenditures hu\'e lwen spent outside of the United States, both in dollurs und ns n perc('nt of the tout! expenditmes?
81
Dr. SEAMANS. Yes; this is information we supply to the Bureau of the Budget on a periodic basis and we would be happy to submit it for the record. (The information referred to follows:)
Percentage of foreign expenditures to total NASA. expenditures
[Dollars in millions) Flscal.lrear ..,..
Fiscal year 1965
1 -----------------------------'-----------------1---------------Foreign expenditures '- ________________________ 1 9.71 5,092.9 13.9 21. 9\ 33.1 Total expenditures_____________________ 4,li1. 9 5,600.0 5,300.0
Percentage of totaL ____________________________
~ASA
Estintate, Estimate. fiscal year 1 fiscal year 1966 1967
0.3
0.3
0.
0.6
, Most ofthese funds are provided for the construction, maintenance, and operation of NASA tracktng and -data acquisition facilities overseas.
~lr. GEHRIG. And Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that these 'Questions be answered for the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, they will be answered. (Questions submitted by the committee and answers supplied by Dr. Seamans for the record are as follows:)
INCENTIVE TYPE CONTR.~CTS
Question 1. Dr. Seamans, recently there was some criticism that incentive type contracts are bringing up significant problems for R. & D. projects running up to .a few million dollars. Those who criticize the incentive contract list as drawbacks: (1) A delay in the contracting process (6 to 8 months); (2) Wasting time of engineers and scientists on drawnout contract negotiations; (3) Worsening industry-Government relationships because of contract bickering. I wonder if you would speak to his and contrast the incentive contract with nonincentive contracts for R. & D. work? Is most of NASA's contract work in the R. & D. category? Answer. (1) Negotiation of incentive contracts at the outset of a program generally does take longer than negotiation of cost-pills-a-fixed-fee (CPFF) -contracts. The very nature of an incentive contract requires better definition of the nature and scope of work involved and establishment of me.aningful criteria on which the incentive arrangement will be based to insure that it is structured to motivate the contractor toward optimum performance to meet the Government's objectives. We feel that any delay involved is more than offset by our ~a,:ing a definitive arrangement wh~ch tninil:Uzes misunderstanding~ and the Il1Cldence of unforeseen changes durll1g the hfe of the contract. Weare not aware of any case in which the contractor's ability to get started has been delayed for periods of 6 to 8 months. Conversion of existing large and complex CPFF contracts to incentive contracts can and does require several months of intensive effort. However, during the negotiation period the contractor continues performance under the existing contract, and there is no delay in contract performance .attributable to the incentive conversion effort. (2) The negotiation of incentive contracts for research and development work requires the participation of engineers and scientists to assure that realistic technical objectives are established and that incentive provisions are drawn in a manner which will motivate the attainment of those objectives. We believe that the application of technical effort during contract negotiations, as well as during the life of the project, is essential to the effective drafting and execution 'of a research and development contract. (3) We are not aware of a general worsening of these relationships because of incentive contracts. On the contrary, our studies and e\-aluations of the effects 'of incentive contracts clearly indicate an improvement in the total contracting process. Higher management attention is directed to the contract from the 'Outset., communications and understanding retween the parties have been markedly better, and the contracts themselves more clearly reflect the intent of the parties. 'While we may have differences from time to time with a contractor as
82
to the timing of conversion from the CPFF contract to one of incentive nature, these differences should be considered as indicators of the complexities involved in the contract situation and not as demonstrating any deficiency in the procurement process. . By far the preponderance of the dollar value of NASA's contracts are for research and development work.
Sp ACE FLIGHT EXPERIMENT SELECTIONS
Question 2. Dr. Seamans, with the advancement of Apollo Applications thinking, it appears there is a growing need for careful examination of all of the unmanned and manned flight experiment programs to climinate duplication and to utilize the most effective and economical approach to obtain the desired experimental data. What mechanisms now exist or are planned within the NASA organization to achieve this result? Answer. The currcnt space flight experiment selection mechanisms, which have evolved in response to the needs for choosing the best candidate experiment for each mission, are the Space Sciences Steering Committee and the Manned Space Flight Experiments Board. As the program for Apollo Applications moves forward, and as specific mission packages are defined, the process of experimpnt screening, selection, and mission assignment will be managed in accordance with the operating principles successfully proven under the present system. In addition, interoffice task groups are carrying out useful mission alternative studies that specifically identify the trade-off considerations in the various areas of data collection.
RESTRUCTURING MANNED PROGRAM
Question 3. Dr. Seamans, by structuring a manned space flight program using the Saturn V Apollo and the Titan III-C-MOL ~ystems could we a('('omplish roughly the same goals and have a net saving by increasing the production of the Titan III-C and dropping the Saturn IB after the 12th flight? Answer. Two important considerations militate against restructuring the manned space flight program to use the Saturn V Apollo and the Titan Ill-CI MOL systems. First, the commonality of hardware between the Saturn IB Apollo and the SaturIl V Apollo systems is important. If production of the S-IVB stage is limited to Saturn V utilization alone, costs would increase markcdly. The same is true for the Apollo spacecraft system. Second, use of the Titan III-C MOL in lieu of the Saturn IB Apollo for earth orbital applications would reduce crew availability from three to two and would deny the program the major maneuvering capability inherent in the Saturn IB Apollo combination. (It does not appear practical to plan on utilization of the Apollo with the Titan III-C system, since the development costs would be high and the ensuing hammerhead configuration less efficient than that available with the Saturn lB.)
MAJOR PROGRAM DECISIONS
Question 4. Dr. Seamans, with respect to the last sentence in your prepared statement, would it be correct to say that 1967 is a furthpr year of planning as last year NASA indicated that fiscal year 1966 was a year of planning and that fiscal year 1967 would be a year of choice? Have you made any estimates of how much deferring decisions until fiscal year 1968 will cost? Answer. In terms of major program decisions, fiscal year 1\)67 must be looked upon as a period of planning and project definition; budget constraints do not permit the initiation of those important efforts in planetary exploration and manned flight which had been projected in the fiscal year 1966 budget. There has been no estimate made of the cost implications inherent in deferring such decisions until fiscal year 1968. The real cost is not measurable in dollar terms but rather must be examined in terms of objectives not met and missions not undertaken that could have provided earlier resolution to major scientific questions and could have rpduced by a year the period ne(,p"sary to begin t he application of a developed capability to missions ill addition to those directly a~soeiated with the initial manned lunar exploration.
83
NASA CONTRACT PERSONNEL Question 5. Dr. Seamans, would you furnish a table for the record shOWing the number of contract personnel working at each of the NASA centers, breaking out those funded under R. &: D. and administrative operations? Answer. The following table indicates the average number of contract personnel planned at each NASA center by appropriation during fiscal year 1966:
Administra-j Research tive operaand develtlons opment
-----------------------------------------[-------: Ames Research Center. __ . _. _. _____________________________________ . _______ _

Electronics Research Center ____________________________________________ . ___ _ Flight Research Center... ______________________________________________ . __ .. J3pace Nuclear Propulsion Office .... __ ._ ... ____ ._._ .. _.. _. __ .. _.... ___ ..... __ Goddard Space Flight Center .. __ . ___ . __ ._ ... _... __ . __ . ____ . ___________ . ___ . Wallops Station .... _........... _________ . __ .. _. __ . _________ . ____________ . __ . Kennedy Space Center, NASA .... _. __ .... _. __ .. ___ .. _.. __ .. ___ . ____ ._ ..... . Manned Spacecraft Center .... _____ .. _.. _.. ___ .. __ .. ______ .. ___ . ____ ._ .. ___ . Marshall Space Flight Center .. __ . __ ._. __ ._._ ... __ . __ . _________ . ___ . ___ .. _.. Western Operations Office._ .. ______ . ___ ._ ... _._._ .. _.. __________ . ______ .. __ . Headquarters, NASA .. ____ . _______ .. _____ . ___ . __ .. ____ . __ .. _____ . _____ . ___ .
~ I_____ .-----.~
70
te~ek=r~~~::~~~==================================================
~~ .------.----~
3117 2.712 173 152 2,902 2.819 1,561 1,915 2,028 5,684 19 _. ________ . __ _ 438 667
73
Total, NASA .... __ . __ . _______ . ___ . _. __ .. _.. __ . ____________________ . __ _
1---------1--------14,268 8.143
Question 6. What is the trend of the number of these contract personnel for fiscal year 1965, 1966, and 1967? Answer. The average number of contract personnel working at NASA centers in fiscal year 1965 was 16,838. This average will rise to 22,411 in fiscal year 1966 and to 24,923 in fiscal year 1967 primarily as a result of the increase in operational facilities at Kennedy Space Center. Question 7. Dr. Seamans, how many DOD personnel are now on assignment to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration? Answer. As of December 31, 1965, there are 296 DOD military detailees to NASA. Question 8. Dr. Seamans, how many NASA personnel are on assignment to the Department of Defense? Answer. As of December 31, 1965, there is one NASA detailee to the Department of Defense. Question 9. Dr. Seamans, what are the future plans for this kind of cooperation? Answer. NASA and DOD will continue the fruitful exchange of personnel with specialized management and technical skills in the future as they have in the past. EXAMINATION OF 1\1-1 PROJECT Question 10. Dr. Seamans, we understood from Mr. Webb's December 3, 1965, letter that an extensive technical review of the M-l program was made resulting in the conclusion that more ad,anced concepts promising performance advantages over the M-l were apparent and should be investigated. Would you say that funding cOI18traints in this instance have been beneficial in that they required a critical examination of this program resulting in the decision to reorient toward newer and more advanced concepts? Answer. It is true that funding constraints force a very critical review of all .aspects of our program but this is a process we go through in the normal conduct of our business. Each year, in the budgetary cycle, we go through a series of reviews to determine our next year's budget. We receive proposals and requests from many sources--from our centers, from advisory committees, from the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, and other Government agencies; from universities and industry. We must examine this collection of proposed work on t.he basis of a number of constraints. These include our goals, the work being done by others, the degree of importance of the work with respect to other work, and the resources available. Resources include av~ilable people, facilities, and the funding. Funding constraints, therefore, serve a very key role in our planning and did so in the case of the M-1. We have been critically examining the M-l project for some time in light of changing plans and goals. The decisions regarding it have been administrative rather than technical. As Mr. Webb pointed out in Us December 3 letter to this
84
committee, the ::\1-1 engine was started in 1962 to develop a large hydrogenoxygen engine for post-Saturn lannch vehicles. This requirement has not materialized as soon as was envisioned in 1962. With additional time available before anticipated need, we believe it is advantageous to terminate the 1\1-1 and investigate newer and more advanced propulsion concepts.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Seamans, thank you very much. Tomorrow, onr witness will be Dr. ~1\leller. This is the small statement he is going to make. First, we want to ask Dr. Muellel" to boil it down. Thank YOl!o SenatOl; SMITH. ~[r. Chairman, what time are we meeting tomorrow? The ('HAIRMAN. 10 a.m. (Whereupon, at 13:50 o'clock p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., l\larch 1, 1966.) (The four prepared statements referred to on p. 64 were submitted by Dr. Seamans for the record and are as follows:)
FISCAL YEAR
1967
BUDGET ESTIMATES-NASA HEADQUARTERfl OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION
A\)~II~ISTRATIVE
The fiscal year 1967 budget e~timatps for X A8.\ headquarters activit ic,.; are funded under the administrath'e operations appropriation. The budget request for tlH'se activities is shown in volume IV of the congre~sional justification book beginning Oll page A0-4-1. N A8A headquarter:; fiscal year UHi7 budgpt estimates are discussed in th(' following order: SUlllmary of fUluling requifl'mf'nt,.;. SUlllmary of pcrsonnel requin'lllcnts. Allah'sis of cm;t,:;: (a) By a division of funels bel ween NASA-wide functions and hcadq uar( ('fs' operations. (b) By major activity.
SUMMARY OF FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
The fiscal year 1967 budget request for ~At;A headquarters funded under the administrative operations appropriation is $58,6(\7,000. This is an increase of $2,381,000 over the $56,28(i,000 available for the current fiscal year. Comparable estimates for the 3 fiscal years arc as follows:
[In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year 1965 actual Personnel costs ________________________________ . All other costs __________________ . _. ___ ..... ___ __ TotaL ______________________________ . ____ $27,2.0 24,246 Fiscal year 1966 estimate $29,448 26,8311 56,286 Fiscal year 1967 estimate
$30,319 28,348
Increase
---51,5161
1--------58,667 +2.381
+$871 +1,510'
Of the tOLal fiscal year HlG7 request. of $58,6G7,OOO for NASA Headquarters activities fil percent, or $ao.:) million, is e~timated for personnel costs. This is an illcrease of $S71,O()() over the amount. available in fiscal year Hl()6 and is requilo,tl to cover the cost of the reccllt pay inl't'eases on a full-year basis, for \\ it ilin-p;rade step increases and additional retirement contributions and ot.her Lv lIefi(s. The balance of the $2S.J million is for all other activities, an increase of $1.5 million owr fiscal year 1!J66, of which about so percent or $1.2 million is for costs associated with t.he scientific and tcchnical information program and $::100,000 for various minor adjustnamt.s in other activities.

SUMMARY OF PERSONNEL REQDIREMENTS
85
The fiscal year 1967 budget request includes a total of 2,200 civilian positionsa reduction of 27 permanent positions below fiscal year 1966. A summary comparison of positions for the 3 fiscal years is as follows:
~umber
of positions
Fiscal year I Fiscal year

1965
-~-:n-m-~-n-';..y-n-t--_-_--~-~-==-:-::-:-:-::-:-::-:-::-:-::-:-:-::-:-::-:-::-:-::-:!---2-'-igg-I---2'-I-~-i----2-,l-~~-I __________ ~~~

TotaL --- ________________________________ 1 2,263
1966
I Fiscal vear I 1967 I

2,200 I
Decrease
2,227
-27
The following table shows the distribution of permanent positions for the 3 fiscal years by major activity and between NASA-\\-ide and headquarters operatiolls:
Permaneut positions Fiscal year
1965
Fiscal year
1966
Fiscal year
1967
I NASA-wide: I Direct program support: flight. _: ___ .__________________________ _ I -, i::ipace SCIence and applicatlOllS _______________________ _
~anned. sp~
Advanced research and technology __________________ _ I Tracking and data acquisition ______________________ _ Technology utilization _______________________________ _
:1 I Total program support ____________________________ _
453 296 217 60 14

1,040 I
:217 I
~~ I
62 14
1
I
!
447 292 214 61 14

1,0'28 63 116 244 146 51 70 19
64 10 27 29 17 856
},042
Fuuctional and staff support: Scientific and technical information __________________ _ Public affairs ________________________________________ _ Administration _____________________________________ _ Industry affairs __________________________________ _General counseL _____________________________________ _ Programing _________________________________________ _ Administrator ______________________________________ _Executive secretary _________________________________ _Defense affairs ______________________________________ _International affalrs _________________________________ _Legislative affairs ___________________________________ _Policy analysis ______________________________________ _-
63
118 248 148 51 il 19 64 10 27 30
64 118
248 148 52
il
19
64
171
866
10 27 29 17 1 867
Total functional and staff support. _________ . _____ _
i==== Total NASA-wide__________________________________ 1,906 1, 909 1 Headquarters operations____ __________ ______ ______ ____ _______ _ 257 253 I Total_ ____ __________ __________ __ ____________ ____ _______ _1---------1-------2, 163
2, 162
1
1,884 251 2,135
Of the 2,135 permanent positions shown for fiscal year 1967, about one-half are for direct program support in the Office of Manned Space Flight, Office of Space Science and Applications, Office of Advanced Research and Technology, Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition, and in the Office of Technology Utilization. Of the balance of 2,135 positions, 856 are for NASA-wide functional and staff support relating to the review, coordination, direction, and planning of activities, such as procurement, fund management, audit, and for the acquisition and dissemination of scientific and technical information. The remaining 251 positions are for support of headquarters administrative operations concerned with administrative services, personnel, security, accounts and reports, and contracts.
ANALYSIS OF COSTS
Funding requirements for NASA headquarters fiscal year 1967 estimates may be analyzed as follows: 1. By a dh-ision of funds for NASA-wide functions which proYide sen-icc to all NASA centers and are conducted or administered centrally, and for headquarters operations which are for the support of the day-to-day operations of all headquarters offices; and 2. By major activity.
86
Analysis of costs between NASA-wide and headquarters operations The fiscal year 1967 request of $58,667,000 includes a net increase of $2,381,000 over the $56,286,000 available in fiscal year 1966. A distribution of costs by major .activity and between NASA-wide and headquarters operations is as follows:
[In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year1965 1966 1967
Increase <+) or decrease <- )
NASA-wide costs: Direct program support: Manned space fIIghL ___________________ Space science and appllcatlons __ . ______ Advanced research and technology _____ Tracking and data acqulsitlon _________ Technology utillzatlon _________________ Total, program suppork ____________ Functional and 8taft support: Scientific and technical Informatlon ____ Public aftairs __________________________ Administration ________________________ Industry aftairs _______________________ General counseL _______________________ Programing ____________________________ Administrator _________________________ Executive secretary ____________________ Defense aftairs _________________________ International aftairs ____________________ Legislative affalrs _____________________ Policyanaly8is _________________________ Total, functional and staff support ___ Total NASA-wide C08t8 ______________ Headquarters operations _______________________ Total ___________________________________
7,m 4,319 3,680 975 178

16,444 7,515 6,685 6,653 2,674 707 1,426 751 525 159 534 322 360 28,311 44, i55 6,761 51,516
7,637 4,726 3,8\1 1,098 193 17,465 9,882 7,127 7,073 2,955 827 1,710 686 572 169 679 342 382 32,404 49,869 6,417 56,286
7,808 4,830 3,887 1,122 198 17,845 11,111 7,159 7,196 3,247
866
+171 +104 +76 +24 +5 +380 +1,229 +32 +123 +292 +39 +20 -45 +19 +4 +38 +7 +6 +1,764 +2.144 +237 +2,381
1,730 641 591 173 717 349 388 34,168 52,013 6,654 68,667
Analysis by major activity The distribution of NASA-wide and headquarters operations costs shown in the above table for fiscal year 1967 may be analyzed further by major activity. These are: 1. NASA-wide costs (a) Direct program 8upport.-$17,845,000--inclurles the costs of program direction in the Office of Manned Space Flight, Office of Space Science and Applications, Office of Advanced Research and Technology, Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition, and in the Office of Technology Utilization. Of the $17.8 million requested for fiscal year 1967, 88 percent or $15.8 million is for personnel compensation and benefits covering the COHt of about one-half of the total headquarters positions-an increase of $380,000 over fiscal year 19G6; and the balance of 12 percent or $2 million is for travel and transportation of persons and for design and operation of the supporting research and technology documentation program in OART, for operation of a small scientific computer in OMSF, and for reimbursable costs for personnel administrative support furnished at overseas tracking stations. (b) Functional and staff support-$34, 168,OOO.-Includes CORts with NASA-wide direction and for coordination of various functional activities such as scientific and technical information, public affairs, administration, industry affairs, and programing. Of the $34.2 million requested for fiscal year 1967, 34 percent or $11.9 million is for personncl compensation and benefits covering the costs of some 850 positions; and the balance of 65 percent or $22.3 million is for all other functions. The major programs and their associaterl costs are as follows: (1) The scientific and technical information program is pstimatpd at $11.1 million-an increase of $1.2 million ovpr fiscal year i!l66. This includes: $7.9 million for the scientific und technical information services activityan increase of $774,000 over fiscal year 1966. The major items under this activity include $5,745,000 for the N ABA Srientific and Technical Information Facility of which $5,388,000 is for documentation opemtions and $357,000
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 196'1
87
for the rental of space; $1,810,000 for the documentation of worldwide aerospace journal literature; and $350,000 for translating services of foreign technical books, reports, and journal literature. $1,973,000 for the technical publications activity-an increase of $438,000 over fiscal year 1966. This includes $881,000 for the preparation of manuscript material, as well as NASA's semimonthly abstracting-indexing journal, Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports. $355,000 for the technical information systems activity-the same amount as for fiscal year 1966. This requirement is for the continued improvement and refinement of a program to identify, analyze, evaluate, and test new methods and systems in the field of scientific communications to increase the effectiveness of the NASA technical information program. $878,000 is for costs of positions and for travel and transportation of persons. This includes $848,000 for personnel costs benefits-an increase of $17,000 over fiscal year 1966; and $30,000 for travel and transportation of persons-the same amount as for the current fiscal year. (2) The public affairs program is estimated at $7,159,000 in fiscal year 1967. This includes $1,445,000 for personnel costs and benefits, an increase of $32,000 over fiscal year 1966; and $114,000 for travel and transportation of persons. The balance of the program of $5.6 million for fiscal year 1967 is projected at the same level as for fiscal year 1966. This includes: $1,260,000 for the spacemobile activity. The estimate includes $1,105,000 for the operation and maintenance of 34 spacemobiles and $155,000 for the procurement of replacement vehicles for the spacemobile fleet and for purchase of additional models and equipment for the spacemobiles. $205,000 for the educatinal activity. This covers assistance to school and nonschool agencies at the elementary and secondary levels and to institutions training teachers at those levels. This covers conferences, youth activities, adult education, materials of instruction, teacher indoctrination, and special projects-all designed to convey the latest develop!Ilents in the apace propm. $2,080,000 for educational and information media actiVity. The t'Btimate includes the preparation, production, printing, and distribution of nontechnical information on research and development activities and results to students, teachers, and to the public. $2,055,000 for the exhibits activity. This estimate includes the cost of design and construction and transportation of exhibit material which will provide up-to-date coverage of NASA programs, coverage of NASA programs, particularly those in the Manned Space Flight program. The estimate also includes costs associated with setting up and disassembling NASA exhibits through the United States and foreign countries. (3) Administration costs for NASA-wide programs is estimated at $7,196,000 for fiscal year 1967. This is a net increase of $123,000 over fiscal year 1966. The items included under this activity are: $3,675,000 for personnel and travel costs; 88 percent or $3,235,000 of this amount covers costs of positions-an increase of $71,000 over fiscal year 1966; 7 percent or $259,000 for workmen's compensation, and the remaining 5 percent or $181,000 covers the costs of travel and transportation of administration personnel. $1,300,000 for the personnel security investigation activity-the same level as in fiscal year 1966. This estimate provides reimbursement to the Civil Service Commission for the number of security investigations to be conducted in fiscal year 1967, and for routine, periodic updating of security investigations of NASA employees assigned to sensitive positions. $871,000 for communications-the same level as in fiscal year 1966. Covered in this estimate are $611,000 for postage which is funded centrally by headquarters for all NASA centers, and $260,000 to cover leased lines between headquarters and various NASA installations. $435,000 for printing and reproduction-the estimate for fiscal year 1966 is the same amount. Accounted for are costs of NASA-wide printing and reproduction of forms, statements, regulations and miscellaneous procurement, and other administrative issuances. $915,000 for other administrative activities. This is $37,000 less than the fiscal year 1966 estimate for these costs. Included in this category are NASA-wide services such as personnel training, management information systems development, financial management, and occupational medicine. (4) Industry affairs costs for NASA-wide programs is estimated at $3,247,000, an increase of $292,000 over fiscal year 1966. Of these costs 66 percent or $2,155,000 is for cost of positions-an increase of $48,000 over fiscal year 1966; 4 percent
5&-9410-66-7
88
or $130,000 is for incentive awards; 5 percent or $145,000 is for travel costs and 25 percent or $817,000 is for all other costs which include: $500,000 for reliability and quality assurance activities which provide for studies such as reliability selected hardware assessments to locate areas of design weakness in time to permit corrections; development of nondestructive test techniques; and development of quality assurance publications to serve as aids to NASA employees engaged in the reliability and quality assurance program. $317,000 for procurement and construction activities such as studying the effectiveness of incentive contracts, development and maintenance of the subcontractor reporting system, revising procurement regulations, and reviewing facility plans and designs. (5) Other NASA-wide supporting and staff activities are estimated to cost $5,455,000 in fiscal year 1967, a net increase of $88,000 over fiscal year 1966. Of the fiscal year 1967 estimate 71 percent or $3,869,000 is for personnel costs, an increase of $87,000 over the current fiscal year; 4 percent or $210,000 is for travel and transportation; and 25 percent or $1,376,000 is for all other costs which include items such as the Missile Sites Labor Commission, patent services, international graduate fellowships, aerospace chronology preparation, launch vehicle cost estimate studies, and facilities maintenance standards. 2. Headquarters operations costs The fiscal year 1967 estimate for the cost of the day-to-day operations is $6,654,000. This is an increase of $237,000 over the fiscal year 1966 estimate; 38 percent or $2,547,000 of the fiscal year 1967 estimate is for personnel costs and benefits-an increase of $115,000 over the current fiscal year; and 62 percent or $4,107,000 is for all other costs as follows:
[In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year
1965
IICtual Administrative servlces .. ______ _______________ Automatic data processlng_____________________ Security operations____________________________ Personneloperations___________________________ Technical llbrary______________________________ Miscellaneous services__________________________ TotaL ___________________________________ $3,567 408 149 79 94 208
Fiscal year 1966
Fiscal year 1967
estimate
estimate
Increase or decrease
1-------1-------1--------1------4,505 3,985 4,107

+122
$2,945 444 183 85 117 211
$2,945 542 192 100 117 211
Of the $4.1 million estimated in fiscal year 1967 for headquarters operations, one major activity-administrative services-accounts for over $2.9 million or 72 percent of the total. These major costs include purchase of supplies and equipment, maintenance and repair of equipment, and communications. T?e remaining 28 percent or $1.2 million covers automatic data processing analysIs, programing and computer operations; security alarm systems and guard servICes; training for career development of headquarters personnel; maintenance of t.h e headquarters technical library; and miscellaneous services such as contract admmistration, occupational medicine and health programs and financial management LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE "NASA AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1967" AS SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS BY NASA AND THE "NASA AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1966" (PUBLIC LAW 89-53)
I.
ITEMS OF SUBSTANCE
1. Section 5-Permissive Exemption From the Limitation on the Fee for ArchitectEngineer Contracts
Section 5 of the proposed "National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, 1967," would amend the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to authorize NASA to enter into contracts, when determined to be necessary by the Administrator, for architect-engineer services for highly complex research and development facilities without regard to the limitation imposed by 10 U.S.C. 2306(d) on contracts for architect-engineer services. The need for this legislation arises as a direct result of a June 1965 report to the Congress by the
89
Comptroller General entitled uN oncompliance With Statutory Limitation on Amount Allowable for Architectural-Engineering Services for the Design of a Facility at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station. Nevada." In that report the Comptroller General took issue with the way in which NASA had applied the limitation on the cost of architect-engineer contracts imposed by 10 U.S.C. 2306(d) to the design of the so-called E-MAD facility at NRDS. This facility is a complex structure for the testing of nuclear engines. The cited statute limits the amount to be paid for architect-engineer services under a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to 6 percent of the estimated cost of the construction project to which such services relate. (This should be distinguished from the statutory fee limitations imposed on contracts other than A-I<.: contracts which relate to the percentage of fee or profit which may be added to the estimated cost.) The crux of the issue created by the report is to be found on page 12 thereof in the statement that GAO "decisions have consistently held that the limitation applies to amounts payable to architect-engineers for any service performed under contract for the production and delivery of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications." Most NASA A-E contracts are not cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts. However, with respect to those that are, NASA has consistently applied an interpretation to the statutory limitation which is in consonance with that followed by other agencies subject to the same statutory limitation. This interpretation is that only the work performed by an architect-engineer which relates to the production and delivery of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications is subject to the 6-percent limitation. All other work, such as master planning, feasibility studies, subsurface investigations, research and development for structures or on materials or methods, engineering for future equipment and facilities (i.e., expansion) and special engineering required because of the particular nature of facility (i.e., nuclear, or otherwise hazardous to neighboring activities) is not subject to the 6-percent limitation on A-E fees. Most of such other work is subject, however, to the IS-percent maximum fee limitation on CPFF research and development contracts also imposed by 10 U.S.C. 2306(d). As a general rule, those elements of such other work which are preparatory in nature and can reasonably be separated from the production and delivery of designs, plans, etc., are performed under a separate contract. This is so because such work normally precede~ the decision to construct the structure. However, for sound business, engineering or management reasons it is not always possible to separate preparatory work from the production and delivery of designt', plans, etc. In such a case it is not practical to break the overall requirements for architect-engineer services down into two or more contracts in order to make the one calling for production and delivery of designs, etc., fall within the statutory limitation. It should be borne in mind that architect-engineer contracts are not advertised. Competition with respect to such contracts is limited to an evaluation of the competence of a particular firm for the project in question. Fees are regulated to an extent by the applicable professional societies. The contract for the design of the E-MAD facility which was reviewed by the Comptroller General required the production and delivery of designs, etc., but also included a substantial amount of "other work" which, as previously stated, was not considered by NASA to be subject to the limitation of 10 U.S.C. 2306(d). The above described method of applying the statutory limitation had definite support in past opinions of the Comptroller General. See, for example, 21 Comp. Gen. 580, 22 Id. 464, and 40 Id. 188. However, the June 1965 report of the Comptroller General has given rise to questions as to how the statutory limitation is to be applied in the future to complex research and development facilities. Since the building of such facilities today involves far more than the type of traditional architect-engineer services to which the 6-percent limitation had originally been intended to apply, it is evident that a need exists for clarifying legislation. In fact, the Comptroller General's report itself Buggested the desirability of legislative action to deal with this problem. The recommended legislation represented by section 5 of the "National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, 1967" would, if enacted, clarify the law to the extent necessary.
2. Increase from One-Half to 1 Percent in Amount of Funds Which May Be Reprogramed from "R. & D." to "C. of F."
Section 3 as submitted by NASA would authorize the transfer of 1 percent (rather than the one-half of 1 percent provided in last year's act) of the "Research and development" appropriation to the "Construction of facilities" appropriation,
90
and the use of such funds, after the requisite determination, finding and notification have been made, for construction projects not otherwise presented to, and approved by, the Congress. The reprograming authority provided under section 3 has not been used in the past to initiate new agency objectives or to carry out new programs which have not been fully discussed with the Congress. Rather, the stated programs of the agency have been carried out within the funds made available under the three appropriations, although the method of achieving those stated objectives in the most expeditious and prudent manner has often required flexibility in the application of the funds between appropriations. Our experience has shown that when a change in the method of achieving a stated objective is determined to be desirable, associated facilities construction frequently turns out to be the pacing element of the revised approach. Consequently, it has often been necessary to utilize funds authorized for research and development under the original program plan for the construction of facilities needed under the revised plan. We are still in the development phase of major R. & D. programs. If future events should indicate the need for major changes in our planned methods of achieving our stated objectives, it is entirely conceivable that necessary facilities changes may amount to more than the aggregate of transfer authority available at the current limitation level. The requested increase of transfer authority to 1 percent is, therefore, for the important purpose of assuring that NASA has available to it on a timely basis, the flexibility that might be needed to take the most prudent advantage of unforeseen changes in the methods of attaining its program objectives.
II.
EDITORIAL CHANGES
Section 3-Correction of error in cross reference to a paragraph in section 1 (b)

As enacted, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1966 provided that a specified sum of "Construction of facilities" funds "other than funds appropriated pursuant to paragraph (12)" may be used for reprograming actions at the discretion of the Administrator of NASA. Paragraph 12 is the "Various locations" line item. However, in prior years, and in the draft bill submitted by NASA for the fiscal year 1966, the reference was to the "Facility planning and design not otherwise provided for" line items, which is paragraph 13 of Public Law 89-53. The apparent error in the cross reference crept in during the course of congressional action on the NASA authorization bill for fiscal year 1966. The draft bill submitted to the Congress by NASA would correct this apparent error by returnin/!. the cross reference to the "Facility planning and design not otherwise provided for" line item.
2. Section 1 (b)(4)-Change in post office address of KSC

The post office address of the John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA, has been changed to Kennedy Space Center, Fla., as a consequence of a post office so identified having been established to serve the John F. Kennedy Space Center. 3. Section 1(b)(9)-Renaming of Michoud Assembly Facility The name of the facility located at New Orleans, La .. has recently been changed to the Michoud Assembly Facility, and the submitted bill reflects this change also.
III.
REASONS FOR OMISSIONS FROM THIS BILL
1. Omission of Last Year's Section 5 Relating to Geographical Distribution of Research Funds

The fiscal year 1967 bill omits the text of what was section 5 of the fiscal year 1966 act which read as follows: "It is the sense of Congress that it is in the national interest that consideration be given to geographical distribution of Federal research funds whenever feasible, and that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should explore ways and means of distributing its research and development funds whenever feasible." In our opinion the language of the section made it clear that the Oongress was making a one-time pronouncement intended to guide NASA for some time to come. It was, therefore, deemed unnecessary to repeat the language in this year's bill.
91
2. Why "Voyager" is not a Separate R. & D. Line Item

The Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, in its report on the NASA authorization for fiscal year 1966 (S. Rept. 188, 89th Cong., 1st sess. at p. 32), requested that the Voyager program be carried as a separate program line item in subsequent years if NASA continues to support the program. The President's budget for NASA for fiscal year 1967 proposes no commitment to Voyager flight hardware, the work planned being confined to certain design studies. As such, the proposed work remains an integral part of the "Lunar and planetary exploration" program as presently constituted and, therefore, it is not being recommended in fiscal year 1967. If, in the future, Voyager is recommended to the Congress for funding as a flight program, then NASA will comply with the Senate committee's request and make it a separate program line item. Until then, it is considered more appropriate for the Voyager study effort to remain a separate project to be described in detail as a part of the current "Lunar and planetary exploration" program line item. IV.
LISTING OF OTHER CHANGES
DUE
TO PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
1. Changes in dollar amounts. 2. The fiscal year 1966 act's section l(a)(8) "Communications satellites" and section l(a)(9) "Applications technology satellitt'S" have been combined into this year's section 1 (a)(8) "Communications and applications technology satellites." 3. Last year's section l(a)(17) "Nuclear rockets" and section l(a)(18) "Solar and chemical power" have been combined into this year's section l(a)(15) "Space power and electric propulsion systems." 4. Ames Research Center has been omitted from section l(b) as a locational line item since no construction funds for this Center are requested. 5. ERC and JPL have been added to section l(b) as locationalline items since funds are requested this year for those locations. 6. Section 6 would make the short title of the bill "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, 1967" rather than "1966."
OFFICE OF INDUSTRY AFFAIRS
Among the staff offices which report to the Office of the Administrator is the Office of Industry Affairs. That Office is headed by Assistant Administrator William Rieke. The touchstone of the industry-Government relationshiy is the communication system which links industry and Government. It is Mr. Rieke's general responsibility to initiate, maintain, improve, and promote communications so that the industry and Government segments of the Nation's space team function together effectively and in harmony to achieve our goals in the most economic manner. Organizational elements reporting to the Assistant Administrator for Industry Affairs are as follows: The Office of Procurement. The Facilities Management Office. The Labor Relations Office. The Reliability and Quality Assurance Office. The Inventions and Contributions Board. Probably a few words about each will describe the functions performed and indicate certain achievements. Also described briefly are some of the objectives for the next year which is part of a continuing program to implement new, promising ideas which will further promote our industry relationships. The Office of Procurement issues NASA-wide procurement policy and regulations, reviews and approves major contracts, and evaluates operations. Testimony of previous years describes in detail the policies we pursue and our actual practices. As in the past, the principal goals are maximizing competition and motivating quality performance at the lowest cost. In both of these areas the past year has been one of accomplishment, and next year is viewed as one in which the healthy trends which have been established will continue. For example, NASA's competitive procurements have been as follows:
92

Fiscal year
Percent
(In billions)
Amount
1962 ________________________________________________________________________ _ 1963 ________________________________________________________________________ _ 1964 ________________________________________________________________________ _ 196iL _______________________________________________________________________ _
55
58
$0_565
1-3
1966 (6 months) ____________________________________________________________ _
60 63
65
2_1 2_6
1- 5
With respect to improvements in contracting methods, NASA has continued to encourage the use of incentive contracts wherever appropriate and, conversely, to limit cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts to those cases where the uncertainties involved clearly dictated use of this kind of contractual arrangement_ As of December 31,1965, NASA had 159 active incentive contracts with a target value of $2.2 billion. This compares to 121 contracts with a target value of $1.8 billion as of June 30, 1965. In this 6-months' period a 31-percent increase in the number of incentive contracts was realized and a 22-percent increase in dollar volume. Currently 13 additional contracts are in negotiation with target values estimated to be $1.8 billion. Contrasting with this upward trend in incentive contracts is the striking decrease in new cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts. NASA placed $2.2 billion of this type in fiscal year 1963, $1.8 billion in fiscal year 1964, $0.207 billion in fiscal year 1965, and only $31 million during the first half of fiscal year 1966. A management tool which will be of increasing use in NASA is phased project planning. To assure that all the benefits of this technique are fully and consistently utilized, a policy directive on this subject was issued on October 28, 1965. Each phase of a major project is a specifically approved activity undertaken after review and analysis of preceding effort. NASA believes that implementation of the directive will result in more intensive competition in industry and in better Government management in many areas, including procurement. The Facilities Management Office was established on December 15, 1965, to effect consolidation of related actiities and is the result of continuing efforts to adapt management structures to changing conditions faced by NASA. This organization will provide, within N ABA's headquarters, a single authority responsible for the development of agency policies and practices relating to management of N ABA cotrolled facilities and real property, including acquisition, design, construction, repair, alteration, maintenance, operation, utilization and disposal. NASA expects that the operations of this Office will result in increased economy and will assure the most efficient application of facilities management experience throughout the agency. The Labor Relations Office has NASA-wide responsibility for establishing and maintaining labor relations which promote stability in the performance of our programs. This Office works almost daily with the Department of Labor, the President's Missile Sites Labor Commission, and labor organizations at the headquarters and local levels to avoid work stoppages which might disrupt the launch and other schedules we have established. A most significant development in recent experience was a gratifying sharp decline in man-days lost by construction workers at the Kennedy Space Center during the final half of calendar 1965. Of course, this improvement could not have been made without the cooperation and dedica tion of other Government agencies, our contractors and the labor community itself. The Reliability and Quality Assurance Office develops agencywide policies and procedures in its area of responsibility, studies special reliability and quality problems, develops new methodology and techniques and represents and coordinates N ABA's reliability and quality assurance program with the Der;artment of Defense and industry. Significant accomplishments during the past year include working with industry to identify those of our quality requirements which might cause unnecessary costs. It is expected that continuing work in this area will result in cost reductions without lowering required performance characteristics. Also of significance are the economies which will flow from Department of Defense and NASA cooperation in identifying needed study and research areas and sharing work assignments to preclude duplications of effort. The responsibiliti('s of the Inventions and Contributions Board include receiving and evaluating applications for award for sci!'ntific or technical contributions to NASA which hav(~ significant value in the conduct of aeronautical and space activities. While awards have been made to Government employees as the result
93
of ongoing programs and a few awards have been made to contractor employees, NASA has had no widely publicized program which would give incentive to contractor employees to make and report new inventions and technical discoveries. NASA is now planning a broad program to give individual recognition for these innovations. Where the contribution is of significant value, a monetary award may be made as provided in section 306 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. It is expected that this program will encourage the flow and dissemination of information growing out of NASA contracts so that maximum application thereof to the economy generally will be promoted.
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION PROGRAM:
The NASA technology utilization program has been designed to disseminate as widely as practicable the information resulting from NASA's activities and bring about its rapid and effective utilization by the nonaerospace technical community. The work of this program falls into three broad categories: 1. The identification of scientific and technological developments that appear to have potential for nonaerospace applications; 2. The evaluation of these developments; and 3. The publication, dissemination, and communication of these developments to the nonaerospace technical community. I would like to discuss each of these activities in more detail on the following pages. The funds requested for fiscal year 1967 for the operation of the Technology Utilization Program are $4.8 million. This is approximately the same level of effort as the appropriation for fiscal year 1966. Identification and evaluation Good progreEs has been made in the last 2 years in identifying new technology and evaluating its significance and relevance to needs outside the a.erospa.ce community. At the time this program was last reviewed in detail ,with this committee, we were in the early stages--we were just starting to publish Tech Briefs; now we have published over 600. You will recall that the Tech Brief is our primary means of announcing a NASA innovation that has potential industrial utility. This facet of our program has been systematized and streamlined, resulting in an ability to identify, document, evaluate, and disseminate a substantially increased number of these useful innovations without increased cost. We anticipate publication of approximately 700 Tech Briefs during calendar year 1966; this will bring the total of these publications to over 1,300. One reason for the increased rate of innovation reporting, of course, is the maturing of many of the research and development programs begun in the past. As this has taken place, we have laid special emphasis on effective reporting of new technology generated from the NASA field centers. We have also devoted special effort to improving the systems for reporting of new technology by NASA contractors. We also publish technology utilization reports, notes, and handbooks, which result from in-depth evaluation by research contractors of more complete information on technological subjects. Two yean> ago we had published only a few multipage special publications; at this time we have published 22, with about the Fame number in process. Technology surveys are state of the art reports on those technical areas where the frontiers of knowledge have been pushed forward substantially as a result of aerospace research and development programs. The publication of technology sulveys is moving well. Seven surveys have been pUblil;hed to date. Eleven more are in advanced stages of preparation. Dis8emination New technology identified through the NASA technology utilization program is communicated to potential users in a variety of ways, some traditional and some newer and experimental. Among traditional means used is a mailing list built from the requests of addressees. Our publications are announced to that group by regular mailings. A typical tech brief will be mailed to 2,600 people in industry; in addition 2,000 universities, information depositories, and related organizations, as well as 1,000 publications, primarily business, trade, technical, and professional magazines, will receive this information. This is based on a selective use of the mailing lists.
94
We are currently receiving approximately 150 individual inquiries for additional information regarding each tech brief. As many as 1,000 specific requests have been received for more information on several. Adding the number distributed by NASA field centers and the NASA regional dissemination programs, the average tech brief is probably seen by nearly 10,000 persons. Specific requests from industry are generated primarily by various business and trade publications. Business publications are giving increased attention to publishing the output of the NASA technology utilization program. We have just completed a survey of our mailing list. More than 90 percent of those responding have requested that we continue to send them information on our new publications. Considerable progress has been made in our experimental regional dissemination programs. Two years ago two dissemination centers were operating (at Indiana University and at Midwest Research Institute), with 29 corporations paying membership fees on an experimental basis; now we have eight dissemination centers on the line with 131 corporations paying membership fees at our established computer-based centers. This is an increase of 52 companies in the last year. These centers add individualized contact, tailored service, and rapid local information retrieval skills to the dissemination facet of our program. Dissemination programs are now in operation at Indiana University, Wayne State University, University of Pittsburgh, North Carolina Science and Technology Research Center, Midwest Research Institute, University of New Mexico, University of Maryland, and Southeastern (Oklahoma) State College. The first four are computer-equipped. In addition, we estimate that over 3,000 companies have received some degree of service from the regional dissemination programs. Small business Special efforts are being made to bring the results of our program to the attention of smaller companies. Each regional dissemination center has established special annual membership fees for that purpose, permitting a smaller company to obtain the services of these centers at an annual cost of $750 or less. All fees charged by the NASA dissemination centers are, of course, based on the degree or volume of service requested by the member company. Thus, one small firm is being serviced for $75 per year and one very large firm is paying in excess of $15,000 per year. We have also recently concluded an interagency agreement with the Small Business Administration whereby some element of that organization's field offices, under a pilot program, will be providing NASA technology to small business concerns. Interagency transfer In addition to our work with the Small Business Administration, we are carrying on discussions at present with six other Federal a!l;encies, aimed at rraking selective items of NASA technology available to aid in their missions. We be:ieve this interagency approach will be especially effective in bringing about the r~pid application of NASA technology of value in life sciences. Along the same hnes, we have ceen cooperating closely, on an informal basis, with the Office of State Technical Services in the Commerce Department, which is beginning, under new legislative authority, a complementary program. We see an opportunity, by cooperation, to enhance the effectiveness of both programs. Examples of transfer This program has now progressed to the stage where specific examples of transfers of technology resulting from the program can be documented. Your attention is invited to the following summary of selected case histories-February 1966.
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION PROGRAM-SELECTED CASE HISTORIES, FEBRUARY
1966
TRANSFERS TO THE FIELDS OF BIOMEDICINE
Telemetry
A NASA contractor produced for biomcdical experiments at Ames a telemetry unit designed for monitoring the electrocardio!l;rams of astronauts under diverse, ambulatory conditions. The unit consisted of a small, battery-operated transmitter with electrodes (to be pasted to the chest of a subject) and a portable FM receiver. Heart signals transmitted to the receiver were amplified for visual readout on a polygraph or oscilloscope.
95
Presently, a slightly modified wireless telemetering system is being used in a hospital in the intensive care cardiac monitoring unit. The system is excellent f<>r monitoring a heart patient, and the wireless feature permits the patient to move freely within 100 feet of the receiver while his EKG is being constantly monitored. Data obtained from an exercisin~ heart patient are often more meaningful than those from a sedentary one. Continuous monitoring previously required a patient to lie still, encumbered by unwieldy electrocardiographic lead wires. The system in use consists of three transmitters and five receivers bought from the original developer, who is marketing the units at $1,600 per unit, in conjunction with another firm. From the NASA use of the telemeters to the present, the NASA Technology Utilization Office has encouraged the developer in the adaptation of this innovation for use in the biomedical field, at the same time making information concerning the innovation and its potential applications available to the public by means of a NASA special technology utilization publication: "Medical and Biological Applications of Space Telemetry."
Lunar Walker
A proposal was made to NASA to develop a remotely operated instrument carrier, called the lunar walker, which was designed to meet N ABA requirements for use in unmanned exploration of lunar and planetary surfaces. Two years ago the principle of this walking vehicle was considered as potentially adaptable to the needs of limbless or crippled individuals. Now it has been adapted to such use by a western company in cooperation with a university, HEW, and NASA's western operations office. The walking chair moves on reciprocating legs. A subject can easily control the walking chair manua.lly or by a chinstrap. In the chair, a crippled person can travel over terrains that heretofore have been impossible in an ordinary wheelchair. The apparatus has been shown to be adequate and safe for traversing sandy beaches, for clearing curbs, and might possibly be adapted for climbing stairs. A model is now being tested and evaluated by a rehabilitation center in southern California.
Sight Switch
A switch actuated only by voluntary movement of the eyes has been developed for NASA by an Alabama company. The sight switch, properly relayed, can be put to a variety of uses, among them: remote operation of a mechanical page turner, ca.ll board, room lights, thermostat, TV, radio, etc.; also, with modifications, it could be employed to operate industrial machines, control panels, electric typewriter keyboards, and other devices. A company has adapted the sight switch to a motorized wheelchair, which will enable a paraplegic, without any body or limb movements, to control a wheelchair with his eyes. The prototype chair is now available for test and evaluation purposes. New or improved products or devices
Electromagnetic Hammer
A shipbuilding company has had severe problems with the buckling of decks and other distortions caused by the heat of welding and hand hammering. By a loan arrangement with the Maritime Administration, the company is now using an electromagnetic hammer, as it is called, developed by an employee at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. The hammer is being evaluated for rapid removal of distortions while keeping the metal free of the strpsses caused by hand hammering. Direct effort by the Marshall Space Flight Center Technology Utilization Office and NASA e ... gineers familiar with the subject, plus the provision of the operating unit by Marshall, have been essential in getting the evaluation project
started.
Cold Cathode Ionization Gage
One company is manufacturing and marketing an ultra-high vacuum. cold cathode, ionization gage. Commercial sales of the gage reached $30,000 during the past year and total $90,000 since its introduction on the market. The gage was developed to meet a NASA requirement for an extremely low pressure measurinr;!; ionization gage for use on satellites. Devices of this type have application in a number of industries, including metals, chemicals, food, packaging, cryogenics, thin film semiconductors and insulators and also in scientific work such as high-energy particle accelerators.
96
Coaxial Cable Cutter and Stripper

A California company is manufacturing and marketing a coaxial cable cutter and stripper which was conceived and reduced to practice at Ames Research Center by one of Ames' employees. The cutter and stripper is a handtool, simple to operate and capable of cutting coaxial cable shielding and insulation precisely at the right distance from the cable end and precisely to the right depth. Previously, there were no tools on the market capable of doing this job and normally an ordinary pocketknife was used. A NASA tech brief issued in April 1965, on the subject was publicized by a trade journal and noted there by an employee of the company now making it. By December 1965, about 100 of the tools had been sold (retail price: $39.95 f.o.b.)-this during the tool's first month on the market and during a traditionally slow business period. On the basis of December's activity, the company expects sales to increase dramatically in 1966. The cable division of a midwestern company received from a NASA technology utilization program regional dissemination center a NASA tech brief describing this cable cutter and stripper, and feeling the device would serve their purposes well, built the device with only slight modification for use in their plant. By using this tool the company has been able to overcome a major problem in preparing coaxial cable for termination, reducing labor costs by 50 percent, which gives savings of about $5,000 per year. Previously this was a time-consuming task for which cutting and stripping tools have never been suitable, and hand methods were not only slow but could also result in cable damage.
Seismometer
A company has been manufacturing and marketing a seismometer developed by a university under NASA contract. To date, 12 pieces of equipment have been sold to seismic observatories and the company's promotional efforts are beginning to create interest in new and related geological fields. The company has also introduced a package of three mutually orthogonally oriented seismometers for permanent mounting on structures so that components of seismic distrubances about each of the three axes may be obtained to assist designers or builders in their study of the effects of distant quakes on such structures over a long period of time.
Temperature Transducer
A midwestern company has manufactured and sold more than 100 temperature transducers originally developed under a NASA contract to provide temperature measurement in inaccessible places. Sales of the temperature probe in the last 2 years have been approximately $25,000. Possible future commercial uses of the transducer include laboratory measurements, industrial processes, and telemetry. The invention is unable where a temperature monitoring circuit would be needed for temperature measurements in inaccessible places and where it is desired that the temperature data be available in the form of an electrical signal not requiring intervening amplification.
Damped Piezoelectric Accelerometer

A firm developed a damped accelerometer to be used to make vibration measurements of Saturn boosters during static firings. This accelerometer avoided the tendency of commercially available models to oscillate or "ring" when subjected to the extremely high shock impulses generated during such firings. The company spent $50,000 of its funds in developing the device further for commercial utility. The company has already sold 250 of the units.
New Battery Separator Material

A battery manufacturer, convinced that development of better silver-zinc oxide and silver oxide-cadmium batteries had been held back because of lack of better separation material, worked with a NASA regional dissemination center in searching NASA-sponsored R. & D. work in this area. The result was information which, after tests and analyses, proved to be just what was needed to improve the company's costs and product quality.
97
New Alloy
A small midwestern company has applied a process developed by NASA to the developing of a new alloy designed to fit an existing need for which no suitable alloy has been available. This process was selected after (1) computer searches in the areas of metals technology by a NASA dissemination center limited the number of possible avenues of research investigation from a multitude to a few manageable ones, which is especially important in consideration of the fact that the small company could not afford to have many abortive research investigations, and (2) initial experimentation involving the few avenues of research led the company to conclude that one of the avenues would be profitable to pursue.
Static Moisture Removal System Jor Hydrogen-Oxygen Fuel Cells
A Wisconsin company, under a NASA contract to develop a fuel system for use in the Saturn booster instrument units, developed a method for removing water vapor from Hz-O, fuel cells, thereby solving a problem which had long plagued fuel cell technology. The new method of moisture removal, utilizing a specially treated asbestos membrane, offered the advantage of being more reliable and lighter than the mechanical pump systems commonly used in earlier fuel cells. During the past 6 months, the firm has sold $20,000 worth of fuel cells after incorporating into them the static moisture removal system.
Portable TooUJ for Brazing
A Michigan company is now manufacturing and selling, as part of its commercial line, portable tools for brazing tubing in areas of limited access, the design of which was developed under a NASA contract. The company has invested a substantial amount of its own funds to develop the tools and has recently proposed the use of the tools to airlines to be employed in repairing jet engines. Substantial sales in this area are expected. These tools include a hand held device for cleaning the exterior surface of a tube, and a cutting tool, a deburring tool, and a brazed union removable tool.
Differential Temperature Transducer
The development of a transducer for measuring the temperature differential between the inlet and outlet flow of water coolant in electric arc research resulted from a NASA program. The transducer is especially effective in measuring temperatures in strong electric and magnetic fields, but in addition to its usage for this purpose, suggested applications are in the chemical process industry, nuclear reactor technology, and internal combustion engine testing, with further use in arc technology, and in specialized high temperature work. A new company was formed to market the device and as of early 1965, approximately 200 units had been sold, filling a broad range of instrumentation requirements.
New or improved techniques or processes Nondestructive Determination oj Extent oj Cure of ReinJorced Plastics
A company which manufactures reinforced plastic tanks, fume ducting, and fume scrubbers for the process chemical industry has borrowed NASA technology of nondestructive testing. The company's problem was that existing methods of testing the hardness of reinforced plastic structures punctured the structures and was, therefore, undesirable. Through active searching effort by a NASA dissemination center, a report was placed in the hands of the company which led them to utilize nondestructive techniques to make determinations of the extent of the cure of their reinforced plastics.
Manufacture oj Slip Rings and Bush Rings
A midwestern company was able to overcome cost problems in the manufacture of slip and bush rings for vehicles by using information concerning friction, metallurgy, and lubrication provided by a NASA dissemination center. The approximate cost savings are estimated by the company at $30,000.
98
Weld Testing and Inspection Technique

A midwestern firm which produces a long-length, flexible tube product is investing $10,000 in new equipment and in personnel training to implement a new testing technique for determining the quality of deep-in-the-tube welds. The technique was located in the NASA literature of inspection techniques and testing methods by a computer search by a NASA dissemination center. The solution was to utilize a radioactive isotope, suspended in a manner that set it equidistant from all sides of the tube. After the insertion of the isotope, X-ray techniques are applied to record the weld quality.
Attachment of Solar Cells to Aircraft

A northern company was able to complete a project requiring the attachment of solar cells to aircraft as a result of information in reports describing attaching techniques provided by a NASA dissemination center. The accomplishment of this which had previously held up the project saved about 1 man-year of effort on the project, amounting to an approximate dollar saving of $35,000. Digital Process Control Systems A major U.S. textile firm in South Carolina is establishing direct digital process control systems in its textile finishing plant. Use of this automatic control system came as a direct result of the effort NASA had made with such systems in conjunction with test firing of boosters. Some time ago, the firm decided that computer controlled systems offered many potential advantages in the processing of textiles. A visit to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center with Marshall's technology utilization officer led to the company's witnessing operation of vehicle check-out systems used during the test firing sequence of Saturn boosters. From this review the firm concluded that the same digital process control system could be applied to textile finishing, and has taken steps to implement such application. Another company was successful in a proposal to apply an industrial electronic system employing digital techniques to the same major textile firm's looms in a Georgia plant. This company won this award primarily because of the digital techniques it proposed and their superiority over slower and somewhat outdated analogue systems.
NASA Evaluation of Foam Application Spurs Independent Development

One company solved a production problem through the independent development of a specially designed apparatus based upon the evaluation of similar mechanisms found in a NASA document. This company is a manufacturer of fiberglass boats and had been using polyurethane foam for flotation, sound deadening, and rigidity. The inefficiency of its methods led the company to ask a regional dissemination center for assistance. A computer search quickly retrieved several relevant documents, and one document found in the search of NASA literature described the merits of several types of foam application. Using this material as the basis, this manufacturer decided that he could build an application system which would conform specifically to his needs. Improved Welding Characteristics of High Nickel Alloy A manufacturer of high nickel alloys had been receiving documents from a regional dissemination center related to the alloying of special metal compositions. The company incorporated techniques from these documents into its production operations. The result has been the improvement of the welding characteristics of a number of the company's products.
Increased knowledge which has produced tangible gains High-Pressure Seals

A retrospective literature search by a NASA regional dissemination center permitted a company to save half of a man-year plus $25,000 by providing information on new design concepts and design data for high-pressure seals.
99
Aerodynamic Noise
Facing a problem of reducing automobile panel flutter which results from aerodynamic noise, a member company of a NASA dissemination center reviewed reports uncovered by the center's computer search on the subject of structural damping and was thereby provided with a rapid solution of the initial problems, which led to initiation of a design phase and development of hardware-prototype solutions to the problem. Approximately $35,000 was the company's estimate of the cost savings. Thin Wall Cylindera A Missouri company requested from a NASA dissemination center research information on the structural characteristics of thin wall cylinders to bring itself up to date in the design and manufacture of steel tanks and buildings. The information provided proved to be of direct benefit in the analysis and design of structures using "stiffened bends." They now have both production and experimental products for which the information supplied has served as basic reference. The company saved $35,000 in a research effort and the sales of these new or redesigned products are estimated by the company to run at $50,000 per year. Rectifiera Replacement Having considerable difficulty in getting the rectifiers on various pieces of their equipment to perform at a level sufficient to meet operating requirements, a midwestern company queried a NASA dissemination center for a possible solution to the problem. Information on the costs and benefits of silicon controlled rectifiers was sent to the company. Shortly thereafter a company program to effect conversion to silicon controlled rectifiers was initiated. It is expected that this will be completed early this year with estimated cost savings approaching $100,000 anticipated from this conversion.
Page intentionally left blank

TUESDAY, l'tlAB.CH 1, 1966
U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENC_ES, Washingtqn, D.O. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 235, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Clifton P. Anderson (chairman) presiding. PreEent: Senators Anderson, Young, Cannon, Mondale, Byrd, Smith, Aiken, and Jordan. Also present: James J. Gehrig, staff director; William J. Deachman; Everard H. Smith, Jr.,; Craig Voorhees; Dr. Glen P. Wilson, professional staff members; Donald H. Brennan, research assistant; Mary Rita Robbins, clerical assistant; Mrs. Eilene Galloway, special consultant to the committee; Frank Krebs, assistant to Senator Cannon, and Sam Bouchard, assistant chief clerk. The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Mueller, we are glad to welcome ;tou and to have your testimony this morning. I am sure that we will be interested in any comments you might have on the shot the Russians made to Venus. Do you have any information for us? RUSSIAN SPACECRAFT ON VENUS Dr. MUELLER. The information we have at the moment, Senator Anderson, is just the Tass announcement saying that the spacecraft had landed on Venus, but that during the final phases of the flight, communications failed. So I would, from that brief announcement, judge that they did not receive additional information about VDUS' environment. The CHAIRMAN. The Russians made this shot on November 16, they said. Dr. MUELLER. That is right, and it has been on the way some 4 months. I think it is interesting that they have, during the course of the last several years, launched one, two, or more vehicles toward the planets at each opportunity, at each opposition of the planets, with the consequence that their total number of attempts have been considerably larger than ours. They have, however, not been quite so successful in carrying that through. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Does any member of the committee want to ask Dr. Mueller a question about Venus before he begins his statement?
101
102
Senator AIKEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Did I understand Dr. Mueller to say that an unmanned vehicle had landed on Venus? Dr. MUELLER. That is correct, Senator Aiken. One of the two vehicles that they have on the way to Venus actually impacted Venus this morning. Senator AIKEN. Oh, this morning. That is why we did not know of it before then, is it not? Dr. MUELLER. They just announced it. Senator AIKEN. Is it talking back? Dr. MUELLER. No, sir, communications failed, apparently, sometime before they got into the immediate vicinity of the planet. Senator AIKEN. It was not a soft landing, maybe? Dr. MUELLER. It was not a soft landing, as nearly as we can tell. SOVIET CAPABILITIES IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHTS Senator SMITH. May I ask Dr. Mueller, as I understand it, he was talking about an unmanned vehicle. Would you want to give the committee an evaluation of the Soviet capabilities in manned space flights? Dr. MUELLER. The capability of the Soviet Union in manned space flight-if you are thinking of a planetary flight, would apparently be somewhere in the same position as we are at the present time. We have had no hard evidence that they are developing the stages or the lropulsion systems that would permit them to carry out manne planetary exploration. On the other hand, as you know, our visibility into the Soviet program is exceedingly limited, so that we have no evidence that they are not working on various advanced propulsion systems, either. Senator SMITH. Do you wish to say anything about what they are doing as far as the manned flight to the Moon is concerned, how advanced they are? Dr. MUELLER. Again, we have no evidence that they are actually carrying out a lunar program. On the other hand, we have a number of statements bv both their cosmonauts and members of their scientific community that they do plan on carrying out a manned lunar landing, and certainly, their activity with respect to the development of the techniques for manned lunar landing appear to be roughly parallel to ours. Perhaps they are a little bit ahead of ours. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Aiken? RUSSIAN SOFT LANDING ON MOON Senator AIKEN. Dr. Mueller, did the Russians get information from the soft landing on the Moon that we did not get? Dr. MUELLER. I am sure that they did, Senator Aiken, because, of course, there was telemetry transmitted from the soft lander, and one needs to have a fair amount of information about the characteristics of a telemetry system and characteristics of the instrumentation-before one can deduce the results of the landing. Senator AIKEN. The fact that they made a soft landing does not obviate the importance of our making a soft landing also?
103
Dr. MUELLER. No, sir; the soft landing of the Russian craft was, of course, an important event in the exploration of the Moon. Yet it does represent only a measurement of a given point. We surely need to have more points to confirm the measurements we have there, and in addition to that, we need some more specific information about the landing, the bearing strength of the lunar surface. Senator AIKEN. We did get valuable information from their achievement, then? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, sir; quite valuable information. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cannon, did you have some questions? SOVIET LUNAR PROGRAM EXTENSIVE Senator CANNON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Getting back to Senator Smith's question, I think the record would indicate a little less than what the facts are. Is it not fairly well recognized in the scientific community that they have quite an extensive lunar program and that they have a lunar capability in the not too distant future? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. In fact, the basic vehicles they have are capable of a manned lunar flyby mission, and if they made use of the Earth orbital rendezvous technique, their present vehicles could support a manned lunar landing. I think that there is evidence, both III the scientific community and in their cosmonaut community, that they are actively considering at least a manned lunar landing. There may have been numerous people saying that they plan to carry one out. Senator CANNON. Is there not some evidence in the scientific community, and I am thinking now particularly of Sir Bernard Lovell, who anticipates that they may have a circumlunar flight either in 1967 or 1968? Dr. MUELLER. Sir Bernard Lovell has made that prediction on several occasions. Senator CANNON. And that they may make a landing on t.hA Moon not laler than 1969? Dr. MUELLER. I have not heard that particular prediction, but I would not be surprised. Senator CANNON. You would give them that capability, at least? Dr. MUELLER. Certainly it is within the realm of their present capability to accomplish these things. Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Byrd, do you have a question? Senator BYRD. Yes, Mr. Chairman. MANNED SPACE FLIGHT TIMES Dr. Mueller, in previous years, the record always reflected the Manned Orbital Flight times for the Soviet Union and the United States. Would you put into the record a table showing pertinent information about the U.S. and U.S.S.R. Manned Space Flights to date and giving a total amount of Manned Space Flight time and the total man-hours in space for both the Soviet Union and the United States?
59-941066 8
104
Dr. MUELLER. Yes, sir; I shall be pleased to place that in the record. Actually, there are about 1,299 man-hours of flight time in the Gemini program to date. (The chart referred to follows:)
United States Manned Space Flights, 1961-66
Date Designation Crew Duration
Launched I_R_e_c_o_v_er_e_d_ _____________ ___________ _____
May 5 _____ May 5 ____ Mercury-Redstone IIL ___________ Alan B. Shepard____________ July 2L ____ July 2L __ Mercury-Redstone IV _____________ Virgil I. Grlssom____________ Feb. 20 _____ 1 Feb. 20 ___ _ MercuryAtlas VL_ .. ___________ ._ John H. Glenn, Jr. _____ . ___ _ May2L ___ May24 __ _ Mercury-Atlas VIL _______________ M. Scott Carpenter_._. ____ _ Oct. 3______ Oct. 3____ _ MercuryAtlas VIII __ . ____________ Walter M. Schlrra, Jr .. ____ _ May lS ____ MayI6 __ _ Mercury-Atlas IX. ____ .... _______ L. Gordon Cooper _________ _
1965 196
1961
MinHours utel
IS 15
4 4
66 56
13
1965
34
20
53
56 66
Mar.23 ____ Mar. 23_._ Gemini III -- .... -------------.- .. - {VirgilW. Grissom -.--------- } 4 John I. Young.: __________ _ McDIvitt.. - -----June 3 ____ ._ June 7____ _ Gemini IV ---------------.-.--.--- James A.H. White IIL ____ _ } 97 Edward Aug.2L __ . Aug. 29 __ . Gemini V .--------------.--.- .. --- Charles Conrad, Jr-_________ _ 190 L. Gordon Cooper Dec.4_. ____ Dec.18 ___ . Gemini VII .------------ .. -.. ----- {Frank A. Levell, Jr._. _____ _ 330 James Borman -------------
---------1
35
Dec. 15 ____ . Dec. 16._._ Gemini VI -.---.---------- .. ------ {Walter M. Schlrra, Jr ___ . __ . Thomas P. Sta.tford. _______ _
1966
26
Mar.lL_. Mar.lL_ Gemini VII!... ______________ ._ .. m:~I~lr&~n~~~::::::::::}
10
42
56 58
Total manned spacecraft hours_. ___ . __ .. ____________ ._____ 714 Total man-hours In space __ . ____ .. _.. ___________ ._________ 1,375
Soviet Union Manned Space Flights, 1961-66

Date Designation Crew Duration
Launched I_R_oo_o_ve_r_e_d_ _____________ ___________ ______ I I I MinApr. 12---'-1 Apr. 12._ .. Vostok L_. __________________ . ____ Yurt A. Gagarln ____ . __ .____ Aug. 6 __ __ Aug.7. ___ Vostok II_ .. __ . __________ .. ______ . Gherman S. Tltov ___ . ___ .__ Aug.lL ___ 1 Aug.lS. __ Vostok IIL_. _________ ......... ___ Andrlan G. Nlkolayev______ Aug. 12 __ ._ Aug.15 __ _ Vostok IV. _______ . ___ ._. _________ Pavel R. Popovlch__________ June 14' ___ June 19 ___ _ Vostok V _________________________ Valery F. Bykovsky .. ______ Jun~ 16 ___ ._ June 19 ___ . Vostok VL ____________________ . __ Valentina V. Tereshkova____ Vladimir M. Komarov ______ } Oct. 12 _____ 1 Oct. 13 .. __ Voskhod L __________ .. ____ ._. __ ._ Konstantln P. Feoktlstov __ _ { Boris B. Yegorov __________ _
1965 1964 1965
1961
Hour.
25
mel 48
18
1961
94
70
35 57 6 50
'1
119
70
17
Mar.lL __ Mar. 19... Voskhod II .. _______________ .. _.. {~~"!~sf~~el;_:~~~~---~:::::::} Total manned spacecraft hours .. _____________ . ______ .. __________ Total manhours In space ________ . ________________ . ___ .________
27 433 509
2
53
29
~-'----~~~~~~--"--------
105
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. You may go ahead, Dr. Mueller. (The biography of Dr. Mueller follows:)
DR. GEORGE
E.
MUELLER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, SPACE FLIGHT, NASA
OFFICE OF MANNED
Dr. George E. Mueller (pronounced Miller) is Associate Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for Manned Space Flight. He assumed direction of NASA's Manned Space Flight program on I:3eptember 1, 1963. Dr. Mueller was born in St. Louis, Mo., on July 16, 1918. He received a B.S. in electrical engineering from the Missouri School of Mines in 1939 and an M.S. in electrical engineering from Purdue University in 1940. He was awarded a Ph. D. in physics from Ohio State University in 1951. Following graduation from Purdue, Dr. Mueller joined the Bell Telephone Laboratories where he conducted television and microwa.ve measuring experiments. He pioneered there in the measurement of radio energy from the sun, in microwave propagation, and in the design of low-field magnetrons. While employed in Holmdel he continued graduate studies at Princeton University. In 1946, Dr. Mueller joined the faculty of Ohio State University as assistant professor of electrical engineering. In 1952, he was appointed professor of electrical engineering. His research at OSU included the study and design of broadside and end-fire dielectric antennas, cathode emission, low-field magnetrons, and traveling wave tubes. He designed and developed one of the first 6-millimeter traveling wave tubes and a scanning scintillometer for mapping radioactive iodine. Before joining NASA, Dr. Mueller spent 5 years with Space Technology Laboratories, Inc., Redondo Beach, Calif., serving successively as director of the electronics laboratories, program director of the" Able" space program, vice president of space systems management, and vice president for research and development. In the last capacity, between 1962 and 1963,- he had overall responsibility for the technical operations of the company. While at Space Technology Laboratories, Dr. Mueller had overall responsibility for the design, development, and testing of the systems and components basic to the Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, and Thor ballistic missile program; for the development of the United States first successful space probe, Pioneer I; for Be eral other space projects including Explorer VI and Pioneer V, and for the establishment of the U.S. Air Force SPAN satellite tracking network. Dr. Mueller was one of the originators of the concept and design of the Telebit digital telemetry system. He holds seven patents in electrical engineering and is the author of more than 20 technical papers. With E. R. Spangler, he i~ the coauthor of a book, "Communication Satellites." Dr. Mueller is a fellow of the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers, an associate fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and a member of the American Physical Society. He is a member of Commission 6 (Radio Wave and Transmission of Information) in the International Scientific Radio Union and is active in national and international conferences on space communications and space technology. Dr. Mueller, his wife, Maude, and his two daughters live in Washington, D.C.
SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. MUELLER. ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT C. SEAMANS. 1R., DEPUTY ADIIINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Dr. MUELLER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to submit a statement for the record reporting on our accomplishments in the past year and plans for the fiscal year beginning in July. (See p. 151.) This morning, I would like to summarize my prepared statement. The CHAIRMAN. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)
106

SPACE LEADERSHIP COMPETITION KEEN
Dr. MUELLER. The achievements of the past year reflect substantial progress toward the accomplishment of this Nation's objectives in space. Yet even with this progress the competition for leadership in space is keen. On February 3, 1966, the Soviets reminded the world of their intentions in space by landing a spacecraft softly on the Moon. This very morning, they landed hard on Venus. Elsewhere in Europe, the industrial, scientific, and engineering community has become increasingly concerned about the technical leadership they believe is accruing in the United States as the result of our space program. I recently spent several days in Germany and I can assure you they are concerned about the technological gap that is developing. The launch of the second French satellite from their base in the Sahara Desert on February 17 illustrates the European determination to narrow this gap. There is evidence that this same desire for technological leadershipand through it, ideological leadership-is causing the Soviet Union to invest resources that are of the same order as ours. As a result of these investments, the pace of the Soviet space program has almost doubled in the last year-including the launching of a new booster of which we still do not know the full potential. The use of this new booster enabled them to orbit the Proton spacecraft, which is about a ton heavier than anything placed in orbit by the United States. In the light of this keen international desire for technological leadership, I would like now to report on the results of our own efforts in the manned space flight program directed toward our national objective of U.S. leadership in space.
MAJOR MILESTONES UNCHANGED
Our major milestones remain unchanged with the exception that the first Gemini rendezvous flight was accomplished in 1965 rather than in 1966 as originally scheduled. (See fig. 1.) The major milestone for 1966, the first Apollo Saturn IB unmanned flight, was accomplished on February 26, 1966, with the successful launch of the first Apollo Saturn IB unmanned flight. During 1965, the Gemini spacecraft was flown six times-once unmanned in addition to the five times with men. The missions increased in duration by regular amounts-from a day and a half in the final Mercury flight in 1963 to 14 days by the end of 1965. PerhaJ?s the most significant result of the Gemini program to date was that m every case the men returned in excellent health, both physical and mental. From the medical point of view, they showed that well-trained men can live and \vork in space for extended periods of time, and that the condition of weightlessness does not appear to cause any serious aftereffects. The astronauts' heart rates, for example, were measured continuously during flight and after their return. The heart rates tended to slow down slightly during the first few days of flight and then stabilized at a new lower level. After return to Earth the pilots' heart rates returned to their preflight norm in a day or two. When the duration of flight was extended to 4, 8, and then 14 days, the
107
MAJOR MSF MILESTONES
GEMINI
1964 1ST GEMINI FLIGHT 1965 1ST GEMINI MANNED FLIGHT 1966 1ST GEMINI RENDEZVOUS FLIGHT 1967 . GEMINI OPERATIONS
APOLLO
1966 IST APOLLO SATURN IB UNMANNED FLIGHT 1967 1ST APOLLO SATURN IB MANNED FLIGHT 1967-1ST APOLLO SATURN V UNMANNED FLIGHT 1968 1ST APOLLO SATURN V MANNED FLIGHT 1969 APOLLO OPERATIONS
NASA MC6S-5185 1/26/65
FIGURE
recovery time did not significantly change. So far as our medical people can determine at this time, flights of a month or more in duration are feasible. Altogether in Gemini last year 1,299 hours in space were logged. That amounts to one-seventh of a man-year. In connection with these medical achievements, I would like to take note of the tremendous loss suffered by this Nation in the tragic death of Dr. W. Randolph Lovelace II. During his lifetime, he made contributions of lasting significance to Manned Space Flight and to the field of aviation and medicine in general. We in the Manned Space Flight program particularly miss his wisdom and insight as well as his pioneering leadership.
SPACE WALK-RENDEZVOUS SIGNIFICANT
The significant event of 1965 was Ed White's 22-minute trip outside the spacecraft. White proved that man can do useful work in space. He showed that man is able to move about in space with a handheld maneuvering unit. White was alert and effective throughout the time he was outside, and there was no disorientation. Finally, there was the rendezvous. There was trouble in October when the Agena target vehicle failed to reach orbit. Consequently, plans were changed. Within the hour after Lovell and Borman took off on their 2-week flight in Gemini 7, people were at work around the clock, setting up another vehicle and spacecraft on the same launch pad. Gemini 6 lifted off 11 days later with Wally Schirra and Tom Stafford. They carried out a complex series of maneuvers for 5 hours. Then at an altitude of 185 miles above the Pacific Ocean they came together with Gemini 7. Despite its speed of 17,000 miles an hour, Schirra was able to guide his spacecraft to within 1 foot of the other.
108
I might add that he was aided by some very fine guidance and control equipment in this task. Many people deserve credit for these outstanding accomplishments. A broad-based Government industry team carried out the work. McDonnell of St. Louis built the spacecraft. Other flight hardware was provided by the Air Force and its industrial partner, Martin of Baltimore, as well as many other concerns throughout the country. The Navy recovered all of the spacecraft from the ocean after they came down. Our people and the Air Force people at Houston and Cape Kennedy are responsible for management and operations. The astronauts were magnificent. Another aspect of Gemini is worth noting. A year ago, the program was behind schedule and we were concerned about the possibility of cost overruns. Through management actions and a new contract in which the profit of the contractors engaged in the Gemini program is tied to their total performance, schedules have been accelerated and costs are under control. I do think the operation of these cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts has constituted one of the finest examples of the proper working of the free enterprise system.
PROGRESS IN APOLLO PROGRAM
We have also made progress in the Apollo program. Apollo is the largest rese'irch and development program this country has ever undertaken. In Apollo, the first phase of the Saturn vehicle program was completed in 1965. In 10 flights of the Saturn I, 10 were successful. This is an unprecedented record of success in rocket development. Much of the technology required for the later Saturn launch vehicles to be used in the manned Apollo flights was proved out in the Saturn I program. This technology includes the guidance, the concept of clustered rocket engines, and experience in using liquid hydrogen as rocket fuel. Liquid hydrogen is important because it provides double the fuel economy of earlier fuels-that is, about twice as many miles per gallon. However, before it could be used it was necessary to learn to store it at temperatures more than 400 degrees below zero. Last week, we successfully flight tested the uprated Saturn I launch vehicle in an unmanned flight. With this launch vehicle later this year, we will place some 35,000 pounds in orbit. In last week's flight, we introduced a new concept in our flight testing procedures. We call it the all up concept. Both stages of the launch vehicle, a complex instrument unit, the spacecraft Command Module, which carries the three astronauts, the manned vehicle; and the Propulsion Module, which supplies propulsion in space, were flown together for the first time. This method enables us to get more test results on a single flight. It also represents some increase in risk.
SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE
During 1965, excellent progress was made in the development of the Saturn V launch vehicle and the spacecraft to be used on the lunar flights. All three stages of the Saturn V vehicle were fired in ground tests.
109
The third stage and the instrument unit to this vehicle were successfully flown on the Saturn IB last week. Testing, assembly and deliveries of engines and stages continue on schedule as does the activation of facilities for test and operational needs. Two of the three major elements of the spacecraft, the Command and Propulsion Module, were successfully flight tested on the Apollo Saturn launch last week.
LUNAR MODULE DEVELOPMENT
The Lunar Module development is progressing on schedule toward an unmanned flight test in 1967. The men are also being trained. Two-thirds of our astronauts are occupied with the Gemini program. But 10 have already been assigned to Apollo. They are making intensive studies of lunar conditions and the lunar terrain. All are undergoing the necessary scientific training. The first group of scientist astronauts are now in training. I would like to leave you with three thoughts on the status of the Manned Space Flight pro~am. First, the Government-rndustry team required to carry out the program is organized and working. Second, the program is on schedule, a schedule set when the program began. Third, if our progress continues, we will carry out the first manned lunar landing before the end of this decade. Next, I would like to discuss what the Nation has in vested in this program. For the Manned Space Flight program we have invested two and a half billion dollars of funds appropriated to NASA for the acquisition of facilities and their eqUIpment. We have been able to make use of grourd facilities and plant worth $760 million, which had been established by the Department of Defense for missile and other programs. Beyond this, American industry has invested $650 million of its own stockholders' funds in new facJities and equipment required to do the job. The NASA Manned Space Flight facilities therefore have a total value of about $4 billion. Altogether, the Manned Space Flight program is carried out by a team that consists of our Washington office, 3 field centers, 12 prime con tractors, and some 17,000 subcontractors in every r,8.Tt of the country. Management is carried out by geographical y dispersed program offices whose directive structure penetrates through the functional organizations of the field centers and the prime contractors, to the subcontractors and vendors.
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT MANPOWER
We have arrived at our manpower peak of 300,000 people, in the Manned Space Flight effort. (Fig. 2.) The civil service component is about 5 percent of this total. Supporting these people is a group of contractors who assist in the operation of our field centers. With the rapid completion of the necessary facilities, construction manpower is phasing out. The bulk of the manpower is engaged in research and development carried out by industrial contractors.
110
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
MANPOWER
1ST APOLLO SATURN IB UNMANNEO FLIGHT 1ST APOLLO SATURN IB , MANNEO FLIGHT 1ST APOLLO SATURN V UNMANNEO FLIGHT
300 000 250.000 MAN YEARS 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000
L-~
__
______
____
__
__
__
____
CY 61
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
;'6:1
NASA M( 60
"} 78 66
FIGURE
So far as overall Manned Space Flight manpower is concerned, we have passed our peak in engineering, we are reaching our peak in manufacturing, and we are at our peak in total manpower resources. The proposed budget for the coming fiscal year beginning July 1 calls for a level effort. One of the most striking anomalies of the space program is that we must begin to "go out of business" before we fly our first operational vehicle. (Fig. 3.) Our experience in the program to develop the uprated Saturn I launch vehicle illustrates this situation. Although the decline in manpower employed on this phase of the program has been underway for several months, the first flight did not take place until last week-and the first manned flight is a year away. By the time manned flights begin, the employment level will be almost half the level at the peak, which occurred III 1965. The same anomaly characterizes the overall program. (See fig. 2.) The flights of the Apollo Saturn V will begin next year after the program has begun its decline-and the manned flights will begin in 1968 after this decline has been underway for some time. There are three points that should be made regarding the investment in Manned Space Flight: First, and perhaps most important, there exists an organization consisting of a Government management structure of 15,000 people, and a prime contractor structure of 135,000 people. These. combined with the subcontractor structure, make a total of 300,000 people trained and established in special facilities for Manned Space Flight work.
111
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
SATURN 18 MANPOWER
30,000,--------------------------, FIRST UNMANNEO FLIGHT
f---: FIRST MANNED FLIGHT

20,000
MAN YEARS
10,000
O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CY 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
NASA MP 66 5813
228-66
FIGURE
Second, the program is under control, working toward clearly established program goals, within total cost estimates established at the program inception. Third, the time has arrived for a decision as to whether and how this capability might be employed for programs to follow present programs.
SPACE PROGRAM RESOURCES
Now what about the resources committed to the space program? We are most fortunate to live in an economy that is growing, despite the increasing total of Federal expenditures. The share of gross national product represented by these expenditures has been relatively stable-dose to 15 percent in the last several years. One way to view the national commitment to space activities is to look at that set of related activities encompassed by Federal expenditures for the Department of Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission, and NASA. (See fig. 4.) I would like to call your attention to a break in the chart. It jumps from 1 percent to 8 percent, to get the curves on the same chart. Twelve years ago, when the gross na.tional product was $362 billion, the expenditures for National Defense, Atomic Energy, and NASA's predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, totaled $47.1 billion. This was 13 percent of the gross national product. In the current fiscal year, the projected total is $62.26 billion, down to 8.9 percent of the gross national product of $700 billion. In fiscal year 1967, if the gross national product grows as anticipated, the total expenditures of $66.12 billion for Defense, Atomic Energy, and NASA
112
r&~&ML flPEN{)IIlIREg /)EFN.p~ AmMle &N&RB~ AN/) .!'PA(Je A! A ,DERe&IITA~E OF THE BRO!! NATIONAl. I1eOVieT
PERCENT
13r-------------------------------------------------~
12
11
10
'-_---_A;,;.:TOMIC
TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE ENERGY AND SPACE
~rt:::::::::::]N~A~CA~::::AT:O:M:IC;;E;NE~R;G~Y::~~~~:::::::N:A:SA~-r3
1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
He66
1965
57I1
1966
1967
FISCAL YEARS
FIGURE
will represent only 8.8 percent. Thus it is clear that the share of our national wealth represented by the costs of these related activities has declined over the last decade and will continue to decline in the coming fiscal year despite substantial expenditures for Vietnam. In this perspective, it seems clear that the Nation can afford to carry on the space program. What comes next?
VARIETY OF FLIGHTS POSSIBLE
Well, with the accomplishment of the Apollo program in this decade, we expect to begin the exploration of the Moon. But, the Apollo system is not limited to manned lunar landings. We can carry out a wide variety of flights in Earth orbit, in lunar orbit, and on the lunar surface. For example, it is possible to place an Apollo spacecraft over any point of the equator so that it can maintain its position above a fixed point on the ground. To do this, we must place it in a "synchronous" orbit, a circular orbit at an altitude of 22,000 miles above the Equator. A number of missions can be flown if we should decide to exercise this option. With an Apollo spacecraft in a synchronous orbit, we could make astronomical observations with a large telescope-and we could use photographic and radar equipment for observations of the Earth. A second class of missions would develop the procedures of resupply for a space station and to learn to transfer crew and materials
113
between two spacecraft. Using the same techniques, it would also be possible to make rendezvous with a Pegasus unmanned satellite now in orbit detecting meteoroids. The sensing panels could be returned to Earth for analysis. A third type of mission would place the spacecraft in orbit about the Moon for 2 weeks. Cameras and other sensing equipment could be used to survey the Moon's surface both for potential landing sites for extended-duration surface exploration and for later scientific analysis by our land-based geologists. A fourth kind of mission that Apollo can accomplish would launch a spacecraft to the same place on the Moon's surface where a landing has already been made. It thus would be possible to use some of the equipment left behind on the previous flight and to stay on the Moon for several days.
POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF BENEFIT TO MAN
The question is why it is desirable to fly such missions? What are the potential applications of benefit to man on Earth? With the weight lifting capabilities available, it would be possible to place both large antennas and powerful transmitters in stationary orbits. Manned with technicians, these stations are capable of operating over long periods of time. With such equipment, It would be possible to bring live television to all countries of the world, and to receive it on ordinary home receivers. With the syncom satellites now in service we already can provide direct communications with the battlefront. With a space station, the soldier's walkie-talkie can connect him with command headquarters or any point in the United States. An exciting related application is in the early establishment of control towers in space, both for aircraft and for oceangoin~ ships. From such vantage points it is possible to provide commumcations and all-weather navigational systems over Wide areas which are now unavailable to earthbound control systems. An entire group of potential applications is based on the use of observations and actions in space to make fuller use of the resources of the Earth, considered on a planet wide basis. These resources consist of the land, the oceans, and the atmosphere. One such resource is raw materials. From space one can measure the intensity of light reflected from the surface. This can tell a great deal about the availability of minerals in hitherto unexplored regions. For example, on his Mercury flight Astronaut Gordon Cooper photographed a potential oil-bearing area in northern Tibet. Information of value can also be obtained by observation of the oceans for marine life and other resources. Observation of land areas can provide current information on crops, forest stands, and the status of rivers and lakes. Another application is to the weather. As Mark Twain observed, everyone talks about it and nobody does anything. Less than a month ago, a group established by the National Academy of Sciencesa very conservative group, I might add-issued a report indicating that the time may well have come to do something about the weather. The Apollo-Saturn flight hardware is capable of assisting in this effort. Finally, there are the applications to science. At meetings last summer in Woods Hole 1lJld Falmouth, Mass., scientists associated
114
with the National Academy of Sciences and other leaders recommended the exploration of the Moon, and the placing of large telescopes and other astronomical instruments in space. The reports from these studies expressed the belief that the presence of man in space, close to these instruments, can greatly improve the ability of science to increase knowledge about the origin of life and the history of the Earth, of the Sun, of the planets, and of the universe around us. N ow who are the potential users? There are the users of world communications. There are the airlines. There are the people concerned with world resources, operating through such agencies as the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Navy Oceanographic Office. There is the Weather Bureau. There is the scientific community with its special interest in astronomy, the exploration of the Moon and life sciences in space. Finally, there is the continuing interest of the Department of Defense in new technology and new ways of doing things.
NEED EXPERIENCE BEFORE POTENTIAL REALIZED
But it is important to realize and to emphasize that the first task to be performed, before benefits can be provided to potential users, is to learn to operate effectively and efficiently in space. Before we can deliver people and equipment to the place where this work is to be done, we must investigate the conditions and the problems associated with operations in the weightless, vacuum environment. And we can learn to operate effectively in space only by doing-by spending time in space. Columbus' voyage to America captured the imaginations of men of his time and even though he went to the wrong place and found a land and people quite different than he had anticipated. Yet the real contributions which this new continent was to make were certainly well beyond even the wildest imagination of men of that time. It was not until many ships had traveled regularly from Europe to America that, in fact, man really began to exploit this continent. So I think that men will have to live and work in the space environment for some time before they can begin to fully exploit this new resource that is becoming available. The Apollo-Saturn flight equipment will enable us to multiply our present man-days of flight experience to man-years of flight experience. In the period immediately following the accomplishment of the Apollo program, a most important task will be to gain this experience and to develop the advanced operational techniques so necessary for use in future missions and programs.
MAJOR OPTIONS FOR FUTURE
Beyond Apollo Applications several major options for future programs exist as we discussed before this committee last August. Emphasis can be placed on further lunar exploration, advanced Earthorbital operations and planetary exploration. StIll, the necessary precursor of any of these future missions is the knowledge and experience gained from exploiting the investment and capability we have developed under the Apollo program.
115
But there is a problem which is characteristic of Government programs. The budget for the coming fiscal year permits NASA to hold open the option for a program to procure additional flight vehicles beyond those now programed, so as to employ the Apollo hardware and capabilities at least through 1971. If we do not exercise this option in the decisions for the 1968 budget, we will have to begin a phase down of the Manned Space Flight activities and the "mothballing" of some of our facilities. The time for decision to exercise this option will come next fall, when the decisions will be made on the budget to be submitted to Congress for fiscal year 1968. In this regard, I would like to call attention to a few facts. The Wright brothers' first flight at Kitty Hawk dramatized the possibility of flight, but it was not until airplanes were numerous and barnstorming had given way to commercial flight that profit began to come to aeronautics. The history of the airplane is interesting for another reason. Although the United States was first in its invention, it remained for the Europeans to adopt it for practical use, so that this Nation was forced to borrow British and French designs for use in World War I and, in fact, no American-designed plane flew in that combat. The submarine was invented by an American named Holland but was first exploited by Germany. Robert Goddard of this country proved that a rocket would work ill a vacuum, but the Germans used the principle to build ballistic missiles, and the Soviets first achieved space fight. It is in light of these facts that I would personally hope that we as a nation are perceptive enough to profit from history and that we do fully use and exploit these machines we have developed at such heavy investment of resources, and that we do allow oursleves the time and freedom to realize their-and our-full capabilities in space. NASA is holding open the option, for another year, to employ Apollo flight hardware and capabilities beyond the manned lunar landing, and to extend the capabilities of the Apollo spacecraft. Missions are available to make use of the equipment for flights in Earth orbit, in lunar orbit and to the Moon's surface. Experiments are being defined to determine the value of such missions. Users have expressed interest in the results of such experiments. But first, we must develop the ability to operate in space.
FISCAL YEAR 1967 BUDGET ESTIMATE
To maintain the manned space flight activity we are requesting for fiscal year 1967 a total of $3,405.4 million for "Research and development," "Administrative operations," and "Construction of facilities."
(Fig. 5.)
Research and development requirements are identified in the three Manned Space Flight programs-Gemini, Apollo, and Advanced Manned Missions-for a total of $3,022.8 million. Construction of facilities funding requested for fiscal year 1967 totals $54.4 million. The total Manned Space Flight administrative operations requirements for fiscal year 1967 is $328.2 million. These funds will provide for the operation of the three Manned Space Flight Centers-the John F. Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the
116
NASA
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT

FY 1967 BUDGET ESTIMATE
IMILLIONS OF OOLLARSI
FY 1965 ! FY 1966 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GEMINI APOllO ADVANCED MISSIONS CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS TOTAL $2,949.0 308.4 2,614.6 26.0 199.8 281.2
FY 1967 $3,022.8 40.6 2,974.2 8.0 54.4 328.2
$3,204.0 226.6 2,967.4
to.O
21.4 295.5
i $3,430.0 : $3,520.9 i $3,405.4
MP66-5157
1/1'*,66
FIGURE
Manned Spacecraft Center at Houston, Tex., and the Marshall Space Flight Center at Huntsville, Ala. This concludes my summary of the prepared statement submitted for the record. The CHAIRMAN. First of all, Dr. Mueller, I want to thank you for a very fine statement and for a very fine job of condensation. We appreciate it very much indeed. Dr. MUELLER. Thank you. FLIGHT CREW TRAINING FACILITIES The CHAIRMAN. In fiscal y-ear 1966, Congress authorized an addition to the flight crew trainmg facility at Kennedy Space Center to provide one additional Apollo and LEM mission simulator to the present Apollo and LEM simulator. This year, you are requesting the addition of one Apollo and one LEM mission simulator at Houston, supplementing the one already there. Will you explain the relationship of the Kennedy and Houston simulators to each other and why they are located at both centers rather than one? Dr. MUELLER. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have the astronauts training at the Houston complex, at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. That simulator is used for basic training. We, however, require that the astronauts spend a considerable amount of time at the Cape prior to a launch to participate in prelaunch checkout.
117
During this period they need to continuelroficiency training at the Cape in preparation for the actual flight an we need a simulator there. As a matter of fact, our utilization of these simulators is exceedingly heavy and we are working hard to make efficient use of it. If anything, we have fewer simulators than our use factor at the present time would say was necessary. The CHAIRMAN. Then it is not duplication at all? Dr. MUELLER. No, sir. SELECTION OF FUTURE GOALS The CHAIRMAN. You discuss the fact that NASA is holding open the option for Apollo flight hardware beyond the manned lunar landing. One reason why that got along pretty well was because we had a goal announced by President Kennedy, to put a man on the Moon and return him safely in this decade. Is there any' definition of missions for postlunar work? Would it not be easier if the space organization came in and said, we would like to land on Mars, period, or something of that nature? Dr. MUELLER. Mr. Chairman, I think that we need to have and develop a better understanding of the operational ca.pability of these space vehicles and of man in sllace before we can clearly define the design of those devices that follow on. Now, one of the results of our vast mission studies has been the identificati m of the fact that a manned space station is necessary for any of the various alternatives that we have studied in the direction of the development of a manned space capability. N ow, on the other hand, we do need to define the characteristics of that space station before we can proceed on its development. This is what we expect to accomplish With the Apollo Applications Program. The CHAIRMAN. I shall ask Mr. Gehrig to call your attention to a quotation from our own report. Mr. GEHRIG. In its report last year, the committee said:
Also, NASA knows--or should know-more accurately than anyone else what its needs are and how best to relate them to the resources it has available. In other words, your committee believes that NASA should do more than just present the country with a list of possible post-Apollo alternatives, that NASA should say what projects it recommends and why.
On page 254 in your long statement you mention Mr. Webb's letter to the President concerning the necessity of public debate on this. Also you speak about the "Summary Report, Future Programs Task Group," and say:
Alternative programs were presented in much detail. However, no criteria were given as to how a selection would be made nor was it practicable to provide hard cost information to relate to the various projects presented.
N OW, the committee asked for this kind of information, but it still has received no criteria nor cost data, and you are still presenting only alternatives. Do you agree with the statement of the committee's report that it is NASA's responsibility to make specific recommendations to the committee, and if so, when can the committee expect the recommendations? Dr. MUELLER. My expectation is that NASA can lrovide alternatives, but that the President and the committee nee to determine
118
from the total public posture what direction the space program ought to take. Now, specifically with respect to the costs of alternatives, the costs of the follow-on program, we are working hard now at defining in some depth and detail the Apollo Applications Program. We are developing definitive program plans for the Apollo applications which will provide hard cost data for carrying forward on this program. We have proceeded to the point where we do have a fair understanding of what these costs can be and what the various levels, operating levels are that are feasible within whatever budget constraints are established. NUCLEAR PROPULSION SYSTEM The CHAIRMAN. Let me make clear what my problem is from my own personal standpoint. I have been very much interested in nuclear propulsion. A question was asked Mr. Webb yesterday about nuclear propulsion, whether it would be necessary in the new planetary mission. Yes, it would be, he thought. But when the Budget Bureau report comes in, it says it has no mission. Where do you start if nobody has any plans for landing on another planet? Then you have no mission for nuclear propulsion. Dr. MUELLER. This is one of the basic problems that has been faced by R. & D. programs since the inception of time. There is no way of making a cost effectiveness study of an entirely new program in a new concept. The CHAIRMAN. Can you imagine what would have happened to a proposal a Congressman from one of several States might have made about the Wright brothers airplane? What mission did it have 50years ago? Dr. MUELLER. I agree completely, Senator. Any country that is going to maintain its position of world leadership is going to have to invest a certain fraction of its wealth in venture capital, in the definition of new and untried activities, else it will fall behind. The CHAIRMAN. Quite obviously, from these press releases, the Russians have some sort of a program that involves the planets as well as the Moon. Maybe because we have some very elaborate plans for the Moon, we might get there quite early. Ought we not to be having a goal in the planetary work that is coming along? I know this is not a fair question to ask you, because it is a problem that the NASA organization has to solve, but you are very h~g~ly regarded by this committee, and we would like to have your Opll11On on it. Dr. MUELLER. I think that we have a certain flexibility in the definition of an ultimate goal, providing we in the meantime develop those techniques, that technology, which is required to go forward. Now, I think it is most important in my view to develop the technology of a nuclear propulsion system. The CHAIRMAN. And the recent tests have been very encouraging, have they not? Dr. MUELLEH. That is certainly true. I believe that we ought at this point in time to be examining several different approaches to the nuclear propulsion problem, since it is not clear that we have defined
119
yet a single method of approach that is going to work best for all applications. My own feeling is, I believe, that since the development of a space station is an important part of any future manned space flight activity, we ought to consider and do those preliminary things that are required in order to develop the technology for such space stations. I think that one of the characteristics, however, of successful programs in the past, and hopefully in the present, is that they are based upon known technology before a program is launched and started, so that it is most important to develop the basic building blocks from which a program can be constructed before you begin the program, because It is very difficult to invent things while you are in the press of going forward. So, I would make a strong plea from my own viewpoint for the development of the basic technology that is needed to go forward in all of our space flight activities. Senator CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will you yield to me on that point? The CHAIRMAN. Surely. NASA ASKED TO PROPOSE SPECIFIC GOALS Senator CANNON. This is a point I was trying to raise yesterday in asking what our national goals are. I do not think it is fair for NASA to come up and say, "These are the capabilities we have and you people decide what the goals are." This is a new switch. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, they come up and tell us what they propose, not what their capabilities are, and let us decide what we want to do. As a matter of fact, we try to decide and try to shove it down their throats occasionally, without much success. I think that NASA should come to us with some goals that they should recommend and let us examine them and see if these are national goals that we want to try to carry out. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cannon, because that is what I was trying to get to. I would like to support some kind of program in space exploration for the future. I would like to know what it costs, because we have a budget situation that affects everything now going on. Of course, I would hate to have several billion dollars cut out of the Apollo program to take care of a mission to Mars; I would want to land man on the Moon first. There is enough in the budget now to do both, or ought to be, perhaps. Therefore, I would like to echo what Senator Cannon said, that we ought to know what goals you recommend in this field. I hope that you will understand that it is not critical of you at all, but I do not think it is quite fair for NASA to say, here are the capabilities, here, you pick them out, because they have several thousand people to help decide what those capabilities need to be. I hope you will go along and in some way try to decide what interplanetary travel might be, what it might cost this year and next year, and whether it is the only program. I think it might be tied to showing how rapidly some of the present plants would be eliminated, if you have to close them down. Much of the lunar program hardware is now being built. Once the hard-
120
ware is built, we do not need 30,000 people in a certain place. What are they going to do? Are we going to lose those techniques? I am very hopeful that, with the fine mind you possess, you will help us along that line. We all have great confidence in you, and you deserve that great confidence. Is there anything else you can suggest or that NASA can suggest to us, or that Bob Seamans can, hopefully, give us that will help us along that line? TRYING TO IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES Dr. MUELLER. Well, Senator Anderson, we have been studying for several years now these alternatives, trying to identify what the problems are and what the general levels of resources required to carry them forward are. One of the basic problems one faces is that in order to fully exploit the capabilities we are developing, we are, in fact, operating at a level which is less than that which will make optimum use of these capabilities. Now, I do not want to belabor the point, but this is in fact the case. When you are below a certain critical level of operation in any R. & D. program, you find that you inevitq,bly stretch out decisionmaking processes, and the ability to really define these future goals. To some extent, this Manned Space Flight program has to be serial in nature. One needs to have accomplished and understand the problems associated with the accomplishment of early activities. You know, we have had a great run of successes in the Manned Space Flight program, and yet it is quite conceivable that we will have a setback as we go along. We need to recognize that although we are configuring our program to take ad van tage of success, we are also configuring it in the event that we run into an unforeseen problem. It is from learning from doing, from learning by using these devices, that we can chart more accurately the next step in the program. Really, it would be possible now to establish a new national goal. But whether one could define it well enough to be able to attach a reasonable, firm price tag to it, or whether one could even define it well enough to be able to establish a definite program for achieving this goal, is a real question. If we are completely successful in the Ap'ollo program and carrying out the manned lunar landing, then we WIll be in a position to define the necessities for meeting this next goal soon. If we run into unexpected problems, then it might be premature to have defined this. This is the kind of problem we are facing. The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to take the time of the committee, but in your statement you state that in the Gemini program, costs are under control. The committee wants to commend you for that very fine result. Naturally, we recognize you have a very tight budget this year. If you do get into trouble, I am sure that this committee will be hurrying to come to your help. But along with that, I think there is a function that NASA needs to perform in deciding to point out early what these future missions might be, how these laboratories might work, things of that general nature. Senator Smith?
121
LACK OF FOLLOW-ON PROGRAM WOULD CAUSE CUTBACK Senator SMITH. Dr. Mueller, I have not had an opportunity to read this full statement of yours, probably never will. Therefore, I join the chairman in saying that this is an achievement in itself, summarizing it as clearly as you have. It is very helpful to those of us who do not have time to go into it a little more deeply. You mentioned briefly that the Gemini program schedule had "slipped forward." You are not only to be congratulated for coining a new phrase, but more important, we are all appreciative of the extraordinary effort you and your associates made in causing this slippage forward. Throughout your statement, as well as those of Mr. Webb and Dr. Seamans, there is a recurring point that we must decide not later than next year what we are going to do beyond Apollo. If the decision is not made, you say we '\\ill have to mothball some of our facilities. What facilities particularly were you thinking about? Dr. MUELLER. Well, we are in fact phasing down on the manpower and use of the Michoud facility in New Orleans. We will have to phase down the use of the Mississippi Test Facility about 2 years from now, the large facility that is being constructed there for the static firing of the first and second stages of the Saturn V. The activities, of course, in our manufacturing plant at Seal Beach and Grumman will be reduced in the months ahead; and we will eventually, if we do not continue forward on the program, and if we do not have sufficient fiscal year 1968 funding, we will inevitably be in the position which results in a sort of bow wave. We will not buy H-1 engines. That will, in effect, affect the operation in Missouri of the Rocketdyne Corp. We will not buy F -1 and J-2 engines, and that will affect the operation of Rocketdyne in the San Fernando Valley. The elements that are hit first are the ones with the longest leadtime. That just sort of goes right on through the structure, and there is no real way of picking up the capability again. Once you have lost that momentum, you have to restart those production lines and have a new startup cost, and new costs associated with that. Senator SMITH. Dr. Seamans, would you have anything to add to what Dr. Mueller has said? Dr. SEAMANS. No; I think his statement is a very good one. If we cannot define in the next 12 months a follow-on program, then we are going to have to sharply curtail the capability that we have worked so hard to put together. This will involve shutting down facilities. It will mean, obviously, reduction of manpower in a very dramatip. and drastic way, first in our contractor plants and ultimately, it wi:.l affect the NASA organization as well. Senator SMITH. The effects are going to be very broad, not only in our prugram but in our economy as wfll, is that correct? Dr. SEAMANS. Yes; I think that the 400,000 people whom we can identify are working on our program in turn are buying a large number of consumer goods and so on, so that this would, in the long run, affect even more people than we can identify. The CHAIRMAN. You used a term that I like, "follow-on program." Has NASA suggested to this comInittee or to the House comInittee what its follow-on program would likely be?
122
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR
1967
Dr. SEAMANS. I referred yesterday in my statement, Mr. Chairman, to the Apollo Applications Program and defined it as, in part, making use of Apollo hardware now on order if it is not required for the manned lunar landing, in part a follow-on-that is, the construction of additional hardware which would be used for missions beyond those now planned for the manned lunar landing. The CHAIRMAN. What I was trying to get to was you do not ever get to a program for the follow-on although we get the request for the follow-on. Dr. SEAMANS. Well, Dr. Mueller discussed this in his statement this morning in a general way. He discussed the possibilities for use of Apollo in Earth orbit for Earth sensing as well as for astronomical purposes. He also discussed the possible use of synchronous orbit for meteorological work and communications work, and he discussed the possibility for extended mapping of the Moon and for extended lunar exploration. LONG-DURATION FLIGHTS BY 1971 Senator SMITH. Doctor, in your discussion of the possibility of long-duration flights by 1971 of up to 3 months in orbit-do I understand that this would involve the use of substantially the same launch vehicles and flight hardware associated with the Apollo program? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, Senator Smith. Senator SMITH. Would you want to amplify just a little bit for the record? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, ma'am. The basic Apollo command and service module has a capability, as our first spacecraft where man can stand up and walk around. So it has the capability of a reasonably comfortable environment for a period of several weeks. The combination of that with the lunar excursion module provides us with two rooms to work with in space and provides us in addition with a very considerable flexibility in terms of a base for the mountain of experiments, the capability of using this lunar excursion module as an independent vehicle with its propulsion capabilities. It can go and explore other objects in space or it can move away from the command module and perform certain scientific experiments that require separation between the two. Basically, we have here for the first time the capability of storing enough expendables and have enough weight-lifting capacity to carry those modules into orbit so that man can have enough of the air and food that he needs to work there, and for the first time, we have enough volume, enough sheer space so that a man can work effectively and do things in space. We also have the equipment defined and, in some cases, under development that permIts him to utilize effectively his time in space. One of the interesting things is that even with a 3-month time period in space, it turns out that the kinds of experiments one would like to perform are time-limited rather than limited by weight or other factors, as has been the case in the past. So that the astronaut's time is an important ingredient in determining how effective the Manned Space Flight is going to be in the long run.
123
SPLASHDOWN SITE FOR MOON RETURN Senator SMITH. I am curious, Dr. Mueller, as to whether it has been determined where the astronauts will splash down upon their return from the Moon. Dr. MUELLER. Well, as you know for Earth orbital. flight we have the choice of two landing areas that we have identified, one in the Pacific Ocean and one in the Atlantic Ocean. We actually have these same choices open to us on a lunar return; however, our current planning says we will come down just west of Hawaii. N ow, of course, in addition to that, in the event of emergency, there are a number of other possible landing points that are preselected, as well as the capability of landing anywhere. Senator SMITH. That brings me to my second question. How will you keep the astronauts in the capsule uncontaminated from that splashdown point to the new lunar laboratory in Houston, which you request in fiscal year 1967? Dr. MUELLER. Our people at Houston and the people in the Public Health Service have been examining the problem of returning the astronauts to the Houston facility. As you know, there was a study made by the National Academy of Sciences which recommended quarantining both the samples and the astronauts when they return from the Moon, and the planning calls for a trailer into which the crew and sample are placed on return from the Moon. The astronauts and the returned lunar sample will be placed in this trailer, which will then be returned by ship to land. The necessary medical facilities and the necessary air-conditioning equipment, and so on, as well as the medical people, will be in the trailer. Senator SMITH. The cost of $9 million-plus would be for the laboratory and not for the transportation, the equipment, and the air conditioning on the way; is that it? Dr. MUELLER. That is correct. The trailers are in the research and development budget. The basic facility at Houston for the quarantine of both the astronauts and the samples is in the construction of facilities budget at $9.1 million. CAUSES THAT MAY DELAY MOON LANDING
BY 1969
OUTLINED
Senator SMITH. You say that with the funds requested for fiscal 1967 and barring major problems, the lunar landing will be completed in this decade. What type of problem, Dr. Mueller, would upset this schedule? Dr. MUELLER. If we have a major failure in one of the systems, if, for example, we had not been able to solve the instability of the F-l engine several years ago, then that could have had a very severe impact on our ability to carry out the program. SiInilarly, if an unforeseen problem develops, a problem that we have not yet been able to foresee that would require a major change in one of the components of the system, it could have an adverse effect on the schedule. I would think that the most likely source of these difficulties might well be in the propulsion system, since those tend to be more difficult to completely understand than the other systems.
124
As you know, we had a problem in the Agena, which is a wellproven engine, after some considerable amount of testing; yet when we flew it, we did have an explosion of the engine. Something like that could represent a major setback. I think, too, that if we were to encounter a failure in one of the stages during its qualification testing, that could represent a problem that might have an impact on the program. For example, if the common bulkhead testing, which we have just completed on the &-n stage, and that is a major structural achievement, if that had failed, then we might still have set the program back by a year or longer. Now, fortunately, the structural design was correct and it went through the testing perfectly and so we have a great deal of confidence in that. But there are a number of essentially unknown elements that we faced a year ago and, as you know, we arE' in the middle of the qualification testing now of both the subsystems and of the subsystems for the lunar landing vehicles themselves. Depending on the results of that qualification testing-this is all done on the ground before we try to fly-it could have a major impact on the program. As I discussed with the Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the House, I regard our program as being underfunded in the sense that we do not have the flexibility within the program to accommodate problems of any sizable magnitude that could occur. The House Committee on Science and Astronautics, in reviewing our program, indicated they also felt that we did not have the flexibility that was desirable in a program of the complexity that we are facing here. Senator SMITH. You could come back with a supplemental request if the need arises, could you not? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, ma'am. Senator SMITH. You say that consideration is being given to establish a liaison office to supply NASA personnel to support the MOL program in the Air Force Systems Division. How many NASA personnel would probably be involved in this effort? Dr. MUELLER. We have been talking on the order of 6 to 12 people. CONSTRUCTION BUDGET AT CAPE KENNEDY Senator SMITH. Over one-third of NASA's fiscal year 1967 construction budget is for facilities at the Kennedy Center. Do you anticipate that with this year's request, the construction program at the Cape will be substantially completed for the next several years? Dr. MUELLER. The major construction still required at the Cape involves the completion of launch complex 39. Our best current estimates look forward to something like a runout cost on that complex of $475 million, of which the funding this year amounts to somewhat less than that. Let me see if I have the figures here. The authorized funding through fiscal year 1966 plus the requested authorization for fiscal year 1967 would amount to $462 million, so that our best estimate is that we could still need about $13 million on launch complex 39. Now, you might ask how did it happen that last year, our request was very low and this year it has gone up again.
125
The answer is that we had sufficient funds last year to cover our needs for new obligational authority for that fiscal year. We did say at that time that we would need additional funds before we completed our complex 39. This, then, represents the next increment on the total estimated cost. As I say, our runout costs we anticipate to be about $475 million as the final figure. Senator SMITH. Dr. Mueller, would you give us a breakdown or chart for the record on this particular point so that we could better understand it? Dr. MUELLER. I would be pleased to. (The information referred to follows:)
Estimated funding requirements, Launch Complex No. 39
[In millions)
Funds authorized through fiBcaJ. year

1966
Estlmated funds required

through IIscal year
Estimated total funds required
1967
V AB and area facilities . _.... _. __ . _. __ .. ____ ___ Launch areas and crawlerways._... _.... _. _._ ... _. __ Mobile service structure _ _____ . __ __ ______________ Communications and TV ___ _______ .. ___ ______ __ _ __ Launch umbillcal towers._._. __ ._ ..... _. ___ ____ ._. __ ._ _._ Crawler transporters . _____ __ .... _ ____ ._._ _ _____ ._ Propellant servlces ... _________ . _________ . _ __ ___ ._._ Firing accessories _. ___ __ _. ______ ._._ ______ _.. Instrumentation and equipment ___ ____ ____ _.___________
$US.5 $150. 8 1153. 2 61.3 M. 9 65. 4 20. 4 22. 7 23. 2 24. 5 29.1 29.7 29.9 31.2 32. 2 14. 8 15.1 15.1 56. 0 Ii8. 4 :: ~ 58. 3 66. 0 21.7 23. 8 29.8 TotaL. __ ._ _________ _ _______ ___ __________ __ 1--------~-------1-------432. 4 462. 0 474. 9
COST OF OPERATING THREE CENTERS Senator SMITH. Doctor, your description of the three centers under your supervision has been very helpful. I looked over the statement, and in my limited understanding of arithmetic, I found that the three centers cost about $1.4 billion in capital investment? Dr. MUELLER. Oh, the capital investment in the three centers. I think that--Iet me just check that. (Discussion off the record.) Dr. MUELLER. I do not happen to have the figures here, but it is probably more than $1.4 billion. It is about $1.5 billion out of construction of facilities funds. Now, the total I mentioned earlier included equipment which is partially supplied out of R. & D. funds to equip these facilities. Senator SMITH. I think that is substantially right. I did the addition and I could have been off a figure or two. What percentage of this capital investment would be usable in the post-Apollo era, would you say? Dr. MUELLER. Almost all except for those facilities which are unique--for example, a simulator for the Gemini program. They are unique to the Gemini program so that they would not be useful in our own post-Apollo activities. We are transferring some of this equipment to the Air Force for their support of the MOL program.
126
Almost all of those facilities will be useful in the post-Apollo program within a very small fraction of the total investment. Senator SMITH. Would you say 90 or 95 percent? Dr. MUELLER. Very close to 99 percent. Senator SMITH. Ninty-nine? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, ma'am. Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, sir. That is all I have. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Young? PHASEOUT OF FACILITIES DISCUSSED Senator YOUNG. Dr. Mueller, in your statement submitted for the record, you state that" ... we must begin to' go out of business' before we fly our first operational vehicle" on the Saturn IB, and then later in the statement you say that the initial hardware procurement for the Saturn IB launch vehicle was initiated in December 1965 to meet the follow-on flight schedules in 1969 and 1970. It seems to me there is an apparent discrepancy there. Can you clarify that? Dr. MUELLER. Well, with respect to the procurement of the very lon~ lead time items for the Saturn IB 8-IB stage, we were forced to initIate procurement last month of the engines themselves, and that amounts to about a million dollars in fiscal 1966 funding. There will be some $41.9 million involved in fiscal 1967 funding for both the Saturn IB and the Apollo spacecrafts. These, again, do not buy complete items. They only provide for those long lead time items that are necessary in order to permit you the option of ordering follow-on business in fiscal 1968. We are not, with that money, actually buying whole new spacecraft or whole new launch vehicles. Senator YOUNG. N ow, in your statement, you mention the beginning of a phase down of the Manned Space Flight activities and mothballing of some of the facilities. Senator Smith asked about that. N ow, have you told us what facilities would have to be mothballed? Dr. MUELLER. Senator Young, eventually, if there is no followon program, all of the facilities will be mothballed. Senator YOUNG. Is there any idea of the cost of that? Dr. MUELLER. We have not evaluated the cost of putting this equipment, or these facilities into a standby operating condition. The choice lies open to you if you really want to move out of the space program. One way to do it is simply to leave the plant there; not mothball it at all; just walk off and leave it. Senator YOUNG. But if facilities should be mothballed, and you stated that possibility, then there should be, should there not, a reduction of the NASA personnel? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. Senator YOUNG. And how extensive a reduction, have you any idea? Dr. MUELLER. Well, if there is no Manned Space Flight program or any reason for maintaining that capability, you could, I assume, just SImply eliminate most of the people at the three centers we have, since most of them are engt1ged in the Manned Space Flight program.
127
CAPE OFFERS CHANCE FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION Senator YOUNG. By the way, the launch facilities at Cape Kennedy do offer a major area for international space cooperation, do they not? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, I think that as a matter of fact, the interest of people in other nations in visiting the Cape Kennedy area and looking at the facilities that are bein~ built there is probably one of the most persistent points of contact ill their visits to this country. Senator YOUNG. And you do encourage such visits, do you not? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. Senator YOUNG. Now, can you visualize any fruitful areas for early international cooperation in the manned flight program. Dr. MUELLER. Well, we have as part of our regular communications, with the scientific community made available, offered to make available, I should say, space for scientific experiments on our Manned Space Flight programs with other foreign countries. Generally, it takes several years to develop an understanding of both what the characteristics of the spacecraft are and what experiments need to be performed. So I would expect within the next year or two, we would begin to find interest ,in this foreign scientific community carrying out experiments on our flight. Senator YOUNG. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Jordan? Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. APOLLO APPLICATIONS Dr. Mueller, in the budget presentation for the Apollo application, you have stated, "to hold these planning options open, fiscal year 1967 funding maintains the continuity of the production capability of the basic ,Apollo spacecraft and Saturn launch vehicles and continues project definition and payload development." Could you amplify what maintaining the continuity of the production capability consists of? Dr. MUELLER. Essentially, it is the purchase of the long leadtime pieces of hardware that are required to maintain a production capability. For example, one of the very long lead time items are castings, so that we are buymg castings for both the engines and some of the structural members of the stages. Then there are other items that are involved in certain materialsjust simply the titanium, beryllium, and, for that matter, some of the specIal steels have a very long lead production cycle, so that we have to buy them long in advance. Generally speaking, this money does not buy any finished systems. It is either raw materials or processed materials that have a long leadtime. Senator JORDAN. Well, at what level of the annual launch vehicle production are these long leadtime items scheduled? Dr. MUELLER. They are scheduled for nominally the sort of minimum cost operation for our production lines; since they are materials, they are applicable to ranges of operation that lie between something like three and nine Saturn IB's, and three and nine Saturn V's per year. As a matter of fact, the actual level we are aiming at is about six of the Saturn IB's, six of the Saturn V's, and eight of the Apollo spacecraft each year.
128
NEED DEFINITE GOALS Senator JORDAN. Then it is extremely important that we do have a program if we are going forward; we do have to have some definite goal because of this long lead time required to put things together? Dr. MUELLER. Senator Jordan, I could not agree more. Senator JORDAN. Last year, Dr. Mueller, there was frequent mention of the capability of manufacturing for launch six Saturn IB's and six Saturn V vehicles per year. Is it correct that this is the current manufacturing capability of the Government-industrial organiza tion? Dr. MUELLER. Actually, it is that capability which would use a one-shift operation throughout the structure, so that the actual capability could be almost twice that rate. What I am really saying is that this is the kind of production rate that is associated with oneshift operation of the facilities around the country. Senator JORDAN. Have any studies been made looking toward the maintenance of a somewhat lower manufacturing capability, say three or four of each of these vehicles per year, thereby maintaining the basic capability at a slightly lower level, with the ability to expand for more production as larger requirements are identified? Dr. M UELLER. Yes, rather careful studies have been made of the tradeoff between the production rate and the cost of doing production. Our basic studies at the present time indicate that in terms of the cost of manufacturing and delivery of hardware, we might save only up to 30 percent of the actual out-of-pocket costs per year by reducing the rate from six per year of Saturn IB's down to three per ;year of Saturn IB's. Corresponding savings could be had in reducmg the rate on the other vehicles. On the other hand, the other way of saying it is that the unit cost of the last three vehicles you could use, if you could use six each cost you only, about 40 percent of the unit cost of the first three you produced so that the cost effectiveness of utilizing more is an extremely important facet of this operation. SATURN
IB
APOLLO
Senator JORDAN. Dr. Mueller, could the Apollo applications experiments be considered for the Saturn IB Apollo-the experiments being considered for the Saturn IB be accomplished using the Titan III-C MOL? Dr. MUELLER. We have carefully examined the utilization of the Titan III-C and the MOL, and have tried to identify the experiments to be carried out in this vehicle. One of the more attractive areas in which it looks like manned space vehicles would be useful is in the synchronous orbit and this is beyond the capability of the Titan Ill's. There are other aspects of the experimental program that we have also studied and I guess that there are a certain percentage of the experiments that can be carried out with the Titan III. On the other hand, many, by far the majority of experiments are not really adapted to the Titan III. If you look at it in a gross sense, and that is not a fair way of doing it, perhaps something like 10 to 20 percent of the
129
experiments that can be identified on the missions that we have now begun to study in some depth in the Apollo Applications program could be carried out by the Titan III MOL. MANNED SPACE FLIGHT EXPERIMENTS BOARD Senator JORDAN. I note that the Department of Defense is represented on the Manned Space Flight Experiments Board. Is this representation intended to promote flying experiments of joint NASADOD interest, solely DOD interest, or both? Dr. MUELLER. We have recently reconstituted the Manned Space Flight Experiments Board to examine the scientific and technological experiments that are not specially DOD operational experiments. Therefore, we have a joint review of our total experiment program in the space flight program, both DOD and NASA. From this joint review, we do assign experiments to both the MOL program and to the Apollo and Gemini programs. Senator JORDAN. How many DOD experiments are you now considering for incorporation in the applications program? Dr. M UELLER. Well, the applications program is not yet well enough defined so that we have assigned experiments to develop. In this program, in the Apollo program-in the Gemini program, we have some 16 DOD experiments. In the Apollo program, so far, some three or four have been identified and assigned to the Apollo program. Senator JORDAN. Will NASA have equivalent representation on the DOD MOL experiments board as you see it? Dr. MUELLER. Actually, our experiments, this Manned Space Flight Experiments Board is a Joint board, which does work for both DOD and for NASA. So there is no DOD experiments board per se. Senator JORDAN. I see. Do you have an estimate of the cost of converting the Apollo service module to a laboratory module and providing both the service module and the spacecraft to the 30-day flight capability for two men? Mr. MUELLER. Senator, would you mind repeating that? Senator JORDAN. Do you have an estimate of the cost of converting the Apollo service module to a laboratory module and providing both the service module and the spacecraft for the 30-day-flight capability for two men? Dr. MUELLER. Well, we have made cost studies that are roughly equivalent to this. I do not believe that we have actually considered convertin~ the service module to a laboratory module. If you are thinking III terms of that as being a pressurized space, this would be---Senator JORDAN. There would be no advantage in doing that? Dr. MUELLER. No, sir; I think the combination of the Lunar Excursion Module and command module is a more efficient way of getting that extra volume. Senator JORDAN. In your statement, you state:
Apollo Applications provides an organization for planning and directing activities which can utilize the spacecraft being developed under the Gemini and Apollo programs.
What utilization is contemplated by NASA for Gemini spacecraft other than the remaining five flights?
130
Dr. MUELLER. We do not anticipate needing additional Gemini spacecraft for our Manned Space Flight program in NASA. The remaining Gemini five flights provide essential operating experience as well as the development of techniques for rendezvous, docking, and extravehicular activities, which are needed for the Apollo program. But we feel that we will have sufficient information at the conclusion of this program to permit us to not require further Gemini spacecraft. Senator JORDAN. Now, yesterday, Dr. Seamans stated that there could be as many as nine vehicles excess to the lunar landing program. If this were feasible, in what frame would you schedule these flights after the first lunar landing? Dr. MUELLER. Since we have a program that is basically designed to utilize these vehicles in the manned lunar landing program, they are scheduled to support that program. If they were not needed for the lunar landing, they would be on essentially the same schedule, the only difference being a month or 2 months for the modification of these vehicles to the lunar configuration. Dr. Seamans' pointed out that in fact, as these do become available, in some cases they may become available before the lunar landing itself takes place. But there are certain objectives that need to be accomplished in each phase of the program, which, if they are accomplished early, frees that equipment for other uses. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Doctor. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cannon? NASA SHOULD RECOMMEND SPECIFIC FUTURE GOALS Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With reference to our previous conversation, I am still not satisfied as to what NASA feels its responsibility is, so I would like to ask Dr. Mueller or Dr. Seamans, would you give us a flat yes or no on the question of whether it is the responsibility of NASA to make specific recommendations to this committee on post-Apollo programs? Dr. SEAMANS. I think the answer is "Yes." Senator CANNON. Then, secondly, when can we expect to have these recommend a tions? Dr. SEAMANS. Well, as both Mr. Webb and I indicated yesterday, we feel that we must come in with definite recommendations. These would be, in a sense, not NASA recommendations but Presidential recommendations. We believe we must do this in the context of the 1968 budget. Senator CANNON. Thank you, Dr. Seamans. Dr. Mueller, what was the original NASA request of the Bureau of the Budget for the Apollo program? Dr. MUELLER. Approximately $200 million more than the present R. & D. request. That included about $3,200 million. That included, of course, the Apollo Applications program at a full funding level. Senator CANNON. In your judgment, can the United States achieve its national goal of a manned lunar landing and a safe return before 1970 with that budget? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, sir.
131
LEADERsmp IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHTS Senator CANNON. In your judgment, is it essential to continue the Apollo program as scheduled if the United States is not to hand over to the Soviets the uncontested leadership in manned space flight? Dr. MUELLER. In my judgment, we would be considerably further along in our program for the dev:Sliment of manned space flight if we had had the additional $200 .. on for the Apollo Applications program at a fully funded level. Senator CANNON. Is the Apollo program now on schedule? Dr. MUELLER. The Apollo program is working to the schedule established 5 years ago. Senator CANNON. Is it operating within initial cost estimates? Dr. MUELLER. I would like to say that it is substantially, the cost estimates have been substantially costed for the last several years and it is within the $20 to $40 billion figure that was originally estimated for the program; yes, indeed. Senator CANNON. Are all of the components and subsystems for Apollo within the required performances at this time? Dr. MUELLER. So far, our qualification test program has been successful and as far as we know, as the result of the tests to date, the subsystems are within the performance requirements for carrying out the mission. That qualification test program will not be complete, however, until about the middle of next year. Senator CANNON. The Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn V launch vehicle are among the few items to show an increase in the fiscal year 1967 budget request over fiscal year 1966. Are there projects within the originally planned schedules and budget? Dr. MUELLER. Both projects are within the originally planned schedules and they have been holding to our program plan for those projects in the past several years. So this is within our budget. EFFECT OF RUSSIAN MOON LANDING Senator CANNON. Now, earlier, we discussed the capability of the Russians to accomplish a circumlunar flight in 1967 and 1968, with the possibility of a 1969 date for a manned landing, early 1969. If they accomplished any of these items-that is a circumlunar flight in 1967 or 1968, or a manned lunar landing in 1968 or early 1969-what effect, if any, would this have on our present program? Dr. MUELLER. I do not think that our program would be modified as a result of Russian activities in this area. The program is very well set. Senator Cannon, I would like to go back to your earlier question about budgets, since they were very penetrating. I am sure that you will recall that last year, we indicated there was an increase in runout costs of about $650 million as a result of the stretchout of the program. So that when I say substantially the same, I am talking in terms of that kind of a context. Senator CANNON. Well, I had in mind that you said previously that the stretchout would increase those costs. Dr. MUELLER. Yes, and it has done so. Senator CANNON. Have you uncovered any significant problems during the Apollo-Saturn ground test program?
132
Dr. MUELLER. Well, there are no problems that have represented program stoppers. Now, I think it only fair to say that during the qualification test program of the kind we are going through, there is hardly a subsystem that does not have some problem or another. So that if I just look across the United States today, I can see a thousand problems. But these are the kind of normal problems one expects in ~ development program. Senator CANNON. That is why I used the term "significant" rather than normal problems. Dr. MUELLER. There does not appear at this moment to be a significant development problem.
SPACECRAFT PROBLEMS
Senator CANNON. What about the problems with the LEM descent engine? Have those problems been solved? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. I was out there a week ago to understand what the problems were and saw the results of some rather good development effort in solving what was potentially a problem, and it appeared to have the problem solved and to be able to contain it within our schedule. Senator CANNON. You state that it has been difficult to maintain control weights for the Apollo spacecraft, service module, and LEM. How serious is this, and do you feel it is now under control? Dr. MUELLER. It is always difficult going from the design of a spacecraft to its actual building to keep the weight at the original design weight. Fortunately, in this particular case, the Saturn V and the Saturn I-B's performance have both increased so that where several years ago, we expected Saturn V to be able to lift 90,000 pounds from the Earth into a lunar orbit, or toward the Moon, we now have a 95,000-pound capability. As a consequence, we have been able to absorb the real weight increases we had in both the LEM and the command and service module. At the present time, we have an adequate module performance, and we do feel we have adequate controls over the growth of weight of both the Apollo and the LEM. Senator CANNON. In other words, the weight problem itself has not been solved, but you have been able to uprate the engine to offset it. Dr. MUELLER. Well, we have also, I think, solved the weight growth problem, at least, by dieting-by a severe diet for the designers.
SURVEYOR PROGRAM
Senator CANNON. Now, the Surveyor program has experienced additional slippages. Do you consider the Surveyor date critical to affirming the LEM design? Dr. MUELLER. We do believe that the data from the Surveyor is most important for the defintion of the characteristics of the lunar surface. We are, however, encouraged by the results of the Russian lunar landing probe that there is at least one point on the Moon's surface which has sufficient bearing strength to allow the LEM to land. We need additional information in this area, and we need quantitative information. What we have now is semiquantitative. Senator CANNON. In view of the Russian landing, do you feel that you have to have a Surveyor precede the manned landing?
133
Dr. MUELLER. We feel that we must have a Surveyor, the equivalent information from a Surveyor before we can land on the Moon. INFORMATION FROM RUSSIAN LANDING Senator CANNON. Now, what information, if any, have you been able to get from the Russian landing? Dr. MUELLER. We have been able to place a lower bound on the bearing strength of the lunar surface from the rather meager information we have concerning the size, shape, and weight of the Russian landing vehicle. That lower bound is about twice both the dynamic and the static bearing strength that we need for the lunar excursion module. Fortunately, we also have some other data from our telescopic observations of the Moon which have been providing us with another lower bound. This is from the slope characteristics of the side of craters. That lower bound happened to be about equal to the landing characteristics. So we feel relatively safe. One of the characteristics of this kind of calculations, however, is that there is a wide variation. The lower bound can be very, very low compared to the actual bearing strength and we need more data. in order to determine that. Senator CANNON. Do you believe you will need all seven Surveyor flights? Dr. MUELLER. Well, I think that on a relatively unknown surface such as the lunar surface, the data from seven Surveyor flights would be quite useful. N ow, I do not think that all seven have to be successful in order to permit us to go forward with a. manned lunar landing. ' But on the other hand, the more data we have, the more confident we will be concerning our ability to land on the lunar surface. Senator CANNON. Do you anticipate that you will be able to secure or are you attempting to secure from the Russians any additional data on their Luna 9 flight? Dr. MUELLER. Well, I hope that the Russian scientists would publish the results of their Luna 9 flight. They have been publishing more data during the past year than they have in times past, and of course, they did release rather promptly the pictures they obtained from Luna 9, so that there is some hope that they will, in fact, give us definitive information as a result of their landing. Now, of course, we have no knowledge of the exact instrumentation they have used, nor do we have any knowledge as to how well it worked. Our communications with the Russian scientists who are actually engaged in their lunar program are not good enough so that we are likely to have a free and open discussion of the subject. Senator CANNON. It is reported that scientists are disturbed at the fact that the Luna 9 spacecraft moved after it had landed on the Moon. What are the implications of this to the Apollo program? Dr. MUELLER. Well, I think because of the construction of the spacecraft, it is natural for it to move. I think the Russians were fortunate that it did move, since it provides them with an opportunity for some stereoscopic measurements which would permit them to define more clearly the distances of objects and the shape of objects they have on the Moon.
134
You recognize that this is a fairly ovoid body and so it is just naturally unstable. If there is a little rock underneath it, as you move this camera around, you can introduce enough torque to cause the rock to shift. So it is not surprising that it moved. Senator CANNON. You do not think it was any indication of a giveaway of the surface? Dr. MUELLER. I would doubt it. LUNAR SURFACE BEARING STRENGTH IN RELATION TO LEM Senator CANNON. Now, I think you said that based on your estimates now, the surface strength was about double what you anticipated it was, or did you say double what-Dr. MUELLER. Double what the LEM requires, the lunar excursion module. Senator CANNON. What is the surface strength needed for the LEM? Dr. MUELLER. About 1 pound per square inch is the static pressure of the lunar excursion module and the Russian lower limit, from our calculations, would have been at least 2 pounds per square inch. Senator CANNON. But at least twice that? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. Senator CANNON. I have some other questions, Doctor, that we can just supply and you can answer them for the record, if you would. I do not think they are necessary to be answered right at this time. Dr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. (Questions submitted by Senator Cannon to Dr. Mueller and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
MANNED VERSUS UNMANNED FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS
Question 1. Dr. Mueller, where in NASA are experiments evaluated for optimum accomplishment by manned versus unmanned flights? Are all experiments processed through the manned versus unmanned assessment before being presented to the Manned Space Flight Experiments Board? Answer. Experiments which are submitted to NASA by prospective experimenters are directed through established procedure to the appropriate sponsoring program offices for consideration. Within each NASA program office, procedures have been established for evaluation of those experiments falling in their area. A part of this evaluation consists of a determination as to whether the experiment is best suited for a manned or unmanned flight. Only those experiments determined suited for manned space flight are forwarded to the MSFEB for review. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each sponsoring program office to determine whether an experiment should fly on a manned or unmanncd flight and this is done prior to submission to the MSFEB.
METEOROLOGICAL PROJECTS IN OMSF AND OSS.\
Question 2. Dr. Mueller, the Office of Space Science and Applications has several meteorological development programs in progress. How much comparative evaluation has been given t.o the OSSA unmanned programs and the proposed Apollo applications meteorological programs you discuss? Are these compared on a cost effpetiveness basis? Answer. In developing NASA's meteorological programs, careful consideration is being given to exploiting the prime advantages presented by the manned orbiting missions as well as those presented by the unmanned meteorological satellites.
135
In developing meteorological experiments, we consider two features-not only must the meteorological instrumentation be tested in the space environment, but also its maximum usefulness to the science of meteorology must be assessed. This assessment implies both global observations and testing of an adequate duration. Therefore, development of meteorological instruments, in general, is preferred on unmanned satellites. However, manned spacecraft provide some unique features which supplement this approach. Use of the greater payload capacities of the manned vehicles will enable us to accelerate the advances in the state of the art which are necessary to develop the flight configuration of these instruments. Also, with manned missions we are able to achieve early flights of large and complex instruments which are heavy power users, and we can fly meteorological instrumentation which is too bulky and too complex in its breadboard configuration to be flown on unmanned R. & D. meteorological satellites. The presence of man will enable us to take advantage of the scientifically "unexpected" event, to exercise selectivity in observing, and to combine the observations of many sensors on the same meteorological feature. Thus, it can be seen that the unmanned meteorological satellites and the manned missions on which we are conducting meteorological experiments complement one another.
MANPOWER REQllREMENTS
Question 3. Dr. Mueller, the committee recognizes that people will be required for the Apollo Applications payload integrations efforts at the various centers. However, it would seem that there ought to be reductions in the manpower requirements of the current program as the program moves forward and development responsibilities taper off. Have such reductions been factored into the assessment that the overall activity at your centers, particularly the Marshall Space Flight Center, will increase? Answer. The assignment of roles for Apollo Applications to the centers took full cognizance of the results of our manpower utilization studies. A slight reduction in manpower requirements was expected for the Marshall Space Flight Center as the Saturn IB and Saturn V development activities progressed. The assignment of lunar module payload integration to the Marshall Space Flight Center tends to balance the Manned Space Flight workload among the three centers and makes more efficient use of the centers' capabilities. Current Saturn IB and Saturn V activities indicate a shift in emphasis from the design and engineering work required in the early phases of the program to the increased levels of effort required to monitor contractors, support mission operations, solve engineering problems arising during the systems test phase, perform postflight analyses, and similar work, as we proceed through the ground and flight test program. Thus the reduced requirement for personnel with design engineering skills is largely offset by the demand for skilled technical people to meet the need of the latter phase of the program. Concurrent with this effort, Apollo Applications payload integration for the lunar module will also require people with design engineering skills. Question 4. Dr. Mueller, as most of the engineering has been completed on the Saturn launch vehicles why does the number of NASA personnel at the center (MSFC) remain as high as it is? Answer. The Marshall Space Flight Center is maintaining its present level of civil service personnel to support the Saturn program through the current critical period of development and ground and flight testing. The Saturn IB flight test program began on February 26, 1966, with the successful launching of AS-301. Flight testing will continue through 1966, and operational IB flights are scheduled for 1967. The Saturn V program today is progressing satisfactorily through a rigorous ground test program, and we expect all systems to be qualified for flight by the end of this calendar year. Flight testing of Saturn V will begin in 1967. These activities indicate the shift in emphasis from the design and engineering work required in the early phases of the program to the increased levels of effort required to monitor contracto~, support mission operatiOns.! solve engineering problems arising during the systems test phase, perform post night analyses, etc.,
519-941 0-66--10
136
as we proceed through the ground and flight test program. Thus the reduced requirement for personnel with design engineering skills is largely offset by the demand for skilled technical people to meet the needs of the letter phase of the program. Concurrent with mainstream activities, MSFC has also assigned personnel to the project definition effort for the Apollo Applications program.
ASSIGNMENT OF LEM MODIFICATION FOR AAP
Question 5. Dr. Mueller, since the lunar excursion module (LEM) development responsibility is assigned to Houston, it would appear more efficient for extensions and modification of the LEM for Apollo Applications to be assigned to Houston also. (a) What factors underlie the assignment of experiment integration to Marshall Space Flight Center? (b) Was this assignment made to MSFC to take up slack at that center? Answer: The entire task of payload integration for Apollo Applications represents new work to the agency. This new work has been divided among the three centers according to their available capabilities and resources. No work has been taken from any center. The responsibility for development of the Apollo spacecraft (both command and service module and lunar module) is assigned to MSC-Houston. The responsibility for development of the extensions to these spacecraft modules to include possible modifications to the basic lunar landing designs will remain at MSC-Houston. The addition (or integration) of experiment payloads to the command and service module will remain a responsibility of MSC-Houston. The integration of experiment payloads to the lunar module, its derivatives and to launch vehicle stages has been assigned to Marshall Space Flight Center because MSFC has the technical expertise from their years of experience with space systems development to effectively carry out such an assignment, because manpower reserves were being created by approaching completion of Saturn I-B development, and because the role of MSC-Houston with respect to spacecraft development, crew operations, and mission operations will expand in scope to encompass the new tasks associated with the Apollo Applications missions.
ASSIGNMENT OF STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT WORK
Question 6. Dr. Mueller, there have been rumblings from outside the Government that because of the tight space budgets NASA centers are hanging on to study and developments projects which would ordinarily go to industry. Is there a tendency in that direction? Answer. All MSF major development work is done by contractors. This is also true of the MSF major study efforts. There has been no increase in the in-house study effort at the MSF centers.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gehrig? APOLLO PROGRAM ON SCHEDULE Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Mueller, in a statement you submitted for the record, you say, "We have maintained our scheduled progress in the Apollo program which has brought us up to the first of the five major program milestones. With the success of the Saturn IB Saturday, on February 26, you already passed this year's major milestone. You speak of five, what are the other four and when do you expect them to occur? Dr. MUELLER. The first manned flight on the Saturn lB, which should occur early in 1967; the first unmanned flight of the Saturn V, which should occur in 1967; the first manned flight of the Saturn V which should occur early in 1968; and the first lunar landing, which should occur before the end of 1969.
137
LUNAR SAMPLE LABORATORY Mr. GEHRIG. In your request for facilities budget, you ask for a Lunar Sample-Receiving Laboratory at the Manned Spacecraft Center. Why do you need this facility? Dr. MUELLER. The facility at the Manned Spacecraft Center is required for two things-really three things. One is to prevent contamination of the samples that we have brought from the Moon to the Earth by earthbound bacteria. The second thing is to prevent contamination of the Earth by bacteria or other life forms or chemical forms, I should say, from the sample we have brought from the Moon. A third is the quarantine, the observation of the astronauts for a time sufficient to determine that they have not been affected by or infected by their sojourn on the lunar surface itself. N ow, as you know, the Public Health Service has the responsibility for the certification that any individual or article returnmg to the United States from other areas will in fact not spread, or be 110 problem for the people here in the United States. The Public Health Service, after the review of the situation by the National Academy of Science's Space Science Board, did assume their jurisdictional responsibility for the safeguarding of the public health against possible contamination from the Moon and have been working closely with ourselves here at headquarters and the people in Houston in designing and developing a set of facilities and a set of procedures which they feel will be adequate to protect against any possible problem. Mr. GEHRIG. Is your request for this facility 110 direct result of the requirement placed on NASA by the Public Health Service? Dr. MUELLER. No; we had already planned such a facility for protection and the initial analysis of the lunar samples on return to the Earth and what we have done is expand the facility to meet the requirements established by the Public Health Service. Mr. GEHRIG. But do you need this facility to meet the requirements of the Public Health Service? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, it is an essential part of the quarantine process. Mr. GEHRIG. Is this requirement placed on NASA by the Public Health Service in \\,TItten form and could it be placed in the record? Dr. MUELLER. There is a statement from the Public Health Service that I would be pleased to place in the record, as well as a letter confirming that we have met their re_quirements. (The information referred to follows:)
STATEMENT BY ASSISTANT CHIEF, COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CENTER PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DHEW ON THE CONTAINMENT OF LUNAR SAMPLES, ASTRONAUTS, AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, our present knowledge of the lunar environment suggests a very low probability of the existence of life fOrIDS as we know them, but also provides absolutely no information that can assure the absence of life. When the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences published the following statement in 1962, the basis for decisions on containment of extraterrestrial materials was established. "The introduction into the Earth's biosphere of destructive alien organisms could be a disaster of enormous significance to mankind. We can conceive of no more tragically ironic consequence of our search for extraterrestrial life." The single most important scientific objective of the Apollo missions is the return of lunar samples. These samples will undergo analysie by outstanding scientists at universities and in other recognized laboratories through out the country.
138
The success of their exorts will depend on prevention of contamination of the lunar samples by matter from Earth. Concurrently, we must also make practical provisions to protect the Earth ecology from possible contamination by lunar substances that may be infectious, toxic or harmful to man, animals or plants. In July 1964, the Life Sciences Committee of the Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences, convened a conference of 30 specialists from scientific institutions, Government, and universities to consider the potential hazards of extraterrestrial contamination to Earth life. The following recommendations were adopted: "1. That astronauts returning from lunar or planetary missions be placed in 3 weeks of strict quarantine upon return to Earth; that in the case of lunar missions, the quarantine period should begin from moment of takeoff from the Moon. "2. That upon return, spacecraft, astronauts, and all persons who have come in contact with them, be received into an isolation environment, which isolation should be maintained for the duration of the quarantine. "3. That spacecraft, suits, and equipment not be decontaminated until biological studies on them have been made. "4. That samples be opened as promptly as possible upon return to Earth and be examined behind absolute biological barriers, under rigid bacterial and chemical isolation. "5. That immediate steps be taken to formulate detailed operational procedures to permit the handling of samples as recommended in 4. above. "6. That in preparing for lunar and planetary missions, a trial run using nonpathogenic organisms be made to develop the most effective methods of minimizing the introduction of foreign matter into the capsule, and to test the extent to which planned equipment may require modification. "7. That a study be undertaken to determine techniques necessary to minimize contamination of the mission while on the lunar or planetary surface, with emphasis on the general problem of inadvertent transfer of material. Astronauts should be trained as appropriate in such techniques. "8. That postflight tests include experiments specifically designed to identify organisms harmful to terrestrial plants and animals whether through comretition or disease. The protection of the Earth's biosphere should be stressed.' Subsequent to the receipt of these recommendations, the director of the Manned Space Science Program Office authorized the organization of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the requirements for a lunar sample receiving laboratory. The Committee, including outstanding scientists both inside and outside Government, presented a report on March 15, 1965, covering concepts, functional requirements, specifications, and a plan of operation for a lunar sample receiving laboratory. In addition, the National Aeroanutics and Space Administration has sought and received assistance from the Public Health Service, the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Army Biological Laboratories, and others in application of the recommendations to Apollo operational procedures. The plans derived from the Ad Hoc Committee report and from consultation with the agencies concerned with prot.ection of the public health and agriculture have been incorporated into a preliminary engineering report for the design of a facility to provide for the following functions: 1. Microbiology tests of lunar samples to demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty the absence of harmful living organisms returned from the lunar surface. 2. Biologically isolated transport of the astronauts and persons required to have immediate contact with the astronauts between the recovery area and the quarantine facility. 3. Biological isolation of the astronauts, spacecraft, and other apparatus having a biologic contamination potential, as well as personnel required by mission operations to have immediate contact with these people and this equipment during the quarantine period. 4. Biological isolation of the sample during all operations on the sample which must be carried out during the quarantine period. 5. Biologically isolated processing of on-board camera film and data tape which has been exposed to a potentially contaminating environment. 6. Performance of time dependent scientific tests where valuable scientific data would be lost if the tests were delayed for the duration of the quarantine period._ In summary, the first five functions enumerated relate to the biological isolation of lunar material, equipment, and people from the earth environment for a
139
period of time, as yet indefinite, to satisfy two requirements. One of these is protection of the sample from contamination by Earth organisms or matter until it may be placed in the hands of the scientists of the country for careful examination. The second is the requirement of primary importance to those concerned with the protection of the health of people, crops, livestock, wildlife, and the general flora and fauna of this planet. In order to provide the necessary protection, a facility should be provided using a double biological barrier system designed to contain, and to allow appropriate examination during containment, all of the persons and materials returned from the Moon and subsequently from other planets. Containment should continue until assurance can be provided that release to the Earth's environment will not endanger this planet. We have been consulted throughout the development of the preliminary engineering report for the design of this proposed facility, are in complete agreement with its design and purpose, and fully support the request for authorization for construction and operation of the Lunar Sample Receiving Laboratory and associated facilities. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CENTER, Atlanta, Ga., December 8, 1965. Mr. GEORGE E. MUELLER, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MUELLER: Both Dr. Goddard and I have reviewed the preliminary engineering report for the Lunar Sample Receiving Laboratory and have been pleased to note that our recommendations have been incorporated into the planning. All of the revisions that we feel are necessary to the successful containment of specimens and personnel have been given careful consideration in the engineering report. There is one suggestion that would improve containment if it can be accomplished. Under section III-76, B.3., "Helicopter Retrieval of Crew," if it is possible for the crew to don isolation suits on egress from the capsule rather than upon entering the helicopter, this would decrease the possibility of the contamination of the interior of the helicopter and avoid the need for subsequent decontamination of the helicopter. We would like to commend all of those who have had a part in the preparation of the preliminary engineering report under the critical time requirements. We believe that the report is an excellent foundation for the beginning of necessary planning and construction. Sincerely yours, JOHN R. BAGBY, Jr., Ph.D., AS8istant Chief, Communicable Disease Center.
INITIAL REQUEST FOR APOLLO APPLICATIONS PROGRAM Mr. GEHRIG. What was NASA's initial request for the Apollo Applications program? Dr. MUELLER. $264 million for fiscal 1967. Mr. GEHRIG. In your answer to Senator Cannon's question about how much was requested for the Apollo program, is this the $200 million that was taken out of the Apollo program? Dr. MUELLER. That is correct. Mr. GEHRIG. So that for the Apollo program for fiscal year 1967, you have all of the money that you requested except the $200 million in the Apollo Applications portion? Dr. MUELLER. Well, that is not quite correct. There was something on the order of, I believe it was $19 million that was not approved by the Bureau of the Budget in the basic Apollo program.
140
Mr. GEHRIG. Now, in previous years before the committee-Senator CANNON. Would you yield? Mr. GEHRIG. Certainly. Senator CANNON. What was that $19 million for? Dr. MUELLER. This is Bernard Johnson. He is Mr. Lilly's deputy. Mr. JOHNSON. It was about $5 million for spacecraft experiments to be carried on on the spacecraft, about $9 million for experiments to be carried on on the Saturn V. They also reduced our level of engineering effort in engine development by about $4 million. DEFERRAL OF AAP INCREASES COST OF APPOLO Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Mueller, in previous hearings before the committee, the committee was told that the total cost of the Apollo program was tied to the runout costs, which, of course, are very closely tied to the Apollo Applications program. How will deferment of the decision to go forward in fiscal year 1967 with the Apollo Applications program affect the total Apollo costs? Dr. MUELLER. Well, I believe that we will cover that in the material Mr. Webb is preparing for the committee. It will tend to increase, however, the costs of carrying out the manned lunar landing. If you do not mind, we will include that in our response to Senator Smith's question. Mr. GEHRIG. But the deferral of the Apollo Applications program will increase the cost of the Apollo program, the manned lunar landing portion. Dr. MUELLER. My expectation is that it maybe well do that. I am not in a position, however, to, at this point in time-I will have to-we are working on that subject now. AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLES Mr. GEHRIG. Going back briefly to some questions that Senator Jordan asked, when could the first excess launch vehicle, either a Saturn IB or a Saturn V, become available for the Apollo Applications program? Dr. MUELLER. In 1968. BEGINNING MANNED SPACEFLIGHT PHASE DOWN Mr. GEHRIG. Now, if you do not exercise the options that are available to the space program in the fiscal year 1968 budget, when would you begin a phase down in the manned space flight activities and the mothballing of these facilities that has been talked about? When would that begin? Dr. MUELLER. In 1968. Mr. GEHRIG. One question on the discussion-Dr. MUELLER. Mr. Gehrig, we are right next to the wire on this. CRITERIA AND COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES Mr. GEHRIG. In the discussions between yourself and the chairman and Senator Cannon on presenting alternatives to the committee, you agree, I believe, that you should present these to the committee and
141
you said earlier in your statement that it was up to the President and the Congress to make decisions. But if the Congress and therefore, the committee, are going to make decisions amongst alternatives, is it not necessary at the time you present alternatives to present some criteria or suggest criteria for making the choice and for presenting cost data along with these alternatives? Dr. MUELLER. I am sure that we would want to do this. Mr. GEHRIG. And also if you establish a program-if you establish further national goals in the space program, then you are able to look at different approaches to achieving this goal, similar to what was done in the Apollo program. Once the ~oal was established, you were able to look at different ways of achievrng it, by going there directly or Earth orbital flights or lunar orbital flights. But again, you have to have the criteria and you have to have the cost. Dr. MUELLER. Precisely. SPECIFIC GOALS HARD TO DEFINE Mr. GEHRIG. And the committee has been consistently asking for these criteria and costs. I wonder if you could suggest when the committee would get the criteria and costs if it would be before the committee gets a program request to make a decision? Dr. MUELLER. Mr. Gehrig, one of the problems of any new frontier such as is characteristic of our space age is that it is very difficult to examine all of the possible alternatives-that is, in any real depth. We can examine alternate possibilities in terms of conce{>ts, but until one defines the next major goal, it is more difficult to gIve definitive answers or definitive cnteria in some depth for the precise way of meeting that goal. It is an involved process. One needs first to establish the broad goals and within that broad goal, determine the most effective way of achieving that, and so on. So it cannot be a simple, one time only decision. Any of these programs represent a continuing set of decisions in more and more detail as one comes to the actual point of confrontation. Mr. GEHRIG. As you study these various program alternatives, such as long duration Earth orbital flights, further lunar exploration, planetary exploration-along with these studies, you do make cost estimates, do you not? Dr. MUELLER. Yes, we do. ASTRONAUT FLIGHT CREW TRAINING
Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Mueller, I would like to read a question for the record. I do not expect you to answer this-I do not want you to answer the question now, but if you would answer it for the record. In the statement you submitted for the record, you discussed astronaut flight crew training and you do not mention proficiency flying in jet aircraft. In view of the risks involved and the three tragic deaths already suffered, is the continuation of these flights really necessary? Have you made any studies to determine whether or not there is any transfer of training, and maybe even a negative feedback here, between the ability to fly a jet airplane and the ability to fly a spacecraft?
142
Is it necessary to teach the astronaut scientists how to fly jet aircraft? The CHAIRMAN. Did you want to make some reply? Dr. MUELLER. I could answer quite specifically those three questions. The CHAIRMAN. I did not know you were prepared to answer those questions. The question in everybody's mind apparently is why do you make an astronaut fly a jet airplane? Is there some relationship between the jet airylane and the controls of a spaceship? Dr. MUELLER. On the basis of the actual flIght experience of the pilots themselves, they feel there is a very high correlation between the experience of flying high performance jet aircraft and that of flying spacecraft. They feel that this is an essential part of their training in order to maintain proficiency so that they can, in fact, carry out the space missions. With respect to the scientist astronaut, not all scientist astronauts will be trained as test pilots, but those that are being selected for the lunar mission do need to be trained as pilots because as you recall, we have two men who leave the command module and go to the lunar surface. We would like to have either one capable of flying that spacecraft in order to return it to the command module in orbit, so they both have to be trained pilots. In addition to that, we would like the capability of the man left behind in the command module to actually fly over the Lunar Excursion Module in the event some possibility prevents those in the excursion module from returning to the command module. In the case of Earth orbital operations, our planning does include the inclusion of crew members, scientists in particular, who are not trained pilots. The CHAIRMAN. I can see when you come down to the final three men, you want all of them to know how to fly the spaceship. But why do these men have to be able to fly a jet airplane? Dr. MU]JLLER. The jet airplane appears to be the nearest thing that we have here on Earth to simulate some aspects of the actual flight regime in space. N ow, clearly, one needs in addition to that to develop the simulators which lrovide a slightly different kind of set of motions that are develope in the spacecraft itself. But the coordination and the general attention to instruments that we need in the spacecraft are duplicated reasonably well in high-performance aircraft of today. They have about the same instrument panels, they have about the same set of controls. And also one of the advantages is the ability to react, to be under pressure and learn and to accommodate to the pressures that are involved in actual space flight as well as in jet flight. The CHAIRMAN. I think that answers the question unless you care to amplify it. There are those people who have been told, possibly incorrectly, that it is easier to teach people who do not fly airplanes to fly a helicopter. Maybe there is some similarity in this sort of fli~ht. I think it is necessary to know why, when you go to put SCIentists in these ships, they have to be able to fly a jet airplane. I am very happy at your decision to take scientists along, because when you start exploring the Moon, I want a good scientist along to find out what is involved in the exploration. But if you have any further answers to that, I would be glad to have them.
143
(The information referred to follows:)

(1) Question. Is flying necessary? Answer. Spacecraft operations run the complete gamut of flight conditions from hypersonic lifting reentry to hovering flight just prior to a lunar touchdown. During oribital flight as well as during reentry, our astronauts must exercise piloting skills to cope with rapidly varying vehicle orientations and changing energy states very similar to those encountered in flying high-performance aircraft. Docking operations and the final stages of lunar landing demand a high degree of skill in precision control of spacecraft very similar to that required in formation flying and helicopter landing. Because the range of piloting skills is so broad, a variety of trainers and training methods must be integrated into an overall training program that will equip the astronauts to handle all normal and emergency piloting tasks from liftoff to touchdown. Procedural training and familiarization of crews with the operation of spacecraft systems and the mission profile can best be given in simulators. However, with simulators, there is a complete absence of the dynamic response of a machine to the pilot's control inputs, which subject the pilot to accelerations and spatial orientations induced by his actions. Experience gained in training test pilots using simulators and aircraft has clearly shown that skills developed in the absence of the dynamic environment cannot be translated on a I-to-I basis into an actual flight condition. In general, a pilot is capable of handling much more difficult control problems on a simulator than he can in an actual aircraft or spacecraft. A good example of this is the use of variable stability aircraft in combination with simulators for demonstrating stability and control characteristics of marginally stable vehicles. Pilots quickly learn that attainment of a proficiency level which enables them to fly an unstable vehicle on the simulator by no means insures that they will be able to fly the same vehicle in an airborne simulation. The feedback of vehicle responses to control inputs is such that the pilot cannot respond to cues in the dynamic environment as he does in the static environment. The capability of astronauts or test pilots to function in a dynamic environment can be substantially improved and maintained at a high level through practice. Flying high-performance aircraft is one effective means of providing the necessary practice. We have always found it necessary to use dynamic trainers in training for aircraft flight or space flight. For example, even though we have instrument trainers that can almost duplicate actual flight conditions from the standpoint of visual cues, pilot instrument training still demands the use of airborne trainers. We have not yet made an X-I5 flight that was not preceded by practice in the F-I04, even though the X-I5 pilots had repeatedly flown the flight profile on an X-I5 simulator that almost duplicated the X-I5 characteristics. The use of aircraft in astronaut training is only the continuation of a tried and proven flight readiness technique. If we did not have aircraft, it would be necessary for us to develop a dynamic trainer of some sort to fill the void. (2) Question. Is proficiency flying necessary? Answer. The question has been asked, Why must experienced pilots who have accumulated many hours of flying time in high-performance aircraft continue to fly as a part of their space flight readiness training? Astronauts must maintain proficiency in all of their space flight training for the same reasons airline pilots undergo a continuous program of proficiency training and flight checks and that all active military pilots maintain at least minimum proficiency levels. There is no field of endeavor that requires peculiar skills that does not also demand that these skills be maintained through consistent use. This is particularly true of piloting skills. (3) Question. Is it necessary for scientist/astronauts to fly? Answer. The requirements placed on the crews for each manned space flight are different. In general, a complex combination of technical and manual skills are needed. There will be some flights for which all of the crew members will need to be pilot rated. An example is a manned lunar landing. There will be some earth orbital flights for which one or more of the crew members need not necessarily be pilot rated. Where appropriate, nonrated scientist/astronauts can be used. (4) Question. Is there a direct relation between jet aircraft and spacecraft? Answer. Space flight is simply an extension of aircraft flight to include the region of space where aerodynamic loads have, for all practical purposes, vanished. With
144
some modification, the basic techniques used in flying aircraft apply to spacecraft piloting. Instrument displays are monitored and control applications are made in response to instrument readings and external cues in much the same manner whether the vehicle being flown is an aircraft or spacecraft. (5) Question. Is there any negative training effect associated with flying? Answer. There is no negative training which accrues from aircraft flying. From a design standpoint, there is a natural tendency for pilot astronauts to apply lessons learned in the design and modification of aircraft cockpits to the layout of spacecraft cockpits. Occasionally this appears to limit design flexibility; however, in the long run, design inputs based on aircraft piloting experience have proved to be sound and effective. (6) Question. Do astronauts fly only to receive flight pay? Answer. No. To maintain their piloting skills at a proper level, all the astronauts attempt to fly 25 hours per month. N one of this flying is accomplished specifically for the purpose of meeting the minimum requirements for flight pay purposes.
E. E.
CHRISTENSEN.
The CHAIRMAN, Senator Cannon? APOLLO APPLICATIONS Senator CANNON. I have just a couple more questions. Dr. Mueller, the Communications Satellite Corp. has recently announced its plan to install a multipurpose satellite station for TV, radiocommunication, et cetera. In view of this, what do you contemplate or envision for your Apollo Applications in this area that you discuss in your statement? Dr. MUELLER. Well, I think that the Communications Satellite Corp. plans in this area are still in the formative stage. Basically, the communications satellite is a point-to-point trunkline carrier providing for much the same kind of service to the internal networks of a nation, internal telephone network, and that in turn carries out television and telegraph communications throughout a nation that a cable connection does. So in a sense, it is competitive with the underseas cables. The applications I was talking about would contemplate the possibility, rather than necessarily a commercial possibility, of direct broadcast from orbit to home receivers, for example, so that you would then eliminate the ground transmitters that are located across the nation. Now, there are disadvantages to this as well as advantages. I am not p'ressing this as a thing to do. I only was there discussing the possIbilities of what could be done. Senator CANNON. NASA has transferred funds to the Navy and to the Department of Agriculture to study potential Apollo Applications in oceanography, for ease and crop surveys and related activities. Since these agencies have the function responsibility for these areas, how much funding and personnel effort are they putting into potential space applications to their work? Dr. MUELLER. May I supply that for the record? I do not have that. Senator CANNON. Yes. (The information referred to follows:)
You are aware of the fact that we are heavily engaged in the definition phase of the natural resources program (space applications). Work has been divided into the fields of agriculture/forestry resources, geology/hydrology (mineral and water resources), geography, (cultural resources), and oceanography (marine resources). Cooperative agreements were signed in 1965 with the Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service), the Department of the Interior (U.S. Geological Survey), and the Department of Defense (Navy Oceanographic Office). These agencies were chosen because they have been very active in these disciplines and have made available their scientists and facilities. Our understanding of the
145
extent of their current contribution to the natural resources program is summarized below from detailed plans which these groups are now preparing. Additional and more authoritative information on these matters should be obtained directly from the agencies involved. When complete, their plans can be furnished if desired. The funds provided by the agencies are for work which is of use both to NASA and the agencies. In some cases the fiscal support is direct, as for the salaries of certain scientists engaged in the natural resources program. In other cases the support is indirect, as for facility outfitting and maintenance. The governmental personnel support falls into three classes: full-time technical management for the NASA project (paid by NASA); principal scientific investigators for specific NASA experiments (paid by NASA and the agencies); and part-time advisers to the agencies (paid by NASA and the agencies). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded $30,000 in fiscal year 1966 to Purdue University specifically for multispectral sensing of various crops. In the "general" category, USDA has averaged $1 million per year for aerial photography, not including the substantial costs of interpretation and analysis. These latter techniques are particularly pertinent for space applications. Other funds were employed to develop the three agriculture/forestry test sites which will be useful for "ground-truth" calibration of the remote sensors. At present, there is the equivalent of 1 USDA man engaged in full-time technical management with approximately 10 USDA principal investigators. It is planned to augment the technical staff as qualified scientists become available. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in fiscal year 1966 has budgeted approximately $4.1 million for studies of geology, hydrology, and geography, as well as for magnetic, infrared, and ultraviolet experiments plus multisensor investigations at test sites which have specific application to the natural resources program. In fiscal year 1965, $730,000 was spent by the USGS on the sensor experimental activity. It is estimated that $10 million has been invested by the USGS in developing data for the test site phase of the work which is useful to both NASA and the USGS for natural resources studies. Seven USGS people are engaged in full-time technical management, 58 USGS specialists in various types of experiments including test site work, plus 24 part-time civil service advisers. Examples of the indirect fiscal support of value to both NASA and the Navy, which was furnished by the Navy, include use of the Argus Island Tower and instrumentation ($2 million installation), use of the drifting ice station near Point Barrow (operational costs run to $1 million per year), $1 million for modifying and equipping a special aircraft with remote sensors, and $75,000 per year for research on laser sensors. The Argus Island and Point Barrow areas are being used as oceanographic test sites. Other Navy capabilities, facilities, and resources expected to be utilized include icebreakers, helicopters, ships, forecasting services, ice observers, etc. Substantial indirect su~port will benefit the NASA program through Navy-sponsored research at the University of Michigan, Scripps, and Woods Hole, all of which have aircraft engaged in remote sensing. Personnel support consists of 8 full-time for technical management, 9 so far for principal scientific investigators, and 15 part-time for advisers. It is to be emphasized that the intangible support is equally important. As stated by the USGS: "These funds, however, do not include the wealth of scientific information and experience that are available to support your natural resources program. This experience and information, garnered in a century of scientific investigations, is our major contribution."
Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Chairman, Senator Mondale left a few questions that he would like answered for the record, and Senator Byrd left a few. And I have one question that I would like to put into the record. (Questions submitted by Senator Mondale to Dr. Mueller and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
MANNED ORBITING LABORATORIES
Question 1. Dr. Mueller, in their recent report the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Science, urged development of a series of manned orbiting research laboratories to conduct medical, psychological, and behavioral research required for prolonged space flight up to 1,000 days, and that space laboratories
146
which can accommodate six to eight persons with room for experimentation are needed. How much advanced planning has NASA done for such manned space stations and when, in your judgment, would it be practical to first put in orbit such a station-from a technical point of view? Answer. The Manned Orbital Research Laboratory (MORL) concept can effectively accommodate up to nine crew members in a pressurized volume of approximately 8,500 cubic feet. This allows research in human physiology and behavior for long space flights up to 1,000 days. In addition, we have configured this station concept so that it can also support a broad experiment program, including beneficial Earth applications as well as astronomy, physics and basic biology investigations. To date we have examined the MORL concept feasibility, and system utilization and have completed the preliminary system definition; this has included delineation of how the experiment equipment can be arranged in the laboratory for specific experiments. We are now ready to proceed with final system definition and preliminary design. From the technical point of view the six- to nine-man orbital research laboratory would be practical in the 1971-73 time period. Moreover, it should be noted that the AAP offers an early capability to initiate the space station program by allowing us to test critical subsystems, such as stabilization for the MORL in space to verify some of our experimental techniques in orbit and to gain operational experience in a variety of orbits including those at synchronous altitudes.
NASA-DOD ORBITING LABORATORIES
Question. 2. Dr. Mueller, DOD has a Manned Orbiting Laboratory program which will have an orbital lifetime of 30 days. NASA Earth-orbiting Apollo missions will have a maximum life of 45 days-later maybe 90 days. Since the two programs have orbital lifetimes nearly the same why is NASA not looking to systems that have a much longer orbital lifetime? Answer. The NASA Earth orbital Apollo missions provide a logical complementary capability to the DOD MOL program. Apollo hardware in Earth orbit can effectively be used to conduct research aimed at peaceful, beneficial application such as extended, accurate weather forecasting, a worldwide communications network and a world resources management system. The orbital stay time with Apollo systems can be extended to 135 and 180 days with rendezvous giving us the opportunity to develop a high confidence approach through orbital testing to the development of a space station. Our operational capability and experience will be advanced significantly by flying in various orbits including synchronous altitudes and conducting in-orbit maneuvers and extravehicular activities with a detached LEM. From studies completed we have concluded that the AAP can perform many critical, pivotal experiments which will enhance effective utilization of a follow-on larger station that provides a more complete space laboratory in which to conduct broadly beneficial experimcnts. Studies have indicated that an ultimately 50,000 hour/year orbital experiment work load is reasonable to expect, but that we should achieve this level through experience gained at a lower rate. Since AAP can operate cost-effectively in the 5,000 to 15,000 man-hours/year rate, we can exploit the inherent capabilities of the Apollo system without the cost of a completely new development program, Moreover, this approach allows pilot-model space station operation which can provide confident assurance that the new larger space station design will meet all the experiment program requirements. NASA has, over the last 3 years examined in depth the concept of a space station with orbital life in excess of 1 year. These studies have resulted in the definition of a manned orbital research laboratory which would support a crew of six to nine men in orbit for in excess of 1 year. From a technical point of view the six- to nine-man orbital research laboratory would be practical in the 1971-73 time period.
FUNDING OF APOLLO APPLICATIONS
Question 3. Dr. Mueller, of the NASA appropriations for fiscal years 1964, 1965, and 1966, how much can be identifi('d with what is now termed "Apollo Applications" but was previollsly called by such terms as "Apollo extensions"? How much is unspent? Answer. As indicated in the fiscal year 1966 budget, $14 million of our fiscal year 1965 Apollo supporting development funds were programed for advanced
147
development effort in Apollo extension systems. These funds were used for subsystems level predevelopment evaluation and testing of the Apollo spacecraft and were all obligated. Forty-eight million dollars was provided in our fiscal year 1966 budget to enable program definition, a long leadtime deVelopment of extended duration spacecraft subsystems, and long leadtime experiments development. These funds were not released until a determination was made on the administration's budget request on Apollo Applications for fiscal year 1967. This decision was made in late December 1965. As of March 1966, all but approximately $10 million has been released to NASA centers. All funds are planned for obli,?ation this year. Apollo Applications (previously "Apollo Extensions Systems ') first began with fiscal year 1965 budget. Question 4. How much of the NASA fiscal year 1967 request can be identified as Apollo Applications? Answer. The MSF fiscal year 1967 budget request includes $41.9 million for Apollo Applications. This will be devoted entirely to long-Ieadtime items that are required for flight hardware beyond that included in the present Apollo program. Relatable to Apollo Applications is approximately $25 million in the Office of Space Science and Applications budget for experiments definitions, many of which are anticipated to be candidates for Apollo Applications flights.
ADVANCED MISSION PLANNING AND ITS RELATION TO AAP
Question 5. How does your advanced mission planning differ from the planning you do in the Apollo Applications Program? Answer. The Office of Manned Space Flight utilities the Phased Project Planning concept which NASA has adopted for future program planning. Phased Project Planning involves four time phased steps as follows: Phase A-Advanced Studies. Phase B-Program Definition. Phase C- Design. Phase D-Development and Operations. Phase A.-Advanced Studies is the first step in the process. During this phase feasibility studies are conducted covering various approaches to accomplish the future program mission objectives. Engineering assessments are made, research and technology requirements are identified and gross schedules and cost factors are determined. Favorable and unfavorable factors are analyzed and recommendations are made to proceed to the next Phase as a function of the analysis and decisionmaking process activity contained in Phase A. Phase B.-Program Definition is concerned with the assessment of total mission requirements for the program under study. An overall system analysis is made and selected concepts are refined. Preliminary design specifications are prepared, manufacturing and checkout assessments are made along with research, technology and advanced development requirements. Cost estimates and schedules are further defined and management and procurement approaches are evaluated. An analytical report is prepared and recommendations are made concerning the next phase. In the next Phase (Design of Final Program Definition) the finalized program concept is determined and a total systems analyis in conjunction with final design specification is prepared. Supporting development activities are initiated and plans for facilities, test operations, and other resource requirements are prepared. A final Program Development Plan is issued and preparations for contractor selection are initiated. The last phase--Phase D-is called development and operations. In this phase manufacturing and testing of system and subsystem occur, the flight vehicles are assembled, checked out, and flight tested and finally mission operations flights are initiated. In Manned Space Flight, all Phase A Advanced Studies activities are under the jurisdiction and cognizance of our Advanced Manned Missions organization. Feasibility studies are conducted in such areas as advanced Earth-orbital missions, entended lunar exploration, planetary flyby and landing Inissions and supporting flight vehicles. Some examples would include: a resupplyable space station; extended lunar exploration based on a direct-flight cargo delivery vehicle; Mars or Venus flyby mission based on Apollo-type technology and methods of increasing the payload capacities of the Saturn launch vehicles.
148
Apollo Applications is an example of an Advanced Manned Missions study effort which has completed the Phase A step. Apollo Applications is now in Phase B, or Program Definition. A separate program type organization has been authorized and Apollo Applications is no longer under the jurisdiction and cognizance of Advanced Manned Missions. The phase B Apollo Applications program definition studies are directed toward specific missions which could be performed with Apollo and modified-Apollo hardware in Earth orbit, in lunar orbit, and on the lunar surface. These missions include flights of up to 45 days in Earth orbit, up to 28 days in lunar orbit (plus transit time) and lunar surface missions of up to 14 days (plus transit time). These flights utilize Apollo Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles and are based upon uprated Apollo Command and Propulsion modules and the Lunar Module Laboratory. Advanced mission planning differs from Apollo Applications planning in two ways; the time period for which the planning is aimed, and the degree of planning detail required. Advanced mission planning projects into the more distant future to determine the available alternative mission goals which will maintain this Nation's exploration. For example, missions are being planned using Apollo Applications as a logical step toward the evolutionary development leading to a multipurpose orbital space station which can support a wide variety of missions including planetary, lunar, and Earth-orbital types. Apollo Applications mission planning is aimed at the near future directed to specific flight missions and advanced mission planning is aimed at the more distant future and performs less detailed mission planning. This mission planning is aimed at defining detailed mission objectives and payloads for those missions that may become available from the Apollo program beginning in calendar year 1968. These missions are to use to the fullest the capabilities of the Saturn-Apollo systems so as to provide a basis for the next major U.S. step in manned space flight by accomplishing: Extended lunar exploration, including I-month orbital surveys and 2-week lunar surface operations, and Manned operations in any Earth orbit of 90-days duration, using rendezvous-resupply and orbital-assembly techniques.
ADVANCED MISSIONS CONSIDERED
Question 6. What arc some of the advanced space missions being considered? Answer. Dr. Mueller. As distinguished from the Apollo Applications Missions which we are considering, the Office of Manned Space Flight is studying advanced manned missions in the following general categories: (1) Earth-orbital systems which include the Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory (MORL), the large rotating orbiting laboratory and ferry and logistic systems based on the Gemini or Apollo command modules or increased sizes Apollo spacecraft, larger ballistic systems, and lifting-body systems; (2) lunar systems which include exploration missions, those related to transportation systems, and those for supporting operations; (3) planetary systems including capture and flyby missions to Mars and Venus, as well as operations and support on the surface of the planets; and (4) manned space flight vehicle studies which encompass new vehicles from the upratingjimprovement of the present Saturn systems to different vehicle concepts for very large payloads, passenger transport, and space ferries. Question 7. How much of the NASA fiscal year 1967 budget request can be identified as being for advanced mission studies? Answer. There is $8 million in the NASA fiscal year 1967 budget for advanced manned missions studies. The MSF item, "advanced manned missions" is the only such category in the fiscal year 1967 budget.
(Questions submitted by Senator Byrd to Dr. Mueller and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL GEMINI FLIGHTS
Question 1. Dr. Mueller, why do we need the additional five Gemini flights? Answer. The five remaining Gemini flights are required for several reasons. A very significant reason is the training we will gain for our astronauts. These missions will provide valuable flight experience that will be beneficial to our Apollo program. Additionally, we will investigate and develop various methods of rendezvous and docking as well as extensive extravehicular activity, that will
149
expand our knowledge of how effectively a man may function and work outside the spacecraft. Our experiments program and development of procedures and techniques for controlled reentry will also be continued on these flights.
GT-8 FLIGHT
Question 2. The extravehicular activity on GT-8 will have Astronaut Scott outside the spacecraft for over 2 hours. I understand he will spend the night portion of the 1~ revolutions in the adapter section of the spacecraft.' Why is this? Answer. The extravehicular activity planned for Gemini VIII is our second step in the investigation and development of extravehicular activity operations. The time the astronaut will spend in the adapter, which is approximately 36 minutes, will be utilized to don and check out the back pack that will be evaluated during the next daylight period of extravehicular activity and will also provide a short rest period for the astronaut.. Question 3. Dr. Mueller, have the problems of the Agena target vehicle been solved so that one will be ready for the upcoming GT-8 rendezvous? If it becomes necessary to use the ATDA (Augmented Target Docking Adaptor), will it be able to fill the same training experience that the Agena would? Answer. Modifications have been made to the Agena target vehicle to correct the problem we encountered with the vehicle last October and these modifications are presently being tested at the Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tullahoma, Tenn. Test results have been encouraging and barring any unforeseen incidents, we feel confident the Agena target vehicle will be flight ready for our Gemini VIII mission. On Gemini VIII, if it becomes necessary to use the Augmented Target Docking Adapter, it will provide the same training experience that the Agena would.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR NASA PEOPLE ASSIGNED TO MOL
Question 4. Dr. Mueller, you mention the assignment of a number of highly skilled civilian employees from the Gemini program to the MOL Systems Program Office. Will NASA be reimbursed for these services? Answer. NASA will be reimbursed for the services of personnel that may be detailed to the MOL Systems Program Office in accordance with a written agreement between NASA and the Air Force dated September 1964.
LEAD TIME ON SATURN
Question 5. Dr. Mueller, how long does it take to produce a Saturn V launch vehicle? Does that time include transportation, testing, and assembly at Cape Kennedy? Answer. Saturn V launch vehicle is produced tn 36 months from the initiation of long lead procurement through assembly at Cape Kennedy.
COST OF SATURN V
Question 6. Dr. Mueller, what is the estimated cost of an operational Saturn V launch vehicle? Answer. The estimated cost of an operational Saturn V launch vehicle is based on continued production after the first 15 required for the Apollo program at a rate of 6 per year. At that time, the average unit cost of a Saturn V, delivered to KSC, would be approximately $100 million.
(Question submitted by the committee to Dr. Mueller and the answer supplied for the record is as follows:)
AAP RECOMMENDATION TO BUDGET BUREAU
Question 1. Did NASA's original $264 million recommendation for an Apo11o applications program to the Bureau of the Budget include recommendations for specific Apollo applications flight program. If so, would you please state those for the record. Answer. NASA's original $264 million recommendation to the Bureau of the Budget included a specific flight program. Our recommended flight program for a funding level of $42 million is essentially the same but would require a longer time period to achieve the objectives.
I MiSSion aborted before thIS activity could be IICCOmp1lshed.
150
The flight program recommended was: (1) To develop the capability to utilize unmodified Apollo space vehicles for alternate missions in the event the manned lunar landing should not require them; and (2) to continue a flight program which utilized the current production capability of six Saturn IB's, six Saturn V's eight Command and Service Modules, and eight Lunar Modules. The flights planned as alternate missions would be conducted during 1968 and 1969, and would have a nominal 14-day mission duration. Typical missions and experiments planned for the flights included: (a) Low-altitude Earth orbital missions in both low-inclination and polar orbits for: Development of rendevous maneuver and extravehicular operations techniques such as orbital rescue, propellant transfer in space, etc; Surveys of the Earth's surface leading to improved knowledge and fut.ure management of Earth resources (water, crops, forests, oceans, etc.) ; Tests of materials and components under natural and artificial stresses in the space environment. (b) Synchronous Earth orbit missions for conducting such experiments as: Solar astronomy, possibly using Orbiting Solar Observatory-derived equipment employing recovery of data on film or glass plates. Radio astronomy, using large "V" antennas deployed by a remote maneuvering unit and left to operate unmanned for long-term observations of low frequency signals from galactic sources. Data would be transmitted to ground stations via radio link. Observations of the atmosphere over one-third of the Earth's surface for synoptic weather forecasting. (c) Low altitude, circular lunar orbital missions of up to 8 days duration for acquiring scientific lunar survey data in the form of: Recovered film photography of both mapping quality and high resolution stereo of near and far-side lunar features. Multispectral imagery from infrared, ultraviolet and radar sensors. Surface contact measurements using orbit-to-surface probes derived from Surveyor and Ranger technology. Experiments planned for flights after the 14-day alternate Apollo missions would employ Apollo spacecraft, modified only to the extent necessary to provide 45-day mission capabilities in Earth orbit, 28-day mission capabilities in lunar orbit and 14-day mission capabilities on the lunar surface. Typical missions and experiments planned for these flights included: (a) Extended duration missions in Earth orbit for experiments such as: Biomedical and behavioral response of man to the space environment for periods up to 45 days for a single-launch mission and up to 90 days through use of rendezvous and resupply techniques, possibly including provisions for artificial gravity in the space vehicle. Bioscience experiments with living cells and animals under natural and artificial stresses to record data return specimens leading to knowledge in such areas as healing processes under weightless conditions, response of living organisms in space to drugs, etc. Manned orbital astronomy possibly using an adaptation of an Orbiting Astronomical Observatory type telescope or larger, which could be left to operate in orbit and revisited during a subsequent mission for adjustments and maintenance. Communications and navigation applications, employing direct FM or TV transmissions from synchronous orbit with large solar arrays for power and periodic revisits by crews for maintenance and adjustment. (b) Long duration missions in lunar polar orbits for surveys of the entire lunar surface during a complete lunaration (28 days) employing advanced sensors based on experience with those described in (c) above. (c) Lunar surface exploration missions of up to 2 weeks' duration to obtain detailed geological, geochemical and geophysical measurements and samples of the lunar surface over an area up to 10 miles in radius through use of small one-man mobile vehicles, and to depths of several hundred feet below the surface using drills and seismic techniques. Optical and radio astronomy experiments are being planned for the lunar surfacc to usc the Moon as a stable base for long-duration observations of planetary, solar and stellar phenomena. The data obtained from extended lunar surface missions would be correlated with data obtained from orbital sensors to provide a basis for analysis of the potential scientific and economic benefits of more extended lunar operations.
151
(Question submitted by Senator Jordan to Dr. Mueller and the answer supplied for the record is as follows:)
ASSIGNMJDNT 01' AU JDXPERIMENT INTEGRATION TO ItBC
Question 1. Dr. Mueller, in assigning responsibilities (fig. 16 and p. 166) for Saturn Apollo Applications, what specific assignments for experiment integration are assigned to the Kennedy Space Center. What is the relationship of these experiment integration tasks to the launch function at Kennedy Space Center that caused. you to &BBign this function to KSC? Answer. The experiment (or payload) integration task assigned to Kennedy Space Center is the installation portion only of the overall payload integration function. The major ~art of payload integration involves the engineering, development and test (E.D. & T.) activities which precede the assembly of flight hardware. These E.D. & T. activities will be carried out by Manned Spacecraft Center for the Command and Service Module and Marshall Space Fli~ht Center for the Lunar Module and launch vehicles. The E.D. & T. activities will produce the plans the specifications for conduct of the installation of experiment flight hardware. As indicated on the Apollo Applications-Mission Concepts Chart (fig. 97, p. 238), the alternate missions will be conducted with basic lunar mission space vehicles which may become available. The decision to make these vehicles available will be based on a number of factors which cannot be determined until we are well into the Apollo flight program. With the launch vehicles and spacecraft modules at various stages in the flow to Kennedy Space Center for checkout and launch operations, it appears advisable not to disrupt this flow by diverting elements to other locations. KSC possesses the technical expertise and facilities necessary to do the installation task, and installing the experiment payloads at KSC would maintain the continuity of hardware flow; therefore, the assignment of payload installation responsibility to KSC. For the follow-on missions, the spacecraft configurations and experiments will be planned as primary mission assignments and not as alternates on spacecraft that may become available. Because the experiment payloads may grow more complicated during the follow-on missions it appears advisable to accom3)lish as much of the payload integration process as possible ])rior to delivery to KSC. However, BOme experiments will require installation at KSC; therefore the assignment of responsibility for limited installation of experiments for follow-on missions. As indicated above, the Kennedy Space Center is assigned only the installation portion of payload integration. This task is closely related (and in many cases identical) to the launch functions. It includes preassembly checkout, systems installation, total system functional verification, mission simulations, and module assembly and servicing. The experiments will vary in configuration but their complexity and checkout requirements will be identical in scope to those of the basic space vehicle systems.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Mueller. You are always a refreshing influence on the committee. We are glad to have you here. We are recessed unti110 tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 12 :05 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene March 2, 1966, at 10 a.m.) (The complete prepared statement of Dr. Mueller follows:)
PBELIKINARY STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. MUELLJDB, AS80CIATJD AnIlINISTlU.TOR FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADIIINISTRATION INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the statement is to present an annual report of accomplishments in the past year and plans for the fiscal year beginning in July 1966. The statement will review Manned Space Flight management, report on the status and planned activities of the Gemini and Apollo programs and Advanced Manned Mission studies, and will outline the schedule for accomplishing specific objectives.
59-941 066 11
152

MANAGEMENT
Manned Space Flight organizational and personnel changes are reviewed, including the activities of Mission Operations and Saturn/Apollo Applications. Procurement management and emphasis upon incentive contracting are discussed. Relationships with industry, science, and other Government areas are noted.
GEMINI
Gemini's contribution to all objectives of Manned Space Flight with the program's one unmanned and five manned flights of 1965 is summarized. Accomplishments reviewed include the completion of flight qualification, extravehicular activity, three long duration flights of 4, 8, and 14 days, and history's first successful space rendezvous, involving close formation flight of two Gemini spacecraft and four astronauts. Production and delivery of flight hardware to support increased operational activity during 1965 is noted, and the production status of all remaining flight hardware reported. Four Gemini missions are planned for 1966. Major objectives will be further development of various phases of rendezvous and docking, extravehicular activity, and extensive experiments continuing the successful experiments program of 1965.
APOLLO
The substantial progress of Apollo during the past year is cited. The first phase of the Saturn I program was eminently successful in providing the base on which the large launch vehicle technology is built. The foundation for Apollo flights has been laid and preparation for the first Apollo/Saturn flight are completed. Movement of flight hardware for manufacturing, test, and flight operations is being accomplished. An operational capability has been built for basic mission control and recovery. Conversion of Saturn I launch facilities nears completion while construction of the Saturn V launch complex progresses toward the start of checkout operations on that facility. The timetable for upcoming unmanned and manned Apollo Saturn flights is reviewed. The resources capability that exists or is being developed in support of the present lunar landing program is summarized in terms of management, personnel, and facilities. The capabilitipB 01 NASA and contractor facilities for development, manufacturing, test, and the capability of NASA launch and space flight operations facilities are described. Apollo Applications is given as an example of a follow-on effort that capitalizes on the resources available through the Apollo program. The background, operational capabilities, objectives, and specific Applications operations are reviewed.
MISSION OPERATIONS
The development of mission operations for Gemini and Apollo is noted. Operations for early unmanned and manned Apollo missions are described. Launch crew, flight controller, and flight crew training is discussed.
ADVANCED MANNED MISSIONS STUDIES
The background of Advanced Manned Missions studies is reviewed. The evolution of future program planning is discussed, and program evolution alternatives are listed. The status of Earth-orbital, lunar, planetary, and vehicle program studies is noted.
FISCAL YEAR 1967 BUDGET REQUEST
Funding requirements to continue the Manned Space Flight program for the next fiscal year are given. In fiscal year 1967 Manned Space Flight will require a total of $3,405.4 million for research and development, administrative operations, and construction of facilities. Research and deVelopment requirements are identified in the three Manned Space Flight programH-nemini, Apollo, and Advanced Manned Missions-for a total of $3,022.S million. Gemini program requests for the next fiscal year are $40.6 million. Total Apollo program requirements for fiscal year 1967 are
153
$2,974.2 million. The fiscal year 1967 request for Advanced Manned Missions, to examine advanced manned space flight mission concepts, is $8 million. The total Manned Space Flight Administrative Operations requirements for fiscal year 1967 is $328.2 million. These funds will provide for the operation of the three Manned Space Flight Centers. The John F. Kennedy Space Center at Kennedy Space Center, Fla., requires $98.1 million; the Manned Spacecraft Center at Houston, Tex., requires $98.2 million; the Marshall Space Flia:ht Center at Huntsville, Ala., requires $131.9 million. Construction of facilities funding requested for fiscal year 1967 totals $54.4 million. This amount covers continuation of the outfitting of launch complex 39 at Cape Kennedy; a lunar sample receiving laboratory and astronaut training simulator facilities at Manned Spacecraft Center; a hazardous operations laboratory at Marshall Space Flight Center; utilities at Michoud Assembly Facility; modifications and additions to test facilities at Mississippi Test Facility and Sacramento Test Facility.
SUMMARY
This presentation reports on the excellent progress and the major problems during the past year in meeting Manned Space Flight program objectives. Plans for the coming fiscal year are discussed.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. MUELLER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION INTRODUCTION STATUS OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in appearing before this committee today, I wish to present an annual report of the Manned Space Flight programs and outline our plans for the next fiscal year. We have maintained an excellent rate of progress during the year just passed. The Gemini program, which was beginning to accelerate at the time of my appearance a year ago, has since sIij>ped forward enough to recover all the schedule loss we reported to you then. We have maintained our scheduled progress in the Apollo program which has brought us up to the first of five major program Inilestones. This committee is well aware of the problems in development, testing, and manufacturing which may be expected to occur in a program of Apollo's unprecedented size. Thus far we have been able to solve the problems encountered without appreciable schedule impact. At the same time we have progressed in defining the next major manned space flight activity through applications of Apollo program capability, and we have continued to study potential manned flight programs farther in the future. The experience of working together during the past year has highlighted the need for a close relationship between the Manned Space Flight organization and other elements of the NASA team. Thus, we are working in close coordination in the development of future manned and unmanned missions in a balanced and interrelated NASA program. One of the anomalies of the space program is that we must begin to go out of business before we fly our first operational vehicle. Our experience in the program to develop the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) launch vehicle illustrates this situation. Although the first Apollo Saturn I manned flight is still a year away, the decline in manpower employed on this phase of the program has been taking place for some time. The employment level at the time of the first manned flight will be quite low in comparison with the peak, which occurred in 1965. The same anomaly characterizes the overall program. The flights of the Apollo Saturn V will begin next year after the program has begun its decline and the manned flights will begin in 1968 after this decline has been under way for some time. We have been cognizant of the concern of this committee with respect to NASA's plans for the period after the decline of the effort applied to the Apollo program. The committee's hearings on the subject of post-Apollo planning, conducted in August 1965, underscored this concern. In accordance with national and NASA policies, and with the resources available, we are working to formulate our future prograIDS.
154
The budget request for the coming fiscal year permits NASA to hold open the option for a program to procure long leadtime items for additional flight vehicles beyond those now programed, so as to employ the Apollo hardware and capabilities at least through 1971. If we do not exercise this option, in the decision for the 1968 budget, we will have to begin a phasedown of the Manned Space Flight activities and the "mothballing" of some of our facilities. We also have been cognizant of the fact that the attention of the Nation is focused on the Vietnam conflict. Our activities of this past year provide a measure of the contributions to national and international security made by the development of capabilities in Manned Space Flight. These contributions are generally in three areas: (1) Technology and skills directly applicable to the current requirements of the Department of Defense; (2) technology and skills potentially applicable to the future requirements of the Department of Defense; and (3) technology and skills that provide a visible focus of power, evident to all the world, of a broad capability to do whatever is necessary to insure security and peace on this planet. In the first category is the Gemini spacecraft which has been selected as the manned vehicle for launch and reentry of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program of the Department of Defense. In the second and third categories is the ability to perform rendezvous in space, demonstrated by the Gemini 6 and 7 spacecrafts on December 15, 1965. This contribution was emphasized 2 weeks later by Mr. Webb at Houston, Tex., when he said: "Now, with respect to Vietnam, my own view is that what these men on this team * * * what our team has done, is to show the world that we can operate men and machines together very, very efficiently. We cannot only remain up 14 days, but make the rendezvous within a very short time interval from what we anticipated on the ground. This means that the world sees a Nation of great capability." In addition to the demonstrations in Gemini, there are those skills and techniques being provided in the Apollo program. The accomplishment of lunar landing and return within this decade will provide visible evidence relating to the balance of technological power in the world.
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT OBJECTIVES
With these considerations in mind, let me now review our progress against the objectives of Manned Space Flight. Shown here (fig. 6) are the general objectives, which are unchanged. Next (fig. 7) are the specific objectives of the three Manned Space Flight programs-Mercury, Gemini, and Apolloalso unchanged from last year. The achievements of the past year reflect substantial progress toward the accomplishment of all of these objectives, both general and specific. In five manned Gemini missions it has been demonstrated that well-trained and wellqualified astronauts are capable of performing effectively in weightless flight for missions lasting up to 14 days, almost twice the length of a nominal Apollo lunar mission. We have demonstrated that two spacecraft piloted by men can achieve rendez"ous in orbit about the Earth, flying in formation at distances as close as 1 foot. We have begun research in the conditions of extra-vehicular manned activity in space. However, this progress in Gemini was not accomplished without difficulties. The loss of the fir~t Agena on October 25 was a serious threat to the timely accomplishment of rendezvous and has delayed the first attempt at docking. However, as a result of careful contingency planning, it was possible to revise the flight schedule and to conduct the Gemini VII and VI flights simultaneously. In the Apollo program, major ground facilities are nearing completion. The first phase of the Saturn I launch vehicle program has completed a perfect series of 10 test flights as a forerunner of the first unmanned flight of the Apollo Saturn I (Saturn IB) space vehicle, a major milestone in the Apollo program. All three stages of the Saturn V launch vehicle have been test fired successfully on the ground. The Apollo spacecraft for Earth-orbital flights is in production and the design on the block II model for the lunar flights has been completed. This progress has increased our confidence that we will accomplish the Apollo objectives within this decade. I remain fundamentally confident that, with effective and timely utilization of present resources and those requested for the coming fiscal year, we will, barring major problems, be able to complete the lunar landing on schedule.
155
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
GENERAL OBJECTIVES
-ESTABLISHMENT OF MAN'S CAPABILITIES -NATIONAL COMPETENCE FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT -INDUSTRIAL BASE -TRAINED PERSONNEL -GROUND FACILITIES -LAUNCH VEHICLES -SPACECRAFT -OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE -EXPLORATION OF SPACE - UNITED STATES LEADERSHIP
NASA M64-68 REV 1, '26/65
FIGURE
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
MERCURY
ORBITAL FLIGHT AND SAFE RETURN OF AN ASTRONAUT
GEMINI
TWO-MAN EARTH ORBITAL FLIGHTS LONGER DURATION FLIGHTS NEW TECHNIQUES. INCLUDING RENDEZVOUS & DOCKING EXTRAVEHICULAR CAPABILITY
APOLLO
THREE-MAN EARTH ORBITAL FLIGHT LONG DURATION MISSIONS RENDEZVOUS AND DOCKING MANNED FLIGHT IN THE EARTHMOON REGION
i\.A5A MM-61
LUNAR LANDING AND EXPLORATION
REv. 1-26-65
FIGURE
156
~ASA
ALTHORlZATIO~
FOR FISCAL TIAR 1967
BeC8USt' of the urgt'ncY of other national neEds relatd to Yietnam. the work on Apollo ApplicatiiJns iE bt'girmirH, at a slow pact'. However, we do propose to begin procurement of long leadtime hardware and to employ a\'ailable rE"sources to maintain the Apollo team as nearly intact as possible to proyide required sustaining engilwering for Apollo during the launch period, and to maintain the option of beginning in an orderly manner, major efforts in Apollo Applications in fiscal ~'ear 1968. when a decline in Apollo requirements is anticipated.
SCHEDrLE FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT
:;\ ext. lEt us re\'iew the scheduk for accomplishing the$e spt'cific objectiyes. This chart is one sho'-YI1 for the last 2 Y(-'aiS in o:J.r annual presentation. As "~as
dOf1l." l!l.i't year, this chart has been updatpd to include 1965 accomplishmNJts
Ifig.8). As ean be seen here, in Gemini we completed fh:e manned flights during 1965, rather than three as stated in my testimony l!l.i't year, and the first rendezvous mission was carried om a year ahead of schedule. Apollo unmanned equipment deye!opment fiightf ha'-e continued. In the unmam1Pd 111nar programs, Ranger h:lS twen ('ompieted ~1J('eessf1Jl1y and botL Sun-eyor and Lunar Orbiter are nearing the time when we will be reeeh-ing lunar surface data. As to the ground network, we haye :10" C'onducted four flights cOlltrolled by the ~1i~ion Control Center at Houston. :'binte-uanee of the Apollo schedule during the past year pro'\ides increased assuranc of completing the Apollo progmm lit a total cost of about $20 billion, on the lower range of the estimates mentioned by ~1r. Webb in his congressional testimony on April 13, 1(161. Xow in another chart from last year lfig. 9), we see the major manned space flight milestones on a year-by-year basis. In Gemini, 196-1 was the year of the first flight, 1~165 was the year of the first manned flight and 1966 was to be the year of the- first rendez\'ous flight-a goal achieved in December 1965. The major Apollo activities of filling the pipeline with test hardware in 1964 and development testing in 1965 are behind us .
_.r~~l!w'
.119 SPACI HIGHT
lOUtP M\I'
.... ""'"':O~-
_____
"'tiO
MA'N
0 ..." .AU
"JrfO[Z\tOU5
APOllO
fOU1fi 01\0' Utt N'NtD
~------
"!.SA Moo-" Hr\'. ,-21-00

FIGURE
157
MAJOR MSF MILESTONES
GEMINI
1964 . 1ST GEMINI FLIGHT 1965 . 1ST GEMINI MANNED FLIGHT 1966 . 1ST GEMINI RENDEZVOUS FLIGHT 1967 . GEMINI OPERATIONS
APOLLO
1966 1ST APOLLO SATURN IB UNMANNED FLIGHT 1967 . 1ST APOLLO SATURN IB MANNED FLIGHT 1967 - 1ST APOLLO SATURN V UNMANNED FLIGHT 1968 1ST APOLLO SATURN V MANNED FLIGHT 1969 APOLLO OPERATIONS
NhSA MC65-5185 ; 20 65
FIGURE
In 1966, the dominant activities are Gemini flight operations and Apollo qualification testing, with the uprated Apollo Saturn I (Saturn IB) unmanned flight as the year's major milestone. In 1967, we will conclude the NASA Gemini program and Apollo will be in a year of flight testing with two major milestones scheduled-the first uprated Apollo Saturn I manned flight and the first Apollo Saturn V unmanned flight. Apollo Earth-orbital flight operations will be dominant in 1968. The major milestone of 1968 is the first Apollo Saturn V manned flight, leading to Apollo lunar operations beginning in 1969.
MANAGEMENT
When I reviewed the Manned Space Flight organization, manpower and program management for you at this time last year, I stressed our efforts to acquire a proper balance between administrative and technical considerations in achieving overall objectives. We have since taken further steps to refine and improve our management organization for optimum use of our capabilities in people, physical plants, and flight hardware.
HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION
Organization and personnel changes covered in my statement before this committee in March 1965 included the establishment of a mission operations office and the restructuring of my immediate office (fig. 9). Mr. William B. Rieke and Maj. Gen. David M. Jones, U.S. Air Force, had been appointed to fill newly established positions as Manned Space Flight Deputy Associate Administrators for management and programs, respectively. Mr. Rieke has since moved from the Office of Manned Space Flight to become Assistant Administrator of Industry Affairs. The Manned Space Flight organization has been further strengthened since last year by the appointment of Mr. James C. Elms as Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight. Following an assignment with NASA as Deputy Director of the Manned Spacecraft Center, Mr. Elms most recentlr served as vice president of Raytheon Co. and general manager of that company s space and
158

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
ASSOClmADMIIIIIS11tATllltfORMAllNEDSPACEFLIBHT OEJIUTY ASSOCIaTE .-slUT. FOIt...uJ SPACtfUCtIT DfMY ASSOCIATt aa-mu11llFOlt....,SPACEnllillT 1""'1 DEPUTY ASSIIDATE,...lmaTOllFOltIWlfEDSPACt: fllllllT[UWiElibUI
HAl. /11,1 . . '10.,.
,15"
FIGURE
10
information division. In addition to serving as my general deputy, Mr. Elms is concerned with the relationships between the centers and the Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF). General Jones has continued to serve as my program deputy covering the area of our program relations to insure effective implementation of the Manned Space Flight programs. General Jones is also Acting Director of the Saturn-Apollo Applications office. Lt. Gen. Frank A. Bogart, U.S. Air Force (retired), who was Director of Manned Space Flight Management Operations, moved into the vacancy created by Mr. Rieke's reassignment. General Bogart oversees the functional area of staff relations to assure the maximum effectiveness of our internal work. Other key personnel changes have taken place during the last few months. Mr. Paul E. Cotton, assistant to the Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, has been appointed Director of Manned Space Flight Management Operations, succeeding General Bogart. Brig. Gen. Julian H. Bowman, U.S. Air Force (retired), was named to replace Mr. Cotton. Brig. Gen. Carroll H. Bolender, U.S. Air Force, and Cart. Roderick O. Middleton, U.S. Navy military detailees from the Department 0 Defense, have been appointed Deputy Directors of Mission Operations, assigned to Apollo-Saturn flights. Mr. William C. Schneider, Deputy Director of the Gemini program, has been appointed Deputy Director of Mission Operations for Gemini missions. Mr. J.ohn H. Disher, Apollo program test director, has been appointed Deputy Director, of the Saturn-Apollo Applications Office. Col. Jack Bollerud, U.S. Air Force (Medical Corps) was detailed by the Air Force to NASA to serve as Deputy Director of Space Medicine, succeeding Dr. George M. Knauf, now engaged in biomedical research and development in private industry. Since the recent untimely death of the Director of Space Medicine, Colonel Bollerud also is serving as Acting Director.
DR. W. RANDOLPH LOVELACE II
NASA's Director of Space Medicine, Dr. W. Randolph Lovelace II, was killed in a light plane crash in the Colorado Rockies on December 12, 1965. Also killed were his wife, Mary, and the pilot, Milton Brown.
159
Ironically, the tragedy occurred during the week when Gemini VII, the Nation's first 14-day Manned Space Flight mission, was in orbit. This flight was primarily a medical laboratory experiment designed to test man's ability to function effectively in space during the period required to carry out a lunar mission. Dr. Lovelace was the chief architect of this particular medical experiments program. Since the inoeption of the Nation's Manned Spaoe flightprogram in 1958, Dr. Lovelaoe had given freely of his counsel and his talents. Without his dedicated effort this Nation could not have undertaken the 14-day medical experiment mission with such early assurance or so successfully have oompleted the previous short-range Manned Space Mercury Flights. For it was man-his well-being and safety-that was always Dr. Lovelace's chief concern as a scientist. Never for a moment did he forget that only through painstaking research and experimentation could man's destiny in space be realized. The President of the United States, who had sworn him into office as Director of Space Medicine in April 1964, summed up the Nation's reaction to Dr. Lovelace's death in these words: "A day of great achievement in space was marred by the news of the death of Dr. William Randolph Lovelace II. His life was too short, although his legacy to space medicine will endure and will be a resource of assurance to future astronauts whose names and deeds are yet unknown." Throughout the national community of life sciences concerned with space exploration, the name of Randy Lovelace led all the rest. Because of his gift of leadership and the reputation he enjoyed within the scientific community he was able to mobilize the top scientists of the Nation into willing participation in the national space program. As Director of Space Medicine, he faced the daily challenges inherent in the coordination of the many complicated Government, military, and civilian programs which could contribute to the medioal goals in space exploration. This included tapping the resources, for example, of the Atomic Energy Commission, Department of Defense, the Public Health Services, and many others. At the time of Dr. Lovelace's death, the Manned Space Flight medical experiments program had an overriding priority in the national space program. As Director of Space Medicine, he served as a member of NASA's Manned Space Flight Experiments Board which recommended specific scientific, technological, and medical experiments to be carried on launches made under the NASA space flights. Dr. Lovelace was chairman of the Medical Experiments Panel, a subcommittee of this Board. In this capacity he broadened the base for scientific participation to assure that the NASA medical experiments program would meet the higher professional standards of the scientific community. One notable example was through the use of the National Institutes of Health study groups to review all medical experiments under consideration. He served also as first chairman of NASA's Life Sciences Directors Group which cut across the organizational lines of the NASA structure and brought together the life sciences spokesmen within NASA to form a single voice in advising NASA's general management. This group involved the biological sciences as reflected in the Office of Space Sciences (OSSA); advanced life sciences research and biotechnology as reflected in the Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART); and the medical sciences as reflected in the Office of Manned Space Flight. As a result, there has been established an integrated medical-behavorial experiments program for NASA's Manned Space Flight. At the international level, Randy was received with affection and respect, for the language of the international scientific community knows few political Ot" geographical barriers. He spoke the language of scientists around the worldwhether it be at the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.A. or at the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences. In 1964, for example, he was awarded the Prof. N. I. Pirogen Memorial Medallion in honor of the 150th Anniversary of the Academy of Medical SCiences, Moscow, U.S.S.R. While it is as a world citizen and as a leader of men and ideas in the broad spectrum of the life sciences that his loss will be most keenly felt, it was the solid basis of his own scientific accomplishments and his personal examples of heroism that won him the respect of the world. Dr. Lovelace was one of the pioneers who made it possible to integrate man and the machine so as to advance science and technology. His first love as a boy was aviation, and in 1928 he took his pilot's license at the Great Lakes Naval Training School. But the pull of family tradition was stronger and
160
medicine prevailed. Following his A.B. at Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., in 1930, he attended Harvard Medical School. Graduated in 1934, he interned at Bellevue Hospital in New York City. A fellowship to the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research in Rochester, Minn., from 1936 to 1941 was interrupted by 1 year in Europe where he studied surgery on a J. William White scholarship. In 1940 he earned an M.S. in surgery at the University of Minnesota. Frvm 1941-46 he was head of a section on surgery at the Mayo Clinic, although from 1942 he wail on military duty most of that time. Meanwhile, an early interest in oxygen breathing equipment for aviators had led him to attend the Air Corps School of Aviation Medicine at Randolph Field, Tex., from which he was graduated and rated as a flight surgeon in 1937. He had already been commissioned a first lieutenant in the Medical Reserve Group of the Army in 1935. As he pursued his career at the Mayo Clinic in the late 1930's he was increasingly concerned about the physiological problems in flight that beset the pilot. He instigated studies in personal equipment, pilot fatigue, effects of high altitude nitrogen elimination, and the air transportation of patients with pneumothorax. Together with Dr. Walter M. Boothby and Dr. Arthur H. Bulbulian of the Mayo Clinic, he developed an oxygen mask designed to protect the pilot at high altitude. Known as the "BLB" mask, it merited worldwide use. For this and his other contributions to aviation medicine he was named a cow inner of the Robert J. Collier Trophy in 1940. Two months after Pearl Harbor, in February 1942, Lovelace reported for active duty as Assistant Director of Research to the Office of the Air Surgeon in Washington, D.C., with the rank of major. Three months later he ws sent to the Aero Medical Laboratory at Wright Field, Ohio. After serving briefly as Chief of the Oxygen Branch of the Laboratory, he was named Acting Director of the Laboratory, and on September 14, 1943, confirmed as Director. This position he held until he was relieved from active duty on March 26, 1946. It was during this highly productive wartime activity at the Laboratory that Colonel Lovelace became convinced of the critical technical requirement to test, by high parachute jump, several items of new equipment. These included a small bailout cylinder containing about 12 minutes' supply of oxygen for use in emergency descent by parachute. Knowing full well the inherent danger involved he himselt volunteered for this jump to be made from an altitude of 40,200 feet. The jump was made from a B-17 ncar Euphrata, Wash. He wore garments including a back-type parachute allocated to a static line in the aircraft, and an additional chest-type parachute. These had all been developed in the Aero Medical Laboratory. According to the War Department report, this is how he did it: "Colonel Lovelace climbed down onto a seat in the bomb bay to face the rear, leaned forward and turned on the bailout oxygen supply. Miles away he saw the Columbia River, a thin, shining ribbon twisting through fields of green. Thirty thousand feet below, a liaison plane moved along its course, ready to follow the jumper to the Earth. As his plane sped forward at 200 miles an hour, Colonel Lovelace stepped off into air 50 below zero. The tail of the plane was directly over his head when the chute started to open. The blast of onrushing air and the sudden jerk of the opening parachute tore the thick outer gloves from both his hands and also snapped off the thin inner glove on his left hand, leaving it bare in freezing temperature. The inner glove remained on his right hand, which was uninjured by the cold." Unconscious, oxygen starved, and his left hand severely frostbitten, he nevertheless survived and through his act saved the lives of untold numbers of combat crews who yet must travel at increasIngly high altitudes, and sometimes bail out for emergency landings. Although this experimental parachute jump had been intended to demonstrate the dependability of oxygen bailout equipment from high altitudes, it also revealed for the first time to aeromedical scientists the great intensity of the opening shock at high altitudes. It had been believed that the parachute shock at high altitudes would be low because of decreased density of the atmospheres. It was now demonstrated that Colonel Lovelace was actually exposed to 40 g. when his parachute was opened immediately after he left the aircraft. From the lessons learned from the jump, pilots were instructed to delay opening their parachutes in the event of emergency escape until they had reached a lower and safer altitude. Shor~l~ t~ereafter, his un~le, Dr. W. R. Lovelace, who had pioneered the Lovelace CIUliC 111 the New MexICO desert, asked him to return. In H)47 they established the Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
161
The Lovelace Foundation over the next decade became a center in which not only the Southwest, but the entire Nation had a stake. For Dr. Lovelace was one of those with vision who recognized that, in the postwar period, airpower would be a vital instrument of national policy. But he also knew that man himself would remain the key to the success of maintaining airpower, and that man must be physiologically supported to survive as technology made it possible to travel in aircraft at increasingly higher altitudes and swifter speeds. Moreover, more must be known clinically about the physiologically healthy pilot's reactions in tlight. During the next decade and a half, the Lovelace Foundation worked closely with the U.S. Air Force in carrying out studies and medical testing of the X-15 pilots and other Air Force personnel who were tlying closer and closer to the threshold of space. Space travel, it was recognized, was the logical step in man's progress-but a step at a time. In addition, Dr. Lovelace kept up his prewar consultant activities with the civilian airlines. The Lovelace Foundation undertook key studies for the Federal Aviation Agency on such important studies as pilot aging-for with the advent of jets, the problems of pilot performance became increasingly complicated. It was, however, in the architecture of national policy in aeronautics and astronautics that he made his greatest contributions in the postwar period. He, as much as anyone in all the land, recognized that science and technology would measure the strength of a nation and the caliber of its forward progress. He was a member of the Scientific Advisory Board to the U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff; was Chairman of the Armed Forces Medical Policy Council of the Department of Defense. At the international level, he was a member of the Advisory Group for Aeronautical Research and Development. In his several capacities he visited medical installations around the globe for the Secretary of Defense. In addition, his leadership was retlected in both professional and patriotic organizations, as exemplified by his presidency of the Air Force Association. Since 1928 when he received his pilot's license, and 1936 when he received his medical degree, he had been moving steadily in one direction-the summit of leadership in aerospace medicine and space technology. Before the National Aeronautics and Space Agency was established in 1958, national policymakers and scientists had already turned to him for guidance in establishing astronaut selection standards and designing the life sciences program for the national space program. He had been a member of the National Advisory Committee of Space Technology for the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), predecessor of NASA, serving as Chairman of the Working Group on Human Factors and Training. The recommendations of this group formed the basis for the future life sciences program in NASA, as well as for clarifying the first manned flight mission, Project Mercury. He served as a member of the NASA Advisory Committee on Flight Medicine and Biology from 1959 to 1961; as Chairman, Special Advisory Committee on Life Sciences, 1959-63; and as Senior Consultant to the Office of Manned Space Flight, 1963-64. Randy Lovelace brought to NASA a depth of operational and research experience uniquely related to the Manned Space Flight program. Under his leadership, the largest and most significant group of medical experiments yet tlown in the U.S. Manned Space Flight program-prelude to lunar landings and beyondwas to be accomplished in the Gemini VII tlight of December 1965. This is a significant and lasting tribute to him and to his 30-year career in molding aviation and space research and development for it proved that man could indeed adapt to space tlight and control his destiny through the application of scientific research and development. Finally, at the national and international level, he steadfastly nurtured a new spirit of scientific inquiry and cooperation to attain man's goal of space exploration. We who worked with him in NASA will miss his counsel. I shall miss him greatly as a friend and as a colleague. All of us--NASA, the Nation, the world-send our most profound regrets to his family: his three daughters, Mrs. John Sellman, of San Francisco, Calif.; Sharon, a student at Bishop's Girls' School, La Jolla, Calif.; and Jacqueline, a high school student in Albuquerque, N. Mex.; and to his uncle, Dr. W. R. Lovelace.
HUMAN RESOURCES
Concurrent with our organizational refinements and the changing workload of the centers, we have intensified our efforts to improve the utilization of our available manpower (fig. 11). One of these efforts was to conduct a human
162
resources study to examine our headquarters organization, staffing, average grade and salary levels, and future trends. Some adjustments in overhead functions, deputy and staff advisory positions, lines of authority and responsibility and staffing were made as a result of this study. Through this and other actions we have been able to staff the Saturn/Apollo Applications office in headquarters by the reassignment of personnel from the Gemini, Apollo, and Advanced Manned Missions program offices. Other adjustments of this nature are planned as additional changes in Gemini and other programs permit.
MANPOWER MANAGEMENT
- CONDUCTED OMSF HUMAN RESOURCES STUDY
-SIMPLIFIED ORGANIZATION -FREED PEOPLE TO STAFF SATURN/APOLLO APPLICATIONS OFFICE
_ PLANNED PHASING OF GEMINI PERSONNEL -CONDUCTED UTILIZATION STUDIES AT THE MSF CENTERS TO ABSORB MORE WORK WITHIN EXISTING STAFF -OBTAINED 128 MILITARY DETAILEES FOR FLIGHT OPERATIONS FUNCTIONS -TRANSFERRED 200 POSITIONS FROM MSFC TO MSC IN PREPARATION FOR APOLLO MISSION OPERATIONS
NASA MC66-5,144
FIGURE
11
Another action which we have taken to satisfy these immediate staffing needs was a study at the three MSF centers to determine whether all available personnel would be fully utilized for the next several years on current or future programs. Although we have been able to execute approved programs within current manpower authorizations, the increased complexity, frequency and duration of flight missions has put increased pressure on an already burdened work force at the Kennedy Space Center and the Manned Spacecraft Center. A study concerning operations-oriented functions has indicated that an increase in the work force is necessary to provide adequate support.. To fulfill part of this requirement, the Air Force and NASA have entered into a cooperative arrangement whereby we have obtained 128 military officers trained in the ballistic missile program to perform flight operations functions at the Manned Spacecraft Center. To satisfy the remaining requirement for Apollo operations, we have transferred 200 positions from the Marshall Space Flight Center to the Manned Spacecraft Center. By June 1966, we will allocate an additional 310 positions to the Manned Spacecraft Center and by June 1967, the Kennedy Space Center complement will be increased by 195 positions. A manpower management program is under development by the MSF centers. The program will employ management survey techniques and statistical reporting to evaluate our manpower needs and achieve better manpower utilization.
MISSION OPERATIONS ROLE
You will recall that the Mission Operations organization in the Office of Manned Space Flight was established January 1, 1965, to carry out missions operations for the Manned Space Flight programs. The Mission Operations Office is headed by a Director who is supported by three Deputy Directors (fig. 12). As I have mentioned, the primary task of
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YE .ffi 1967
163
each Deputy Director is to serve as Mission Director for those space flights to which he is assigned. In addition, there ar e staff groups responsible for coordination of operations support requirements, ground operations support system, flight crews support, and operations planning. The Mission Operations Director is also supported by the Directors of Flight Operations in each of the OMSF Program Offices.
FIGURE
12
CENTRALIZATION OF LAUNCH OPERATIONS
During the past year, Goddard Launch Operations and Pacific Launch Operations (fig. 13), previously assigned to the Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, were transferred to the K ennedy Space Center. These offices, physically located at KSC and the Western Test Range, respectively, are responsible for all maj or NASA satellite and probe launches for those sites. Both the Goddard and Pacific Launch Operations were combined at Kennedy Space Center under the Director of La unch Operations who reports to Dr. Debus, the Center Direct or. With the transfer to KSC, clea rer lines of authority and communication and more effective integration of manned and unmanned launch schedules and support a re thus attained without diminishing the responsiveness t o the complex requiremen ts of all launch operations.
PLANNING FOR SATURN- APOLLO APPLICATIONS
During the past year we have devoted increased time and attention to planning for future Manned Space Flight program activities, leading to t he establishment of a new organization, the Saturn-Apollo Applications office, in August 1965 (fig . 14). As I previously noted, Major General Jones is Acting Director and Mr. Disher is D eputy Director of the new organization. This office is responsible for the direction of activities that make use of the capabilities of the Saturn launch vehicles and the Apollo spacecraft for purposes other than the Apollo program.
164
LAUNCH OPERATIONS CHANGES

TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT CONTROL OF GODDARD LAUNCH OPERATIONS AND PACIFIC LAUNCH OPERATIONS TO KENNEDY SPACE CENTER
.CONSOLIDATES UNDER ONE CENTER DIRECTOR THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANNED AND MAJOR UNMANNED LAUNCH OPERATIONS
RESULTS IN CLEARER LINE OF AUTHORITY AND COMMUNICATION AND MORE EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION OF LAUNCH SCHEDULES AND SUPPORT
NASA MC66- 5, 14 2
FIGURE
13
FIGURE
14
165
The Saturn-Apollo Applications office combines two elements. Saturn Applications is primarily concerned with utlization of the uprated Saturn I (Saturn I-B) and Saturn V launch vehicles for potential future missions. Apollo Applications provides an organization for planning and directing activities which can utilize the spacecraft being developed under the Gemini and Apollo programs. The Saturn-Apollo Applications office is organized in the same manner as the Apollo and Gemini offices and is supp-orted by functional organizations such as program control, systems engineering (Bellcomm), test, reliability and quality assurance, and flight operations. At the present time, the Saturn-Apollo Applications office is engaged in the definition of Apollo Applications based on the maximum utilization of Apollo and Gemini system capabilities. The program definition tasks will be completed late in 1966 and a program development plan for Apollo Applications will be available early in 1967. Role of Saturn Apollo Applications OJfice The Saturn-Apollo Applications office provides a service to the Office of Space Science and Applications, the Office of Advanced Research and Technology, the Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition NASA Space Medicine, and the Advanced Manned Missions program office by carrying out for them the experiment programs assigned to Apollo Applications by the Manned Space Flight experiments Board (fig. 15). This office first determines the feasibility of conducting these experiments in the available spacecraft. Then it provides for the development of flight hardware; the integration of the hardware into the space vehicle; the planning and conduct of the missions; and the return of the data obtained to the sponsoring offices. The Saturn-Apollo Applications office is also responsible for the design and development of modifications to the basic Apollo-Saturn space vehicle required by the Applications program.
SATURN-APOLLO APPLICATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS

OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
PROVIDES SCIENTIFIC TRAINING FOR ASTRONAUTS. PROVIDES EXPERIMENTS FOR MANNEO SPACE FLIGHT PROVIDES ENVIRONMENTAL DATA PROVIDES AN INTERFACE WITH SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT SPACE SCIENCE SUMMER STUDY IWOODS HOLE, MASS.) COORDINATION OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS WITH MISSION PLANNING 1965 NASA SUMMER CONFERENCE ON LUNAR EXPLORATION & SCIENCE IFALMOUTH, MASS.l
OFFICE OF ADVANCED RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

PROVIDES TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT MISSIONS PROVIDES EXPERIMENTS FOR MANNED SPACE fliGHT
OFFICE OF TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION

OPERATES MANNED SPACE FLIGHT NETWORK PROVIDES EXPERIMENTS FOR MANNED SPACE fliGHT
NASA MC66S391
FIGURE
15
166
Role of the field centers
Apollo Applications was formally established in August 1965 as a part of the Saturr:-Apollo Applications Office. Parallel program organizations are being estabhshed at the MSF field centers with responsibilities in carrying out this activity (fig. 16).
ROLES OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT CENTERS FOR SATU RN APOLLO APPLICATIONS

MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER
DEVELOPMENT OF APOLLO SPACECRAFT INTEGRATION OF EXPERIMENTS IN COMMAND AND PROPULSION MODULES
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER

LAUNCH OPERATIONS INSTALLATION OF EXPERIMENTS ON APOLLO APPLICATIONS ALTERNATE MISSIONS LIMITED INSTALLATION OF EXPERIMENTS ON APOLLO APPLICATIONS FOLLOW ON MISSIONS
MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT INTEGRATION OF EXPERIMENTS ON LUNAR MODULE, INSTRUMENT UNIT AND STAGES NASA MC66-5, 140
1-21-66
FIGURE
16
The major new task required of the Manned Space Flight Centers in the Apollo Applications program is that of experiment payload integration. Experiments must be assigned and grouped into compatible mission payloads; specifications and interface definitions must be provided and compatibility with spacecraft and operational capabilities established. The Apollo Applications Office is responsible for overall mission and experiment assignment to the Centers for implementation. A number of arrangements have been examined for Center management of the payload integration function for the command module; the service module, which IS the spacecraft propulsion module; and the lunar excursion module (LEM), hereinafter referred to as the lunar module. It was determined that by assigning command and service module payload integration to the Manned Spacecraft Center and lunar module payload integration to the Marshall Space Flight Center, the overall Apollo Applications payload integration task could be accomplished within the personnel ceilings established for the basic Apollo program. It is important to recognize that with this assignment of payload integration responsibility the scope of activity for both Manned Spacecraft Center and Marshall Space Flight Center will increase. The role of the Manned Spacecraft Center with respect to spacecraft development, crew operations, and mission operations will expand in scope to encompass the new tasks associated with the Apollo Applications missions.

EXPERIMENT PLANS AND COORDINATION
167
It has been recognized that the need exists for a strong central element at the Office of Manned Space Flight level to maintain cognizance over all Manned Space Flight experiment plans and prograIns. To fulfill this need (fig. 17) the Advanced Manned Missions program office was given the responsibility for Manned Space Flight experiment development coordination.
FIGURE
17
Here we see the organizational elements concerned with the Manned Space Flight experiments program (fig. 18). Each NASA program office has established a Manned Space Flight experiments group which acts in close coordination in the development, selection, and approval of experiments. When the experiment has been accepted by the program office responsible, it is presented to the Manned Space Flight Experiments Board for allocation and acceptance for flight. The Department of Defense now participates on the Boaru, chaired by NASA, on a par with the NASA program offices. The experiment is then reviewed for impact on the candidate flight prograIns and assigned to a specific project. The project then assumes the responsibility of dev eloping and integrating it into the program.
PLANNING PROCESS FOR FUTURE PROGRA,MS
As I mentioned earlier, the Apollo Applications program is now in the program definition phase. The planning process NASA uses for future prograIns involves four phases (fig. 19). On the next four charts I have noted the other NASA organizational elements with which we coordinated each phase. The first phase is advanced studies (fig. 20). In this first phase we conduct concept feasibility studies covering various approaches to accomplish the objective. We make an engineering assessment, identify research and technology requirements, and study gross schedules and cost. Finally, we assess t he favorable and unfavorable factors and prepare an analytical report with recommendations for the next phase.
59-941 0-66---12
168
FIG U RE
18
PLANNING MANAGEMENT
NASA PHASED PROJECT PLANNING - A MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR:
DEVElOPMENT OF PRIMARY PROGRAM AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES TO MEET THE GOALS STATED IN THE NATIONAl AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT THRU CONTINUOUS COORDINATION WITH THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, ADVISORY GROUPS ISTAC-PSAC I GOVERNMENT AGENCIES' INTERNAL NASA. TRANSLATION OF THESE OBJECTIVES INTO ADVANCED RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY INVESTIGATIONS, INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS, AND POSSIBLE FLIGHT PROJECTS. RECOMMENDATION OF PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND TO THE CONGRESS .
FOUR DISCRETE TIME-PHASED STEPS OF PHASED PROJECT PLANNING

ADVANCED STUDIES - PHASE A PROJECT DEFINITIONS - PHASE B DESIGN - PHASE C DEVElOPMENT AND OPERATIONS - PHASE D
FIG U RE
NASA MC66 SJ90
19
169
PHASE A
ADVANCED STUDIES CONCEPT ......,...ril!'
APPROACHES' (STAC.'...,lit:'~S;.',.. ,fZ;'t;i~lj;t"~lL {SPACE COUIICII. & cMBRfsoSf < EISIlEERIlS ASSESSIIfIIT IDSSA-GAIT) IDEITIFY RESEARCH AID lECIIIDl_ REDUIRIIElTS .. (OSSA-GARTI SROSS SCHEDUlES All .COSTS 11011 '
fAVORABLE AID UlFAVDRA8l fACTORS
FIGURE
20
In the second or project definition phase (fig. 21), we refine selected concepts, assets total mission requirements, and make a system analysis. We prepare preliminary design and specifications; make a manufacturing and test assessment; prepare research, technology and advance development requirements; refine resources estimates and schedules; prepare our management and procurement approach; issue an analytical report and recommend a choice for the next phase. In this third phase, final definition (fig. 22), we arrive at our finalized concept, make a total systems analysis and prepare designs and specifica.tions. We initiate supporting development activities and prepare plans for facilities, test operations and specifications. We then determine resources requirements and issue an analytical report with the finalized project development plan (PDP). At this point we can start contractor selection. The fourth and last phase is Development and Operations (fig. 23). In this phase we manufacture and test the system and subsystem and enter operations to complete the project.
PROGRAM HARDWARE PROCUREMENT
The Office of Manned Space Flight recognizes the importance of the procurement function to the realization of its program management objectives. This is particularly true with respect to the use of incentive contracts for major program hardware procurement, since the effort of incentive contracts is to motivate the contractor toward more efficient management of the effort throughout his organization to meet specific cost, schedules, and performance objectives.
I ncenlwe Contracts
In late 1963 we began a drive to reduce the number of cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts. This was accomplished by employing incentive provisions in new contracts and in the conversion of cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts to an incentive form. In our incentivizing of contracts, we have elected to use a multiple incentive formula combining cost, schedule and performance (fig. 24).
PHASE B
PRWfCT DEfINITION PRELIMINARY DEf1IITION

tWIE SElECTED COIltEI'TS lOAIIT-OS$lf ASSESS TIlUl _ISSIOII .8U1UMUTS ltlSSA-IlTOAOAlT l
SYSTE- .tI.USIS :&111'

f'IllMlfIlRY OESlitlS. RELlABH.!H 1110 SP[ClflCATtOtiS
MlflUfACTtJI1K lllD nST USESSllfliT fEStARtfi. TE&IIMlICY All lDUICE DUELOPttEIIT
It8UfIOItlrs ttAtHISSllm I
ImMO tESIlIKE EUIII.TEI i'''! RUIIIED SCHUIIUS 1 111- OSU1Tt&1 ..
FIG"lRE
:2)
PHASE

FINALIZED CONCEPT TOTAL-SYSTEM ANALYSIS DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUPPORTING DEVElOPMENT (OSSA-DARTI SUPPORT, (OTOAI FACILITIES TEST AND OPERATIONS (OTDAl SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENTS RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS !80BI
~ ~.~ -'~ .~~-
-?~~~{1;~;~_:,. _
".;"
.~.
;C"",;;,:,,,<!'i-'-::JUlIIIl,r:UIOAL
REPORt
NASA IIIIC66-5U7
."tllfIILILtU PDP eCO_TRACTOR SElECTION
FIGcRE
22
~ASA
AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
171
PHASE 0
DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS DEVELOP MANUFACTURE TEST OPERATIONS IOTDA)
COMPLETED PROJECT
~
FIGURE
NASA MC66-513'
23
PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT
GOAL
CONVERSION OF COST PLUS FIXED-FEE CONTRACTS TO INCENTIVE FORM:
APPROACH
MULTIPLE INCENTIVE FORMULA-COST, SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE STRENGTHENS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT REOUIRES EARLY DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ENCOURAGES CONTRACTOR TO OELlVFR BETTER PRODUCT ON TIME WITHIN COST PROMOTES BETTER COMMUNICATION THROUGHOUT CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT AND WORKER TIERS DECREASES MANAGEMENT BURDEN PROFITS DEPENDENT UPON MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL EXCElLENCE PEHSONNEL AWARENESS AT ALL LEVElS COMPANY REPUTATION--POTENTIAL FOR FOLLOW-ON BUSINESS
PROMOTES CLOSE AND TIMELY EXCHANGE OF MANAGEMENT VIEWS
NASA M(66- S387
FIGURE
24
172
A properly structured multiple-incentive contract serves two basic purposes. First, it motivates the contractor to strive for outstanding results in all three incentive areas. His objective at the outset is to earn maximum profit and the contract is structured so that there is some possibility that he can do this. Second, when outstanding results cannot be achieved in all areas, the incentive structure compels logical tradeoffs between cost, schedule and performance in consonance with the overall presta ted objectives of the program. Realization of this second purpose turns mainly on relative weights assigned to each incentive element. In weighting our incentives we have emphasized schedules to the extent that they can be maintained in a proper dollar/performance balance. Based on our experience, this is a reasonable and logical ordering of the incentive parameters. Because we are dealing here with Manned Space Flight, there is an intense feeling of responsibility on the part of all the people designing and building the systems and subsystems to achieve a level of performance commensurate with man's safety. As a matter of fact, because everyone is trying to build the best possible item, schedules and costs require special attention. An incentive contract is an important tool of program management if for no other reason than it forces more timely management attention, decision, and action on any required change of direction-since each of these has or may have an impact upon the originally structured incentive formula. Since the incentive formula discourages contract change except under the most compelling circumstances, we have a measure of built-in stability not generally found in cost-plusfixed-fee contracts. Such stability is, of course, dependent upon how well we are able to define our specific requirements at the outset. The incentive approach promotes this early definition; and we are continuing with concerted efforts in this promising area. Because the contractor is encouraged to maximize his earned fee, we receive a better product, on time, and within acceptable cost levels. Communications with the contractor organization, from the management stratum clear through the working elements, is improved simply because all persons of the organization have a stake in final rewards or penalties. This also serves as an advantage to the contractor. Not the least of the incentives is the contractor's need to maintain or build up company reputation for favorable consideration for future contracts. Incentives automatically and quickly promote the closest interchange of contractor and Government management views so that few required decisions can be postponed by either party. In summation, I am pleased to report that the Agency's goal of $1 billion to be incentivized during fiscal year 1965 was realized (fig. 25). On June 30, 1965, OMSF had 54 incentive contracts totaling $1.190 billion. As of January 1966 negotiations had been completed for contracts with a cumulative total of $4.0 billion. I will discuss our assignment of incentive weights further when I review the Gemini program.
COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION WITH SCIENCE COMMUNITY
The management of Manned Space Flight research and development programs involves a number of relationships with the scientific and technical community (fig. 26). Through these relationships, we report the results of flight experiments, review ongoing programs with scientific advisory bodies, and obtain outside scientific and technical advice regarding future plans. In mid-1965, the National Academy of Sciences held a 4-week meeting at Woods Hole, Mass. Dr. Newell will deal with the recommendations of this meeting in his testimony. The recommendations are now under intensive study in the Office of Manned Space Flight in cooperation with the Office of Space Science and Applications in conjunction with our future programs. Another scientific activity of significance to future NASA programs was the Lunar Exploration Summer Conference conducted by the Manned Space Science Coordinating Committee at Falmouth, Mass., in July 1965. Chairman of the Manned Space Science Coordinating Committee is Dr. Richard Allenby, Deputy Director, NASA Manned Space Science programs. Other members of the committee are the eight working group chairmen: Dr. Eugene M. Shoemaker, U.S. Geological Survey, geology; Dr. James Arnold, Scripps Oceanographic Institute, geochemistry; Dr. Frank Press, Massachusetts Institute
173
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
INCENTIVE CONTRACT CONVERSION
FIGURE
25
SCIENCE COMMUNITY IMANNED SPACE FLIGHT
REPORTING AND REVIEW ACTIVITIES

PRESIDENT'S SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PERIODIC REVIEW OF ALL MSF PROGRAMS
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

.SPACE SCIENCE SUMMER STUDY, WOOD'S HOLE, MASS . NASA 1965 SUMMER CONFERENCE ON LUNAR EXPLORATION AND SCIENCE, FALMOUTH, MASS .
10 YEAR PROGRAM OF LUNAR EXPLORATION RECOMMENDED
.SCIENTIST IASTRONAUT SELECTION
MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS PANEL

MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS DEFINITION
GEMINI SYMPOSIUM AND REPORT

NASA Me66-5, 132 121-66
FIGURE
26
174
of Technology, geophysics; Dr. Melvin Calvin, University of California, biology; Dr. Wilmot Hess, Goddard Space Flight Cente~ NASA, particles and fields; Dr. Helmut Schmid, U.S. Coast and Geodetic 1:iurvey, geodesy/carthography; Dr. Francis S. Johnson, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex., lunar atmospheres; and Dr. Nancy Roman, physics and astronomy programs, Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA, astronomy. This conference recommended a 10-year program of lunar exploration beginning with the first manned lunar landing.
Selection oj Scientist Astronauts

The Ad Hoc Committee on Scientific Qualifications and Selection of Scientist Astronauts of the National Academy of Science processes the applicants who have met the NASA standards for scientist astronauts. The first five selected entered training in the latter half of 1965.
Science and Technology Advisory Committee

Our technical management is strengthened by the committee established by the NASA Administrator to advise the Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight. This committee, the Science and Technology Advisory Committee, provides objectives and critical analyses of our scientific and technical decisions. During the past year, the Science and Technology Advisory Committee reviewed the major contractor effort on the Apollo spacecraft systems, including the command module and the service module, which is the spacecraft propulsion module. In conjunction with the President's Scientific Advisory Committee, the Science and Technology Advisory Committee reviewed the total Apollo program from the standpoint of reliability. The committee suggested approaches for the solution of specific problems such as the bearing strength of loose material with respect to the angle of repose of the lunar landing vehicle. They also carried out an extensive review of the Apollo spacp.craft design. In another action, the committee reviewed the objectives and preliminary development plans and schedules for Apollo Applications. Without supporting specific experiments, th\l committee as a whole endorsed Apollo Applications. As a result of its review, the committee sees the applications effort as a necessary and logical step in continuing the development of a flexible, space operational capability, on the one hand, and in carrying out the exploration of space on the other. Medical Experiments Panel The Medical Experiments Panel, a group of consultants, assists the Director of Space Medicine in the review and selection of medical experiments. It is responsible for (1) reviewing proposed in-flight experiments for feasibility and scientific merit; (2) serving as a forum to clarify procedures, and purposes of in-flight medical experiments; and (3) recommending to the Director, Space Medicine medical experiments for each flight.
Gemini Program Reports

The Gemini program has reached the phase at which results are rp.ported to the scientific community. The first of a series of reports on Gemini flight experiments was held at the Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., October 18-19, 1965, to report on the Gemini III and IV flights. A second symposium reported on experiments conducted on the Gemini V mission. The results of Gemini VI-A and VII flight experiments were presented in conjunction with the Gemini Mid-Program Conference held February 23-25, 1966. It is planned to hold such symposia at regular intervals, ordinarily within 90 days after the completion of a mission.
President's Scientific A dvisory Committee

During the past 9 months the President's Scientific Advisory Committee has held a series of meetings at selected center and contractor facilities to discuss major elements of the Apollo program. Their participation has in the main encompassed two levels of activity.
175
Main panels have conducted management reviews at North American Aviation, Marshall Space Flight Center, Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., Kennedy Space Center, and the Manned Spacecraft Center. Subpanel activities include technical reviews of reliability analyses, structures, and heat shield; propulsion systems, including liquid and solid; crew systems, including environmental control system and suit; and fuel cells. SUbject matter of these reviews was predetermined by the committee and specific questions were directed to NASA. In addition to the Apollo program aspects, the President's Scientific Advisory Committee has reviewed the development program conducted by Gemini as it relates to support of the Apollo program.
Coordination oj Manned Space Flight Medicine Program

NASA is continuing to assure that its programs are a1i~ed with those of other Federal agencies engaged in research and development In the life sciences area (fig. 27). Particular attention has been directed toward coordination with the U.S. Air Force, whose program in bioastronautics supports the Manned Space Flight life support research and development effort. Beginning in fiscal year 1964, the related medical research and development programs were reviewed closely by NASA and the Air Force. As a result, 55 of 900 tasks analyzed .in detail were considered to be in duplication and were eliminated. The following year almost 1,200 tasks were reviewed under the same ground rules and of these, 68 were cancelled. At that time 43 research and development efforts funded and monitored by both agencies to meet common objectives were identified and detailed to joint sponsorship. Implicit in the concept of joint funding are closer interagency working relationships, better utilization of facilities, and savings in both manpower and funds. The fiscal year 1966 formal coordination activity covered 781 Air Force and 212 NASA tasks, with no duplication of effort. The cooperation and contributions of other Government agencies extends to the medical aspects of the launch flight and recovery phases of the Gemini missions. The services of medical personnel as monitors and members of Gemini recovery and standby teams have been made available by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
SPACE MEDICINE
PROGRAM ALIGNED WITH OTHER AGENCIES
ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATION JOINT SPONSORSHIP OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF NATIONAL RESOURCES AND SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL SCIENTISTTOSCIENTIST RELATIONSHIPS AT TASK LEVEL
USE OF SCIENTIFIC CAPABILITIES OF OTHER AGENCIES

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH FOR REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTS
CONTRIBUTIONS OF OTHER AGENCIES TO MEDICAL ASPECTS OF FLIGHT & RECOVERY
NASA MC665. 133
FIGURII
27
176
Public Health Service. This is a most significant area of cooperation, since NASA medical personnel alone could not meet the requirements imposed during the launch, flight, and recovery periods of any manned mission. In the course of achieving our manned space flight medical objectives in the field of data analysis, we have contributed to general medicine as well by acquiring and analyzing available information from each of the 84 medical schools in the United States on the use of computers in the medical field. This information was published and distributed in all of the medical schools.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
An important consideration in the management of Manned Space Flight activities is our relationship with other Government agencies (figs. 28 and 29). Without attempting to describe all of our many Government interfaces, I would like to review some of these relationships for you now.
Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board

The Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board was established to improve the close working relationships between decision making officials within NASA and DOD. Where agency policy issues and management decisions are involved, it is important that the planning and coordination of activities, the identification of problems, and the exchange of information be facilitated between officiais having the authority and responsibility for decisions within their respective offices. The Board is set up to accomplish these objectives.
Manned Space Flight Policy Committee

Last year I reported plans for an extension of our Manned Space Flight agreemcnt with the Air Force to providc maximum support to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program. In January 1966 we entered into an agreement with the Department of Defense establishing a Manned Space Flight Policy Committee, with cochairmcn and
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT/GOVERNMENT RELATION

DOD AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS COORDINATING BOARD HOLD BI-MONTHLY MEETINGS. TO AVOID UNDESIRABLE DUPLICATION AND EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES MANNED SPACE FLIGHT POLICY COMMITTEE POLICY DECISION PERTAINING TO NASA'S MSF PROGRAM &MOL PERSONNEL TWO-WAY EXCHANGE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION IDCAS] DELEGATE TO DOD ADMINISTRATION OF CONTRACTS
NASA MCbb-S393 FIGURE
28
177
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT/GOVERNMENT RELATION

HEW NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVIEW OF PROPOSED MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDES MEDICAL OFFICERS FOR RECOVERY TEAMS PARTICIPATES IN CARDIOLOGY STUDIES CONTAMINATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION RADIATION STUDIES DEVELOP RADIOISOTOPE GENERATOR FOR LUNAR MODULE
NA SA MC665384
FIGURE 29
committee membership equally divided between the DOD and NASA. The committee's purpose is (1) to resolve matters concerning the mutual participation in and support of the Manned Space Flight programs of the two agencies which cannot be resolved at the program level; (2) arrive at agreements involving top policy determinations; and (3) facilitate top management level exchange of viewpoints and information for coordinated planning. To this end, it is our policy to cooperate fully with the DOD in implementation of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program. Without compromise to our own approved programs, full support will be given. To facilitate the exchange of information between NASA programs and the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, we are conSidering the establishment of a technical liaison office at the Air Force Space Systems Division. This office could be staffed with personnel from the Manned Spacecraft Center with wide experience in Manned Space Flight development and operations planning and execution, thus providing direct technical support to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory support program office. The basis for such an arrangement is provided by an agreement reached with the Air Force last year. For some time there has been an Air Force System Command Liaison Office in residence at the Manned Spacecraft Center to coordinate DOD experiments in the Gemini program. The Air Force has recently proposed broadening the responsibilities of this office for coordination of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, Apollo, and Apollo Applications mutual support. We are in complete agreement with this plan as a means of achieving the coordination needed. Dr. M. 1. Yarymovych, of the Office of Manned Space Flight, was detailed to the staff of the Vice Director Manned Orbiting Laboratory to provide immediate assistance in planning initial phases of implementation. Subsequently, he was named Technical Director of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program office in Washington. The broad experience gained by Dr. Yarymovych in the ad-
178
vanced missions area of OMSF makes him particularly suited for this role. In addition to expertise in Manned Space Flight, Dr. Yarymovych provides to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program a thorough knowledge of the NASA organh,ation and programs plus an ideal base of identifying applications of NASA developments and experience to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. Pursuant to the agreement there has been tranf\ferred to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program a flown Gemini spacecraft, Gemini 2, and a static article spacecraft, No.4-A, and other test spacecraft. Similarly, numerous items of ground equipment, checkout equipment, and spare parts have been transferred. The early flight test program for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory inc ludell the reentry qualification of a new Gemini heat shield. Under the overall management and direction of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Systems Program Offroe, the engineering, contract management, and procurement associated with heat shield qualification is being accomplished by the Gemini Program Office at Manne? !pacecraft Center. NASA will deliver the flight-ready spacecraft to the Air Force in July for the test program. An estimate of the cost savings to the Government represented by the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program use of this Gemini program equipment is about $25 million. It is NASA's policy that any portion of the Gemini program that becomes exc~s to our needs will be transferred to the Air Force. Studies are now going on III both Apollo and Manned Orbiting Laboratory programs to determine the applicability of subsystems under development in Apollo to the latter program. If it develops that common use of some of these subsystems is practicable, the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program may realize considerable savings in both time and money. Contract Administrative Services In consonance with the stated policy of NASA, the Office of Manned Space Flight is making maximum use of contract administration services and related field support capabilities of the Department of Defense and other Government agencies. Functions performed for NASA through delegation to the Defense Contract Admin"stration Services are quality and reliability, contract administration, industrial property administration, production monitoring, transportation, industrial security, and audit services.
Additional Government Agency Support

The National Institutes of Health assists in reviewing proposed medical experiments. The U.S. Public Health Service, Navy, Army, and Air Force provide medical offices for recovery teams and participate in cardiology studies. The Public Health Service also is in the process of establishing an interdepartmental advisory committee which will guide NASA in the development and conduct of programs related to lunar substances returned with the Apollo spacecraft, personnel, or lunar samples. The establishment of the Environmental Science Services Administration of the Department of Commerce last summer has already resulted in close working relationships with us. The strong ties that will exist between the Environmental Science Services Administration and NASA were expressed by the Honorable John T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce, during the hearings on Environmental Science Services Administration last spring when he stated: "Our space technology is still under development, and the use of the space sattelites to probe and observe the environment is still experimental. But w~at I want to stress is that we now have for the first time the physical means WIth which we may eventually be able to observe and collect data about the entire surface of the Earth, the entire Earth's atmosphere, and the space environment." The Atomic Energy Commission is conducting total body irradiation studies for NASA and developing the radioisotope generator for the Apollo spacecraft lunar module. Relationship8 With Indu8try Executive Groups In previous testimony I have reported on the Manned Space Flight working relationships with industry built up through the industry executive groups (fig. 30). The Gemini and Apollo groups, comprising top management of the industrial contractors and Manned Space Flight management, have been meeting at regular intervals and are making a substantial contribution in solving our mutual management problems (figs. 31 and 32)
179
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT / INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS

_ EXECUTIVE GROUPS
_GEMINI -APOLLO -OPERATIONS
- MANNED FLIGHT AWARENESS PROGRAM -MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION PROGRAM
NASA MC66-5, 152
FIGUU: 30
GEMINI EXECUTIVE GROUP

NAME MR. WILLIAM B. BERGEN PRESIDENT MR. DAVID S. LEWIS PRESIDENT MR. JAMES S. McDONNELL CHAIRMAN & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR. L. EUGENE ROOT PRESIDENT iGROUI' V.P., LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION) MR. WILLIAM E. llSCH PRESIDENT MAl GEl. BEll I. FUIIK COMMAIIDER MR. JAMES R. DEMPSEY PRESIDEIIT MARTIII COMPAIIY McDOIiNELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION McDONNELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION LOCKHEED MISSILES' SPACE CO.
AEROJET GEIIERAL CORPORATlOIL HEADQUARTERS SPACE SYSTEMS DIYISIOII AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMM.ID GEIIERAL DYIIAMICS/CONVAIR
NASA MC66.5311
FIGURE
31
180
APOllO EXECUTIVE GROUP

EXECUTIVE
WILLIAM M. ALLEN, PRESIDENT
CORPORATION
THE BOEING COMPANY NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., INC. PHILCO CORPORATION UNITED AIRCRAFT BELLCOM M, INC. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CHRYSLER CORPORATION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GRUMMAN AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING CORPORATION MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
NASA MC665379
J. L. ATWOOD, PRESIDENT
DONALD W. DOUGLAS, JR., PRESIDENT ROBERT O. FICKES, PRESIDENT WILLIAM P. GWINN, PRESIDENT JOHN A. HORNBECK, PRESIDENT R. R. HOUGH, VICE PRESIDENT ROGER M. KYES, VICE PRESIDENT T. F. MORROW, VICE PRESIDENT J. S. PARKER, VICE PRESIDENT E. CLINTON TOWL, PRESIDENT CHARLES H. TOWNES, PROVOST A. l. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT
FIGURE
32
The industry executive group meetings provide policy briefings status reports and actual examination of the physical progress in producing facilities and hardware for the program. Since a manned flight requires the active support of some 16,000 ~ople from several organizations and agencies, an Operations Executive Group (fig. 33) was established by the Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight on June 9, 1965. Members of the group are senior executives of NASA, DOD, and industry whose organizations are Significantly involved in Manned Space Flight operations. This group meets quarterly to review previous flight experience and to provide policy guidance as appropriate. Its purpose is to strengthen the interface between operational elements and to familiarize these executives with Manned Space Flight objectives and the antiCipated problems in achieving them.
Employee Motivation Program

As the Gemini and Apollo programs progressed, we realized the need fo~ a Manned Space Flight employee motivation program (fig. 34). The objective of the new program was the elimination of errors and defects that could result in the loss of life or the destruction of space flight equipment during testing or launching. This go!tl was to be achieved through a program of individual motivation at all levels of organization. The program in design and execution is quite similar to programs widely used by the aerospace industry and the Department of Defense. However, while we enjoy the benefits that accrue from reduced defects, reject rates, and scrap costs, our Manned Flight Awareness program emphasizes the indurance of astronaut safety. When the awarcness program was started, most of the contractors already had their own employee motivational program underway, the Mechanical Excellence program, for example. The contractors agreed to incorporate into their companysponsored programs the Manned Flight Awareness theme and to participate fully in the venture.

OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE GROUP Ll Gen. James Ferguson Deputy Ch let of Staff (R &D) United States Air Force Vice Adm. John B. Colwell Dep. Chief of Naval Operations (Fleet Operations & Readiness) DeJllrtment of the Navy Ll Gen. Alfre(! D. Starbird Dir., Communications Satellites Defense Communications Agency Ll Gen. Leighton I. Davis DOD Manager, Manned SJllce Flight SUPJXlrt Operations Headquarters NRD (SCGR) Mr. L F. Graffis President Ben<'ix Field Engineering Mr. L F. Wingert Vice-President Long Unes DeJllrtment American Telephone &Telegraph Co. Mr. Juan Trippe Chairman of the Board Pan American World Airways
181
Mr. Edmond C. Buckley Associate Administratcr Office of Tracking ard Data Acquisition
NASA MC66-5392
FIGURE
33
MANNED FLIGHT AWARENESS PROGRAM

OBJECTIVES PRODUCTION OF DEPENDABLE EQUIPMENT PURPOSE CREATE EMPLOYEE AWARENESS TO PUT FORTH BEST POSSIBLE EFFORT DEVELOP INTIMATE SENSE OF PARTICIPATION AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROGRAM SUCCESS
NASA M(665312
FIGURE
34
182
In seeking to motivate the individual, the Manned Flight Awareness program appeals to his sense of craftsmanship and personal responsibility. Pride in performance, coupled with a deep sense of personal involvement in the Nation's Manned Space Flight missions and the lives of its astronauts, is a powerful avenue of approach. In addition to visits by astronauts and other NASA personnel, films, brochures, posters and displays are used. Each of these activities stresses the importance of personal responsibility for the safety of the astronauts and the success of the space mission through team effort.
SATURN APOLLO CONTRACTOR MANUFACTURING
Technology Information Program

Repeated reliability of OUr space vehicles can only be assured if manufacturing management has immediate access to the latest knowledge and experience to optimize decisionmaking in the factory environment (figs. 35 and 31\). Communications for this purpose which have proved effective in fabricating hardware for the Saturn Apollo program have been developed by the Manufacturing Engineering Liaison Office of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory at MSFC. Timely exchange of manufacturing technology between the Centers and all Saturn Apollo contractors has been a prime responsibility of this office since its establishment in 1963. Field personnel of the Manufacturing Liaison Office work closely with Apollo contractor manufacturing personnel. As a problem is identified in the factory environment of a particular Apollo contractor, Manufacturing Liaison field personnel assigned to this contractor arrange for a specialist from another Apollo contractor or from one of the MSF Centers to assist in solving the problem. In many cases, a given contractor or Center has had prior experience in solving a similar manufacturing problem. The job of the field personnel of the Manufacturing Liaison Office is to be aware of this background of experience in the Apollo contractor complex and make it available to the particular Apollo contractor who needs help. Manufacturing personnel of the various Apollo contractors are encouraged to communicate with each other on day-to-day manufacturing problems. In addition, meetings are held on the basis of new manufacturing developments and recently acquired manufacturing experience. The most recent meeting of this type was held at Grumman Engineering Aircraft Corp., Bethpage, N.Y., in November 1965. Personnel from North American AViation, Douglas Aircraft, General Electric, International Business Machine, McDonnell Aircraft, Boeing, Chrysler, A. C. Electronics, and Lockheed participated as well as representatives of the Manned Space Flight Centers. Every Saturn-Apollo contractor has benefited from this manufacturing technology information program, thus increasing the assurance of a manned lunar landing in this decade.
SUMMARY
In summary, we have continued to strengthen our organization to insure maximum effectiveness of our work. We have intensified our efforts to improve our utilization of available manpower in light of the changing workload at our Centers. I have reported on recently instituted internal organizational element including the focus of all major NASA launch responsibility at Cape Kennedy. We have continued our drive to employ incentive provisions in all new contracts, as well as the conversion of existing contracts to incentive type. Our relationships with other agencies have been reviewed in the areas of space medicine, manpower, contract administration, and the utilization of NASA achievements for Manned Space Flight and other national programs. I am pleased with our excellent relationships with the industrial community and gratified that technology developed in our Manned Space Flight programs is receiving application in the Nation's economy. :Fine cooperation has been received from both labor and management in stimulating worker efficiency and stressing good workmanship. We continue to seek methods of improving our management processes, not only for the attainment of our immediate objectives, but also to develop a proven management team capable of accepting greater challenges in the future.
183
FIGURE
35
SATURN APOLLO CONTRACTOR MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION PROGRAM

eESTABLlSHED THREE YEARS AGO BY THE MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING LABORATORY AT MSFC, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA elNSURES TIMELY EXCHANGE OF MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY AND KNOW-HOW BETWEEN MSF CENTERS AND SATURN APOLLO CONTRACTORS eMEETING, PRESENTATIONS , DISCUSSIONS , FACTORY ENVIRONMENT DEMONSTRATIONS ARE HELD ON THE BASIS OF NEW MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENTS AND RECENTLY ACQUIRED MANUFACTURING EXPERIENCE eCOMMUNICATE REGULARLY ON DAY-TO-DAY MANUFACTURING PROBLEMS
N ASA MC66- S, 131
FIGU RE
36
59-941 0-66--13
184

GEMINI PR OGRAM-OBJECTIVE S
In one unma nned a nd five ma nned flights in 1965, Gemini has contributed to a ll ma jor objectives of Manned Spa ce Flight and has adva nQed this Na tion's capa bility to perform useful tasks in spa ce. During the year Gemini slipped forwa rd to recover a ll the schedule losses we reported last y ear, while developing the overall operational base required to carry out Apollo mission objectives. During the coming year this opera tiona l ca pa bility will be developed furth er to increase our proficiency for rendezvous a nd docking, sta tionkeeping, ex tra vehicula r operations and performing experiments in space. In support of these overall M a nned Space Flight objectives, the Gemini program has its own specific objectives (fig. 37) . Capa bility a nd profi ciency in the basic tasks of manned spa ce flight operations a re the ma in obj ective of Gemini opera tions. The first 3 of Gemini's 12 missions, 2 of them unma nned, were prima rily for flight qua lification of the Ge mini flight system for opera tional missions . Three flights accomplished the progra m obj ective of investigating the environment a nd effects of long-dura tion flight upon t he astrona uts a nd spa cecraft systems. Six flights ha ve as their prima ry object ive t he development of opera tional profici ency in rendezvous a nd docking m a neuvers. Reentry flight path control de velopment has been pla nned for all manned Gemini flights. All flights will contribute, in increasing degrees of sophistication, to the a ttainment of flight and ground crew proficiency a nd will insure the existence of a capability necessary for upcoming M a nned Space Flight programs . On the second Gemini manned flight, Gemini IV, we est a blished a ca pa bility for extra vehicular activity. All Gemini m anned flights include scientific experiments.
MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1965
At the close of 1964, Gemini design a nd development effort was essentially complete a nd extensive opera tiona l act ivity had alread y bee n a ccomplished. Most sUbsyst em development tes ting was complet e a nd production of flight ha rdwa re was well adva nced. The spa cecraft contract wi t h McDonnell had been converted to a cost-plus-incentive-fee con t ract a nd strong, forma lized configuration ma nagement procedures were in effect . Orga niza tiona l cha nges ha d been made in the Office of Manned Spa ce Flight a nd a t the Ma nned Spa cecraft Center to strengthen m a na gement of t he progra m .
GEMINI OBJECTIVES
TO INCREASE OPERATIONAL PROFICIENCY AND KNOWLEDGE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
INVESTIGATE LONG DURATION FLIGHT DEVELOP RENDEZVOUS TE CHNIQUES AND POST DOCKING MANEUVERS DEVELOP RE ENTRY FLIGHT PATH CONTROL ATTAIN FLIGHT AND GROUND CREW PROFICIEN CY DEVELOP EXTRA VEHI CULAR CAPABILITY CONDUCT SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS
NA SA M6J- J 187 I 26 65
F IGURE
37
185
Gemini I was accomplished in April 1964. Gemini II, which served as the unmanned flight qualification mission, was flown successfully on January 19, 1965. Hot-fire testing of t he secondary propulsion system for the Agena target vehicle was completed early in 1965. Gemini III (fig. 38), the first manned Gemini flight conducted in March 1965, established the Gemini system as an operational flight system. Gemini IV, t he first of three successful long-duration missions, was conducted in June 1965. During this flight , Lt. Col. Edward H. White achieved a major program milestone in performmg extravehicular activity for a period of 23 minutes (fig. 39). The Gemini IV flight was the first flight to be controlled bv t he Mission Control Center at Houston (fig. 40).
FIGURE
38
Gemini V, our second long duration mission in August 1965, proved the capability of man to func tion effectively in space for 8 days. (The Apollo lunar mission requires 7 days t o t he lunar surface and return.) In October the Gemini VI first rendezvous mission was rescheduled because of a failure of the Agena t arget vehicle to achieve an orbit 6 minutes after launch. In D ecember 1965 t he 14-day Gemini VII mission was accomplished successfully. Concurrent with the Gemini VII mission the r escheduled Gemini VI (designated Gemini VI-A) was conducted. The Gemini VI-A spacecraft was launched 11 days after Gemini VII and rendezvoused with the Gemini VII spacecraft on December 15 (fi g. 41). This was the first successful rendezvous of two spacecr aft in space, a major milestone for U.S. MJ>T\ned Space Flight. To su pport this intensive operational activity, production and delivery of Gemini fligh t hardware reached'its peak in 1965. Four spacecraft, fi ve Gemini launch vehicles, two Agena target vehicles and one Atlas hunch vehicle were delivered to the program. Major subsystem deliveries are nearly completed an d all remaining flight hardware is in product ion.
Program management
The effectiveness of the Gemini program management was demonstrated by achievements in 1965. A major schedule recovery was carried out and two missions were a ccomplished which were not planned last year at this time.
186
EXTRA VEHICULAR ACTIVITY GEMINI IV

.
"
FIGURE
39
MCCH DURING GEMINI IV
"A'A MOtS . IO,'"
FIGURE 40
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1 967
187
FIGURE
41
Program contracts One very effective tool in program control is the cost-plus-incentive-fee contract wh ereby the contractor directly benefits monetarily from his own efficiencies. Last year at this time negotiations had been completed on the conversion of the McDonnell contract from a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to cost-plus-incentive-fee. With this conversion, all major Gemini contractors were working under incent ive contracts. T his chart of major contractors in the prugralli (fig. 4:l) summarizes t he basic incentive parameters of ""e individual contr acts. Action to recover sched ules As an example of positive management action, I will cite a major program decision made to overcome the delays encountered wit h launching Gemini II (fig. 43). Because of problems with a lightning stri ke and two hurricanes, an extraordinary eff ort was required at that time to stay within the program schedule and dollar commitments. These problems were reviewed and studied at the ~ovember 1964 meeting of t he Gemi ni E xecutive Group, chaired by the Associate Administrator for M anned Space F light and com posed of the presidents of a ll the principal Gemini cont ractors and key Department of Defense personnel supporting Gemini. At this meeting, we established a target launch interval of 60 days and set up a ~ ASA implementing team to attack the problem . T he objectives were t o m aintain t he cost ceiling of $1,354 million and program completion in t he first quarter of 1967. Delivery of flight-ready ha r dware to the cape was a prime objective of t he study. Rigorous enforcement of our established configu ration control system was carried out to insure that all management levels recognized the necessity to minimize changes to the flight hardware. A t horough review of the program fu nctions was made to identify and eliminate bottlenecks and to establish new and better ways to do the job. M aj or m anagement actions were taken in the program as a r esult . All spacecraft altit ude chamber tests were to be conducted at the contr actor's plant prior
188
INCENTIVE CONTRACT SUMMARY
CONTRACTOR
MAJOR ITEM
DATE VALUE EFFECTIVE INCENTIVE
INCENTIVE PARAMETERS COST PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
LOCKHEED MARTINMARIETTA AEROJET
AGENA
JAN.1, $50 MIL. 1963 JULY 1, $120 MIL. 1963 JULY 1, $42 MIL. 1963
40%
40%
20%
GLV ENGINES [ GLV )
45%
42%
13%
45%
43%
12% 10%
McDONNELL SPACECRAFT
INTEGRATED COST APRIL 1, PERFORMANCE $343 MIL. 1964 90%
NASA MG64-5979
FIGURE
42
GEMINI II DELAYS
AUG LIGHTNING STRI KE RE-TEST HURRICANE CLEO DE-ERECT STAGE" RE-ERECT STAGE" HURRICANE DORA DE-ERECT GLV RE-ERECT GLV LAUNCH ATTEMPT MODIFY LAUNCH
NASA MG65-10035
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FIGURE
43
189
to delivery of the spacecratft to NASA. The spacecraft contractor's systems test facility was augmented so that two complete spacecraft could be tested simultaneously while sections of a third spacecraft were in modular testing. The launch vehicle test complex was augmented by activating a second test cell, allowing two launch vehicles to be in test at the same time. Certain tests were added, among them the simultaneous launch demonstration. This simultaneous countdown and checkout of the Atlas/Agena on complex 14, along with the Gemini-Titan on complex 19, provided valuable training for the launch team, the range personnel and operations personnel at the Mission Control Center in Houston. The summary results of the 2-month launch interval activity are shown here (fig. 44). Parallel testing improvements in test procedures, and a thorough integration of tests for the launch vehicle and spacecraft resulted in substantial reduction in test time. The tight control of changes during this period provided a minimum of interruption to testing and prevented extensive retesting required when changes are incorporated. Crew readiness and training were optimized along with the mission planning and flight control activities to support the proposed 2-month interval.
"~
~),\
,....
TWO-MONTH LAUNCH INTERVAL STUDY
RESULTS REDUCED TEST TIME REDUCED NUMBER OF CHANGES INCREASED CONFIDENCE IN FLIGHT VEHICLE READINESS EXCELLENT FLIGHT PERFORMANCE RECOVERED LAUNCH SCHEDULE SLIPS
NASA
MG5~10.021
FIGURE
44
SPACE FLIGHT MISSIONS
Gemini III through VII The flight qualification phase of the Gemini program was completed in March 1965 with the successful flight of Gemini III. On Gemini IV, extravehicular activity (EVA) was conducted. The Mission Control Center at Houston was utilized on Gemini IV for the first time to control and direct on operational mission. The excellent performance of the fuel cell as an operational power source on Gemini V and VII was a major advance in space technology. The Gemini VI-A launch within 11 days of Gemini VII launch and from the same launch complex used for Gemini VII demonstrated the high degree of pr()-
190
ficiency in launch and preflight operations developed in 1965. The rendezvous of the Gemini VI-A spacecraft with the Gemini VII spacecraft was the first major step toward the successful attainment of proficiency in rendezvous operations required for a round trip to the Moon. Gemini IV, V, and VII proved that men and equipment could operate successfully for periods of long duration in the space environment. An extensive experiments programs was conducted on these missions in the medical, scientific and technological fields, greatly increasing our knownledge of the near space-environment, and providing concrete evidence of man's usefulness in space as an experimenter. Medical experience The two major sources of medical information from space flight can be categorized as medical operational information and information obtained from medical experiments. The former is concerned with the safety and welfare of the astronauts during a flight mission, and the latter with their safety and welfare in future flights. Medical operations, therefore, tend to emphasize symptoms or telemetered variations from established norms since these indicate the need for treatment during the mission. The medical experiments program, on the other hand, emphasizes detailed measurement in the gathering of trend information to predict and prevent undesirable effects during future manned space flight missions. In Gemini IV, the primary medical objectives were to provide additional data points in the store of scientific information on man's response to space flight and to give additional assurance that man can be committed to longer duration missions abroad the Gemini spacecraft. The major medical objective of Gemini V was to observe what physiological effects a four-day exposure to the space flight environment might have on the flight crew. Gemini IV also provided the unique opportunities of observing the two crewmen in pressurized suits while the cabin was at zero pressure for about an hour and to observe one crewman outside the spacecraft for 23 minutes. In-flight medical measurements were within expected ranges. No changes in the electrocardiogram of either crewman, as compared to baseline studies made prior to flight, occurred. Rates and patterns were within normal limits. During the extravehicular activity the pilot !'xp!'ri!'nced no disorientation. There was no sensation of falling ILH he left the spacl'craft and no discomfort from tempNaturC' whil!' out,id!'. Gemini V provided the opportunity to study tlw physiological effects of space flight on two crewmen for !'ight days. The eight-day flight showed that man easily adapts to normal gravitational forces after extended flight. Gemini VII, the 14-day mission conducted lmit D('('C'mber, was the third and final step in the investigation of the medical effects of long duration flight in the Gemini program. The preliminary results of this mission indicate no adverse effects on the crew. I will not dwell on the medical aspects of the program except to summarize accomplishments to date in terms of their significance (fig. 45). The various findings to date by areas of inter!'st are tabulated here (fig. 46). The Gemini program has now demonstrated that man can function well in space for the duration of the planned Apollo lunar mission without in-flil!;ht or post-flight disability or degradation of practical consequencC'. Our confilkJl(~e ill th!' saff'ty of mi~sions beyond 14 days now enables us to sugg('st that the first orbiting research laborator mission can be programmed for 30 days. Second, the environmC'ntal control system, food, water and waste system, space suits, and other life support techniques and equipment have now been flight validated for 14 days. Third, radiation measurements have indicated that there is a relatively low level hazard for near-Earth equatorial orbits, enhancing extended duration manned Earth orbital missions from the standpoint of medical safety. Fourth, we now have an improved definition of the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, water balance, and vestibular problem areas, their time courses, and corrective measures which may be requirpd. Fifth, the Gemini program has established that man can function normally and without ill effect outside the spacecraft, and has validated the personal support equipment used. Sixth, our flight medical monitoring system h3JS been verified, an important contribution to all future manned space flight missions.
191
SIGNIFICANCE OF MEDICAL DATA THROUGH GEMINI- VII

- VALIDATlDN DF MAN FOR SPACE FLIGHT OF 14 DAYS - VALIDATION OF LIFE SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY FOR SPACE FLIGHTS IN EXCESS OF 14 DAYS - RADIATION HAZARD SMALL IN NEAR EARTH ORBIT - CARDIOVASCULAR DECONDITIONING AND BONE DEMINERALIZATION TENDENCIES AND VESTIBULAR EFFECTS BETTER DEFINED - EVA CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATED - CREW SUPPORT VALIDATED -MEDICAL GROUND SUPPORT TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT VALIDATED TO 14 DAYS -GEMINI STANDARD BIOSENSORS VALIDATED TO 14 DAYS OF CONTINUOUS FUNCTION NASAMG51~'5:"
FIGURE 45
\;: __~ CONTRIBUTION OF GEMINI MEDICAL INFORMATION ~~>'i !THRU GEMINI VIII ~/ T'O PREGEMINI MEDICAL PROBLEM AREAS
CARDIOVASCULAR ....................... DECONDITIONING TREND DEMONSTRATED NO DISABILlTY-14 DAYS WATER BALANCL....................... DEHYDRATION TREND DEMONSTRATED NO DISABILITY -14 DAYS SKELETAl................_ _.................. EARLY ATROPHY SUGGESTED NO DISABILITY -14 DAYS .. MUSCULAR ..................................... EARLY ATROPHY NOTED;SYMPTOMS VERY MILD -14 DAYS BEHAViORAL............................. NO DEGRADATION VESTIBULAR .................................. NO CHANGE METABOLIC AND DIGESTIVE .. NO DYSFUNCTION NOTED RESPIRATORY ............................... NO DYSFUNCTION NOTED CELLULAR ........................................ !APOLLOJ SLEEP AND DIURNAL... ............... SLEEP PA HERNS ALTERED - THEN NORMALIZED RHYTHMS IMPORTANCE OF W-R-S CYCLE STRESSED VISUAL ............................................ ACUITY UNCHANGED - VISIBILITY EXCElLENT FROM EARTH ORBIT NA~A MGS-10.l01
FIGURE
46
192
At least one aspect of Gemini medical research and development may benefit clinical medicine and medical research. Biosensors and techniques of applying them to the body have been developed to achieve continuous function for at least 14 days. We have had many inquiries into these methods from investigators conducting research into human function under dynamic, as opposed to static, conditions and from clinicians working with hospital intensive care units.
Scientific Experiments
A major utilization of the Gemini capability is to conduct scientific experiments, which now total 49. A substantial number of these are repeated to provide a broad sample of information and data. Including experiment repeats, 52 of 54 experiments planned thus far have been successfully conducted. Experiments symposia The first Gemini Experiments Symposium was held in Washington, D.C., on October 18 and 19, 1965. Its purpose was to disseminate to the nation's scientific community the results of experiments conducted on Gemini III and IV. Another symposium was held in January 1966 on experiments conducted on the Gemini V mission. The results of the Gemini VI-A and VII flight experiments were presented in February 1966 in conjunction with the Gemini Mid-Program Conference.
PLANNED ACTIVITIES 1966
Flight Hardware
We plan to deliver all remaining flight hardware into the program this year. Five Gemini spacecraft, five Gemini launch vehicles and the four Gemini Agena target vehicles will be completed by the end of September; four Atlas SLV-3 launch vehicles will be completed by the end of June.
Support to Manned Orbiting Laboratory

We are committed to assist the Air Force this year in getting their Gemini B Manned Orbiting Laboratory program underway expeditiously. The early flight test program for Manned Orbiting Laboratory includes the reentry qualification of a new Gemini heat shicld. This heat shield will have a crew transfer hatch to permit passage of the astronauts between the Gemini B spacecraft and the laboratory module. The Gemini Program Office is supporting the Air Force with accomplishment of the necessary engineering, contract management and procurement for the new heat shield.
Development of Operational Capability

In 1966, the intense operational activity that characterized the 1965 Gemini program will be continued, with four missions to be flown. Major objectives will be further development of various phases of rendezvous and docking, including Apollo simulations; extravehicular activity; and extensive experiments. As a backup for the Agena target vehicle, an Augmented Target Docking Adapter has been added to the Gemini program. This vehicle is being manufactured by McDonnell, the Gemini spacecraft manufacturer. All of its critical components are qualified spacecraft components presently available in the Gemini inventory. In the event of another Agena failure or serious schedule delay, this vehicle will be used as a rendezvous and docking target for the spacecraft. Rendezvous and docking The rendczvous of two Gemini spacecraft last December demonstrated this nation's capability to rendezvous two-manned vehicles. The Gemini VIII mission provides for t.he spacecraft to rendezvous and dock with an Agena target vehicle. Rendezvous will be repeated and expanded in the remaining missions of 1966. Our objective will be to develop a high degree of knowledge and operational capability in all facets of rendezvous, docking, and maneuvering of space vehicles required for a successful lunar landing and return. Various operational maneuvers will be executed to simulatc the Lunar Module rendezvous maneuvers presently planned in the Apollo lunar mission.
193
Extravehicular activity
Extravehicular activity also will be conducted on the flights planned for 1966. The objective is to evaluante extravehicular life support systems, maneuvering devices, tethers, and hand tools for use in space; to develop operational techniques for extravehicular tasks such as crew transfers, equipment retrieval and satellite inspection and repair, and to demonstrate extravehicular capability by specific application of equipment and techniques to operational tasks. The first evaluation and demonstration of the modular maneuvering unit being develoood bv the Air Force will be carried out in this period.
Experiment&
Typical experiment activity will include micrometeorite cratering measurement and collection, evaluation of the DOD astronaut maneuvering unit and power tool, and a series of experiments that will measure the Earth's magnetic field, ultraviolet reflection from the lunar surface, and the radiation environment around the spacecraft. Medical experiments also will be continued on all flights. Much of the experiments information obtained will provide support to Apollo and future programs.
DEVELOPMENT AND DISSEMINATION OF TECHNOLOGY
The Gemini program is a logical step in developing the technology and opera.tional proficiency for all future manned missions. Gemini already has made and will continue to make many direct contributions to the Apollo program.
DevelAJpment Applicable to Apollo Hardware and technolAJgy
Bioinstrumentation and crew life support equipment developed and qualified in Gemini flights will be used in Apollo missions. While new communications systems will be needed for the deep space requirements of the Apollo program, many existing components of the Manned Space Space Flight Network will be used for communications, network, and data functions and near-Earth tracking phases of the Apollo mission. Spacecraft components to be used include telemetry, communication and intercommunication equipment. Ground equipment includes equipment for transmission of data from telemetry, radar, digital command, and for display purposes and voice and TV communications. Also included are landline and cable with some use of microwave link and HF single sideband, and the specially engineered switching and subswitching centers. Failure information generated in the Gemini program is being reviewed, analyzed and fed into the Apollo management system and all Gemini flight anomolies are studied for the impact of a similar condition during Apollo missions. Crew training and safety assurances are major Gemini contributions to the Apollo program. The long duration missions have qualified man for weightless flight for durations up to and beyond Apollo lunar mi5sion times. Preflight and in-flight medical procedures for crew safety have been thoroughly developed and demonstrated. The handling and loading of spacecraft storable propellants have been developed and perfected and the handling and servicing of cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen for the fuel cell have been advanced. The acceptability of fuel cells as a power generator for space systems was conclusively demonstrated during the Gemini V and VII missions. Environmental control and inertial guidance experience from Gemini will support Apollo. The environmental control systems for Apollo will have many components qualified in Gemini flights. Blunt lifting body aerodynamic flight data and experience from Gemini flights will be used for reentry of the Apollo and Manned Orbiting Laboratory spacecraft. Mission simultors with visual display attachments developed for Gemini will support Apollo simulator development. Several scientific experiemnts have direct application to Apollo missions.
Operational capability
Extensive operational capability for Apollo is being developed in the Gemini program. Nominal trajectory design data, including rendezvous maneuver requirements are prepared prior to each Gemini mission and the capability of the crew and
194
spacecraft systems to perform these maneuvers to the precise degree planned is evaluated during the course of the mission. Revisions to the trajectory design data or flight crew procedures contained in the flight plan are made based on the mission results. Real-time programs have been developed for the Gemini rendezvous missions which will allow the ground computer complex to determine backup procedures for rendezvous in the event of on-board systems failure. A future Gemini rendezvous mission will duplicate as nearly as possible the Apollo Lunar Module rendezvous. Planning procedures and requirements have been established for launch area abort recovery, and the zone concept for normal end-of-mission recovery has been successfully utilized. These gains were made possible by past mission successes and improved recovery operations and training. Common use facilities activation, shake-down, and personnel training also directly benefit the Apollo program. The Mission Control Center at Houston, which is operational for Gemini, will be used for Apollo. Three separate flight control teams have been trained, each capable of assuming complete control of a mission. They will be capable of controlling the Apollo Earth-orbital and translunar missions with the proper Apollo systems indoctrination. Mission rules for Apollo will be based upon Gemini experience. These rules list actions to be taken during or immediately prior to a mission in the event of an anomaly or failure of a flight support system, to expedite the decision process.
Development Applicable to Manned Orbiting Laboratory

Any portion of the Gemini program that becomes excess to our needs may be transferred to the Air Force if it will satisfy a Manned Orbiting Laboratory requirement. Certain of the Gemini hardware such as crew trainers and simulators would be applicable both to the Apollo and Manned Orbiting Laboratory programs as part task simulators. Weare also taking action to assign a number of highly skilled civilian employees from the Gemini Program Office at the Manned Spacecraft Center to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Systems Program Office in Los Angeles.
SUMMARY
In summary, 1965 was a year of flight success for the Gemini program. The program objective of investigating long duration flight was successfully completed. The first step in developing extravehicular activity was taken; a sound base of operational proficiency in launch and flight operations was established; seven new astronauts gained flight experience; a new electrical power source for extended space flight was successfully utilized on two long duration missions; and the rendezvous of two manned spacecraft was demonstrated for the first time. In 1966, the operational development of the Gemini flight system will be continued to broaden our proficiency in Manned Space Flight operations and to increase our knowledge of the space environment, in continuous prllnll,rfl,tion for the manned Apollo missions that will follow.
APOLLO PROGRAM-INTRODUCTION
During 1965 we have made substantial progress in the Apollo program. A dedicated, competent organization, both technically and managerially, has been built. Apollo has become a stable program and is essentially defined, with the heavy testing of the past year to continue for several months ahead. A number of typical developments were encountered which have been attaeked with vigor and confidence. As I mentioned earlier, we are maintaining the program schedule.
Objectives Unchanged
The ob.lectivl's of the Apollo program shown hl're (fig. 47) have not changed, thus helping to build and maintain a stabll' program. It is our objective to build the broad-basl'd cnpabiilty to make thl' United States preeminl'nt in manned space flight o!){,rations. The focal point for thiA objective is to dl'monstratl' that we havl', in fact. df'velopl'd this o!){,rational capability by compll'ting a manned lunar mission within this dl'cade.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING 1965
195
Launch Vehioles
Saturn launch vehicle development in the Apollo program (fig. 48) moved well along in 1965. The first phase of the Saturn I program, completed last July, was eminently successful in providing the base on which the large launch vehicle technology is built.
Spacecraft
With the program using the Little Joe II launch vehicle completed in January 1966, we have developed and qualified the Apollo spacecraft launch escape system and Fartb landing system. The first phase of our flight program, the base on which the rest is built, has been completed and we are moving into the payoff part of the program.
Stage and Spacecraft TransportatWn
A great deal of progress has been made in building the logistics base, such as the barges for the West Coast and transportation service from the West Coast to the East Coast, which are now in 'Operation. We have barged the first 2nd stage (S-IVB) f'Or the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) and the first 2nd stages (S-II) f'Or the Saturn V. We have also barged the first 'Of the big Saturn V 1st stages (S-IC) from Mich'Oud Test Facility up to Marshall Space Flight Center.
Mi8swn CQfI,trol and Reoovery OperatWn8
In the operations area, our capability has been built in terms 'Of recovery and basic mission control. The basic demonstrations have been made in association with the Gemini program. We are building the flve ships and the aircraft associated with the Apoll'O network.
Launch Facilities
At Launch Complex 34, we have completed the conversion from the flrst phase Saturn I configuration for launch of the first uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB). We have started the conversi'On of Launch Complex 37, the 'Other Saturn I launch facility. Construction of Launch Complex 39 for the Saturn V launch vehicle is well along, as we move toward the start of checkout operations on that facility.
Laboratory and Test Facilities
Much of our laboratory and test facilities capability is now in 'Operation, and the last elements are being completed. An example of work remaining is the thermal-vacuum chamber at Houston, a key test facility in qualifying the Apollo spacecraft for manned flight. The spacecraft modules include the Command Module; the Service Module, which is the spacecraft propulsion module; and the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), hereafter referred t'O as too Lunar Module.
Industrial Balle
The government-industry base that gives us the ability to fabricate and pr0duce hardware is completed, although certain assembly and test positions remain to be finalized. Apollo hardware capa,bility has continued to grow (fig. 49). The capability IJf the uprated Saturn I to put payload into Earth 'Orbit is essentially 40,000 pounds, an increase IJf about 5,000 pounds. The Saturn V has a 95,OOO-pound payload capability requirement. We will soon achieve or exceed this goal, which is necessary to carry out the basic Apollo program. In the spacecraft payload area, it has been difficult to maintain the control weights in the Apollo Command, Service, and Lunar Modules. Yet, our program objectives are attainable.
Organization
The organization of the Apollo g'Overnment-industry team today adds up to some 225,000 people throughout the government and industrial contractors.
196
@ APOllO PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

~AII.'"
TO MAKE THE UNITED STATES PREEMINENT IN SPACE BY BUILDING A BROADBASED CAPABILITY FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT .
TO DEMONSTRATE THIS CAPABILITY BY LANDING MEN ON THE MOON, AND RETURNING THEM SAFELY TO EARTH, WITHIN THIS DECADE.
NASA MA6S-11, 704
FIGURE
47
LAUNCH VEHICLES
I
LOGISTICS
;~~~I
BARGES AIRCRAft
NASA MA6S11 732
FIGURE
48
197
APOLLO SPACE VEHICLE CAPABILITY

SATURN 1l
U
,
95.000 LIIS
TRANS-LUNAR
SPACECRAFT
SATURN I
.
,
285,000 t.aSLUl'K~?I'"..
40.00018S.
fAaTtI ORIlIT
1
FIGURE
. "'ASA MA64-90S6
49
However, this number fails to tabulate all of the effort that goes into Apollo. One category not represented is the team of more than 30,000 construction of facilities personnel. Our organization can be categorized several ways. It can be divided into science and engineering and various other skills; or by organizations which involve service contractors, material suppliers, the major subsystem subcontractors, our large prime contractors, our Center workers of nearly 12,000 people, and the Apollo program organization of 200 persons here in Washington.
Support From Other Program8
The Gemini role has been extremely important to Apollo. The qualification of the spacecraft and subsystems in long-term orbital operation is a great benefit that we have already realized. We expect to obtain even more data required in building the Apollo operational system. The basic building of that system, demonstrating its capabilities and getting it operating on a sound basis, has been achieved and is being refined in the Gemini program. A year ago, there was considerable concern about extended manned operations in space and weightlessness. We now know that the effects of extended weightlessness are not going to interfere with the progress of Apollo. We now have demonstrated with Gemini VII and VI-A the techniques required both in space Ilnd on the ground to achieve rendezvous. The Ranger has put to rest certain concern over the hospitability of the lunar surface. It has shown us that a significant percentage of the lunar surface will be acceptable for landing sites insofar as topography is concerned. We are looking forward to the data that Surveyor is expected to obtain. Such information will be helpful in qualifying our designs and plans in terms of surface characteristics and bearing strengths and other details. The Lunar Orbiter also will assist in landing-site planning and map-making for extended lunar operations.
198

Program Phasing
The basic Apollo Program Phasing (fig. 50) involves getting spacecraft ground tests underway with the boilerplate spacecraft. This program has now been essentially completed. The airframe test program, which started early in 1965, consists of fiight-weight structures tests launched with Little Joe II, as well as a llumber of other system tests. The Lunar Module program also has a flightweight article on which ground testing for the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) and Saturn V launch vehicles is nearly two-thirds complete. In our flight test program, the role of the Little Joe II was to develop the launch escape system and to carry out certain of the structural tests on the spacecraft. The early Saturn I played a vital role in developing the stage technology for the uprated Saturn I launch vehicle leading into the Saturn V. The basic logic of our fiight program (fig. 51) on the uprated Saturn I is to carry out the basic development of the Block I series of our Command and Service Modules on the smaller, less expensive launch vehicle as well as develop the Saturn V upper stage and Instrument Unit. The first unmanned fiights of the Apollo Saturn I lead into manned-orbital operations. We will carry out with this uprated Saturn I launch vehicle the initial development and verification testing of the Lunar Module. Unmanned Lunar Module fiights will precede fiights of the Block II Command and Service Modules with the Lunar Module in Earth orbit for up to 14 days. Concurrent with our manned operations on 8n t urn I, we will be getting started with the Saturn V in an unmanned role to complete and prove the development of the large lower stages. We will be flying the upper stage and the Instrument Unit on the Saturn I. You recall the 2nd stage of the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) is used as the 3rd stage of Saturn V. Also, the Instrument Unit of the two vehicles is essentially the same. Then we will proceed from the Saturn I with the lunar-capable spacecraft on the Saturn V manned Op('rations, to complet!' the verification of this development and to proceed with our ultimate operations.
FIGURE
50
199
APOllO .ruCHT OEVElOPIENt~PHASES
FIGURE 51
MISSION OBJECTIVES
The series of key Apollo missions begins with unmanned flights of the spacecraft on the uprated Saturn I, and proceeds to manned status as rapidly as possible before the end of 1967. However, we have sufficient flexibility in the program to make the changes necessary to maintain unmanned status for a longer period of time if the events prove this to be necessary.
Saturn I Flights
A little over a year ago, we were concerned over the orbital operation for relatively extended periods of the large upper stage of the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) and Saturn V, which has to be checked out and restarted in Earth orbit. This concern led us to set up a launch vehicle development fiight on the thirteenth (AS-203) Saturn I. We plan to carry out the first development flight of the Lunar Module, flying by itself unmanned, in 1967. By early 1968 we will have completed the development and basic qualification testing of the Block II Command Module, the Service Module, which is the spacecraft propulsion module, and the Lunar Module, as a complete lunar-capable spacecraft. Apollo-Saturn Mission 207 will be a key milestone to demonstrate performance of these spacecraft modules. The development plan of the Saturn I includes launches into 1968 in basic support of Apollo, and deVeloping and gaining experience with the total space systems and the organization. Now I would like to discuss the key Saturn I missions. We have made tremendous progress this year in defining in detail what the objectives are that we have to achieve in order to build the capability that constitutes the lunar-capable system. The objectives of the first uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) mission (fig. 52), a suborbital flight to the Ascension area, are development of the launch vehicle,
5-9-9410-66---14
200
verification of the compatibility and structural integrity of the Command/Service Module and the Saturn I vehicle, the development of the spacecraft subsystems, the demonstration of spacecraft heat shield performance, and the operation of mission support facilities. This suborbital operation allows a relatively high angle reentry to obtain a high heating rate on the spacecraft head shield and substructure. Such information gives one corner of the envelope of performance at the lunar return velocities. The next suborbital Saturn I launch will ,be a longer flight to reenter in the Pacific, obtaining a high heat load with its flatter entry. This will give another corner of the performance envelope for the 36,OOO-feet-per-second lunar return velocity. Therefore, these first two flights of the Apollo Saturn I space vehicle will demonstrate the heat shield performance at high velocities about a year ahead of the final demonstrations on Saturn V. The actual velocity will be in the order of 28,000 feet per second, steep and then shallow, to get these two performance points. The first Saturn I manned flight (fig. 53) will be to demonstrate the man/system interfaces. It will be orbital. The mission is now open-ended in terms of time. This flight might be up to full duration of the system, 14 days in Earth orbit. Many maneuvers will be carried out in the mission to demonstrate the crew, the spacecraft, and the ground system performance on an extended mission. The flight will also demonstrate the upper stage of the launch vehicle, its electronics and further checkout in orbit. Orbital checkout will be vital in the Saturn V series. In our program plan, the first all-up lunar-capable spacecraft system includes the Block II Command/Service Module, the Luuar Module, the Instrument Unit, and the upper stage of the launch vehicle. The demonstrations here will include transposition and docking. Our objectives include subsystems operation of the Block II Command/Service Module and the Lunar Module rendezvous
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES APOLLO-SATURN 201

e LAUNCH VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT eCOMPATIBILITY AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF CSM-SATUkN I B eCSM SUBSYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT e HEAT SHIELD PERFORMANCE e MISSION SUPPORT FACILITIES OPERATION
MA 65-11,739 11-16-65
FIGURE
52
201
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
APOLLOSATURN I FIRST MANNED FLIGHT
MAN/SYSTEM INTERFACES CREW/ COMMAND AND PROPULSION MODULE /GROUND SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE ON EXTENDED MISSION
3RD STAGE AND INSTRUMENT UNIT CHECKOUT IN ORBIT
FIGURE
53
and docking, and the total space system operation of covering the hardware and the interfaces involving man in the system. In all these areas, the Gemini program will have provided much experience for us.
Saturn V Flights
By 1967 we expect to have the Saturn V flying with the ftrst of its key missions, starting off with an unmanned flight, leading to a manned flight in early 1968. At that point we will have developed and qualified all elements of the Apollo system neded to carry out lunar operations. We will then be ready to make the decision as to when this is carried out, having built the capability, and having carefully postured the total test, verification, and experience of the programs behind it. As far as we are able to forecast, we feel that we will have developed the total capability for lunar operations by that time. Beyond that, our experience will tell us when we can consider this system operational. The first Saturn V flight, scheduled in 1967, provides verification of the launch vehicle development. With certain exreptions, e.g., weightlessness and combining the systems environments in their exact relationships, we have learned how to develop our systems on the ground. Other objectives include demonstrating the compatibility and structural inte~rity of the total vehicle. Also. in the first two unmanned Saturn V flights, we will conduct the final demonstrations of the spacecraft heat shield design at the actual lunar return velocities and heating conditions. The mission details for Earth orbi,tal flight are still being refined. It will be an elliptical orbit with an apogee on the order of five or six thousand miles. The apogee chosen will provide safe radiation levels and allow the demonstration of spacecraft systems operations such as deboosting back into low Earth orbit to a simplation of deboost into the lunar orbit. Actually, the conditions required to demonstrate lunar orbit entry determine the height of this mission's orbit because of the energy which must be retained to get back into the low orbit. It appears today that we will have built up a demonstration of the systems capabilities, built up the elements of experience, and accomplished the objectives that are necessary by the completion of this mission. In other words, we will have demonstrated the total lunar-capable system.
202
In our mission assignment planning today, the missions beyond Earth-orbital flight involving Saturn V contemplate the lunar mission and/or lunar mission simulations. The final decision as to which will be lunar missions will be dependent on when we have achieved the necessary buildup of experience and demonstrations.
APOLLO MANAGEMENT
Now I would like to discuss the manner in which the affairs of the Apollo program are being managed. Last year I described how we were set up and operating, with the organization structure built around the elements of program planning and control, systems engineering, reliability and quality, testing, and operations (fig. 54) .
Mca.mrcment of Progress
With this basic structure, we have proceed I'd to I"~tablish tlw necessary baseline of plans, technieal requirements and budgets against whieh all of the several hundred thousand people can gear their efforts. Against these plans we can measure our progress by systematic program evaluation and review, financial reporting, a sl"ries of design reviews and inspections, and reports in areas such as weight and engine performam'e. The Apollo organization then assess,'s, evaluates, and takes a('tion on this in1'onnation, with management accountability accepted at each program level for retluired program progress. People are the essential ingredient for the whole opreation. These people, of course, must have the plans, whethere they be program, financial or technical, and the ability, including the system of information flow, to review and assess how the program is gOing. Then they must do something about it. 'The project organization, as I reported at the outset, is a solid organization, manned with eminently qualified people. Both our program amI tecllllieal plaIU! are in fact working. The dOCUlllentation 01' what the program is, and what the plan is to earry it out, has been COlllmunicated throughout tllP ::\,ARA organization. The same statement can be made about the sI)Ccilkation program. At this pOint in time the s})CC'ification
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
FUNC'tlONAL
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT
ORGAN.ZATION MANAGEMENT TOOLS
MEASURE PERFORMANCE ESTABLISH BASELINE
NASA MC6S-60041 2' 5-65
l!'WURE
54
203
structure includes a solidly built set of contract end item specifications which define the hardware that we are testing and delivering. We have a well ordered set of mission assignments which we keep up to date as the process refines. There is a stable set of well integrated schedules from the top of the organization to the bottom. The financial operating plans have been working extremely well. In terms of change controls, I can report that the system is working effectively from the contractor s through the Center program organizations to the Apollo program office here in Washington.
M ana.gement Review
Review and assessment have become an important part of th.e management process. It is therefore important for us to be aware of our progress measured against the goals set up for us to achieve. We do this by assessing how the program stands in terms of schedule, costs and performance. Further progress can be made in our response capability. We are now at the point where we know what our program means and how we are performing; however, we are still working to improve our ability to take appropriate and timely action on known program problems. Part of this review process, which is refined progressively over the history of the Apollo program, is working in each of the Center program offices, as shown in this chart (fig. 55). Here you have the technical reviews of the development of the end item hardware, whether they are pieces of the space vehicles or pieces of the ground system that have to support it. They form a series of milestones such a s completion of manufacturing and manufacturing checkout, static firing, and the other steps leading to the launch.
Preliminary design r eview
The first review step is the preliminary design review in which the objecti,e of our organization is to see whether or not the contractor has, in fact laid out a design that can be expected to achieve the end result that we said we
FIGUltE 55
204
wanted to buy. Before many commitments are made, we are able to look at and approve what the contractor is going to do for us or else ask him to change it. These reviews are mostly completed in the Apollo program, except for some end items of ground hardware. This review technique is working well and will come into playas the Apollo Applications missions assume greater definition and as the differences that are necessary to achieve orbits of 30 days, 45 days, and longer are identified. In the critical design review, the contractor has developed the actual design drawings, has developed some of the hardware and demonstrated it in breadboard fashion, but has not yet made the commitments to fabricate the end items for the test program. The last of the large elements of the system will be the critical design review on the Block II spacecraft. With that milestone we will essentially complete the definition of the total Apollo system.
Oheckout
Checkout of the Apollo hardware has already been completed in various parts of the program. First article configuration inspection has been completed for the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) launch vehicle stages which have been erected at Cape Kennedy, and for the Apollo Block I spacecraft being put through pre-mate tests there prior to erection. The checkout procedure calls for a certificate of fiight worthiness to be issued. and to be updated or endorsed as subsequent events occur. A final endorsement at the fiight readiness review certifies that the requirements have been met, qualifications have been accomplished, and the vehicle is in fact ready for its operation. The design certification review board is chaired by me and includes the Center directors. It is a court of review to determine whether the design is a sound design, properly conceived to carry out the mission objectives in a safe and satisfactory manner. Using techniques applied in Gemini, we have built the basic requirements to establish deSign certification reviews on Apollo manned fiights.
Soheduling System
Much progress has been made in the Apollo scheduling system over the last year. This is an important elempnt in the stability of the program and in the understanding of the progress and probl'ms all the way from vendors and subcontractors up through the organization (fig. 56). It is now a single, integrated scheduling system to which the whole structure is geared. This system provides effective reporting refiecting the actual operating conditions, enabling all program elements to assess the actual status in time to do something about it. The milestone structure built into our scheduling is based on levels, as shown here (fig. 57). Control milestones have to be reviewed with the Apollo Program Director before they can be changed. The top events of the program, the launch schedules, have to be reviewed with and approved by Dr. Seamans and myself before they can be altered. In order for the program to operate at the level of delegation where it can be operated most effectively, the Center program managers control the schedules at the system and subsystem level (fig. 58). Also, they have assigned certain flexibilities in detailed operating schedules to the contractors. The integrated system is tiered so the milestone threads appear all the way from the vendors up to the top.
Ohange Oontrol
Our change control system shown here (fig. 59) also is working well. I have previously dpscribed the basic philosophy behind it. The system now in operation throughout the program starts at the contractor facilities, the lowest level of control shown on this chart (fig. 60). The contractors have the authority to make decisions on changps not affpcting the areas of Center control. Changes at the stage or vehicle level, changes which require interface, or which change the basic program requirempnts are controlled at the appropriate higher levels.
Data Management
Over the last year and a half. we have given considerable attention to data management (fig. 61). I mention this in part because a significant amount of money goes into data. It is a necpssary part of any big development program
205
APOLLO SCHEDULING SYSTEM
SINGLE INTEGRATED PERT/SCHEDULING SYSTEM

FIELD CENTERS TO HEADQUARTERS CONTRACTORS TO FIELD CENTERS SUBCONTRACTORS TO CONTRACTORS
EFFECTIVE REPORTING REFLECTING ACTUAL OPERATING CONDITIONS

ABILITY TO ASSESS STATUS AND PREDICTED PERFORMANCE ABILITY TO ASSESS PROGRAM CHANGES AND SLIPPAGES ABILITY TO RELATE COSTS TO SCHEDULES
NASA MA65-11,695
FIGUBE
56
FIGURE 57
206
FIGURE
58
CHANGE CONTROL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SOURCE OF CHANGE ENGINEERING CHANGE PROPOSAL TO DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION CHANGE REVIEW PROCEDURE & STANDARD NPC 500-1 ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE BULLETIN DECISION MAKING BODY CONFIGURATION
~
CHANGE DECISION DOCUMENTATION
CHANGE IMPLEMENT ATlON CENTER

r""
f-
CONTROL BOARO
11445
DEFINES INPUT DATA AND PROCEDURES READ FOR CHANGE JUSTlFICATlON, COST & SCHEDULE IMPACT CHANGE EVALUATION NASA APO & CENTER LINE ORGANIZATIONS OF NECESSITY, FEAS IBILITY, SCHEDULE AND COST IMPACT, LOGISTICS, SPARES
EVALU~TION
CONFIGURATION CONTROL BOARD DIRECTIVE ICCBOI FORMAL DIRECT IVE AUTHORIZING CHANGE TO BE MADE
CONTRACTING OFFICER
FROM NASA OR CONTRACTOR
OIRECTS CONTR ACTOR TO MAKE APPROVED CHANGE CHANGE ACCOUNTING

L.o.
CENTER CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE
SURVEILLANCE OF CONTRACTOR TO ASSURE CHANGE HAS BEEN PROPERLY MADE

r,Vu
.-Q,
ii
1-.'1-6u
FIGURE
59
207
LEVELS OF CHANGE AUTHORITY

APOLLO PROGRAM OFFICE ILEVEL II APOLLO PROGRAM SPECIFICATION REQUREMENTS PROGRAM CONTROL SCHEDULES AND HARDWARE QUANTITIES
PROGRAM MANAGER OFFICES ICENTERSI ILEVEL III
SPACECRAFT AND LAUNCH VEHICLE PERFORMANCE REQTS IPROJECT & SYSTEM SPECS I INTERFACES BETWEEN LAUNCH VEHICLE STAGES AND ENGINES INTERFACES BETWEEN SPACECRAFT MODULES OPERATION OF SYSTEMS COMMON TO MORE THAN ONE STAGE OR MODULE INTERFACES BETWEEN NASA CENTERS AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY CHANGES IN EXCESS OF SCHEDULE & MONETARY LIMITS AT LEVEL III
STAGE AND SYSTEM MANAGER OFFICES ICENTERS ILEVEL 1111
CONTRACTUAL REOTS FOR INDIVIDUAL STAGES, MODULES, GSE, ETC. PERFORMANCE CHANGES NOT AFFECTING LEVELS I DR II ICEI SPECSI INDIVIDUAL STAGE AND MODULE SCHEDULED MILESTONES CHANGES COSTING LESS THAN $300,000 IMSC ONL YI
CONTRACTOR CHANGE AUTHORITY
CHANGES WHICH 00 NOT AFFECT LEVELS I, II OR III CHANGES WHICH DO NOT AFFECT CONTRACTUALL Y REOD SPECIFICATIONS CHANGES WHICH AFFECT ONLY INTERNAL CONTRACTOR OPERATIONS
FIGURE
60
involving large objectives in multiple organizations. Yet it tends to be one which can get out of hand and where a great deal more money can be spent than really contributes to the progress of the program. We have made some progress, and I believe we can make more. We have shown that an inter-organizational activity forcing our attention on the data subject can, in fact, make some contribution. Out of some 20,000 documents that were actually in the Apollo system when this effort started a year and a half ago, some 6,000 have been selected as the active use documents and have become the baseline. This figure is something which clearly can be audited. It has been achieved by reducing data requirements substantially, reducing the frequency of some of these documents, reducing the distribution to the people who really need them, and reducing violations in overpackaging and overtransporting. We hope to make more progress in this area because I want to use our funding on hardware which can be flown in space and reduce the cost of paper to that which is really necessary.
Apollo Incentive Contracts

I discussed last year our intentions with respect to Apollo incentive contracts. Today, I can report great progress. Through efforts of the Centers, we have incorporated in the contracts what we are willing to pay for, and what we want in the way of contractor deliveries. The contracts recognize that certain of the vehicles have a relatively high premium for delivery on or ahead of schedule, as do certain of the common events in subsystem development, such as reaching a qualification status, or a particular point in time and thoroughness, Different pieces of the program are treated differently in the contracts because of their status and history, or because of something that we feel is essential to balanced program progress. The incentive conversions encourage us as well as the contractors to better define the job, and to increase our joint attention to the schedule, cost, and technical performance balance. The incentive contracts also have spawned a great awareness of the impact of changes, This tends to make
208
APOLLO DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

DATA BASELINE ESTABLISHED
.6,200 DOCUMENTS SELECTED FROM OVER 20,000 REVIEWED
MINIMUM KEY MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS DETERMINED OVER $1.3 MILLION COST AVOIDANCE THROUGH REDUCTION IN
.DATA REQUIREMENTS FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION .OVERPACKAGING
FIGURE
N.A~A t.~A6
)- I I, 'Jb
61
a contractor somewhat less responsive, but we think it is desirable at this time to have a greater impedance in the contractor organization to changes. Last year we reported that we had contracts totalling some $200 million under an incentive arrangement (fig. 62). Today we are in the final stages of negotiations which will raise the incentive total to about $3.7 billion.
Interchange 01 Management E:perience

One final subject under Apollo management is the interchange that is going on in both management experience and techniques (fig. 63). Within the NASA organization we have spent a fair amount of time talking and working with each other so as to be able to communicate our favorable and unfavorable experience in the several management areas. This has been valuable in the Apollo program, and is valuable to the entire Manned Space Flight organization. There has been other interchange involving elements of the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Ageney. 'Ye have discussed with the FAA the basic mechanisms of organization and planning and control which are operating throughout the Apollo prog-ram which they might wish to put into the basic management structure of the supersonic transport development. I think this is an important point. At least many basic techniques can be adopted by the contractor for dealing with several Government organizations at a saving of both money and manpower. The whole process of people circulation, and experience circulation, is causing the pattern to converge so that the beHt of what people are learning on various programs is being adoptpd by each. This is an important elempnt of program prog-rpss. A basic structure (fig. 64) is operating on interorganizational technical support of Apollo wherein the rPsources of NASA, industry, consultants, DOD, and other Governmpnt agpncies are brought to bpar on critical teehnieal problems. Through this strueture we are able to mobilize the best resources of the Nation in a very short time to help us solve our Apollo problems.
209
APOLLO INCENTIVE CONTRACT STATUS

DECEMBER 64 ACTUAL JANUARY 66 NEGOTIATED $3.7 BILLION
[J
$200 MilliON
~
RCA BENDIX
1
NAA DOUGLAS CHRYSLER BOEING GRUMMAN BENDIX IBM RCA GENERAL MOTORS GENERAL ELECTRIC
NASA MA 65-11,700
IBM
GENERAL MOTORS
FIGURE
62
FIGURE
63
210
fllHT IE$UICH Cflnl . LU1iAI UIfDIlG TR111I1IUIi
lA"'LfY .,nlhUS.VMICLEOVM'MICS: lU""IlL,IIOIltlSUJlPOlT
ARMY
. l
"(5
WIND rUMlEl fEST.: "'","TlON SJMUUlION. MANUAl. 'UlDMCE OF WHICtI VfMfCl(

L(WI$ [NGIIE U$'1"MCi' TEeM' ..MD tUllm nsn",
WSMR lInLE
Jill FlICHT SUPPORT
SODDAto RIIKT TUT , . ..... 1. $......t Of _ltDS . lAID

OTGA . TRAtIU" , 1&1& ACGIIISIYICNI
Cl-$ln COISlIlJClIOI &. atl

_'PUll, D.lCTIOItC
MA' SlimE . lUMI . " . .
IIS$A . MVI"': . . . . : UIlM
co.,._,s
..... - ....
ellWAlDS . 'I1'QT.: L_ LMMM SYSTUI $IlIIUllOI
__.
..
"'11; IlAfINl.'
. . . c-ma .. lUtuT
.MICJ2.u.'._m....
ITI . UUt: GHUf_ , URn
AIR FORCE
...., ........
nlMtmCS
.,. ,"'TUtM.S: ....... - - ' : "MCTII't' eUIC.TlllALS

............... ......a&,
"I
_. __
.,..,-
. . . . MIC .." _
a CIITII UITII ....... InTla

NAVY
GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
u.s.
\ _nt
..........IUII:l...,.
.~_ACI
.....
_,_TMS
UTTIlLI . lIST .. UTDW.S
FIGURE
64
RESOURCES ANALYSIS
At this point I would like to discuss the total capabiliti4:>s that exist in Manned Space Flight as th4:> result of the Apollo program. As you know, cOllHiderable effort has b4:'en spent in providing the baseline from which the lunar landing capability will evolve. This 'baHeline is in terms of funds, management, people, and facilities capa>bilities, 'both Government and industry.
Management Resourees
I have discussed the management capabilities we have developed and are con-
tinuing to bring forward to manage the large and complex Apollo program. This management capability represents a national as.~et of immeasurable value capable of defining and accepting the challenges of future manned space flight I)rograms.
Personnel
Reso1Lrce.~
This chart (ftgurp 65) is one that I am sure you will recognize from my previous testimony bE'fore this committE'E'. It shows the manpower applicable to the MSF programs in various categories. I have sketched in the phase-out of this manpower as it will look with thE' cOlllpletion of the currently authorized Apollo program. Within these catE'gorieH thE'rE' are great capabilities for future programR. J<'or example, ther4:> are pngineers and S<'iE'ntists employed who represent the major portion of this nation's knowledge in manned space flight. There are thousands of skillE'1l IIlPehanies throughout thp nation Who are well trained in thll d4:>li<'atE' art of foruling thp intricate hardwarE' into a reliable space vE'hic1e and there are skille(l a'llministrHtors 'and lIlanagPlIlent persollllPI who are v4:>n;ed in the techniques of getting the best product at the lowest eost.

300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000
211
MANNED SPACE FUGHT
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
IsllPlLLl-Slml II ......u fLleIT
1st IrtLLtSllIl 1
.UIU FUIIT lsI IPllllSlTIII'

......11 fUIIT
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
o~~--~--~--~~~----~--~--~--~~ CY61 1963 1963 l!i64 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 CY70
IASA ICII55 ..
FIGURE
65
Facility Re8of.WC6$ During the past five years we have accomplished an orderly buildup oflfacilities to achieve our space objectives. Significant accomplishments 'have been made in the construction of facilities for the development, fabrication, test, checkout and launch of manned space vehicles. Major buildups were accomplished at our three Centers, the Marshall 'Space Flight Center at Huntsville, Alabama; the :\lanned Spacecraft Center at Houston, Texas; and Kennedy Space Center at Cape Kennedy, Florida. Additional facilities for space vehicle development, fabrication and test were constructed at other locations. Most facilities have now been completed. The remainder will be ready in time to support our testing and flight schedules. In a program such as we have undertaken, there are many unknown factors. :\luch of our success is dependent upon an ability to incorporate 'the necessary adjustments in both the flight systems and the facilities which supPOrt them. To this end we have assigned the immediate management of 'the manned space programs of our three Centers. This assignment of responsibility provides a logical means of defining the roles and missions of the supporting elements. It allows a close coordination of the management groups which have the responsibility for the development of hardware and those who provide the supporting facilities. By recognizing that changes in vehicle configuration will occur as our program advances, we have incorporated a reasonable degree of flexibility in our supporting facilities. The wisdom of this is evidenced by the fact that we have been able to progress from the Mercury program to Gemini and now into Apollo, and still make use of most of the facilities that were constructed in support of earlier efforts. By taking such steps, we have restricted our facilities commitments to date to $1.6 billion. We are now completing the complex which is required in support of the manned lunar landing program. Through use of the flexibility which is inherent in these facilities, we are also in position to support further space exploration. To date, we have capitalized on the resources of both the Department of Defense and the aerospace industry. We are making use of existing
212
fabrication and test capabilities that were developed in conjunction with past aircraft and missile programs. For basic research and development, we are utilizing the capabilities of both industry and universities. This has enabled us to reduce the cost of our facilities program inasmuch as new construction could be limited to those cases where the economics, size or other requirements of our vehicles dictated a new facility. I would now like to review our facility progress, outline the work that remains to be done and to indicate the capability we have acquired to snpport present and future space efforts.
LAUNCH VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURING, AND CAPABILITY
Development Capability at MSFC
I will start with our oldest facility, the Marshall Space Flight Center at Huntsville, Alabama, where as of June 30, 1965 we had a capital investment of $319,555,000. This Center, which is located on 1,800 acres of the Army's Redstone Arsenal, has the responsibility for the research and management leading to the design, development, production, testing and delivery of large launch vehicles and their related systems. This includes the direction of the several contractors that are developing our major flight vehicles at locations on the West Coast, the Midwest, Louisiana and Mississippi. At MSFC, we have provided the facilities that are required in the development of large launch vehicles and their related propulsion structural and guidance systems. A large laboratory complex has been developed that covers the fields of astrionics and space physics, materials research, engineering development, hazardous operations, component test, and manufacturing engineering. These laboratories provide a reservoir of capability in their respective fields that can be applied to both present and future space programs.
Manufacturing Capability at MSFC
At the Marshall Space Flight Center, we also have a large manufacturing complex that was established in support of earlier efforts when MSFC engaged in the fabrication of flight hardware. Most of these buildings were designed for the fabrication and assembly of boosters the size of the Saturn 1st stages. As a consequence, these very high bay structures can be readily adapted to a number of uses. Today we are using these facilities to develop new and advanced manufacturing techniques to improve the fabrication of our vehicles. Because of their size and configuration, these buildings represent a great potential in support of space programs.
Test Capability at MSFC
In the test area at Marshall Space Flight Center, a number of test stands and other facillties have been provided for engine and vehicle development work. Our most recent completion is the Advanced Saturn Static Test Facility construeted to test a vehicle with a thrust of seven and one-half million pounds (flg. 66). This stand has contributed to our test capability and has provided prototype information for the construction of the dual position Saturn V 1st stage (S-IC) stand at the Mississippi Test Facility. . Some idea of the inherent capability provided by this test complex can be gained from the history of the Static Test Stand, a dual pOAition stand constructed for the Army'H Redstone-Jupiter program. With very minor modification, one position has been adapted for the successive testing of the Saturn I 1st stages (S-I and S-IB). Similarly, the second position is now used for develop ment testing of the F-1 engine. With such flexibility to accept new requirements, this test complex can continue to support our .space efforts in the future.
Test Capability at MissiSSippi Test Facility
The final acceptance testing of the Saturn V 1st stage (S-IC) and 2nd stage (S-II) will be conducted under the cognizance of the Marshall Spacp Flight Center at the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF). This is an entirely new facility for which first authorization was received in fiscal year 1962. AH of June 30, 1965, the Government investmpnt was $164,854,000.
213
MARSHALL .SPACE fLIGHT CEITER
HUNTSVILLE, AlABAMA
JESrAREA
FIGURE
66
T o establish t he MTF test complex, 13,428 acres of land were acquired in fee. B eca u se of the high sound energies that will develop during static test firings, it is also necessa ry to limit human habitation in the surrounding area. A sonic easement was therefore acquired on an additional 125,422 acres. The Mississippi Test Facility is zoned into five functional areas, the most important of which is the Saturn V test complex ( fig. 67). This c-om.plex consists of two Ad,anced Saturn 2nd Stage ( B-II ) test stands, a dual position Advan ced ,S aturn 1st Stage (B-I C) test stand , test control center s, clata acquisition facility, fuel , gas and water supply. Most of the facilities essential to the oper a ti on a re now complete. In December 1965, the first 2nd stage test sta nd was com pleted and the S-II all-systems test stage is now on the stand preparatory to first testing (fig. 68). In 1966 all presently authorized construction is scheduled for completion with the exception of the second S-IC test position. This position will be completed in mid-1967. In our fi scal yea r 1967 budget we are request ing fund s f or some impro'l"ements to t hese f acilities t hat generated from present testing experience. 'Ve anticipate fu t ure ch a nges and improvements will be necessary as our program progresses. The ~Ii ss i ss ippi Test Fac ility ha s the necessary land a rea to accommodate a dditional fa c ilities. On the basis of present knowledge, we believe we have established a buffer zone whi ch will provide public protection against sonic damage from 'l"eh icles having higher t hrusts as well as from present yehicles.
E:->GIKE AND STAGE CONTRACTOR DEVELOPME N T , MANUFACTURI NG, AND TEST CAPABILITY
Xext, I \\'o ul d like to review the eng ine a nd 'l"ehicIe fabr ication ca pability that is oper ated by eon t r act uncler the managerial cognizance of Ma rshall Space Fligh t Cen ter .
H-1 , P-l , a.nd J-2 Engines
The engines wh ich are u sed in our la unch ,ehicles, the H-1, F-1, and J-2 a r e manufactured by the R ock etdyne Divis ion of North America n Avia tion, Inc. All
214
MISSISSIPPI TEST FACILITY
TEST STAND COMPLEX
FIGURE
67
SATURN I 2nd STAGE STATIC TEST STAND
FIGURE
68
215
are developed, fabricated, assembled and tested at Gavernment-owned facilities. The developmental work takes place at Santa Susana. The H-l engine is fabricated, assembled and tested at Neosho, Missouri. The F-1 and J-2 engines are fabricated and assembled at Canoga Park, California. The acceptance testing for the F-1 engine is conducted at Edwards Air Force Base and the testing for the J-2 takes place at Santa Susana, California. In each instance, we have capitalized on resources that were provided by the Department of Defense for the missile programs. We have augmented this capability and feel we have the capability to satisfy foreseeable requirements without major new construction.
8at.'U~
8tagfNJ
Turning then to the development, manufacturing and test of our Saturn launch vehicle stages, two are fabricated and assembled on the West Coast. There are the 2nd stage (8-II) of the Saturn V, and the upper stage (8-IVB) of the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) and Saturn V. The 8-IVB stage is manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company and is assembled in the company-owned plant at Huntington Beach, California. This plant is closely tailored to the present production scheduled. However, Douglas has incorporated a capability for expansion in all of its facilities. The acceptance testing of the completed stages take place at Sacramento, California at the NASA Sacramento Test Facility. This test complex includes two test stands that were originaHy constructed for stage development work and easily adapted later for acceptance testing. All of the major facilities have been completed at this location. A proposal to add a capability for large component testing is included in our present budget request. Fabrication and assembly of the Saturn V 2nd stage (8-II) is performed in the NASA facility at Seal Beach by the Space and Information Systems Division of North American Aviation, Inc. The final acceptance testing and refurbishment of the 2nd stage will take place at the Mississippi Test Facility. As part of the FY 1966 Construction of Facilities program, we are providing an additional assembly building. This will assure present production requirements and will allow a reasonable increase if it is needed. The 1st or booster stages of our Saturn vehicles, (S-IB and S-CI) are being produced by the Ohrysler Corporation and the Boeing Company at the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility (fig. 69). This Government-owned plant, which as of June 30,1965, represented a capital investment of $114,010,000, is located on a 900-acre site east of New Orleans on the Intercoastal Waterway. The 43-acre Manufacturing Building was constructed during World War II. We have added a vertical assembly and vehicle checkout capability together with storage and engineering space to provide a facility that is well suited for the assembly of large space vehicles. If necessary, we could assemble stages up to 20 feet longer than the present 1st stages of Saturn. No major facility modifications would be necessary, provided the vehicle diameter is not increased materially. Construction at Michoud is virtually complete except fOl" some additional capacity for chemical waste disposal. Otherwise the facility can adequately support our space program.
SPAOECRAFT DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURING, TEST, AND OPERATION CAPABILITY
Development ana Test Capability at M8a
Responsibility for the development of spacecraft for manned space ftight progI"ams and the conduct of manned flight operations, including astronaut training, is concentrated at the Manned Spacecraft Center at Houston, Texas (fig. 70). The Government had an investment of $241,193,000 at MSC as of June 30, 1965. To accomplish the MSC miSsion, it has been necessary to provide the facilities requil"ed for the research, development, test and evaluation of manned spacecraft systems. Some of these facilities are unique in both size and capability. initially they will be used in support of the Apollo program. These same facilities with very little modification can be used for post-Apollo programs. Tb substantiate the integrity of spacecraft communications in radiation environments simulating free space, tests are conducted with full scale vehicles in a large anechoic chamber (fig. 71). This chamber has a quiet zone which is 20 feet in diameter and B7 feet long. This is ideal for the Apollo spacecraft.
216
MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
FIGURE
69

HOUSTON, TEXAS
FIGURE 70
217
MAINED SPACECRAFT CENTER
ANECHOIC CHAMBER
NA. SA MC66 - .5461
1- 25 -66
FIGURE 71
The f acility has the capability of accepting larger vehicles with very little loss in the degree of sound-free environment. At the Manned Spacecraft Center, we have constructed the country's largest man rated space environment chamber with solar simulation ( fig. 72). This chamber can simulate an altitude of about 80 miles and subject the spacecraft to the simulated thermal and solar radiation conditions which are expected during a lunar mission. It will accommodate spacecraft up to 35 feet in diameter and 80 feet in length. A similar growth capability is available in our vibration and acoustic testing facilities. The last important complex at MS C is devoted to mission simulation and astronaut training. This complex includes a Flight Accel('ration Facilit.y which features probably the world's largest centrifuge with a man rated, environmentally controlled gondola at the end of a 5O-foot arm ( figs. 73 and 74). It also includes a Missio n Simulation and Training Building, a Flight Operation Building and other housing simulators and trainers enabling the astronauts to become completely familiar with each mission prior to the actual flights.
Op erational Oapability at MSO
A facility most familiar to the American public is the Mission Control Center (fig. 75 ) , which became completely operational in 1965, and was the primary control for t he Gemini IV and subsequent flights. This fa cility, with reasonable augmentation, will be able t o handle more complex future missions than those planned under the Gemini and Apollo programs.
SPACECRAF'l' CONTRACTOR DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURING, AND TEST CAPABILITY
The Apollo spacecraft modules are manufactured at two locations. The Command Module and the Sen-ice Module, which is the spacecraft propulsion module. are manufactured by the North American Aviation Company in the KASA Indust rial Plant at D owney, California. This plant was acquired from the Air Force in 1964 and the major fa cility construction effort was completed
,218
ENVIRONMENTAL TEST CHAMBER
FIGURE
72
FLIGHT ACCELERATION FACILITY CENTRIFUGE
FIGURE
73
219
FIGURE 74
MISSION CONTROL CENTER -HOUSTON .
FIGURE 75
220
in October 1965. The buildings range from a Plaster Master Facility, where spacecraft models are made, to the Systems Integration and Checkout Facility, where the spacecraft is integrated and subjected to final checkout prior to delivery to the Kennedy Space Center. The largest structure is the 750,000 square foot Assembly Building where the spacecraft is manufactured. The Lunar Module is manufa ctured by the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation at Bethpage, New York. All testing and fabrication are accomplished at this plant except developmental testing of the ascent and descent propulsion engines which is performed at the White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico. Some of the more important Grumman facilities for development are the Electronic Systems Development Laboratory, the Fuel Systems Laboratory, the Navigation and Guidance Laboratory and the Flight Control Systems Laboratory. Developmental testing of the Apollo spacecraft propulsion systems is conducted at the NASA White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico (figs. 76 and 77). The three major areas at W'STF a re the Apollo Propulsion Systems Development Facility, the Lunar Module Test Facilities, and the Little Joe II Launch E1acilities. The Apollo Propulsion System Development Facility provides the capability for developmental static testing of the Apollo Command and Service Module propulsion systems. The test a rea consists of two single position static firing test stands which are being used at thrust levels of 22,000 pounds. Each stand has the capability of supporting a 40,000 pound thrust engine. The Lunar Module Test Facilities are used for development testing of the ascent, descent and reaction control propulsion systems. The test area has three structurally identical, single position, static firing stands which are currently used to support the 10,500 pound thrust engines. Two have an altitude simulation capability of approximately 110,000 feet. With minor modification, the altitude stands could support an engine with a thrust level of 30,000 pounds. The third complex provides the ca pability for flight qualification of spacecraft modules and systems prior to manned flight. These test s qualify the launch
FIGURE
76
221
FIGURE
77
escape systems, Earth landing system, stabilization system, and portions of the structural and propulsion systems.
LAUNCH OPERATIONS CAPABILITY
Kennedy Space Center
Turning to our launch capability, the mission of the Kennedy Space Center is the integration, test, checkout and launch of NASA space vehicles. The Kennedy Space Center is divided into four areas that were established in relation to the potential hazard that will be created by the vehicles being launched from Merritt Island. Our most unusual facilities are located in the launch and launch support areas. In the launch zone there are three Apollo Launch Complexes--34, 37, and 39. Launch Complex 39 was planned for launch of Saturn V vehicles with the Apollo spacecraft. At this complex, two launch pads are under construction (figs. 78 and 79). Each pad has the inherent capability of launching about 12 vehicles per year if required. Associated with this launch complex is the Vehicle Assembly B uilding, which has a low bay area 209 feet high and 524-foot. high bay area (fig. SO). The low bay area will be used to receive and hold t he 2nd (S-II) and 3rd (S-IVB) stages prior to their mating with the 1st (S-IC) stage. In the high bay area, the 1st stage will be positioned, checked and mated with the upper stages, the instrument unit and the spacecraft prior to a final integrated checkout. The Vehicle Assembly Building has a clear door opening of 456 feet. With minor modifications the four bays in the high portion of the building can accommodate vehicles larger than t he Saturn V. Launch Complex 34 currently has the capability of launching the uprated Sat urn I ( Saturn IB ) with the Apollo Command and Service Modules (fig. 81) .
222

LAUNCH COMPLEX 39
FIGURE
78
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER LAUNCH COMPLE~F39~~~~==::i X
FIGU RE
79
223
FIGURE
80
LAUNCH CoMPLEX 34
FIGU RE
81
224
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FI SCAL YEAR 1967
L a unch Complex 37 (fig. 82) which is located at the northern boundary of t he origi nal Cape K ennedy la unch area, is cur rently being modified to Ia unch the uprated Saturn I vehicle with the A:pollo Comma nd, Service and Lunar Modules. The complex has two launch pads, one of which is operati ona l. Most of t he major construction at K en nedy Space Center will be substantially completed by the end of 1966. The Pad B area of Launch Complex 39 is scheduled to become oper ational by the end of fiscal yea r 1967. As of June 30, 1965, the Government's capital investment at K ennedy Space Center was $561,762,000.
FUTURE PROGRAM POTENTIAL
The three Manned Space Flight Centers a nd the contractors under their direction have the capability for the overall development, manufacture, test, deli very a nd la unch of la rge spa ce vehicles and their related systems. F or Apolio Applica tions, whi ch is the proposed foHow-on to Apollo, one of the prime conSiderations has bee n that no modifica tions will be r equired for t he Saturn I and Sat urn V la un ch vehi cles aSs igned to Apollo Applicati on flights. As a r esu lt, the faciliti es whi ch have been provided in support of our present program ca n be utilized wit h only limited modifica tion or add-on capabilities. Fut ure progr ams in volving such operations as manned space s tations, planetary exploration , a nd luna r bases ca n a lso be supported by these capabilities because of t he fl ex ibili ty whic h is inher ent in the fa cilities we now have. For example, the Advanced Saturn Static T est Stand at MSFC, with modifications that would be nom ina l in cost co mpared to new construction, can be adapted to test la unch vehi cle stages with a thrust of 10 million pounds l'el"S US the curr ent ca pability of 7.5 mi llion pounds. At t he Mississippi 'rest Facili ty, the Satu rn V 2d Stage (S-II ) test ,;tands as now configured will accept a liquid oxygen-hydrogen vehicle 33 feet in diameter , 81 feet long a nd with a r a ted thrust of 1 million pounds. " ' ith modi fi cation these stands could accept stages up t o 36 feet in diamete r , a nd 90 feet long, with a r ated thrust of 1.5 million pounds. The Saturn V 1st s tage
LAUNCH COMPLEX 37
FIGURE
82
225
(8-IC) stand has a comparable flexibility. The stand is being constructed to t{'!<t a stag{' that is 33 fe{'t in diam{'ter, 138 feet long, with a rated thrust of 7.5 million pounds. This stand can be modified for future program requirements to test stages up to 36 feet in diameter, and 170 feet long, with a rated thrust of 12 million pounds. As I have pointed out, all of our fabrication facilities have a growth potential. The same is true of our unique facilities at the Manned Spacecraft Center where our space environment chamber, for example, can accommodate a spacecraft which is 35 fe{'t in diameter and 80 fe{'t in length as compared to the 21.6 and 54 foot dimensions of the Apollo. We have the capability at White Sands to test ascent, descent and reaction control propulsion systems having thrusts about double those we are now planning. At the Kennedy Space Center, we have the capability of launching more and larger vehicles than are now incorporated in the Saturn V system. Finally, the facilities which we require for support of the present manned lunar landing program have be{'n or are nearing completion. These complexes have the inherent capability of supporting space efforts beyond the Apollo program. Certainly the inititial phases of a follow-on effort can be accomplished with relatively minor new construction. Apollo Applications is an example of a follow-on effort that capitalizes on the resources available to us through the Apollo program.
APOLLO APPLICATIONS
In my earlier comments covering organizational changes in the Office of Manned Space Flight, I briefly described the new directorate established for Saturn Apollo Applications. At this time I would like to review in more detail the evolution, objectives and operations, plus the management aspects of Apollo Applications as well. I also will provide a report of current program ,status and our planned activities for the next flscal year. In addition, I will discuss Post-Apollo Applications planning as a preliminary to my presentation of the Advanced Manned Missions Studies portion of this statement. Last year, I reported to you that the Apollo and Gemini programs are providing the Nation with a broad base Of technological, managerial and resource capability, which makes feasible a wide spectrum of manned space missions beyond the initial lunar landings. These manned space missiQIls can be exploited in a wide range of operations in Earth orbit and lunar orbit, and operations on the lunar surface (fig. 83). The approved Gemini program has demonstrated extravehicular and rendezvous capability as well as the capability for flights of extended operational duration. Demonstration of the docking capability will occur this year. In the Apollo program we will develop capabilities for lunar orbit and landing, space maneuvers and super-orbital reentry. As I mentioned last year, utilizing these capabilities constitutes an important forward step in the logical development of the Nation's manned space flight program. At that time I pointed out that utilizing Apollo Saturn capa'bilities now under development will enable us to produce space hardware and fly it for future missions at a small fraction of the initial development cost. This was the basic concept embodied in what we proposed last year as the Apollo Extension Systems. We have since changed the name to Apollo Applications. The Apollo Applications concept is to utilize to the fullest the capabilities inherent in the Apollo program. In my statement last year, I displayed this chart with the objectives considered for Apollo Applications (fig. 84). As shown on the chart, the manned lunar landing in this decade is a primary objective of Manned Space Flight. Only manned flights in Earth orbit, lunar orbit and lunar surface exploration operations were considered. In addition, only Apollo hardware, modified as required, was considered for manned flight. A basic consideration in planning for Apollo Applications, as I pointed out last year, bas be{'n to use present Apollo hardware with as little modification as is consistent with the proposed mission under study. We have learned that, with the exception of added expendables and different payloads, a number of new missions can be accomplished with the presently designed Apollo Saturn launch vehicles and spacecraft.
B aokgromwI,
I would like to review for you some of the background of Apollo Applications. First, it is a product of the study and planning effort that has evolved since the Office of Manned Space Flight was established more than three years ago.
226
EXPLOITATION OF PRESENTLY PROGRAMMED CAPABILITIES

APPROVED PROGRAM
ENDElVDUS 10 DOCKING EXTRA VEHICULAR
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES UTILIZING EXTENDED CAPABILITIES

EARTH EXPERIMENTS APPLICA TlONS 1 SPACE SCIENCE
ORBITAL~
GEMINI
{ EXTENDED DURATION 2 WEEKS IN EARTH ORBIT
EARTH ORBIT {
13 MONTHS DURATION HIGH INCLINATION 10 SYNCHRONOUS ORBITS
2 EARTH ORIENTED APPLICATIONS 3. SUPPORT FOR SPACE TRAVEl
LUNAR _ ORBIT
{
1.. 2 3. 4
LUNAR ORBIT } OPERATIONS MAPPING SURVEY EXPLORATION EXPERIMENTS
POLAR ORBIT 28 OAYS
PACE MANEUVERS LUNAR ORBIT ANO LANDING { SUPERORBIT AL REENTRY LUNAR SURfACE} OPERATIONS
APOLLO
LUNAR SURFACE {
1 EXPLORATION 2. EXPERIMENTS 3. MAPPING 10 SURVEYING
LEM SHElTER MANNED LEM 2 WEEKS.
NA SA M, OJ -)430
FIGURE
83
APOLLO CAPABILITY EXPLOITATION PROGRAM
CONSIDERATIONS
LUNAR LANDING THIS DECADE . PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT PROGRAM EXTENSIONS
.MANNED FLIGHTS
eEARTH ORBIT OPERATIONS eLUNAR EXPLORATION OPERATIONS
.UNMANNED FLIGHTS
eSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SATELLITES ePLANETARY EXPLORATION
ONLY APOLLO HARDWAREMODIFIED AS REQUIREDWILL BE CONSIDERED FOR MANNED FLIGHT NO MODIFICATION TO LAUNCH VEHICLES COORDINATED DOD/NASA EFFORTS
NASA MA65-5433
FIGURE
84
227
Many industry studies and related internal NASA analyses have been performed in the three years since the lunar orbit rendezvous was selected as the mode for accomplishing the manned lunar mission. A major factor in the selection of the lnnar orbit rendezvous was that the Apollo Saturn systems required for this mode would provide a IXYWerful and flexible manned space exploration capability as a product of the Apollo program. Performed in parallel with the definition and development of the Apollo program, the advanced manned missions studies have identified a variety of mission objectives which could be accomplished with varying degrees at adaptation and modification (Jf the basic lunar mission hardware. Apollo Applications has been planned from the narrowing down of the many possible adaptations to a limited number of specific missions. Guiding this narrowing down process was the selection of those missions which appear most attractive from three points of view. The first such viewpoint was the ability to meet specified mission objectives as alternates to the basic lunar landing objective, as soon as the capabilities become available in the mainstream Apollo program. The second was the selective focusing on acquisition of data and manned space flight experience which can lead most effectively to the next generation of space exploration objectives. The third point of view was maximum utilization of the Apollo Saturn capabilities without extensive modi fications to the basic hardware. Apollo Applications evolved through joint efforts of all of the NASA program offices. In my earlier reference to this new program I noted that the Office of Space Science and Applications, and the Office of Advanced Research and Technology will be major participants in the activity and users of the results, and that the Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition will playa major role in accomplishing the proposed objectives.
APOLLO APPLICATIONS OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES
The current Gemini and Apollo programs are building on results from earlier successful Manned Space Flight programs. In turn, Gemini and Apollo will provide a new level of capability upon which to base Apollo Applications. Let me review some of the capability to be made available to Apollo Applications prior to 1970 by our two on-going programs. We will have the capabillty to explore space out to 250,000 miles from Earth and to conduct manned operations and experiments on flights up to two weeks duration. The uprated Saturn I and Saturn V boosters will be able to inject 18 and 140 tons of payload, respectively, Into near-Earth orbit. The Saturn V will be capable of sending 48 tons to the vicinity of the Moon. The Apollo spacecraft will be able to sustain a three-man crew in a twocompartment, highly maneuverable, modular vehicle, capable of landing two men on the M'oon and returning them, with samples of lunar material, to Earth. The U.S. astronauts will have logged in the Gemini and Apollo programs more than 500 man-days in space. They will have acquired data and experience from approximately 100 experiments in response to the specified needs of the scientific and technological communities. The present experimental payload capabilities of the Apollo spacecraft are shown here (fig. 85). The Service Module, which is the spacecraft propulsion module, can accommodate up to 250 cubic feet of experimenter equipment with the weight limitation varying with the space maneuvering requirement of the specific mission. The Command Module can accommodate 3 cubic feet of experimental payload and has an Earth-return payload capability of 80 pounds. In Earth orbit, the ascent stage of the Lunar Module would be used with an additional experiment payload capability. Last year, a typical extended Apollo or Apollo Applications spacecraft configuration for Earth or lunar orbit was shown (fig. 86). This view shows the capabillty for experiment support for the Command, Service, and Lunar Modules. All of these capabilities I have described build upon the basic Gemini and Apollo missions with the added capabilities of Apollo Applications, as shown here (fig. 87). The basic Apollo mission will develop the capability for three men to operate in Earth orbit for up to 14 days. Basic Apollo will also develop the capability to place three men in lunar orbit for 4 to 8 days if no landing is involved or two men on the lunar surface from 24 to 36 hours.
228
PRESENT APOLLO CAPABILITY

i\
DUIATlON:
1014 OAYS UITM 0111111
aDA n lUNAI Ollnll 1.l L,: OH lUNAI SUIFACI
UPUIMINn:
(OMMAND MODULI (l MIN'

VOlUME 1 (U FT.
WIIGHT 10 11 (UIIH IITUII"
fUll
OIIDIUI
SIR VIC! MODUli

VOLUME 250 nl
THIU lUll (Hl~ \. llrlll.ENTS

fOUR RUCTANT TANkS ;-
WlIGHT .
yuns
WlTH MISSION
r,
t __ .J;
~---....._
":-:.jFUB
(OIHMOING ON 5,,\(1 .,IHUVlR UQUIUM,NT
011D11I1'
l~",-.I'
LUNAR EXCURSION MODUli

ASUNT STAGE
(2 MIN)
l '
FIGURE
2 CU fT 1011 IIITURMI
DESUNT HAG!
IS (U "
250ll
NA~A MIt..
8'1'>
85
EXTENDED APOLLO CAPABILITY FOR EXPERIMENT SUPPORT

DURATION: EARTH ORBIT, 4 TO 6 WEEKS (POSSIBLY TO l MONTHS( LUNAR ORBIT, UP TO I MONTH LUNAR SURFACE: UP TO 2 WEEKS
,_I::,iC
~
, ,
,
I
10' \~~
'I
,-
~
I",f(
EQUIPMENETXBPAEyRs"lMENT VOL UMEcu,'t, COMMANb MODULE , 2o
EXPERIMENT WEIGHT
WITH l-MAN CREW: UP TO 250 LBS RETURN WEIGHT WITH 2-MAN CREW UP TO 500 LBS RETURN WEIGHT SERVICE MODULE VARIES WITH MISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPElLANT AND EXPENDABLES;. i, FOR LUNAR SURVEY MISSIONS, CAMERA SYSTEMS WEIGHING NI500 LBS COULD BE INSTALLED IN SECTOR I
/ . FREE VOLUME
/'
90 cu.lt
2tO cu It IN SECTOR I , _ _ _ _ (ADDITIONAL VOLUME IN OTHER SECTORS FOR EXTENDED EARTH ORBIT MISSIONS(
~
I
I\
LUNAR EXCURSION MODULE ILEMJ ASCENT STAGE'N220 cu fI LAB SPACE FOR EXPERIMENTS AND OPERATIONS DESCENT STAGE NI5 cu, ft INTERNAL (ADDITIONAL EXTERNAL VOLUME WITHIN ADAPTER( LEM ADAPTER VARIES WITH MISSION REQUIREMENTS
:'" ,':5 -if"

\.~\.I-'~J
:./',\
~:'~
\~
-.,-1- ~
1
I
, '
UP TO 6000 cu fI WITHOUT LEM
VARIES WITH MISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR SATURN l' MISSIONS IN EARTH ORBIT, MORE THAN lD,OOO LBS POSSIBLE IF LEM IS OMITTED NASA MTb,-556b
FIGURE
86
NASA AUTHORIZATION F OR F ISCAL YEAR 19 67
229
F IGURE 87 Added capabilities, as shown on the chart, include the ability to place two or three men in Earth orbit for six weeks on a single launch mission and up to thr ee months through rendezvous resupply to place three men in lunar orbit for periods up to 28 days; and to sustain two men in the lunar surface fo r per iods of up to two weeks. Studies in the past three yea r s indicate t hat the added capabilities are inherent in the system \,ithout major modifications. The next chart (fig. 88) shows the operational capability of the Apollo Applications in the context of the capabilities inherent in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. Apollo Applications logically follows Apollo and utilizes to the fullest support from our unmanned programs and the resources developed under Gemini and Apollo such as the Gemini and Apollo ground networks and tracking Ships. The chart shows that with present plans, manned synch r onous and h igh inclination orbits could begin in 1968, orbital assembly and resupply operations in 1969, and long duration fiight capabilities also could begin in 1969. Extended lunar exph)ration oper ations could begin in 1971. The chart additionally indicates that Apollo Applications could provide a firm operational and technological basis f or futu r e pr ograms in the 1970's and 1980's.
APOLLO APPLICATIONS OBJECTIVES
Apollo Applications objectives have been derived from the broader space goals shown here (fig. 89). The first of these broader goals is a national goal to a chieve and maintain 1.:'.S. preeminence in space. The next of the descending goals is the XASA goal to explore and utilize the space environment fo r the advancement of human knowledge and for the benefit of mankind. Beneath this is a ~lanned Space Flight goal. t o de,elop the capabilities for men to live and operate effectively in spar!' f or extended periods. It is foll owed by the Apollo goal to demonstrate the ('11 "ability for t hree men to explore cislunar space by accomplishing a manned IUllar landing in this decade.
230
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES TIME PHASING
lEac.,
1lII.
'IHT,.T,.,
~.
E_DnU _ _
_IITII. _II.
.-
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT

20 Y!AII$
,.2 , ..~
-It
..U ,
AHlII
.-ElUIPln
~
1liii_a
''''''_11.
EQU1I' DEmOP.EU
_Sf_,"
~~J=$ & _ _ISY_O
. . . ._ .alT1i. A$SIII. Y &1f_U _a MEl OIIIIfAl
J1IIU"_'1I.
... ...... ......
""111:... ... ... ......... ... .....

~
..~
'114 ,., ''''\'''7\'111\'.'
1170'
1'.',
m_ YlAIISfP . . . .,
. . . . ~ I1OIJ1IDlllJU fU8I1T ITE_ WIWIIJPlIlU_
---
_1IIA'1OtI_
-----------------------..jiUi~ ,;ii_'
.......
~
... ---:
.........
ill
'"
jIai.
--.
mUlE " . .IS
_ _ SPACE SfAm
..... ....
. . . . LIllAlIASl
nlST _EO PlAIIfTAIY .SI1OI
FIGURE
88
DERIVATION OF APOllO APPLICATIONS OBJECTIVES

NATIONAL GOAL NASA GOAL MANNED SPACE FLIGHT GOAL APOllO GOAL
TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN U. S. PREEMINENCE IN SPACE TO EXPLORE AND UTILIZE THE SPACE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF MANKIND .TO DEVELOP THE CAPABILITIES FOR MEN TO LIVE AND OPERATE EFFECTIVELY IN SPACE FOR EXTENDED PERIODS TO DEMONSTRATE THE CAPABILITY FOR THREE MEN TO EXPLORE CISLUNAR SPACE BY ACCOMPLISHING A MANNED LUNAR LANDING IN THIS DECADE
APOllO APPLICATIONS USING THE SATURN APOLLO SYSTEMS, TO DEFINE AREAS IN WHICH MANNED GENERAL OBJECTIVES OPERATIONS IN SPACE CAN BENEFIT MANKIND AND TO PROVIDE A FOUNDATION
FOR DEFINING AND UNDERSTANDING THE NEXT MAJOR UNITED STATES STEP IN SPACE BY ACCOMPLISHING: EXTENDED LUNAR EXPLORATION, INCLUDING ONEMONTH ORBITAL SURVEYS AND TWO WEEK LUNAR SURFACE OPERATIONS MANNED OPERATIONS IN ANY EARTH ORBIT OF NINETY DAYS DURATION, USING RENDEZVOUS RESUPPLY AND ORBITAL ASSEMBLY TECHNIQUES
NA')/\ M( 66 '1,.\ 16
1-/1-66
FIGURE
89
231
From these goals are derived the general objectives of Apollo Applications, to provide a basis for the next major U.S. step in manned space 11ight, using the Apollo Saturn systems. These general objectives are to be provided by accomplishing (1) extended lunar exploration, including one-month orbital surveys and two-week lunar surface operations; and (2) manned operations in any Earth orbit of 90 days duration, using rendezvous resupply and orbital assembly techniques.
SpecifiC Objectives
Specific Apollo Applications objectives are shown in the next chart (fig. 90). The overall objective of Apollo Applications is to define areas in which manned operations in space can benefit mankind and to provide a foundation for defining and understanding the United States' next major step in space. In Apollo Applications our prime motivation is to exploit currently available knowledge, experience, investment and capabilities. We are emphasizing manned operations in space to service all user requirements for operational, scientific and technological experiments. In maintaining the leadership of the United States in space operations, NASA's contribution will be to acquired knowledge and remove barriers for further exploration of the universe. The Manned Space Flight contribution, utilizing Apollo Applications, will be the development of the capability for man to operate in space for indefinite periods of time. In addition, manned operational requirements for future Earth orbital operations, lunar operations and planetary exploration operations will be defined.
APOLLO APPLICATIONS OPERATIONS
The major operational capabilities of Apollo Applications are (1) manned synchronous and high inclination orbit operations; (2) orbital assembly and resupply operations including personnel transfer; (3) long duration manned space 11ight operations; and (4) extended lunar exploration operations.
APOLLO APPLICATIONS
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
ATTAIN MANNED SYNCHRONOUS AND HIGH INCLINATION ORBIT OPERATIONS DEMONSTRATE MANNED ORBITAL ASSEMBLY AND RE-SUPPLY ATTAIN MANNED SIX WEEK ORBITAL FLIGHT CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATE PERSONNEL TRANSFER IN ORBIT DEVELOP THREE MONTH ORBITAL FLIGHT CAPABILITY CONDUCT EXTENDED DURATION LUNAR EXPLORATION CONDUCT OPERATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND TECHNOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS
NASA MC66-;J, Ul' \-21-66
FIGURE
90
59-941 0-6&--1&
232

Manned Synohronous and HiUh Inolination O)'bit Operations
In Apollo Applications we may have the capability for manned synchronous and high inclination Earth-orbital operations beginning in 1968. Emphasis could be placed on manned operations but some experiments may be directed toward ultimate unmanned or intermittently manned systems. In these cases, man would be utilized to optimize measurement techniques and senso rs, to evaluate, calibrate and check out equipment in space environments. By this means, highly reliable equipment ultimately could be placed in unmanned spacecraft for some applications. It is probable that, as a result of manned space fligh t experiments, we will be able to accelerate the development of spacecraft systems which will enable us for example, to forecast the weather more accurately for longer periods of time. This chart (fig, 91) shows a concept of an advanced meteorological re' sea rch laboratory in synchronous orbit enabling man to conduct experiments in a Illllnber of fields. These include upper atmospheric composition and processes, the charactel'istics of severe local storms, the influence of extraterrestrial effects on weH ther phenomena, and atmosphere pollution analys is. Continuous one' third coverage of the Earth by synchronous orbit may enable man to gather synoptic weather data for long term forecasts and evalua te the effects of weather on Earth and space phenomena. In lower Earth orbits, possibly circling the North and South Poles, Apollo Applications astronauts would be able to observe weather formations in the polar r egions as well as the lower altitudes. Astronauts could obtain data on surface temperatures averaged o\'er sizeable a reas. r ather than just point samples as now available. Data on the distributions a nd flu ctuations of surface waters would be very useful. "With adequate data on these two quantities, we could build a " new Climatology based on new knowledge of energy and moisture fluxes at the su rface air interfa ce.
APOllO APPLICATIONS
SYNCHRONOUS ORBIT OPERATIONS METEOROLOGICAL LABORATORY
FIGURE
91
233
Improved weather for ecasting techniques provided by a manned Earth-orbital ,,-eat1ler station could afford a savings of $2 to $2.5 billion per year in such U.S. actiyities as Ih'estock production, fruit-vegetable production, new construction, fu els and electric power . and flood s and storms. These techniques also could significantly help the tourism industry which includes motels, hotels, amusement centers, beaches a nd resor ts, as well as individuals planning business or vacation trips. In addition, improved forecasting could permit optimum r outing of commercial ships and aircraft, and provide a good weather warning ser vice to commer cial fishermen. Another typical synch ronous orbit operational area concerns manned or bital a t r onomical observations using optical telescopes (fig. 92). Astronomical observations may be made on all stellar objects including the Sun. Particula r solar astronomy effort could be c-oncentrated in the 1968--1970 period of peak solar acti,ity, whi ch will not recur for 11 years. The orbital vantage point would allow optical astronomy free of atmospher ic distortion a nd filter ing. Thirty-eight-inch telescopes developed for the Orbiting Astr onomical Observatory progr am could be adopted for use with the Apollo spacecraft. After setting up the telescope in orbit, the astronaut would adjust, calibr ate and operate it. The film and plates would be returned by the astr onaut at the end of the first mission and the telescope would be left to operate unmanned un til the astr onaut r eturned to readjust the telescope on subsequent missions. It is estimated that the r esults of these experi ments would be an order of magnitude greater than what has been obtained previ ously. Man's ability to opera te and maintain orbital telescopes could be tested, as well as 'systems and subsystems fo r future manned and unmanned optical astronomical m issions. ~monstrations of communications capabilities could a l 0 be made from manned spacecraft in Earth-synchronous orbits. These capabilities include direct broadcast of live FM radio and television on a worldwide basis, and navigation and traffic control. Potential experiments in communi cations and navigation traffi c control involye the determination and characteristics of the propa-
APOllO APPLICATIONS SYNCHRONOUS ORBIT OPERATIONS
ORBIT AL TELESCOPE
NASA MC66-S201
FIGL"RE
92
234
gation medium, the optimization of communication rnlay systems, and the evaluation of advanced position-locating techniques for integration with communications or traffic control facilities. For the navigation traffic control problem, there is a need to develop extremely close coordination with groundbased data sources. The latter is important for useful traffic monitoring or control. Within Apollo Applications capabilities for communications operations in Earth orbit and in the vicinity of the Moon, we are considering some specific operations which may have a direct impact on the lives of the average citizen of the world during the late 1960's and early 1970's. For example, an Apollo Applications mission planned for synchronous Earth orbit could demonstrate direct FM and television broadcasts from a stationary position 22,000 miles above one-third of the Earth's surface. Television viewers in North America, South America, Europe and Africa could thus simultaneously observe developing weather patterns on their home television sets. In addition, manned Earth-orbiting communications space stations, capable of broadcasting voice or TV directly to home or other local receivers throughout the world, would provide world-wide coverage of events, and entertainment. These stations could also provide greater access to non-local educational facilities through transmission of educational programs, and provide a vehicle for Voice of America-type broadcasts throughout the world. Manned Earth-orbiting communications space stations could also be used to provide an all-weather navigation system for ships and aircraft; an allweather air and ship traffic control system; and serve as a search and rescue aid for air and sea emergencies. Another benefit that may be gained from Earth-orbital operations is synoptic data on the worldwide status of natural resources. Data may reveal new information as to mineral deposits, water resources, crops and forests, marine life, and other Earth phenomena.
Orbital A88embly and Resupply
Orbital assembly and resupply are prerequisite to man's continuing exploration and utilization of the space environnwnt. Apollo Applications, using the Apollo Saturn sy~tems, will removp further barriers to man's ability for accomplishing operations in space. Operational techniques for cargo and personnel operations will be developed as shown here (fig. 93). Orbital maneuvering and docking techniques could be refined as wpll as the development of emergpncy procpdures and equipment for rescue operations. Techniques for refueling and the transfer of supplies for long duration missions may be developed. Capability for recovery and recapture of unmanned satellites could provide longer term data on materials and sensors' and ultimately enable us to more accurately diagnose failures in unmanned sa telli tes. Propellant transfer operations in space could lead to the capability of resupplying spacp vehiclps in orbit and ultimatply to the developmpnt of tpchniques for orbital launch operations (fig. 94). The testing of materials in space is aimed toward the improvpment of spacecraft subsystems and materials. Fire and blast protection tests in the spacf'craft atmosphere, long term space exposure elIeds on spacecraft matprials and ad ual physical and chpmical tpsts to strpss materials both inside and outside the spacecraft many lead to improved materials for follow-on space systems.
Long Duration Manned Flight Operation8
We may have the capability of placing astronauts in Earth orbit for approximatply four wepk" by ] 009 and by 1!)71 we may E'xtpnd this timE' to threE' months. The four-weE'k to threp-month orbital capa!'ity should provide a capability to test man's hphavior and hi~ r!'actions to the spacecraft !'nvironm!'nt in long duration mi~ions. Apollo Applications may not only p!>rmit ext!'nding man's time in space, hut providE' tllP capability for including trainro mpdif'al obsprvers on thp mission IIncl for invpstigllting Hev!'ral mellns of th!'rapy to counteract possi'bl!' IIdvprsp !'fi'Prts of spa!'!' flight. ~Iajor ar!'lIs of intpr!'st 111'1' the pfi'e!'ts of wpightlpsHnpss 011 the cllrdiovasculllr and musculoskeletal systems. Experi!'nc!' to date identifies no potential problems
235
APOllO APPLICATIONS ORBITAL ASSEMBLY AND RE-SUPPLY
CARGO AND PERSONNEL TRANSFER OPERATIONS
NASA MC66 5199
FIGURE
93
APOllO APPLICATIONS PROGRAM ORBITAL ASSEMBLY AND RE-SUPPLY PROPELLANT HANDLING TECHNIQUES
FIGURE
94
236
such as possibl e blood 'p ooling in t he legs, dizziness, a nd a loss of calcium fr om the system. Howeyer, such sy mpto ms co uld r esult from longe r time exposure; therefore a well-cont r olled seri es of experimen ts should he ca rri ed out. For these experiments, measurements would be made to monitor adequately the long term effects of weightless ness. In Apollo Applications, vari ous mea ns of coun tera cting the zero-g effects of space coulc! 'be investigated. R elat ively si mple means, such as co nditi on ing exercise, may be used. In addition, the creation of an artificial gravity environment, such as a celltrifuge or rotating ~pacec raft , may a lso be needed . r.rhe-se needs would have extens ive effects on plans for longe r duration missions and for f ollow-on pl a neta ry missions. L ong duration manned fli ght operations may develop an extens ive extravehi cular engi neering activity (fig. 95). Extravehicu la r engineering activities may inyolve the manned assem bl y and test of la rge st ructu r es such as ra dio a nd optical antennas; the development of manned ext rave hi cula r manipu la tive capability; an d t he development of procedures for transfer, launch a nd recovery in space. Examples of the development of manipulative capability experiments include optical technology, the development of ma nned locomoti on a nd maneuvering, development of maintenance a nd r epair techniques, a nd the la unch of unmanned satellites. The la unch of unm an ned satellites after they have been calibrated and checked ou t in orbit may provide for a higher probability of successful oper ation a nd more acc urate inse rt ion in to orbit. Design data is r equired for the development of reliable, long-duration (one to three years) subsystems for manned planetary missions and for long duration Earth-orbital missions. Long durati on Earth-orbital operati ons may enabl e us to rotate crews in advanced Earth-orbital space stations with li mited r equirements for supplies inasmuch as the basic subsystems potentially would have on e to three year lifetimes. 'l'his would improve cost effectiveness by reducing logiStic launches and minimizing maintenance and replacement.
APOLLO APPLICATIONS LONG DURATION MANNED FLIGHT
EXTRA VEHICULAR ACTIVITY
NASA MC66 S19S
FIGURE
95
237
Long duration manned flight operations may provide a platform for many Earth sciences and resources experiments. Earth sciences and resources experiments conducted in cooperation with other agencies may include global synoptic observations in the fields of agriculture, forestry, geology, geodesy and oceanography. In this experiment category, a great deal of interest has developed over the possible utilization of satellite-based observations in the management of agricultural resources. This application depends upon the employment of multispectral sensors to obtain a simultaneous recording of electromagnetic images in several different bands. Infrared, visible and ultraviolet multispectral sensing, for example, could lead to acquisition of useful data by operational Earth sciences and resources satellites. What we learn from measurements of the Earth from Earth-orbital satellites (which we can correlate with "ground truth") may improve our capability for analyzing planetary data from future planetary flyby or capture missions. Long duration manned flight operations could provide data on relatively rapidly changing elements of the terrain, such as coast deltas, sand dunes and glaciers. ~ew data are needed on the distribution of vegetation, its seasonal changes, its relationships to soil and other elements of the system. Also beneficial would be basic inventory information on natural resources to determine their adequacy to meet increasing demands and to expand 'Our knowledge of how to cope with natural disasters such as floods, droughts, and land slides. Many of these data can be obtained from high quality photographs alone. Orbital photographs will allow mapping 'Of a quality heret'Ofore unknown. In addition, coverage of extraterritorial conditions affecting a given c'Ountry, such as the snow accumulation in the Himalayas, is a matter of direct concern to many countries of Southern Asia, but cannot be measured directly since the chief snowshed areas are essentially inaccessible. Orbital photographs should eventually make such measurements possible. Ph'Otographs from orbit would all'Ow the rapid assessment of snow cover, flood damage, fire damage, and similar conditions af fecting large areas. Many other possibilities are presented by long duration manned flights. Substantial contributions could be made toward unravelling the mass budgets 'Of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Our knowledge of undulations 'Of the geoid could be improved. Synoptic and long run monitoring of the sea state c'Ould be made, with attendant estimates of wind strength and directi'On 'Of the gross stormderived energy flux near coast lines, and of oceanic climat'Ology. Sea ice movement and remote arctic and tropical floods could be monitored, and improved geologic mapping in structurally complex areas could be conducted. All maps of rem'Ote arid and arctic regions, and of many coastal and island areas surveyed decades ago could be completely revised or updated. Many maps of better known areas could be substantially revised at scales of 1 :250,000 and smaller. Finally, a worldwide study of vegetation would be made, including cultivated lands. Additional long duration manned flight operations could be aimed toward the evoluti'On and improvement of spacecraft subsystems and materials. These include environmental control systems, fire and blast protection in the spacecraft atmosphere, long term exposure effects on spacecraft materials, and development testing of advanced subsystems.
Ell!tended Lunar Ell!pl'Oration Operations
Because 'Of the increased mission duration and extended area coverage potential of Apollo Applications, it may be possible t'O obtain definitive answers to a number of fundamental questions pertaining to the origin and history of the Moon by means of lunar surface exploration (fig. 96). Consistent with the basic objective of lunar exploration. vari'Ous scientists have pr'Oposed experiments on investigations in such fields as geology, geochemistry, geodosy, biology and particles and fields. Lunar surface processer and subsurface samples from drill holes at the landing sites and along the traverses could be studied. Seismic experiments may be conducted as well as studies of local gravity and magnetic anomalies. Galactic 'Observations could be made utilizing radar and astronomical telescopes. The three major terrain types found on the Moon, e.g., Marla, highlands and thermally active lunar craters, could be studied in detail.
238
APOLLO APPLICATIONS
EXTENDED LUNAR EXPLORATION

LUNAR SURFACE EXPLORATION
FIGU RE
96
Th e 28-day luna r polar orbit ca pa bility sh ould enabl e man by the u se of came ras and other remote sensor s to scientifi cally photograph and obtain multispectral data fr olll the entire s urface of the Moon. B y the use of s urface proes, man may obtain u seful information conce rning polar a nd fa r-sid e-of-th e-M_oon s ites which may enable him to select a r eas for extend ed su rface explorat ion. Ma nn ed lunar orbiters utilizing competent ca m e ra systellls Illay coll ect datu to co mpil e a complet e lunar topographic ma p serie::; at various sca lps from 1 :2.500,000 to 1 :250,000 with selected areas at still la r ger scales. Geodetic measurements may be pe rform ed to proYide compl ementary results for ana lyz in g in depth s uch phe nome na as r otation , ph ys ica l li bratio ns of the Moon and lunar tides.
MISSION CONCEPTS
In the Avolio Applications program, the flight acti yit y is class ified into two catego ries, alte rnate missions and follow-on missions (fig. 97).
Alternate and Follow-on Missions
Alternate mi ssio ns to the basic Apo ll o program in 1961'-1970 co uld u se those basic lunar Illbsion s pace vehicles whi ch Illny become a \'a ilabl e fr oll1 th e Apollo program, for nlternate nli ss ions of a nomi na l two \\'epk s durati on. Foll ow-on Illiss ions Ill ay lIS(' Ill odified Apollo fligh t hardwa r e with sta ndard Saturn launch vehicles for long duration Illiss ions in Earth and lunar orbi t and on the lunar s urface. All of the four Apollo Applical'ions operations areas di scu",,('d an' plann('d both for alternate and follow-on missions. Th e first seri es, flights in Eatth o rbit, inc'luding polar, sy nc hronou " and ('(J ualor'ia l o rbit . co uld be mad e to meet garthoril'nted applicatiolls and l'!'q uirenlP nts , inc ludin g Ill et eo r ology. conlllluni cat io ns a nd Earth t'eso urces ana lys is. A sl'cot1(1 sp ri es Illny cons is l' of fligh t" in Ea r t h orbit for astronOlllical obsp n 'at ions a nd ph ysic-a I sc i(' nce I'xpe rim e nts.
239
APOLLO APPLICATIONS - MISSION CONCEPTS

ALTERNATE MISSIONS
USE OF BASIC LUNAR MISSION SPACE VEHICLES WHICH MAY BECOME AVAILABLE FROM THE APOLLO PROGRAM FOR APOLLO APPLICATIONS MISSIONS OF A NOMINAL TWO WEEKS DURATION
FOLLOWON MISSIONS
USE OF MODIFIED APOLLO SPACECRAFT WITH STANDARD SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLES FOR LONG DURATION MISSIONS IN EARTH AND LUNAR ORBIT AND ON THE LUNAR SURFACE
NASA Me 66-5, 173
FIGURE
97
Another series of mission may consist of Earth-orbital flights for development, test and demonstration of space operations and technology. Finally, we could have a series of lunar missions for both extensive orbital surveys and for lunar surface exploration.
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Planning Schedules
tor
Apollo AppUcatitms
Planning schedules for Apollo Applications have been prepared for the time period 1965 through 1971. These schedules are based on the technology being developed in the Apollo Saturn I and Apollo Saturn V programs. The Apollo program schedules call for the first unmanned flight in 1966 on the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) the first manned Apollo lIight on the uprated Saturn I in 1967; and on the Saturn V the first unmanned and manned flights in 1967 and 1968. Thus, beginning in 1968, the possibility of alternate missions to those in the mainstream Apollo program may be considered, using the unmodi fied spacecraft for nominal 14-day missions. It appears from our studies that the technology would permit four-week mis sions in Earth orbit with a single launch in about 1969 and up to three months by double rendezvous in 1971. This same spacecraft should be capable of 28-day missions in lunar orbit during 1970-1971. Similarly, utilizing the inherent capabilities in the basic Lunar Module, we could have a two-week lunar surface exploration capability a year or two after the initial manned landing. The next chart (fig. 98) shows decision points for basic hardware procurement initiation to deliver hardware in time to meet follow-on flight schedules in 1969 and 1970. Initial hardware procurement for the Saturn I launch vehicle was initiated in December 1965. Initial procurement for the spacecraft will take place in calendar year 1966. The next chart (fig. 99) shows Apollo Applications alternate funding options studied compared to the Gemini-Apollo funding level which will phase out in fiscal year 1971. The following chart (fig. 1(0) shows the relative program cost variation of Apollo Applications as a function of program completion. Our stUdies show that funding options scheduling program compretion beyond cal endar year 1972 will significantly increase the total cost of the program.
240
. SATURN I
LUNAR MODULE
FIGURE
98
AP8U.O APPlICATIONS ALTERNATE FU_OPTIONS '"

:'~3,~' ,::~,
.. '.
.r:-------------. _.:ao;:.---.., "~

"
'\ ._-.- -
\,
G~MINI
APOLLO FUNDING
,\
____ APPLICATIONS TYPICAL ALTERNATE ..--FUNDING OPTIONS STUDIED
.,., , . , . t.70 11711172 ,.73 ,.74 1875 tt7t 1m 1f7I

FISCAL YEAR .
1m
NASA MC66-5$ll 2866
FIGURE
99
241
APOllO APPLICATIONS PROGRAM COST VARIATION
2.6.---------------2.2
RELATIVE PROGRAM COST
1.8
1.4
1.0
""'"
1971
1912
1973 1915 1974 PROGRAM tOMPlETlON YEAR
1976
t-...W:,'A
MC66-~'~3:r
2-:-0<>
FIGURE
100
Payload, [ntegrotWn
In Apollo Applications, one of the management tasks which we are now studying is the need for the aSSignment of experiments into compatible mission payloads. Compatibility involves power, volume, weight, shape, environmental control, spacecraft modifications, installation and accessibility requirements, crew time availability and orbital deployments for the individual experiments. The compatibility study effort is being conducted as a part of the Apollo Applications Payload Integration Project. Payload integration involves the hardware and software activity required to integrate and to qualify Apollo Applications space vehicles, individual experiments and integrated payloads. These must be ready for delivery to the Kennedy Space Center for assembly, checkout and launch in accordance with Apollo Applications specified 1light mission assignment plans and schedules. The integration study encompasses all of the experiments under discussion in this presentation as well as potential future experiments. The analysis is currently being made on a fiight-by-fiight basis.
KAJOR 19611 ACCOllPLlSHllENT8
The Apollo Applications program oflice was established in 1965 and the Head quarters organization was approved in August (fig. 101). The roles and missions of the centers were determined in December. The Manned Spacecraft Center at Houston has the responsibility of developing Apollo Applications spacecraft, training the fiight crews, and conducting fiight operations. In addition, the Center at Houston will be responsible for integrating experiment payloads on the Command and Service Modules. The Marshall Space Flight Center at Huntsville, Alabama, in addition to its responsibility for launch vehicle development, will be responsible for integrating payloads on the Lunar Module, the Saturn stages, and the Instrument Unit.
242
Tbe Kennedy Space Center, Florida, will be responsible for Apollo Applications launch operations and will also be responsible for the installation of selected experiments into the space vehicle. Preliminary flight mission assignments for Apollo Applications were completed in December, and a preliminary Program Development Plan was issued. We also completed preliminary definition of the extended duration spacecraft and payload integration activity. We identified 314 experiments and completed preliminary studies of the Manned Space Flight Network/NASA Communications (NASCOM) capabilities to support Apollo Applications missions. We also completed studies of launch operations and mission operations support.
MAJOR 1966 PLANNED ACTIVITIES
In 1966, we exect to complete Apollo Applications flight mission assignments and spacecraft design (fig. 102). Payload integration definition will be finished as well as the complete definition of experiments for the alternate missions. Preliminury definition of experiments for the follow-on missions will be done. In addition, we will complete the organization and staffing of the Apollo Applications program office at Headquarters and at the Centers. The Apollo Applications Final Program Development Plan will be issued in 1966.
SUMMARY
I have covered the total capabilities that exist in Manned Space Flight as the result of the Apollo program, and the results of our studies over the past few years which have indicated that it is both feasible and timely to start active effort to utilize the Apollo Saturn systems for alternate and follow-on missions to those planned for the mainstream Apollo program. I would like to summarize by examining some of the highlights of Apollo program progress (fig. 103).
Launch Vehicles
In the launch vehicle area, we have successfully flown the critical liquid hydrogen fueled upper stage. 'Tbe instrument unit concept has surely been proven. A highly successful first phase of the Saturn I program has been completed. All stages of the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) and the Saturn V are in advanced stages of ground testing to prove the basic soundness of the design.
APOLLO APPLICATIONS MAJOR 1965 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

APPROVED HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION ESTABLISHED ROLES AND MISSIONS OF CENTERS AUGUST 1965 DECEMBER 1965 DECEMBER 1965 NOVEMBER 1965 OCTOBER 1965 OCTOBER 1965 OCTOBER 1965
NASA MC66-), 172
ESTABLISHED PRELIMINARY FLIGHT MISSION ASSIGNMENTS FOR APOLLO APPLICATIONS PLANNING ISSUED PRElIMINARY PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPLETED PRElIMINARY DEFINITION OF EXTENDED DURATION SPACECRAFT AND PAYLOAD INTEGRATION STUDIES COMPLETED PRELIMINARY STUDIES OF MSF COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK CAPABILITIES TO SUPPORT APOLLO APPLICATIONS COMPLETED PRELIMINARY STUDIES OF LAUNCH OPERATIONS AND MISSIONS OPERATIONS SUPPORT FOR APOLLO APPLICATION MISSIONS
FlGURE
101
243
APOLLO APPLICATIONS MAJOR1966PLANNED ACTIVITIES

1. COMPLETE APOLLO APPJ,.ICATIONS FLIGHT
MISSION ASSIGNMENTS
2. COMPLETE APOLLO APPLICATIONS SPACECRAFT DEFINITION

3. COMPLETE PAYLOAD INTEGRATION FINAL DEFINITION 4. COMPLETE DEFINITION OF EXPERIMENTS FOR ALTERNATE MISSIONS AND PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF EXPERIMENTS FOR FOLL.OWON MISSIONS
5. COMPLETE ORGANIZATION OF PROGRAM AT

HEADQUARTERS A-No AT THE CENTERS
6. COMPLETE APOLLO APPLICATIONS PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PLAN

NASA
MC~5,
168
FIGURE
102
APOLLO PROGRAM
PROGRESS INDICATORS
eLAUNCH VEHICLES
HYDROGEN UPPER STAGE SUCCESSFULLY FLOWN INSTRUMENT UNIT CONCEPT PROVEN IN FLIGHT SATURN I SUCCESSFULLY FLOWN 10 FLIGHTS ALL STAGES OF UPRATED SATURN I AND SATURN V SUCCESSFULLY GROUND TEST FIRED COMMON BULKHEAD TEST PROGRAM SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
eSPACECRAFT
e BOILERPLATE DELIVERIES COMPLETE e FIRST FLIGHT ARTICLE MANUFACTURED AND DELIVERED eFABRICATION BEGUN ON FIRST BLOCK II COMMAND AND PROPULSION MODULE AND LUNAR MODULE
eOPERATIONS
eLC-34 ACTIVATED MAJOR FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED ON LC-39 eSTRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS BEGUN ON LC-37B
FIGURE
NASA MA6.J-ll, i41
100
244
The common bulkhead features of both the 2nd (S~II) and 3rd (S-IVB) stages of the Saturn V and the 2nd stage (S-IVB) of the follow-on Saturn 1 had been a matter of development concern, although we knew they could be built. The problems were those of fabrication, and of behavior of the stages under cryogenic conditions and structural loads. Our concern over fabrication of these large but finely-honed structures is largely behind us now.
Spacecraft
In spacecraft development, we have completed our boilerplate program in terms of deliveries, and in the main, the testing on theHe is well advanced. The Apollo spacecraft first flight article has been delivered, and this is always a major milestone. 'VI' have begun the fabrication on the flight Block II Command and Service Module and Lunar Module.
Launoh Operations
In operations, Launch Complex 34 is in the final stages of activation. In this connection, a well deserved tribute to the Kennedy Space Center is in order. They have overcome considerable adversity, in terms of late deliveries of ground equipment and spacecraft, and yet have been able to reHhape the activities necessary at the Cape to keep the program moving. By readjusting events without comprising program safety or technical objectives, we have been able to maintain the schedule which has been on the books now for some 2 years. Structural modifications to the second Saturn I stand at Launch Complex 37 are now well underway. The major large-scale construction on Launch Complex 39 for Saturn V launches is now behind us, certainly a significant achievement.
Planned Activities
To summarize the job ahead (fig. 104) in terms of some of the high points in the technical area, the qualification of the spacecraft heat shield in flight at lunar r!'turn velocities is a major program event. The demonstration of the ability to r!'start th!' 3rd stage in Earth orbit is vital to the translunar injection of the Saturn V. Gemini is leading the way in rendezvous and docking, and WI' are looking to Surveyor for verification of the lunar landing site conditions.
APOLLO PROGRAM
THE JOB AHEAD

TECHNICAL
e e e e QUALIFY SPACECRAFT HEAT SHIELD IN FLIGHT DEMONSTRATE S-IVB RESTART CAPABILITY PERFORM RENDEZVOUS AND DOCKING VERIFY LUNAR LANDING SITE CONDITIONS
DECISION POINTS
eAFTER EACH MISSION. PROGRESSIVE EVALUATION OF SUCCEEDING OBJECTIVES eMATURITY OF SYSTEM FOR LUNAR MISSION eFOLLOW-ON PROCUREMENT
N A5A MA65-11 771
FIGURE
104
245
Some very significant decision points are ahead of us, including a decision on follow-on procurement. Our contracts are rolling at high momentum, and some of them are starting to see the end of the line. All of the articles currently planned for procurement are now in some stage of fabrication. The major planned aetivities of Apollo for 1966 are listed in this series of charts (figs. 105, 106, 107, 108, 109).
Resources Capability
In pointing out the management, personnel, and facilities capabilities that exist in Manned Space Flight as a baseline for the lunar landing capability, I reviewed the development capability at the three MSF Centers and the NASA facilities under their cognizance, and at contractor facilities. Included were the launch vehicle, development, manufacturing and test capability at MIlTflhall Space Flight Center, Mississippi Test Facility and at engine and stage contractor facilities; space development manufacturing and test capability at Manned Spacecraft Center, Michoud Assembly Facility, Sacramento Test Facility, and at contractor facilities; space operations capability at MSC; and launch operations capability at Kennedy Space Center.
Apollo Applicatiof1.8
In the Apollo program, we are developing a broad and powerful national operational capability which can now be directed in a number of di1ferent ways.
1966 PLANNED MAJOR ACTIVITIES SPACE'CRAFT

COMMAND & PROPULSION MODULE
INITIATE FLIGHT TEST OF BLOCK I AIRFRAME ACTIVATE THE HOUSTON THERMAL VACUUM CHAMBER COMPLETE 008 TESTS IN SUPPORT OF 012 SPACECRAFT COMPLETE BLOCK I SUBSYSTEM QUALIFICATION TEST PROGRAM
~OMPLETE
DELIVERY OF ALL BLOCK I SPACECRAFT
COMPLETE PROPULSION MODULE-DOl SUBSYSTEM TESTS IN SUPPORT OF 011, 012 COMPLETE COMMAND/PROPULSION MODULE STRUCTURAL & THERMAL TESTS BEGIN INITIAL TESTING OF BLOCK II SPACECRAFT CONDUCT DYNAMIC TESTING OF FUEL CELLS
NASA MC66-5274 1-2166

FIGURE
105
246
1966 PLANNED MAJOR ACTIVITIES LAUNCH VEHICLES

UPRATED SATURN I
COMPLETE QUALIFICATION TESTING PROGRAM COMPLETE VEHICLE GSE FOR LAUNCH COMPLEX 37B DELIVER PROGRAM TAPES FOR AUTOMATIC CHECKOUT BEGIN UNMANNED FLIGHT PROGRAM COMPLETE ALL STRUCTURAL TESTING OF THE FIRST STAGE START ASSEMBLY OF THE TWELFTH FLIGHT ARTICLES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND STAGES START ASSEMBLY OF EIGHTH FLIGHT INSTRUMENT UNIT DELIVER fiFTY 205K PRODUCTION H-l ENGINES COMPLETE 205K H-l ENGINE QUALIFICATION COMPLETE H-l FIRST FLIGHT WORTHINESS VERIFICATION
NASA MC66-5275 1-21-66

FIGURE
106
1966 PLANNED MAJOR ACTIVITIES SPACECRAFT

LUNAR MODULE
COMPLETE THERMAL VACUUM TESTING, SUBSYSTEM INTEGRATION TESTS, VIBRATION TESTS AND STRUCTURAL'TESTS
CONTINUE PROPULSION TESTS
COMPLETE QUALIFICATION TESTS ON PROTOTYPE FLIGHT HARDWARE
DELIVER FIRST fliGHT VEHICLE TO KSC
NASA MC66-5302 1-21-66

FIGURE
107
247
1966 PLANNED MAJOR ACTIVITIES SPACECRAFT CHECKOUT

COMPLETE CHECKOUT OF ALL BLOCK I SPACECRAFT ACTIVATE FIRST TEST STAND FOR INITIATION OF FIRST BLOCK II SPACECRAFT CHECKOUT COMPLETE GSE QUALIFICATION PROGRAM FOR BLOCK II SPACECRAFT SPACE ENVIRONMENT SIMULATION LABORATORY AT MSC OPERATIONAL COMPLETE CHECKOUT OF THE FIRST MANNED SPACECRAFT ICSM012] AT KSC
NASA MC66-5303 1-21-66

FIGURE
108
1966 PLANNED MAJOR ACTIVITIES LAUNCH VEHICLES

SATURN V
COMPLETE ALL GROUND TESTING OF STAGES AND AlL-UP LAUNCH VEHICLE DELIVER FIRST FLIGHT STAGES TO KSC LAUNCH COMPLEX 39 CHECKOUT AND WET TEST DELIVER GSE AND PROGRAM TAPES REQUIRED FOR LAUNCH SA-50l BEGIN CHECKOUT OF FIRST POSITION OF FIRST STAGE ACCEPTANCE TEST STAND AT MTF ACTIVATE BOTH SECOND STAGE ACCEPTANCE TEST STANDS ATMTF COMPLETE F-l ENGINE QUALIFICATION TESTS COMPLETE J-2 ENGINE 205,OOOPOUNO THRUST QUALIFICATION
NASA MC66-5301 1-21-66
FtGUU 109
59-941
~6--17
248
These Apollo Applications will provide particular focus as well as broad emphasis for the accomplishment of economic benefits, lunar and planetary exploration and scientific advancement.
Oonfidence in the Future

Let me conclude by giving you some basis for confidence in the future (fig. 110). The organization has been built and staffed. It is a capable organization and staffed with competent people who are dedicated and determined to get the job done. The program has been essentially defined and we have essentially achieved stability. These are two very important statements in relation to the future of the program. Our progress has been steady. We have tight control over the requirements of the program, over its schedules, costs, and the performance that we are developing and demonstrating. We have good management visibility, and it continues to improve. Finally, our program organization and the Apollo contractors are working effectively in the solution of problems and in other management action.
MISSION OPERATIONS
I would like to turn now to the operational side of the Manned Space Flight program, specifically the mission operations for Gemini and Apollo.
INCREASING OPERATIONAL COMPLEXITY
I have previously noted the smooth operational support for the successful Gemini fiights during the past year. During this period the overall capability of all elements of the mission operations, including the Manned Space Flight Network, has continued to grow as the missions become more complex. This evolution will continue in support of our first four Apollo Saturn missions.
BASIS FOR CONFIDENCE

ORGANIZATION BUILT AND STAFFED PROGRAM DEFINED AND STABILITY ACHIEVED STEADY PROGRESS TOWARD OBJECTIVES TIGHT CONTROL OVER REQUIREMENTS
SCHEDULE COST PERFORMANCE
.INCREASED MANAGEMENT VISIBILITY MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

NASA CONTRACTORS
NASA MA6,,-11,748
FIGURE
110
249
FIGURE
111
Apollo Missions Unmanned, missions
The first Apollo Saturn mission, AS-201. was planned for launch on a 105 azimuth with a rather short ballistic trajector y from Cape Kennedy to the ,icinity of Ascension I sland. approximately 4,650 miles downrange (fig. 111 ). The instrumentation network oper ating to suppor t this mission consists primarily of the downrange stations of the Gemini network. The second mission, AS--202, has a longer ballistic trajectory. terminating in the ,icinity of W ake I sland ( fig. 112 ). Additional stations must be called up in support of this mission. This also r epr esents use of Gemini instrumentation with one exception. At Carnarvon, f or the first time, we will ha,e an opport unity to confi rm the operation of unified S--band communications between the spacecr aft and the gr ound station. The th ird mission. AS-203. as shown here (fig. 113), is of somewhat different cha racter. Its primary ob jectiye is to determine the behayior of liquid hydrogen in a zero g ennronment. The boilerplate spacecr aft is ejected by use of the lau nch escape ~ystem shortly after launch an d the prima ry objective of the mission will be accomplished during three or bits of the 2nd stage ( S-IVB ) of the upra ted Saturn I ( ~ a turn IB ). Special teleyision equipment will be provided at Carnaryon. H awa ii , Texas, and Cape Kennedy to recor d the beha,ior of the liquid hydrogen during this period. Another first on AS-203 will be the initial use of the first Apollo instrumentation ship in the ,icinity of Bermuda to confirm orbital inser tion.
J[ anned
mi.s8ions
Scheduled for 1967. the first Apollo Sat.urn I manned mission (fig. 114 ) has a duration of up to 1-1 days. On this mission. e, aluation and ,erification of the oper ation of the unifi ed S-band system will be conducted. This will be accompli"hed with th f> stations at Bermuda. Caman'on. Guam. Ha\yaii. and Guaymas. T\yO of the Apollo inst r umentation ships will participate in support of this mission.
250
FIGURE
112
FIGURE
113
251
FIGURE
114
CREW TRAINI NG
The training of Mission O)){,rations personnel is t h e key t o successful a ccomplishment of Mission Operations objecti,es. The Mission Oper ations cr ews involved in this training include launch and flight controller crews and astr onaut fiight crews.
LAUNCH CREW TRAINING
Launch cr ew training involves formal training f or both Kennedy Space Center per sonnel and for su p por t contra ct personnel in spacecraft, la unch vehicle, and ground support eq uipment system s (fig. 115) . La unch cr ew training includ es indiyidual study involved in blockhouse console t raining and many simulat ions, both in-h ouse at K enned y Space Cen ter and in conjun ction with the Man n ed Spacecraft Center . .A. good indication of what lanu ch cr ew training entails is the amount of t echnical material with which l au n ch cr ews must become f am iliar ( fig . 116). The tra ining is generally oriented towa rd general support wi t h whi ch laun ch c r ews m ust become familiar for specific m issio ns. R ecent laun ch sch edule adjustments cau se an oyer lap between preparation s f O AS-202 an d AS-203. By deSign. w e had planned t h at the laun ch of AS-2m , .r 202 and 204 would tak e plac-e on Launch Complex 34 and that A 8-203, which h as II boile rplate spacecraft. w ould be launch ed fr om Laun ch Complex 37B. This plan essen tially c1ecouples these operations, and by ha'-ing an oye rlap in ch eck out, per mits us to get ba ck on sch edu le with .-\S-204. H ow e" e r , one and one-ha lf lau n ch crews are needed to carry out this simultaneous checkout, cr eati ng a p r oblem in the implementation of additional launch cr ew personnel.
Flight Controller Tru,ining
Flight Controller training f ollows a pattern simila r to la unch c rew trainin g wi t h five principal training a r eas (fig. 117 ) . These a r eas a re systems know ledge,
252
.. Qt
.
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1 96 7
LAUNCH CREW TRAINING
FORMAL TRAININIQ- lr.O.K PEUONNEL LAUNCH VE
INDIVIDUAL BLOCKHOUSE '""' ........LO:: SIMULATIONS
FIGURE
115
'.:P~ ) .
~.~
~N"
4i<!
.~'
-
.' .
,
,.
~.'
NASA MA65 1 1,476
FIGURE
116
"Page missing from available version"
254
FIGURE
118
ADVANOED MANNED MISSIONS STUDIES-BAC'KGROUND
During the past year a number of presentations and discussions have taken place with Members of Congress and their staffs regarding NASA's plans for future programs. We are gratified with this interest and feel a deep obligation to make available to you our latest thinking in this area. In order to look ahead to the future, it may be well to consider some of the past events relating to this subject. In January 1964, the President sent a letter to Mr. Webb requesting that NASA review its future space exploration plans with the object of relating hardware and development to prospective missions and make a preliminary progress report. A letter from Mr. Webb to the President reported on NASA's planning for and evaluation of future space exploration up to that time. This reply was followed by another letter from Mr. Webb to the President, which forwarded a comprehensive document titled "Summary Report, Future Programs Task Group." This report presented the results of studies made during 1964 to answer the inquiries made by the President in his letter of January 1964. Alternative programs were presented in much detail. However, no criteria were given as to how a selection would be made nor was it practicable to provide hard cost information to relate to the various projects presented. In this regard, the last paragraph of Mr. Webb's letter stated: "More than in most areas, major decisions on space require a broad concensus. During the next several years, it is likely that the selection of major new space missions will be the subject of serious study and debate by many individuals and agencies in public and private walks of life." Last summer, the interest and concern of the Congress were evidenced in the matter of exploring the reasons for the absence of a decision regarding the next major manned program. Hearings which have since been published were held in August by this Committee on the subject of national space goals for
255
the post-Apollo period. In September, a presentation on this same subject was made by NASA to the staff of the House Subcommittee on NASA Oversight. The resulting staff study is one with which I am sure you are familiar.
MSF program evolutivn
During the August 1965 Subcommittee hearings we presented a "logic" diagram illustrating the optional development paths for manned space llight, repeated now for reference (fig. 119). It should be noted that we believe Apollo Applications is the logical step toward the development of any or all of these program elements. In the figure, each oval represents a major flight system element. The dotted lines indicate the application Qf one system element to several different missions, thus illustrating the cost-effectiveness which can result from the development of versatile multi-purpose spacecraft The solid lines show the evolutionary development of a configuration family, e.g., Apollo Applications leading to the orbital space station which can support a wide variety of missions including planetary, lunar, and Earth-orbital types. Generally, all of the mission activities within a shaded area are accomplished with a common basic spacecraft system. I have a number of charts to illustrate these spacecraft families for each of the shaded areas. The first chart (fig. 120) illustrates the growth from the Apollo Applications system to a multi-purpose space station which can support a wide variety of missions including planetary exploration. The early logistics system to support the station will undoubtedly be a derivative of the Apollo system. This space station would grow to an advanced space station made up of several station modules and supplied by an advanced logistics system (fig. 121). It is expected that such a logistics system will grow to feature reusability, land landing and mission versatility. These features will help define the configuration of a point-to-point transportation system. This next chart (fig. 122) illustrates the Apollo Applications lunar exploration system elements. The next step in long-term exploration will be the development of a direct-landing system for material and possibly men. Such a direct landing payload is a 6- to 12-man station for operation on the lunar surface.
FIGUBE
119
256
EARTH ORBITAL PROGRAM

APOLLO & APOLLO APLICATIONS SYSTEMS
ORBITAL STATION LOGISTICS SYSTEM
COltKAND
MODULE
PROPULSION
LUNAR MODULE
ADAPTER
I.U
JiM
~
LUNAR MODULE LAB
SECOND STAGE
IU ~I CUGO
'nIIRO STAGE
ht STAGE UPRATED SAT 1.
PLANETARY SPACECRAfT MODULES
FIGURE
120
EARTH ORBITAL PROGRAM

RESEARCH COMPLEX ADVANCED LOGISTICS SYSTEM
CARGO
HANGAR
DOCKING AlEA
LIVING AREA
DOCKING CONTROL STATION
STORAGE
~;J'1II:
DOCKING PROBE
L
II I
~;'
RETRO SECTION
CREW MODULE
"
CARGO MODULE --I
HAGAR DOCKING AUA
II
II
II
SCAli
POINT TO POINT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
N.~A
M0510 2.1
9.U"
FIGURE
121
257
LUNAR PROGRAMS
APPLICATIONS SYSTEMS APOLLO DIRECT FLIGHT SYSTEM
C_
mIRD
1
LU'RAR.
LUNAR MODULE LAB
MODULE
PROPULSICII...MODULE
/.~.1a..~ fill
LUKAR MODULE
I.U.
STAGE
MOIlULE~1~~
UJRAR MODULE TAXI
SECOliDSTAGE
LOGISTIC 58.100
MANNED
51900
nRST
STAGE
TEMPORARY STATION
APOLLO
SATURN V SPACE VERICLE
bt STAGE UPIL-U'ED
SAT
t.
FIGURE
122
Necessary to extended exploration of the Moon are surface mobility and improved power systems as shown here (fig. 123). Further in the future is the possibility of research bases as shown for astronomy as well as for continued observation of the Moon. The elements of a planetary program are illustrated in these two charts (figs. 124 and 125). These include both orbiting spaeecraft and landing modules. If we now examine the basic implications of the Manned Space Flight Program Evolution alternatives chart (see fig. 119) with respect to the future course of manned space flight, we are led to a chart as shown here (fig. 126). Here we see that, regardless of our program choice at either economic benefits emphasis or scientific exploration emphasis, the next programmatic step beyond Apollo Applications is logi<'ally a space station. As mentioned before, we are convinced that Apollo Applications together with its experiment program provides the essential exploratory development platform for defining the approach to the space station. At this time it also appears that, at least in its early configuration, the space .station design can be configured so as to be capable of carrying out a broad range of missions, e.g., economic benefit or planetary exploration. The growth pattern of our Manned Space Flight capabilities is illustrated in this chart (fig. 127) in terms of systems and space operatiOns capability, mission duration, crew size, on-board power, stabilization, payload, maneuverability and operating distance. These illustrate conservative estimates of availability of future capabilities. Technology would permit earlier dates if desired. Our mission duration capability in Earth orbit has grown from the one-day, one-man flights of :\Iercury to the two-week, two-man flight of Gemini VII in ]965; and this will grow to a 3-4 month capability in Apollo Applications. This chart also illustrates some of the capability goals to be reached over the next decade. With this background of progress and the continuing pace of technolOgical advancement in experiment payloads, life support systems, and onboard power, we will soon be reaching a basic capability for long-duration
258
LUNAR PROGRAMS
MOBILITY SYSTEMS POWER SYSTEM
~~
--,--;--- h;...;..
'~,-,
FIGURE
123
PLANETARY PROGRAM
NEAR PLANET FLY-BY SYSTEM
""OllO DOCKING CONE ... ClEW (NTlANCE
CENUIFUGE",
SOL .... CEll AR .... ' ,..A"IGATION MODUli
ECL5 .... DI ...
TO.\\~
'.
ADVANCED LAUNCH SYSTEMS NEAR PLANET LANDING SYSTEM

MAI5 CAPTUU'" ESC"'E ~'O'Ul$lON
_ ASCINT _
HAGE SOL .... COUETOI (nOIlD)
FIGURE
124

NUCLEAR STAGES
259
.,
PLANETARY PROGRAM
STAGE
--------------------------~~--DISTANT PLANET FlYBY SYSTEM

EARTH ENTRY MODULE STOWED INSIDE .
CONVERSION~
UNIT
POWER
~~--"'~~ ~>.~..
.
~
. '."
;;....0'"
.;.1/1::;"~
_ J._
MISSION MODULE
. jJy
_~.\
~.~' .... .
'?-
ATTITUDE
CONTlOl SYSTEM
/~ ~~~~~USTERS '~RY
RADIATORS REACTOR
SECONDARY RADIATOR
SHIELD
NASAMTS-IO.2Q7A
FIGURE 125
FIGURE 126
260
operation for a large number of scientist astronauts in space. Such a resorce will pace our space effort. I would like now to discuss briefly our activities in Earth-orbital, lunar and planetary mission studies and in the supporting flight vehicles study area.
FIGURE
127
EARTH ORBITAL STUDIES
Study Oategories
The flrst major area of studies is that devoted to Earth-orbital missions, as shown by this chart (fig. 128). The three fundamental study categories in this area are those related to mission identification and experiment support, those directed toward specific space station configurations, and those directed at definition of the ferry and logistic systems which would resupply Earth-orbital space stations.
Study Activities
This next chart (flg. 129), which I have shown before, illustrate.s the broad spectrum of Earth-orbital systems which have been under study for some time. The early Apollo orbital research laboratory concept was the forerunner of the present Apollo Applications laboratory-configured Lunar Module. The manned orbiting research laboratory concept envisages a spacecraft which would be launched on the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB), unmanned, and would be manned and resupplied by Apollo spacecraft launched on separate vehicles. The large rotating orbiting laboratory providing a simulated gravity environment, or the large zero gravity laboratory, would require a Saturn V launch vehicle to provide adequate payload capability. Related to these laboratory systems are a number of ferry and logistic systems based on the Gemini or Apollo command modules or increased sized Apollo spacecraft, larger ballistic systems, and lifting-body systems. The next study et'l'ort will be directed toward a continuing preliminary systems definition of the Iliost promising space station concepts for post-Apollo applica-
261
CATEGORIES OF EARTH-ORBITAL STUDIES
MISSION IDENTIFICATION
AIID EXPRIMENT SUPPORT
SPACE STATION CONFIGURATIONS
FERRY /lOGISTICS SYSTEMS
',\EIGHTlISS~ESS
EFfECTS \'[A.SUR1'iG EOUIPMENT SPECS BIOMED EXPERIMENTS DEPN IDE~TIFICATION OF APPLICATION AREAS
EXPERI"E~T 1~1EGRATION
OR9ITALLAU~CH
EXT~A
CO~CEPTUAL DESIGNS & REFINEMENTS ARTIFICIAL-G VS ZERO-G POSSIBLE USE Of APOllO HARDWARE REQUIRED MODS TO APOLLO HARDWARE POSSIBlf USE Of SPENT STAGES PLANfTARY LAUNCH OPS
BALLISTIC VS LIFTING CONfiGURATIONS SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ROMTS POSSIBLE USE Of GEMI~I OR APOLLO HOWE
PAYLOAD I ~TEGRATION OPS

VEHICULAR \GI\RlIi1G ACTiviTIES r\1A~I?UlATOR
FIGUBE
128
FIGUBE 129
262
tions efforts. We will also conduct the preliminary systems definition of an appropriate ferry/logistic system for use with these concepts. Particular attention will be given to the description and definition of experiment modules which can be used in conjunction with the selected space station concepts and which can be operated by the crew of the space station. Efforts will continue on the selection and description of candidate experiments for Apollo Applications missions and for advanced missions. The impact of the experiments on the space station and the logistic system will be assessed. AlAO, the ultimate growth capability of such a space station into a planetary mis8ion module will be considered. In the next study efforts, particular attention will be given to the determination of the time when Apollo Applications missions, because of cost effectiveness considerations, should be supplanted by a new and larger spacecraft with inherently greater experimental man-hour capabilities.
LUN AB STUDIES
Study Oategories
The lunar studies can be divided into four basic categories, as shown here (fig. 130). The categories of studies are those to derive mission requirements. those directed toward lunar exploration systems, those related to transportation systems, and those to evaluate the supporting operations.
Study Activities
The mission requirements studied can be broken down into specific study areas. The studies in a given fiscal year are based on the results from previous studies and result in recommendations for follow-on activities. For example, in the area of simulation of surface explorations, we are now undertaking the third year of activity by the U.S. Geological Survey at Flagstaff, Arizona. to understand the many complex implications of operating in the Moon's environment. Each year's activity increases in operational complexity and extends the operational capability of the systems bping utilizpd. Similar study efforts have defined various scientific inAtruments and have eXllminpd the degree to which the various advanced systems support the specified scientific objectives.
CATEGORIES OF LUNAR STUDIES
S Y S!EM S
STU DIES
I
MISSION REQU I REMENTS lUNAR EXPLORATION SYSTEMS
I
SPACE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTE~'S
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
~CIENTlfIC
lQUIP!l.\[~lr
ENVIRONMrlnAI SIMUlATlurJ "q~)IOt, SII,'UlATll"'lr.
MISSIOr>< OBJEC1IVlS
MIS'IO~. E>(P[RI~U.lo
tl(PUIMfNIAl PA(KAGlS
FIGURE
130
263
The next study effort will emphasize the definition of an extended lunar exploration program plan and the accompanying conceptual designs. Our comparative evaluation of shelter concepts, mobility concepts, and various modes of payload delivery to the lunar surface will be combined with the recommendations of the scientific community, e.g., recommendations of the Falmouth Conference in July 1965, to formulate a comprehensive program of lunar exploration alternatives. We will also obtain the preliminary definition of the necessary systems concepts. In addition, this work will provide the essential basis for future decisions concerning the initiation of program definition for an advanced lunar exploration system. This advanced system can be used to conduct effective exploration of the Moon when the scientific exploration requirements exceed the capabilities of the Apollo Applications system.
PLANETABY STUDIES
Study Categories
The third area of advanced manned mission studies is concerned with possible manned missions to planets of our solar system. This chart (fig. 131) indicates the breakdown of planetary mission studies into the three areas of mission requirements, systems studies, and operations and support. Mission requirements studies are focused on two general types of missions. These types are capture missions, in which the spacecraft could orbit the target planet and perhaps send a landing vehicle down to the surface; and the flyby missions, in which a landing is not attempted. The chart also shows the breakdown of systems studies into concepts for these respective types of missions.
Study Activities
Opportunities for manned missions to the near planets, Mars and Venus, are based on optimum location of the target planet with respect to the Earth to minimize the performance requirements and mission duration. The shortest missions, whether we are considering flyby, orbital or landing miSSions, require on the order of one year, and the longer missions may require as long as two or three years. These flight times are longer than our proposed Apollo Applications Earth-orbital mission capability by a factor of ten. The next study efforts for planetary missions will continue to emphasize more detailed analysis of system feasibility, system concepts, and technology requirements. The studies will emphasize manned planetary spacecraft concepts which will have application to the broadest range of missions and launch
CATEGORIES OF PLANETARY STUDIES
MISSION REQUIREMENTS
SYSTEMS STUDIES
OPERATIONS
& SUPPORT
ALTER~ATIVE
MODE STUDIES OPPOSITION:CONJUNCTION/VENUS FLYBY MULTI-VEHICLE OPERATIONS MULTI-PLANET MISSIONS ELECTRIC PROPULSION MISSION RQMTS
DESIGN Of VARIOUS SPACECRAFT MARS EXCURSION MODULE EARTH REENTRY MODULE PROPULSION CONCEPTS INTEGRATED DESIGN CONCEPTS USE Of SATURN STAGES
SURfACE EXPERIMENT DEfiNITION
FIGURE
131
59-9410-66--18
264
dates. The studies will continue to give detailed consideration to the dependence of the manned program on the unmanned program as precursor for obtaining scientific and engineering data essential for the design of future manned systems. Studies of objectives, schedules, and costs will also be necessary in order that the most promising system concepts may be selected for detailed engineering design in later years.
FLIGHT VEHICLE STUDIES
The fourth study area in the Advanced Missions Program is directed toward the understanding of improved or future vehicle systems, primarily launch vehicles. The spacecraft propulsion systems are generally studies in the specific mission areas. Our vehicle studies at present are divided into three general catgories, as shown on this chart (fig. 132).
Study Aotivitie8
The tabular listing shown on this chart (fig. 133) outlines the principal techniques for major performance gains being considered in Saturn uprating studies. Reusable transport studies are continued to determine the logical evolution of a second generation aerospace transportation system that could provide routine Earth surface-to-orbit and return transportation for passengers and cargo. Studies of potential launch vehicles to support future Earth-orbital, lunar, und planetary manned missions will be continued. These vehicle systems studies will emphasize preparation for system definition of uprated Saturn vehicles as well as study reusable airplane-type transport concepts. Studies of the operational and support facilities for these potential uprated and new vehicles will also be conducted.
SUMMARY
There are many options in space available to the nation and the decision regarding the course of action must be a national one. The decision required is one of general direction since it will determine the specific systems to be developed. Our studies have given us confidence that we can define sound programs which will support specific national goals. Decisions will be required regarding general emphasis of space programs, specific goals to be achieved, and the time at which the goals must be reached. Our experience with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs has shown the wisdom of such an approach. The major policy decisions confronting the nation provide the answers to three questions. The first of these questions asks what general direction will be MSF VEHICLES STUDY AREA
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS EARTH SURFACE TO ORBIT/ESCAPE ORB IT TO EARTH SURFACE SPACE-BASED FERRY SYSTEMS ORBITAL LAUNCH OPERATIONS SUPPORT
I
SATURN SYSTEMS
NEW SYSTEMS
VERY LARGE PAYLOAD
PAYlOADIPASSE~G(R
OPERATIONS & SUPPORT ANALYSES

LAUNCH FACILiTI[SlQP[RATIO"JS
COST & PLA\NI "JG )TYDIE:, ORBITAL TANKfR'i
UPRA TlNG /IMPROVEMENT
lOW
TRAN'iP(lRT
SPACE FERRiES
FIGURE
132
265
SATURN VEHICLES UPRATING/IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES

~ INCREAsm SIZE GENERAL CATEGORIES '-INCREASm EFACIENCY
FIRST STAGE
PROPULSION SYSTEM & PROPELLANTS - UPRATED F-l _TOROIDAL F-l - ADDITIONAL ENGINES -FLOX
SECOND STAGE
- UPRATED J-2 - TOROI DALJ-2 - ADD ITI ONAL ENG I NES - ADVANCED ENGINE -FlOX -
THIRD STAGE
UPRATED J-2 TORO I DAl J-2 ADVANCED ENGINE FLOX
VEHICLE STAGE
-INCREASED LENGTH -INCREASED LENGTH (PROPELLANT LOA.DING) (PROPELLANT LOADING) -SOOST-ASSISTUNITS -REDUCED INERT WEIGHTS (SOLI D OR L1QU I Dl -lERO STAGE - NEW SOLID STAGE -REDUCED INERT WEIGHTS
-INCREASED LENGTH (PROPELLANT LOADING) -REDUCED INERT WEIGHTS
MTS-1673
FIGURE
133
emphasized by the space program. The three general directions possible are (1) Earth-oriented applications, e.g., maximum economic return; (2) scientific research; and (3) exploration of the solar system. The second question posed by major policy decisions asks what specific national space goals will be established. Some examples of specific goals are (1) manned Mars/Venus landing and exploration; (2) an international space researeh facility; (3) a research station on the Moon; (4) a space station for Earth applications; and others. The third question regarding major national policy asks when the nation wants to reach its specific goals. The fiscal year 1968 will be a pivotal time for a national decision alfectlng the pace of this nation's progress in space. In these deliberations and recommendations. we are keeping our options open during fiscal year 1967.
FISCAL YEAR 1967 BUDGET BEQUEST
At this point I will review the funding required to continue our program for the next fiscal year (fig. 134). In fiscal year 1967 Manned Space Flight will require a total of $3,405.4 million for Research and Development, Construction of Facilities and Administrative Operations.
BEBEABCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Research and Development requirements are identified in the three Manned Space Flight Programs-Gemini, Apollo and Advanced Manned Missions-for a total of $3,022.8 million. Gemini In Gemini, requirements decline again for the third year, from a peak requirement of $418.9 million in fiscal year 1964 down to $308.4 million in fiscal year 1965. to $226.6 million for fiscal year 1966, to our current request of $40.6 million for fiscal year 1967. These funds will provide for the final hardware deliveries and support the last Gemini fiig'hts. I think you will agree that our investment in Gemini bas successfully validated the operational concepts and developed the skills and techniques such as long duration fiights, extravehicular maneuvers, rendezvous, and controlled reentry that are the prerequisites to even more complex space activities.
266
NASA
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT

FY 1967 BUDGET ESTIMATE
IMILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
FY 1965 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GEMINI APOLLO ADVANCED MISSIONS CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS TOTAL $2,949.0 308.4 2,614.6 26.0 199.8 281.2 $3,430.0
FY 1966 $3,204.0 226.6 2,967.4 10.0 21.4 295.5 $3,520.9
FY 1967 $3,022.8 40.6 2,974.2 8.0 54.4 328.2
$3,405.4
:
~c
FIGURE
134
Apollo
As I indicated last year, flscal year 1966 Apollo funding is supporting an intensive ground development test program at the subsystem level. The current budget request continues ground development testing of the Apollo spacecraft modules and Saturn launch vehicle stages and also provides for an intensification of ground and flight qualification testing in preparation for manned missions. Our total Apollo program requirements for fiscal year 1967 are $2,974.2 million. Spacecraft The Apollo spacecraft modules are currently undergoing a critical period of development and qualification testing on the ground in preparation for flights of the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) and the Saturn V. The first unmanned flights on the uprated Saturn I will begin in calendar year 1966 and will be followed by manned missions in Earth orbit during calendar year 1967. Unmann('(} flights on the Saturn V launch vehicle will also begin during 1967 and manned flights are planned for 1968. Funding of. $1,200.6 million is requested in fiscal year 1967 to support this effort. Saturn I Moving on to the Saturn-class launch vehicles, $216.4 million are required for the uprated Saturn I for the fiscal year 1967. Unmanned missions will be conducted this year, leading to manned missions in Earth orbit during calendar year 1967. The fiscal year 1967 funds will support a heavy production, test, and checkout effort to bring the uprat(,(} Saturn I launch vehicles to flight readiness. Saturn V We are requestin~ $1,191 million in fiscal year 1967 for the Saturn V. These funds support a critical period of continu('(} ground testing, both development
267
and qualification, and the first Saturn V launches from Launch Complex 39 at Kennedy Space Center. Dynamic testing of the entire Apollo Saturn V space vehicle, including the three stages, the instrument unit, and the spacecraft, will be conducted at Marshall Space Flight Center. Static testing of 1st aud 2d stages will be conducted at the Mississippi Test Facility and 3d stage testing will be continued at the Sacramento Test Facility site in preparation for shipment to Kennedy Space Center. These funds will also provide for a vigorous qualification test program on the 2d stage of the Saturn V. Fiscal year 1967 will be the peak year to date for production and delivery of Saturn V vehicles. In fiscal year 1967, funds provide for completion of the structural, dynamic, and Launch Complex 39 checkout ground test programs. In addition, the first Hight stages will be readied for launch at Kennedy Space Center.
Engine development
Funds in this project, for which we are requesting $111 million in fiscal year 1967, provide for the development of engines to be used for Saturn vehicles. Procurement of the engines is funded under the appropriate launch vehicle project. In addition to H-l engine field support, the fiscal year 1967 estimates provide for F-l component qualification and related engineering support, and qualification of an uprated J-2 engine. Extensive ground testing of both the F-l and J-2 will also be conducted during fiscal year 1967.
Mi8&i<m Support
Mission support requirements in fiscal year 1967 are $255.2 million. These funds cover the overall launch, fiight, crew, and recovery operations; programwide systems engineering; supporting development necessary for the successful accomplishment of manned space fiights ; and applications for the Apollo program. Operations include the activation and operation of preftight and launching facilities, mission control, Hight crew training and actual fiight operations, including recovery. The fiscal year 1967 funding provides for the extension and expansion of the operational activities provided in fiscal year 1966 and is consistent with the completion and activation of Apollo Saturn V and increasing frequency of fiight missions.
Advanced Mi&8'ion&
The objective of the Advanced Missions program is to examine advanced manned space Hight mission concepts. Our fiscal year 1967 request for this program is $8.0 million. Specific areas of investigation include manned Earthorbital, lunar, and planetary missions, as well as lunar vehicle studies.
ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS
The total Manned Space Flight Administrative Operations requirement for fiscal year 1967 is $328.2 million. These funds will provide for the operation of the three Manned Space Flight Centers: the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center at Huntsville, Alabama; the Manned 'Spacecraft Center at Houston, Texas; and the John F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The John F. Kennedy Space Cen-ter requires $98.1 million for fiscal year 1967. These funds will provide for 2,796 civil service employees and other operational costs. The Manned Spacecraft Cenier at Houston, Texas, requires $98.2 million for fiscal year 1967. The funds will be utilized for the personnel cost of 4,866 civil service employees and other operational costs. The Marshall Space Flight Center will employ 7,390 civil service personnel at Huntsville and the other three MSF locations. To operate the Center and provide for the compensation of the staff, $131.9 million will be required in fiscal year 1967. The need for greater administrative support at the Manned ~pace Flig.ht Centers in fiscal year 1967 is related principally to the increased number of manned fiights scheduled and -the resultant increase in activity at MSC and KSC. This change in pace is most pronounced at ~SC where we are providing common support, supplies and materials to the many NASA contractors at that location. The activities of these hardware contractors are being accelerated as additional facilities become operational and more of the Apollo program effort is carried on at KSC. A portion of the common support provided to stage contractors at KSC,
268
as well as the institutional support at the other two Centers, is provided through contracts with commercial firms. Also associated with the increas.e:d activity at KSC and MSC are the additional man years of effort required in tpe launch and fiight operations areas at these two Centers. These are the requirements which I previously covered in my discussion of manpower. The additional man years required, plus the cost of the civil service pay raise for a full year account for increased personnel costs.
OONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES
The total funding requirement for Manned Space Flight Construction of Facilities for fiscal year 1967 is $54.4 million. During the past five years, we have accomplished an orderly buildup of facilities to achieve our space objectives. Significant accomplishments have been made in the construction of facilities for the development, fabrication, test, checkout and launch of manned space vehicles. At Cape Kennedy, where checkout and launch of our space vehicles is conducted, this year's progress assures that facilities will be ready for Saturn V launch program. At the Manned Spacecraft Center at Houston, most major facilities are completed. Spacecraft development and astronaut training will continue in line with program schedules. Facilities at MSC progressed satisfactorily. The Lunar Module engine test facilities at White Sands Test Facility are complete and operational. At the Marshall Space Flight Center, the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans and the various plants and facilities for vehicle and engine development, manufacture and test, we are in a fully operational status. Significant progress has also been made at the Mississippi Test Facility during the past year so that the facility will move from the construction and activation stage to actual operation during the current year.
Kennedy Space Center
Accomplishmi>nts in construction during the paAt year at Kennedy Space Center peaked with the completion of more than 25 significant facilitieA projectA. During thiA period, the Launch Complex 39 Vehicle Assembly Building was structurally topped out; all three Launch Umbilical Towers were erected and structurally completed; the Launch Control Center was completed with two firing rooms occupied; and the furnishing and outfitting of two low bays in the Vehicle Assembly Building was accomplished (see fig. 80). Pad A and the Crawlerway were completed (see fig. 78) ; the ordnance storage building and an instrumentation building were also completed. Major facilities not associated with Launch Complex 39 which were completed include Launch Complex 34 for the uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB), Range Instrumentation Sites, and the Apollo Static Test Facility for spacecraft engine checkout (fig. 135). Hypergolic Building No.2, Cryogenic Building No.2, the Central Instrumentation Facility and the Flight Crew Training Building, the Launch Equipment Shop, Vehicle Maintenance and Service Facility and extension to Central Supply Facility also were completed. Other completions include the Base Operations Building, the 3rd fioor addition to the Operations and Checkout Facility, KSC Headquarters Building and significant sections of railroads, roads and other major facilities. Through the remainder of this calendar year, we h'ave scheduled rthe activation of Launch Complex 37 for the uprated Saturn I, the first and second high bays in the Vehicle Assembly Building. and the Mamie Rprv!<'p Stru('tllre (ft!!'. ]R~). Othpr actiYations include the Cryogenic Test Building No.2, Hypergolic Test Building 2, the propellant systems for both Pad A and Pad B, and both CrawlerTransporters. In summary, major facilities will be complete by the end of the year, and a launch capabilHy will he available on Launch Complex 39. For fiscal year 1967 at Cape Kennedy we are requesting funds to continue outfitting of 'all elpments of Launch Complex 39 which are required to perform assembly. checkout and launc1l of Ithe Apollo Saturn V mis.<rlon; a project fur an extpnf<ion to the Central Rupnly Complex to proyide necei'lsary storage facilities; and an addition to the KSC Headquarters Building which will proyide urgently required space for personnel. Finally, we are requesting funds for the
269
FIGURE 135
FIGURE
136
270
continued development and completion of the Merritt Island Launch Area utility system by additions to the electrical distribution and communications systems.
Manned Space(J1"att Center
The orderly buildup of construction at the Clear Lake Sirte near Houston continued to a point where mosrt major facilirties were completed. The Mission Control Center-Houston was used as backup to the Mission Control Center at Oape Kennedy during the Gemini III flight in March, and became completely operational commencing with the Gemini IV flight in June 1965. Other facilities that became operational during 1965 included the Thermochemical Test Complex, the Mission Simulation and Training Facility, the Anechoic Test Chamber Building and Antenna Test Range, the Acoustic Test Laboratory, and the Contraotor Support Facility. Additional major milestones occurring during 1965 were award of contracts for the Project Engineering Facility, the addition to Central Heating and Cooling Plant, the Electronic Systems Compatibility Facility, the Ultra-High Vacuum Space Chamber Facility, the Technical Services Facility, and the Lunar Mission and Space Exploration Facility. These facilities are all scheduled to be completed during 1966. The Crew Systems Facility, currently under construction, also will be completed. The Flight Acceleration Facility and the Environmental Testing Laboratory are scheduled to become operational during the first half of the current year. For the fiscal year 1967 program at the Manned SpacE'craft CE'nter we are requesting a Lunar Sample Receiving Laboratory which will house all activities and functions pertinent to receipt, processing, and distribution of samples of lunar materials, as well as the quarantine of lunar exploration teams and spacecraft. Also in our fiscal year 1967 request is a facility to provide space and supporting facilities for an additional Command Module simulator, and a Lunar Module simulator. We are also requesting a new Engineering Building in order to improve a critical shortage of enginE'ering and administrative space. Finally, our fiscal year 1967 request includes a project for additions to the existing heating, air conditioning and electrical systems which are consistent with the development of the Center.
White Sands Test Facility
During 1965, construction of the Lunar Module Test Facilities was carried to completion at White Sands Test Facility. Facilities are thus availa'ble for testing the ascE'nt and descent engines, with an environmental simulation capability available on two of three test stands. The White Sands Test Facility now has the capability for developmental testing of all spacecraft propulsion elements. There are no fiscal year 1967 requests for this location.
Marshall Space Flight Center
At the Marshall Space Flight Center, several major milestones were achieved which provide a permanent base for continued development in support of Manned Space Flight programs. Facilities completed and placed in operation during the year includE'd the Saturn Static Test Facility for the first stage of Saturn V; the Liquid Hydrogen Facility; modification of West Side of Static Test Stand for F-1 engine developmental testing, and the Acoustic Model Test Facility. Other facilities in this category were the Hazardous Operations Lab()ratory; hangar for Vehicle Components and Assembly Station; addition to the Test Support Shop; Project Engineer Office; addition to the O>mputation Division Building; and a significant portion of utility installations, including the completion of the Saturn V road to the Barge Dock. Also completed and placed in operation were the o>mponent Test Facilit.y, Advanced Saturn Ground Support Equipment Test Facility, and that portion of the Saturn Support Test Area which includE'S the addition to the Components Support Building and the Acoustic Control and Communications Center. In addition, the F-1 Engine Test Stand which was completed in 1964 was placed in operation. Work now under contract and to be completed by June of this year includes such major facilities as the Acceleration Test and Calibration Facility; additions to the Components Test Facility and the Saturn V Ground Support Equipment Test Facility; expansion and modernization of High PressnrE' Gas and Propellant Systems, modernization of Instrumentation and Control Systems in
271
the East Area, extension to the Propulsion and Vehicle Engnieering Laboratory, and utility installations for these facilities. For fiscal year 1967 the only Marshall Space Flight Center project in our program is the Hazardous Operations Laboratory, which will provide additional capability for the development and evaluation of accurate and reliable in-flight instrumenta tioIL
Michoud Assembly Fa.cility
Dur ing 1965 at Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, where the Saturn I and Saturn V first. stages are manufactured, we completed the construction necessary for a fully operational plant. Facilities completed during the year were road a nd airstrip rehabilitation., and parking and security improvements. In addition, the Hydrostatic Test and Cleaning Facility and the Vertical Assembly Facility became operational. Soon to be completed are the Vehicle Component Supply Building, the Contractor Service Building, extension to the Marine Dock an d improvements to the storm drainage system. For our fiscal year 1967 program, we are requesting approval of a project to expand and modify the chemical waste disposal system. This will be accomplished thr ough the rehabilitation of an existing injection well and the construction of a second one.
MisSissippi Test Facility
Significant progress was made in the con struction and activation of the Mississippi T est Facility during calendar year 1965. .T he first Saturn V second stage test stand and all its supporting facilities achieved operational readiness. Other major facilities that became operational include the Laboratory and Engineering Building, the Central Contr ol Facility, the Electr onics, Instrumentation and Materials Laborator y, the High Pressure Water Facility, the Test Maintenance Building and t he Inflammable Materials and Compressed Gases Storage Facility. During this period the Navigation Lock, Bascule B r idge and the Canal System to the S-II complex and cryogenic docks also achieved operational capability (flg. 137). The major road and railroad networks were also completed.
NAVIGATION LOCK &BASCULE BRIDGE
FIGURE
137
272
By the end of calendar year 1966, all authorized work, with the exception of the bridge f or U.S. Interstate Highway No. 10 and the 2nd pOSition of the dual Saturn V 1st stage stand will be completed (fig. 138). Thus, the Mississippi Test Facility will move from the construction and activation stage to a tully operational status. Saturn V 2d stage testing will be in full swing and the 1st stage firing on the B-2 position will take place by the end of the year. Our fiscal year 1967 request includt!s modifications to the Saturn V 1st stage dual stand flame deflectors and additions to the high pressure water and high pressure gas systems. Also included are the procurement and installation of additional data acquisition equipment in the 1st stage stand, the 2d stage stand, the Te t Control Centers, and the Data Acquisition Facility.
Various Locations
The facilities for manufacture, assembly and checkout of the Saturn V 2d stage (S- II) and 3d stage (S-I VB), as well as the F-1 and J-2 engines, are now fully operationa l. In 1965, our efforts were directed toward the completion of the 2d stage Vertical Checkout Facility at Seal Beach, and the 3d stage Vertical Checkout Facility at the Sacramento Test Facility. Also at the Sacramento Facility the conversion of Beta 1 from a battleship to an acceptance test stand was accomplished. For fiscal yea r 1967, under the Various Locations budget category, we are r eq uesting only one project to provide additional Saturn upper stage components test facilities at the Sacramento Test Facility. These facilities will be used for testing complete subassemblies and major components of the Saturn S-IVB stage.
CONCLUSION
In my presentation today I have reported on the excellent progress and the major problems of the past year in meeting program obj ectives, and have discussed our plans for the coming fi cal year.
MISSISSIPPI TEST" FACilITY

L-____________
SATURN Y 1st STAGE DUAL POSITION . TEST STAND

________
~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
__________
FIGURE 138
273
I have reported on the status of our management of the Manned Space Flight programs, discussing personnel and organizational changes, incentive contracting, and program planning and management techniques. I have reviewed our prodUctive relationships with the Department of Defense and with other government agencies, and with industry. My review of the Gemini program highlighted the progress made toward operational capability and other program objectives with each of the five manned flights following the unmanned qualification flight early in 1965. Key accomplishments of these missions were long duration flight, extravehicular activity, and orbital rendezvous of two twoman Gemini spacecraft only inches apart. In reviewing the Apollo program, I described our objectives, and the Apollo Saturn I and Apollo Saturn V space vehicle flight schedule. I discussed the management processes used on the Apollo program to overcome technical and administrative problems and to reach cost, schedule and performance milestones. I have discussed the resources capability generated by the Apollo program in terms of funds, management, people, and facilities, both government and industry. I also reviewed the evolution, objectives, and operations of Apollo Applica. tions as an outgrowth of the Apollo program, using Apollo-developed capabilities for other missions. I noted the evolution of Apollo Applications planning, the Apollo capabilities available for Apollo Applications and the operational potential of such applications in Earth orbit, lunar orbit, and on the Moon's surface. I described the operational side of the current Manned Space Flight programs, specifically the Mission Operations for Apollo and Gemini. I reviewed the planning for future programs conducted by Advanced Manned Missions. I discussed the alternative considerations which can be applied to selection of future program alternatives, and reviewed our present and planned studies for Earth-orbital and lunar missions. Finally, I reviewed the funding required to continue our program for fiscal year 1967, a total of $3,405.4 million for Research and Development, Construction of Facilities and Administrative Operations. I appreciate this opportunity to meet with you and to report on the nation's Manned Space Flight program.
Page intentionally left blank

WEDNESDAY, ::MARCH 2, 1966
UNITED
STATES
SENATE,
CoMMITrEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES,
Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :05 a.m., in room 235, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Anderson, Young, Cannon, Smith, and Jordan. Also present: James J. Gehrig, staff director; William J. Deachman; Everard H. Smith, Jr.; Craig Voorhees; Dr. Glen P. Wilson, professional staff members; Donald H. Brennan, research assistant; Mary Rita Robbins, clerical assistant; Mrs. Eilene Galloway, special consultant to the committee; Frank Krebs, assistant to Senator Cannon, and Sam Bouchard, assistant chief clerk. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Dr. Newell, we are glad to have you here. We appreciate having you back again. Before you proceed, I would like to enter for the record the bIOgraphy of Dr. Newell. (The biography of Dr. Newell follows:)
HOMER
E.
NEWELL, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE ScIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
Dr. Homer E. Newell is Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications in NASA Headquarters. He was the Director of the Office of Space Sciences from November 1, 1961, until he assumed his present position November 1, 1963. Previously he was Deputy Director, Space Flight Programs. As head of the Office of Space Science and Applications, Dr. Newell administers the following NASA program areas: Bioscience, Communications and Navigation, Lunar and Planetary Meteorological, Manned Space Science, Grants and Research Contracts, Geophysics and Astronomy, and Launch Vehicles and Propulsion. An internationally known authority in the field of atmospheric and space sciences, he is the holder of the American Rocket Society's Pendray Award for 1958; the 1960 Space Flight Award, granted annnally by the American Astronautical SOCiety to the person who contributed most to the advancement of astronautical sciences; the AMVETS Civil Servant of the Year Award for 1961; Career Service Award of the National Civil Service League for 1965; and the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service for 1965. He joined NASA in October 1958 from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory where he was Acting Superintendent of the Atmosphere and AstrophysiCS Division. In this position he was also the Science Program Coordinator for Project Vanguard, the U.S. scientific Earth satellite program for the Intel'Dlltional Geophysical Year. Dr. Newell was born in Holyoke, Mass., and earned both B.A. and M.A. degrees in teaching at Harvard University and a Ph. D. in mathematics at the University of Wisconsin in 1940. He was awarded a doctor of science (honorary) degree by Central Methodist College, Fayette, Mo., on September 6. 1963. From 1940 to 1944 he was an instructor and later assistant professor of mathematics at the University of Maryland, and a ground instruct()I'in navigation with the Civil Aeronautics Administration from 1942 to 1943. From 1951 to 1958, as 275
276
lecturer in mathematics for the University of Maryland, Dr. Newell participated in the NRL-University of Maryland off-campus education program by teaching graduate courses in mathematics to NRL and other Government employees. Dr. Newell joined the Naval Research Laboratory in 1944, and became head of the Rocket Sonde Branch in 1947. In this position, he was in charge of the upper atmosphere research program of the NRL. In 1955 he was named Acting Superintendent of the Atmosphere and Astrophysics Division. His scientific committee memberships have included the Special Subcommittee on the Upper Atmosphere of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (1947-51), and the Rocket and Satellite Research Panel (formerly Upper Atmosphere Rocket Research Panel) since 1947. He was chairman of the Rocket and Satellite Research Panel in 1959 and 1960. He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences' Panels on Rocketry and Earth Satellite Program for the IG Y, and was chairman of ,a special committee of the Rocketry Panel for planning and organizing this country's IGY sounding rocket program at Fort Churchill in Canada. Dr. Newell is presently a member of the S'pace Science Board Committee for International Relations of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. In addition he serves on several committees and working groups of the Committee on Space Research of the International Council of Scientific Unions, of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, and of the International Scientific Radio Union. IDr. Newell is the author of numerous scientific articles and seven books ranging from technical works to popular treatments of space science and rockets. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, and the Cosmos Club. In addition, he holds membership in the following professional societies: American Association for the Advancement of Science (fellow) ; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (fellow) ; American Geophysical Union (fellow) ; and the Research Society of America. He served as president of the Planetary Sciences Section of the American Geophysical Union during the period 1962-64. Dr. Newell, his wife, a son, and daughter reside in Washington, D.C. There are also two married daughters.
The
CHAfRMAN.
We would like to have you proceed, Doctor.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HOMER E. NEWELL, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT C. SEAMANS, JR., DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; AND BERNARD SISCO, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM REVIEW AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, OSSA
Dr. NEWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ohairman, I have a rather detailed statement which has already been made available to the committee. I would like at this time, with your permission, to submit this for the record (see p. 33(i) and to present a brief summary of the longer statement. The CHAIRMAN. That will be all rIght.
SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS PROGRAM
Dr. NEWELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a pleasure and a privilege to appear before you at this time to report on progress in our national Space Science and Applications Program, and to seek your continuing support for this very exciting and highly productive effort. I This program is the handiwork of over 60,000 workers in Government, industry, and universities, with substantial participation from other countries. I think we can take considerable pride in their
277
accomplishments of last year, which have done much to strengthen our position of leadership in the scientific exploration of spa{)e and the useful application of space knowledge and technology.
1965 FLIGHT PERFORMANCE
Sixteen successful space missions were flown in 1965 for an 84- percent success rate. These included 5 additional EXJ?lorer satellItes, bringing the total to 31. These Explorers are prOVIding important new observations of the geodetic properties of the Earth, the Earth's magnetosphere, its ionosphere, the Sun, and solar-terrestrial relationships. These observations are supplemented by those of two new satellites built by Canada and France, and launched by the United States. Our second Orbiting Geophysical Observatory was launched into a nearly-polar orbit as part of a massive assault on understanding the complex interactions among the various phenomena observed in space. The second Orbiting Solar Observatory was successfully orbited to study the driving force behind most of these phenomena, the Sun. In the area of practical applications, two additional Tiros spacecraft were launched, ending the NASA series at nine straight successes, and providing the Department of Commerce with a good start. The subsequent successful launches of ESSA I and II for the Department of Commerce early this year inaugurated a national operational weather satellite system under the management of the Environmental Science Services Administration, with NASA providing Tiros-type spa{)eCraft and the launch services on & reimbursable basis. This surely is & milestone in & series of solid practical returns to the supporters of this program. Another such milestone was the initiation of regular commercial transatlantic communications service with the Communications Satellite Corp.'s Early Bird I. NASA provided the launch services on a reimbursable basis. The series of live television international town meetings illustrates some of the potential for improved communications and understanding among nations via this medium. The Early Bird was patterned after NASA's successful synchronous satellites, Syncom II and III. These satellites, which have been turned over to the Department of Defense, have been located over the western Pacific and Indian Oceans where the military services are experimenting with their operational use. Our explorations of the Moon, planets, and interplanetary space achieved 100 percent success for the first time. Rangers VIII and IX culminated this series of flights designed to provide photo reconnaissance of the lunar surface in advance of Surveyor and Apollo landings. The tot&l of 7,000 high qu&lity photographs taken of two mari& &nd the crater Alphonsus yielded surface resolutions approaching 1 foot in the last frames and showed the topographv of all three areas to be very similar and to be adequately level for"'landings. Photographs from the recent successful landing of Luna 9 by the Soviets &t & different location generally confirm these topographic observations, and, in addition, indicate that the surface is firm enough to support a landed spacecraft. The Mariner IV successfully completed its 8-month, 326-millionmile journey to Mars and yielded a wealth of information about this
278
neighboring planet. Unlike the Earth, Mars has no appreciable magnetic field or trapped radiation. It has an ionosphere, however. The Martian atmosphere is very thin, with a surface pressure less than 1 percent of Earth's. Most spectacular were the photographs showing its previously unknown surface to be cratered like the Moon. The first in a new series of Pioneer spacecraft was launched to measure radiations and fields in interplanetary space to distances beyond 50 million miles. Our launch vehicle activities were highlighted by the successful completion of the Centaur development for the first Surveyor flights. In addition, a greatly uprated version of the Delta was successfully introduced, and the Scout achieved 100 percent reliability with a string of successes now totaling 15.
TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SOUNDING ROCKETS LAUNCHED
Nearly 250 successful sounding rockets were launched in support of the Physics and Astronomy and the Meteorology programs. Importantly, man in space began to realize some of his potential as a scientific investigator. Photographs of both the Earth and sky taken on the Gemini flights illustrate the potential of such flights to make important contributions to astronomy and to geography, the latter subject embracing geology, water resources, glaciers, oceanography, forestry, and agriculture.
SUSTAINING UNIVERSITY PROGRAM
The Sustaining University Program continued its successful and orderly development with over 3,000 doctoral candidates now enrolled, over 50 universities developing their potential to support the space program under NASA grants, and with 33 facility grants to make this expansion of activity possible. All in all, Mr. Chairman, in 1965 this program achieved both the momentum and the successes for which 'we ha,'e been striving so hard. Only two of the many original projects which comprise the Space Science and Applications Program have yet to achieve their first flights. These are Surveyor and the Orbiting Astronomical Obseryatory, and these will fly within the next few months. Although a number of early projects such as Echo, Relay, Syncom, Tiros, and Ranger have been successfully completed and phased out, there will be no slackening of the pace of flights in H)66 and 1967. In addition to Surveyor and OAO, the next generation of missions are all scheduled to achieve first flights, including the Lunar Orbiter, Biosatellite, and the Applications Technology Satellite.
TIGHT BUDGET CAUSES REDUCTIONS
. Whether ~r not we .caJ~ maintain this level of activity beyond 1967 problematICal at thiS tllne. In fiscal year 1967 for research and development we are requesting a budget of $661.4 million compared with the fiscal year 1966 level of $783.2 million and the fiscal year 1965 level of $732.4 million (fig. 139). This reduction has been necessary to accommodate budget constraints imposed by pressing national needs in
IS
NASA AUTHORIZATION F OR FISCAL YEAR 19 6 7
279
FY 1965
lIN
_IoU'"...
snu
TOTAL
!I 5
p:q" .............
143 .5
....
l--]'" --~ ~-,--",,-~f

ZII .O 251 .3 -- ....
251 .0
.0 31)1
.~
234f
46 .0 31~
------____1
~' - --- - u"i3
139
185.1
ll B---- - ---~
DISTRIBUTED AMONG DISCIPlINES _
F I GURE
other areas. I hope this level will not prevail in subsequent years because it. will indeed inhibit the development of our program. The major immediate impacts of this reduction have been the cancellation of the Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory (AOSO) and the deferral of the Voyager from 19i1 to 1973. In addition, followon procurements of other spacecraft series haye been deferred at least one fiscal year. In attempting to minimize the impact of t.hese actions, we have taken the foll o,ying steps. W e are studying yarious ways to uprate the cu rren t Orbiting Solar ObserYatories (OSO ) to do some of the tasks planned for the AOSO. In addition, we are attempting to accelerate ou r efforts tow'ards preparing solar telescopes to be ca rried on planned flights of the Apollo Applications P rogram. While these steps ,,"ill not replace the AOSO, they may result in an adequate solar observational program as well as lay the groundwork for large manned telescopes 111 the 1970's and beyond. The deferral of Voyager to 197:3 left such a gap in the U.S. program for planetary exploration that the successful Mariner program was reinstated. The reason this country has led the \yorId in planetary exploration is not the lack of Soyiet effort. Their program is apparently seYeral times the size of our;:, \yith multiple flights to Mars and '~enus at each opportunity, using heayier spacecraft. Whereas ~farjner II and ~Lll' iner IY are the only craft to complete their mis39- 9H 0-66---19
280
sions to date, there is little doubt that the Soviets will soon start succeeding, and may indeed have by the time this paper is delivered. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have learned recently of the impacting on Venus of their Venik III spacecraft and the passing close by Venus of their Venik II. PLANETS AS MAJOR GOALS The CHAIRMAN. Since you broke into your own paper here, would you then, in view of that, still leave your statement as it is, "this country has led the world in planetary exploration"? Dr. NEWELL. I would think so, Mr. Chairman, in view of our priority in time in this field. Also, as of the present time, we do not know of the results obtained by the Soviets from these spacecraft. We shall look forward, of course, to any publication they will make on the results obtained. The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think that their Venus probe changes your statement about our leading the world in planetary exploration? Dr. NEWELL. I would think not at the present time, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Please continue. Dr. NEWELL. Nevertheless, we can hope that our single Mariner flight to Venus in 1967, using a modified spare Mariner on hand, and the two Mariners to Mars in 1969, with up rated versions of this craft, will mainta.in us near the forefront of this exciting area of space exploration until the Voyager becomes operational in 1973. Starting with Mars, we may then begin a comprehensive examination of the near planets from orbit about them, and the study of surface properties and the search for extraterrestrial life from landed capsules. The Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences has recommended the planets as the major goal for UB. space exploration in the 1970's. We stand ready and eager to undertake this challenge. It is only by continuing to make forward-looking decisions that we assure for the future the same rich harvest of knowledge and technology that we have enjoyed in the past and are enjoying today. This completes my summary, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Did you mean to change the word "designated" to "recommended" ? Dr. NEWELL. I certainly did, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRl\IAN. Would you explain the difference between them? Dr. NEWELL. The Space Science Board of the National Academy is not in a position to designate the goals of the United States. This is for the Government to do, and, therefore, I changed this to "recommended," and indeed, that. is what the Academy has done. OUTLINES Nf;ED FOR SURVEYOR MISSION The CHAIRMAN. You say "That the photographs from the recent successful landing of Luna 9 by the Soviets at a different location generally confirm these topographic observations, and in addition, indicate that the surface is firm enough to support a landed spacecraft."
281
Does that change the mission of your Surveyor any ~ Dr. NEWELL. It does not, in my estimation, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. What will Surveyor determine for you ~ Dr. NEWELL. The Surveyor spacecraft will do-several things for us that we have not learned from the Luna, although we have received encouragement from the landing of the Luna 9 spacecraft on the surface and from the knowledge that the surface is firm. We still have the following to do: To investigate other sites on the lunar surface, to make landings at areas within the chosen Apollo landing region, to perform the actual landing maneuver ourselves. I think it is of importance to note that the landing sequence of Surveyor is similar in all respects to the landing sequence for the Lunar Excursion Module, and, therefore, the early practice of landing this spacecraft on the lunar surface will be very useful as a preliminary to the landing of LEM. Also, the Surveyor spacecraft is instrumented with acceleration gages and strain gages on the landing struts to give us the landing dynamics, and the decelerations that occur on impact, which will give us better and more quantitative data on the bearing strength of thE' lunar surface than we have been able to get so far in trying to deduce things from Luna 9. In addition, the television camera on Surveyor will be able to view what has happened to one of the landing feet on Surveyor and, by looking at the pattern traced about on the lunar surface, we will be able to tell whether the lunar surface has some cohesiveness or is of 1\ sandy material. The CHAIRMAN. But you are only trying to land a ship there, are you not~ Dr. NEWELL. I did not understand, Mr. Chairman.
UJNAR SURFACE
The CHAIRMAN . Well, you are trying to land a spaceship on the Moon. If you find you cannot land it, what difference does it make to you what kind of soil it is? Dr. NEWELL. Well, we need to know the difference in the kind of soil at several different points in order to know whether or not the range of bearing strengths covered by the Lunar Excursion Module design, and also by the Surveyor design, is adequate for what we wi11 receIve there. From Luna 9, we can deduce that the bearing strength of the lunar surface is J?erhaps on the order of 1 pound per square inch. I have heard estImates that it might support 2 pounds per square inch, but a large number of our experts feel that that is bemg optimistic (some estimates being as low as 0.1 pound per square inch) and that we must indeed get more quantitative measurements first in order to be sure of these data which are important to extrapolate the Luna 9 experience to spacecraft of the weight and landing charactpristics of LEM. The CHAIRMAN. Did you hear Dr. Mueller's testimony yesterday ~ Dr. NEWELL. Yes; I did. The CHAIRMAN. DId he not sort of lean to the 2-pounds-per-squareinch theory? Dr. NEWELL. Yes; he did.
282
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a difference of opinion inside NASA on this question? Dr. NEWELL. I think there is a difference of opinion in the scientific community. This merely illustrates the difficulty of trying t~ makp estimates from the limited amount of nonquant itative informatIOn.
COST OF
SURVEYOR
The CHAIRMAN. What will Surveyor cost-$468 million, or is it above that now? Dr. NEWELL. The total cost of Surveyor for 10 spacecraft would be $551 million, Mr. Chairman, without launch vehicles. The CHAIRMAN. With the launch vehicles, it is about $800 million, isitnot? Dr. NEWELL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. And you think you can show a definite need for $800 million of additional work up there to find out whether it is 1 or2 pounds? Dr. NEWELL. I think so, Mr. Chairman. I think that it is important to expand the perspective of this discussion to recognize that what we are developing here is a total capability for exploriNg our nearest neighbor in space. That total capabilty will consist of the unmanned and manned techniques. They will work in partnership to do this job of exploring the most likely object in the solar system to tell us about the origin of the Earth and other planets, and the properties of the planet on which we live. NATIONAL GOALS The CHAIRMAN. Do we have a different national goal than the OIll' President Kennedy announced, of landing a man on the Moon and bringing him safely back in this decade? Dr. NEWELL. We have in the Space Act a goal of expanding human knowledge of the atmosphere and space, as well as the objective of landing a man on the Moon and bringing him back. Now, in order to expand human knowledge of the atmosphere and space, one of the most important areas of investigation is the solar system. The practi~ cal implications of what we learn about the solar system are manifold. One of the most important areas is the study of our atmosphere, its origin, the origin of the Earth, and the better understanding of the physics of the Earth. In the case of the Moon, we have a body which has been without all atmosphere for millions of years; therefore, it has on its surface the record of the early history of the solar system. It is therefore one of the best sources of information about this important scientific topie. I would say, therefore, that in pursuing the objective, which I believe is the first one stated in the Space Act of 1958, of expanding human knowledge, we want to develop and use the capability to explore and investigate the Moon. 1Ve want to do that in the most effective way possible. The most effective way is to use the combination of manned techniques and unmanned techniques, sending the man there to get initial explorations of what the Moon is like in a selected number of spots, then to use, in association with the manned ,technique
283
and in the light of what he has learned, unmanned techniques to go to other spots to carry the investigation to places on the Moon where it would be hazardous for man to ~o, and to explore other places on the Moon in advance of sending additional manned expeditions there in later programs. The CHAIRMAN. It is a rather expensive pattern, is it not, though, to spend all the money if it has now been detennined that it is firm enough to support a landed spacecraft ~ Dr. NEWELL. I think that it is, in contrast to being an expensive pattern, a very good investment to provide a very careful basis for committing man to an expedition that must be one of the most hazardous ever undertaken by man. To rely on one landing on the Moon, which has no atmosJ.>here, which is exposed to the solar wind, which may have radioactivIties and so on, without going forward to investigate as much of this hazardous environment as possible, seems to me unwise and irresponsible. The program that we have planned in NASA and jointly between the Office of Space Science and Applications and the Office of Manned Space Fhght is to obtain as many landings at as many locations as possible netween now and the first attempt at a manned lunar landing. This seems the only responsible and WIse way to proceed with a program of this sort.
RUSSIA CAPABLE OF EARLY MOON LANDING
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the Russians will not land anybody else on the Moon until 1970 ~ Dr. NEWELL. The Russians, I believe, have the capability of making an early landing on the Moon. The CHAIRMAN. Would they not have the capability of landing another device on the Moon as well ~ Dr. NEWELL. I am sure they do, and I would be surprised if they did not continue. The CHAIRMAN. Could we not learn from those? Do we have to supply our own? Dr. NEWELL. I am sure that the Russians will send other spacecraft to the Moon, and I am hoping that they will publish their results~ because this will be useful to us and we will be able to learn from them. But I would say also that it is extremely unwise for us to rely entirely on someone else's efforts in an exercise of this sort. I would reemphasize that part of the value of the Surveyor program is in our own people carrying out the launch, midcourse maneuvers, terminal guidance, and landing operations, which will provide us with very vauable information to use in connection with the lunar landing project itself, in addition to the valuable data that will be obtained after the spacecraft has landed.
FISCAL YEAR 1967 BUDGET REQUEST
The CHAIRMAN. What was the fiscal 1967 request for your office that went to the Bureau of the Budget ~ Dr. NEWELL. We made a request of $175 million more than was indicated in the final budget.
284
APOLLO APPLICATIONS The CHAIRMAN. How much of your budg-et could you identify as being properly applicable to the Apollo ApplIcations? Dr. NEWELL. We have $25 million distributed throughout the budget in what we call Manned Space Science. These $25 million pertain to the development of experiments for such things as A polIo Applications. SPACE SCIENCE GOALS BEYOND 1970 The CHAIRMAN. Have any goals been established for space science for the period after 1970 ~ Dr. NEWELL. We have underway a study program on Voyager which is a large-scale spacecraft program for the investigation of the solar system. The first flights in this program are contemplated to lhl flights to Mars starting in 1973. This is a major goal that we are in the process of moving forward on, Mr. Chairman, with studies, and we will be coming to you in fiscal year 1968 with requests for funding to move forward in this program. The CHAIRMAN. Can you list the goals of your planetary space programs? Dr. NEWELL. I can list the goals that we are studying and from which we will select within NASA missions to recommend to this committee. As Dr. Seamans has indicated, we are in the process of studying this problem of what our next goal should be. So in reviewing the possibilities, I should make plain that I am not talking at the present time of approved programs or of programs that we have requested the committee to support. Basically, our planetary goals are encompassed in wha:t might be called the exploration of the solar system for the purpose of illuminating our investigation of our own Earth and understanding the Sun and its effects uron the Earth. The best way to do this with our present scientific capabilities is to study the planets at the same time we study intensively our own Earth. The planets Mars and Venus have a special interest in that they are similar to the Earth, yet have some small differences, and, therefore, they are our first objectives for exploration in our ~lanetary program. The planet Jupiter has a special interest because It is quite different from the Earth-like planets, and may indeed be made of material that existed in the very early formation of the solar system. So a study of this planet could be quite illuminating in this overall problem of the origin of the solar system. Indeed, there are some people who raise the unanswered question as to whether or not .Jupiter might still be a star and not just a dead planet. So I would say that the study of Jupiter would be the next III our order of interest in studying the solar system. Then we would go from that to an investigation of other planets similar to Jupiter, like Saturn; then, other bodies of the solar system, like comets, asteroids, and so on. This, in capsule form, lays out a possible approach to the exploration of the planets and the solar system.
285
VOYAGER FUNDING AND SCHEDULE The CHAIRMAN. The only reason I asked about this is that there are a great many people in the Congress who may have questions as to whether billions of dollars might be spent or should be spent to determine whether Jupiter is or is not a star. Not everybody has the same scientific interest III it that perhaps the scientists do. How much money has been invested in the VOY8.2:er program to date Dr. NEWELL. If I may expand upon that last point you raised, Mr. Chairman, about whether a program of this sort is worth billions of dollars, we feel very strongly, and we hope that we can persuade the committee, that investment in scientific research, even though it may appear to be quite esoteric, is an extremely valuable thing, that the health of a national economy in the present-day technological age depends on having a mixture of basic research, applied research, and development and application. The basic research element, of course, is what we are referring to when we talk about the exploration of the solar system. But it forces a technological development that is very similar to the forcing function of applied research. In fact, over the last several years, I have had in my office an operation of identifying the applications results that spin off from om scientific research. They turn out to be remarkably similar in quantity, quality, and diversity to the applications results that come from the applied research effort of NASA. So I put forward such esoteric things as the investigation of Jupiter as of value in forcing ourselves to move ahead on the forefront not only of science, but of technology and of technological stren~h. To answer the second part of your comment and questIOn, Mr. Chairman, in 1965 we expended $7.2 million on Voyager, and in 1966 we anticipate obligating $17 million for a total of $24.2 million. BEST DATES FOR MARS EXPLORATION The CHAIRMAN. Referring to your previous answer, and I merely want to point out to you that those of us who have the responsibilities for defending your budget on the floor encounter a few people who have questions of this nature, and we want to try to get your position in the record. There are those people who are very much interested in other parts of the national economy. Some are interested in water pollution-there is that issue, too-and I hate to have this cut out because there is not enough money there in order to carry out an investigation of whether Jupiter is or is not a star. They have the right to have their answer first. With regard to the revised Voyager program plans, is it correct that the 1970 Mars window is one of the less desirable times for launching a spaceship to Mars in terms of energy requirements ~ Dr. NEWELL. The most desirable launch windows from the point of view of energy requirements come in 1969 and 1971. Then the launch energy requirements began to build up, and in 1973 and 1975 they reach quite high values. The 1973 window is intermediate between the most desirable and the most difficult. The CHAIRMAN. Last fall it was reported, with regard to the landing ofa capsule on Mars in 1973, that it was one of the worst times
286
to search for life on that planet, and 1969 was one of the best chances you would have for this purpose, because existing evidence is that Mars has a strong season of dependence; is that correct? Dr. NEWELL. Yes, of the range of opportunities between 1969 and 1975, the best time is in 1969 and 1971. It begins to be less good in 1973. VOYAGER BUDGET The CHAIRMAN. How much did NASA have in its budget request for Voyager before it was designated or decided to go ahead with further exploration in fiscal 1968 ? Dr. NEWELL. We had $118 million slated for Voyager in our original request. The CHAIRMAN. And you now have how much? Dr. NEWELL. We now have $10 million for Voyager. The CHAIRMAN. Would it be possible to reinstate the Voyager program now and still be able to launch the 1971 Mars vehicle? Dr. NEWELL. It would be very tight. It is in the realm of possibility. It could be done. The CHAIRMAN. How much money would have to be added to the budget for fiscal 1966 and fiscal 1967 to have a Voyager Mars mission in 1971? Dr. NEWELL. In addition to having the $118 million in fiscal 1967, which had originally been in our request, we would have to replace the funding in fiscal 1966 which had originally been planned for Voyager and which has been reprogramed in order to pick up the Mariner flights that have been scheduled in the program now to fill the gap introduced by delaying the Voyager. That would be about an additIOnal $30 million in 1966. The CHAIRMAN. The total would be about $150 million? Dr. NEWELL. That is about right. OTHER PLANETARY PROBE PROJEOTS The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other planetary probes under consideration which could be accomplished for less money than, say, the Voyager or even the Mariner probe, now scheduled for Venus and Mars in 1967 and 1969, respectively, which would provide the United States with a strong interplanetary program? Dr. NEWELL. With the last phrase that you put in there, Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. There are other possibilities, but they would not provide as strong a planetary program as I think we have presented to the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith? PROGRAMS AF.FEOTED BY BUDGET OUT Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, you asked the question of Dr. Newell about his original budget. I'd like to follow this up. Dr.. Newell, :you mentioned the two major programs that are affected by thIS reductIOn. What other specifio programs would be affected? Dr. NEWELL. There was a slight reduction, Senator Smith, in the university program from the level of effort of the preceding year, $46
287
million to $41 million. There were spacecraft that we had planned to order earlier in our observatory series which have been delayed, and there is some stretchout in the meteorology program due to the funding impact.
APPRAISAL OF SOVIET PROGRAM
Senator SMITH. You also say in your statement that the Soviet planetary: program is several times the size of ours. On Monday, Mr. Webb saId, in answer to a question by Senator Jordan, that if anything, the Soviet program is more diversified than ours at the moment. I would like to have the benefit of your appraisal of their program now, and as you expect it to develop, for the committee. Dr. NEWELL. I would be glad to do that. In regard to the planetary effort, the Soviets have made launches I\t every- available opportunity, whereas the United States has not. TheIr activity has been building up in rate so that we may expect them to continue to make launches to the planets Venus and Mars at the opportunities between now and the 1970's, whereas we will skip some of those opportunities. With regard to the scientific satellites, the Soviets have been greatly accelerating their activity over the last year and, during the past year, launched more satellites than we did in our l>rogram. If we continue to extrapolate the gradient of their actiVIty, the buildup is quite remarkable. In the lunar area, in the unmanned spacecraft, you are, of course, well aware of the soft landing which they have made, which antedates our soft landing attempts by over half a year.
WORKING RELATIONSIDP OF NASA-EBSA
Senator SMITH. Doctor, you will recall that last year, Dr. White, the Chief of the Weather Bureau, now the Environmental Science Services Administrator, testified the same day that you did at our authorization hearings. This year, Dr. White has submitted a statement for the record. I would like to read several excerpts from his statement and receive your comment on each of them. One, he points out that there is "excellent working relationships between ESSA and NASA." Dr. NEWELL. I agree with that. We not only enjoy working with ESSA people, but we find that the working relationshIp is quite effective. The Goddard Space Flight Center is our center which has close working relationships with the Environmental Satellite Center of ESSA, and they work very well together. In addition, both Dr. White and I meet periodically as cochairmen of a Meterological Program Review Board to review activities in both NASA and ESSA in the meterological area, and to coordinate and guide our respective programs so as to make most effective use of the dollars available to both agencies. I would heartily endorse Dr. White's statement. Senator SMITH. He states that ESSA programs in telecommunications sciences and aeronomy would benefit from the strongest possible research effort in physics and astronomy in NASA. 1Vould you want to comment on that?
288
Dr. NEWELL. I agree with that statement. As you know the formation of ESSA has pulled together a variety of activities in the Department of Commerce, including some of the Bureau of Standards activities on ionospheric research and solar observations. These have immediate bearing on the research that we are doing in the Earth's atniosphere and in the magnetosphere around the Earth, and in our investigations of the Sun. The concept of ESSA that has been put forth by the Department of Commerce, which I think is a magnificent one, plans to provide for this country an environmental services activity similar to the weather service activity of the past. In this new service, data on our atmosphere, ionosphere, solar activity, and the interplanetary medium, and their effects upon the lower atmosphere will ~e provided on a routine basis. In order to do that most effectively, it IS necessary for us to learn what processes are going on in the Sun, what causes solar flares, and how is the best way to monitor and report them, and what their effects are on the magnetosphere, and how is the best way to make measurements and get the data so they can be reported to the users of data. Our program in NASA, we think, is designed to provide just these background measurements. Senator SMITH. In his statement he says ESSA would like to see increased emphasis placed on research by sounding rockets, particularly aeronomical sounding rockets for the height range, about 40 to 150 kilometers. Dr. NEWELL. This height range is of particular interest to the Weather Bureau and to ESSA at this time, because it is intermediate between the regions in which we experienre our normal weather and the outer regions where t he influences of the Sun are conducted into the lower atmosphere. I agree with Dr. White that"this is an important region of study. We have in the NASA program a soundi~g rocket effort of some 50 or so sounding rockets to conduct research III this region, and we have an operational sounding rocket program using over 130 smaller sized sotmding rockets in this very region. We feel that this is quite an extensive activity and should go a long way toward meeting ESSA's interest in this area. OPERATIONAL WEATHER SATELLITE Senator SMITH. In your judgment, how long a lifespan will be required for the Nimbus weather satellite to make it economically feasible for use as an operational weather satellite? Dr. NEWELL. At the present. time, as you know, and as implied by your question, the Nimbus satellite is a research platform and is not designed to be an operational satellite. It is too costly for that. But if the Nimbus satellite should prove to have a lifespan of something like 2 or 3 years, then its costs would come within the realm of interest as an operational satellite base. Senator SMITH. Then you agree that Nimbus may have that capability? Dr. NEWELL. We are using it to do research on those very problems of providing longer lifetime and increased power supply and increased data-handling capability to provide the base for an advanced operational system.
289
Now, it may be that after we are through with this research, we will decide that we have learned enough to package these into a different satellite configuration, rather than just using Nimbus. Senator SMITH. Dr. Seamans, do you have any comment to add to Dr. Newell's~ Dr. SEAMANS. Senator Smith, I was just emphasizing in my conversation with Dr. Newell the primary objective of Nimbus at this time, as he points out, is for scientific research in meteorology, particularly as it pertains to making remote measurements from space of the at mosphere, not just to get cloud photographs, but to find a mechanism for measuring pressures and temperatures remotely. We fed this is required if we are going to go from 1- to 2-day predictions up to 1- to 2-week predictions, which it is believed will be possible if, on a worldwide basis, we can make these kinds of measurements. INCREASED FUNDS FOR NIMBLCS PROGRA:lI Senator SMITH. This is the reason for the increase of some $56 mil lion for the Nimbus program? Dr. SEAMANS. Yes, to carry out this very important research. Senator SMITH. And you both agree that Nimbus could replace th(, TOS system eventually. Dr. NEWELL. Senator Smith, I think it is important to note at this point that the TOS system is a picture-taking system in which you get qualitative information on where the storm systems lie and how they are moving. This is of value to the weather forecaster in connection with hIS I-day to 2-day weather forecasts. But the TOS system does not have the capability of providing the quantitative numerical data Dr. Seamans referred to for the computers to calculate the weather in advance, say, for 1 week or 2 weeks. The Nimbus system and the i!lstruments that we will fly on it are designed to provide the base for giving us the data on pressure, temperature, density, winds, humidity and solar radiation into the atmosphere on a global scale, to feed into the giant computers, to provide the computations of long-range weather forecasting. As I emphasized, we are not stating that Nimbus itself would necessarily become the operational system, but the technology that we develop with Nimbus, including the sensing elements, the stabilization, the power supplies, and so on, will form the basis for the development of that ultimate operational system. Neither do we say that Nimbus will not be the operational spacecraft. JOINT NAVIGATIONAL SATELLITE COMl\IlTI"EE Senator SMITH. In discussing communications satellites you mention the studies being made with other Government agencies in navigation, traffic, safety, and control. You may want to answer this for the record, but if you have it now, would you tell the committee how that effort is progressing and what other governmental agencies are involved? Dr. NEWELL. I do have the material here, Senator Smith. I would be glad to speak to that. Senator SMITH. Thank you.
290
Dr. NEWELL. There is a Joint Navigation Satellite Committee chaired by NASA, with membership from the Commerce Department, the Defense Department, Interior, the Treasury Department because of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Agency, and NASA. This Joint Committee was established in September of 1964 and has been reviewing a number of areas. First, they have been evaluating agency requirements for a satellite system to meet future needs in navigation, communications, and traffic control activities. Second, they have been reviewing the capability of space technology to contribute to needed future improvements in these areas. Third, they have been studying the economic benefits and cost effectiveness advantages of a satellite system versus other ways of achieving these needs. And fourth, they have been pulling together a recommendation on a program plan and a method for future efforts in the navigation satellite field. The Committee has virtually completed its work. It plans to issue a report this month, and they have a number of results that they will put forth in the report.
PERSONNEL AT GODDARD CENTER
Senator SMITH. Dr. Newell, you discuss in your statement the increase of 182 personnel at the Goddard Center. Do I understand correctly that those 182 new people will come out of your budget but be assigned to Mr. Buckley'S office 1 Dr. NEWELL. Yes, the Goddard Space Flight Center has an annual operating budget of about $400 million. About half of this is devoted to tracking activities. The Goddard Center manages and operates the unmanned tracking network, and the Apollo tracking activities, and manages the very intricate communication links that tie these together. This is, as you can see, a large part of the Goddard activity. Those 180-some people are to be assigned to this part of the program for the expanded Apollo requirements. Senator SMITH. Well, actually" your office will have fewer personnel next year than this year, WIll they not? Dr. NEWELL. Yes, because this 182 is in addition to the other activities in my program. Senator SMITH. In addition to it? Dr. NEWELL. Yes. Senator SMITH. Will there be a difference in your personnel this year and 1967 ? Dr. NEWELL. I am trying to find the exact numbers. There is a slight reduction in our overall staffing. Senator SMITH. I have it figured at 90. Would you supply it for the record, and we shall not take the time for it now? Dr. NEWELL. I would be glad to do that, yes. (The information referred to follows:)
Answer. There is a reduction NASA-wide of 4 positions in fhwal year 1966 and 90 positions In fiscal year 1967 which are idE'ntificd wit.h OSSA programs. The breakdown of the fiscal year 1967 reduction is: 85 in the fi!'ld; 4 at headquarters; and 1 at the Western Operations Office.
291
Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chainnan. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Young?
NIHBUS
Senator YOUNG. Regarding the Weather Bureau's requirements, Doctor, how important is Nimbus for advanced meteorology sensors? Dr. NEWELL. The advanced meteorological centers ate required, a.bsolutely required, in order to rea.lize the potentia.l for long-range weather foreca.sting. I would sa.y tha.t they are the ma.jor technologica.l hurdle tha.t we have to cover in developing the capability for long-ra.nge wea.ther forecasting. Senator YOUNG. Granting that a.s a. fa.ct, the Budget books show that the total cost of Nimbus is up $56.5 million over what was estimated for last year. Why is that ~ Dr. NEWELL. The costs are basically required for the flying of additional experiments on the Nimbus Band D spacecraft-Nimbus C is the next one, so Band D are beyond Nimbus G-for the purpose of developing the a.dvanced sensors, a.dvanced power supplies, data. collectIOn techniques, etc. In particular, we were interested in a.dapting nuclear power supplies, isotope power supplies, to this purpose, to learn about their comparative merits relative to solar power supplies which have been used in the past.
BIOSATELLITE PROGRAM COSTS
Senator YOUNG. Now, turning to the Biosatellite program, will you discuss briefly, Doctor, and explain why the total costs of that program have increased over $20 million during the past yead Dr. NEWELL. The Biosatellite program is an extremely difficult one. I would say the major reason for increased costs in the Biosatellite effort has been because of the learning process we have had to go through in connection with preparing the experiments for the satellite. This will be the first large-scale satellite devoted to bioexperiments, carrying living materials into space and attempting to recover them. It has been quite an effort on our part and on the part of the experimenters from the universities and on the part of the General Electric Company, which has responsibility for integra.ting the payloa.d and spacecraft, to develop the instrumentation and adapt them to the environmental support system. This is the area. of major cost increases. Senator YOUNG. Now, to what extent does the Department of Defense participate in the Biosatellite experiment program? Dr. NEWELL. The Department of Defense ha.d made a number of proposals for flight in the Biosatellite program and I had told this committee last year that two of the Department of Defense experiments were in the program. As I understa.nd, in the interim, they have fallen by the wayside and, at the present time, the experimenters come from the university community or the NASA complex. The results, of course, will be available to the Department of Defense and to the general scientific community. In addition.1 the Department of Defense provides assistance for the recovery of the Biosatellite. The Air Force will carry out the air
292
snatch operations to recover the satellite before it lands and bring the experiments back in a short time period. This is especially important in the case of bioexperiments, because you must get the specimens back to the laboratory before changes have occurred that are not due to the space effects.
GRAVITY GRADIENT EXPERIMENTS
Senator YOUNG. Dr. Newell, NASA and the Department of Defense have an interagency agreement for joint partici{>ation in the early Gravity Gradient Stabilization experiment. It IS now known that both NASA and the Department of Defense have undertaken separate follow-on gravity gradient satellite experiments. Why is not the cooperation initiated on the g-ravity gradient stabilization program continued with subsequent jomt projects to serve the needs of both agencies ~ Dr. NEWELL. The gravity gradient experiment you referred to was labeled the early gravity gradient test, for the reason that the Department of Defense wished to perform some experiments in a medium altitude orbit in time to fit it mto some of their actual uses in the communication satellite series. Our program of gravity gradient work in our Applications Technology Satellite is of a general type designed to provide basic data for deslgn criteria in general applications. It is my understanding that the Department of Defense program is mOl'll specifically directed toward actual applications that they will make. Senator YOUNG. Well, then, Dr. Newell, would you summarize for the record the coordination of your activities with the Department of Defense, noting specifically any' areas in which coordination has improved during the past years? Dr. NEWELL. I shall be glad to do that. (The information referred to follows:)
Coordination of NASA's activities in the gravity gradient area with the DOD has been accomplished in several different ways. The principal ones include the Unmanned Spacecraft Panel (AACB), discussions, and briefings of top management levels in the DOD. Prior to initiation of the Applications Technology Satellite series of launches, ATS-A through E, NASA's activities in the gravity gradient area were principally in the study area, whereas the DOD had successfully demonstrated the technical feasibility of using the gravitational gradient to stabilize in an experimental navigation satellite low Earth orbit. NASA and DOD established joint committees comprised of scientists and engineers having expertise in stabilization systems on an ad hoc basis to study the technical feasibility of various gravity gradient and orientation systems, on two separate occasions, for the purpose of determining a course of action in this area, On the first occasion, the committee examined three-axis passive stabilization systems for the purpose of determining the technical approach most likely to yield information of the kind required to assess the capabilities of passive stabilization at medium altitudes, and the synchronous orbit. As a result of the committee's findings and subsequent more detailed analysis by NASA, the ATS gravity gradient experiment program evolved. On the second occasion, the NASA/DOD ad hoc committee examined simpler two-axis systems applicable to an early gravity gradient experiment in the near synchronous orbit. reflulting in the determination that an early gravity gradient experiment was possible. And as a consequence, NASA agreed to provide the funds and the required technical consultation to support the Early Gravity Gradient Test Satellite (EGGTS). These NASA consultants have also provided considprablp tpchni<'al assistance to the DOD's contractor, Applied Physics Laboratory, in terms of developing the mathematical models and design paralllPters for the gravity gradient stabilization system for DODGE.
293
The foregoing are examples of the kind of cooperation and technical assistance which is going on in the NASA and DOD gravity gradient experiment area. It is noted that NASA has made presentations to the DOD on the progress and status of the ATS flight program, and DOD has kept NASA informed of the activities and status on EGGTS and DODGE. These will be continued as the programs progress. In summary, the activities of NASA and DOD have been coordinated to the fUllest extent and as a consequence, each is well aware of these ongoing programs.
STAFFING AT
JPL
Senator YOUNG. I think I have just a couple more questions. You state that 40 percent of the Office of Space &ience and Applications personnel are scientists and engineers and that 35 percent of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory staff are technical people. Why does the Jet Propulsion Laboratory staff have this lower percentage of scientists and engineers ? Dr. NEWELL. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory history is one of working on technological-type problems, back in the days of the Sergeant and the Corporal missiles, in the early days of solid propellant work. Following that history, we have been using the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the very difficult technological missions like Ranger, Surveyor, Mariner, and so on. So in a sense, by using the Laboratory in that way, we have perpetuated the technological complexion. The early history of the Goddard Space Flight Center is that the Center was staffed with scientists who had been doing upper atmosphere research at other places in the Government-the Naval Research Laboratory, the Signal Corps, and so on. We have built on that history by developing the Goddard Space Flight Center as primarily a scientific-type activity, although, as you know, Goddard is also responsible for our applications satellites. ATLAS-CENTAUR Senator YOUNG. I am wondering, Doctor, is it the proper interpretation of your fiscal year 1967 request for Atlas Centaur procurement funds that it is limited to vehicles to support the 10 Surveyor missions? Dr. NEWELL. That is correct. Senator YOUNG. What other missions are you planning to procure vehicles for? Dr. NEWELL. The Atlas Centaur will be used as the vehicle to launch the Mariner to Mars in 1969, and will be purchased in a later budget. Senator YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Jordan? Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. UPRATING SOLAR OBSERVATORIES Dr. Newell, in your statement you say you are studying various ways of uprating Orbiting Solar Observatories to do some of the tasks you had :planned for the Advance Solar Observatory, and that you are acceleratmg your efforts towardlreparing solar telescopes to be carried on planned flights of the polIo Applications program. The information received by the committee in the last 2 previous days shows that the Apollo applications program is not much better off
294
than y.our AOSO pr.ogram. My understanding is that y.ou plan s.ometime m the future t.o reinstate the AOSO pr.ogram. Does this imply the g.o-ahead f.or the AAP is much m.ore likely than the reinstatement
.ofAOSO~
Dr. NEWELL. In the case .of the s.olar applicati.on, we are actually funding f.or an Ap.oll.o telesc.ope m.ount, which w.ould g.o .on Ap.ollo hardware and serve t.o p.oint equipment very accurately at the Sun, .out .of different funding fr.om the Ap.oll.o Applicati.ons area. This w.ork is actually under study at the present time, with the Ball Br.os. being a c.ontract.or t.o pr.ovide a preliminary study.of how this Ap.oll.o telescope m.ount might be put t.ogether. S.o it is already underway. Senator J .oRDAN. Then y.ou w.ould say that b.oth .of these pr.ograms are necessary ~ Dr. NEWELL. Yes, I w.ould, Senat.or, because .of the fact that they have different .objectives and capabilities. The Ap.oll.o telesc.ope m.ount pr.ovides us with the capability .of taking ph.ot.ographic pictures, films, .of the Sun and, theref.ore, gives us very high res.oluti.on Imaging .of the Sun which is .of great value. H.owever, because .of the limited time in .orbit .of Ap.oll.o, it cann.ot pr.ovide us with the l.ong-term m.onitoring .of s.olar activity that the Orbiting S.olar Observat.ory c.ould. We need b.oth. We get different results fr.om the tw.o. TERMIN ATI.oN .oF A.oS.o Senator J.oRDAN. Apparently, y.ou gave AOSO a s.omewhat l.ower pri.ority because it was cut back when y.our funds were reduced. Dr. NEWELL. The reas.on f.or terminating the AOSO is that we had only just started .on the hardware development. Theref.ore, we did n.ot have the c.ommitment .of funds t.o that pr.oject that we had to the OSO. The OSO, as y.ou kn.ow, has already fl.own twice and .others are coming up. Senat.or J.oRDAN. Y.ou had n.ot spent much m.oney, then, in AOSO bef.ore it was canceled ~ Dr. NEWELL. We had n.ot spent much m.oney .on the hardware devel.opment. The funds that we had spent .on AOSO were f.or the early design. Senator J.oRDAN. Is that expenditure a totall.oss, then, in the light .of the cancellati.on .of AOSO' Dr. NEWELL. N.o, the expenditure is.n.ot a t.otall.oss f.or tw.o reas.ons: The experimental w.ork being d.one by the scientists is still applicable to .other missi.ons .or t.o AOSO sh.ould it be activated agam a few years d.own the line. In additi.on, the design studies are available and can be used f.or .other pr.ojects.or later f.or AOSO. Senator J .oRDAN. S.ome .of the experiments planned f.or AOSO can then be acc.ommodated .on .orbiting .observat.orIes n.ow in existence ~ Dr. NEWELL. We are attempting t.o m.odify them in .order t.o carry them .out in a limited fashi.on. I sh.ould hasten t.o add, h.owever, that the AOSO capabilities g.o far bey.ond what we can d.o with OSO. Senllitor J.oRDAN. Where d.oes the Ap.oll.o appliclliti.on spacecraft c.ome int.o this picture' Dr. NEWELL. We view the Ap.oll.o Applicati.ons spacecraft and the telesc.ope m.ount f.or that spacecraft as laymg the gr.oundw.ork f.or m.ov-
295
ing in the future to large telescopes. This is a first step in the direction of providing a large universal type facility for the astronomical community simIlar in concept to the big telescopes like Mount Palomar and Mount Wilson on the ground. Of course, as you know, the advantage of having a telescope in orbit is that it can observe in the X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and radio wave lengths that do not get to the ground.
LUNAR ORBITER
Senator JORDAN. Thank you. Turning now to another subject, the latest I?rogram estimate for the Lunar Orbiter for fiscal 1966 reflects a cost Increase of $16,400,000. It is understood that this sI?acecraft is being delivered under an incentive-type contract, with Incentive payments influenced by mission performance, spacecraft delivery, and target costs. D..>es the additional funding indicate that the target price has been adjusted upward, or does this mean that the contractor is now in a penalty situation ~ If the contractor suffers a penalty for cost overrun or late delivery, is it possible for these penalties to be offset by successful mission performance-that is, does the contractor still have incentive to perform, or is he in a position of attempting to minimize his losses by whatever means ~ Dr. NEWELL. This is a very penetrating question, Senator Jordan. The contractor himself is in an overrun situation; also, two of the subcontractors are. As a result, the contractor is in a penalty situation. But he does have the opportunity through performance of partially offsetting this penalty. The fact that he can, through achieVIng good performance and early performance, come out ahead by doing a good Job seems to us to be a safeguard to the Government in this case. Senator JORDAN. Do you think it is an adequate safeguard ~ Dr. NEWELL. We think so. This incentive contract was thought through very carefully and worked out to try to consider all angles. Also, I may say that the contractor is an excellent contractor. Senator JORDAN. What date is the first flight of the Lunar Orbiter scheduledW Dr. NEWELL. By the middle of this year, Senator. Senator JORDAN. Is the program on schedule ~ Dr. NEWELL. It is pretty cIo'se to schedule, yes. Senator JORDAN. vVhat was the original cost estimate ~ Dr. NEWELL. The original estimate was $80 million for five spacecraft. Senator JORDAN. And what is the estimated cost now ~ Dr. NEWELL. $139 million. Senator JORDAN. An increase of some $50 million ~ Dr. NEWELL. On that order. Senator JORDAN. Why did this program increase $50 million in costs during the past year, Doctor ~ The CHAIRMAN. I think it increased $16 million over the past year. Dr. NEWELL. The largest source of the problem was in the camera system which, incidentally, is the most difficult part of the whole system. The troubles that Eastman Kodak Co. encountered account for much of that increase.
5il-941 0-66--20
296
Senator JORDAN. You think it is a legitimate increase due to circumstances beyond control when you made the initial contract? Dr. NEWELL. Well, we feel that the contractor has made every possible effort to keep the costs down and that he himself would not have allowed these increases if he could have stopped them. The CHAIRMAN. Will th~ Senator yield on that point? Senator JORDAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Whose fault is it? Who is the contractor on Lunar Orbiter? Dr. NEWELL. Boeing Aircraft Co. is the prime contractor and the subcontractors are Eastman Kodak Co. for the camera system and RCA for some of the electronic subsystems. The CHAIRMAN. The original figure was $80 million and the present figure is $139 million. Where has the increase been largely? Dr. NEWELL. Largely in the camera system, which is, as I mentioned, the most difficult part of the system. The CHAIRMAN. Was there not a big argument about the camera contract going to Eastman in the beginning f Dr. NEWELL. Well, there was considerable discussion, but Eastman was selected as having the best experience. The CHAIRMAN. And that is where the costs came? Dr. NEWELL. That is where the costs came. LANGUAGE OF DATA
POI~
Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Turning to another subject, last year, Mr. Buckley said,
During the current fiscal year, we are processing 70 million data points per day. This is projected to increase to 200 million data points per day during fiscal year 1966 as more of the observatory class of satellites become operational.
Tell me, Doctor, what is a data point? Dr. NEWELL. In very simple language, a data point can be thought of as a yes or no. You ask yourself is the value of this radiation intensity between, let us say, nine tenths and one, and your telemetering system can say yes or no. That would be a data point. In order to get complete information on things, you have to use certain numbers of data points. Senator JORDAN. Well, I live and learn. SPACECRAFT EFFICIENCY Dr. Newell, in the unmanned portion of the space program, how does the efficiency of the small satellite program such as the Explorer co~pare with the efficiency of the large programs like the observatones? Dr. NEWElL. This word "efficiency" is a very difficult one to analyze. In our experience, the costs per pound in orbit of equipment range between $10,000 and $40,000. We find that just about all of our experience lies within that range. The $40,000 end of the range corresponds to instrumentation where you pack just as much as you can into the spacecraft. Now, in some of our smaller spacecraft like the Interplanetary Monitoring Platform, where you make every last use that
297
you can of every ounce, the equipment costs tend to be toward the $40,000 per pound figure. On the other hand, with something like the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory, where you have plenty of weight and you would say you are not being quite so efficient, the cost tends to be toward the $10,000 end of the range. I would say that in making use of these two types of spacecraft, one simply has the objectives in mind, and picks the approach that will give the least total cost, that is the best cost per pound, and is the best approach to the job at hancl. In the case of the Explorers, they are used for conducting individual types of experiments, to acquire special trajectories, special orbit, and things of that sort. In the case of the observatories, we use them for conducting collections of experiments on what might be called standard type orbits. Senator JORDAN. And you determine your mission mix on that kind of criteria ~ Dr. NEWELL. That is correct.
MANNED OR UNMANNED EXPERIMENTS
Senator JORDAN. What mechanisms do you have in the Office of Space Science and Applications to determine whether experiments should 'be flown in unmanned or manned spacecraft ? Dr. NEWELL. We have within NASA a Manned Space Flight Experiments Board which is chaired by Dr. George Mueller, head of the Manned Space Flight Office, and of which I am a member. I have in my office a Space Science Steering Committee, with advisory groups from the scientific community in a 'position to advise me. In the case of a given experiment, these adVISOry groups are asked to review the experiment from the point of view of its value as an experiment; the best approach to use, which means whether it should be done on the ground or in space, and, if in space, whether it should be manned or Wlll1anned; whether the proposer is competent; and whether the institution of the proposer is able to support him as he would have to be supported to conduct the experiment. On the basis of their recommendations, the Steering Committee then reviews the proposed experiment and makes a recommendation to me. If that recommendation is that it should be carried out in the manned mode, then I forward a recommendation to the Manned Space Flight Experiments Board asking that it be carried on a Gemini or Apollo mission, as appropriate. Then the Manned Space Flight Experiments Board reviews it. Senator JORDAN. Obviously, any data that you could acquire by unmaned space flight, if it, had equal va.lue, you would not risk: a man's life to accomplish what you could without risking a man's life-is that a simple statement of it ~ Dr. NEWELL. That is a correct statement, but, of course, it does not cover the whole picture. There are things that you can do best with man-observations of unanticipated events and following up on opportunities to take pictures or to point cameras, and things of that sort, that would cost a great deal to try to do in an unmanned mode. When you have to build anticipation capability into an unmanned system, then it gets to be very costly.
298
On the other hand, you do not want to use man for routine observing types of activities, and you cannot use a man when you want to operate inside the radiation belts, for example, where you cannot protect him from the radiation hazard. So y()u simply have to make a choice on the basis of what is the most effective and best way, considering all these questions of risk to the man, cost of the mission, complexity, and so on. Senator JORDAN. And then, with respect to the Apollo Applications program, how much of the data from the experiments proposed could be gotten from unmanned flights? Dr. NEWELL. In the case of the Apollo Applications program, some of the experimental data could be gotten by unmanned flights, and what we are doing is taking the opportunity of the fact that the sp~ce craft will be in orbit to get a ride for the experiment. In other cases, and this is the majority, the man is required. You need the astronaut, for example, to program the experiment that we intend to fly on the fertilization of frogs' eggs in space. You need the man to put out an emulsion and to expose it outside the spacecraft and then brmg it back in. If you do not use a man to do these operations, then you have to have very complicated equipment to do them, and the man seems to be the easier way to do it. You need the man to look for the very faint air glow in order to photograph it, and to point the spacecraft very accurately. This is one of the very important scientific experiments in the Gemini program. Senator JORDAN. As we go ahead with the Apollo Applications program, would this reduce the need for some of the unmanned programs; for example, some of the unmanned Explorers and some of the unmanned orbiting observatories? Dr. NEWELL. I would think yes, Senator Jordan. And as the program develops, we would select the best way of doing whatever experiments are in mind. Where the manned effort can pIck up things that otherwise would have been done in the unmanned effort. that will be ' done. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Dr. Newell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cannon? Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SOVIET VERSUS U.S. PLANETARY PROGRAM Doctor, in your statement, you say you flew 16 successful missions in 1965. How many missions comparable to that did the Soviets fly? Dr. NEWELL. Fifty-five Cosmos satellites, in addition to which they flew the two Proton experiments, and the Surveyor equivalent in their Luna 9, and the Molniya1 the communications satellite. Senator CANNON. So It is almost four times as many. Dr. NEWELL. It is a tremendous factor larger, yes. Of course, you must recognize that that number I have given is Just for the Office of Space Science and Applications. To get the total NASA picture, you would have to add the Pegasus and the manned space flights. Senator CANNON. You also say in your statement that our 1967 and 1969 Mariner programs will maintain us near the forefront of this
299
exciting- area of space exploration until the Voyager becomes operational In 1973. In view of the magnitude of the Soviet :planetary program, does this mean that we have virtually conceded thIS area to them at least until 1973 ~ Dr. NEWELL. I would say that it is quite clear that they have a more intense activity in the planetary area than we do. When we get to 1973, with our large Voya~r spacecraft, then we will perhaps be matching them in total capabIlity. VOYAGER SCHEDULE AND FUNDING Senator CANNON. Now, did I correctly understand your testimony in response to Sena.tor Anderson that you could not move the Voyag-er up now because you would have had to have taken corrective actIon at an earlier time to get you in a position to use the more favorable
windows~
Dr. NEWELL. That was not quite what I meant, Senator Cannon. What I meant was that in reprograming to delay the Voyager spacecraft, we also had to adjust the fiscal 1966 application of funds. The fiscal year 1966 appropriation and authorization had $43 million in it for Voyager. When we delayed the Voyager flight to 1973, the funds required for Voyager in 1966 were $10 million, but in order to fill in the gap, we introduced Mariner in 1967 to Venus and Mariner in 1969 to Mars, and some of the Voyager funds were applied to reinstating Mariner. What I said was that in order to pick up the Voyager program again, we would have to go back to the $118 million requirement in 1967 and also retraoo our steps in some way to pick up the fiscal 1966 funds. Senator CANNON. Well, if you have already committed those 1966 funds otherwise and actually spent some of them, my point is you could not very well go back at this time, could you, and reaccomplish what you would have to do to take advantage of the earlier window, the more favorable window ~ Dr. NEWELL. Not easily. Senator CANNON. Could you do it at all ~ Dr. NEWELL. I think if the funds were made available somehow, by really bearing down, we could make the 1971 date. Senator CANNON. What advantages specifically would the earlier window have ~ You defined that in general terms, but I would like a little more specific answer. Dr. NEWELL. Yes. There are two major areas in which there would be advantage. One would be in the :propulsion requirements. In the 1969-71 period, the propulsion reqUIrements are about half in total energy required. Senator CANNON. What does that mean specifically ~ Dr. NEWELL. Well, you could convert that into total payload that you could carry to the planet. On a Voyager-type spacecraft, in 1971, with a vehicle like the Saturn IB Centaur, you could carry a large capsule and land it. In 1975, with the Saturn IB Centaur, you would have to leave off the large capsule, because the energy requirements would not permit you to carry that. That would mean that you would be left with a mission that permitted just an orbiter around the planet.
300
Having gone to the Saturn V launch vehicle, however, we have obviated that problem, because in either 1971 or 1973 or 1975, we have adequate propulsion capability to carry both the orbiting spacecraft and the capsule. MARS-VENUS PROGRAM LIMITED Senator CANNON. Now, have the Soviets ever failed to use either a Mars or a Venus launch window? Dr. NEWELL. Not that I know of. I believe they have made at least one launch at every opportunity since the early 1960's. Senator CANNON. And both the 1967 Venus and the 1969 Mars will be simply flyby missions, is that right? Dr. NEWELL. In our present pattern, yes, that is correct. Senator CANNON. Well, when you say in our present plan, are you indicating that that might be changed ? Dr. NEWELL. I hope not, no, Senator. Senator CANNON. These missions do not give relatively a great amount of data, do they, for the expense involved? Dr. NEWELL. I think they are sound missions, and we feel that they can be justified on a scientific basis, that there is muoh that can be done in the Venus flyby and the Mars flyby. Senator CANNON. Did you give consideration to orbiting missions rather than just a flyby? Dr. NEWELL. Yes, we gave consideration to both orbiting missions and the possibility of a landing probe. We felt that if we attempted to go back to the orbiting mission, we were going back to a large fraction of the difficulty and cost of the Voyager program, which we had just delayed because of cost. The probe possibility seemed to be more within the bounds of a limited budget, and we studied this very carefully. It appears that to do this would require an additional $30 million or so. COMPARATIVE SIZE OF UNITED STATES AND U.S.S.R. PLANETARY PROGRAMS Senator CANNON. Now, you have alreay indicated that the Soviet planetary program is at least more than three to one in comparable size to ours. If the United States had a planetary program comparable to that of the U.S.S.R. what do you estimate it would cost? Dr. NEWELL. I would estimate about $200 million a year. Senator CANNON. $200 million a year? Dr. NEWELL. Per year. Senator CANNON. What is the total amount of money in the 1967 request for planetary exploration? Dr. NEWELL. It IS $10 million for Voyager and $26 million for Mariner. Senator CANNON. A total of $36 million, and you are saying if we were going to keep up with the Russians in that area on a comparable mission cost, it would be roughly $200 million? Dr. NEWELL. That is correct. That is because one would have to include launches to both Venus and Mars at each opportunity. Senator CANNON. Well, it would be fair to say, then, that we have a very limited program in that area ~ Dr. NEWELL. That is my feeling, Senator.

PLANETARY SPACECRAFT STERILIZATION
301
Senator CANNON. 'What do you know about the Soviet sterilization of their Venus probe that crashed on the planet yesterday ~ Dr. NEWELL. We do not know whether they sterilized the probe. We do know that in biological circles, there is some concern about this because, at the present time, a reassessment of thinking about surface temperatures indicates that there may be a possibility that the very high surface temperatures indicated by the Mariner II data may not be at the surface, but might be somewhat above the surface. This, then, leaves open the possibility that the surface might be much cooler and could be a home for biota. If that is the case, one would want to protect Venus from any contamination by earth vehicles. In addition, the biological community has also felt that there is the possibility in a very dense atmosphere like that of Venus that biota could be generated and live in the high atmosphere. For that reason, they have urged that we make every effort not to contaminate the atmosphere. On the other hand, it is agreed on balance that one can be less concerned about Venus than about Mars. Senator CANNON. In other words, it would be more important in life sterilization with respect to Mars as you now see it than it would be with respect to Venus? Dr. NEWELL. That is correct, Senator, although I would point out that for our Mariner II in 1962, we intentionally missed the planet by a substantial distance to avoid this contamination problem. We aimed for something like the 21,000 miles miss distance that we achieved. Senator CANNON. I notice that Sir Bernard Lovell expressed some concern yesterday about whether there had been sterilization. Did that draw any response at all from the Russians, either that they had or had not sterilized it ~ Dr. NEWELL. I have not seen any yet, but I am sure that Sir Bernard Lovell is expressing the feeling of a number of people in the biological community. Senator CANNON. Do we know actually as a fact that this probe did crash on Venus ~ Dr. NEWELL. I do not believe we do know as a fact. We have to take the word of the Soviets that it did. Senator CANNON. Well, they actually lost contact, did they not, sometime before? Would it not be very difficult to verify whether it did or did not impact ~ Dr. NEWELL. That would depend on how long they were able to track the spacecraft before they lost contact. If they had tracked it for a substantial period of time, they could then calculate very precisely whether it would or would not impact the planet. But not knowing what the time period is when they say they lost contact sometime before, one does not really know the answer to that question.
GEOMAGNETIC DATA EXCHANGE
Senator CANNON. Now, some years ago, we entered into an agreement to exchange geomagnetic data obtained from satellites with the Soviet Union. 'Yhat is the status of that agreement 1
302
Dr. NEWELL. That agreement is still in force, and, in fact, our second Orbiting Geophysical Observatory ca rried magnetometers to support our part in that commitment. The commitment applied to both ground-based and satellite data. Ground-based data have been exchanged from both sides, and the satellite data will be exchanged when they have been reduced. Senator CANNON. So you think it is working out effectively? Dr. NEWELL. I think that one will work out, yes. LUNA
9
DISCUSSION
Senator CANNON. Now, do you regard the pictures sent back by Luna 9 as useful scientific information ~ Dr. NEWELL. I think ,t he pictures sent back by Luna 9 are quite useful, for several reasons. They do give us confirma,t ion of the fact that ,t he lunar surface where Luna 9 landed is similar in topography to the surface that the R angers observed. It does, however, raise some interesting questions as to just what the structure of the surface is, and I think that the committee might be interested in ,t wo pictures I have here. One of them, of course, IS the Luna 9 picture; I would like you to seethe other picture before I say how it was taken. This is the Luna 9 photograph of the surface (fig. 140) and, as you can see, it looks like a rough, broken sort of material. You might think it is pumice. You cannot really tell what it is like. And there are several theories as to how it might have been formed. One t heory
RAPH OF LUNAR SURFACE
FIGURE
140
303
is, yes, it is pumice. Another is that there was a more or less solid material with soluble materials in it that somehow were dissolved out, leaving this broken and hollow sort of surface. The next picture (fig. 141) looks very much like the same sort of thing. This was produced in the Laboratory by spreading out some dry cement, and then just throwing additional dry cement at the surface. It was done by Tom Gold in his laboratories at Cornell, t o show that one could get this type of surface by just a gardening of the lunar surface and throwing of pulverized material over the surface. So 'We still have the question of just what is that surface like, how is it made, and on what basis can we estimate the bearing strength of the surface. This is pertinent to my earlier remarks, Mr. Chairman., where we need to get the Surveyor down to see just 'What the structure is, because that is pertinent to computing the bearing strength, which is important for a landing. Senator CANNON . Well, actually, do we kno'W anything more about the surface now, from these L una 9 pictures, than we did before when we had only the Ranger pictures ~ Dr. NEWELL. I think we do, Senator Cannon, because now 'We know the structure is this hollow, brittle-appear ing structure and is not a solid rock str ucture. So now we have a more limited area in which to experiment and think about what the surface might be. Senator CA XXON. I s there any indication that their retrorockets might have blown a way a layer of dust ~
FIGURE
141
304
Dr. NEWELL. There is always that question, as we do not know. As far as we can tell by looking at the surface, we cannot say. Senator CANNON. There was no indication of any dust from picturesas it approached, was there? Dr. NEWELL. None that I know of. Of course, you do know-I believe you raised this question yesterday-that the spacecraft did move after landing, and there is a question as to what caused that. Senator CANNON. Do you have any informat.ion from the Soviets other than the Luna 9 television pictures ? Dr. NEWF..LL. We have some information from a scientific conference that was held in Moscow, in which, in addition to discussing the pictures here, they did discuss the presence of a radiation detector on the spacecraft. The radiation detector, they said, indicated a radiation dose rate of about 30 millirads per day. This is comparable to a cosmic ray dose rate and gives rise to the thought that maybe what is being observed is the cosmic radiation and secondaries produced ip the lunar surfaCe material, although one would suspect the lunar sur face itself would have some radioactivi1ty. The dose rate observed i within the acceptable tolerances for a man. Senator CANNON. Does the Luna 9 data that you have received pro vide you with enough evidence in your judgment to confirm yom approach with the LEM vehicle? Dr. NEWELL. I think the Luna 9 data are very encouraging, both for the Surveyor and the LEM vehicle. As I indicated before, I do feel it would be unwise to rely, however, on one observation. Senator CANNON. Did the Luna 9 provide any stereoscopic views? Dr. NEWELl,. Because of the fact that t.he Luna 9 moved, the thought is that one may be able to get some stereoscopic measurements out of this. But I have not seen the results of that yet.
SURVEYOR INSTRUMENTATION
Senator CANNON. What about the Surveyor? Does that provide for stereoscopic views? Dr. NEWELl,. On the first Surveyor, we will have only one camera, so we will not be able to provide stereoscopic imaging. But on the later Surveyors, we hope to introduce additional cameras. Senator CANNON. What other instruments will you have on the Surveyor that will be of importance? Dr. NEWELL. The initial Surveyor will carry, in addition to the television camera, a radar system which will provide both the closed loop altitude sensing system for landing and data on the radioreflectivity of the surface, which is important to LEM, because LEM uses a similar system. In addition, the struts, the landing legs of the Surveyor, will be instrumented with strain gages and accelerometers, which will give not only the overall deceleration experienced by the spacecraft on landing, but the local strains and stresses in the legs produced by impactmg the lunar surface material. All of this will enable us to make a quantitative estimate of the bearing strength and the rate of give of the surface as the spacecraft is landing. Knowing the wei~ht of the spacecraft, then one can scale this up t.o the Lunar ExcurslOn Module case.
305
COMPARISON OF SURVEYOR AND LUNA
Senator CANNON. Was the Luna 9 as sophisticated a spacecraft as the Surveyor in tenns of the amount of data that was sent back~ Dr. NEWELL. We do not believe so, although we do not know that we have all the infonnation on the Luna 9 instrumentation. In our view, the Luna 9 is probably closer to what we had planned in the Ranger V, in which we had a landing capsule enclosed in Balsa wood to impact on the lunar surface, and then, after impacting, take a picture of the surrounding terrain. The Surveyor. has, as I have indicated, a closed l~ landing system so that the landmg procedure should be more certaIn. The Surveyor also has the capability of carrying additional instrumentation; in fact, we have a fairly respectable list of instruments that can be put on the Surveyor for other missions. Senator CANNON. So that actually, it is possible that the Soviets themselves may have gotten back comparable infonnation, but at least we have only seen-that is, the views that we have seen have not been as complete as the infonnation you get back from the Surveyod Dr. NEWELL. That is correct. SIGNIFICANCE OF LUNA
9
LANDING
Senator CANNON. Was the landing of the Luna 9 on the Moon where there is no atmosphere, did that constitute any kind of a breakthrough in space technology, or is this something that is just ordinary and accepted ~ Dr. NEWELL. Oh, I think the landing of Luna 9 was a significant jump in space operations. You have to think of this, I believe, as like the launching of a spacecraft from Cape Kennedy, going way out to some hundreds of thousands of miles from the Earth, and then think of it in reverse. You start out at that distance and you try to back this thing down to a landing on the launching pad. This is, in effect, what Surveyor has to do and, in effect, is what Luna 9 had to accomplish. Senator CANNON. Well, it has a little more leeway than actually going on to a specific launchin~ pad in its end target, does it not Y Dr. NEWELL. Yes, sir, that IS correct, although in the case of Surveyor, we are going to try to put it down in a very carefully chosen site. In the case of Luna 9, our impression is that the Soviets simply picked the area where they would be coming in as close to vertically as possible. Senator CANNON. I have some questions, and I see my"time is up, so I shall simply submit those for the record. (Questions submitted by Senator Cannon to Dr. Newell and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
OBJECTIONS OF SURVEYOR PROJECT
Question. What are the objectives of the Surveyor project? Answer. The objectives of the Surveyor program as listed in News Release No. 66-24 dated February 1, 1966, are as follows: "Certification of landing sites for Apollo and the increase of scientific knowledge of the Moon."
306
Since the above statement of 'Objectives is somewhat condensed, it may be appr'Opriate t'O list some specifics: 1. Certification 'Of landing sites far Apollo: (a) Landing loads at surface impact: The farce-time characteristics 'Obtained in a Survey 'Or landing will pr'Ovide estimates 'Of the dynamic bearing strength of the lunar surface. These data 'Obtained by Surveyor will represent the cl'Osest available approximati'On to the actual LEM landing c'Onditions. (b) Nature 'Of the lunar surface: The televisl'On camera aboard the Surveyor will pr'Ovide topographic mapping, an estimate of the extent 'Of pr'Otuberances and depressl'Ons and a ph'Otogeologic interpretati'On 'Of the landing site. High res'Olution, closeup views of the lunar surface will permit a detailed examination of the surface structure and all'Ow discrimination between such features as lava flows, ash flows, unc'Onsolidated dust, etc. 2. Increase of the scientific knowledge of the M'O'On: Surveyors 'Of missi'Ons H throug-h J class will carry a payload 'Of scien tific Instruments consisting of the following: Two TV cameras far stereo imaging. A surface sampler to manipulate the soil. A seismometer to rec'Ord Moan quakes. A micr'Ometeorite detector to indicate secondary ejecta 'On the Moon. A touchd'Own dynamics experiment t'O provide increased data on the nature of the surface. An alpha scattering instrument to analyze the chemical constituents of the soil. Question 2. A. In your judgment is the Surveyor program still essential to the Apollo pro gl'am. That is, do you regard it as necessary to get Surveyor data back from the Moon prior to sending a man up there'! B. Do tbe Surveyor spacecrnft and LE:\I 1'pacecraft have any common 1'nb syRtems? Answer. A. In my judgment, the data return from the Surveyor missions is still very imp'Ortant to the Apollo program. It i,; expe(ted that the SurYf'yor missions will make a significant c'Ontribution to the planning and execution of the manned program both in proving out the technology for acc'Ompli~hing a ~oft landing n~ well as in furnishing ndYan('ed Information regarding the nature 'Of tbe lunar surface. Some of the specific information which the early Surveyors will provide Is as f'Ollow1' :
Verification of spacecraft de8ion Cfmcepts
Many of the elements of tbe SurYeyor Rpaeecrnft are similar in concept and design t'O th'Ose used in the Apollo LEM. The 8uccesf'ful landing 'Of Survey'Or on the Moon will dem'Onstrate the development 'Of a complex landing system capable 'Of opeMtions in the environment of spaCE" and will als'O confirm the adequacy of the radar reflective model of the Moon used in the deRign of the terminal descent radar systems.
Landing
load.~
at surface impart
The first landed Surveyor will pr'Ovide information 'On the landing loads at surface impact. The force-time chal'acteri~tics will indicate the s'Oil-mechanical properties as a function of depth and may also pr'Ovlde information 'On the failure made 'Of the 11mar surface, i.e .. i1' it n hnrd crnRt which mny be penetrated, dust over s'Olid rock, etc. Survey'Or t'O be used in missi'Ons H thr'Ough J will c'Onduct a t'Ouchdown experiment in which detailed information relating t'O the nature of the lunar surfare will be dewloped.
Location of protuberarwrs and deprcssions
The TV camera will provide a photogeologic interpretation Oif the landing site including tbe location of protuberances and depressions as well as providing a bigh resolution closeup view of the lunar surface and tbe displacement of tbe landing pads Into the surfare. As you know, the data-gathering capabllitiei'! of the Surveyors to be flown in missions H through J will be greatly enhanced by payload items such ai'!: two televiAion cameras, a mlcromete'Orite detector, a surface sampler, an alpha back scattering Instrument, a seii'!mOlneter, and as mentioned before, touchd'Own dynamlrfl instrumentation. As to the necessity for obtaining Surveyor returned data prior to a Illanned landing on the Moon, I can only say that with the life of an astronaut at stake,
307
amI with the prestige of this :"\ation reflected in his safety, it would be an act of irresponsibility not to evaluate the ll1i~sion risks by every means at our disposal. We believe the Surveyor data return provide information regarding the hostile em'ironment of the :\Ioon and tlw eharacteristicl' of the lunar surfaee such that a realistic assessment of risk may be made. B. Due to differences in size and structures, the subsystem of the Apollo LEM and the Surveyor spaceeraft are not (,Ollllllon in the sense that interehangeability between them would be jlOSsihle. However. several of the elements of the Surve~'or spacecraft are similar in coneept and design to those used in the Apollo LEM such as the radar altimeter. radar doppler velocity sensors, closed-loop terminal guidance system, throttable engines. leg-type landing gear and S-band eommunications and traeking to lunar di8tanees. Question 3. A. What is the estimated total eost of the Surveyor program '1 B. How mueh has this increased over last year's estimates? C. How much did the fiscal year 1967 budget for the Surveyor increase? Why? D. Do you think the cost of the Surveyor program will continue to increase? Answer. A. The estimated total cost of the 10 Surveyor spacecraft, the experiments, and supporting ground operations is $551,3 million. B. The above total cost is an increase of $19.9 million over last year's estimates. C. The fiscal year 1967 budget decreased $600,000 dollars. This decrease represents an adjustment brought about by an increase in funds caused by Program Stretch-Out and a decrl.'ase in funds by the elimination of program el!'ments such as the lunar roving vehicle and follow-on spacecraft. D. At this time I do not believe that the cost of the Surveyor program will continue to increase. The fact that we will be manufacturing seven essentially identical spacecraft should permit a better assessment of cost. However, we have not yet obtained the results of flight experience. Conceivably, the engineering data return on our first mission could result in additional effort not presently considered. Question 4. Why during the past year did you change the three operational Surveyors-5, 6, and 7 (E, F, G), from the 2,450-pound operational spacecraft to the 2,2.'jO-pound engineering test spacecraft? Answer. This change was made because of technical, fiscal, and scheduling problems which we had encountered and because of the urgent need for accomplishing su<'ceSSful Surveyor flight missions in adequate time to provide effective support for the Apollo program. The postponement of the operational flights had the effect of reducing the complex and congested workload at the Hughes Aircraft Co. thus permitting the eoneentration of efforts on the 2,200-pound version of the Surveyor system. ",Ye believe that the decision has been a good one as exemplified by the factory release and shipment of our first-Ilight spacecraft in February of this year. Question 5. A. How many Surveyor 8pacecraft are currently under contract? B. How many Surveyor "pace flights are now planned? C. When do you expect to contract for the next block of Surveyor spacecraft? Answer. A. Seven spacecraft are currently under contract. B. Ten Surveyor f'pace flights are currently planned. C. July 1966.
,,,ill
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith. Senator SMITH. I have several questions, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to go into, but in the interest of time, I would ask that they be presented to Dr. Newell to answer for the record. I believe the answers will be helpful in our deliberations. The CHAIR.1\IAN. W"ithout objection, that will be done. (Questions submitted by Senator Smith to Dr. Newell and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
MARINER SPACECRAFT MODIFICATION
Question 1. Dr. Xewell. the Mariner spacecraft ll!'ing prepared for the 1967 Venus probe is hardware remaining from the 196.'; Mars fly-by program. Is it more economical to modify this for the 1967 Yenus probl.' and build a new spacecraft for the 1969 :\Iars probe or are there other consid!'rations underlying the decision to modify this :\Iars-oriented spacecraft for a Venus mission?
308
Answer. It is more economical to modify the spacecraft for the Venus mission than build a new spacecraft to go to Venus in 1967. The decision to proceed with the Venus and Mars Mariner missions in 1967 and 1969 was too late to attempt an operation for the Mars 1966 opportunity. Also, it was deemed too great a risk to prolong storage life of the spare Mariner spacecraft for some later mission. Hence, it was decided to use the spare spacecraft for the first possible opportunity; i.e., the 1967 Venus mission. Studies have indicated that the Mariner spacecraft could be adapted for a Venus mission with relatively minor modifications. Question 2. In testimony before this committee last year Dr. SeamanH said. speaking of the space Mariner V spacecraft: "I might point out that it would not lend itself to making the kind of measurements, though, that we are talking about with regard to Venus. It is designed to go out away from the Earth, farther away from the Sun. It is not designed to go in closer, which would be required in the case of Venus. "It is certainly not designed to go inside the Yenetian atmosphere and make temperature measurements, so a kind of application that was recommended was really a further investigation of Mars, including the taking of pictures." Now, however, this spacecraft is being modified to fly toward Venus in 1967. How much will these modifications cost and why didn't you designate thiR spacecraft for a Mars mission for which it was designed ? Answer. The cost for this mission (not including launch vehicle procurement) is estimated to be $30 million. At the time the planetary programs were realined and it was determined that there would be a mission toward Venus in 1967 and another toward Mars in 1969, it was too late to modify the Mariner spacecraft for the 1966 Mars opportunity. The earliest opportunity for a Venus mission occurs in 1967. During the past year it was determined that the Mariner Rpacecraft could be adapted for a Venus mission with relatively minor modificationf'. Therefore, it was decided to use the Mariner spacecraft in storage for the Yenus opportunity rather than subject it to a more prolonged storage awaiting the Mars opportunity in 1969.
SPACE RESEARCH-DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Question 3. Recently, the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences published three volumes entitled "Space Research-Directions for the F'uture," which contained many recommendations for the space program. Could you discuss briefly with the committee NASA's view regarding these National Academy of Science reports? Answer. NASA has not yet finished the review of the National Academy of Science reports. However, our preliminary analysis shows that the reports contain substantial elements of a sound, imaginative, and challenging program of space research for the next 10 to 15 years. The individual projects recommended have high scientiflc merit, are technically sound, and ultimately all should be done. Where possible, within the available resources, NASA is starting feasibility studies on those projects not in the present program. The size and complexity of the instruments recommended by the Astronomy Working Group are such that they may require the use of men to establiRh and maintain them. These large instruments would be in the nature of permanent astronomical facilities in space--a National Space Astronomy Observatory-for use by any competent astronomer. The report on "Planetary and Lunar Exploration" recommended a vigordU8 program of planetary exploration with first priority assigned to Mars and second priority to the Moon and Venus. They recommended early use of the Saturn V in the Voyager program, but stressed the importance of continuing exploratory missions to the planets in general. The present Voyager program contemplates the first launch of two Voyager spacecraft on a single Saturn V to Mars in 1973. The Mariners 1967 and 1969 continue the exploratory fiyby investigations of Venus and Mars which were initiated ,<;0 successfully with Mariner II and IV, respectively. The costs of the total program recommended in "Space Research-Directions for the Future," is considerably higher than the cost of the program In the ORSA proRpeCtu,<;, which, in turn, is considerably more t.han the current OSSA budget. indicating the existence of a large number of exciting, signifkant. and desirable projects which can be undertaken, but only as the resources become available.
------------~---

INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPEB.ATION
309
Question 4. Dr. Newell, there is increasing discussion of our cooperating in the space program with other nations. What do you see in the way of increased cooperation with ochers in space activity beyond what is taking place now? Answer. I have just returned from a visit to a number of European nations and to ESRO (European Space Research Organization), where we discussed the p0ssibility of increased cooperation in space activity. In the past, in our international program, we have furnished Scout vehicles to launch small satellites designed and built by another nation to accomplish scientific objectives of mutual interest. We are now discussing cooperative programs along these same lines in which a number of nations would undertake to develop a major spacecraft which would involve Significant advances in technology and would require that we furnish a booster of the Atlas class or larger. We have discussed projects such as a probe to Jupiter or an advanced solar project. These were suggested only as examples and we made clear our readiness to oonsider European proposals which might motivate significant scientific and technical achievements of mutual interest. Question 5. Could you smnmarize the international projects OSSA has participated in in the past year? Answer. Two international satellites were launched-Alouette II and FR-l. Alouette II, launched November 29, 1965, is part of the ISIS (international satellies for ionospheric studies) program. This spacecraft was built in Canada, and is providing excellent sounder data from the upper ionosphere in conjunction with other types of eqUipment on the U.S.-bUilt direct measurement Explorer A, launched at the same time from the same vehicle. The United Kingdom Lq also act.ively cooperating in data reception and analysis. FR-l, launched December 6, 1965, is a French-built satellite, designed to make measurements on the characteristics of very low frequency waves in the ionosphere. It, too, is providing good data. There has been widespread cooperation, involving over 100 experimenters, in observations of signals from the Beacon Explorer Band C satellites. From these observations, the ionospheric electron content and irregularities above the receiving site may be obtained. Widespread participation is needed to obtain global coverage. Tiros IX was launehed with an automatic picture transmission system, enabling other nations to obtain weather pictures above their territory. This program will continue with the ESSA satellites and Nimbus. Ongoing international satellite projects include San Marco, with Italy; UK-3, with the United Kingdom; ESRO I and II, with the European Space Research Organization; and a new project with Germany. Numerous foreign experiments have been flown on the OGO, OSO, and ISIS satellites. The roeket program has been particularly well StIited to international cooperative projcts, under which about 50 launches have been carried out in scientific investigations in India, Pakistan, Norway, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, and Dutch Guiana. Additionally, French, German, British, Israeli, and Swedish scientists provided experimental apparatus for a sounding rocket flight from White Sands, N. Mex. Question 6. Would you discuss the results of the International Quiet Sun Year? Answer. The International Quiet Sun Year (IQSY) was a period of international eooperation during the conditions of solar minimum for the purpose of investigating the conditions of the Sun and the solar-terrestrial interrelations. Through this cooperation, ground-based investigations were carried out along with investigations in space. The importance of the IQSY was not derived from the expectation of scientific discovery, but rather to determine the condition of the atmospheres and interplanetary space as a baseline to the large perturbations resulting from active sunspots, solar flares, and solar storms. The flight program of NASA has been the main source of a number of moderate discoveries through the solar quiet period. The extent of solar quiet became evident from X-ray measurements of Explorer XXX; the X-ray flux from the Sun was so low in the wavelength region near 10 A that much of the time the level was not readabl~zero leVel. The solar active coudtions for X-ray flux often reaches several 100,000 times these values. The
310
opportunity in the IQSY cooperation led to the completion of a worldwide solar patrol incorporating between 40 '00 50 stations. The solar eclipse studies of the quiet Sun yielded interesting information about the quiet solar corona. Noteworthy, was the discovery of a number of new lines in the infrared in the corona and the measurement of a dust-free region 6 solar radii from ,the surface as indicated by the variation in the Fraunhofer cororral polarization. These observations of the eclipse were successfully achieved from a four-engine jet aircraft flying at 40,000 feet altitude over the Pacific Ocean. The solar wind was 'also quiet with free stream velocities ranging from 300 kilometers per second to less than 500 kilometers per second and ion densities rarely exceeding 1 to 3 ions cm..... The shape of the collisionless hydromagnetic shock resulting from the solar wind interacting with the geomagnetic field was measured. The investigation of the wake of the shock resulted in the discovery of a long tail extending 40 to 100 Earth radii in the antisolar direction away from the 1<]arth. This tail has been the basis for conjecture for a mechanism of accelerating particles into the auroral region as an explanation of auroral phenomena. An antisolar maximum of the oxygen 6300 A red line was discovered from the mobile launch ship, possibly caused by energetic neutral particles from the tail. The solar quiet conditions have been the basis for improved understanding of the D region near 80 kilometers, because the ionization in this region is to a large extent caused by X-rays as in sudden commencements and polar blackouts. The conditions of ionization were found to be highly variable and unstable in the region from 60 to 80 kilometers, as though the chemical nature of the atmosphere was the controlling factor in the amount of ionization. The electron density in the low altitude region was two times lower in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere; an efi'ect of minor constituents. The measurement of 10' nitric oxide atoms lead to a revision of the mechanism for D region formation, as Lyman alpha radiation is important during solar mininum. Metallic ions, probably from meteors, were found' as a major ion in the region near 80 to 120 kilometers. By the combination of wind measurements with probes, the charaeter of the sporadic E of the ionosphere was found. The sporadic E was associated with intense shears shown from chemieal releases while the sporadie E was an extremely sharp layer only 2 or 3 kilometers thick. Worldwide measurements of the dynamics of the lower ionosphere were made, identifying a region of turbulence to 106 kilometers and intense shears to 120 kilometers. The 12-hour tidal component was identified in this region as well as a gravity wave mechanism of absorbing energy. The most intense winds ever observed at near sound speeds of 300 meters per second were measured in the auroral region at 120 kilometers. The coldest temperature condition, 135 K., was also found at very high latitudes; the low temperature condition is important in understanding noctilucent clouds. In the altitude region from 100 to 200 kilometer~. composition studies have shown a still incomplete picture of the extent of the variation of atomic oxygen with solar angle and latitude. The first measurements of neutral helium have been made through this altitude region. In the auroral region a light ion, probably ionized atomic hydrogen, has been found as the major ion. The H,B airglow has been measured in aurora, showing a layering supporting a proton l'lyer at times. It has been found that thE' main radiation in the aurora is in the far ultraviolet from the atomic oxygen (triplet) at 1304 A. The Lyman-Birge-Hopfield nitrogen emission is also present in the auroral atmosphere. ThE' equatorial electro.iet studiE'S from thE' mobilE' launeh platform (the U.S.S. Croatan) have shown the altitude rE'gion for thE' elE'etrojet was near 110 kilometers and thE' latitudE' dE'pendencp was mapped to show the "olump of thp eurrent system. The Sq solar-indueed eUITE'nts were measured and defined at mid and equatorial latitudps. Of mE'teorological intE'rest, thp latitudE' survPy of ozone content showpd a minimum in the equatorial re2'ion. while thp windR in the Southern Hpmisphere were found to inerease in intensity to 140 meters per second at 60 kilometprs with inereasinl!' latitudp and show a rpvprsal from the Northprn Hpmisphere. A diurnal "ariation of thp atmospherp npar 100 Idlometprs was found showing a maximum absorption in thp parly afternoon. and similar in shape to the bulging of thp atmm,phpre found from satpllitp drag. A weak latitude efi'eet, showing hpating in the polar regions waR found: this Pfi'N't should show large incrPases during solar aetive timp!!. In thp exosphprp, the complex nature of the interaction of thp ionic spPeies and the geomagnetic fipld was expospd from spveral nU'asureIDPnts. Thp latitudp
311
Yariation at the electron and ion densities and temperature showed that the Earth's magnetic field was a strong controlling influence. A dip in electron density appeared near the Equator with two maxima at 40 ~. and 40 S. The electron temperature shows large maxima at the auroral and palar regions. The light ion distributions out to distances of several Earth radii also are controlled by the geomagnetic field and the neutral constituents depart greatly from expected behavior without magnetic eil'ects. The amount of hydrogen in the exosphere over a solar cycle was found to change by more than a factor of 10 both from measurements of satellite drag and from the intensity of Lyman alpha scattered radiation. Theories for lateral :flow from the night to the day side haYe been deriYed to explain the solar bulge of the atmosphere. In summary, the quiet Sun conditions of the ionosphere and the upper atmosphere have been determined during the IQSY for the first time. The International Quiet Sun Year (IQSY) was a period 'Of international cooperation during the conditions of solar minimum for the purpose of investigating the conditions of the Sun and the solar-terrestrial interrelations. Through this cooperation, ground-based investigations were carried out along with investigati'Ons in space. The importance of the IQSY was not derived from the expectation of scientific discovery, but rather to determine the condition of the atmospheres and interplanetary space as a base line to the large perturbations resulting from active sunspots, solar flares, and solar storms. The :flight program of NASA has been the main source of a number of moderate discoveries through the solar quiet period. The extent of solar quiet became evident from X-ray measurements of Explorer XXX; the X-ray :flux from the sun was so low in the wavelength region near 10 A that much of the time the level was not readable--zero level. The solar active conditions for X-ray :flux often reaches several 100,000 times these values. The opportunity in the IQSY cooperation led to the completion of a worldwide solar patrol incorporating between 4~ stations. The solar eclipse studies of the quiet sun yielded interesting information about the quiet solar corona. Noteworthy, was the discovery of a number of new lines in the infrared in the corona and the measurement of a dust-free region six solar radii fr'Om the surface as indicated by the variation in the Fraunhofer coronal polarization. These observations of the eclipse were successfully achieved from a four engine jet aircraft :flying at 40,000 feet altitude over the Pacific Ocean. The solar wind was also quiet with free stream vel'Ocities ranging from 300 kIn/sec to less than 500 kIn/sec and ion densities rarely exceeding 1 to 3 ioons em-a. The shape of the collissionless hydromagnetic shock resulting from the solar win(l. interacting with the geomagnetic field was measured. The investigation 'Of the wake of the shock resulted in the diS<"Overy of a long tail extending 40 to 100 earth radii in the anti-solar direction away from the earth. This tail has been the basis f'Or conjecture for a mechanism of accelerating particles into the auroral region as an explanation of auroral phenomena. An anti-solar maximum of the oxygen 6300 A red line was discovered from the mobile launch ship, possibly caused by energetic neutral particles from the tail The solar quiet conditions have been the basis for improved understanding of the D region near 80 kIn, becanse the ionization in this region is to a large extent caused by X-rays as in sudden commencements and polar hlackouts. The conditions of ionization were found to be highly variable and unstsble in the region from 60 to 8Okm, as though the chemical nature of the atmoshpere was the controlling factor in the amount of iouization. The electron density in the low altitude region was two times lower in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere; an eil'ect 'Of min'Or constituents. The measurement of 10" nitric oxide atoms lead to a revisi'On 'Of the mechanism for D region formation, as Lyman alpha radiation is important during solar minimum. Metallic i'Ons, probably from meteors, were found as a major ion in the region near 80 to 120 km. By the combination of wind measurements with probes, the character of the sporadic E of the ionoshpere was found. The sporadic E was associated with intense shears shown from chemical rele-ases while the sporadic E was an extremely sharp layer only 2 or 3 kilometers thick. Worldwide measurements of the dynamics of the lower ionosphere were made, identifying a region of turbulence to 105 kIn and intense shears to 120 km. The 12 hour tidal component
59-9410-66-------21
312
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEA}? 1967
was identified in this region as well as a gravity wave mechanism of absorbing energy. The most intense winds ever observed at near sound speeds of 300 mjsec were measured in the auroral region at 120 km. The coldest temperature conditions, 135K was also found at very high latitudes; the low temperature condition is important in understanding noctilucent clouds. In the altitude region from 100 to 2ookm, composition studies have shown a still incomplete picture of the extent of the variation of atomic oxygen with solar angle and latitude. The first measurements of neutral helium have been made through this altitude region. In the auroral region a light ion, probably ionized atomic hydrogen, has been found as the major ion. The Htl airglow has been measured in aurora, showing a layering supporting a portion layer at times. It has been found that the main radiation in the aurora is in the far ultraviolet from the atomic oxygen (triplet) at 1304 A. The Lyman-Birge-Hopfield nitrogen emission is also present in the auroral atmosphere. The equatorial electrojet studies from the mobile launch platform (the U.S.S. Oroatan) have shown the altitude region for the electrojet was near llOkm and the latitude dependence was mapped to show the volume of the current system. The Sq solar induced currents were measured and defined at mid and equatorial latitudes. Of meteorological interest, the latitude survey of ozone content showed a minimum in the equatorial region, while the winds in the southern hemisphere were found to increase in intensity to 140 mjsec at 60km with increasing latitude and show a reversal from the northern hemisphere. A diurnal variation of the atmosphere near 100km was found showing a maximum absorption in the early afternoon, and similar in shape to the bulging of the atmosphere found from satellite drag. A weak latitude effect, showing heating in the polar regions was found; this effect should show large increases during solar active times. In the exosphere, the complex nature of the interaction of the ionic species and the geomagnetic field was exposro from several measurements. The latitude variation of the electron and ion densities and temperature showed that the earth's magnetic field was a strong controlling infiuence. A dip in electron density appearro near the equator with two maxims at 400N and 40 0S. The electron temperature shows large maxima at the auroral and polar regions. The light ion distributions out to distances of several earth radii also are controllro by the geomagnetic field and the neutral ronstituents depart greatly from expected behavior without magnptic effeds. The amount of hydrogen in the exospherf' OVf'r a solar cycle was found to change by more than a factor of ten both from measurements of satellite drag and from the intf'nsity of Lyman alpha scattf'red radiation. Theories for lateral fiow from the night to the day side have been derived to explain the solar bulge of the atmosphere. In summary, the quiet sun conditions of the ionosphere and the upper atmosphere have been determined during the IQSY for the first time.
Senator CANNON. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one further question here in addition to these others that I shall supply for the record? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. RELEASE OF LUNA MOON PICTURES Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairmall.
I was curious, Doctor, why did not NASA release the Luna 9 pic-
tUres of the Moon rather than let the U.S. public rely on the British and Russians for them? The CHAIRMAN. If you wish to answer . . Dr. SEAMANS. As you are well aware, Senator Cannon, other agenCIes of the Government than NASA are involved in obtaining as much information as we can about activities around the world, and we do receive infonnation where we can on such a flight as the Luna 9. It is not. NASA's responsibility to release such data. Senior people in NASA are kept informed of what information is available, but it is not our practice, nor is it the practice of our Government to make a
313
detailed release, for the very simple reason that it could then jeopardize our obtaining the data in the future. Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIlL'IAN. Mr. Gehrig~
STERILIZATION LAB AT JPL
Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Newell, would you briefly review for the committee the urgency underlying the fiscal year 1966 reprograming action to establish a spacecraft sterilization laboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory ~ Dr. NEWELL. Yes. The spacecraft sterilization laboratory is required for the Voyager capsule work. Even on the extended schedule, with the first Voyager landing in 197R, the timh~ is such that we must move ahead immediately to provide this sterilIzation facility. For large ~projects like Voyager, our experiences with Surveyor, OAO, and Gemmi indicate requiring something like 4 to 5 years to accomplish. If you start nt 1973 and back off, say, 4% years from the middle of 1973, when the opportunity occurs, you come to the beginning of 1968. That is the time when we feel we must begin the hardware work in order to accomplish the Voyager mission. Before we get on to the hardware work, we must go through the design of the capsule, and the design of the capsule is scheduled for 196'1. If we start now, we can have the sterilization facility ready in early 1967; it can then be used during the design period for the capsule during the remainder of 1967, so that we can begin with the request for proposals and entering into the hardware work in 1968. Because of the fact that sterilization requirements have a great impact on the design and cost of spacecraft, it is important to do this in proper phasing. As you know, if one goes ahead with the design and then finds that, well, we ought to have done it in a different way, the costs mount, and, of course, this is what we want to avoid.
VOYAGER PLANNING
Mr. GEHRIG. 'Vould you provide a chart showing the development schedule for the Mars landing capsule scheduled for 1973 Dr. NEWELL. I would be glad to provide that. (The information referred to follows:)
Answer. The attached chart 1 shows the schedule for the Voyager Mars capsules planned for launch in 1973. Design and development of the spacecraft and capsule is planned as a phased effort. Experience with other projects indicates that for a 1973 launch, hardware development of both the capsule and the spacecraft should start by the beginning of calendar year 1969. System design, approximately a 9-month effort culminating in detailed functional specifications, should therefore begin by the second quarter of calendar year 1968. The preliminl;lry design phase which precedes system design is a competitive activity conducted by two or more industrial contractors. This.phase of activity for the spacecraft was completed in January 1966 and is planned for the capsule beginning in the first quarter of calendar year 1967. It provides a basis for ~lection of a system design contractor and for arriving at a preferred preliminary design. The time period between ('apsule preliminary design and system design is required for design evaluation, preparation of a request for proposals, proposal preparation, and contractor evaluation.
r.T
2
CY 1955 CY 19;36 CY1S07 CY 19J8 CY 19>9 CY 197C1 CY 1971 CY

ilartian Opportunity
1-97~3-Gi;iE11
~
\-4
1234 1 2. '34 12 3.~. 1 234 1234 123 4J~!213'4 lj21314111.?1~~, 1 ~/ 4
~ ~73
1
I
III
I I I I 1+
3 I Spacecraft and Capsule Development
~
r!
s
M,no""","
"""m (,,",.,m,,11Tr1
I~
,
....
_L I -
6 I and Capsule)
Preliminary DeSign Capsule
lliI.w~
' J.
I
g:
o
1
I
'9 -".""''"'' (c'n.C'~o,,)
I
1;-I-t-t-
~
10
I
SA1)L .
Desl[',n
13-1
I- ~ J
Construct' n
I .,..
I
i-
iiJ b~.J
17
~I
00"","000'
-IIEB=-~-I---- r"hltlllt:l11ttttlinilTIiJ
-j-I
L_t- -'-I -F-r--'~-Ij-'- -rrt-t- -i-r--~ -, J I l Lrr,. ,- ~[I-t-I -1-t--, -~->-;-j---f-,-j-r--i- -r--r-i-n-j-;~I- --' r-t-Ij-r-- 1 I rr--I I ' _ ;-i--r--I- I I'
I I
H-"1
HT-t-t-I J -1- t-i I I r-r-r-I r- " I-r-I-rl-J-t-r r--i-r--j--- r-[] - ri-jr- -' 1 JI-r--t- -rr--r---I r--~-I-=~Ir-t--,
>-1-.
1- I
J - , I I
J I J I
1
J I
I
,
1
~
~
~ .... t<I
"'.1
Ul
"'.1 ....
1 -I
-I
C~ I
>-
<0
0>
~
....
ILLUSTRATION
315
Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Chairman? I have a group of questions here on the Mariner Mars mission which I would like to have answered for the record. I have another group of questions on the Mariner Venus mission for 1967, and a group of questions on communications satellites to be answered for the record. I have one question on the planning in your office, Dr. Newell. Before the committee last year regarding the Mariner V, Dr. Seamans testified, and I shall quote :
It is our feeling that the longer range goals of the Voyager are 80 important that we would prefer at this time to deploy our resources toward the longer term rather than the shorter term benefits that we admit we could obtain from Mariner V.
Now, the Voyager has been deferred, and you must wait until at least 1973. We see a similar problem in the lunar program, where the Surveyor project was first talked about, as I understand it, in the spring of 1960 and we have had some testimony on how the cost has increased. We know that the weight of the spacecraft has had to be reduced and, in the meantime, the Soviets have landed on the Moon. And I might point out here that you cancelled some of the Ranger block-the Soviets have landed a Surveyor-like craft on the Moon, I should say. In the meantime, NASA canceled the last block of the Ranger spacecraft, despite the fact that the Ranger was a great success, although it had also been beset by a number of difficulties. My questlOn is, in your planning, have you considered that perhaps you move too fast into larger programs like the Voyager, which is going to cost over a billion dollars, before exploiting the less costly techniques , Dr. NEWELL. I think that the lesson of the last 5 years in our s,Pace activities is that these large programs, like Surveyor and the OrbIting Astronomical Observatory do take a long amount of time. In fact, for a project of that size, 5 years is a reasonable time to expect to expend on the program. What I am saying is that in the case of the Surveyor, our early estimate of the time involved was bad, but the time that we have taken to do it is not unreasonable. In the case of the Voyager, then, having learned this lesson, if we are going to move into thIS large type of activity in the 1970's, now is the time to get working on that type of program. Otherwise, we will be faced with the longer delay and the longer gap between now and when we get into the large-scale, more versatile type of exploration of the solar system. I would say in direct answer to your question, that I still feel that the move into Voyager as rapidly as possible is a wise step for this country. I also feel, however, as I believe I stated last year before this committee that a concomitant small- or medium-sized planetary program, using the Mariner-type spacecraft and spinning spacecraft, is a wise thing and a good thing for the country, and both of them ought to go along together. In our planning, we had in mind recommending to the Administrator of NASA when we had gotten under way on Voyager for 191/1 the introduction of smaller type spacecraft as concomItant to the larger spacecraft for a long-range program. As you know, however, we never got to that. The Voyager was delayed until 1973 and therefore, we felt that we ought to bring in the smaller type spacecraft
316
program earlier, and that is what we are recommending in the current budget. Mr. GEHRIG. I have other questions which will be put in the transcript to be answered for the record. (Questions submitted to Dr. Newell and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
MARINER MISSION TO VENUS 1967
Question 1. What are the objectives of the 1967 Mariner mlSSlOn to Venus? Answer. The main objective of the 1967 Mariner mission to Venus is to conduct a flyby mission to Venus in 1967 in order to obtain scientific information which will compl'ement and extend the results obtained by Mariner II relevant to determining the origin and nature of Venus and its environment. The primary measurements to be made are:
Me(Uurement Re(Uon
Ultra-violet photometry _____________ _ Determine density and distribution of atomic hydrogen and atomic oxygen and temperature of outer atmosphere of Venus. S-band occultation __________________ _ Establish knowledge of seal'e height and density distribution of Venusian atmosphere and ionm;phere. Dual-frequency occultation __________ _ Acquire data on neutral atmosphere and ionosphere of Venus and make possible separation of dispersive pla:;;ma effects from nondispersive effects of neutral atmosphere. Trapped radiation detector __________ _ Conduct an improved search for a trapped radiation belt around Venus and for charged partkh> efl'ects in the magnetohydrodynamic wake of Venus. Helium magnetometer _______________ _ Investigate flow of solar wind around Venu:;;. Reinvestigate existence of intrinsic magnetic moment of Venus. Plasma probe _______________________ _ Measure solar plasma properties with respect to space and time concurrent with similar measurements by OGO, IMP and Pioneer.
NEED FOR VENUS PROBE
Question 2. Why do we need that Venus probe? Answer. The Space Science Board of :the National Academy of Sciences has recommended the planets as the majar goal for U.S. space exploration in ,the 1970's. In making its ,recommendation, the Space Science Board strongly emphasized the importance of investigating not only Mars, but the other planets as well. Both Mars and Venus are impol'tant be<'ause of their similarity in many respects to Earth. 'The atmosphere of Venus is a puzzle. No one has put forth a good explanation of why Venus should have so much atmosphf'rf', amounting to possibly 100 earth atmospheres at the surface. Being almost a twin to earth in size and mass, Venus might be expectf'd to have slightly less of an atmosphere than Earth because of its closeness to the sun and the greater atmospheric heating to be expected. Also it is indeed puzzling that Earth's twin should not have a magnetic field comparable to Earth's. Moreover. the matter of how hot the surface of Venus is, is still not settled. Further stUdies of the available data, including thase obtained from Mariner II. raise sollie question. While it is still generally agreed t'hat the most likely explanation of the data is that the surface lies between 600 F. and 800 F., nevertheless there is the possibility that the high temperatures exist somewhere up in the atmosphf're. and that the surface is cooler. This possibility ,then raisl's the further qUf'stion as to whether there still might be life to be found on till' surface of Venus.
317
It is to try to resolve some of these questions about Venus that we ,plan to llya Mariner by the planet in 1967.
COST OF 1967 FLYBY
Question 3. What is the estimated cost of the 1967 Venus llyby? Answer. About $30.2 million, plus $9.8 million for procurement of launch vehicles.
MABINER-MABoS MISSION, 1969
Question 4. "What are the objectives of the 1969 Mariner-Mars mission? Will the 1969 Mariner-Mars provide additional information on the atmosphere and other environmental factors of Mars that will assist in the design and engineering of the 1973 Yoyager spacecraft and landing capsule 1" Answer. The objectiyes of the 1969 Mariner-Mars mission are: (a) The primary objective of the Mariner-Mars 1969 project is to conduct llyby missions in order to make exploratory investigations of Mars which will set the basis for future experiments particularly those relevant to the search for extraterrestrial Hfe. (b) The secondary objective is the development of technology needed for the succeeding Mars missions. (c) The tertiary objective is to obtain 9Cientillc information on the interplanetary environment between Earth and Mars, and in the vicinity of Mars. It is currently planned that the 1969 Mariner-Mars mission will carry television, infrared, and ultraviolet experiments to obtain information on the planet and its atmosphere. It is also currently planned that an occultation experiment will be conducted utilizing one or more radio frequencies. The television experiment is expected to provide additional visual information about the Martian surface. The infrared and ultraviolet experiments are expected to provide additional information on surface temperature and atmospheric composition. The occultation experiment is expected to provide additional information on the atmospheric density, scale height and layering. All of this information will assist in the design and engineering of the 1973 Voyager spacecraft and landing capsule. QUestion 5. Dr. Newell, what is the estimated cost of the 1969 Mars flyby? Answer. The total cost is estimated to be about $98 million for spacecraft, plus an additional $20 million for procurement of launch yehide hardware.
(Questions submitted by the committee to Dr. Newell and answers supplied :for the record are as :follows:)
NASA'S OB.TECTIVES IN COMMUNICATIONS
Question 1. Dr. Newell, in your statement submitted for the record you say, regarding communications satellites, "NASA's objectives" .... now look beyond this first communications satellite appli('ation. to more advanced applications su('h as dire<>t broadcast of radio and television from satellite to home re<>eiver, civilian air navigation, air-traffic control, and global data relay." What are NASA's objectives in the cOlllllltmkations area? Answer. The objectives of the commnnication and applications technology program are: 1. To insure that the technology required for the establishment of future communication and navigation satE'llite systems and other useful space applications is dE'veloped. Z. To study the reqUirements for and tE'C'hnically assess thE' applicability of satellites to the future needs of communication and navigation systems and their useful satellite applications. 3. To investigate and flight test technology for the geostationary orbit. 4. To flight test eXpE'riments for numbers of types of promising satellite applications on individual spacecraft to eifE'C't e<'onomies. 5. To fulfill NASA's responsihilities under the CommunieatioDS Satellite Aet of 1962. In planning for future spacecraft missions in the Communication and Applieations Technology Satellite program, our prime goals have been to insure that the technology for these mission:;; is developed, and that studiE'S are conducted to technically assess rE'quirements and future needs in sufficiE'nt depth to support meaningful and timely program decisions.
318
Question 2. Dr. Newell, in the fiscal year 1967 budget request there is, as I understand it, $4.6 million in supporting research and technology for communications and navigation systems, and in addition, there is approximately $22 million in the applications technology satellite program. The result of all this research and development and, of course, some other R. & D. that NASA is doing in things like electronics, booster technology, etc., will be of direct benefit to the Communications Satellite Corp. Is the research that NASA is doing specifically in communications and navigation and in the ATS program applicable most directly to the Comsat Corp., or is this research necessary to other Government departments and agencies? What are these departments and agencies? (DOD, Weather Bureau, USIA, FAA.) Is the Communications Satellite Corp. at present the only major user of the research and development that you do in communications and navigation? Answer. Since the remarks preceding the question relate specifically to the fiscal year 1967 program, our response will be addreRsed to fiscal year 1967. Of the research in the NASA fiscal year 1967 communications and ATS program ($4.6 million S.R. & T., $22 million current ATS fiight project), our best estimate is that approximately $7 million will be directly applicable to satellite communications. Of this $7 million, it is our estimate that approximately $5 million would be devoted to development of technology, information, and techniques which could be of applicability to the Communications Satellite Corp. The remainder of the fiscal year 1967 costs would be in fields of spacecraft technology of general utility to space applications in areas such as communications with small mobile terminals, meteorological sensing from stationary altitudes, gravity gradient technology, and basic scientific measurements to determine the environment at the geostationary and 6,500-mile altitudes. This technology and scientific information is of importance and utility to programs of the Weather Bureau, the FAA, and the DOD. The Communications Satellite Corp. is not the only major user of the NASA research and development in communications and navigation. As indicated, communications and navigation is a portion of our communications and ATS program nnd elements of this program are of utility to the Defense Department and the FAA, including those elements C'oncerned with communication with airC'rnft and position-fixing teC'hniques using satellites. Question 3. How much money does NASA spend applicable to Comsat activities, (a) that is reimhursahle, and (b) not reimhursable? Answer. With respect to the money that NASA spends applicable to Communications Satellite Corp. activities that are reimbursable, the following indicates the payments by Comsat to NASA for such activities: 1. Cost of HS-303 launch ________________________________________ $3,330,000 (Paid on estimated cost basis. A final settlement on the basis of actual costs to NASA will be made within 2 years of the launch date which was April 6, 19(5) 2. Rental of Syncom-type test equipmenL________________________ 8.''1,050 3. Miscellaneous services furnished in connection with HS--303 program: (Paid on estimated costs bash'l; final sf'ttlement to bf' made when actual costs determined) _______________________ _ B. NASA does not spend any money whiC'h is specifically applicnble to Communications Satellite Corp. activities whi<'h is not rf'imbursable. As indicatf'd in our response to your previous question. there iR approximatf'ly $5 million in the fiscal year 1967 communications and applications teC'hnology satellite prcr gram which could be applied by the Oommunications Satellite Corp. as well as by other users of communicationR satellite technology.
BROADCAST SATELldTES
. Question 4. Why is :"rASA invf'stigating the fpasibility of a synchronous satelhte that would hroadcast television programs dirpctly to home receivers? Answer. One of the objectives of the U.S. space activities, stated in the Space Act of 1958, is to preserve thl' role of the United States a,s a If'ader in space science and technology and in the application thf'reof. The patential applicability of spnl'e technology to broadcasting hns been recognized internationally, and is a subjP('t of continuing study 'by member nntions of the Internntional TelecolUlUnnif'ations {'nion-the body concerned with frequency alIocntions on a globnl hasis. Also. there is current interest
319
here and abroad in satellites for distributing TV programs material direct to network stations, as evidenced by the American Broadcasting Coo's proposal to the FCC and the recent demonstration by the Soviet Union with Molniya. Further, various agencies of the Government have asked NASA to comment on the technical feasibility, timing, and costs of providing space broadcast services, both aural, and television, considering a broad range of potential user applications. More detailed studies on technical approaches and alternatives have been requested. To be responsive to the requests of all those organizations concerned, we must be knowledgeable within the Government so that evaluaUon and assessments can be made of the full gambit of technical possibilities. As a part of our research programs, we must undertake certain mission feasibility studies. Such studies assist NASA in determining the direction that the development of tech nology should take, considering spacecraft structures, stabilization and orientation systems, space power sources, and launch vehicles. The subject e1fort would not necessarily determine solely the direction of technological development, but rather it would be the sum total of such conceptual studies in other areas as well as broadcast satellites that would help shape the requirement of technological development. It is important that the technology storehouse be explored thoroughly not only to maintain U.S. leadership, but also to reveal opportunities for alternative technical approaches to a given capability which might better fit both the technical as well as the political concerns. At this point, it is emphasized that NASA does not have a program to develop a broadcast satellite system at this time, nor is there any intent to enter any phase of the broadcast business. We believe, however, that the application of space technology to the vast field of communications in all its forms is a very real technical possibility. NASA must be familiar with these applications of space and their technical requirements. It is with these considerations in mind that NASA has undertaken a modest fltudy program in the space broadcasting area. Question 5. Dr. Newell., have NASA and the State Department studied the impact on our foreign relations of technical broadcasting from satellite to home receivers? Answer. The foreign policy implications of direct satellite broadcasting to home receivers appear to be the prime responsibility of the Department of State. NASA has discussed with the Department the possibility of direct broadcasting and briefed the Department on the technical considerations.
METEOROLOGICAL SATELLITE PROGRAM
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, I will insert at the end of Dr. Newell's testimony a statement on the space activities of the Environmental Science Services Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, which has been submitted at the request of the committee. This material covers the meteorological satellite program, including the first two satellites of the TOS System desIgnated ESSA I and ESSA II, the activities in telecommunications and aeronomy, geodetic satellite program, and the bud~etary data pertaining to the Environmental Science Services Admimstration space program. (The material referred to begins on p. 372.) GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE
PROGRAM
The CHAIRMAN. Last year, in the authorization report, this committee requested that NASA report to the Congress on whether any Steps are being taken to establish a uniform national policy toward a global navigational satellite system. Without objection, I will place in the record at this point NASA's reply to this request, dated February 7, 1966, which says, essentially, that the Joint Navigation Satellite Committee has not completed its work.
320
(The material referred to follows:)

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, Washington, D.O., February 7, 1966. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
Oh,airman, Oommittee on Aeronautiool and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In its report on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration authorization for 1966 your committee stated in part: "It is * * * requested that 30 days after the submission of the Joint Navigational Satellite Committee's report to the agency heads, but not later than January 30, 1966, NASA report to the Congress on whether any steps are being taken to establish a uniform national policy toward a global navigation satellite system. "Your committee believes that a navigation satellite system might well become another useful application of space technology whereby the public interest would be served and that establishment of national policy will be necessary if such a system is to be developed." The Joint Navigation Satellite Committee has not as yet completed its work and recommendations; separate panels are completing their studies and it is expected that overall action by the committee will be completed within the next 2 months. A copy of the interagency agreement, Which, in effect, is a charter for the committee, is enclo~ed for the committee's information. It will be noted that the Joint Navigation Satellite Committee is designed to be a coordinating mechanism-a tool of the signatory agencies to draw together problems ann solutions for the guidance of those agencies in connection with the development of programs bearing on the navigation satellite problem. The committee itself is not an appropriate forum for establishing national policy. It should, however, be of material assistance to the separate agencies in defining and developing their programs through normal administrative, legisllltive, ann appropriations procedures; such actions should fix national policy in the area in a consistent and effective fashion. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration noes not have operating responsibilities: it is a research ann den'lopment agency ann its responsihility i~ primarily to expand the scope of human knowledge of phenomena in outer spaee. While NASA has been working in the development of effective communication and navigation satellites, application of the technology so developed would be the responsihllity of operating agencies of the U.S. Government. I'll the communication and navigation area NASA has funnen approximately $874.000 for the fiscal year 1965 and $1,700,000 for the fiscal year 19(',6. 'I'he recently submitted 1967 Presidential lJ'Udget would provide $1,900,000 for that purpose. Of the total figure in each of the years 196:-;, 196('" and 1007. approximately $400,000 is, or would be, allocated to plans. studies, research ann development in the navigation satellite area. Satellites should be useful in assisting overoeean aircraft and ships to obtain improvements in their communicatiom:;, in position determination, traffic control and coordination, in relaying oceanic nata ann emergency warningR for disaster situations, and for assistance in search and rescue services. NASA's r'search program supportA communication and npplicntion technology research hy examining spaee techniques which ean provid' position fixes to civilian ship~ and overocean aircraft, and developing the space technology ne'ded to provide air traffic controllers and marine trnffic eoordinntors with a commnnication capability and position-fixing information. By consultation with potential user agencl'R. NASA is attempting to inentify future needs for improvement in the area and in the role thnt space te<'hnology ean pIny in m'eting those neens. D'velopm'nt and proof of the feasihility of various new concepts and techniqueR are being 'xplored, ann analyticnl studi'R and laboratory tests relating thereto are heing developed for us' on future space miRsions, both mann'n ann unmanned. NAAA would expeet, of course, to go into morp detail with th' committee in explaining its present and potential nnvigfltion and communicntion satellites at !'/U{'h time aR it jnstifi,R itA 1007 authorizntion reoupstS. If we can he of further assistance, please no not hesitate to {'all on us. Sincerely yours, RICHARD L. (1AU.AOHAN,
A8sistant Administrafor tor
Lefli<~lative
Affairs.
321
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOB., THE DEPARTMENT OF CoMMEKOE, THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY, AND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
CONCEBNING A NONlIILITABY SATELLITE SYSTEM FOB AIB-SEA "NAVIGATION, TRAFFIC CONTROL, EMERGENCY AND RESCUE OPERATIONS, AND BELATED FUNCTIONS
1. General
This agreement establishes an ad hoc Joint Navigation Satellite Committee (JNSC) to perform the functions prescribed herein.
~.
Composition of the COfTImittee

(a)
Each signatory to this agreement shall appoint one member to the JNSC to represent his agency. An alternate member may also be appointed to act during absences of the member. (11) The Secretariat for JNSC shall be provided by the National AeTonautics and Space Administration, which will call the first meeting and provide a chairman for election of the permanent Chairman. (c) Advisers and observers may attend and contribute to, but shall have no official voice in, the proceedings of the JNSC.
3. Terms of reference for JNSC
The ad hoc Joint Navigation Satellite Committee shall(a) Determine and evaluate the reqUirements, existing and estimated, for a satellite system to meet future needs in air and sea navigation, air and sea traffic control or coordination, air-sea emergency and rescue activities, and related data transmission. (11) Review the potential capabiilty of space tecbnology to contribute significantly to the improvement of air and sea navigation; air and sea traffic control and coordination; and air-sea emergency activities of the signatory department!! and agencies. (c) Determine the economic feasibility and benefits and cost-effectiveness advantages of a satellite system as compared to alternative means of meeting the needs mentioned in paragraph 3( a) above. (d) Recommend an appropriate program to develop the satellite system. if it is determined to be economically desirable, or otherwise in the national interest, considering the ref;ults of the efforts of 3(a), 3(11), and 3(c), with an appropriate division of responsibility among the signatory Government agenCies. (e) Recommend a method and organization for the coordination of the effort among the agencies participating in the program estabilshed in 3( d), with adequate safeguard against disruption of the program or the coordination due to change in position, requirement, or technology. The procedure must provide signatory agencies with a mechanism for requesting consideration of a change when deemed appropriate. (1) Present all findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a final report to the signatories of this agreement for review, acceptance, and implementation of recommended actions.
4. Period of agreement
This agreement shall be etIective as of September 10, 1964, and continue until such time as the final report of JNSC has been acted upon.
JAMES
A. REED, Department 01 the Treasury.

Department of Defense.
E. G. FuBINI,
STEWART
-------,
R. J.
SHANK, RoBERT
Department ()f the Interior. Department of Commerce. Federal Aviation Agency.
L. UDALL,
C.
SEAKANS,
Jr.,
Natiooal Aeronautics and Space Administration.
322
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further you would like to add at this time, Dr. Newell, about this matted Dr. NEWELL. The Navigation 'Satellite Committee has about completed its work and expects to turn in a report during this month. When the report has been turned in, we expect to send copies to the committee. Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd has a number of questions that he would like to have answered for the record. The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. (Questions submitted by Senator Byrd to Dr. Newell and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
NASA'S SUSTAINING UNIVERSITY PROGRAM
Question 1. Dr. Newell, wauld you supply for the record, as you have in previous years, charts summarizing the awards in the doctorate training program, the research facilities program, and the research grants program made under the NASA sustaining university program? How much of the fiscal year 1965 and fiscal year 1966 facility money has been awarded? Answer. In September 1966, the training of 1,335 more students will be initiated at 152 participating institutions throughout the country. There is an attached list containing the name of each institution and the number of trainees awarded for the current year. Attached is a second list which summarizes data about the active research grants awarded under this program. As shown on the attached summary of research facilities, essentially all of the funds budgeted for this purpose in fiscal year 1965 were obligated. The fiscal year 1966 program is still being developed, and consequently, no grants have yet been awarded. Prior to any such awards, we will advise the Congress of the details of each individual action.
N ABA predoctoral training program, fiscal veal' 1966
Adelphi University ________________________________________________ _____ Ala'bama, University of_____ _____ _____________ ________ ________ __________ Alaska, University of________ _____________ ____ _______________________ ___ Alfred Univerffity______________________________________________________ Arizona State University ________________________________________________ Arizona, University of__________________________________________________ Arkansas, University of____________ __ ____ _____________ ____ ________ _____ Auburn University _______________________________ .. ____ ________ ____ _____ Baylor University ____ ________________ ____ ________ ___ ______ __ _______ ___ _ Boston College_________ _____ __ ____ ___ ___ ________ ____ _____ _____ _________ Boston Univerffity _________________ ________________ _______ _________ ___ __ Brandeis University ______________ ___ ___________ ____ ___ ____ ______ __ _____ Brigham Young University ______________________________________________ Brooklyn, Polytechnic Institute of_______________________________________ Brown University __________________ _______ __ ____ ___ __ ____ ______________ California Institute of Technology _______________________________________ California, University of, at Berkeley ____________________________________ California, Univerffity of, at Los Angeles______ ___________________________ California, University of, at Riverside____________________________________ California, University of, at San Diego__________________________________ California, University of, at Santa Barbara______________________________ Oarnegie Institute of Technology________________________________________ Case Im~Mtute of Technology _________________________________ ____ _____ Catholic University of AmericR.___________________________ ______________ Chicago, Unlvel'!'llty 01. _______________________________________ -________ Cincinnati, University of_____________________ ____________ _________ _____ Clark University ________________________________________________ -_____ _ Clarkson College of Technology________________________________________ Clemson University ____ ___________________________ __ ____ ____ __ __________
Ind'tuHOft
Trainee8
4 12 3 2 8 12 10 12 2 3 6 6 6 15 12 15 15 15 4 10 4 15 12 12 15 10 3 4 6

N ABA predoctoral training program, jl8cal year 1966--Continued
Imtltvtiotl
323
Trainees
Colorado School of llines_______________________________________________ Colorado State lJniversity______________________________________________ Colorado, Gniversity of_________________________________________________ Columbia University __________________________________ -------______ _____ Connecticut, University of______________________________________________ Cornell U ni versity_____________________________ ------------------- ----Dartmouth College_________________________________________________ ---Delaware, University of________________________________________________ Denver, lJniversity of_________________________________________________ Drexel Institute of Technology __________________________________________ mike University ______ ~-----------------------------------------------Duquesne Un1versity ____________________________________________ ------Emory University ____________________________________________________ --Florida State University_____________________________________________ --Florida, University 01' __________________________________________________ Fordham University-------------------------------------------------____ George Washington University_____________ ______________________________ Georgetown University ____________________________________________ --- ____ Georgia Institute 01' Technology __________________________________________ Georgia, University of___________________________________________________ Hawaii, University of___________________________________________________ Houston, University of __________________________________________________ Howard University _________________________________ - __ - __ --___________ -Idaho, University 01'_____________________________________________________ Illinois Institute of Technology___________________________________________ Illinois, University 01' ___________________________________________________ Indiana University _______ ____ ____________ __ _________________________ ____ Iowa State University---------------------------------------------______ Iowa, University of _____________________________________________________ Johns Hopkins University-------------------------------------------- ___ Jransas State Univer&ty_________________________________________________ Jransas, University of ___________________________________________________ Jrent State University-----------------------------------------------____ Jrentucky, University of_________________________________________________ Lehigh G niversity _______________ _______ _________ ______________________ __ Louisiana State University ______________________________________________ Louisville, University of_________________________________________________ Lowell Technological Institute___________________________________________ llaine, University of____________________________________________________ llarquette University--------------------------------------------________ llaryland, University 01'_________________________________________________ llassachusetts Institute of Technology ___________________________________ llassachusetts, University of_____________________________________________ lliami, University of____________________________________________________ llichigan State University_______________________________________________ llichigan Technological University _______________________________________ llichigan, University 01' _________________________________________________ llinnesota, University of________________________________________________ llississippi State University _________________________________ ll~ssiss!ppi, 1!niv~rsity of________________________________________________ llissourl, Umverslty of __________________________________________________ llissouri, University of, at Rolla__________________________________________ llontana State University_______________________________________________ llontana, University of__________________________________________________ Nebraska, University 01'_________________________________________________ Nevada, University 01'___________________________________________________ New Hampshire, University 01'___________________________________________ New llexioo State University__________________________________________ New Mexico, University 01'___________________________________________ New York, the City lJniversity 01'_____________________________________ New York, State University 01', at Buft'alo_____________________________ New York, State University 01', at Stony Brook________________________
~___________
4 8 12 8
15
15
6 8 6 4
10 2
10 12
4 6 8
15 10 10
5 4 12
15 15 15
12 12 10 10 4 8
10 10
5 2 5 2 12
15 6 6 12 3 15 15 4 4 12 6 6 4 6 5 6 8 8 6 6 4
324

N ABA predoctoral training program, fiscaZ year 1966-Continued
Institution Trainee8 New York University _____________________________________________ ---15 North Carolina State of the University of North Carolina_______________ 12 North Carolina, University of_________________________________________ 12 North Dakota State University________________________________________ 3 North Dakota, University of__________________________________________ 2 Northeastern University ______________________________________________ 5 Northwestern University _____________________________________________ 15 Notre Dame, University of____________________________________________ 10 Ohio State University ________________________________________________ 12 Ohio University _____________________________________________________ 4 Oklahoma State University___________________________________________ 12 Oklahoma, University of _____________________________________________ 12 Oregon State University ______________________________________________ 10 Pennsylvania State Unlversity________________________________________ 15 Pennsylvania, University oL__________________________________________ 15 Pittsburgh, University of__________________________________________ --15 Princeton University ____________________________________________ __ __ _ 15 Purdue University ___________________________________________________ 15 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute____________________ ________ ____ _____ _ 15 Rhode Island, University of___________________________________________ 5 Rice University _________________ _____________________________________ 15 Rochester, University of______________________________________________ 12 Rutgers, the State Unlversity_________________________________________ 12 St. Louis University __________________________________________________ 10 South Carolina, University of_________________________________________ 6 South Dakota, University of__________________________________________ 4 Southern California, University of____________________________________ 12 Southern Illinois University ___________________________________________ 3 Southern Methodist University __________________________ _____________ 5 Southern Mississippi, University oL___________________________________ 2 Stanford University _____________________ _____ ____ ______ ______ _____ __ _ 15 Stevens Institute of Technology_______________________________________ 8 Syracuse University __________________________ _ _____ ____________ _ ____ _ 10 Temple Unlversity___________________________________________________ 4 Tennessee, University of__________________________________ ___________ _ 12 Texas A. & M. University ________________________________________________ 15 TexaA Christian University___________________________________________ 5 Texas Technological College__________________________________________ 8 Texas, University of___ ______ _____ ____ ___ ___ __ ___ __ ____ __________ ____ 15 Toledo, University of____________________________________ ___________ 5 Tufts University _________ ______ ______ _ __________________ _______ ______ 4 Tulane University____________________________________________________ 10 Utah State University ________________________________________________ 6 Utah, University of____ _ __________________ ______ ___ __________________ 10 Vanderbilt University _ __________________________________ _ _____ _____ _ _ 12 Vermont, University of_______________________________________________ 5 Villanova University __________ ________ ___ ____________________ ______ _ _ 2 Virginia Polytechnic Institub' _ _ _____ ________ __ _ __ ___ ___ _ __ _ ______ ____ 12 Virginia, University of_ _ ____ _____ _ __ _ ______ ___ __ _ __ _____ _ __ _____ _ ____ 12 Washington State UniverAity __________________________________________ 8 Washington UniverAity (St. Louis) ____________________________________ 12 Washington, University of___________________________________________ 12 Wayne State University ______________________________________________ 6 West Virginia UniverRity _____ ________________________________________ 10 Western Reserve University___________________________________________ 10 William and Mary, College oL________________________________________ 3 Wisconsin, University of_______ __ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __________ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _______ 15 WorceAter Polytechnic Institute _ __ ____ ___ _ _____ _ _ ___ ___ __ _ __ _ __ _ ______ 4 Wyoming, University oL_____________________________________________ 4 Yale University ____ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _____ _ __ _ __ _ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ____ _ _ __ _ ___ _ 15 Yeshiva University __ __ __ __ __ _____ __ _ __ _ _______ _______ _ _ _ ______ _______ 6
Total __________________________________________________________ 1,335

Sustaining university progra.m research, active grants Mar. 1, 1966 Institutio ....lnvestigator-Title
325
A1Lnuallevel
Adelphi-D. Genberg-NsG-39<l/33-001--OOl Multidisciplinary ResP4lrch in Space Science and Technology ____________________________________ $80,000 Alabama-R. Hennann-NsG-381/01~--OOl Research in Aerospace Physical Sciences _______________________________________________ - 375,000 Brown-P. Maeder-NGR--40--002-009 Multidisciplinary Space-Related 100,000 Research Program_______________________________________________ California (Berkeley) -So Sil ver-NsG-243/05--003-012 Interdisciplinary Space-Oriented Research in the Physical, Biological, Engineering and Social Sciences__________________________________________________ '300,000 California (Los Angeles)-Libby and French-NsG-237/05-007--OO3 Interdisciplinary Space-Oriented Research in the Physical, Biological and Engineering Sciences____________________________________________ 500, 000 Caltech-R. lRighton-~sG_426j0S--{)()2-007 Space-Related Research in Selected Fields of Physics and Astronomy _________________________ '200, 000 Cineinnati-R. P. Harrington-NG~14 Multidisciplinary SpaceRelated ________________________________________________________ 150,000 Sciences Research in the Physical, Engineering, Life, and Social Denver-S. Johnson-NsG-518/0tH>04-007 Multidisciplinary Research in Space-Related Science and Technology ____________________________ Duke-J. Gergen-NGR-34-001--005 Multidisciplinary Space-Related Research in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences__________________ Florida-L. Grinter-NsG-542/l0-{)()5-0()5 Multidisciplinary Program of Research in Space-Related Science and Technology________________ Georga Tech-K. Picha-Ns~7jl1--002-Q18 Multidisciplinary Research in Space Science and Technology________________________________ Graduate Research Center of South West-L. Berkner-NsG-269/44-004--001 Multidisciplinary Research in Space Science and Technology _ Houston-J. R. Crump-NGR-44-005--021 Multidisciplinary Space-Related Research Program_______________________________________________ Howard-H. Branson-NGR-OO--Ol1~ Research in Space Physics_____ Institute for Space Studies-R. Jastrow-16 grants to 8 institutions ______ Kansas-W. Smith-NsG-298/l7~1 Interdisciplinary Studies in Space Science and Technology ____________________________________ Kansas State-J. Brown-Ns~92/17--OO1-Q05 Space-Related Science and Engineering_________________________________________________ Louisville-W. J. McGlothlin-NGR-l8--002-005 Space-Related Polymer and Bio-Organic Chemistry______________________________________ Maine-T. Curry-NsG-338/20--006--001 Interdisciplinary Studies in SpaceRelated Science and Engineering_________________________________ Maryland-W. Rheinboldt-NsG-398/21-Q02--008 Multidisciplinary Research on the Applications of High Speed Computers to Space-Related Research Problems _________________________________________ Massachusetts Institute of Technology-J. Harrington-NsG-496/22-{lOO019 Multidisciplinary Research in Space-Related Physical, Engineering, Social and Life Sciences ____________________________________ Minnesota-W. Cheston-NGR-24-005-Q63 Multidisciplinary Research in Space Sciences and Technology __________________________________ Missouri-J. Hogan-NGR-26--004-003 Research in Space-Related Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences______________________________ Montant State-I. Dayton-NsG-430/27-OO1--OOl Research in Space Science and Engineering___________________________________________ New Mexico State-J. Weiss-NGR~7 Multidisciplinary Research in Space Science and Technology_________________________ New York-J. R. Ragazzini-NGR-33_Q16-Q67 Space-Related Research Studies________________________________________________________ Oklahoma State-C. Dunn-NsG-609j37-002-Q11 Space-Related Science and Engineering________________________________________________ PennsYlvania-M. Altman-NsG-316/39-QI0--001 Unconventional Techniques of Energy Conversion____________________________________ Penn State-Po Ebaugh-NGR-39-OO9-Q15 Research in Space-Related Sciences and Engineering_______________________________________ Pittsburgh-D. Halliday-NsG-416/39-Qll__OO2 Interdisciplinary Research in the Physical, Life, and Engineering Sciences____________
See footnotes at end of table.
140, 000 100,000 335,000 300,000 '500,000 75,000 '25,000 400, 000 100,000 75,000 65,000 75,000 350,000 '925,000 '400,000 150,000 75, 000 150,000 300,000 75,000 "150,000 300,000 300,000
326
SU8taining university progrwm re8earch, active grant8 Mar. 1, 1966-Continued
In8titution-lnvestigator.Title
Annual level
Purdue-F. N. Andrews-NGR-15-005-021 Multidisciplinary Research in Space Science and Engineering __________________________________ Rice-K. S. Pitzer-NGR-44--{)()6-()33 Multidisciplinary Space-Related Research Program _____________________________________________ Southern Methodist-H. Henry-NGR-44-007-006 Multidisciplinary Research in Space Science and Technology_________________________ Texas A. & M.-H. Whitmore-NsG-239/44--001-001 Interdisciplinary Space-Oriented Program in Physical, Life, and Engineering Sciences_ Vermont-C. Cook-NGR-46--001_OO8 Multidisciplinary Research Program in Space Sciences and Engineering with Particular Emphasis on BioEngineering____________ __________________ __________ _________ ____ Virginia-F. Hererford-NsG-682/47-005-014 Multidisciplinary Research in Space Science and Technology ________________________________ Virginia Polytechic Institute-F. Bull-NGR-47-004-006 Multidisciplinary Space-Related Research in Engineering and the Physical and Life SCiences ________________________________________________________ Washington (St. Louis)-G. Pake-NsG-681/26--008-006 University-Wide Research Program in Space-Related ,Sciences and Engineering______ West Virginia-J. LUdlum-NsG-533/49-001_OO1 Space-Related Studies in Physical, Life, and Engineering SCiences_______________________ William & Mary-W. Jones-NsG-567/47-006--008 Multidisciplinary Research in Space Science and Technology _________________________ Wisconsin-J. Hirschfelder and R. Alberty-Ns~5/50--002-OO1 SpaceRelated Research in Theoretical Chemistry and Other Areas of Science and Engineering _________________________________________
$300,000 200,000 100,000 100, 000 150, 000 '100,000 '100,000 300,000 50,000 '100,000 650.000
, Cooperative fundIng with other NASA program offices, only SUP amount shown. Grants In support of Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space StudIes.
Attachment A, Institute tor Space Studie8 progrwm
In8titution-lnve8tigator-SubJect
Approanmate amount
California (San Diego)-G. Burbidge-NsG-357/05-005-004 Theoretical Research in Astrophysics ________________________________________ $50,000 City University of New York-R. WOlfe-NsG-197/33-013-002 Satellite Motion Near an Oblate Spheroid and Interatomic Potentials of Binary Systems _________________________________________________ 25,000 Columbia-W. Oassidy-NsG-232/33-008-005 Study of Extraterrestrial Matter Through Samplings of Ocean Bottoms______________________ 25, 000 Columbia-R. Gross-NsG-302/33-008-007 Investigations in Plasma Physics and Magnetogasdynamics ________________ ,________________ 30, 000 Columbia-H. M. Foley-NsG-445/33-008-012 Theoretical Research in Space Sclences ________________________________.___________________ 45,000 Columbia-J. Nafe-NGR-33-008-037 Theoretical and Experimental Research in Geology and Geophysics________________________________ 25,000 Columbia-L. Woltjer-NGR-33-008-053 Theoretical Astrophysics______ 20,000 New York University-So Korff-NsG-167/33-016--006 Investigations of Cosmic Rays, Neutrons, and Interplanetary PlasmR-_______________ 16,000 New York University-J. Miller-NsG-499/33-016-013 Theoretical Research on the Properties of the Atmospheres of the Earth and Other Planets and on the Atmosphpric Effects of Solar Activity __________ a5,OOO New York University-L. Arnold-NsG-683/33-016--043 Theorptical and Experimpntal Research in GeophysicH and Astrophysics__________ 30,000 New York University-So Borowitz-NsG-699/33-016-010 Low Energy Scattering of Eledrons by Atomic Moleeular Systems_______ _________ 14,000 Princeton-W. Elsasser-NsG-556/31_OO1-017 Study of thp Applicatiou of the Law of Solid Creep to Convective Motions in the Earth's Mantlp. the Moon, and Planets__________________________________________ 12,000 Wesleyan-F. Zabriskip-NsG-716/07-096-001 Spectra of Radiaut Enprgy of Planets _______________________________________________________ 19,000 Yale-V. Hughes-NsG-163/07-004-006 Theoretical Researeh in Rl'lativity, Oosmology, and Nuclear Astrophysics____________________________ 45,000 Yale-V. Szebehely-NGR-07-004-049 The Gravitational N-Body Problem_ 20,000 Yeshiva-L. F. Landovitz-NsG-227/33-023-001 Application of Statistical Mechanics of Nonequilibrium Processes to Astrophysies and the Dptermination of Galactic Mass Distribution and Gravitational PotentiaL_ 19,000
327
Sustaining university program, research facilities

Investigator-topic Area (in Percent Cost (in thousands comthousands of square plete or of feet) dollars) status
Fisml year and institution
-----1962: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute_ Stanford ________________ _ Chicago _________________ _ Iows ____________________ _ CaJifornia (Berkeley) ___ _ Harvard ________________ _ 1963: Minnesota ______________ _ MIT ____________________ _ Colorado ________________ _ CaJifomia (Los Angeles)_ Wisconsin _______________ _ Michigan _______________ _ Pittsburgh ______________ _ Princeton _______________ _ Lowell Observatory _____ _ 1964: Texas A._ & M __________ _ Maryland _______________ _ Southern Callfornia _____ _ Cornell __________________ _ Rice ____________________ _ Purdue _________________ _ Washington University (St. Louis). New York ______________ _ Georgia Tech ___________ _ Arlzona _________________ _ Illlnois __________________ _ Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. 1965: Case Institute of Techno!ogy. Rochester ___ ______ __ _____ Florida_ _________________ Mlnnesota__ _____________ Denver __________________ Stanford_ ________________
1
Wiberley-Materials SCiences ______________ _ Lederherg-ilxobiology ____________________ _ Simpson-space sciences and astrophysics __ Van Allen-physics and astronomy ________ _ Silver-space sciences______________________ _ Sweet-biomedlcine _______________________ _
60
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 20 100 100 15 100 100 100 100
1,500
.
5
15 45
2(
535 1,750 610 1,990 151

542 3,000 792 2,000
Libby-space sciences _____________________ _ Hirschfelder-theoretical chemlstry ________ _ Norman-space sciences and engineering __ _ Halliday-space SCiences __________________ _ Layton-propulsion SCiences _______________ _ Hall-planetary SCiences ___________________ _ Wainerdi-space SCiences __________________ _
~~~--sii800-Sci8ii.OO8:=:::::::=:::::::_ Rense-atomospheric and space physlcs ___
17 75 32 69 12 56 47 26 II
365
1,436 1,497 625 237 1,000 1,500 160 1,350 1,600 840 600 li82 1,000 1,200 1,125 632 2,226 1,000 1,190 2,500
goo
:~~~~:::n_e~::::::::::::::: Gold-space SCiences ______________________ _

Dessler-space sciences ____________________ _ Zucrow-propulslon SCiences _______________ _ Norherg-space SCiences ___________________ _ Ferri-aeronautics _________________________ _ Picha-space sciences and technology ______ _ Rhodes-space SCiences ____________________ _ Compton-space SCiences __________________ _ Bloom-aerospace SCiences_________________ _ Nara-space engineerlng ___________________ _ Fenn-space SCiences ______________________ _ Grlnter-space sciences ____________________ _ Cheston-space SCiences ___________________ _ lohnson-space sciences ___________________ _ Rambo-space engineerlng ________________ _
34 77
38 68 5 25
13 51 51 51 16
..
30 55 100 15 35 100 100

40 60 25 10 100
(I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I)
69
35
53 83 38
65
2, (l!0
Design.
NASA-SPONSORED GRADUATES
Question 2_ Dr_ Newell, by now, a number of !'/tudents have graduated from the predoctoral training program of the sustaining university program_ Has a study been made as to what these graduates are doing? I'm concerned here, not with whether they go into teaching, or follow further studies, etc., but whether they tend to stay in the area where they received the training, or whether they migrate to other bigger schools to teach or other areas of work. If they do migrate, where do they go? If you don't have the information, caD you supply it for the record? Answer_ Under the NASA predoctoral program, students may receive 3 years of training toward the doctorate. Since the program is relatively new (first students entered September 1962), the output is still very small. To date information has been received on the type of occupation in which 104 graduates have become engaged upon the cOJll.pletion of their degrees. Approximately 63 percent accepted positions in colleges and universities involving research and teaching, 14 percent have undertaken postdoctoral studies, 19 percent accepted positions in industrial laboratories, and 4 percent have entered Government labora wries. Attached is a listing which shows the States in which graduating NASA trainees accepted their first employment. No Simple pattern is apparent. Clearly, many new Ph. Do's are highly mobile and will accept employment which is in their field and interesting to them regardless of geographic location.
328
List showing migration ot doctoral recipients under N ABA predoctoral training program
Institution granting doctorates Number ofdoctorates awarded
2 4 1 2 9 3 1 4 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 5
States in which doctoral reCipients accepted 1st employment
University of Alabama _________________ _ University of Arizona __________________ _ University of Arkansas _________________ _ California Institute of Technology ______ _ University of California at Los Angeles __ Case Institute of Technology ___________ _ Catholic University of America _________ _ University of Chicago __________________ _ University of CincinnatL ______________ _ University of Colorado _________________ _ Cornell University _____________________ _ University of DenveL __________________ _ University of Florida ___________________ _ University of Houston ____ .. ____________ _ Indiana Unlversity __________________ _ University of Iowa _____________ _ University of Maryland ________________ _ Massachusetts Institute of Technology __ University of Michigan _______ _ University of Minnesota ____ _ University of New Mexico ___ _ University of Notre Dame __ _ Ohio State University __________________ _ University of Oklahoma ________________ _ Oregon State University ________________ _ Pennsylvania State Unlversity _________ _ University of Pittsburgh _______________ _ Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ________ _ Rice University ___________________ _ University of RochesteL ______________ _ St. Louis University ___________________ _ Syracuse University ___________________ _ TexasA. & M. University ______________ _ University ofTexas _____________________ _ Tulane Universith ______________________ _ University of Uta ______________________ _ Vanderbilt University __________________ _ University of Washlngton _______________ _ West Virginia University _______________ _ Western Reserve University ____________ _ TotaL ___________________________ _
3 1 1 9
1 2 2 1 1 1 3
4 10
1 2 2 2 3 1 1 3
South CarOlina, 1; Alabama, 1. New Mexico, 1; Florida, 1; Texas, 1; Denmark, 1. New York, 1. California, 2. California, 4; Connecticut, 3; Illinois, 1; India, 1. Canada, 1; Connecticut, 1; Pennsylvania, 1. California, 1. IllinOis, 2; California, 1; Washington, D.C., 1. Ohio, 1. Colorado, 1; Kansas, 1; Michigan, 1. California, 1; Pennsylvania, 1. Oregon, 1. England, 1; New York, 1. New Mexico, 1. IllinOis, 1; Pennsylvania, 1; Utah, 1. Iowa,., 2; Pennsylvania, 1; Texas, 1; Washington, D . ...,., 1. Maryland, 1; New York, 1; Pennsylvania, 1. Massachusetts, 1. Missouri, 1. Connecticut, 1; Iowa, 1; New Hampshire, 1; New Jersey, 1; New York, 4; Oklahoma, 1. Missouri, 1. Illinois, 1; Ohio, 1. Michigan, 1; Ohio, 1. Missouri, 1. New Mexico, 1. Pennsylvania, 1. New York, 1; Pennsylvania, 1; Tpxas, 1. California, 2; New York,2. Illinois, 1; Maryland, 1; New York, 2; Texas, 5; Wisconsin, 1. New York, 1. Ohio, 1. Missouri, 1; New York, 1; Ohio, 1; Washington, D.C., 1. Pennsylvania, I. Delaware, 1; Texas, 1. Illinois, 1; New York, 1. Utah, 2. Georgia, 1; Ohio, 1; Tennessee, 1. Washington, 1. Alabama,1. Indiana, 1; Ohio, 2.
104
STRENGTHENING ACADEMIC CAPABILITY
Question 3. Dr. Newell, in September of 1965, the President made a statement asking each agency to reexamine its practic'es in financing research to the universities with the end in mind of strengthening academic capability throughout the country. In view of this, has NASA reexamined its practices, especially in the sustaining university program, and if so, have any changes been made toward the ends sought? Answer. Following the President's request in September 1965, NASA prepared the attached report on "Strengthening Academic Capabilities for Science and Engineering Throughout the Country." This report shows the extent to which NASA has been concerned with this problem and has conducted activities at universities in harmony with the objectivps of the Presidpnt's statpment. The dynamic charactpr of the national space program requirpH that its COIllponent elpmpnts be continually refinPd and reasspssed in thp light of curren~ needs and priorities. Accordingly, sustaining univprsity program aetivities have been continually adjusted to Insure balance and thp most efficiput use of the Nation's rpsearch and academic capabilitips. The number of im;titutions involved has grown continuously, and now representR all 50 States. Similarly, within the constraints of available resourcps, a balancebetwe!'n execution of
329
existing responsibilities for this program and the other requirements for prog. ress in the exploration of space has been maintained. During the past year, NASA also organized two university conferences, one with national and one with regional representation. The first of these was held in March 1965 at Kansas City, Mo., at which universities reported on their activities to NASA and to other institutions either working in similar areas or interested in being kept abreast of activities in the space program. The second was wId in November 1965, at Pasadena, Calif. Its participants gave a comprehensive picture of current NASA technical programs of interest to colleges and universities, and described the various mechanisms through which qualified people and institutions Could take part. At both conferences, the attendees were invited to discuss the nature of work in progress, the manner in which it is conducted, the results obtained, and the impact being made. FiIlally, in the process of continually examining university practices, NASA presently has two members of the academic community serving as liaison officers. They seek to determine the effectiveness of present policies and procedures for dealing with universities, examine the impact of NASA's total university program, identify problems, and obtain the views of the academic community.
STRENGTHENING ACADEMIC CAPABILITY FOB SCIENCE AND ENGINEEBING THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
First nwnthly report by the National Aeronautics aM Bpace AdministratWtt NASA's support of science and engineering at universities consists of two complementary types of activities, both of which are oriented to the support of NASA's missions: First, there is project research which directly supports NASA mission objectives. In fiscal year 1965, NASA supported projects of this type totaling about $76 million. Second, there is the NASA "sustaining university program," initiated in 1961, which is specifically directed at broadening and strengthening overall university participation and capabilities in the space program. This program includes grants for research, facilities, and training. In fiscal year 1965, NASA applied about $4.''; million to the sustaining university program. NASA has for several years attempted to conduct all of its activities at univenrities in such a way as to strengthen academic capabilities for both research and education, while at the same time contributing to NASA's statutory missions. In the months ahead, NASA will consider, in concert with other agencies of the Government, what further steps it can take to strengthen academic capabiilties for science in accordance with the President's memorandum of September 13, 1965. The remainder of this report gives a more detailed statement of the nature and objectives of NASA's university activities, and of the policies NASA has followed. It also outlines NASA's present policies with respect to achieving a useful and proper distribution of the funds made available to universities, and indicates some of the results that have been achieved. N ABA university activities The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has, since its inception in 1958, recognized the importance of a close and strong working relationship with the Nation's universities. As the national space program has developed, the depth and breadth of our involvement with the academic community has similarly grown. In the development and conduct of university activity, one basic principle has governed all NASA policy regarding its relationships with educational institutions. That is, NASA desires to work within the structure of the colleges and universities in a manner that will strengthen them and at the same time make it possible for NASA to accomplish its mission. NASA is anxious to reap the benefits to be gained by developing research potential in thl' universities, and in supporting research in the traditional atmosphere of instruction and learning where the research activities involve students. NASA is not interested in the creation of institutes that tend to draw faculty away from the educational aspects of their research. NASA's early university program consisted chiefly of support for what is generally termed project research. Unsolicited proposals submitted to NASA
330
and considered to 'be an integral part of or in direct support of rather specific requirements of ongoing NASA programs are sponsored within the limits of the available funding, and still represent NASA's major university activity. This kind of 'basic research support in universities is expected to yield results which will further the objectives of NASA as set forth in the National Aeronuatics and Space Act. This does ,not mean that all of theRe research projects are aimed at specific pieces of hardware of scheduled fiight operations. It merely mean!l that NASA concentrates its research support at universities in regions of general relevance to its mission, and that the structure of the total program is missionoriented The manner in which NASA carries on its activities in the Nation's colleges and universities is primarily conditioned by the fact that NASA has a specific job and mission which require competence and talent of an extremely high order. It is, therefore, mandatory for NASA to draw upon such competence where it is available, willing, and capable of contributing directly to the national space program. At the same time NARA has also recognized the need to broaden the base of academic participation and training throughout the Nation which would meet the needs of such national scientific and technological ventures as the space program, and to take what steps were possible to avert the potential deleteriom; effects of huge research expenditures on the Nation's educational system. The long-term success of the national space program, therefore, requires a complementary effort to broaden and strengthen the overall university participation. To accomplish this, NASA established the sustaining univerSity program late in 1961. This program has these goals: An increase in the production rate of highly trained people; More adequate laboratory facilities in which to conduct research in support of the NASA mission; Removal of the interdisciplinary barriers in research and fostering of genuine cooperation between workers in collateral fields; An increased awareness by universities of their national responsibilities in the attainment of national goals; Application by universities of their unique and extensive talents to an under standing of the Interrelationship of space research and technology, academic processes, industry, commerce, and society in general; The discovery and encouragement of new research potential in areas of importance to the national space effort; and The development of the potentialities for high quality space-related research by groups and capable younger faculty members at institutions not now involved in the national space effort. NASA's annual investment of funds for project research in universities since the formation of NASA in 1958, and for the sustaining university program since it was implemented, is shown In a pu'bUcation .
The problem
of distribution
NASA is concerned about achieving useful and proper distribution in its investments to universities. Geographically uniform distribution is potentially as unwise as the concentration of the effort in only a few schools. Some sections of the country have a number of excellent universities clustered close together, while others have notoriously sparse academic concentration. This is not surprisingthere is Uttle reason to expect that scientific and engineering competence should be uniformly distributed geographically. As long as competence remains a foremost criterion, wide geographical distribution of effort is considered valuable to ~ASA and the Nation, and every effort is made to achieve it. Recent yearly obligations of NASA R. & D. funds to universities are shown in total and for the sustaining university program in the table and illustration 2 on page 331. As also indicated, there has been a significant trend toward involvement of a greater number of universities in our research and related activities. especially in the sustaining university program. This trend. perhaps better than dollar amounts, shows the results being achieved by NASA In broadeninl!: the base of university support throughout the Nation.
A booklet providing further Information on the principal activities and policies of NASA and Its relationships with educational Institutions Is available (NASA SP-73 b~' T. L. K. Smull).
331
Thus, in fiscal year 1962 only about 80 U.S. colleges and universities were participating under ~ASA sponsorship in the ootional space effort. By 1965, the number approached 200. An important part of this trend has been increased university involvement in XASA-sponsored training, where new uniwrsities are being brought into the national space effort at an unprecedented rate. For example, in fiscal year 1962, the training program was iuitiated with grants to 10 universities. By 1965, more than 140 universities were participating in this program. Significantly, this growth in NASA training activities has been primarily accomplished by seeking and l"l'COigIlizing competence in uniwrsities not participating in the space program, rather than intensifying the training activitJies at just the larger, already well-established schools. While the basic NASA consideration has been that of competence in the support of its university activities. it may be noted that a reasonable nationwide participation has resulted as shown in illustrations 3, 4, and 5. It has been and continues to be XASA policy to make a determined effort to find and use competence where it exists, whether in small or large organizations. It is XASA's view that this approach, which encourages the development of a significant role by each university in support of research and training related to the national space e1Iort. ,vill indeed help broaden the base of university competence in this country.
NASA obligations to univer8ities

Fiscal
ye~
1963
Fiscal year 19M
Fiscal year 1965
Number Obligations Number Obligations Number Obligations of (thousands) of (thousands) of (thousands) universities universities universities Total NASA aetivity __ . ______ Sustaining university program: 142
88 21 10 93 $73,868
168 130 31 7 135
$93,246
19,893 7,648 9,143 36,684
187
141
$121,115
24,500
8,~
r=L::::::::::::::: FacllItles _________________

Total snpporL ___________
14,075 4,368 13,406 31,849
12.300
144
45,200
"'"
CSLIGIITIONS TO LI'IIVERSITlElj
100
MILLIOI'lS OF
DOLLA;;:~
80
60
40
20
--1959 .
FISCAL YEAR
1964
OCTOBER 20, 1965
lLL"USTllATION 2
332

NATIONAL
~RONAUTICS
N.:n SPACE Ar:MINISTRATICN
IJllIVERSITY RESEARCH SUPPORT
COt..LARS PER CAPITA
U.S,
DE'PAR~ENT
OF CCM-IERCE REGIONAL CLASSIFICAtION
ILLUSTRATION
NATIONAL AERONIIllTlCS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATI~
NH./JI.. rURAL fPAI' WG
rr,llMS "ER CAPITA
u.
S. DEPAA1l",ENT Cf
CCt~RCE
REGIONAL CLASSIFICATIQI'II
OCTOBER 20, 1965
ILLUSTRATION
\.JIIIVERSITY RES'EAACH FACILITIES
DOUARS PER CAPITA
OCTOBER 20,. 1965
ILLUSTRATION
GODDARD INSTITUTE FOB SPACE STUDIES
Question 4. Dr. Newell, last year NASA announced (NASA release No. 65205) that they proposed to procure for the Goddard Space Flight Center a new superspeed computing complex and that the proposed contract also would call for an additional superspeed system to be installed at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. 'Vould you discuss with the committee the reason for that Institute and explain to the committee why an $8-to-$9 million computer is needed? Answer. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies was established in New York City in May 1961. The mission of the Goddard Institute is to provide theoretical research support to Goddard Space Flight Center programs in ge()physics and astronomy carried out with the aid of scientific satellites and sounding rockets. The Goddard Institute also supports the general space science program of NASA. The location of the Institute is determined by the character of its research, which is in the field of space sciences. This is an interdisciplinary field encompassing the earth sciences, astronomy, and several specialties in physics. It was determined that the Institute should be located adjacent to a major university campus in order to provide the academic atmosphere necessary to attract and retain senior research personnel. The overall benefits of a university environment were and are available in the New York City area to an extent not possible in the Washington area. NASA selected Columbia University and the New York City area for the location of the Institute because of Columbia's great strength in the fields pertinent to Institute research activities. Columbia's Lamont G~ological Observatory is the only institution in the Vnited States which provides a program covering all areas of the earth sciences dealing with the general properties of the earth as a planet. The Physics Department of Columbia University is considered one of the finest establishments for the conduct of physics research in the United States. The principal research facility of the GISS is a Government-owned computer operated around the clock for Institute programs. Replacement ()f the present IB~f 7094 computer with the new-generation computer is presently underway. The new-generation computer at the GISS is but one piece of a three-piece "package buy" funded from the fiscal year 1965 A.O. appropriation. Of the two superspeed computer main frames and one remote processor being purchased at a price
334
of $8.4 million, one main frame is to be located at the Institute in New York City, the other main frame and the remote processor are to be located at the Goddard main site in Greenbelt, Md. Therefore, the cost of the Institute's computer is estimated to be under $4 million. There are pressing scientific problems which current computers cannot solve because of limitations on speed and storage capacity. Examples of these are the analysis of the structure of rotating stars and the comprehensive analysis of atmospheric dynamics which are under increasing study at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The new-generation facilities are needed so the Institute can process theoretical models in two and three dimensions and include a greater number and variety of physical and chemical processes. That capability, in turn, opens the way to theoretical advances of great potential in such fields ~s astrophysics, as well as to very important advances in such areas as atmosphenc dynamics, which results could have great operational importance.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OGO AND
oso
Question 5. Dr. Newell, what is the relationship between the Orbiting Geophysical Observatories (OGO), the Orbiting Solar Observatories (OSO), and the Explorer satellite projects? Why do we need all of these projects? Is there duplication in the kinds of data that these spacecraft report? Do we need that duplication? Why? Answer. All these satellites carry diversified scientific payloads intended primarily for investigations in the physics and astronomy program. Major areas of application for all three are geophysics in the space environment, studies of the Sun-Earth relationship, and certain tasks of astronomy. Each satellite permits making indispensable types of observations not otherwise possible. OGO is especially intended to enable investigations, by a concerted interdisciplinary approach of correlative measurements, of the physical interrelationships between the many factors describing solar activity, the near space environment, the upper atmosphere and ionosphere, and the Earth's magnetic field. This spacecraft is unique in the large number of experiments it accom-modates for such correlations (20 to 30), the generous power, command, and telemetry support it provides the scientific investigators, and in its three-axis attitude control system. OGO can simultaneously point sensors at the sun, straight ahead in its orbit, or continuously away from the Earth, and it can scan the Earth or horizon. In addition OGO can erect booms to isolate detectors from the disturbing effects of the main body. OSO is a very specialized stabilized platform for solar telescopes and spectrographs. Its principal objective is to investigate solar phenomena from above the obscuring and distorting effects of the atmosphere. The oriented portion of the spacecraft, which carries the telescopes and detectors, either points continuously at the sun or scans the sun's disk with an accuracy of one arc minute. This provides about 60 times more resolution than the solar pointing part of OGO. In addition the gyroscope wheel portion of OSO carries investigations which are, in general, sky mapping in character, comparing radiation from the sun to that in other portions of the sky. When the payload space is not required for the solar mission, the wheel section is utilized for appropriate astronomical measurements. The Explorer class of satellite has as mission objective the pursuit of geophysical, interplanetary, solar, astronomical, geodetic, and relativistic investigations using specialized spacecraft in a wide variety of orbits and cislunar trajectories. Explorers are employed when it is either impossible or economically unfeasible to conduct the particular investigation by one of the major Observatory satellites. Thus they make preliminary measurements, are used to develop the scienee and technology required for future flight programs. Explorers carry small numbers of experiments which must go to regions of space not desirable for most other investigations or which for technical reasons must be flown in isolation. ' No one of these three types of satellites can perform the particular task of the. others. Because of conflicting measurements of different investigations for orblts, attitude control, and isolation from disturbing influences, no single observatory could satisfy all research needs.
335
There is limited duplication of kinds of data taken by each type of mission, and for good reasons. For example an UGU and an .h;xplorer lllay both simultaneously measure the Van Allen belt electron energy and flux, but these are not the same data since they would relate to 1itIerent locations in the radiation belts. Such simultaneous observations in different places are indispensable for a good understanding of many phenomena. Certain types of observations on the same mission. Thus a knowledge of the local magnetic field is necessary to interpret many charged particle measurements, so many spacecraft carry a magnetometer; this common measuring device also monitors or contributes to the attitude stabilization of some spacecraft. Another example of a supporting local observation, apparentJy carried in duplication on many spacecraft, is micrometeoroid detectors, since micrometeoroid particle fluxes change radically with the time of year as well as location in the solar system. Certain ultraviolet light sensors are susceptible to energetic electrons in space, so some spacecraft will carry a duplicative electron detector experiment to qualify such LV investigations. In rare cases duplication of types of measurements on a single mission has been adopted aR the only way to cover the full dynamic range of that type measurement, or to secure adequate reliability for the investigation, or back up anticipated doubtful measurements in critical cases.
NASA RESEARCH GRANT COST SHARING
Question 6. Recently the Bureau of the Budget put out a new budget paper Circular No. A-74 which provides guidelines for the amount of indirect costs and the cost participation by universities in research projects being conducted by the universities under grants from the Federal Government. Would you describe for the committee NASA's policy regarding cost sharing on research conducted by universities under a NASA research grant? What percentage of cost par ticipation is required by NASA? What is the distribution of percentage requirements? What is the maximum percentage of the indirect cost that a university can charge on a NASA grant? Answer. The procedure adopted by NASA provides that each institution making a proposal shall set forth therein the mauner and amount of cost sharing in the proposed grant. During the negotiation process NASA reviews the adequacy of the cost sharing in the light of the merits of the proposed research effort, varying institutional situations, and the guidelines provided by Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-74. Proposals for cost sharing are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In order to insure cost sharing on more than a token basis and to avoid arbitrary judgments, a number of factors are considered. If feasible, the amount of cost sharing required in any grant is not more than would have been the case under the previous 20 percent limitation on indirect {'osts. This principle is, of course, subject to the requirement of cost sharing on more than a token basis. In cases where the institutions, indirect cost rate is at or below 20 percent of total direct costs, therefore, it does not apply. NASA will not ordinarly require cost sharing greater than that required of the same institution by other Federal agencies awarding comparable grants. NASA attempts to achieve a liberal conforn1ity with the practices of the other agencies. NASA has no preconceived fixed minimum amount or percentage of cost sharing (except, of course, that it shall be no more than a token basis). Similarly, there is no maximum, since some institutions have voluntarily made substantial c(}ntributions to individual projects. A greater or lesser amount of cost sharing may be indicated in cases described in paragraph 4.c, of Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-74. A major factor to be considered is the extent to which the proposed research is central to or peripheral to the normal activities of the institution. NASA does not require a particular distribution of percentage requirements. The distribution may vary depending upon the application of the factors set forth above. However, where cost sharing involves a direct cost, a proportion of indirect costs directly identified with that direct cost will be eliminated.
336
On a NASA research grant, a university can charge up to full indirect costs as indicated by the most recent audit by a cognizant governmental audit agency.
Thank you very much, Dr. Newell. We appreciate very much your being here. It was a long, hard morning for you, and we are grateful to you. Dr. NEWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The prepared statement of Dr. Newell follows:)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HOMER E. NEWELL, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE SOIENCE AND ApPLICATIONS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS PROGRAM
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure and a privilege to appear before you at this time to report on continuing progress in our national Space Science and A:pplications Program. Accomplishments during 1965 in such projects as Ranger, Mariner, Tiros, and Gemini have served to strengthen the U.S. position of leadership in the scientific exploration of space and the useful application of space knowledge and technology. This steady progress stems from the dedication of thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians in government, industry, and universities, and from the continuing support of both the executive and legislative branches of government. The program which we present to you for fiscal year 1967 consists of a continuation of work already underway. Most of the projects started early in the space program ha\'e already produced significant results as shown in the accompanying charts. These include sounding rockets; Explorers; some international cooperative proj~ts like Ariel, Alouette, San Marco, and the recent French satellite; Geophysical and Solar Observatories; Pioneer; Ranger; Mariner; Echo; Relay; Syncom: Tiro,;; Nimhu,,; Delta; Scout; Agena; Centaur; and, of course, the Office of l\Iannf'rl Spacf' Flight's Gemini. Only two of the early projects in the Space Science and ApplicationR Program remain to bf' brought to fruition: nalllP)~', the Orbiting ARtronomical Obsf'rvatory and Surveyor. Both of the~p nrp s('hp(lulPd to llf'gill flight~ in calendar year Hlf,6. Of the early proje(ts, Echo, Rl'lay, Syncom, and Ranger have servf'd thf'ir purposeR anrl havp hppn phasp(] out, although somp small sums are needed to continue analy~f'~ and study of tlw wf'nlth of dntn ohtnined. TIlf' other early projects are being continued to reap further harvest from our investment In these capabilities. Our Sustaining l1nivf'rsity Program continue,~ to broaden the base of acadpmic aetivity which unrll'rgird" nparly nil of thp flight projects. Projects initiated later in the program include; an extension of l\Iarinl'r: additional Explorers; Biosatellitl': Applications Tl'chnology Satf'llitNl; Tiros Opprational Satellite (TOS); Lunar Orbiter; the Advanced Orbiting Solar ObsprYUtory (AOSO) ; and Voyager. Excellt for the In;;t two, work on flight hardwarf' is well underway to bring these to fruition in the immediate future. Thf' flight hardware phase of AOSO was initiated in the second half of H)f,5 after 2 years of intensive study of the design, aiming at n first flight at thl' time of solar maximum near the end of this decade. Although the ,;cientific objpctives rellln in vital to the study of solar physics, budgetary constraints ll'd to the cancellation of the AOSO contract until sOllie future tilllP whl'n ndequate re,;ourcp~ agnin ean be made available. In the meantime, those pxperilllents bping dl'yplopl'd for flight. on the early AOSO spael'craft are currpntly being rf'vil'wpd for pos~ible adaptation to other flight opportunitips. "'hereyl'r practicahlp, rf'oripntation and appropriate modifications will be made to take advantage of the design leadtiml', expended funds, and the resl'areh efforts im'estp(l hy f'cipnth<tf' in tllP developIllPut of thf' Reientific In!'<trulllputation for AOSO. I<'or Yoyngpr, thl' past year has bel"n onf' of design definition stndy. The sallw eonstrnints refprrPfl to in CO\1nection with AOSO haye dictntpd that pfforts on Yoynger during thf' ('ollling year should be Jimitpd to refinf'lllplltH of definition sturlip;;, nnd that thp plnnptary exploration of the nl"ar plalwts In t1lP immediatl' fntnrp should contilllH' ullder the Mariner program. Whennatlonnl resources can be made availnblp for the flight hardwarf' dpvelopmpnt phll;;e of Yo~'ngp\" NASA will nsk your support. Such a decision would havp, for the I'xplorntion of the planl'ts dnring thl' npxt decade, the same significancl" that this country's bold ann imaginative decisions in the
337
early years of the space program han' had for the inn~,,;tigation of the Earth and the Moon. It is only by continuing to make such forward-looking decisions that we assure for the future the !lame rich har,est of knowledge and technology that we ha,e enjoyed in the past and are enjoying today. The total level of funding requested in fiscal year 1967 for the Space Science and Applications Program is $661.4 million as compared with the fiscal year 1966 level of $783.2 million. This reduction has been necessary to accommodate overall budget limitations. Our request for your continued support is based on both the program's record of achievement and its continuing bright promise for the future.
Objectit''''
The objectives of the NASA Space Science and Applications Program continue tobe(1) The extension of human knowledge and understanding of the Earth and space. (2) The application of space knowledge and technology to practical uses. In pursuing these objectives. we seek to maintain U.S. leadership in these important scientific and technological areas. to add to and strengthen the total scientific competence of our Nation, to cooperate to our mutual benefit with other countries, and to strengthen those universities and other institutions that work with us. Our specific objectives are to obsen'e and explore the Earth and celestial objects hy means of instruments on the ground; in balloons; or aboard aircraft, sounding rockets. satellites, and space probes. Of particular importance is the problem of Sun-Earth relationships, which has the very practical aspect of establishing a scientific link between phenomena on the Earth on which we li,e and the Sun whi<>h is the source of energy that supports life on Earth. The investigation of the solar system will ultimately lead to a better understanding of our own Earth. Most of the techniques we must use in investigating the Moon, Mars, Venus, and other bodies of the solar system are those of terrestrial biological and physical sciences. The questions we ask are the same as those that we have long sought to answer for the Earth: What are the composition, structure, and origin of its atmosphere? What are the nature and ecology of its living organisms, if present? What are the natnre and behavior of its ionosphere? What are the nature and extent of its magnetosphere, with its trapped radiations, and the relation of the magnetosphere to the ionosphere and atmosphere? Is it seismically and volcanically active? Has it differentiated into a crust, mantle, and core, as in the case of the Earth? What is the o,erall topographic, physical, and chemical nature of its surface? What was the role of meteor impacts on the formation of surface features? What are the influences of the SlID upon the planet? The answers/;(> these and other questions for the Moon and planets other than the Earth should prove most illuminating in the continuing study of our own planet. The Sun is of importance both as the nearest star and as the source of energy controlling conditions within the solar system and maintaining life on Earth. The full spectrum of radiant energy from the Sun, stars, and galaxies cannot be observed at the surface of the Earth, because of the Earth's atmosphere. but can be investigated from space obsen'atories. In a sense, we will be looking at our universe with new eyes. The prime objective in satellite meteorology is to provide the meteorologist with observational systems that will give him worldwide data that he can use on a real-time basis to improve significantly his weather forecasts, and increase his understanding of atmospheric processes. Similarly, the prime objective in the communication and applications technology area is to develop the technological and engineering bases for the construction and use of worldwide operational satellite communication and navigation systems and to develop technology common to a number of space applications.
338
Important advances have ,been made toward these objectives. As a result, although we may continue to use the same words to define our objectives as we did years ago, the objectives in reality take on deeper meaning as we progress. For example, in our investigation of the Earth and the solar system, the wealth of information on the Earth's magnetosphere, the interplanetary medium, and solar activity has given us a completely new understanding of what space beyond the atmosphere is like. Our measurements and observations have in effect levealed and described a new laboratory-outer space-in which the physicist can study magnetohydrodynamics under conditions absolutely unobtainable in Earth-based laboratories. In the cosmic rays, particl~s of energies many orders of magnitude higher than can be generated in the largest accelerators on Earth are found. They can be used for studying their interaction with matter; and such investigations may be important in attempting to unravel the mysteries of the ultimate constitution of matter. In the great laboratory of outer space the relativity student can carry out experiments on the scale of our solar system, involving extremely precise measurements of time and position. The student of gravity may look forward to using the Moon or even the Earth-Moon system as a detector of gravitational waves. Similarly, in meteorology the Tiros and Nimbus technology have provided the basis for the development of TOS, the Tiros operational system of the U.S. Weather Bureau. This system will come into being this year, enabling the weather forecaster to improve significantly his short-range predictions of weather conditions of about one or two days in advance. Having taken this initial step in the develapment of satellite meteorology, our objectives now advance, and look toward the developments which would assist in extending weather prediction to one to two weeks ahead. 'With regard to satellite technology this means that we must press on with the development of advanced techniques for measuring on a global baSis, pressure, temperature, wind velocity, humidity, and heat balance at a number of heights in the atmosphere, and to explore fully the capability of a satellite as a data collection facility. By combining these unique weather satellite contributions with the capabilitil's of advanced digital computers for solving sophisticated atmospheric computing models, it is expected we will be able to achieve such long-range fore~asting in the decade that lies ahead. Again, in the communication area the basis has been established for the first operational communication system, represented by the Communications Satellite Corporation's Early Bird. NASA's objectives accordingly now look beyond this first communication satellite application, to more advanced applications such as direct broadcast of radio and television from satellite to home receiver, civilian air navigation, air traffic control, and global data relay. To further these longer range objectives, research is required on greater bandwidth systems, satellite stabilization techniques, highly directive antennas for both spinning and stabilized satellites, long lifetime components, and manned installation and repair in space of communication components. Thus, as we progress in the Space Science and Applications Program, we uprate our objectives continually, giving them ever greater promise.
Progres8-1965
The space missions carried out in the Space Science and Applications Program during 1965 are shown in figures 142, 143, 144, 145, and 146. The percentage of successes was 84. Most major program areas achieved highly significant successes in 1965. In Physics and Astronomy, five additional Explorers were launched, including the third Interplanetary Monitoring Platform (IMP) to continue the study of the Earth's magn,etosphere. The se<'ond Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO) was launched to undertake a basic program of monitoring and mapping the ultraviolet and X-ray emissions of the Sun. The second Orbiting Geophysical Observatory (OGO) was placed in orbit. its appendages deployed, and a threeaxis stabilization achieved. Although on occasion the horizon scanners locked onto the edge of cold cloud systl'ms instpad of the actual horizon, resulting in much shorter than planned stubi\izpd \ifetinH', 19 of the experimenttl functioned perfectly and considerable scientifi(' data are still being obtained. Over 100 sounding rockets continued investigations of the Earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and lower magnetosphere, as well as the Sun and the stars. On the international scene, FR-1, the first French-Vnlted States cooperative satellite, and Alouette II, the second Canadian-United States satellite were launched.
339
SPACE SCIENCE AND APPUCATIONS
SPACE MISSIONS
PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY

CALENDAR YEAR
PROGRAM
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1163
EXPlORERS
OSO OGO OAO SOUNDING ROCKETS INTERNATIONAL
- IICUJDES VANGUARDS EARlY BEACONS. AND PRE-NASA LAUNCHES
NASA SP 66- 93 IltV. ' - 1..06
FIGURE 142
SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
SPACE MISSIONS
LUNAR AND PLANETARY

CALENDAR YEAR PROGRAM RANGER MARINER SURVEYOR PIONEER ORBITER
C . COMPLETED
1958
1959
1910
1"1
1962 11963
1964 1965
TOTAL ALL YEARS
1~ 1 2
o
6 '
FIGURE 143
340
SPACE MISSIONS
METEOROLOGY
PROGRAM
TIROS NIMBUS
RESEARCH SOUNDING. RKTS
1951 195.
1910
OPER. SOUNDING
RKT. SYSTEM DV.L--_.L.-_.L.-_...L-_..L...._..L...._~-..:..:...L..-_L-_---J
NASA SP 66 - 38 1- 15-66
FIGURE 144
SPACE MISSIONS
COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION

CALENDAR YEAR
, I 1960 1 1961 1962 1963 ' 1964
PROGRAM ECHO RELAY SYNCOM TELSTAR EARLY BIRD ATS GGTS
I
1965
1958
1959
"'SA'
FIGURE 145
NASA AUTHORIZATION F OR FISCAL YEAR 1 96 7
341
SPACE MISSIONS
LAUNCH VEHICLES
CALENDAR YEAR
PROGRAM CENTAUR SCOUT THOR DELTA THOR AGENA ATLAS X259 ATLAS AGENA
1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
TOTAl. All YEARS
FIGURE 146
The Lunar and Planetary Program sa" the outstanding su ccesses of Rangers VIII and IX , and Mariner IV. In adrutioll, the first of a new series of Pioneers was successfully launched into orbit ahout the Sun. In meteorology, Tiros IX demonstrated dramatically the usefulness of the "cartwheel" mode for the TOS system. Tiros X , funded by the U. S. Weather Bureau and launched early in the SUlllmer of 1965, continued the unbroken string of successful Tiros launchings. Teamed "ith Tiros VII and T iros VIII which had been in orbit 24 months and 18 months. r espectively, it insured adequate coverage during the 19(;:) hurricane season. Also, Tiros photographs were correlated with the excelle!lt. color pictures taken from Gemini III , IV, Y, VI. and VII. In the CommunicatioJI Progr am the successful launching of the Early Bird satellite initiated commercial operations with communication satellites. This was our first launch in support of the Communications Satellite Corporation as required by the Communications Satellite Act of 1962. In the Launch Yehicle Program. Cpnta ur performpd perfectly in the direct ascent mode. bringing ti1is launch ".phide to r eadiness for use in the Surveyor Program . During the past two years, 15 Scout , eh icles ha,e been.. used to launch spacecraft for NASA, DOD, and AEC. During this per iod, Scout achieved a r eliability of better than 94 percent. The fi rst improved Delta was launched, bringing the capability of the Delta '-ehkle up to 325 pounds in a synchronous t ran sfer orbit. an impro\'ement in payload capability of 35 percent. In figure 147 the number of missions accompli~hed during Calendar Year 1965 is compa r ed with the number planned at the beginning of the year. Of those actually attempted, 84 percpnt were accomplishpd successfully. Five OSSA missions were carried over to 1966 o r are under studv. The 1965 successful Space Science and Applications missions tota led 16. Of th",s",. eight were scientific satellites; tb r ee, applications satellites; three. deep;;,-pace probes; and two were vehicle developments. Science and a pplications experiments ha ve also been carried on five manned missions.
342
FIGURE
147
The list of U.S. space firsts was extended during 1965. Ranger IX took I the first close-up pictures of tbe fl oor of a lunar crater. l<~or tbe first time. as television pictures of the lunar surface were being obtained from the Moon they were sent on a real-tim e basis to home r eceivels. Mariner IV achieved tht' til'st successful mission to Mars. It obta ined the first close-up pi cturt's of rhe Martian su rface, revealing the crater ed character of the planet. B~' Octobpr 1. 1!)(i5, Mariner IV had extended the long-range communicatioJJ r e-curd <to 1!)1 million miles; it has since been tracked to its maximum di stance of 216 million miles. The various measurements of the Mars magnetic field, atmosphere, and iOllosphere constitute s ignificant firsts. Early Bird beca me the tirst op('ra'tional COIllwercial com munication satellite. 'l'he first full global picture of t h e Enl'!h'" eloud CO\'er in a si ngle day as it will be obsened b.\' '1'OS was p!"I)\' ided by 'l'iros lX ea d y in the year. In the Gemini [l1'Og"J"fIIll e xcellen t rlictnres \" er e ootained of the terrain and of the gegenschein, a faint re fl ectio n of s unli g ht f roll1 materi a l dispersed t hroughout interplanetary space. It was clemI.\' establi shed that astl'Onauts ca n pel'form sc ientifi c experilll!'nts in space, \)J'oducing excellent usabl e results. Finally, und er the Susta ining University Program 65 more scient ists and engilIee rs ea rn ed their' doctor",. dl'g' r'PPs and t'ell llllh'er s ity resear ch laboratories \\'l' re com pIeted.
Progralll Content
The Space ScielJ(:e llnd Appli cations Pl'ogl'll lll is sllmlllarized in Ii;.:ure 1-11'. The total r ese!u'ch and development funch; requested for the progl'UlIl ill tis... al year 1967 are $661.4 million as ('o ll1l)a r ed to $783.2 million in fis<;a l yeal' l!){iH. 'l'he Physics and AstronolllY Pf'Ol-:ralll is {'ondu cted u sin~ sounding l'IH' k\'ts and Earth satelli tes to study the l~nl't h. f'iUll. S tlllS. galaxies, Enrth-StU1 r ('latiollship. and the propelties of spa ce. At the e nd of calenda r year 1005 the l'1'ogr:1ll1 had 36 successful scienti fi c satellite missiolls to its credit.
343
PROGRAM CONTENT
~-
... ..... '-.,
','
MANNED SPACE SCIENCE
FIGL"RE
148
The Lunar and P laneta ry Program is desigDE'd to in"~stigate the planets and othe r bodies of the solar system, Aut omatE'd spacecraft like R anger. :\1ari nN, Surveyor, Lun a r Orbiter, Pi oneer, and \, oyagrl' are used for this purpose as a r (' t ill' mann ed yel1kles of th e Gemini and ,\pollo Programs, TIH' :\I eteorologiC'al Program is dE':<iglll'<1 to dE'\'elop the use of ;:at'l\irr and sounding r ockf't techniqu('s in pl"oYiding the \-ari('ty of ouse n'atioll;: (,s~E'ntial to w path' r f o r(>('i1Ming :md the ~tudy ()f tIll' Iwha\'ior of th' atmosphere , This I'rogl"iIlu ha s an u nbroken re<'orcl of 10 ;;U('(''s:<ful T iro;; launl'hings au d one !<u t'cE';:sfu l :\,imiJus, I n i1ddiri()n (0 de\'eloping an npe rarionill satellite for the D epartment of COIllIlIt'n'p, the I' ro~l"am i" ('olltinuillg- r(';:('i1f(,h and deyelopmeut to\yard IIlOrE' ;I(hallced ~y,f("m' .. f the fn(nrt', ill('luding the lise of lIlan in both Illeteorologi('al rp;;ean'h alld oll{'ratioll ", Th e CnllJmunieilt inn and A pplka( i()n ~ Tl'('hnolo~y Satellite;: Program has laid the groulldwork f()r p:lrly "I)('rntional "y;:tem;:, of \yhi t'h the Early Bird ha;:: nmy beell pjfE'ctiYE'ly ('OI!llllitt('(1 til ('(llIllIle r<'inlu,E' hy (he COlllmullications Satel, litE' Cnrporation, 'The Enrly BinI ;.;atellitl' i" t lw'lirst E'XllE'rilllt'ntal e!fort ill t Iw fipld (If (,Ollllll(,I"I'i:l1 ~a t!'llit (' l'ollllll1Jni<-at iOll, Tll(' :\',\ S,\ I'l'(\t::ram i~ 110'" ('()JH'(,lItrlltill~ (On ~('ll!'r:ll P1lrl>"'(' n '~('a]'('1i and dl'\'"lo[llllPIIl ~a[f'lIit('~ known n:< tlw .-\l lpliention~ Tp('hnoloc:, Satl'llitl's, to I;n t1w c:r"UlIlI,,-ork fo r more n(l\'n ll('eli appli(':ltiol1:<, 1'11(' Hio;;'('i(,ll(,p l' r"~r:l III i ~ d i rt'('[l'd t ')"":1 I'd t \YII prin f'ipa I ohjE'ct i\'(';:: Th e 'l'an,1i for and stud\' of ('xtr:1t"IT('~tri:lllif(', and tIll' im'esric:ntioll of thp inftnf'llcf' (If t hl' 'pal'p pnYir";llllellt (In [rITe- trial lif(', l ll ~ t rlllllf'nt;: for t1w [oflller will Iw ('aITi('(\ ill 'l pl:lllPtary ~pa l'E', ' raft. " 'hi ll' l'xp\'rinH'llt~ for tlw lattcr " 'i ll t::( J ahoanl til,> Earth'''rh iti ll~ T\i (l>atPllill', "' ith tIl!' ill('n'a~ill" lllllllh,'r "f lll:lll,honr, ill "I'hit. rill' :l1 anll(>(1 SpacE' SeirllcP ;tllll ,\ I Ipl i('a t i, Ill' 1'I" .~rn 1Il i~ (\('\' ('1, .pi lit:: r;t J.idly, FourtE'en c1iffpr!'llt scieuti fic t'xJJt'rilll,'nt~ ill ~('\'t'n (\i"'iplint' an'a~ pithl' l" ha\'(' !>"t'll c;t rr i('(j tlut or appro\'f>(j for flight in till' GE'IIIini I'r!lgr:lm, '1ml anot1)('r I:! an' ill prt'p:lration for the Earth, orb iting and IWJ:lr-landillg Apollo ('!fo r ts, ~ tudip;: and prE'Jlaratory work arE'
c. ' c
59-9-11 0-66--23
344
under way for identif~' ing and developing lIIore ad\'anced scientific and applica tions experim ents in the areas of astronomy, biology. phYl>ics, meteorology, and llmar ex ploration for these and f ollow-on programs involving ma n in space. The Launch Vehicle Program is designed to develop and procure launch vehicles needed for NASA missions, including the co-ope rati'\"'e international projects. Some support is given to mi ssio ns of other agencies, such as the Department of Defense. the Environmental Science Sen-i ces Administration, and the Department of Commerce. Support is also given to the Communications Satellite Corporation on a r eimbursnhle ha sis. Deyelopment of the si ngle bu rn Atlas-Centaur capability wa s completed during the past ~'e ar; development of the reignition-in- orbit capab ility \vill be cOlllpleted during 1!l66. 'This will complete the basic Centaur development progrnm in suppor t of the Surv eyor project. The Sustflining University Progl'am iR an important element of our work "'ith the universities and coll egeR. It a ugm ents and complements co nYent ional project resea rch, en hances the resou r ces an d capabilities of universities to conduct spacerelated research and training. broodens the base of this partic ipation, and promotes a closer rel at ions hip betwPt'1l K_\SA and the academic commun ity. These various elements of the Space Science and Applications Program will now be di scussed in greater detail.
Physics and A.stronomy
The major components and the fi scal year 1967 budget requ est for the Physics and Astronomy Program are sh own in figure 149. During 1965, 138 soundin g rockets were launched to continu e the investiga tion of our atmosphere. and to ca rry out explor atory space experim ents. In su pport of the Intern ationa l Quiet Sun Year. the sh ip USNS CToa t an lau nched some 77 rockets while sailing down the west coast of South America. OYer 90 per cent of the sounding r ocket la un ches a nd about 80 per cent of the pa?loads were successful, yielding daro on cosm ic rays, and the Earth's atmosphere,
PROGRAM CONTENT
PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY

(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) FY 1965 FY 1966 FY 1967
TOTAL $139.2
16 .9
. t
. r
TOTAL $143 .5
,------- ---1 )6 ---_____ ~~.o

18 .5 21 .4 . 2~. 2 9 -- __
TOTAL $131.4
32~6-- ____
2(6
~ .4
-----t-~8
9J
25 .9
---_ ..... _____ --_ 23.0
9~
21 .1
r---- ------------- ~
23 .
---
28 .6
f
N -"SA
sr 00 1-15-0,)
40
FIGURE
149
345
ionosphere, and magnetic field. A Goddard Space Flight Center sounding rocket observed the planet Mars in the ultraviolet, indicating an atmospheric pressure of about five millibars at the planet's surface, which agrees well with the Mariner IV data. Other rocket flights made ultraviolet stUdies of the great comet of 1965, and of the Sun in ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths. During the past year, five additional Explorers were successfully launched by NASA bringing the total in this category to 24. Among these was the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory's Solar Radiation Satellite, which was prepared and launched in support of the International Quiet Sun Year. The first of NASA's geodetic satellites, Explorers XXVII and XXIX, were launched in April and November, 1965. Also in this general class of satellites were the first French-United States co-operative satellite FR-1, and a repeat of the Canadian Alouette satellite, the first one of which celebrated its third anniversary of continuous operation during 1965. Preparations went forward on radio astronomy, atmospheric, and interplanetary Explorer satellites, the latter two to be launched this year. The last mentioned of these, known as the "anchored IMP," will be put into orbit about the Moon in order to keep the satellite at lunar distances for investigation of the far reaches of cislunar space, and particularly to investigate the tail of the Earth's magnetosphere. Work continued on the PAGEOS satellite, a large Echo-like spacecraft to be placed in a 2,000 mile circular orbit for geodetic studies. Work also continued on the third United Kingdom satellite and the two European Spaee Research Organization (ESRO) satellites. Rice University initiated effort on two Explorer-type satellites to investigate phenomena simultaneously at different places in the radiation belt. These satellites will be referred to as OWL Explorers and will be launched by Scout vehicles. The second Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO-II) was succ!'ssfully placed into a 300 nautical mile circular orbit on February 3, 1965. Its objectives were to ex' pand the study of solar, gamma, ultraviolet. and X-ray emissions which were begun by OSO-I in 1962. OSO-II carried eight experiments, submitted by Harvard College Observatory, University of Minnesota, University of New Mexico, two eXp!'riments each from the NaV'al Research Laboratory and the Goddard Space Flight Center, and another experiment from the Ames Research Center. All of these experiments, with the exception of the spectroheliograph from the Harvard College Observatory which failed during initial turn on of the high voltage power, returned data which are currently being analyzed. Spacecraft systems worked extremely well. The spacecraft actually operated for over nine months as against its anticipated lifetime of six months. On November 9, 1965, the spacecraft was commanded "Off" to conserve the small remaining amount of pitch gas available so that at a future time the spacecraft could be interrogated and additional data received. On August 25, 1965, an attempt was made to launch the third Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO-O). However, a malfunction of the Delta launch vehicle prevented the spacecraft from being injected into orbit. We have taken steps to replace this valuable payload by rescheduling the spare experiments built under the 080-C contract onto the next OSO, which is to be launched in the early summer of 1966. Experiment payloads for the next three 080's have also been selected and work is currently under way to develop instrumentation. Orbiting Geophysical Observatory II carrying 20 experiments, was launched .mccessfully on October 14, 1965 into a near-Earth polar orbit. After ten days of operation control gas was depleted due to the horizon scanners occasionally locking on high cold clouds instead of the true horizon, thus preventing regular threeaxis Earth-pointing stabilizatiolL It appears, however, that one of its primE' objectives, to obtain data for a World Magnetic Survey, will be met and that it will continue somewhat indefinitely to obtain useful scientific data. OGO I, which was listed as a failure because of a malfunction in the deployment of two booms on the spacecraft, continues to be a remarkably successful failure. Most of thE' experiments are still operating, sending great quantities of data back to Earth. Enough experience has been obtained with OGO I to show that the concept of an Orbiting Geophysical Observatory is sound. Preliminary results indicate that OGO I and OGO II have made significant measurements in the areas depicted in figure 150. At the April 1965 AmE'rican Geophysical Union meeting, for the first time, atmospheric composition data werE' prE'sented for a region of space where the geo-
346
FIGURE
150
magnetic fi e ld plays a decisive rol e in the behavior of th e atmosphere. The manner of prese nting geomagnetically trapped radiati on da va was found u seful in bringing out s ignificant relationships between the ionosphere. geomagnptically trapped r adiation , and wry low frequ e ncy radi o phenomena . It haH becomp c lear e r than eve r hefore that the previously more or less sepa ra ted fields of ionospheric, pla sma. atmospheric, trapped radiati on . llnd magnetic fi e ld r esea rc h are merging into a s ingl e, highly inte rrelated field of investigation. OGO I experiments h a ve also obtained measurements in the inte rplan eta ry medium, hav e detected osc illations of the interplanetary sh ock and magn etospheri c boundary . and have obserYed a filamentary str ucture in the transition r egion. "pry low frcquency r ad io noise ha s been d e t ected at la rge distances from E:uth and eO'rrel atC'>' with the plasma freqllC'n cies of thermal elp("trons. Obsen'ed e nhan celll ent~ alld dE'('I"enses of t'he magnetie tail field st rengt h during storm condition s eorreh1t(' wi t h simi lar magnpti<' variations at the I ';a rth '~ s urfaee. Th esE' \'a riecl r es ulb IInrle rseorp thC' yalidity of the OGO concept and the ability of the OGO to Illcet its rllilll:1r.\' obj('cth'e~. A broad spe<:'trull\ of mea s ure ment s made at the ~a m c t im p in the same place is important in r1et.'rrnining relation s hips :1111ong solar activity , tilt' sola l' wind , a nd tht' Earth's atmo~[lhere, ionospllPrp, aurl mngn!'tosph r re. OGO- R has bppn prepart'd all(l i~ no w r('atly for launching ill the immedinl. , future. Exp('l"illl('nt~ alld spat"('craft hardware for OGO'~ ]) and J~ arl' nndrr prepnra t itll\' gxperim " lIt ~ IU1\-e oel'n sC'lC'ett'Cl fOl' OUO- F . Aft .. r five yNlr~ of ('x("('('tlingly diffkult. t!('yeloplllt'nt work , 1"111' fil'st Orhitillg Astronollli<-al ObsernlLory is rt'ndy f o r lanllch , lls ing the Atlas-Agt'lUl launt'll \('hide. OAO sr\'erely prC' ~s(' d the ClIlTt'lIt ~lnj"(' of the art in boO I spa('I'("rat't allCl instrllmrlltntlon, and it~ ("olllplt'tion IIIHrk~ a Hignifkant advnm'(' ill uoth nrrns. It. wa s not pos~ibl(' to pn'I)lJ]'p 1"11(' Slllith~oniall A~t]'ophysi en l Obst' I'\'atory IIltl'llvi ol('l, sky s ur\,t'y ('xlwrillll'nt ill tilllt' for tht' fil'st OAO night. As a ("011 ~rq u ('n e.'. WI' nlO\'rd lhis expe]'iult'nt to a ~paCI'CrH ft designa ted OAO- A2. TIlt ' first OAO (O AO- A1) payload now eons ists of the following experiments: Photom -
347
etry, University of Wisconsin; X-ray, Lockheed; X-ray, Goddard Space Flight Center; and gamma-ray, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. OAO-B, to carry a Goddard Space Flight Center spectroscopy experiment using a 36-inch telescope, is on schedule for a launch in early 1967. OAO-A2, the prototype refurbished for flight, will carry ultraviolet experiments prepared by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the University of Wisconsin, and is on schedule for a launch in late 1967. Spacecraft C will carry a .ery high precision spectroscopy experiment being prepared by Princeton University, and is on schedule for a launching during the following year. In keeping with expressed Congressional desires, we have done no spacecraft work on OAO-D. We have used the time available during the past year to develop plans for OAO-D to be a telescope facility for general support of the astronomical community. Carrying suitable telescopes and associated equipment, this Obser.atory would be used to conduct obser.ations and experiments proposed by guest observers to whom a panel of scientists would allocate the use of the Observatory for stated periods of time. Our studies of the Sun have shown clearly the need for a high precision. high capacity type spacecraft to intensify the in.estigation of our nearest star. The spacecraft for this purpose was the Ad.anced Orbiting Solar Observatory. After extended Phase I design and subsystem preparation work, Rl'public Aviation Corporation was given the contract to proceed with the Phase II flight hardware development of AOSO. Budgetary constraints unfortunately resulted in the cancellation of the AOSO contract. The scientific objecti.es, hO'WeYer, remain .ital to the Solar Physics Program. Because of the cancellation of the AOSO Program, ways are being studied to enhance the basic OSO missions. Specifically, a more accurate pointing system, the capability of carrying larger and longer instruments, the means of achieving offset pointing are but a few of the studies currently being conducted toward this objecti.e. Placement of the OSO into a retrograde polar orbit to provide continuous obser.ations of the Sun for a nine-month period is also being re.iewed. It must be stated, however, that even with these improvements, the basic 080 will never be able to replace the potential capability being sought in the Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory project. In order to achieve additional AOSO objectives it will be necessary to pursue other means of space investigation. We are planning, in the Physics and Astronomy Program, to capitalize on the capabilities being developed in the program of the Office of Manned Space Flight. We have stud res under way which will lead to the development of solar and stellar astronomy experiments to be flown on manned vehicles in the 1969 to 1971 time period. In this effort we are planning to make maximum use of the teehnolugy developed under the AOSO, OAO, and OSO projects. The success of our Explorers, orbiting observatories, and interplanetary probes is directly attributable to the backup activity of our supporting research program. This program includes ground-based laboratory activity and the Uf'e of balloons and sounding rockets for short term space research. "Csing slightly more than ten percent of its budget for supporting research and technology, the Physi('s and Astronomy Program has maintained nearly 200 research and development tasks to support the flight operation. ~ew techniques. procedures, and eoneepts are in.estigated in pursuit of pro.iding extended capabilities, Le., operational life, accuracies, capacity, and ennronment protection for our spacecraft of tomorrow. These tasks may be classed as experimental observations. experimental developments, and theoretical stUdies. The experimental observations of the supporting research and technology program strongly support the many disciplines of Physics and Astronomy such as the airglow, auroral, and riometer observations of energetic particle effects on the atmosphere; or the radio and optical studies of meteors. Satellite topside sounding observations are supplemented by ground-based ionosonde and incoherent back-scatter radar measurements. Astronomical and solar studies with satellite observatories rely heavily on observations using radio and optical telescopes and coronagraphs, and spectroheliographs at ground-based solar obser.atories. In the area of experiment-'ll development, many of the instruments for spacecraft have been designed and developed under the supporting research program. whereas special component development to improve instrumentation sensitivity and to extend reliability are an essential portion of the flight research program.
348
Theoretical r esea r ch is a lso a r equired aspect of t he supporting research in t h e generation of new ideas f or experime nts and the in te rpretation and solution of fund amental problems, and in the study and ana lysis of ne\yly acquired experimental data. The supporting r esea rch activity und erwrites some of our best thinking in both the experimental and theoretical aspects of the space Physics and Astronomy Program . The newly establi shed Data Analysis Projec t will provide increased emphaSis on r esea r ch based on t h e data obtained from fli gh t experiments.
Lttnar and Plametary The major elements of the Lunar and Planetary Program a.re illustrated in figure 151. The Ranger and Mariner IV missions have been completed as originall y planned. However, Mariner IV is still ope ratin g and we plan to interrogate the spacecraft in 1967 when it will be close enough for .radio contact. The fiscal year 1967 funding requested h for co ntinuing ana lysiS of the data obtained, and for the reacquisition of the Mariner IV SI)aCecraft as \v ell as for Incremental funding of a sin gle Ma ri ner to Yenus on an Atlas-Agena for the 1967 oppo rtunity and two Ma.riners to Mars on Centaurs during the 1969 opportunity. The Pioneers are instrum ented with particle det~tors a nd magnetometers to survey the interplanetary medium within the r egio n s between the orbi t of Venus and the orbit of Ma rs. Pioneer VI , t h e first of the present se,ries, \vas launch ed successfully in December 1965, u sing the impro\'ed Delta launch vehicle. It will send back measuremen ts from up to GO million llIiles ahead of the Earth in the region between the orbits of "pnus and Ea rth. In 1966 allot-her Pioneer will be launched to explore the r egions behind the Ea r th betwepn the o,rbits of Earth and Mars. The Lunar Orbiter preparations a r e on sc hed ul e for an initial flight in 1966. although the sch ed ul e is very tight, As pointed out last yea r, a single su ccessful Orbiter spacec raft will photograph at high ,reso lution O\'er one million
FIGURE
151
N ABA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1 967
349
times the surface area coyered in each of the last Ranger photographs. We ha,e cr eated a board, chaired by my Deputy, Mr. Edgar Cortright, with membership from both t he Space Science and Applications and Manned Space Flight Offices, to a dYise me on the selection of a.reas to photograph with the Lunar Orbiter and to in,estigate with the Surveyor. These a reas will be chosen so as to provide maximum su ppor t to Apollo. Suryeyor is by f a r th e most difficult mission that we h aye undertaken in the Space Science and Applications Program. ' Ve haye encountered a nu mber of problems. and the aCC()mplishment of thorough tes ting has delayed the first fligh t until t his year. H owever. I believe t hat we h aye in operation technical and management effo r ts that will ca rry us through t o the ultima te success we req ui re. XeYertheless. the most difficult part of t he program still lies ahead of us. The year 196.:1 was one of major accomplishment in the LU nar and Planetary Program. R anger :; YIII and IX extended the p hotography of the lunla r surfa ce to more than 17.000 photographs (fig. 152). As a result of analysis of these data. \\'e know that the basic design of the Luna r Excur sion )Iodule is sn itI'd to the t opography of a large fr action of the lunar surface. The lunar highlands appear CQllsiderably smoother than once h ad been supposed. The floor of a luna r cr ater like AII}honsus is rema rkably simila r to the ma re surf aces in topography. Dark ha los around small craters in AlphollSUS suggest that there may be or ha s been some yolcanic-like activity on t.he ~foon . Closer shld y of the rill s and slump-like featu r es, r eyealed in the close-up pictures of the lunar surface. suggest that the subsurface structu r e of the Moon may .contain crack s and fissu r es which aC('ount for the slumping. Widespr ead close-u p photography of the lunar surface using Lunar Orbiter is rE'quired to ilwestigate t.he preyalence of such slumps. A study of the distribution of cr ater sizes on the lunar surface a nd erosion characteristics indicate a consta n t "garden in g" of the lunar surface by both primar y and secondary il1lpaets. But the 'a ctual tex tu re and structure of the lunar su rfa ce can not be
RANGER PHOTOGRAPHS
RANGER VII
LAUNCH ED : IMPACTED : I MPACT AREA :
RANGER VIII
FEBRUARY 17. 1965 FEBRUARY 20, 1965 MARE TRANQUILLITATIS 24 E. LONG . 3 N .LAl .
LAUNCHED: JULY 2 8 . 19 64 IMPACTED: JULY 31. 1964 IMPACT AREA : MARE COGNIT UM 20 .7 W. LON G. 10.7 S.LAT .
.~ ~'-. , "
. ,. 1
!.
, ~
.'\
RANGER IX
LAUNCHED IMPACTED IMPACT AREA MARCH 21 1965 MAR CH 24 1965 CRATER ALPHO NSUS 29 W LONG 13 SLAT
RANGER IX
HIGH RESOLUT ION PHOTOGRA PH FLOOR OF CRAT ER ALPH ONSUS
FIGURE 152
350
determined from photographs alone; landing tests and experiments on the surface itself, sueh as will hp provided by SurYE'yor, are rt'quirE'd for that. EYen more important, we should llUt thE' pXI)('rimE'nte-r himsplf on the ~roon as ROon as possible, and to this pnd have seleetE'd the sdentist-astronauts for the 1,1'0gram. 'We are tl'aining our astronaut.s in thE' ;wiPIH'f> diseiplinps ""sential to lunar exploration but look forwanl to OIl' timp whpn \\,p will introduep sdpntistpassengers into the program-men who will be scientistA first and \\',ho will not nE'Cessarily be requirE'd to (jualify as fuII-fi('(lgE'lI pilot astronauts, in thp eurrently aeeepted sense. In the arE'a of planetary ,;tudies, the hi,;torie invp;;t igation of Man; hy Mariner IV has heen eharaetprb:E'l1 by laYIIlE'n alHI sl'ipntists alikp as brilliant. To achie\'e this suceess, thE' spaeeeraft alHI its E'XIlPriments had to remain operative for two-thirds of a ypar while tranrsing a distance along its path of ~26 million miles from Earth to 1\Iars. At thP time of E'ncounter, the spaceeraft was at a Rtraight-Iinp distmH'p from the garth of l~ri million miles, a distanep sueh that it took 12 minutps to s('nd a signal to tIw RpIH'E'I:raft, and IJllothpr 12 Illinut Ps to rp('E'ivp tllP rE'sponsp hack from the spaeecraft. 1\Iore than that, til(' spaef'('raft had to ('ontinnp to fnnetion aitE'r thl' planE'tary encountE'r in order to send hack the pictures that had heen obtained during the fly-by of the planet. I ndp('{1 , WE' ('ontinllp(1 to rE'CE'ivp data from the spacpcraft until 1 Octoher 11)6;;, at whit-h timp it was 191 million miles from Earth. It is now beyond "E'ar-shot," so to Rpl'ak, insofar as data receipt is eoneprned, but its signals are still being tran:<mittE'd and have bpE'1l dE'teeted at a distanc'e of 216 million miles. WE' shall eontinu!' to listen through 11)67, whpn the spal'e" ('raft should again /)(' close enough to Earth for us to ohtain tell'lllE'try data. The instrument.s aboard Mariner IV showed that the ionospllE're on the afternoon sidE' of Mars was at 123 km height, and contained about 10" electrons/cm". Sueh an ionospllE're would pprmit radio :<ignals in tllP frE'qllPncil's to be uSE'lI for spaeperaft teipmptry to /)(' spnt to }<~arnl from thp sllrfaee of the planE't itspif, The instruml'nts also showed that the planE't's maguptie field mUflt he IE'RS thall 1/1000th that of the Earth. No radiation helt was dpteetpd. '1'11(' atmosphprE' of Man; was found to he YE'ry thin at thp surface, possihly Ipss than 10 mb pressurE' or one pE'rcent of thE' Earth's. It aI.'lo seems to be relatively eool, apparpntly dlle to signifieant amouutR of earhon dioxide whi<'h is an efficient radiator of pnprgy. As a const'qnE'ncp, t hl' upppr rE'acllE's of tIlE' atmosphprp are of very low dE'nsity, whieh will permit. ns to plael' a spaCE'craft in close orbit around thE' planpt, withont fpar of tIl<' ('rhit's dl'eaying dul' to atmospheric drag causing the spaeE'Craft to erash into thp planpt. This is important design information, in view of thE' need to kE'pp tllP planpt un('ontaminated hy terrestrial organisms in order to makp E'ffE'eth'p usp of thE' opportunity to study possihlE' l'xtratE'rrestrial life. Prior to having these data ahout thE' Martian atmosph'ere, scientists had little basis for choosing from among thp wide variety of possibilities as to the naturE' of the Mars atmosphere. Now the choices are narrowed considerably, and theoretical work ean prol'E'pd with SOIlIp expe-etation that the rE'sults will be applicahlp to the real Mars atlllosphprp. Thl' ahility to t1lPorize definitivE'ly ahout an atmosphprp other than thE' Earth's givp~ a mark(,{] impptns to thp :<tudy of thp origin of planptal'Y atmosphE'rrn. From a practieal point of viE'w, the lllorp dplinitiv(' knowledge ahont thE' Mars atmoRphE'rE' pE'rmits onp to pr()('('('d with tltp 'E'ngincpring dE'sign of orhitcrs and landE'rs with a hpttE'1' nndl'l'stan<ling of till' ('OIHlitions to hp pneountprp(\, The low atmospilPri<' pl'Pssnrps prohal,ly mE'all that iandprs Illay iIavp to use Ii ('omhination of atlllosphpri(' rE'pntry hraking, para(']mtl' tl'dllliqlw. and rl'trorO<'kl't systplll. During thp mont ils illllllp(lia tHy ahE'ad, we sha 11 hl' stnd~-in.g intensiyply just what thl' hps! ('olllhinatioll is IikE'ly to hp. The data ohtain('{J on thp planl't aJso makE' it possihlE' to dl'sign thp E'XlJerilllE'nts for thp nl'xt gE'npration of Jllfll1<'tnry Rpac'pcraft. TIl<' wholl' "tudy of particlE' rndiatiolls in tl1<' vieinity of ]\fars wiII ill' diffprl'nt from what it would hayp 1)('('11 had thprp hppn a radiation lwlt. If thE're is n ('avity ill tIl!' solar wind duE' to 1\Iars, it will he due to the planl'tary body and its atlllosphpre, rathl'r tiln n to t hI' Jlln npt 's lllagl1d it lipId. Likl'wisl', part iell's, whh'h n t tIl<' ga rth arp sto[lppd hy tIl!' F.nrth's magnptosphcrp, on ]\[al''' will pl'nl'tratp to til(' "urfnce of thp plnnpt. For F.arth, till' maximum l1umh('r of pnrti(,/p" gpnl'ratl'll h~' ('osmic ray "p('oIHlnry pr()(ludiol1 o('('urs ill till' atlllospllPrp, whprpas Oil ]\fars maximulll ~p('OIHlary part ielp gpnpl'at ion now elparly Illust 0('('111" ill tlIP hody of 111<' planE't
XASA AuTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1 967
351
it;,:elf. Experiment" in a ]llanetary orhitt'r ,,ill eonet'ntrate mort' on "tndies of tbe atmo"pbt'rie "truetnrt'. composition. and motion tban on magneto~pher i c properties of tbe planet. Continued teJe-,ision r econnaissa nce of tbe planetary surface \y ill be an important effort. lII ost spectacular wer e tbe pbotograpbs of tbe Mars surface (fig. 153 ) . Twentyone complete pbotograpbs wt're obtained; of these 14 wer e outstanding. All the photog-raph;; t og-t'ther cO't'red about one per cent of the ~I a rti al1 "urface and included both light and dark area;;. and region" ,,here the so-called canal" had het'n reported. A~ you all know. tht' surface rt'semblt'S that of the :\[0011, ,yith both la rgt' and small cr ater s. There is now a considerable scientific discussion as to Iyhetht'r tht' di~t ributi on of (Tater ~ize~ i~ l'imilar to that of the ~I oon or difft'rent. Ru ch discu""ion Con (ern~ tht' qut'~tioll of wht'tht'r tht' ~ur fa(-e being ,it'wed i~ hillioll~ of yt'ar~ old or only hundred" of millions of years old. Tht' answt'r~ may shed lig-ht Oll tbe qllt'~tioll of ,,hcther grt'at quantities of "a tt'l" at o ne time exi;:tt'!l on tbe plant't. This initial ~rartian ob~erYatiol1 has a bearing on tht' design of equipment for the sea r ch for possible life on the ~lartian pl'l11 t't. It is inJIlortallt to note that the ~Iar int'r I\" photograph,- do not dt'tennine wht'ther life exj,'t~ nil :\[ ar~. En'n Iwfore tIlt' flight of ~l arin('r I\". it was knowll that picturE'" t;1ken at thi;: rt';;olutioll (ol1ld not gi,t' any dirt'C't t',idt'nte of lift' forms. Indt'Nl. sil1lilnr pic-turt's of the Earth fl'om tht' Sllmt' distallce would not reyeal lifp on Earth. ns is clt'nr from the tbou"all<l ~ of Tirns photog-raphs taken tt'11 timt's elo~('r to tbe planet. " '(' llrO])(}se to continue th(' t'xploration of VPIIUS and l\l n r ~ begun >'0 ,,ell with :\[ariners II and I\'. rE"'ppcthely. by utilizing for the H)67 Yenus 0l'PortuIlity an appropriate moditication of tIl(' spare spn('('craft from th e ~I ariner IY Program . Tbis "ill b(' lallll!'hf>d on an Atlus-_\)r{'1H1 yehielf>. A ,imrle fly-by mi,siolJ to \-en us will pl'o'ide u~f>flll ~eif>lltific data whieh ,yill complement the l\lariller 11 rt'Sl1lt." of 1962. For th e l00!) :\1 ,,,,, opportunity , we propo;::e two IIli~~i()lJ;: of nn SOOpound :\[arinpr cIa;::;:: lanneht'd on Centaur yphiclf>;;;. The;::p latter missions w ill
MARINER IV- MARS PHOTOS

NUMBER I ALTITUDE MILES 10.500 NUMB ER 9 Al TfTUD E: BIOO MILES AREA : MARE SIRENUM . 23 DEG . S. LATITUDE .x I 9 1 DEG . E. LONGITUDE SCALE: 170 MILES E-W x 160 MILES NS INORTH AT TOP , ALTITUDE : 7 .600 MILES AREA :PHAETHONTIS . 41 DEG . S. LATITUDE x 208 DEG . E. LONGITUDE SCALE : 170 MILES EW 140 MILES NS INORTH AT TOP NUMBER 11 NUMBER 14
AREA ' PHLEGRA . 35 DEG . N. LATITUDE x 172 DEG E. LO NGITUDE . SCALE 410 MILES ALONG THE LIMB . BOO MILES ALTITUDE 7.BOO MIL ES AREA ATlANTIS . 31 DEG S LATITUDE 197 DEG E. LONGITUDE SCAL E 170 M ILES E W . 150 M ILES NS NORTH AT TOP
FIGll! 1:'i:\
352
enable further data to be obtained on Mars and will be capable of making measurements to further define the Martian atmosphere as well as to increase knowledge of its surface features. The ability of Ranger and Mariner to accomplish their objectives so welI stems in no small degree from a long continued program of supporting research to improve our technique of measuring scientific quantities and to make better spacecraft hardware. These new and better techniques not only back up our current missions, but frequently alIow us to plan future efforts that otherwise would not be possible. For example, it was under the supporting research and technology program of prior years that many of the guidance techniques used on Mariner IV were developed, long before the Mariner IV was planned. The same is true of the scientific experiments conducted by Mariner IV. It is under the supporting research and technology program that we are now developing components that will be called upon to operate reliably after they have been sterilized, as will be required of the Voyager landing capsule. Also induded in this area are studi~ of and preparation for development of new flight projects. Our studies are devoted largely to development of conceptual designs of spacecrnft and the determination of feasibility of new or advanced lunar and planetary miRsions. This area of work remains relatively constant because as newly developed ideas and hardware are turned over for use hy flight projects, efforts are reoriented to still more advanced work.
Voyager
The Voyager project is designed to develop our capability to explore the solar system by automated spacecraft. Because of the possibility that evidence of some form of life may be found there, Mars is the first target of the Voyager effort. In 1965 the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences issued a paper strongly supporting the exploration of Mars as the next major target in the national space science effort. During the summer of 1965 the Space Scienf'e Board conducted a detailed space science study, a major part of which was devoted to planetary exploration. This study reaffirmed the desirability of exploring Mars as the first target of interest among the planets, but also urged a continuation of exploratory-type missioll.'l to other ROlar system targets. During 1965 the first part of a PhaS(> I design definition effort fo'r the Voyager spacecraft system was completed by each of three contractors: The Boeing Company, Thompson-Ramo Wooldridge, and the General Electric Company. During 1966 we intend to continue study, planning. and preparatory work directed toward undertaking a planetary orbiter and lander mission on Mars in 1973. A highly versatile Voyager spacecraft system will enable us to continue to carry out detailed planetary exploration. It will be eapable of orbiting the basic spacecraft about Mars for geophysical-type measurements, and at the same time 1njeeting probes into the atmosphere for atmospheric measurements, or landing instrumented eapsules on the surface for both physical and biological studies. The basic technology, suhs~'stems, and techniques used on the Mars Voyager will be adaptable to constructing spacecraft for exploration of other planets. The funds required for the Voyager effort in Fiscal Year 1967 will allow a eontinuallion of the Rtudy, design, and research effort on the signifi('ant. problems related to Voyager at a level consistent with an operational mission in 1973. This level is designed to complement the Mariner preparations for 1009 and will he directed toward advancing eSRential technologies dn spacecraft and capsule deSign.
Meteorology
The Meteorologieal Satellite Program (fil!. 154) has had a perfeet record of 11 eonsecutive successes. Ten of these flights have been TIROS spacecraft, and one a NIMBUS. As shown in figure 154a from this researeh and development program hav!' come about half a million usable weather pietures, which the Weather Bureau has used in a quasi-operational manner to provide more than 20,000 <'loud cO\'er analyst's. ov!'r 2.000 special storm advisories, nearly 800 improvements to cOll\'entiollnl weather analys!'s, nnd the tra('king and surveillance of ov!'r 120 hurrieanes and typhooml. The Tiros Operational Satellite (TOS) system fig. 154b which is being put into operation this year is based on the technology from the Tiros and Nimhut programs. In this operational system, the spacecraft will be used in
N ASA AU THORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
353
FIGURE
154
FIGURE
154a
354
t.l
L...-_
,[gJ
I ,V;','11'
" r'l
r"J .... SA Sf , ,_ 1,7

I
,<
-.'-t
FIGURE
154b
two versions'. One will carry a pair of Nimbus Advanced Vidicon Camera System (A VCS) cameras to provide world-wide cloud cove r photography. It will be inLerrogated and read out at two U.S. Command and Data Acquisition (CDA) stations. The other version will be equipped "l\-ith a pair of Nimbus Automatic Picture Transmission (APT) cameras for transmission of local cloud cover data to local receivers, either in the United States or in any other nation. Each APT cloud photograph will cover a 1,700 x 1,700 mile area in proximity of the receiving station. There are now over 50 automatic picture transmission stations in the world to r eceive this type of data. T'he '.I'OS program is funded and managed by the Environmental Science Seni ces Administration which r eimburses NASA for the spacecraft development, launch, an d supporting services. The initial TOS system will r equire two spacecraft in orbit at all times to prodde globa l cO \'erage of the illuminated Earth on a daily basis to both global and local u ser s. In our TOS improvement program, we are developing a record er to go with the APT camera system. When developed , we will be able to provide with a single spacecraft both global recorded data readout to CDA stations and direct service to loca l station s. This will e liminate one of thr two presently r eq uired TOS spacec raft and thus reduce the cost of thr operational system. Also in our 'l'OS improvement program we are developing technology whi ch will enable us to extend the 'l'OS capability to that of obtaining nighttime clond co ver information in addition to dllylight coverage. This is the on ly onr or the TOS system requirements of tbe Wrath e r Bureau and Lhe Dcpartment of Defense that is not being ll1rt with thc initial TOS system. Our eITorts hen' will utilize the Nimbus-drvclopcd High Resolution Infra r ed (HRIR) scann ing device for adaptation to the TOS ca rtwheel desig n. Among these efforts are plans aimed at developing a single sensor to be u sed for bOLh day and night oh,;eJ"\' ation~. With thc s ll rccssf ul drvrlopnH'lIt of I'<I1("h a drd re, we will he ahle to combi nr into a s ingle 'ros s pacrcraft, probahly ill tho ('arly 1n70's, the capability li es ircd hy Hlr 'V('ath r r Burea u f01- day a nd night !'lond eoverage witb both loca l anli global readont.
355
Beyond TOS, with its most important contribution to global "loud obser,ation, lies another major step in satellite meteorology. This consist~ of satellite sensor and technology de, elopments which will pro, ide the basic obse rv ational data needed for computing long-range ,,'eather f or ecasts of one to two \"eeks in advance. Our aim is to develop advanced sensors and d ata coIlection techniques in order to provide global measurements of pr essur e, temperature. density. humidity, \vinds . and energy balance at varions altitudes. This will supplement the satellite capability f or daily global pictu r e cover age ( fig. 155) such as h as been demonstrated by Tiros IX. W e shall use the Nimbus satellite fo r this purpose. Kimbus (fig. 156 ) is operated in a polar orbit, with three-axis active Earth stabilization. The th r ee-axis stabilization permits cameras and r adiation sensors to be pointed continuously downwa rd at the Ea rth and it. atmosphere. ;'\imbus also combines the capabili ty to collect and transmit to Earth meteorological data from sensor!" deployed on atmospheric balloons, ~an buoys, a nd land stations. In our TOS improvement effor ts and in )iimbus w e are ad,ancing o ur technology toward the longer r ange oper at ional weather satellite systems in polar orbit. W e shall also be usi ng th e Applications Technology Satellites to conduct meteor ologic-a I expe ri ments at ~ynchronous a lti tude. The r esul ts of t hese ex periments will undoubtedly f orm the basis of future synchronons meteorological satellites. T he ~I eteorological Satellite Progra m i s also conducting studies to determine the effectivene":,, of meteor ological obse rvati on by man fr om orbiting vehicles. The meteorological sounding r ockets a re used measure atmospheric parameter s in the =:0 to 60 mile altitude r egion which is not accessible to meteorological balloon>: or satellites. The research sounding rockets of the ""ike -Cajun class a r e u"E'd to explore the meteor ological aspects of this region \Vith emphasis on the geographical and temporal variations a nd the r ela tion of the atmospheric beha vior in this region to tbat in other r eQions. During Calendar Year 1965 48 research soundi ng rocket,,: wer e s uccessfu1ly launched.
TIROS IX VIEW OF THE GLOBAL CIRCULATION
NASA SF 65- 674 RU. 10-26-<>5
FIGuRE
15;)
356
NIMBUS I
METEOROLOGICAL
SATELLITE
FIGURE
156
In the operational sounding rocket development program, involving small rockets of the Arcas and Loki class, we are attempting to develop an inexpensive meteorologi cal sounding rocket system for reliable, routine measurements in the 20 to 40 mile altitude region. This development includes the improvement in the reliability and altitude capability of the rocket and the sensors along with the tracking and data reduction procedures. The test firings are scheduled so as to 'be used as part of NASA's participation in United States and international coordinated meteorological rocket fi rings. Du ring Calendar Year 1965, 139 of the smaller development sounding rockets were successfullY launched. The present Meteorological supporting research and technology program range;; from research in sensor l'equil'ements and evalufltion to supporting eng inee ring research and technology. Included are investigations of spacecraft techniques for measuring atmospheric parameters such as temperature, wnter vapor content, and winds. Also included are th e design a nd development of the necessa ry components and systems to obtain these data. iVe are upl'ating the performflncp and reliability and extending the operating Iifet illle of satellite systems by taking advantage of advances in satellite control and stabilization, power sources, spaceborne and associated ground-ba~ed data proce~s ing systems, and meteorological instrumentation. One example of inst rum entation development is the Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS), shown in the lower right corner of figure 154 used earlier). It has been developed to measure the continuous spectrum of emitted radi a tion from 5 to 20 microns. From these radiation measurements we will r econstruct the atmospheri c thermal structure, water vapor and ozone distribution , and the surface and cloud top temperatures. This instrument and others like it having the potential fo l' making global quantitative mea surements represents an important step toward attainment of extended wpather forpcasting which was mentioned previously.
Comnwnica,tion and Applicat'i on Technology Satellites
In April 1965 the first Early Bird satellite was launched for the Communic a tions Satellite Corporation. For the servicps provided by NASA, the Communications Satellite Corporation reimb ul'sed the Federal Government au amount of $3.3 million, in accordance with a schedule that had been worked out in
KASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
357
advance. Although in agreements between the Corporation and XASA the Corporation had options for additional launches in 1965, they did not exercise any of these, presumably because of the success of the first Early Bird. At the present time, we a r e scheduled to launch another communicati on satellite for the Corpora tion in the first half of 1966. Our own major effort in the communication and applications technology area (fig. 157) is now on the advanced technology of gravity gradient and spin stabilization techniques, antenna research, and the deter mination of envi ronmental effects on com ponents. For this purpose, we plan to fly the Applications Technology Satellite, with the first launch scheduled for the last half of 1966. Tbe first spacecraft now is in the prototype stage. A complete complement of experiments for the first three of these satellites has been chosen, and work on these is underway. Prototypes of the experiments for the first two spacecraft a re a '-a ila ble. In concert with other government agencies we are continuing to study the nation's needs in civil navigation. with particular emphasis on ai r navigation, and traffic safety and control. We are also studying the possible applications of communication satellite techniques to direct broadcast into home receiver s, and to high capacity data relay systems. The Echo, Relay, and Syncom projects have been completed. By the end of ~farc h, 1965, we had turned both Syncom II and Syncom III over to the Departmen t of Defense f or their experimental-operational use. Syncom n over the Indian Ocean, and Syncom III over the Western Pacific continue to ser,e the needs of the Department of Defense. A 1965 achievement in the use of Earth synchronous communication satellites was the reai"time television coverage, fr om the ca rri er USS Wasp, of the Gemini VI and VII recoveries. A portable 30-foot transmitting station, shown in figure 158, installed Oil the flight deck of the Wasp, t ransmitted television picture;; to the Early Bird satellite which then relayed them to the ground station at
,
PROGRAM CONTENT
COMMUNICATIONS AND ATS

liN MILLIONS OF
FY 1965
~4Afta ,
alt'-
NASA SP b6-148
1-15 -60
FIGURE
157
358
Andover, Maine, and, in the case of Gemi ni YII, back through the satellite to the E uropean sta tion at Goonhilly . They we r e then di stributed from Andover and Goonhilly to the TV networks in this country and in Europe, respecti vely. Thi" t~-pe of television cove rage from a ship at sea could not have been accomplished in real t ime without the u se of a communication satelli te. The success of our six communica tion satellites in pa r t results from the foundation we have laid in a dvance by our suppo rting research a nd development effort s. Continued r esea l'ch work is needed to insu re that ou r cu rren t Applications Technology Satellite Program will be as successful as the Communication Satelli te Pl'ogr am has been . To this end, we have resean' h work under way to d!'vl'lop ael h 'e an(l passh'e spacecraft conLrol system s, as Wl'll as loni;' life spa cecl'aft components and s ubs~'ste ms r equ ired in our pre;;enL and planned futu r e flight missions. Man.v of t lt e experiments included in Ihe present Applications Technology Satellite Program wel'e initiated under our supportini;' resea r ch and devplopment program. During fi scal year 1007, :1bout 17 pel'C'ent of 0111' total f und s in tIl(' Comm uni ca t ion a nd Applications Techn ology Satpllites area are devoted to supporting rp sea reh and tpchnology a nd \\'p plan to dirpet. thps!' ptTorts towa rd t hp devl'lopml'nt of critieal loni;' lead items fOl' future Applications Tp('hnology Satellites so they will be more r E'lHlily :1\'ailablp wlten needed for flight mis sions. Also in our program is the SUppOI't of advan('ed mission studil's necessary to better define potential new technology de\elopment. needs in the areas of direct broadcast sa tellitE's a nd navigation satellites.
Rio scien ce
The content of the Bioscience Program is illustrated in figure Hi!). Most of thp effort goes in to t he development of the Riosatellite, " 'hi ch is proceeding satisfactorily. '1'he first Biosatelli te fli g h t i;; sc hed ul ed fo r the thi rd quarLer of 1!)66. Technical problems have occu rred, but have been solved as they wer e met. For exam ple, it was planned initially to preserve peri odic sa mpl es of primate urin!' for post-fli g ht analyses. Because weight and power problems precl uded this
TELEVISING GEMINI 6 and 7 RECOVERIES

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS STATION ABOARD USS WASP
FroURE 131'
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR
1967
359
measure, other approaches were tried , re~ulting in an automated chemical analysis system for continuous operation in orbit. Figure 160 ,hows the br eadboard a;;;;embly and typical components of thi;; apparatu;;. This ;;ystem was a modification of one being de,eloped for exohiologieal studies. It is now being consider ed for use in the ~Ianned Space Flight Program and is ~n example of the interplay that !'xi;;t;; among the ,arious element.;; of tbe program and how they mutually support !'ach olbeT'. Experiment;; ha,e b!'en selected for the th ree-day, 21-day, and 30-day mis~ions and are under den' lopment. These experiment" are designed to d etect and measure effect" of tbe space em-ironment. and should provide a useful ba;;e for predicting effects for manned fligbts of long duration. A second major !'Iement of the Bio;;ci!'nce Program is exobiolo/!y, whi ch i;; one of th!' major objecti ye~ of the Yoyager Program, During the past year , ,ye hay!' arri\'!'d at a better understanding of ho\\' to conduct a ~pn r('h fo r extraterrestrinl life. ~re<'ifi ('a lly on ~l ars. It has be!'n eoncluded that an !'fficient ancl effectin' way to conduct ~u e b in,estigati olls is by ml':1n" of an inte/!rat ('{1 Autom:1t!'d Biologkal Laboraton- <_-\BL). 'Ye ha\'!' eonrinu('{\ wi th the preparation of !'xperiml'lltal hardwar!' that might be u~ed in ";ll~h a laboratory. Pbilco. tl](' ,\m e;;; Heseareh C~nter, and Stanford Ll1inrsity haye c:o mpll'ted fea~ibility ~tudie,.; on differe.l t aspects of ARL. The result:' lIf Ih!';;e studies are being us('{\ hy :\,ARA Headquarter,.; and the Jpt Propul",i on Laboratory . ,yh kh ha>: ;;ystem lllanag!'lOl'llt reSI)()n~ibility for th!' ARL. to define our next steps in this program. An ot hN !'I!'ment of the Biosei!'nee Program is our !'ffort to prH!'nt eontamination of th(> lllallet~ by Earth-launched ;:;pacecraft. ha\'e been ca rrying on r!'s!'areh to dete nnine the hase;; upon which to prE'scribl' r egulat ion" for th!' manufa eture and Merilization of "pa cE'{' raft in a mann!'r that will a;;sur!' !'ffectiYe quarantin!'. ,Y!' hay!' found \yays of ~iml'lifyinl! tIl!' control of contamination for hot h >'paeP('raft and exp!'rilll (>n t~ by "lIeb te<'hniqu!'s as u;::ing downward laminar airflow in cl!'an a~"embl~- room>'. Ba ekgronnd data haye b!'!'n d!',!'loped fill the di!'-off rate;; of contaminants. whic-h data will be u;:;!'d f or d!',eloping proeed ures for the constmction. as"embly, and field operations of biologically c1!'an
'''I'
FIGURE 15~
59-041 0-6(;--24
360
COMPONENTS
FIGURE 160
spacecraft. It has been found, for example, that storage under properly clean conditions for suitable periods of time ca n be used a s a partial substitute for the da maging and very difficul t treatment of a spacecraft with germicides. The Bioscience supporting resea rch and technology effort includes sc ientific resea rch designed to provide biological information in support of NASA's manned and unm a nn ed space flight programs. One example is the use of HydroIlenomonas, bacteri a ( fig. 161) combined with the process of electrolysis of wa ter. This bioregenerative life-support system appears to be several times as efficient as any previously studied biological system. Also, r esea rch in paleobiochemistry, meteorite analysis, and experim ental work in prebiological chemistr y have led to t he establi shm ent of la boratori es prepared to perform luna r sample a nal Yf;es. Studies of functio na l processes in mammals and hi gher plants, whi ch might be expected to be mod ified by enyiron mental factors in space flight. haye led to t he submi ssion of a large number of proposals f or space fli ght experimen ts in t he Biosatellite and in mfillned flight missioll~. Studies of the growth a nd survi va l of or ga ni s ms in ext reme environm ents provide a bas is f or d e fining fun ctional processes a na logous to t hose which may be di spla yed in ex t ra terres trial life forms.
Mann,ed Space Science and Applications
Some of the maj or elements in the Man ned Space Science and Application>; effort a re shown in figure 162. 'l'he funds for this program a re distributed, but identified , among other program offi ces ill the budget books. Seven expe rimen ts in t he areas of ast r onomy, biosciences, meteorulogy, plane tology, find planetary atmospheres have been perforlll ed in the first five manned Gemilli flights. Excellent pictures we l'e obtained of the yery f a int zodi aca l light, light du e to solar radiati on r eflected and >;c-attered by mateli a l di sper sed through out intel'planetary s pace. One of thp scie ntifi c "firsts" of this e ff ort is rep resented in figure ]63, the first photograph ever taken of the gegenschein, the light from interpla netary matter beyond the Earth in the antisolar directi on. Most spec-
--
-~---
~ASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR
1 967
361
HYDROGEN BACTERIAL SYSTEM
FIGURE
161
PROGRAM CONTENT
MANNED SPACE SCIENCE

(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) FY 1965 FY 1966 FY
TOTAL TOTAl
SU"
$23J"
DISTRI BUTED AMONG DISCIPLINES (NON-ADO
FIGURE
162
362
tacular ha \"(~ bee n the color photograph~ taken from the Gelllini spacecraft. Thr potential of s u ch photographs for studies in geology, w ate r r e~o ur ces , g laciers. agriculture, ocea nogl'aphy , and meteorol ogy is dear from figure 164 whic h show;; the mouth of th e Colorado Rive r at the Gulf of California and SUl'ruu n c ling land areas. One can see in toto the Pina cate volcano field , the mouth of the Uolorado Rive r , and the chann eling of the water as i t flows from the rh-er into the Gulf. Geological faults are ide ntifiable, in cluding an apparent conflu e ncc of nIl' San Andreas and Imperial Valley fault lin es. Se \-er a l "imple biologi cn I c X]1crimcnt' also ha ve been ranied out on the ea rly Gemini flights. More than a score of expe rim e nts are und e r pl'e parati on for Earth,orbiti ng Apollo mi ss ions, whil e ten eX pe l-llll ents ha YC hccn (]pfil1l'(1 for ('111pla('enll'nt by an astronaut on the lunar s urface_ 1'h(' early nHlnnl'd ('xplol':ttion of the' M0011 will include the pla ce me n t of pa ckages ('o utai11in g "pll'dio11S f r om t hl"e t l'n c x pcrim e nt s o n th e ~loon , geologica l l'xplol':ttion h:- the astr011:l n t, a11d tlJ(' rctn rn of sa mpl es of the lunar material to Earth . In 1ooi) fiv e s(' ie ntisl-as tronauts \\'err se lected allCI sta rt cd working- in t hp prog l'a Ill. Th l' i I' na mes, pre\-iOIlS a f1i1 ia ti o ns. and li pId of pxpc l-li"l' a 1'(' shown ill fig-nl'" ] 6.), Th l' possible selel'l ion of additional "('il'ntbt-a,,tronauts is tU ITl 'ntly nlHl cr di sc u ss ion. Looking furth e r into the future, as the manned space flight capab ilit y con ' tinues to devel op , w e may eX I)ect a n increasing alllount of sl'iem'p and a]lplie;]' tions effort to be ca rried o u t by man in spacc. This s ubj(\ct was intpnsin'ly studied durin g the summ e r of ] 1)6:; by a groUl) und pr the S pa('p Se icnec Boa rd of the National Academy of Sciences at Wooel s lI o le, ~Ia ~s;]dll1sp tt, . alld by n ,('('ond g-I'OIiP of :'\'\S,\ ('onsnllall\:; at Falillouth. ~la ~s:l(' hll sl' tt~ , A finn sel'ies of l'ee0111IIlPllllations w us dpn'l o]Jpd fol' ('()ntinnill~ explol'ation or tIl(' l\)oo n h~' I1IllJ!. O\-C l' 100 scientifi c ('x pPl'im en t s fol' Earth -o l'hitill~ and IUllal' -o rhitin g missions han' hccn dcfincd. ]ll t hese, J'l' IllOtp sp nsing- pl:l~'S all impol'tallt r ole. llsill~ dsibll. in[I'al'Pl1, IIltl'aviolpt. and nllla r ",an' ll'n g-th s. 'l'he iIllIH)l'tall('(' of this Hl'ea [ 0 1' rl'sea r c h ca n be deduced f r om the revealing r es ulls ill ('0101' ph otog raphy ill ('on, nection with the Gemini photographs.
FIRST PHOTO EVER OBTAINED OF GEGENSCHEIN

FROM GEMINI V (AUG. 1965)
DENSITOMETER TRACE SHOWING
STAR FIELD AND ANTI-SO LAR POSITION
E,
FIGURE
1(;3
N ASA AU THORIZATION FOR FISCAL YE AR 19 6 7
363
SYNOPTIC TERRAIN PHOTOGRAPHY
F I GURE
164
NASA SCIENTIST - ASTRONAUTS

OWEN GARRIOTT, Ph .D. EDWARD GIBSON. Ph. D.
STANfORD UNIVERSITY IONOSPHERIC PHYSICS
AERONEUTRONICI.
PHILCO CORPORATION ENGINEERING PHYS1CS
JOSEPH KERW IN, MD u. S . NAVY

MEDICINE
CURTIS MICHEL, Ph .D.

RICE UNIVERSITY NUCLEAR PHYSICS
HARRISON SCHMITT, Ph. D u. S. GEOLOGICAl SURVEY

GEOlOGY
FIGURE
165
364
In supporting research and technology, some funds are used for applied research to convert discrete items of environmental data, acquired through other supporting research and flight programs, into information (maps, models, etc.) which can be used in the planning, design and operational conduct of manned missions. Some basic studies are conducted, as necessary, to supplement the data acquired from other programs. The environmental areas in which fiscal year 1967 funds will be used include solar flare monitoring and prediction, analysis of the topography and structure of the lunar surface, and study of meteoroids. The balance of the manned space science supporting research and technology funding contributes to the definition and early design of candidate investigations and supporting systems to be carried on manned missions. This work is concentrated on interdisciplinary activities not readily chargeable to anyone of the other discipline-oriented supporting research and technology projects.
BustainiJng University Program
A large and very important part of the NASA Space Science and Applications Program is carried out in the nation's colleges and universities. This work is directed toward attainment of ~ASA's general mission objectives, and most of it is supported through the conventional mechanisms of project research grants and contracts. As this project research has expanded to meet NASA's increasing requirements, careful attention has been paid to appropriate measures which would prevent any adverse infiuence on the participants. Unless accompanied by other activities, there is a very real chance that large project research investments may divert teaching talent, preempt critical laboratory space and highly trained researchers, and generate interdepartmental difficulties of many kinds. NASA has deyeloped the Sustaining University Program to help provide balance between research and other university activities. As shown in figure 166, the three major elements of the Program are---(1) The predoctoral training of scientists and engineers in space-related science and technology. (2) The development of new or unrecognized capabilities, consolidation of space-oriented research activities, and the encouragement of creative multidisciplinary investigations. (3) Assistance in the acquiRition of adequate graduate space research facilities at institutions whose participation in NASA programs has generated critically crowded conditions. Figure 167 shows the development of the predoctoral training program, with projections through Fiscal Year 1969. It is important to remember tbat highly trained people cannot be produced quickly-and this is still a very young program. Not until next year-four years after the program's initiation-can the first large doctoral output be expected. The nation's output rate of highly trained scientists and engineers clearly must start early and be sustained steadily. The training program is designed not only to accelerate the production of scientists and engineers, but also to stren~.:t.ben the universities' graduate capabilities. Many trainees have tbe opportunity to work closely with distinguished faculty members who are heavily engaged in space-relaterl work. The yield of this work is, in itself, beneficial to both the institution and NASA. Moreover, the trainee is able to develop a career orientation which, upon graduation, markedly influences his fitness for and interest in professional involvement in some aspect of the national space program. At the same time, hecause of NASA's insistence that the training he of genuine depth in a chosen scientific or engineering discipline, these trainees add to the national pool of general scientific and engineering talent. Oompetence has been sou~ht out and supported wherever it could be found. The result has bef>n a broad geographic distribution. as shown in figure 168. ,The question often arises as to whether the basic manpower resource for these trainees was so limited that our program might engender harmful competition with other areas needing high quality sdentiflc and engineering personnel. Our initial advice from leading edueators, the National SeIenee Foundation, and the National Academy of Seiences indicated that this was probubly not so. More recently, the National Academy of Sciences has published a study ("High School Ability Patterns-a Backward Look from the Doctorate," by Lindsey R. Harmon) which shows clearly that the number of qualified individuals of doctorate potential in tbis country is many times the number going on to higher degrees.
NASA AU THORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
365
FIGU RE
166
NASA PREDOCTORAl TRAIN ING
STUDENTS (IN THOUSANDS)
o _
IN PUT OUTPUT
I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I
TOTAL STUDENTS IN TRAINING
I ESTIMATE
1275
o L.....--L1-96 2i.........L-6J.-..I-..J 64--J........I - - l . ........- 1966 ..J 19 3 19 196S

FISCAL YEARS
1967
1968
1969
FIGU RE
167
366
FIGURE
168
The den, l opment of the resea r ch element of the Sustaining Unin'r sity Program is shown in figurt' l6D, One important objective of thest' spe-c i al grant./' is to help less prolllint'nt coll('~es and uniYt'rsitit'S deyelop untapJle-d r('sear('h pott'ntial through \York on Ill'oblems of illlportal1(,(, to tlw space prognllll, 'J'lw:<c g r ants allow the institutions co nsid('rable l atitud(' in the- $('I('ct ion of incliyidulll space-rel ated sub-projects, and sufficient f1('xibility to ('nsurp tll(' prompt expl ora, tion of nt'w id eas and se i7.ure of unC'xpected rest'al'ch OPPol'tunit ips, A s in tllC' C:lSf of training, continuity i s esspnti a l if th t'~e actiyiLi('s an' to ~II('('P!'CI in undergird in~ tilt' projC'ct n'st'arch of thC' prC'st'nt and future-, Finally, the third element of the Sustaining l ' ninc'rsity l'rogr:llll involves as, sil'lal1('C' ill thC' nCfjuisition, b~- ca re-fully ,.;elt'cted ullin' I'si1 ie-s, of gra<luatp rC',.;parch laboralory buildings to housp on-goillg aC'rospact' I't'sea rl'il and arl\'ulI('e-d training, I'a('ilitie-,.; gr:lnt,s are mad!' on tl1(' hasi ,.; ( I f )\('pds of tllt' total i'\AR .\ program alld tlw prov en l'apabilit,\' of the grantee im;titutioll to ('ol1tribul.(> to that program, ,\ gaill, an allpmpt ha s b('('l1llla(\p t.o I'('('oglti;.:p ('Olllpp1pI1 C wherp\'l'r it pxists; nllfl (' t.ho I'psultnllt dis1rihutiOll b sho\\'11 in tigllrp 1,0, All lh\'sp faeilities grantep" han' p,.;ta hlish ed 1ltpil' <lpsil'\' all<l ahilit,\' to pur'''lp s)leeifi(' r(>,.;e-nrl'h \\'hiclt furtlt('l's l'i ,\RA',.; IlIi~,.;ion ohjp(,ti\'!',.;, III additioll, 1IIPir administrators h:lye mnd(' CO llllnitments to ('x1encl tllt' in,;lilntions' im' oIY!'mt'uts ill lit" spact' pl'o!,/'nllJ to iJlf'lllllp hp,,;t pffol'1s 1o pxt],;I('1 ('xl 1':1 hplI!'lits h,Y ";1I'PlIgtltPiling tltp ulliYel'~ilip,, ' til'>; \\'itlt sodal, P('O\lIl llli(', alld polili< 'al I'It'mPII!,.; of tllPil' lo('al regions, so that allmny \\'ork mo\'(' pIT('('ti\'el~' tOg'ptlt!'/' to\\'ard tltp solution of COlll1l10n problems,
/'al/no ll Vel/ide D eve701JIIlcIII TIt(' c l C'ment :;; of th e LnUlwh \ 'phil'll' J)!'\'I'IOjlll!!'lIt 1'l'og:l'IIm art' ;;h()\YII ill ligou!'e17l. A,.; ill J<'iscIl I Year 1006, alsO ill I;'i ",'a l YPIII' 1!)H7, lit!' tl"\'I'IO)lnll'lIt fUllds II/'(' Illmost ('nth'el y appliC'(\ to C('nllllll', J)lIl'in!, Iltp PII"I ,\'!'III', (\(,\'l'lojllll!'nt of 1ltl' Centaur singl e-bunt clireet-asct' nt capability fOI' u so with Su\'\'eyor was eomp l etcd , The first operational Contaur i,.; rpud,\' for tlte fir ~ t engineering tesl
XASA A"cTHORIZATIO~ FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
367

IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 14
RESEARCH
12
10
54 45 24
60 INSTITUTIONS
35
48
2
o ~
______
________
____
____
______
FY 1965
CONTINUING PROGRAMS
FY 1966
FY 1967 (EST.)
OTHER
NEW PROGRAMS
ES:!
169
IWim
FIGLttE
SUS1AtNING UNIVERSITY !l'ROGRAM
RESEARCH FACILITIES DOLLARS PER CAPITA

FY 1962 THROUGH FY 1965
HAW""
NASA FACILITIES GRANTS

, :. .:
>~ ~
FIGURE
170
368
.
PROGRAM CONTENT
LAUNCH VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT

FV 1965
TOTAL
fiN MILLIONS OF DOLLARSl

FY 1966
TOTAL
FV 1967
TOTAL
SII.5
AU
SIl.7
51.3
7~j--------~40---------J.I .
~
29.1
FIGURE
171
During the next year we will complete the development of the two-burn capability for Centaur, u s ing two flight s for this purpose. That will finish development of the bas ic Centaur stage. W e ha\'e held to th e sched ule, set three years ago, for completing the single-burn d evelopment flights in 1965, and have every expectation of compl eti ng the t w o-bul'll deyelopment flights during 1966. \Ve are continuing to study the small energetic. or ki ck. ~tage for highe r velocity missions su ch as d eep s pa ce flights. Such a stage will be needed in t h e future to extend our exploration of the so lal' system beyond th e nellr planets. Our laun ch vehicle advanced study a nd supp orting resea r ch and tee hnol ogy program will continue to lay the necessa ry g roundw ork for future mission capabilities. Advanced studi es are conducted to define vehi cle require ments, analyze alternatives, determine feasibility, provide proj ect d e finiti on . and for progra m analysis. ~'he purposes of the r esea rc h and technology effo r ts are to prov ide data inputs to adYanced studies, define technology requirements, evaluate application s of new t echnology, and to baekstop \'e hie-Ie programs. Th e launch vehicle supporting resea r ch and technology progralll eomplell1ents efforts by the Offiee of Advanced R esea r ch and Tf'('llll Olog.r in Ihat it detel"lllillf'S laun('h vehi cle research and technol ogy require me ntg and t lw feasibility of incorporat in g in our ve hi cles th e new technology produ ced by the Offi('e of Advanced R esea r c h and Technology , Laun Ch vehiclc s upportin~ l"('sea r eh and technology tasks in the imm ediate pa st and prescnt nrc supporting il1\'e sti~ation of the kiek stage and futur e effort s will be directed at vehicles r f'Quircd for very high \'elodty llJi ss ioll ~ being planned in our scien('(> and appli ('ation s progl'nlll~ . '1'h(> t e('hllolo~y arca,; im'oh'ed a re propul s ion, guidnllee and control. in ~ tnlm(>lItation and electronics, structures and materials, and vehil'l(> cngill c('l'ing.
DOIl1tch 1' chicle P1'oclire lll(,llf
of Su rveyor ea rly in 1966.
Figure 172 shows th e fivc Inunc h vehi cles that the Office of Space Science and Applications proeures for NASA missions: Scout, Thor-Delta, Thor-Agena,
369
Atlas, and Atlas-Centaur. The Scout ,ehicle, the Centaur stage, and the Delta upper stage are contracted for and procured by NASA. The basic Thor, Atlas, and Agena stages are procured through the Air Force. NASA then contracts directly for their assembly into a completed system, for special modifications, and for launch sen-ices. During the past yea r , five Scouts were launched successfully, r aising the Scout reliability reco rd to 94 per cent oyer the past two year per iod. Eight Deltas were launched. Although one of them fail ed, the reliability of this launch vehicle continues in the 90 per cent range. 'Ve ha,e made good progress in establishing the capability to launch Deltas at the Western Test Range. The TIROS oper ational ",eather satellite system ",ill use this Western T est Range Delta capability. The improved Delta provides an increase in escape capability from 145 pounds to 210 pounds and a new ability to launch rE'latively large payloads into low Earth orbits without spin stabilization. This is pa r ticularly important for the 1.200 pound Biosa tellite mission. Four Agenas were launched, two on the At las booster and !;\yo on the Thor. The performance of. Agena continues to be good, also in the 90 per cent range. One Atla s /X259 was launched in a successful high velocity reentry test. As we stated earlier, Centaur has now become operational in the single-burn 'ersion. We have yet to develop statistics on its reliability as an operational Yehicle. As in the fiscal year 1966 budget request, the funding requirements for pror-u rement of small and medium launch vehicles are presented in a manner which is aligned with program management and contracting practices. Funding requirements shown for fiscal year 1967 are those necessary to support the small and medium launch vehicle procurement operation during the fiscal year. They a re based on projected requirements for hardware procurement, launch support. a nd sustaining E'ngi neering. The cu rrE'nt presE'ntation method ,,a s chosen to facilitate the r e,iew and understanding of the annual costs associated with pro\iding and maintaining a launch capability in support of the unmanned flight program.
FIGURE 172
370
Administratire Operations
In addition to program management and technical direction of the Space Science and Applications Program, the Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications is responsible for institutional management of the Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Station, the NASA Resident Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and for administration of the contract with the California Institute of Technology for operation of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The administrative operations budget (fig. 173) pl"ovidflR for compensation of 4,337 personnel, about 40 per cpnt of whom are pngiJWers and scit'ntists; travel by the staff at our various installations; and those other normal operating expenses that are not directly attributable to specific rl'8('arch and development projects. Among these operating expem;es are such items as transportation of things, rents, communications, utilities, supplies, matE'rials, and a1l!tomatic data processing equipment. The salaries and other administrative operations expenR('S for the 21 peiOple at the NASA Residen t Office-.JPL are not reflected in figure 173 since they are ineorpora ted in the budget of til(' 'YeHterll Operations Office. The hudgE't rE'quest of approximately $S1.0 million ex('{lC(\s thE' operating plan for Fiscal Year Hl66 by $8.-1- millioll. This is duE' prim.. 'Hily to an incrrose of 182 personllE'1 at the Goddard Spa('p J<'light OPnter to man tllf' Apollo tracking network; to costs of funding tlw full ypar of the Fisea\ Year 1906 pay raise for federal employpE's; and to an increase in a1l!Domatic data processing purchase arullease costs. The administrative oppratiolls ('osts at tlw .TE't Propulsion Lahoratory (JPL) are fundpd through the contract with the California Institute of Technology, and hencp come Wider the re>;ear('h and development portion of the NASA budget, as indicated in figure 173. The anticipated end-of-year staffing at JPL is 4,250, of whom 35 per cent are engineers and scientists.
Con8truction ot Fal'iliticN
This budget includes It request for authorization for sevell COllstnwtion projects at a total estimutl"<i ('OSt of $6.32"2 million (fig. 174).
OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS BUDGET

liN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS I FY 1966 GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER WALLOPS STATION TOTAL FY 1967
$64,040 9,446 $73.486
$71,687 10.166 $81.853
(JET PROPULSION LABORATORY), 'FUNDED FROM THE R&D APPROPRIATION
(65,699)
(71,218)
SP bb-13;
\ -\ :'-,-',)Q
FIGUHE
173
371
FY 1967 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

SUPPORTING SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS PROGRAMS (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS TO LAUNCH COMPLEX 17 MODIFICATIONS TO LAUNCH COMPLEX 12 ROCKET STORAGE MAGAZINE AEROBEE 350 LAUNCH FACILITY LAUNCH VEHICLE SERVICE TOWER SPIN TEST FACILITY UTILITIES INSTALLATION LOCATION KENNEDY SPACE CENTER WALLOPS STATION WHITE SANDS WESTERN TEST RANGE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY COST $740 639 205 1.200 2.443 745 350
TOTAL $6.322
FIGURE
174
Six of these are proposed modifications or additions to existing launch facilities and are required to support scheduled sounding rocket and spacecraft launchings from the Kennedy Space Center, Wallops Station, the White Sands Missile Range, and the Western Test Range. At the Kennedy Space Center Delta Launch Complex 17, control cables and pneumatic consoles are scheduled for replacement and the interior of the blockhouse is to be rearranged to handle additional control equipment, at an estimated cost of $0.74 million. Similar replacement and rearrangements are required on the Atlas-Agena Complex 12 ($0.639 million) to maintain and upgrade the reliability of these obsolescent launch facilities. A 12,000 square foot Rocket Storage Magazine ($0.205 million) is required at 'Vallops Station to provide environmental storage area for newel' high performance solid propellants. An Aerobee 350 Launch Tower, estimated at $1.2 million, is planned for the White Sands Missile Range to provide a launching capability for this larger sized sounding rocket. This facility will permit reliable recovery of complex and expensive payloads which may then be reflown. At the Western Test Range a Launch Vehicle Service Tower, estimated at $2.443 million, is planned to accommodate the Delta and Thor-Agena missions and, in conjunction with the existing facilities, provide the dual launch pad capability required to support the combined NASA, DOD, and Weather Bureau polar orbit missions. Also planned at this location is a Spin Test Facility, estimated at $0.745 million, to conduct the Delta third stage solid propellant motor and spacecraft assembly and balancing operations. The single institutional facility project proposed in this budget is a $0_35 million Utilities Installation increment at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to complete the main East-West arterial roadway and the road to technical facilities on top of the Mesa within the Laboratory grounds. These projects are considered to be the minimum additions and modifications required at these locations to maintain safety and reliability standards in the prelaunch preparations and launching activities of the Space Science and Applications Program.
372
Also directly supporting the space science program is the Lunar Sample Receiving Facility at the Manned Spacecraft Center, which appears in the Manned Space Flight budget request. This facility will serve as the initial processing and quarantine point for lunar samples returned from Apollo lunar missions. From this facility, the samples will be distributed to scientists for evaluation and analysis in other specially equipped existing laboratories.
Ooncluding Remark8
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I have endeavored in this summary to give you some feeling for the forward-moving dynamic character of our program in Space Science and Applications, both in moving from past to present, and in planning from the present into the future. This country may be justly proud of last year's achievements in our explorations of the Earth and the solar system, especially of the Ranger, Mariner, and Gemini programs. Yet, the opportunities that lie ahead of us are even more challenging than those that lie behind. There is no occasion for complacency. On the contrary, there is need for vision, determination, and dedication. These we pledge to you and to the nation. We ask your support that we may continue to move forward in this great venture of mankind.
(The following is the statement referred to by the chairman on p.319.)

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. WHITE, ADMINISTRATOR, ON THE SPACE PROGRAM OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMEROE
The Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) of the Department of Commerce has a basic mission to observe, predict, and issue warnings on the state of man's environment. The environment embraces the Earth's interior, its surface, oceans and atmosphere, and the vast reaches of space which man is destined to study, explore, and utilize as rapidly as advancing technology permits. The immense extent and variety of this domain of interest requires imaginative exploitation of space technology as a powerful means for monitoring and measuring the environment on the global scale required. ESSA is deeply involved in the Nation's space program through utilization of space technology in fulfillment of its primary mission, and through application of its own unique capabilities in support of space activities of other agencies. ESSA has large and Significant programs in meteorological satellites, in telecommunications sciences and aeronomy, and in satellite geodesy, all of which are closely related to and dependent upon programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
METEOROLOGICAL SATELLITE PROGRAM
After the successful launch of the early Tiros satellites, the Congress appropriated funds to the Weather Bureau beginning in fiscal year 1962, ". to establish and operate a sy,;tem for the continuous observation of worldwide meteorological conditions from space ,;atelliteR and for the reporting and processing of the data obtained for use in weather forecasting . n Since then the Weather Bureau, and now the National Environmental Satellite Center (NESC) of the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) has had a basic mission to (a) establish and operate a National Operational Meteorological Satellite Service (NOMSS) ; (b) improve the effectiveness of the Service; and (0) increase the utility of satellit(' obs('rvationR in weather analysis and forecasting. The Service is scheduled for inauguration this month with the launching of two Environmental Survey Satellites (ESSA 1 and ESSA 2). These satellites are the first two units of the Tiros Operational Satpllite (TOS) system, which is the initial ('lement of the Service. The TOS system now provides daily views of the weath('r over the enttre globe under the guiding prin<'iple that continuous operation is to b(' maintaln('d.
Current Operations
~SSA 1, launched Ff'bruary 3, 100(\, earrie>; two ('am('!Us with tape recorders which together proYidp glohal pi('tun' data to tllP World Weather Center in Suitland, Maryland, for incorporation in glohal wpather analysis and forecasting. Pictures are of excellent quality, and are being used routinely in meteorological operations. The launch of ESSA 2, carrying two Automatic Picture Transmission
373
Cameras into orbit, at this writing is scheduled for the morning ()f February 25. This will complete the initial deployment of the world's first operational weather satellite system. The automatic transmission technique enables suitably equipped ground stations throughout the world to receive daily pictures for their area directly from ESSA 2. This is particularly important for United States weather units overseas as well as for the weather services of other nations. As ESSA pointed toward the establishment of the TOS system, communications arrangements were completed recently to transmit satellite data directly from the two Oommand and Data Acquisition stations to the National Environmental Satellite Center, a component of the World Weather Center in Suitland. As a consequence, the data handling function could be centralized, bringing considerable benefits in lower staffing costs and improved effectiveness of data analysiA and dissemination. In addition to the analyzed satellite data for immediate operational use, individual pictures of particular phenomeua are made available to certain specialized offices such as the National Hurricane Center in Miami, which has responsibility for forecasts and warnings of tropical storms over a vast area of uncharted waters. The satellite makes a unique contribution in this effort. The operations of the National Environmental Satellite Center include the conversion of the initial satellite data to archival form for storags in the National Weather Records Center. Research workers from all the World are able to obtain copies of these data. Resulting studies are helping to increase scientific understanding of the atmosphere, and are contributing to more effective use of satellite observations. During the last year ESSA has, with the NASA, completed the installation of ground facilities for operation of the TOS system. ESSA's two Command and Data Acquisition stations, multimillion-dollar installations, have been established. Staffs have been recruited and trained for the operation of the TOS !>ystem. High speed communications links connect all units of the ground system, including the facility for making data available directly to the Global Weather Central at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska. A system control center has been established and is operating at the National Environmental Satellite Center at Suitland. With the successful launch of ESSA 2, the initial requirement of routine global coverage, both by the stored data and Automatic Picture Transmission systems, will have been achieved. Improving System Differences The National Operational Meteorological Samllite Service has been initiated in a two satellite configuration to obtain, de~ndably, daily views of the global atmm'phere. While this configuration satisfies interim needs, it falls far short of meeting the national reouirements for meteorololdcal satellite data as specified by the Department of Defense, the Department. of Commerce, and other agencies. Technological means now Itt hand make possible some improvements in the present satellite system. ESSA and NASA tOl!"ether are working vigorously, within rather rigid resource constraints, to improve the Service in several important areas. (1) The TOS system just initiated needs imnrovement in several respects if it is to meet fully and economically the established reQuirements tor atmosphere viewing. A major step to increase cost-effectiveness of the TOS system is to combine the Rtored data and automatic transmission functions in a Ringle satellite. Replacing two separate spacecraft, each requiring its own launehing rocket, with one double duty spacecraft and one rocket could reduce by 40 pe~t the continuing costs of providing daytime imaging of the atmosphere. Alternative approaches to a combined-function satellite are under active investigation with expectations that this can be achieved for launches beginning sometime in 1968. Strong national requirements exist for satellite observations on the night side of the globe to supplement present daytime coverage. The High Resolution Infrared Radiometer (HRffi), developed and succes~ully tested in the NimbuR progra~,. could be adapted for use in the TOS system within two or three years. In addItlOn to mapping cloud distribution at night with modprate resolution. thifl instrument would provide measurements of cloud top temperatures, from which their heights can be inferred, and in cloud-free areas would provide temperatures of the earth's surface. New type scanning radiometers offer a potentiality for greater nighttime resolution, equal to the present daytime coverage.
374
A single spacecraft, combining both day and nighttime sensors, is our goal for most economically providing the atnlO~pheric imaging function with the TOS system. (2) The second major element in the National Operational 1\Iptporological Satellite Service, supplementing TOS, will be a system to provide continuous observations of weather systems. Camera" on satellites in equatorial orbit at synchronous altitude would provide for the fir"t time the means for continuously observing the life cycle of hurrieanps and other weather disturhancPfl. They will permit the following of certain atmospheric motionfl as revealed hy cloudfl, and will make possiblp thp ohflen'ation of large and slllall convedive systems in the appropriatp time scalp. This will ('onstitute a major breakthrough in advancing the understanding of atmosphprie pro('esses, with c'OnsPqupnt pnhancenlPnt of forecasting ability, particularly at lo("al and rpgional ('enters. As a rpsult of joint ESSA~X ASA im'pstiga tion, a doud cnnlPra will he flown on the first of XASA's Applieations Te<'illlology Satellitps (ATR), sehE'duled for launeh npar the end of lll6(i. This will repref<ent a first stPj) toward posf<ihlp operational use of s~'nchron(}us satellitps in meteorology. The ATS flight program is thp only mpans prespntly availahle in NASA to develop and test tIlP l'quipment needed to reach this objeetive. No funds have been requeflted yet to implement an operational synehronous meteorologieal satf'llitl' system. (3) A long-range objeetive is the dp\'plopnlPnt of a satellitl' system for sounding the atmosphprp, rel-,'1llarly and worldwi<le. Polar orhiting satl'llitl's at altitudes below 1500 miles are the only apparpnt means for ohtaining e('onomieally, on a daily, worldwide basis, the quantitative measurcml'nts of atmospheriC' parametprs required for fully effective nUlllPrical modeling and prediction of thl' atmosphere. It is expected that rl'~ular inllut of such worldwide oh~prvational data will permit numl'rical weathpr predktion te('hniques to signifieantly improve our pxtemled rangE' forpeaHting Il("euracy. Polar orbiting slltE'lIites also providE' frequent observation of polar regions which ('annot be coverE'd by the s~'nchronouH satpllites. Thp Nimbus flight program and supporting researeh and technology arp most important to ESSA in providing thp nlPam; to develop and test the sYHtems requin'(l to rE'llch thi,.; ohjpetiye operationall~', as an evpntual rl'plaeement for the TOS syslem.
Rrsearch and TechnoloU1I Support frolll NASA
By intprllgpncy agrpcmpnt, the National Aeronauties and Spaep Administration has rE'sponsihility for the rpsparch and deyplopment pffmt required to :mpport improypment of thl' operational nlPteorological satellite systl'ms. The Department of Commeree is rl'''ponsible for reviewing this effort for its responsivenps,; to the needs of our weathpr sPfviees. 'rhis division of responsibility has proven to hp sound and workable, leading to continupd l'xeellpnt working relationships IJetwl'en ESSA and NASA. The NASA's flight programs and its activities in meteorological Supporting Researeh and Technology are directed toward several areas that ESSA regard>; as crucially imllortant to meeting thp operational objectives of atmospheric imaging, continuous vipwing, and atmospheric sounding. The ~ill1bus program pro\'idps the large flexibll' stabiliz('(l platforms with adequate weight and power capaeitips nppde!l for flight tE'stin~ atlllosphpric sOllnding SE'nsors now under developlIlPnt. TIIP Satpllitp Infra-Up(l SppctrOIll('tpJ' (SIHS), tllP Infra-Upll Interfprompter Rpedronwtpr (lUIS) amI till' Intprrogation, Re ('Ilrdiug and Location SystPlll (IRLS) are examplps of the llIany rapi(lIy plIlpl'ging tedlllique,.; for (~btaining tllp worhhl'i(\(> qlIantitativp atlllospllPri<' <lata nl'pded for important advances in wpathl'r forp(astin~. Extension and applieation of this tp('hnology to the lllpasurplllent of wind,.;, llressurl', moisture and otlwr signiti('ant parall1ptPfs reqllir(>s n strong research ('ffort. This must include au adequatl' prog'ram of experimental flights to tpst and prov" these <levelopml'nt,; I)('for(> thl'~' ('an Ill' incorporated reasonahly and economically into an ol)('ratioual ,.;y,.;t('llI. The A(l\'uJH'l'd Te('hnology Hatpllitp (ATH) progralll of XASA provides analogous support toward l<JSH.\'s ohj(,(,t iyp of pstahli,.;hing a S,Vstf'lll for ('outiuuou~ Yipwiug of atlllospl\('ri<- featlll'l's. Hllpporting researdJ program;; arl' dpvploIlin~ ('a llIpras to illlagp t lIP a tlllo,.;phprp fl'O\ll ";Yll<hronou,.; nit it udp calla hl<> of resolving fputlll'l'S on tllP on\('r of t\\'o IId\"" or 1<',.;, in sizl'. :\lall~' a"pl'd,; of spacecraft t('i'huology at synellrouot\s alti t 11<11', It \HI as,.;oeia tpd inl'x l .. 'nsi ve
375
ground receiving equipment for use around the world, must be developed and tested for application to operational synchronous meteorological satellites. Economical and reliable techniques for stabilizing operational satellites in orbit are needed to replace the spinning system embodied in current TOS spacecraft. A system pennitting sensors to remain continuously Earth oriented would greatly facilitate the use of scanning radiometers, and would make feasible the achievement of significantly greater resolution in day and night imaging sensors.
SPACE PROGRAMS IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND AERONOMY
Within ESSA, the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences and Aeronomy (ITSA), formerly the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory, participates actively in the Xation's space programs. This Institute has a twofold mission, both parts of which are involved in the Nation's space program. It has a mission to conduct research and services in electromagnetic propagation in support of the Nation's huge expenditures (approximately $20 billion per year) in telecommunications. To meet its mission as the central Federal agency for propagation research and services, ITSA needs to work at all communication frequencies from radio to optieal, at all relevant distances, between all heights of interest, in all locations, and for all uses of telecommunications from entertainment to space research. The second component of ITSA's mission has developed from the first. The electrified nature of the upper atmosphere, which permits ionospheric radio telecommunication around the world, results from the absorption of X-rays and ultra-violet light by the upper atmosphere. Occasionally, and especially during the solar disturbances known as flares, major increases in the flux of these radiations occur. These outbursts result in major changes in the upper atmosphere, having important (and often catastrophic) effects on ionospheric telecommunications. Since 1942 ITSA and its predecessors have been active in the study and forecasting of periods of solar activity and ionospheric disturbance. Recently the Federal Council for Science and Technology urged that ITSA should meet the developing common needs of several Federal agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Defense, and the Federal Aviation Agency, for information on changes in the Earth's environment in space. In other words, the Department of Commerce was assigned responsibility of acting as the federalized "space weather" agency, to serve the common needs of all agencies. To meet these two missions, ITSA is divided, both organizationally and in its programs, into four areas. The Ionospheric Telecommunications Laboratory and the Tropospheric Telecommunications Laboratory are concerned with the electromagnetic propagation part of the mission. The Space Disturbance Laboratory serves as a focus for problems of space disturbances and their forecasting. Finally, the Aeronomy Laboratory, a unique and integrated research facility concerned with the science of the upper atmosphere, supports the two assigned missions as well as those of the NASA and of the Department of Defense. Rocket and Satellite Programs The ITSA is involved directly in a number of types of space operations. In addition, this Institute provides services in support of the space operations of other groups, some specifically for this purpose and others as a byproduct. The Institute also has many research programs which make use of space data or provide information which aids interpretation of data taken by spacecraft. It is estimated that three-fourths of the ITSA effort can be considered broadly to be space related. A much smaller fraction, of course, falls under the heading of space operations. Let us consider a few examples of programs in this latter category. Scientific operations control of Explorer XX (fixed-frequency, ionospheric radio sounding satellite) is one of the major programs of ITSA in Boulder, Colorado. The NASA provides funding for this work in the "top-side sounding" area (I.e., radar sounding of the ionosphere from above). ITSA also participates actively and scientifically in the analysis of the very exciting results coming from this satellite and its sister satellites, the United States/Canadian Alouette I and II. Ionosphere soundings from stations on the ground constitute the earliest use of radar and has long been a major interest of ITSA. The traditional technique provides a "picture" of the ionosphere overhead up to heights to about 200 miles. The top-side sounding satellites look down on the ionosphere from above and thus make it possible not only to examine the upper part of the ionosphere, but
59-941 0-66--25
376
also to look at it continuously in space rather than from a series of widely separated locations. Another direct space effort of ITSA, again supported by the NASA, involves beacon satellites. These satellite-borne radio beacons transmit signals which are modified in the earth's atmosphere as they are propagated from the satellites to the ground station. When examined from the ground, these modifications can be interpreted to give information on the structure and motions of the earth's ionosphere. ITSA has recently undertaken a modest rocket program in which funds and range support have been supplied by NASA but some of the payloads have been built inhouse. Another program is a joint effort with a sister laboratory.
Space Disturbance Forecasting Program
A program which serves the space activities of the Nation leads ITSA to a concern for the energetic photon and particle environment of inner and outer space and hence to keep a close watch on solar activity in itR many manifestations. For photons this is accomplished through a worldwide network of stations engaged in solar-flare observations and through measurements made on the NRL solar X-ray satellites monitored in Boulder and elsewhere. Information on incoming cha.rged particles is obtained through a network of radio noise meters and radio scatter circuits in the auroral and polar cap regions of the earth and through measurements made by orbiting satellites such as the projected proton counter planned for use on the improved TOS. These and similar data are used in compiling daily forecasts of "space weather". R. < D. Recommendations in Telecommunications and Aeronomy The ESSA programs in telecommunication sciences and aeronomy would benefit from the strongest possible research effort in physi{'s and astronomy in NASA. For understanding the phYSics of solar flares, so that their prediction lllay be improved, adequate scientific resources should be brought to bear to improve spectral, time and heliographic resolution, through a combination of ground based and spacecraft techniques. Also of great importance are basic studies of the origin, nature and characteristics of energetic particl!$ in space both inside and outside the earth's magnetosphere, taking advantage of available groundbased as well as spaeecraft techniques. ESSA would like to see increased emphasis placed on research by sounding rockets, particularly aeronomical sounding rockt'ts for the height range about 40-150 kilometers which is not accessible to balloon and satellite techniques. Finally, ESSA is interested in the advancement of Hpace technologies to provide an improved geostationary platform, improved attitude control, improved satellite antenna systems, etc. Of particular interest is the further development of indirect sensing from spacecraft of electron density, temperature, composition and other properties of the atmosphere, and their time and space fluctuations.
GEODETIC SATELLITE PROGRAM
ESSA, through its Coast and Geodetic Survey (C&GS), has a basic and continuing mission to define the size and shape of the earth to increasing degrees of accuracy. Classical geodetic triangulation determinations, limited to the surveyor's line of sight, are approaching their limit in the accuracy achievable on a continent-wide basis. They offer no means for "jumping" the wide oceanic expanses to tie together the precise geodetic networks of North America, Europe and Asia. Earth orbiting satellites now provide the mpans for replacing the claSSical, time-consuming triangulation methods with a more economical and theoretically superior approach. The feasibility and accuracy of satellite triangulation have been demonHtrated with the Echo I and Echo II satellites. These sun-illuminated balloons are photographpd against a star background from ground stations up to 3,000 miles apart. This effectively lengthens the "line of sight" of the surveyor by a factor of 20 or 30 and pprmits accurate determinations over tremendously large triangles covering large portions of continents and extending across the oceans. Since 1963, when three of the ground campra systems firHt wpre placed in oppration. til!' C&GS has utilizP(1 the I']C'ho satpllites for triangulation determinations over eastern United States, Canada and Alaska, and will complpte the flrst phase over this portion of the network by the end of this fiscal year. The intensified program over the network in Alaska and Canada was accomplished
377
through cooperative agreements with Department of Defense and the Government of Canada. Pageos, a new geodetic satellite to be launched by the NASA in June 1966 into an orbit 2,500 miles above the Earth will make possible geodetic determinations over even larger triangles. .This launch will inaugurate a joint program of the C&GS, NASA, and the Army Map Service of the Defense Department for worldwide geodetic determination. Twelve mobile camera teams will occupy selected stations in the worldwide geodetic satellite network and should complete the observational phase over a large part of North America and adjacent oceans by the end of fiscal year 1967.
Research, Support trom NASA
The Pageos fiight program is vitally important for completing the worldwide geodetic network. Further progress toward utilizing space platforms to achieve major advances in geodesy are heavily dependent upon NASA's research programs in the technology of space-borne and ground components for geodetic satellite systems.
ESSA'S SERVICES TO THE NATION'S SPACE PROGRAMS
Telecommunications and Aeronomy Services
ESSA provides various ground-based ionospheric observations at launch sites which support and complement rocket and satellite experiments of other groups. ESSA also provides ground-based observations in various parts of the world and provides spacial observations at times when satellites pass overhead. A striking example is the Jicamarca Radar Observatory near Lima, Peru, jointly operated by ESSA and the Institute Geophysico del Peru (and supported in part by the NASA) which measures electron density and certain other quantities up to a height of 7,000 kilometers. These stations are useful in supporting the scientific experiments carried on in specific satellite programs. Another area of support to the nation's space program is the provision of information to radio tracking systems on tracking errors to be expected on account of the variable index of refraction on the lower atmosphere and the conditions of the ionosphere. ESSA also provides special radio prediction and forecast services for the communication links connecting tracking and telemetry stations of the NASA space program. ESSA provides space disturbance monitoring and forecasting services to a variety of space operations groups ranging from the manned satellite programs to the planning for future supersonic transport fiights where the paths may cross inside the auroral zones of the earth. In still another area. research studies. data and advisory services provide a major technical input to the planning of radio frequency allocations for space purposes and the effective use or sharing of radio frequencies assigned.
Weather Service8
Through agreements with the NASA and the Department of Defense, the Weather Bureau of ESSA provides meteorological support for a number of the nation's spacefiight programs. In both planning and operational phases of the Gemini and Apollo flights, the Weather Bureau's Spacefiight )Ieteorology Group has the primary responsibilitv for meteorological support to the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight and its Kennedy Space Center and Manned Spacecraft Center. In performing this service, the Group makes use of many Weather Bureau products and also receives support from other ESSA components, principally the National Environmental Satellite Center, and Environmental Data Service, and several laboratories of the Institute for Atmospheric Sciences. In addition the Group makes extensive use of the Department of Defense meterological observations, particularly those taken at Cape Kennedy and by the Navy recovery forces. Where similar requirements exist forecasts are coordinated with the Air Weather Service Detachment at Cape Kennedy and with Navy forecasters concerned with ship movements in connection with recovery operations. Weather information is provided also in support of scientific experiments which are conducted on manned spacefiights.
378
Through another agreement with the NASA, observations and forecasts for the Wallops Station are made in support of the varied scientific satellite programs and related activities conducted by that facility. A third area of support to the NASA is at the Mississippi Test Facility where a Weather Bureau team makes observations and forecasts required in the testing of the Saturn rocket engines, primarily in connection with the propagation of sound. The Weather Bureau also provides an extensive observational network and some forecasting services for the Western Test Range, and the Army Test Range at Kwajalein.
Geophyswal Ser1:ices
ESSA's Institute of Earth Sciences is actively participating in the Manned Lunar Orbital Missions through a NASA funded experiment to determine the size and shape of the moon, and to establish a three dimensional geodetic control network over the surface of the Moon for the support of cartographic and scientific investigations. The Coast and Geodetic Survey of ESSA actively supports the NASA through investigations of seismic effects of missile launching systems. The Survey also provides services to NASA in the testing and calibrating of geomagnetic instrumentation for satellites, and in processing geomagnetic data from ground observatories for correlation with satellite data.
ESSA RESOURCES FOR SPACE PROGRAMS
Meter>rologwal Satellite Program
The Satellite Operations appropriation to the ESSA is used to fund the establishment and operation of operational environmental satellite systems. The following table outlines the appropriations and obligations for fiscal years 1965--67.
Amounts by fiscal year
Actual, flsc.l year

1965
Estimated, fiscal year

1966 25,000
In buget, fiscal year

1967 33,585
---1. Appropriation (new obligation authority) _________________ _
10,000 23.335 654 33,989 33,829
2. Balance from prior year ________________________________ _ 3. Recovery of prior-year obligation (primaril} Nimbus) _____ _
4. Available for obllgation ___________________________________ _ 5. Actual obligations _________________________________________ _
160 -------------743 -------------33,585 25,903 25,903 --------------
Total __________________________________________________ _
160 --------------
--------------
Obligations in fiscal year 1965 provided for continuing interim operations using data from NASA's research and development satellites, and further progress toward estahlishment of the TOS system. It is expected that nearly $26,000,000 will be dbligated during the current fiscal year in closing out intprim operations with Tiros data and in establishing and operating the TOS system. The President's budget request for fiscal year 1967 seeks $33,GSG,OOO to maintain the TOS system on a full-year basis. Additional details of the fiscal year U)67 budget request are contained on pages 242 and 243 of the appendix to the President's 'budget. 'l'he Office of Research of the NESC conducts research using satellite data to increase our understanding of atmospheric phenomena and develops methods for using satellite data to improve weather forecasts. In addition, it conducts research on possible new techniques for obtaining measurements by satellite of relevant environment parameters and phenomena by satellite. This portion of the program is supported from the E'SSA's Research and Develojlment appropriation. The fUnding for satellite research has bpen relatively constant in recent years. About $2,200,000, of new obligational authority is being requested for fiscal year 1967. Additional information on thp Research and Development appropriation will be found on page 239 of the appendix to the President's budget request for fiscal year 1967.

TelecommunicatiQn.'l and Aeronomy Program
379
Actual, fiscal year

1965
Estimated, fiscal year

1966
In budget, fiscal year

1967
Direct appropriations:
Ionospheric teleconununications_ _ ________________________
1,566
1,497
1,556
Tropospheric telecommunications_________________________ Space disturbances_______________________________________ Aeronomy ________________________________________________ TotaL_________________________________________________
1,343 926 1,529

5,3M
1,510 1,094 1,642

5,743
1,539 1,M3 1,690

6,328
1---------1---------11---------
Additional details may be found on pages 237 and 239 of the appendix to the President's budget. In addition to its direct appropriation, ITSA conducts, upon request, research and/or services on a reimbursable basis for otber agencies. In fiscal year 1965, these transferred funds amounted to $7,512,000; $4,703,000 of these were from Department of Defense agencies and $1,700,000 from NASA: the remaining $1,103,000 came from about a dozen other agencies. In fiscal year 1966, these transferred funds will total about $7,800,000. Approximately three-fourths of the ITSA total budget can be construed as space-related.
Geodetic Satellite Program
[In thousands of dollars) Actual, fiscal year
1965
Estimated, fisca\year
1966
In budget, fiscal year

1967
586
Direct appropriation__________________________________________ 601 Reimbursable, DOD_________________________________________ 407 Reimbursable, NASA ___________________.____ ____________ _____ ______________
586 2,397 70
a,l35
TotaL _________________________________________________ _1---------1---------1--------1,008 3,053 3,721
In addition, the Coast and Geodetic Survey anticipates funding support from the NASA in fiscal year 1967 of $51,000 for the Seismology services program, and $275,000 for the Geomagnetic services program.
Weather Serriccs to Space Actiritics
01 Other Agencies
For its services to other agencies in support of space operations, the Weather Bureau expects to receive approximately $2 million in fiscal year 1966, of which about $800,000 is provided by the NASA and about $1,200,000 uy the Department of Defense. Funding at approximately the same level is anticipated in fiscal year 1967.
MR. TRUSZYNSKI REPRESENTS MR. BUCKLEY AT HEARING
The CHAIRl\IAN. Mr. Truszynski. Dr. SEAMANS. Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Truszynski is moving into the witness chair, I might just say that Mr. Buckley, who heads the Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition, has just very recently returned from Australia. He and Congressman Miller were in Australia :lit the invitation of the Australian Government when they dedicated a new satellite data station in Canberra. That is the reason that today Mr. Truszynski is here, I am sure that you will find that he ably represents Mr. Buckley in this office. The CHAIRl\IAN. Thank you, Dr. Seamans.
380
(Biographical data concerning Mr. Truszynski follows:)

GERALD
M. TRUSZYNSKI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRACKING AND DATA

ACQUISITION
Gerald M.Truszynski is Deputy Director of the Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition (OTDA) at NASA Headquarters. This office has the responsibility of providing the ground tracking and data acquisition facilities and networks for the support of all NASA space flight programs. Prior to his appointment as Deputy Director in November 1961 and before OTDA was established, Truszynski was Chief, Operations, in the Office of Space Flight Operations. In 1944, he joined the staff of the NACA Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory where he was concerned with instrument research and development. In 1947, Truszynski transferred to the NACA Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., as the instrumentation project engineer on the original X-I rocket resl'arch aircraft. In 1954 he was promotl'd to Chief, Instrumentation Division, with responsibility for the development and operation of all internal on-board research instrumentation, airborne and ground teleml'tering systems, ground radar tracking systems and initial automatic data reduction and computing systems required, in support of the research aircraft tests conducted by the Center. These included the X-I, X-2, X-3, D-G58, X-5, and X-15, as well as such advanced tactical aircraft utilized for research purposes as thl' F-l00 and 1<'-104. He was directly involved in the technical design, implementation and subsequent total operation of the X-15 ground tracking and data acquisition network extending from Edwards into Nevada. Born in Jersey City, N.J., in 1921, Truszynski rl'ceived a bachelor of science in electrical engineering from Rutgl'rs University in 1944. He is a member of Tau Beta Pi 'and a member of the Instrument Society of America. Truszynski is married to the former Helen Bennett of East Millstone, N.J. They have two children and reside at 3510 Dundee Driveway, Chevy Chase, Md.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Truszynski.

STATEMENT OF GERALD M. TRUSZYNSKI, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION j ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT C. SEAMANS, 1R., DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRA TIONj THOMAS V. LUCAS, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM COORDINATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, OTDAj AND NORMAN POZINSKY, DIRECTOR OF NETWORK SUPPORT, IMPLEMENTATION, ODTA
Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement by Mr. Buckley. With your permission, I would like ,to submit that statement for the record and summarize our program for you at this time. (See p.409.) The CHAIMIAN. That will be satisfactory Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to ap:pear before your committee to present the Tracking and Data AcqUISItion program for fiscal year 1967 and to report on the pro~ress which has been made in implementing the program approved m past years. The Office of Tracking and Data Acquisit.ion provides ground instrumentation support for all NASA flight projects (fig. 175). Types of support provided are(a) Trackmg of spacecraft to determine their precise location and trajectory m space;
381
(b) Acquisition of scientific and technical data transmitted from spacecraft via telemetry ; (c) Transmisfions of cDmmands from ground stations to direct the performance of specific functions by the spacecraft? (d) Commuication of voice information and data between ground stations and control centers, and between ground statiom and manned spacecraft; and (e) Processing of acquired data into a usa:ble form for realtime decisions and flight control by project personnel and for postflight analysis by scientific experimenters. Projects supported include manned spacecraft, scientific and applicatIOns, satellites, lunar and planetary mi5:?ions, sounding rockets, and research aircraft. Support also is provided for projects of the Department of Defense, other Government agencies, corporations, and foreign countries. In addition to supporting flight projects, the Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition is assigned functions related to automatic data processing (ADP).
ACTO:\L\TIC DATA PROCESSING
Responsibilities for the management of ADP resources within NASA are assigned as shown by ~re 176. The Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition is designated as the focal point in NASA on
TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION
O B J E C T i V E : , . . ;....
PROVIDE EFFECTIVE SUPPORT OF ALL NASA FLIGHT PROJECTS .
FIGURE
175
382
ADP matters with specific responsibility for recommending an agencywide annual plan to the Deputy Administrator for approval and implementation. In addition, the Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition has continuing responsibilities for coordinating requirements and for reviewing and evaluating, on a NASA-wide basis, all ADP acquisitions, utilization, and reporting to insure compliance with NASA policies and plans. Funding requirements for ADP equipment are included in the budget of the institutional director having cognizance over the field installation affected. Institutional directors are responsible for the approval of requirements for computers at their centers and for the su.bsequent overall management of ADP resources required for the installations and programs under their cogn izance. Field installations are responsible for planning their ADP needs and for requesting funds for Implementation. They also are responsible for the selection and acquisition of ADP equipment approved for their programs, and for the establishment of local procedures and controls to assure economical utilization. NASA has been purchasing computers where lease-purchase studies have shown that this is more economical than leasing the same equipment. During fiscal year 1965 and continuing through fiscal year 1967, purchases are being made which will result in ownership by NASA of nearly 80 percent of all computer mainframes in use throughout the agency. These procurements have enabled NASA to mainNASA AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING (ADP) RESPONSIBILITIES
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OFF I CE OF TRACK I NG & DATA ACQUISITION
POLICY & FINAL APPROVAL OF PLANS
FOCAL POINT FOR ADP .RECOMMEND AGENCY-WIDE ANNUAL PLAN COORDINATE REQUIREMENTS .REVIEW AND EVALUATE ADP UTILIZATION
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAM DI RECTOR S
REVIEW AND APPROVE REQUIREMENTS BUDGET FOR APPROVED PLANS .MANAGE THEIR ADP RESOURCES
fiELD INSTALLATIONS
DETERMINE REQUIREMENTS .SELECT AND ACQUIRE APPROVED EQUIPMENT ESTABLISH LOCAL UTILIZATION CONTROL PROCEDURES PREPARE AND SUBMIT SPECifiED REPORTS (UTILIZATION, ACQUISITION, DISPOSITION)
NASA T 66-710 REV. 2-24-66

FIGUR~;
176
383
tain a reasonable rental and maintenance budget while expanding its capacity 60 to 70 percent to meet the increasing requirements for ADP services. Second, generation equipment still being leased, for the most part, is scheduled to be replaced by fiscal year 1968 with third generation computers because of the need for increased capacity and greater flexibility which these machines offer at lower cost.
GLOBAL INSTRUMENTATION NETWORK
To provide effective support of flight projects, NASA has established a worldwide network of tracking and data acquisition stations (fig. 177). This network, at the present time, consists of ground stations which are operational or under construction at 28 locations. These stations are located in the United States and 16 foreign countries and territories. They represent a total capital investment of over $600 million, and are oIXlrated by more than 2,500 highly trained NASA, contractor, and foreign national personnel. The stations are linked to each other and to control centers by an extremely reliable, high-capacity communications network (NASCOM). Specialized equipment is provided at field centers for processing data acquired from spacecraft, either in real time for spacecraft control, or from tapes for reduction and interpretation of scientific experiments and engineering data.
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
As you know, NASA's program achievements during the past year have been very significant. I am pleased to report that the tracking and data acquisition support provided for flight programs during
FIGUKE177
384
this period again met all established NASA requirements as well as reqUIrements for programs of other agencies. During 1965, the network successfully supported all Gemini flights, culminating in the un~recedented rendezvous of Gemini VII and VI in December of 1965 (fig. 178). The short time required to adapt the network for this mission demonstrated the inherent flexibility which has been designed into the manned space flight support facilities. Through modIfication of station operating procedures and computer programs, the network was able to support two manned spacecraft simultaneously. In the deep-space area, excellent support provided for the Mariner IV mission (fig. 179) permitted the spacecraft to pass within 6,000 miles of Mars on July 14, 1965, and to take the first closeup pictures of the Martian surface. After a flight of 325 million miles taking 228 days, there was a deviation of only 1,000 miles from the projected flyby distance of 5,000 miles. The deep-space facilities continued to support the Mariner IV spacecraft until October 1, 19'65, establishing a new two-way communications record of 191 million miles between network stations and the spacecraft. It is planned to reestablish active communi cations in mid1967 when the spacecraft returns to within 30 million miles of Earl-h. During the period Mariner IV was en route to Mars, the Ranger VIII and IX missions were launched in F ebruary and March 1965, respectively. In supporting Mariner and Ranger missions concurrent-
FIGUltE178
---
-~
~-~
-~-
KASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR
196 7
385
FIGURE 179
ly, the deep-space fa cilities demonstrated the capability of supporting more than one mission at. the same time.
FUNDING
REQUIRE~fENTS
To continue the Tracking and Da ta Acquisition pro~am in fiscal year 1967, a. total of $281 million is required (fig. 1 0) -:'279.3 million from the "Research and deYelopment" appropriation a.nd $1.7 million from the "Construction of facilities" appropriation. The $279.3 million of R. &, D. funds are composed of $199 million for operation of network stations and related seryices such as communications and data processing; $66.5 million for equipment to prO\-ide additional capability and a sldaining leyel of network support; and S13. million for supporting research and technology. It will be noted that the total an10unt required for equipment and f acilities in fiscal year 1967 continues to decrease. This is primarily because most of the equipment procurements and construction projects for support of the Apollo program ,,-ere funded in prior years. T he equipments are now being installed in the net"-ork and are becoming operational together with the ne\, and augmented fa cilities. Constru cti on of facilities funds are requested for only two projects in fisca l war 1967. One is a. -:1:0-foot antenna to be insta !led a.t. Goddard Space F'light Center f or use in the denlopment, e\-alualion, and testing of equipmen t and components. and for conducting compatibility
386
TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION PROGRAM
FUND REQUIREMENTS
(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) FY65 FY66 FY67
eRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

e OPERATIONS eEQUIPMENT e SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TOTAL R&D S 95.2 144.5 13.5 $253.2 $18.0 $129.6 $199.Q 87.7 13.8
"~f
66:5 13.8
"
I'
$231.1 "~;$279.3
eCONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES
TOTAL R&D AND CofF
$14.4
$1.7
$271.2$245.5
$281.0
NASA T 66-338
~-!
-66
FIGURE
180
tests between ground and spacecraft systems. The other facilities project is the installation of a badly needed water distribution system and additions to the sewage disposal system at the large tracking and data acquisition complex at Goldstone, Calif. The availability of the additional equipment and facilities in the network is reflected in the increases which are occurring in the cost of operations. The large increase in operations cost from fiscal year 1966 to fiscal year 1967 is due primarily to the following factors: ( a) A polIo instrumentation ships and aircraft will become operational. (b) Staffing of the network stations is increasing for support of the Apollo program. (c) Lunar and planetary program support requirements are increasing, as is also the scientific and applications satellite support workload. (d) Additional communications services are also required primarily for support of the Apollo program. All of these factors are elaborated upon in my prepared stakement. In the summary this morning, I will limit my remarks to the status of preparations for support of the Apollo program, the increase in communications requirements, a related increase m manpower requirements at the Goddard Space Flight Center, and recent NASA/DOD activities.
NASA AUTHO RIZATION F OR FISCAL YEAR 1967

APOLLO SUPPORT
387
Many of the stations being used for Gemini support will also be used for Apollo. Capabilities are heing added at these stations "hile other stations are bein CT established. The nebl"Ork for support of lunar Apollo missions ( fig. 181) will consist of 10 fixed land tations wi th 30-foot antennas, 3 stations with 85-foot antennas, 1 transportable station,5 instrumentation ships, and 8 instrumentation airc raft. In addition, three 85-foot antenna stations normally used f or deep-space missions will be used for support of Apollo. The schedule for implementing these major augmentations -to the network is ShO\Yl1 in summary form by figure 182. Our efforts are directed toward haying the net\\ork fully qualified for lunar mission support in 1967. Substantial progress toward this goal was made du ring 1965 in the construction of f acilities and \H' are presently "ell under way ",ith installation and checkout of station equipment. T hese acti"ities will continue in 1966 along \,ith testing of the new unified S-band equipment and its initial operational use. A significant buildup of operatmg personnel is presently undenyay throughout the network and will continue through fi scal year 1967 (fig. 183) . Additional staffing will be required at existing stations for combmed Gemini and Apollo support and substantial staffing complements ,,-ill be necessary for new facilities as they become operational.
85' ANTENNA 30' ANTENNA INSERTION INJECTION SHIP REENTRY SHIP
FIGURE 181
388
NASA AUTHORIZAT ION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
FIGURE
182
TRACKING & DATA ACQUISITION PERSONNEL FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT SUPPORT
2000
TOTAL NETWOR K PERSONNEL (C ONTRACTOR PLUS f ORE IG N NATIONALS)
1000
( -,_
~
.
' :~ ,)'
GEMINI
0-1
------'i
APOLLO
NA SA T 66-709 2- 18-66
0~~~~65~~~~~~~ 66~~~::~~~~19~6;~~~ 19~ 19; 7

fiSCAL YEARS
fLIGHT SIMULATIONS AND TRAININ G
FIGURE
183

APOLLO INSTRUMENTATION SHIPS
389
Figure 184 shows the schedule for the ships which are being modified and instrumented to operate as integral stations of the network during critical phases of Apollo flights when spacecraft are out of ~i~ht of land stations. Three of tile ships, Vanguard, Redstone, and Mercury, are conversions of T-2 tanker hulls for support of the insertion of the ~-\pollo spacecraft into Earth orbit and the injection into the translunar trajectory. The other two ships, the IV atertown and the Hwntsville , are Department of Defense range ships which had limited instruLlentation capabilities and are being modified for coverage of the reentry phase when Apollo spacecraft return to Earth for a P acific Ocean landing. Structural work on the ships, procurement of instrumentation equipment, and installation of the equipment are proceeding essentially on schedule. Testing and evaluation of the ships and instrumentation systems will begin on the Vang'ual'd in June 1966. Apollo mission support will be provided by the ships during part of the checkout period and all ships will be fully operational and deployed on site by mid-1967. Responsibility for management of the ships construction program is assigned to the Instrumentation Ships Project Office (ISPO ) which was established especially for this project directly under the Chief of
FIGURE
184
390
Naval Material. The ISPO is headed by a senior Navy officer, Capt. A lex F . Hancock, with NASA and U .S. Air Force deputy managers, and draws upon the Navy, NASA, and the Air Force for staffing and teclmical support. I would like to add that Captain Han cock and his associates are doing an excellent job in conducting thi s program and I feel we are indeed fortunate in having him as head of this office. Conversion work on the two reentry ships is being don e in a shipyard in the New Orleans area. Figure 185 shm_s the damage su stain~d by the H untsville and W atertmon as a result of Hurricane B etsy m September 1965. The damage "ill cost an estimated $2.4 million to repair and will delay the conversion schedule about 2 months. This delay is not expected to be critical for support of the Apollo program. Looking forward to operations, agreement has been reached with the D epartment of Defense on joint funding for the maintenance and operation of the Apollo instrwn entation ships and aircraft. This agreement. provides for sharii1g of the costs on the basis of the estimated proportion of use of the ships and aircraft for support of NASA and DOD projects. In fiscal year 1967, NASA will fund about $14 million of a $17 million total cost for operating the ships.
APOLLO-RANGE INSTRU MENTATION AInCR.AFl'
Instrum ented aircqtft (fig. 186) will be used for thG Apollo lunar missions to provide telemet ry coverage and voice commnl1 ications with the astronauts during the critical period when the spacecraft is being
APOLLO REENTRY SHIPS
HURRICANE DAMAGE & SALVAGE OPERATIONS
HUNTSVILLE
WATERTOWN
N.\S:. T 66-356 -1...,6
FroUlm 1R5
391
APOLLO
INSTRUMENTED AIRCRAFT (TYPE C-135)
FIGURE 186
injected into the trajectory to the Moon. Eight aircraft are required to provide the necessary cOYerage. The Air Force is providing C-135 aircraft from inventory whi ch are being modified for this purpose under the supervision of the Air Force Electronic Systems Division. The first hyo aircraft are scheduled to be operational early in 1967 with all aircraft to be fully operational by the end of 1967. The CHAIR~IAX. ,Yhat are these aircraft for nmd Mr. TRlisZYXSKI. They are aircraft, Senator, required for cOYerage of a special portion of the Apollo trajectory which is out of sight of any land or ship stations. These aircraft will receive data and proyide a yoiee communication link to the spacecraft. It ,yill not be used to t ra ck the spacecraft. COYerage is required during the actual burn period of the SIYB stage into its lunar trajectory. The CHAIR~IAK. Thank you. Mr. TRrszyxsKT. During 1965, a supplement to the agreement behyeen K AS.\ and DOD on design, acquisition, and modification of the Apollo aircraft "-as executed ,.... hi ch proyides for cost sharing in this project. NASA is fW1ding the oyerall instrumentation and communications In<xlifications, and DOD is funding some specialized optical equipment required for DOD use. T his results in a funding ratio of approxima tely 95 percent for N AS..--\. and 5 percent for DOD. With respect to operating costs, NASA will pay all such costs in fiscal year 1967 since the aircraft will not be used for snpport of DOD proj ects during this period.
59-941
o-6~2 6
392
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967 COMMUNICATIONS
During the past year, much effort has been directed tO'ward meeting the cO'mmunicatiO'ns requirements of the ApQllQ prQgram (fig. 187). In Project Mercury, when communications to the contrQI center could nQt be maintained, the relatively small amount of critical data CQuld be moni tored, interpreted, and utilized at remQte tracking stations by trained, Qn-site fl ight cO'ntrQllers. The same situatiQn generally prevails in the Gemini program although the increased amQunt Qr d~ta has required the instal1atiQn at each key statiQn of a data processmg system to digest, summarize, and display infQrmation required for real-time decisions. FO'r the extremely comJ;>lex ApoJIo lunar missiO'ns, real-time operational cO'ntrol will be mamtained in the mission control center where large-scaJe data processing facilities and technical specialists will support the flight director in exercising mission control. This requires a mar kedly increased quantity of fuJIy reliable cO'mmunicatiQn links to aJIland stations and ships. There are six stations planned lor ApQllO' SUPPQrt that presently dO' nQt have the requisite communicatiQns capabilJty for ApQllQ. From studies cQnducted with the National CommunicatiQns System (NCS), it became evident that the ApQllQ cQmmunicatiQns requirement could not be met by cQnventional systems alQne, but eQuId be met thrQugh use of a cQmmunicatiQns satellIte system (fig. 188).
FIGURE 187
393
--
..
t~~;;~~:~~~~:~~~.
FmUB.Jl) 188
In June 1965, NASA requested the manager of the NGS to initiate discussions with the Communications Satellite Corp. to determine whether it could provide the required service. A proposal was submitted by the Communications Satellite Corp. and evaluated by a joint NCS Working Group. As a result of this evaluation, the Secretary of Defense, who is the Executive Agent of the NCS, authorized NASA to act for NCS in negotiating with the Communications Satellite Corp. for the required communIcations services. These negotiations are still in process. Communications satellite services will be provided to the three.land stations at Canary Island, Ascension, and Carnarvon, Australia, and to three instrumentation ships. To receive this service, the ships must be equipped with communIcations terminals. Funds have been reprogramed for this purpose and negotiations with the ship contractor have been completed to incorporate the changes.
MANPOWER
On the subject of manpower, of the 34,524 personnel positions authorized to NASA in fiscal year 1966, approximately 831 are directly chargeable to the Tracking and Data Acquisition Program. In addition, 448 positions at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are assigned to the Tracking and Data Acquisition program for a total of 1279 NASA and JPL personnel. Figure 189 shows the distribution of these personnel among the field centers and NASA headquarters.
394
These NASA and JPL employees plan and manage the worldwide network of tracking and data acquisition facilities. The actual operation and maintenance of the stations and control centers are done primarily by contractor personnel in the United States and by foreign nationals in most other countries. As shown in figure 189, the number of direct personnel required for the Tracking and Data Acquisition program will remain essentially unchanged in fiscal year 1967 except for Goddard Space Flight Center. During the fall of 1965, a very detailed study was conducted by Goddard of the manpower required for manned space flight support. The results of the study were reviewed by all levels of NASA management and by the Bureau of the Budget. As finally approved, the study indicated that an increase of 235 NASA positions was required at Goddard to assure adequate support for the Gemini and Apollo programs. This did not include 33 :positions which had already been transferred from other programs \vlthin the Center. Subsequently, deferral of the Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory project made available 53 positions, reducing the total required to 182. Review by ~ASA general management of total agency manpower indicated that the remainder of the critical positions could not be provided from existing resources. The 182 positions consist of the 122 direct positions shown in figure 189 plus 60 indirect positions to perform necessary administrative and
TRACKING & DATA ACQUISITION NASA DIRECT MANPOWER
I I
I
r--'
r--,
I I
I
I I
I
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
r--.
I I I I I I I 364 I I I I I
I I I I I
I
448
I I I I I
I
I I I I I
448
I I I I I
GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
62
61
39
37
39
37
20
21
6
HEADQUARTERS WALLOPS STATION FRC LRC MSFC
1965
1966 FISCAL YEARS
NASA T 66-711 REV. 2-24-66
FIGURE
189
XASA At::THORIZATIOK FOR FISCAL YEAR
1967
395
supporting functions. Funds for these positions are included in the Operations Budget of the Office of ~pac Science and Applications since Goddard Space Flight Center is under the institutional management of that Office.
~\dlllillistratiye
NASA-DOD COOPER.ATION
:Much was accomplished during the past year in the coordination of plans, programs. and operations with the Department of DefenSf'. Some of the major aecomplislllnents are listed Oil TIg-ure 190. A comprehensin> agreement eoncerning land-based tracking, data acquisition. and communications facilities "was reached between XAS~\. and DOD, proyiding for improYed planning coordination, singleagency management of Jog-isties support and opprations at coloe-atec! stations, and other measures to assure efficient utilization of the ground instrumentation facilities of both agencies in :"upport of the national space program. As a result of the agreement, the ~\ir Force will pro"ide hase support for the Apollo stations at ~-\..scension Island and Antigua. Agreements were reached on the sharing of costs on Apollo aircraft and ships. These "Were discussed earlier in my statement. Also during the past year. operational responsibility for three trackillg stations was transferred from DOD to XAS~\.. These three stations, at preSf'nt. he.wily involyed in support of the Gemini
NASADOD COOPERATION
AGREEMENTS ON;
TRANSFER FROM DOD TO NASA OF STATIONS AT;

HAWAII CANTON ISLAND
CORPUS CHRISTI
FIGURE
190
396
program, are located at Canton Island; Corpus Christi, Tex.; and Kauai, Hawaii. With respect to facilities, the continuing coordination in planning and the exchange of technical information between NASA and DOD have been instrumental in assuring that we have no unwarranted duplication of tracking and data acquisition facilities. Each agency keeps the other fully informed of its instrumentation planning and capabilities beginning at an early stage through briefings arranged under the auspices of the Space Flight Ground Environment Panel (SFG EP), through the actions of the Network Plans Subpanel and the Development Subpanel of SFGEP, and other joint technical groups. In addition, there is continuing day-to-day contact between technical personnel and managers in my office and in Goddard Space Flight Center for NASA, and in the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (D.D.R. & E.), the Air Force National Range Division, and the Eastern and Western Test Ranges for the Department of Defense. As a result, each agency, in formulating its own plans and requirements, has been able to take mto account existing capabilities and plans of the other agency and thereby make full use of existing facilities for cross support. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, this concludes my statement. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith? COST OF INSTRUMENTATION SHIPS Senator SMITH. Mr. Truszynski, the Department of Defense, in response to a question by me m our recent Communications Satellite hearings, estimated total cost for the three instrumentation ships at $135 million. Is this the same figure that your planning indicates ~ Mr. ThUSZYNSKI. That is correct, Senator Smith. Senator SMITH. I do not intend to go into many specifics, Mr. Chairman, on the Apollo InstrumentatIOn ships, since this subject was covered somewhat at our recent hearings on the Communications Satellites. My question is, the reason for the apparent difference in the operating costs in fiscal year 1967 of $17 million that you refer to in your statement and the $18.491 million referred to in the recent agreement between DOD and NASA on this subject~ In other words, the $17 million and the $18.4 million, are they explaina,ble? I have this agreement before me in summary. Total operations cost for Apollo ships and aircraft in fiscal year 1967 amount to $18.491 million, funded $15.510 million by NASA and $2.981 million by DOD. That is a little different from your statement, is it not? Mr. ThUSZYNSKI. Yes. I am not sure that particular figure includes the required amount for operation of the aircraft, Senator Smith. Senator SMITH. "\Vould you check it and give us a statement for the record? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. I would be glad to, yes. (The information referred to follows:)
397
The $18.491 million figure referred to in the recent agreement between NASA and DOD represents the total fiscal year 1967 contribution of both NASA and DOD for operating the five Apollo ships and the eight Apollo aircraft. Of this $18.491 million total, approximately $16.966 million (rounded to $17 million in the statement) is for ship operations and $1.525 million is for aircraft operations. Of the $17 million, NASA will fund approximately $14 million and DOD will fund approximately $3 million based on the agreement. NASA will fund all aircraft operations costs in fiscal year 1967, since the aircraft will not be used for support of DOD projects during that period, resulting in a total NASA contribution of $15.5 million as stated in the agreement.
FUXDING AGREEMENT INSTRUMENTATION SHIPS
Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this point to ask that the terms of the agreement be included at this point in the record. The CHAffiMAN. 'Vithout objection, that will be done. (The mat~ria] referred to follows:)
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING GOVERNING PROCEDURES FOR FuNDING TUE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR APOLLO SUIPS AND AIRCRAFT PURPOSE
The National Range Division (NRD) and the Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition (OTDA). as agents for the DOD and the NASA, respectiYely, agree on the following procedures for sharing the annual costs for the operation and maintenance of the Apollo ships and the ApollojRange Instrumentation Aircraft (A/RIA). This Memorandum of Understanding supplements the provisions of the NASA-DOD Agreement on Instrumentation Ships, dated January 15, 1964, and the NASA-NRD-ESD (AF Electronic Systems Divisions) Agreement of December 28, 1964 on ApollojRange Instrumentation Aircraft.
DEFINITIONS
Direct mtS8Wn 8upport.-Ship days and aircraft flying hours committed to
program support, including movement to on-station location, onstation return movement, and when reserved, on standby or in port, for a specific program. Indirect mission support.-Support not directly attributable to specific programs but contributing to both DOD and NASA program support readiness. Examples are training, engineering, equipment calibration, maintenance, sea trials, down-time for equipment modifications, and flight test. Percentage use fuetor.-The ratio of direct mission support for one agency to the total direct mission support for both agencies.
Costs
Skips.-Direct mission support costs for MSTS and technical crew operation and maintenance of individual ships, and a prorated share of indirect mission support costs accrued by the NRD instrumentation ship fleet and distributed proportionately to the individual Apollo ships. ..:lireraft.-Direct and indirect mission support costs are included in the Special Assignment Hourly Rate (SAHR) established by Air Force regulations.
COSTING PROCEDURES
NASA and DOD percentage use factors for ships and aircraft will be established annually, based on the best available program schedules and support commitments. The NRD will determine the use factors with NASA concurrence and participation as desired by NASA. These percentage use factors are derived for cost-sharing determination, and do not imply a final commitment that the ships will necessarily be available for the estimated ratios of support. Estimates of NASA annual reimbursable costs will be determined for ships by multiplying the percentage use factor by the direct and indirect mission costs, and for the aircraft by multiplying the aircraft flying hours by the SAHR and the percentage use factor.
398
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967 BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING PBOCEDUBES
The NRD will furnish annual estimates by August 15 preceding the budget year so that each agency may budget for its respective costs. The estimates will include breakouts to show major cost components such as MSTS costs, technical crew costs, and fleet costs for each ship, and flying hours for aircraft. NASA may participate in the cost estimation process if desired and will concur in the estima tes. Obligation authority for the amounts estimated will be provided to NRD as soon as available to enable the NRD to meet similar obligations to the MSTS and technical contractors. The NRD will provide periodic billings, including accounting of expenditures against each year's obligation authority. A quarterly financial report will be provided to NASA by NRD showing obligation and cost data by fiscal year for each major cost element. Anticipated &djustments or deviations from the annual estimates will be reflected in this financial report. Variations in actual versus estimated percentage use will not affect the current year agency funding provided the total cost estimated does not change. If the actual total cost is different from the estimated total cost, funding adjustments will be made to cover the difference, based on the estimated current year percentage use factoro;. FISCAL YEAR
1967
COSTS
The estimated cost for fiscal year 1967 operation and maintenance of the five ApoUo ships is $16.966 million. Budgeting and funding for this will be $13.985 million by NASA and $2.981 million by DOD, reflecting percentage use factors of approximately 82.5 percent NASA and 17.5 percent DOD. The estimated Apollo aircraft operations and maintenance cost for flscal year 1967 is $1.525 million, based on an estimate of 1,833 flying hours at $832 hourly rate. Since this cost is for training, equipment, calibration, and checkout, and mission simulation in preparation for Apollo support, the total co.<;t will be budgeted for and funded by NASA. In summary, total operations costs for Apollo ships and aircraft in fiscal year 1967 amount to $18.491 million, funded $15.510 million by NASA and $2.981 million by DOD. Agreed: L. I. DAVIS,
Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force, Oommander National Range Division, Air Force Systems OommanAl.
EDMOND C. BUCKLEY,
Director, Tracking and Data Acquisition, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Approved: Date: January 27, 1966. Date: February 3, 1966.
JOHN S. FOSTER, Jr.,

Director Of Defense Rescarch ana Engineering, Department of Defensc.
ROBERT C. SEAMANS, Jr.,

Deputy Adminitrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
182 NEW PEOPLE
Senator SMITH. Going back to the 182 new people that you are asking for Mr. Truszynski. It does not seem to me that chart, figure 89, adequately covers the matter. Would you look that chart over and giye us for the record a more complete breakdown as to exactly what those 182 people are going to do~ Mr. ThUSZYNSKI. We would be glad to supply that for the record, Senator Smith. . (The material referred to follows:)
The planned functional allocations for the 182 additional Illllnned space flight support positions at the Goddard Space Flight Cpnter are as follows:
399
Functional area: Number Operations_______________________________________________________ 95 Communications_________________________________________________ 27 21 Engineering_____________________________________________________ ])ata operations__________________________________________________ 20 Project management______________________________________________ 12 Facilities construction and engineering____________________________ 7 Total__________________________________________________________ 182
The 182 positions include some 122 direct and 60 indirect or support positions. The 122 direct positions are reflected in NASA chart T 66-711 as the increase from 667 personnel in fiscal year 1966 to 789 personnel in fiscal year 1967. The direct personnel are primarily technical people whose efforts can be identified with a particular projeet while the indirect category includes technical and administrative support personnel whose efforts are related to several projects or functions. The determination of the breakdown of personnel between the direct and indirect categories is a function of center management based upon local operating experience.
OPERATIONAL DATES FOR SHIPS
Senator SMITH. Also, your chart, which you showed us a few moments ago, as to the expected operation time of the five ships, I wish you would break that dQwn into specific dates rather than what you gave us. Will you, for the record, as accurately as you can? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Yes; we will do that. (The material referred to follows:)
Ship: Vanguard _______________________________________________ Redstone________________________________________________ Mercury___________________________________________.____ Watertown _____________________________________________ Huntsville_____________________________________________ September 1967 June 1967 June 1967 April 1967 June 1967
Date8 fully operational
SAVINGS UNDER
ONE
MANAGEMENT
Senator SMITH. Last year, at our authorization hearings, Mr. Buckley discussed the savings that could be realized by consolidating common-use services under the management of one agency. He states in his statement that this is being done at Ascension and at Antigua. "\Vhat has been the management and operations experience at Ascension and Antigua between NASA and DOD? Mr. ThUSZYNSKI. Senator Smith, NASA has not had facilities on Ascension and Antigua before this time. As you are aware, the construction of NASA Apollo stations is just currently underway at Ascension and about to start at Antigua. A study was made with the DOD as to the management of operational support of these particular Apollo facilities, and it was determined that it would be more economical for NASA to include the technical operation of these stations as a part of their total network operational contract for the manned space flight network. This is how we plan to operate these stations. The Air Force will be responsible for prOVIding the base support for the NASA Apollo stations at these locations. LAND ACQmSITIONS FOR ISLAND STATIONS Senator SMITH. Has there been a delay in acquiring land and beginning of construction in either one of these places, Ascension or Antigua? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. There has been no delay other than what I might term the administrative leadtime of processing international agreements and acquiring locations.
400
Senator SMITH. Have the sites been acquired? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. The sites have been agreed upon, yes. They are on Crown land and will not require any funding. Senator SMITH. And these new projects are not in anyway going to be duplication of what the Air Force already has? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. They are not. Senator SMITH. Then the Air Force cannot do anything that the space agency plans to do with these new stations? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Well, these stations will certainly be available for support to pro~ams of the DOD. To the extent that they are technically compatIble with their requirement, we will certainly provide support with these stations. Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have several other questions that may be answered for the record, rather than taking the time now, since it is getting late. The CHAIRMAN. All right, we will do that. (Questions submitted by Senator Smith to Mr. Truszynski and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
DISTRmUTION OF DATA
Question 1. I note in Mr. Buckley's statement the reference to the backlog of data which required processing several years ago. Currently this is being processed at a rate that permits distribution in 3 to 6 weeks to the experimenter. What is the distribution time that you are ultimately striving for'! Answer. We are currently processing data at a rate that permits distribution to the experimenter in 3 to 6 weeks. This appears to be about the shortest time period that is both economically feasible and meets the need of the experimenters. Data tapes are received from the data acquisition stations 11IId saved until they can be processed and placed in chronological sequence before being shipped to the experimenters. At present, the larger projects have the capability in the control center of looking at certain critical spacecraft data in "real time" to meet operational requirements. It is planned to extend this capability at the Goddard Space Flight Center to permit experimenters to observe selected experiment data, taken during periods of special interest, for quick analysis. This would permit analysis of data taken during a solar flare, or similar event, well ahead of the normal 3 to 6 weeks distribution time. This "quick look" capability would be required for only a very small percentage of the total data processed.
INVESTMENT IN OVERSEAS DATA FACILITIES
Question 2. Mr. Truszynski, Mr. Buckley submitted for the record 2 years ago a list of your overseas tracking and data acquisition facilities and the capital investment in those facilities. Would you give us the current total figure for the 16 overseas facilities referred in your statement? Answer. The total estimated capital investment in the 16 overseas location!.; referred to in the statement is approximately $250 million, including the fiscal year 1966 program as presently planned.
Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Truszynski. INCREASE IN T

&
DA BUDGET
The CHAIRMAN. In 1967 you asked for $279 million. That is up from $231 million, an increase of $48.3 million. Is the increase due solely to extra operational requirements? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. This is primarily the reason for the increase. There are some slight increases in the equipment area but the total for equipment is reduced by $21 million.

GOLDSTONE WATER
401
SYSTEM:
The (;HAmMAN. You mention that the trucking of water at the Goldstone site is relatively costly and burdensome. Is the water used for personnel or for equipment cooling and other purposes? Mr. ThUSZYNSKI. The major use is for equipment purposes. The CHAmHAN. You have $831,000 requested for the water distribution system at Goldstone. Is that not quite a bit of money for a water distribution system ~ How large is the Goldstone area ? Mr. ThUSZYNSKI. It is about 64 square miles, Mr. Chairman. It is a rather large complex in which there are seven tracking and data acquisition facilities with distances of as much as 12 miles between stations. These stations are self-contained facilities, each with its own rather large water requirement for both equipment and personnel purposes. It IS to service this complex of stations with its buildu'p of personnel and equipment that requires the installation of thIS particular water distribution system. The CHAmHAN. Where is the water coming from? Mr. ThUSZYNSKI. The water will be supplied by the Army to NASA as a part of their overall installation at Fort Irwin, which is approximately 8 miles away. The CHAmHAN. Have you made a detailed study of water needs and supply alternatives, and could you provide a statement of comparative costs of trucking versus the proposed pipeline? Mr. ThUSZYNSKI. We can supJ?ly that statement, Mr. Chairman. In answer to your first questIOn, a very detailed study was made of the alternatives for supplying the water at Goldstone. We can certainly supply a summary of the alternatives that were investigated. The CHAmMAN. Would you supply that to us as justification of why you have to have this $831,000 f Mr. 1'RUSZYNSKI. Yes, we will certainly do that. (The information referred to follows:)
A feasibility study was conducted by an architect and engineering firm, Koebig
& Koebig, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif., to determine the most feasible and economical
method to provide a permanent water supply system to the Goldstone complex. In making this study, Koebig & Koebig utilized nine previously published studies made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others dating as far back as 1955, covering water resources in the Fort Irwin area. This study considered 10 alternate water supply systems to meet the 1970 water demand ranging from the present system of tank truck water haulage to a complete water pipe transmission system with various combinations thereof, including the de>elopment of new water wells. Economic analysis of all the various systems indicated that the most reliable and economical method of providing water to the seven sites within the Goldstone complex to meet the 1970 demand was to pump water from the Fort Irwin Reservoir to a gravity water storage tank and then distribute it to the individual sites. The initial cost of this water supply system is estimated at $885,000, which includes costs of the pumping and electrical substation at Fort Irwin. The annual operations and lDaintenance cost of this system would be $8,800 including the cost of the water. The study further revealed that to meet the 1970 water de mand, utilizing tank trucks would result in an annual operations and maintenance cost of $136,170 and would req'Uire the purchase of three 7,OOO-gallon tank trucks estimated to cost $25,000 each. The following charts summarize (1) the various systems investigated together with the initial cost and annual operations and maintenance of each sys-
402
tern, and (2) the population increase, based on weighted averages, and the increased water demand and sewage flow together with the major areas of increase.
Fiscal year 1967 oonstruction of facilities progr~ater distribution and sewage disposal systems, Goldstone complex, Oalifornia
[Summary of alternate water supply schemes investigated] Estimated costs ($1,000) Scheme Description Total project Annual maintenance and operation
cost
A ________ _ Pump from Fort irwin to Venus, gravity flow to all other sites
B _______ _ Pump from Fort irwin to Echo, booster pump to Venus and
(permanent pipe system) ._____________________________________ _
885
8.8
booster pump to remaining site _______________________________ _ 867 c _______ _ Pump from Fort Irwin to Venus, gravity flow to all other sites with wells at Mars for untreated cooling water ________________ _ 897 D _______ _ Pump from Fort Irwin to Venus, gravity flow to Echo and Antenna, haul from Echo to remaing sites ________________________ _ 375 E _______ _ Pump from Fort irwin to Echo and Antenna, haul from Echo to remaining sites ________________________________________________ _ 293 F_. _____ _ Pump from Irwin to Venus, gravity flow to Echo and Antenna, haul from Echo to remaining sites plus new wells at Mars for untreated cooling wateL ______________________________________ _ 462 G _______ _ New wells and treatment plant north of Goldstone Lake and pumping to all sltes ___________________________________________ _ 992 H _______ _ New wells and 4 treatment plants to serve all sites ______________ _ 1,199 L _______ _ Haul from Fort irwin to all sites with new wells at Mars for untreated COOling water._________________________ _________________ 96 1. _______ _ Haul from Fort Irwin to all sites (trucklng) ___________________________________ _
9.5
9.3
78.6 78.5 48.9
35.0
50.6
66.6 136.0
NOTE.-Scheme A was selected as the most efficient and overall ecnomlcal means for meeting the current and projected water demands by permanent water supply system to support station operations.

Fiscal year 1967 construction of facilities program-Water distribution and sewage disposal systems, Goldstone complex, California
Population (weighted) Site Now Echo (DSN) _______________________________________ Venus (R. '" D.) ___________________________________ Pioneer (DSN) _____________________________________ Mars (DSN) ________________________________________ Antenna (Test) ____________________ .............. _.. Stadan .. _.......... _. ___ ._ ..... _... _._ ........ Apollo (MSFN) ................................. TotaL ......................................
1 Includes
Water demand (in thousand gallons per month) Now 187 34 311 0 4 53
0
Sewage flow (in thousand gallons per day) New demands Now 7.7 1.0
1.8
1970 341
54
1970 1
624
1970 17.0
2.8
~ ~
.....
~
240
28 82
167 161 21,030 42 138

242
106 164 42 73
110
5.3 6.1
(3)
(.)
15
10
0
(3)
(.)
73
------------
.2
1.4
800
317
2,304
3 Current
1.07
32.6
---
Main Goldstone supporting facility-central cafeteria, visitor influx, and other supporting functions for entire complex. Research and development DSN facillty-nonassigned personnel demands. Apollo backup personnel (not indicated) and major DSN training facility. New faclllty-maJor water demand due to coollna equipment associated with 210-foot antenna an personnel. Increased test requirements. Additional new facility-demand due to additional personnel (not indicated) and e<J.,uiPment for Ap plications Technology Satelllte acllity. New station-additional personnel and 86-foot an tenna with associated equipment.
~
~
::l fl5
~
l"l
><1
g;
25 percent factor for unforeseen growth. , High demand due to chilled water system for cooling 210-foot high heat dissipation equipment.
construction Includes necessary site sewage system.
...
0>
co
....
404
REVIEW OF TRACKING NETWORKS The CHAIRMAN. Will the NASA Apollo ships be able to meet the requirements of the MOL launches as well as the Apollo launches? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. The ships are technically: capable of supplying support to the MOL with very minor modIfication. The problem that remains to be worked out is whether or not the scheduling of the two programs will allow the deployment of ships to support both missions. A study in this regard is underway now in order to determine whether or not we can provide one of the Apollo ships for support of the MOL program in the 1968-69 time period. The CHAIRMAN. You cannot answer the question at this time? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. No, sir; the study is still underway. The CHAIRMAN. Being teclmically capable of doing it does not mean it will be available at all, does it? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, because it does become a matter of scheduling and priorities of support required by each particular program. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Jordan? TRACKING NE'l'WORK REQUIIU)MENTS Senator JORDAN. Just to pursue your line of questioning a little further, Mr. Chairman, how do the requirements of the various tracking networks differ, and how much of the old Mercury network is bemg used for Gemini, and how much of what we used for Gemini will be used for Apollo? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. I think I can say a large part of the Mercury network, Senator Jordan, was used for Gemini, since the type of equipment on board the Gemini spacecraft was very similar to that in Mercury. We had in essence, really, a problem of increasing the amount of equipment at each particular site to handle the more complex Gemini miSSIOn, including the requirement to support more than one spacecraft. When we got to Apollo, the basic system requirement was greatly different, primarily brought on by the fact that Apollo~ of course, is a lunar mission. In order to provide tracking and data acquisition at lunar distances, it required a change in the frequency of operation of the basic s-round-tracking and data-acquisition system. As a result, the basIC antenna and receiving systems are quite different for Apollo. However, much of the data-handling and communications terminal equipment that is currently installed in the stations for Gemini will continue to be used for processing of Apollo information. RELATIONSHIP OF DOD AND NASA NETWORKS Senator JORDAN. What is the relationship between the NASA tracking networks and the DOD tracking networks? Will the Department of Defense use any of our manned space flight tracking network for the manned orbitin~ laboratories? Mr. ThUSZYNSKI. The planning for tracking and data acquisition support of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, of course, is being carried out by the Department of Defense. In configuring their missions,
405
they have arrived at a means of support for the :UOL, which does not require any long-tenn support from any 'Of the NASA manned space flight facilities, with the exception, as previously mentioned, of the use of one of the Apollo ships for coverage for insertion into the 'Orbit. There may be some short-term requests for supplying specific radar tracking information from some of the NASA stations. Senator JORDAN. Thank you. :Ur. Chairman, I have some questions having to do with data processing of a technical nature, if I could supply them and ask him to answer them. The CHAffiMAN. That will be done. (Questions submitted by Senator Jordan to Mr. Truszynski and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
DESCRIPTION OF DATA POINTS
Question 1. Mr. Truszynski, last year Mr. Buckley said: "During the current fiscal year we are processing 70 million data points per day, and tbis is projected to increase to 200 million data points per day during fiscal year 1966 as more of the observatory class of satellites become operational * * *." What is a data point? How many bits of information (average) are required for each data point? How many data points per day did you process in fiscal year 1966? How many data points do you estimate you will have to process in the future? Does this require any new developments in data processing? Are you able to process these tremendous amounts of data now so that they can be distributed to those who want that information, or is much of the data coming back from space being stored ? Answer. A data point is one measurement or unit of information from a cbannel of telemetry data. Each data point is made up of an average of 10 bits of information. Thus, a data point may be defined as a scientific measurement such as an energetic particle count, a temperature reading, a voltage level, or a wavelength. An average of 130 million data points per day is 'being processed in fiscal year 1966. It is estimated tbat this will increase to approximately 200 million data points per day in fiscal year 1967. We expect to be able to handle this workload with existing data processing equipm'.llt. plus some modifications and an additional line of the high-capacity Phase II Satellite Telemetry Automatic Reduction System (STARS) which are included in the fiscal year 1967 budget. We are able to process the data now being taken and forward it to the experimenters in 3 to 6 weeks. There is no significant backlog of data to be processed.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gehrig? COMSAT SERVICE

TO
NASA
Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Truszynski, in your statement, you say that with regard to the negotiations between NASA and the Communications Satellite Corp., "these negotiations are still in progress." Mr. Hilburn, when he was before the committee at the end of January, said t.hat the negotiations between NASA. and the Communications Satellite Corp. had been concluded. Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Mr. Gehrig, I think I made an error there when I said the Communications Satellite Corp. It is true that negotiations with the corporation itself have essentially been concluded. However, negotiations are still continuing with the three foreign partners involved in the entire requirement for supplying this service. So these are the ones still under negotiation.
406
Mr. GEHRIG. For the record, could you supply a brief summary of the cost features of the Apollo Oommunications Satellite System that will be provided NASA by the Communications Satellite Corp.? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Yes, I could do that. (The information referred to follows:)
The following chart shows estimated charges for the first 3 years (Sept. 1, 1966, through Aug. 31, 1969) for the communication satellite sE'rvices NASA will procure from a eommercial system to support the Apollo program. It indudes ('hargE's by the Communications SatE'llitE' Corp. for service from their ground stations and the three ships; charges by Cable & Wireless, Ltd., for service from Ascension; charges by Compania Telefonica Nacional de Espana for services from Canary Island; and charges -by the Australian Overseas Telecommunications Commission for services from Carnarvon.
Initial systemNumber of channels Link to satellite Voice
Charge-
TTY
4 4
2 2 2
------------------------1--- --- ----Andover, Maine __ ___________________ . __________________ . ___________ ._ Brewster, Wash ______________________________________________________ _ Atlantic Ocean ship __________________________________________________ _ Indian Ocean ship ___________________________________________________ _ Pacific Ocean ship ___________________________________________________ _
Communications Satellite Corp., totaL ________________________ _ Ascension _ ____________________ . _________ . ____ . ___________ . __ . __ . _. __ _ Canary Islands ______________________________________________________ _ Carnarvon, Australia. ____ . ______ . _. ____________ . _________ . ____ _ 12 12 6 6 6 6 6 6 $1,335,000 1,005,000 2,210,000 2,210,000 2,505,000 9,265,000 1,116,000 1,079,000 1,528,000 12,988,000 38,964,000
2 2 2
Annual charge__________________________________________________ __________ __________ ayear charge_ ... ___ . __ .... ________ . _______ ._ .. _______ . ___ . ___ ._. ____________ . ___ ._........
DATA RELAY SATELLITF,s
Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Truszynski, recently, NASA went out on a .request for proposal for a 6-month feasibility and preliminary deSIgn study for a system on data relay satellites to be positioned in synchronous orbit and supported by a network of ground stations. The system is identified as the Orbiting Data Relay Network, and will transmit voice and data communications betwen space vehicles and mission control centers. How will this system operate and what function do you envision that it will serve? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Mr. Gellrig, as you know, in providing support, particularly during the orbital phase of manne~ space flight. missi~n~, you must layout a network of ground trackmg and data acqUIsItion sta,tions which provides a basic mandatory required amount of information. You are also, I am sure, a ware of the fact that in general, the amount of contact that one can maintain with a manned spacecraft during its orbital phase with such a network is rather limited. On long-term missions, such as those exceeding 1 day, in general, the number of contacts that we have obtained with spacecraft is about one per orbit in certain restricted portions of the traJectory, The other aspect of such a system, of course, is that a rather large number of tracking and data acquisition stations must be maintained leading to a rather large total yearly operational cost. In projecting ahead as to the types of systems that might be available to both reduce the number of geographic locations required for tracking and data
407
acquisition stations., as well as increasing the amount of contact, particularly with manned orbital spacecraft, it appears that the technology can lead in a reasonable time, to a data relay satellite which, in effect, is a high-capacity communications satellite. Such a system will provide for relay of information directly from a manned spacecraft, through such a satellite, to a control cemer back in the United States. It is this type of system that is the subject of this particular feasibility study that you refer to. Mr. GEmuG. W'ould that system eliminate the need for the instru mentation ships and the aircraft stationed in the various parts of the world? Mr. ThUSZYNSKI. Such a system certainly could eliminate the requirement for aircraft, since they are primarily for data relay purposes. It could eliminate some of the ships, with the exception of those ships that are required to provide precise tracking information. 'While we are investigating the feasibilty of also providing a tracking capability through this system, the primary function of an orbiting data relay satellite is for relay of data. Mr. GEHRIG. What do you envision as the operation date of such a system? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Of course, this information will be one of the results of the feasibility study, but this appears to be a system that certainly is beyond the 1970 time period.
DIFFERENCE IN DATA-REL..-\Y SYSTEM
Mr. GEHRIG. Would you supply for the record a brief statement of the difference between this kind of a satellite system-the data relay satellite system-and the kind of communications satellite system service you are buying from the ComSat Corp. ? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Yes, sir. (The information referred to follows:)
Thl' two primary differences between the communications satellite systems of the Communications Satellite Corp. (Comsat) and the proposed Orbiting Data Relay Satellite System (ODRS) lie in (1) the type of sen-ice, and (2) the configuration of the satellites. For application in support of Earth-orbiting spacecraft. thl' differences between the sen'ice available via Comsat and that llroyided by the proposed ODRS can be likened to the differences between a Rerles of telephone booths spaced along a superhighway. at whieh one can stop occasionally to cheek in with the home office. and an auto equipped with a shortwave radio. The telephone booths are analogous to the current coneept of worldwide tracking and data aequisition networks with Comsat (as well as other common carriers) maintaining the facilities that cOnnec~t the "telephone booths" or tracking stations with the "home office" or the mis!<ion eontrol eenter. The ODRS, however, like the shortwave radio. is intended to have the capability for maintaining eontact between the !<paeecraft and the control center regardless of where the spacecraft is on the "superhighway." Just as there is a signifieant difference in the teehnology required to maintain a "telephone booth" network and a shortwa\"e radio RYstem, RO also is there a difference in the teehnology required for the Com!<at and ODRS sy~tE'ms. Comsat satellitE'S arE' dE'signE'd to provide point-to-point relay of eommunieations between numerous widely separatE'd ground-based communieations tE'rminals. To do this, the satellites are proyided with relatively low power tran~lllitters and low-gain, wide-beam-width antl'nnas. The burden for establil'hing thl' proper signal ~trl'ngth to make the system operational rests wirh the ground stations, which have high-power transmitters and large, yery high gain antennas.
59-941 C>--66---27
408
The ODRS has quite a different set of requirements. Proper signal strength in this system is maintained by essentially inverting the Comsat system; i.e., by putting a high-gain antenna on the data relay satellite and lower gain antennas on the "ground" terminal, actually another spacecraft in low Earth orbit. Since this "ground" terminal is not stationary and since the high-gain data rE'lay satellite antE'nna has such a narrow beam, the data relay satellite must also have the capability for searching out and tracking the target spacE'craft, a capability not required of Comsat satellite". Thus, while the Communications Satellite Corp. and the ODRS will both provide communications satellite services, the nature of the service provided by each and the technology peculiar to each system preclude either system adequately performing the functions of the other.
Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Chairman, I have no more quest.ions. Senator Cannon left a few questions which he would like to have answered for the record. The CHAffiMAN, Will that be satisfactory to you, Mr. Truszynski? Mr. TRUSZYNRKI. 1Ve shall be glad to answer them. The CHAffil\L\N. Then we shall put them in the record. (Questions submitted by Senator Cannon to Mr. Truszynski and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
APOLLO OOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
Question 1. What is the status of the Apollo Saturn Communications SatE'llitE' contract? AnswE'r. NE'gotiations on the contract with the Communications.SatE'llitp ('orp. have ess'entially been concludE'd. Negotiations are continuing with the three foreig'll partners involved. Question 2. What is the total cost of the contract you have negotiated with Comsat? Answer. The contract with the COllllllunications SatE'llitp Corp. will cost $27,795,000 OVE'r a 3-year period. Thp total cOllllllunications satellitp sE'rvicE', including thp contraets with thp foreign partnE'rs, will cost an E'stimatpd $38,964,000 over a 3-year period. Qll{'stion 3. What are the average yearly costs to NASA for the Apollo Communication>' Network? AnswE'r. ThE' amount attributed to tilE' snpport of the Apollo program in the fiseal YE'ar 1967 comlllunications operations budgE't is approximafely $34.500,000. Qupstion 4. Will thp satellitE' system that includE'S thE' Apollo-Saturn communications network have a capacity over and above that requirE'd for the Apollo? Answer. NASA will use an average of 46 percE'nt of the total satE'llitp serviep pstablishE'd to provide support for the Apollo-Satnrn program. Question 5. How are the costs prorated betwE'en the Government use of thp Apollo portion and a capaeity t.hat exists outside that? Answer. ThE' service will be provided at a mont.hly rate under a fixpd tariff for that type of service so, essentially, all subscribers will pay similar e08tR. Qua'!tion 6. If NASA is not using the Apollo portion of the system, will it lw available for use to the National Communications System, and to other agpneieR and d(>partments of the Go\'erlllllE'nt? Answer. Thpse Hlervices arp bping proeurE'd as a part of the Xational Communications System and. "'hE'n they are not IlPing USE'd by XASA, will be availablp tu other agencies lind d(>partments of the Governmpllt.
DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Qupstioll 7. :\1r. Truszynski, in thp roll' of coordinator for data procpssing equiplllE'nt, what critpria arp USE'd to dptprlllinp wlwthpr you should pun'hasp or Ipl\se sueh equipnwnt? ,Answer. In compliancl' with Burean of tIl!' Budgpt Circular A-rl4, a IE'ase/ pur('hnsp stndy is madl' bpforp paeh acquisition of automatk data procpssing I'quiplllpnt. CritpI'ia uspd in Illaking such 11 study indudp tllP ('ost (If Ip1Ising, purchasing, amI lIlaintaining the pquiplllPnt; tlip futurl' progralll objpdivps; workload projpetions for the equipnwnt to bp ucquirpd; und tlIP pstilllatl'd mwful lifp of the I'quipment.
409
The CHAIR:\L\X. Thank you very much, Mr. Truszynski. 'Ve will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. ("Thereupon, at 12 :45 p.m., the hearing in the a.boye-entitled matter w~ recessed, to recom-ene tomolTow, Thursday, ~Iarch 3, 1966, at 10 a.m. (The prepared statement and biography of Mr. Buckley follows:)
EDMOND C. BUCKLEY, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF TRACKING AND DATA AOQUISITIO:O;, NASA Edmond C. Buckley is Associate Administrator of NASA's Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition. To support space research activities he is resllOn;;:ible for planning, development, and directing the use of ground instrumentation systems. These include global tracking networks, data acquisition systems and faeilities which provide communication links to spacecraft engaged in NASA's unmanned scientific exploration of near Earth space through to the outer limits of the planets; Communieation and :\feteorologieal Satellites; and :\Ianned Space Flight programs. These systems also support the Department of Defense scientifie spaee programs and space programs of commercial and foreign entities. In addition, he also has staff responsibility for automatic data processing managementBuckley joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (predecessor to NASA) at the Langley Research Center, Langley Field, Va., in 1930. In 1943, he was named Chief of the Instrument Research Division. In this position he was responsible for the development and construction of electrical. mechanical, optical and electronic instruments used in wind tunnels, specialized laboratories and in-flight vehicles, including high-speed research airplanes and rockets. Buckley was largely responsil>ie for the development of the NASA Wallops Island, Va., rocket test area, and for the flight and ground instrumentation used at the NASA Flight Research Center, Edwards, Oalif. In 1959, he was named Assistant Director for Spaee Flight Operations at NASA headquarters with responsibilities similar to those of his present position. Under his direction, the Project Mercury, and Lunar and Inter-planetary networks were established and the Scientific Satellite Network was modernized and expanded. Similarly, he directed the establishment of the Gemini Network, the plans for the Apollo Network and, concurrently, the organization of a NASA world-wide cable and high frequency radio and satellite communication system linking the many stations to the Control Centers. Buckley was born in Fitchburg, Mass., in 1904. He earned a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1927. . He is a member of the Instrument Society of America, is on the Steering Committee of the Inter-Range Instrumentation Group, is Vice Chairman of the Spaee Flight Ground Environment Panel of the Aeronautics and Astronautic,", Coordinating Board, is Chairman of the U.S. section of the :\Iexico-Cnited States Commission for Space Observations and a member of the es. Working Group of the Committee for Spaee Research (Cospar) concerned with international space research activities. Mr. and Mrs. Buckley and their two children reside in Chevy Chase, Md.
STATEME:O;T OF EDMoxn C. Bl."CKLEY, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITIOX, XATIOXAL AERO:O;AUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before your committee to prf'~ent the Tracking and Data Acqui>dtion Program for fiscal year 1967 and to report on the progress which has been made in implementing the program approved in past years. REsPoNSmILITIES The Office of TrllC'ldng and Datll Acqui"ition provides ground instrumentation support for all XASA fiight projects I fig. If1l). Types of support provided are: (a) Tracking of spaCf'craft to df'termine their preCise location and trajectory in space;
410
XASA A"L""THORIZATIOX FOR FISCAL YLlli
1967
TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION
OBJECTIVE:
PROVIDE EFFECTIVE SUPPORT OF ALL NASA FLIGHT PROJECTS
TYPES OF SUPPORT
TRACKING. DATA ACQUISITION COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS DATA PROCESSING
FIGLRE
191
(b) Acquisition of scientific and techniclll data transmitted fr9ffi spacecraft ,ia telt'metry: (c) Tram'mission of commands from grou!ld stations to spacecraft for directing tbat spt'eifie fUlletioll~ be l1t'rformed: (d) Communicat.ion of Yoiet' information and data between ground stations and control et'nters: and (e) Proces~ing of acquired data into a usable form far real-time decisions by project pt'r~oIlIwl and l'0"tfiigbt analy"i': by sciE'ntlfic E'xperimE'nters. Projects snpportE'{1 indud" mannro ;;p3et'Craft. ':cientific and applications sat E'llitE's. lunar and planptary missions. !'ounding rockE't". and rE'searcb aircraft. Support also i, pro,ided for project~ of tbt' DE'partment of DE'fE'n>'e. otber Go,emmE'nt agE'ncit'>' sucb ai' tllt' En,ironmE'ntal SC'ience SE'ITicE's Administration (ESSA). corporations. and forE'ign C'otlIltriE'''. In addition to our rPsponsihilitiE's for !'upport of fligbt projects. thE' OfficE' of Traeking and Data Acqni"ition is as"ignE'{1 rE'sponsibilities rE'lated to thE' managE'ment of automatic data proceE'sing (ADP) resourcE'S within XASA.
ALTO~!ATIC
DATA PROCESSI:;G (ADP)
The computE'r bas bwn and will continuE' to bE' a ,ital rE';;eareb and operat.ional tool in thE' sueeE's~ful acC'omplh,bnlE'nt of all phasps of thE' "pacE' program. \Yithont thE' aid of computE'r". it would ha,E' bE't'n impossiblE' to con~i,e. dE'>'ign. tE'st. and opt'ratE' our prE'!'E'nt complE':x ~pact'Craft. A~ XASA E'nters into thE' opt'rational pha~E' of tbE' hig-hly ('omplE'x Ap(lllo program. and fntllrE' mi~~ions to and around thE' planpt~. E'ffpeti,E' applic'ation of thE' eomput'r \\ill OecomE' p,E'n more essE'ntial for pro,iding thE' gr'atE'r control and accuracy rE'{)uirro for mission
~u('('ess.
ComputE'r nsf''' E'xt'nd into E',E'ry pha~E' of our sparE' program. ThE' solution of complE'x ;;ci('ntific and ('ng-inpE'ring- problem'. data rE'dllC'tion. simulation. misf'ion control. and admini><!rati,E' applieation~ rPquirp,; thp u,e of eomputers. In addition to tbpst' familiar application" of ('omplltE'rs a" eompntational tools. eOillputpr;;: aI'' also utili.z'd in eommtmieations switching for th' rE'al-tim' rE'lay of
411
messages, tracking, and telemetry data required in the decisionmaking involved in assuring mission success and the safety of the astronauts. The increasing requirements for automatic data processing equipment, the constantly changing state of the art involving computer technology, the highly competitive nature of the computer manufacturing market, and the significant part of the NASA budget represented by computer costs have resulted in an acute awareness by general management of the need for close central control and coordination of the computing effort within NASA. To achieve this close control and coordination, responsibilities for management of ADP resources within NASA have been assigned as shown by figure 192. The Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition has been designated as the focal point within NASA on ADP matters with the specific responsibility for .recommending an agencywide annual plan to the Deputy Administrator for approval and implementation. In addition, the Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition has continuing responsibilities for coordinating requirements and for reviewing and evaluating, on a NASA-wide basis, all ADP acquisitions, utilization and reporting to insure compliance with NASA policies and plans. Although OTDA has been designated as the focal point on ADP matters, the funding requirements for ADP equipment are included within the budget of the appropriate institutional director having cognizance over the field installation affected. Institutional directors are responsible for the approval of requirements for compute.rs at their Centers and for the subsequent overall management of ADP resources required for the installations and programs under their cognizance. Field installations are responsible for planning their ADP needs and for requesting funds for implementation. They also are .responsible for the selection and acquisition of ADP equipment approved for their programs, and for the establishment of local procedures and controls to assure economical utilization.
NASA AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING (ADP) RESPONSIBILITIES

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF TRACKING & DATA ACQUISITION
POLICY & FINAL APPROVAL OF PLANS
FOCAL POINT FOR ADP RECOMMEND AGENCY-WIDE ANNUAL PLAN COORDINATE REQUIREMENTS REVIEW AND EVALUATE ADP UTILIZATION
INSTITUTIONAL DIRECTORS
.MANAGE THEIR ADP RESOURCES .SUDGET FOR APPROVED RESOURCES .REVIEW AND APPROVE REQUIREMENTS
FIELD INSTALLATIONS
.PLAN AND
VALIDATE REQUIREMEIITS
.SELECT AND ACQUIRE APPROVED EQUIPMENT ESTASLISH LOCAL CONTROL PROCEDURES PREPARE AND SUBMIT SPECIFIED REPORTS (UTILIZATION, ACQUISITION, DISPOSITION) NASA T 66-710
2-18-<>6
FIGURE 192
412
In fiscal year 1965, the NASA administrative operations budget was increased
to allow for purchase of those computers for which purchase was determined to be more economical than leasing. NASA made lease-purchase studies of its
ADP equipment and it was found that the large computer mainframes were the best buys. By the end of fiscal year 1967, 57 percent of the large general purpose computers used by NASA were purchased, and by the end of fiscal year 1966 this figure will increase to over 60 percent. The computers that were scheduled to be replaced before their breakeven points are still leased and most of these machines will be replaced by fiscal year 1968 by the new third generation computers because of the need for the increased capacity and greater input/output flexibility. Special purpose computers, because of their unique uses, are even more appropriate for purchase and, of these, over 90 percent are purchased. When these special purpose computers are added to the general purpose machines, NASA owned 64 percent of its computer mainframe componentry by the end of fiscal year 1965, and will own 79 percent by the end of fiscal year 1967. The large procurements in fiscal year 1965 have enabled NASA to maintain a reasonable rental and maintenance budget while expanding its capaeity some 60 to 70 percent to meet its growing requirements for mission control, data .reduction, and general computational needs. In purchasing computers, NASA has been faced with a rapidly changing purchase/lease policy from the manufacturers. Many manufacturers have changed their rental allowance toward purchase, their maintenance prices, and even extra-use charges. Our purchase plans have been modified as theRe changes occurred. For example, in January of 1965, a major producer announced a very liberal allowance (In rentals toward purehase of several of the second generation machines which drastically changed the breakeven points on some of our machines. A review indicated that it would be to our economic advantage to adjm,t our plans and re,mlted in the purchase of several maehines. This trend is still continuing as industry attempts to sell its older machines before produeing newer machines. Th!' requirements for AD!' services are still i1u'rpasing rallillly in NASA nR our missiom; become more eomplex and rplwh flight stntus. In fi:,wnl ~'par IBU;'. mission ('Dntrol and data reduction ae("ountpd for IpSR thnn riO percpnt of oUl' total genpral IHlI"J)OSp usps, but by fiscal year 1\)U7 these funetions will usp ovpr UO percent of thp total. Our installationR art' now uc-quiring third generation machinps to fill thpse innensed requirpments. Not only do these machinps have greater capacity at lower cost, but also they offpr nn opportunity to nchipye greatpr eflieipn('y by more cpntrulizntion. At the same time, they allow the closer man/lllal'hinp relationships that are needpd to effectively utilize computers.
GLOBAL INSTRUMENTATION NETWORK
To proYi<le effeeth'e support of flight projeets, NASA has eRtablishpd a worldwide network of tracking and data acquisition stations (fig. 193). This nptwork, at the prespnt time, consists of ground stations which are operational or under construction at 28 locations. The stations are loeated in the United Stlltps and 16 foreign countries and territories. They reprpsent a Cal}ital investment of over $600 million, and are operated by more than 2,500 highly traiIwd NASA, {"ontractor, and forpign national pprsolllipi. The Htntions are linked to each other and to control eentprs by an extrpmply reliable, high-capacity communications network (NASCOML Speeializpd p(JlliplllPnt is provided at field epilters for processing data acquired from f'PH('peraft. either in rpal time for spacpcraft control, or from tapes for rpduction and interpretation of scientific experiments and engineering data.
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
As you know, NASA's program achievements during the past year have been very significant. I am pleased to report that the traeking and data acquiRition support provided for flight programs dllring this period again met all pRtabliRhed NASA rpquirelllPnts as well as l'pqnirelllents for programs of other agE'llcips. During 1965, the network successfully supported all Gemini flights, eulminating in the unprecedented rendezvous of Gemini VII and VI in Deepmber of 196;"'; (fig. 194). The short time required to adapt the network for thi:,; mission demonstrated the inherent flexibility which has bepn designed into the nlllllllPd space flight support facilities. Through modification of station operating pro-
NASA AUTHORI ZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR
19 67
41 3
NASA TRACKING & DATA ACQUIS ITION STATIONS
OfIJ' V. f A.CfliliH
U.llUUI JIt, OUllU , n.t.O ... N)
FIGURE
193
cedur es and computer programs, t he n etwor k was able to su ppo r t the two m a nned spacec raft simultaneously. The exper ience gained by ground station personnel during the mission was ver y valuable, particularly wi th respect to cont r olling t he incr ementa l , elodty of one spacecr a ft in r ela tion to the ot her in pe r forming the r endez,ous m a nem er. In t he deep-spa ce a r ea, t he n et,york in 1965 successfully supported the :\larine r IV, R a nger YIII, a nd R anger IX missions. The high preCision of suppor t provided fo r the Ma riner I Y mission (fig. 195 ) permitted thc spacec raft to !Jass within 6 ,000 miles of "lars on July H. 1965, and to ta ke the first close-up pictures of t h e Ma rti an surface. After a fligh t of 325 million miles ta kin g 228 da ys, there was a deviation of only 1,000 miles f r om the pr ojected fly-by distance of 5,000 miles. The deep "pace facilities continued t o support the Ma riner IV spacecraft un til October 1, 1965, establish ing a new t w o-wa y communi cations reco rd of 191 million miles bet,,'een network station s and t he spa cec r a ft which is nearly 4 times the pr eyi ou s r eco rd set by the Ma riner II flight to Yen us in 19(\2. It was during this ]Jostencounter period that the 22 photogr aph s of Mars ,,-erl:> t r ansmitted back to Earth. Throughout t he crui se phase of t h e flig ht, as well as during the encounter, t he deep-space fa cilities r ecorded data from experi ments on board the spacecraft. Anoth er significant a chieyement of tbe Mariner I V missi on was the occultation experiment whi ch p r ovided data for analyzing t be d ensity of the Ma r tian atmo~phere. Ex cellent data were r eceiYed by the deep-space fa cilities as a r esul t of the precise tracking and timing accur acies that haye been inco rpora t ed into t he networ k. On January 4, 19(\6. the deep-space in~trum entati o n f acil ity at Goldstone. Calif., aga in receiYed a signal from t he Mariner IV spacecraft o yer a d ista nce of 216 million miles. It is planned t o r eestablish acti,e communi ca tion s in mid1967 \.-hen th e spacecraft r eturn s to within 30 million miles of earth. During the per iod Ma rin er 1\' \.- as en r oute to :\Iars , t he R anger YIII and R anger IX lllis~ions \ye r e la un ched in F ebruary and )Ia r ch 1963. respectiyel~-. In su ppo r ting :\l arine r ilnd R ilnger missi on s concurr ently. the deep space fa cili tiE'~ estilblished a precE'dent by demonstrating the ca pability of suppo rting more than one l1li~"ion at the Salllf' time. An illustrat ion or ~ u ece,,~ful Range r mission suppo rt is shown on figure 196. The p r eci~e ope ra tion of t h e facilities at Goldstone and th e control centE'r at
414
)(ASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
FIGURE
194
FIGURE
195
415
FIGURE
196
P asa dena wa s essential to the activation of the cameras an d to the accuracy achieved in impacting on the surface of the Moon. The highlight of the program was the transmission of live television pictures from the Moon on March 24, 1965. As illustrated by the chart, the pictures were r eceived from the Ranger IX by the deep space facility at Goldstone, tra n~mi tted by microwave to the Space Flight Operations Facility in Pasadena, and broadcast to t he world through commercial television media.
FUNDI NG REQUIREMENTS
T o continue the t ra cking and data acquisition program in fi scal year 1967. a total of $281 million is required ( fig. 197) - $279.3 million from th e r esea r ch and de.-elopment appr opri ation and $1.7 million f r om the construction of f acilities appropriation. The $279.3 million of R. & D. funds are composed of $199 million f or operation of network stations and r elated sen-i ces such as communications and data proces~ing . $66.5 million for equipment to su stain the capability of the network and provide the additional equipment and modification s necessary to meet anticipat ed workload and specific project r equ ir emen ts, and $13.8 million for supporting r esea r ch and technology. A number of changes hare occurred in the fiscal year 196.3 and fb cal yea r 1006 research and development program in the past ~ear. The fisca l year 1965 R . & D . program is no,,' $253.2 million. compared to $27-1.7 million as sho\Yt1 a year ago, and the fiscal year 1006 R. & D. program is 8231.1 million compa r ed t o the congressional authorization of $2-12.3 million. The reduction in the fiscal ~'ear 19U;) progr am r esulted from reprograming from R. & D. to C. of F. for Apollo tracking facilitie s, including the Bermuda FPQ-6 radar ca pabili ty for Sa t urn \' support. and from the reprograming of OTDA funds to the Office of _~dy a Jl c:e d R esearch and Technology for the S)l'AP-8 and 260-inch motor pr ojects. The decrease in fis cal yea r 1966 is the r esult of reprogra.l11ing R . &. D. funds to C. of F. to provide communications satellite terminals on three Apollo in,trumenratioll :;hips. This r equirement will be discu:;sed in greater detail later in my statement.
416
TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION PROGRAM
FUND REQUIREMENTS
(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) FY-65 FY-66 FY-67
eRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TOTAL R&D
$ 95.2
$129.6 $199.0 87.7 13.8 66.5 13.8 5279.3 51.7 5281.0
144.5 13.5
5253.2 5231.1 $18.0 $14.4
eCONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES
TOTAL R&D AND CofF
5271.2 5245.5
FIGURE
197
It will be noted that the total amount required for {'()uipmf'nt and facilities in fiscal year 1967 continues to decrease. This is llrimarily due to til!' fact that most of the large equipment procurements and ('ollstrudion projects for support of the Apollo program were funded in prior years. The equipments are now being installed in the network and are becoming operational together with the new and augmented facilities. Construction of facilities funds are requested for only two projects in fiscal year 1967. One is a 40-foot antenna to be installed at Goddard Space Flight Center for use in the evaluation, development, and testing of equipment and components, and for conducting compatibility testH bf'tween ground and spacecraft syst('ms. 'l'he other facilities projPct iH the installation of a badly lleedeu watpr distribution system and additions to the sewage disposal system at the large tracking and data acquisition complex at Goldstonp, Calif. The availability of the udllitiollal equiplllellt and fa('ilitiPH in the nl't.worl{ is l'e/leded in the in('l'paseH whkh are o(,(,Ul'l'illg ill til<' cost of operatiolls. The large increase in operations cost from fiscal year 1966 to fi,:,wal year 1967 is due primarily to the following factors: (/) Apollo instrulll!'lItation ships and aircraft will bt'cump OllPrationai: (b) Staffing of the network stations is increasing for support of tilP, Apollo program; (c) Lunar and planetary program support r{,(!uirenwllts are increasing; (d) The scientific and applications satellite support workload is illl'reasing; and (e) Additional communications services are required primarily for support of the Apollo program. The remainder of illY statement will include elaboration 011 the;.;e faeton<.
APOI,LO INSTRUMENTATION SHIPS
Figure 198 Hhows the schedule for five ships "'hil'h are heing nlOdilil'd and instrumented to operate as integral stationH of the networ\{ during l'riti<-al phases of Apollo flights when i:lpacecraft are out of sight of land stationi:l.
417
FIGURE
198
Three of the ships. Vanguard, Redstone, and M ercury. are con\'er s ions 0 T-2 tanker hulls for suppor t of the insertion of the Apollo ~pa ccc raft intI Earth-orbit and the injection into the translunar trajectory. These ships wil be deployed in tilt' Atla nti c. Indian, and P acific (keans. The other tw o ships, the 1rat ertou'/l and t he HUllt srille, are being modified for coverage of the reentry pbase when Apollo spacecraft return to Earth from the :\1 00n for a Pa cific Ocean water landing. This capability is being IJl'o\'irled by an extensiYe modernization and equipmenr updating of t\\'o '!5.')-foot s hip~ which had pre\'iously been in service with very limited instrumentation ca pabiliti e~ .
R esponsibility for management of the ships construction program is a. ~ igned to the In strumentation Ships Project Office OS1'O) \"hkh \\'a ' e"tablished e"pecially f or this project directly under tbe Chief of :\"a"al :\Ia terial. The ISPO is headed by a senior :\"a \':I' officer . Capt. Alex F. Hancock. \"ith :\"ASA and C.S. Air F orce deputy managers, and draws upon the :\"a\y. :\"ASA. and tbe Air F or ce f or staffing and technical support.. I would like to add tbat Caprain H ancock and bis as~ociates are doing an excellent job in conducting thi" prog ram and I feel we are im\eed for tunate in baYing bim as head of thi~ Office. The contra ct for the tOl1Yersion of t.he three T-2 (anker~ n'a" a\\'arded in t:;eptember 100-1 to the Electronics Di\' ision of General DynaJll ic~ Corp. Structural work on the ships. procu rem ent of in"trumentation equipment. and installation of the equipment proceeded e~ ~ent.ially on ~c hedul e during ]~)(i .) . The photog-raph at the top of figure 199 shows a T\'- 2 tanker hulll ea ying th e James Ri\er. \'a .. resen 'e fleet area in ]l)(H. The photo!!raph a t the bottom "ho\"" tht' l'an(fllanl as it was fl oated our of tht' construeii on drydock at Q\linc~. :\la;:s .. 1 year later. During that year. th e hull ,,'as cut into three pit'Ces and a ne\" midb od ~ "eetion. 7:,\ feet longe r than the remo\'ed tank section. \,as installed. The new mid"edion is ~pecitically designed and ar r anged f or 1111' instrumentation eq uipnlPnt \\'hiC'h is 1I 0W being il1~tallf'd. The l"aJ/(/unl'll has no\\' ('Olll ' pleted it" preliminal'.Y ~t'a tri a b and in;:trulllentatioll te:'ting. ch'('k ont. :llld systelll~ integrati oll are getting und e l'\Ya~.
418
,
T-2 TANKER AND APOLLO TRACKING SHIP CONVERSION
FIGURE
199
Conversion work on the two reentry ships is being performed by Ling-TemcoVought, Inc., under a contract awarded in March 1965. The shipyard work is Jelng done at Avondale Shipyard, New Orleans. Figure 200 shows the damage ;suffered by the Huntsville and Watertown in September 1965 when Hurricane Betsy struck the New Orleans area. The ships' schedule has been delayed about 2 months as a r esult of the hurricane damage but this is not expected to be critical for the support of the Apollo program. The cost to repa ir the damage is estimated at $2.4 million, part of which was available in the project and the remainder of which was made available through cost savings achieved in the procurement of certain items of manned space flight support equipment. The instrumentation ships will be operated for NASA by the National R ange Division of the Air Force with contract technical cr ews and Navy's Military Sea Transportation Service civil service ship crews. Referring again to figure 198, it will be noted that testing and evaluation of the ships and instrumentation sys tems will begin on the Vanguard in June 1966. Apollo mission support will be provided by the ships during part of the checkout period and a ll ships will be fully operational and deployed on-site as required for Apollo by mid-1967. Agreement h as been r eached with the Department of Defense on joint funding for the maintenance and operation of the Apollo instrumentation ships and air craft. This agreement provides for sharing of the cost s on the basis of the estimated proporti on of use of the ships and aircraft for support of NASA a nd DOD projects. In fiscal year 1967, NASA will fund about $14 million of a $17 million total cost for operating the ships.
APOLLO/RANGE INSTRUMENTATION AIRCRAFT (A/RIA)
Instrumented aircraft (fig. 201) will be u sed for the Apollo lunar missions to provide telemetry covera ge and voice co mmuni cat ions with the astronauts during the critica l period when the spacecraft is being inject ed into the traj ectory to
419
APOLLO REENTRY SHIPS
HURRICANE DAMAGE & SALVAGE OPERATIONS
HUNTSVILLE
WATERTOWN
N"'SA T 00-350
2-1-<.6
FIGURE
200
APOllO
INSTRUMENTED AIRCRAFT (TYPE C-135)
FIGUllE
201
420
the Moon. The aircraft also will be used to provide supplementary support in the reentry phase. The high degree of mobility afforded by aircraft is needed because the point of injection will vary from day to day, depending upon the time of launch and the position of the Moon with respect to the Earth. Eight aircraft are required to provide the necessary coverage. The Air Force is providing C-135 aircraft from inventory to be modified for this purpose. The modifications are bl'ing done under the overall management of thl' National Range Division (NRD) of the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) to detailNI tl'chniral specifications developed by NASA. Supervisory responsibility for the project has been assigned to the Air Force Electronic Systems Division at Hanscom Field, Mass. In April 1965, fixed-price contracts for the Project Definition Phase were awarded to two contractors selected by NASA and DOD from nine firms submitting proposals. Based upon a joint NASA and DOD evaluation of the plans submitted Ly the two contractors, a fixed-pricl'-incentive contract for modification of the aircraft and installation of instrumentation was awarded in October 1965 to a contractor team composed of Douglas Aircraft Oorp. and Bendix Radio Division. The first two aircraft are scheduled to be operational early in 1967 with all aircraft to be fully operational by the end of 1967. During 1965, a suppleml'nt to the joint agreement between NASA and DOD on design, acquisition, and modification of the Apollo 'aircraft was executed which provides for cost sharing in this project. NASA is funding the overall instrumentation and communications modifications, and DOD is funding some additional optical equipment required for DOD use. This results in a funding ratio of approximately 95 percent for NASA and 5 percent for DOD. With respect to operating costs, NASA will pay all such costs in fiscal year 1967 since the aircraft will not be used for support of DOD projects during this period.
APOLLO SUPPORT STATIONS
Many of the stations being used for Gemini support will also be used for Apollo. CapaLilities are being added at the;;e stations while other stations are being estaLlishpd. This will result in the nl'twork shown in figure 202. The nptwork for support of manned lunar Allollo missions will consist of 10 fixl'd land stations with aO-foot antpnnas, 3 stations with R5-foot antennas, 1 transportable station, 5 instrulllentation ships, and 8 instrumentation aircraft. In addition, three S5-foot antenna stations normally Uill'd for deep space missions will be used fOl' support of Apollo. The schedule for implementing these major augmentations to the network is shown in summary form by figure 203. Our efforts are directed toward having the network fully qualified for lunar mission support by late 1967. Substantial progress toward this goal wus madl' during 1965 in the construetion of facilities and we are prl'sl'ntly well underway with installation and eheckout of station eqUipment. Thl'sc aetivities will continue in 1966 along with testing of the new unified S-band equipment and initial operational use. At this time, construction has been completed at 7 of the 10 fixed 30-foot antenna stations at Guam; Carnarvon, Australia; Bermuda; ASl~nsi()n Island; Guaymas, Mexi('O; Hawaii; and Cape Kennedy, Fla. Equipment installation and eheckout at these stations are now underway and will be completl'd in 1906. Construction at the other th.rl'e aO-foot antenna stations at Corpus Christi, Tex. ; Antigua; and Canary Island, will proceed in 1966 so that all of these stations will be opl'rational in 1967. Figure 204 shows a typical 30-foot antenna statioll under con~truction. This is the Guam station in December 1965 showing till' antenna, thl' operations buildin~. and the powerplant. Facilitil's with 85-foot-diameter antennas are being established at Goidstoill', Calif.; Canberra, Australia; and Madrid, Spain, for support of Apollo during lunar phases of the missions. Figurl' 205 illustrates thl'se stations with a schedule for their implpml'ntntion. During 1965, necessary agreeml'nt,; wprl' sign I'd with the Australian and Spanish Govl'rnments, and construction is now underway at all three stations to meet opprational dates in mid-1007. A significant buildup of operating personnel required to staff the mannl'd space flight support stations is prl'sently underway. This Luildup will continul' through fiscal year 1967 and is refleetpd in the manned space flight opprationH budget. Additional staffing will be rp<}uirl'd at existing stations for ('omhined Gemini/Apollo support and substantial staffing complements will be nl'eessary as new facilities become operational.
KASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 19 67
421
FIGU RE
202
FIGURE 203
422
FIGURE
204
MANNED SPACE FLIGHT SUPPORT 85 FT. DIAMETER ANTENNA SITES
HARDWARE IMPLEMENTATION
NETWORK TEST l OPERATIONAL USE
CANBERRA GOLDSTONE MADRID ,
~::::=~~~~=
CY 66
STATION SCHEDULE
CY 67
FIGURE
205

LUNAR AND
PL.A...~ETARY
423
PROGRAM SUPPORT
The workload on deep space instrumentation fa cilities will increase in 1966 and especially in 1967 ( fig. 2(6 ) . Pioneer VI was launched December 16, 1965, a nd this will be followed by four more flights which will r equire support tbrougb 1968. Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter missions are scheduled to begin later this year with support extending into 1968. In 1967, support also will be required for the planned Mariner mission to Venus and for r eacquisition of the Mariner IV spacecraft as it nears tbe Earth. The effect of the .Apollo program also must be taken into consideration in our planning since deep space fa cilities will be used for backup support during Apollo lunar missions. In anticipation of this workload, two deep space fa cilities, authorized by Congress in prior years, r ecently became operational. Figure 207 shows photographs of these new facilities at Madrid, Spain, and Oanberra, Australia. In 1966, the first 210-foot Advanced Antenna System located at GDldstone, Calif., will become operational (fig. 208). This fa cility offers an overall tenfold improvement in telecommunications support over tbat a chievable with the present 85-foot antenna fa cilities. It is planned to use the Goldstone 210-foot antenna for operational support of certain phases of tbe Pioneer, Surveyor, and other flight missions wbere telecommunications with the present facilities are marginal and if these phases occur at tbe time tbe spacecraft is visible from this single facility. However, the greatest benefit from the 210-foot antenna will occur when a three-station network is ava ilable to provide tbis increased support capability on a 24-earth-bour basis. In addition, specialized project equipment is being installed at selected network stations and tbe capacity Qf tbe Space Fligbt Operations Facility at Pasadena is being expanded. For example, special telemetry p rocessing equipment was installed at tbe stations which a r e supporting Pioneer, ground photographic reconstruction equipment is being provided to tbe stations which will support Lunar Orbiter, and special command and data console equipment is being installed at Surveyor support stations.
FIGURE
206
59-941 0--66--28
424
ADDED FACILITIES FOR DEEP SPACE SUPPORT

[OPERATIONAL 1965)
MADRID. SPAIN
CANBERRA . AUSTRALIA
FIGURE 207
GOLDSTONE 210 FOOT DIAMETER ANTENNA CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED
IIfOATII In DHP SPAc( 1111. . SCIIMO _
1.
FIGURE 208
425
T he fiscal yea r 1967 budget reflects the additional costs of operating and maintaining these new facilities and equipment augmentations r equired to support the pr ojected lunar and planetary program support workload.
SCIENTIFIC A ND APPLICATIONS SATELLITE SUPPORT
The unm anned satellite support fa cili ties of the NASA tracking and data acquisition network support a wide variety of NASA, DOD, and international space progr ams. As shown by figure 209, the average number of scientific and applications satellites supported by the network continues to increase. During 1965, an average of 32 satellites was supported at any given time. This included satellites launched in prior years which were still transmitting useful data plus new satellites launched in 1965 such as TIROS L~ and X, Orbiting Sola r Observator y II, Or biting Geophysical Observatory II, the Early Bird commercial communications satellite, the FR-l French cooperative satellite, and several Explorer s. In 1966, the average number of satellites to be supported is expected to increase to more than 35, and in 1967 it is estimated to exceed 40. These spacecraft collecti,ely will contact network stations more than 650 times daily. Among the new satellites to be supported in 1966 will be the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory, the Biosatelli te, and the Applications Technology Satellite. The incr easing number of satellites is only one of the reasons for the growing workload of the satellite support facilities. Other factors a re the greater number of scientific experiments carried by the newer satellites, which r esults in more t ransmitted data , a nd the more complex contr ol features which must be commanded from ground stations. The t rend toward higher and more elliptical or bits is also a considerati on since they increase the time a ground station views the satellite and r eceives data. Planning for the modification and augmentation of satellite support fa cilities is a continuing process in r esponse to the requirements of indi vidual projects
SATELLITE PROGRAM SUPPORT

1. NASA SUPPORTS A VARIETY OF SATELLITES 2. SUPPORT STILL INCREASING BECAUSE OF MORE;
e SATElLlTES ,~',,,,-,, e EXPERIMENTS PER SATEllITE CONTROL COMPLEXITY VIEW TIME PEIl SATELLIT
~4i~:]~11 DOD
INTERNATIONAl APPLICATIONS NUMBER Of SATELLITES SCIENTIFIC
FY-65
FY -66
FY 67 (EST. )
FIGURE
209
426
as well as the total workload. Not only does this planning indicate where additional capabilities are needed, but it also points up areas where consolidation is possible, thereby effecting cost savings with little or no impact on the suppor t offered. Figure 210 shows major changes in satellite support facilities accomplished in 1965 and planned for 1966. During 1965, an 85-foot antenna data acquisition facility was completed at Canberra, Australia, and a range and range rate system was added at the Tananarive, Madagascar, station, both to improve southern hemisphere coverage. Also in 1965, a second 85-foot antenna facility was completed at Rosman, N.C., to handle the increasing workload of that s tation . . During 1966, additional range and range rate fa cilities will be installed at existing stations at Fairbanks, Alaska, and Santiago, Chile. In Australia, the consolidation of Woomera facilities with Canberra, already partially accomplished, will be completed. Also scheduled for 1966 are deactivations of the stations at Blossom Point, Md., and East Grand Forks, Minn. At the Goldstone and Rosman stations, facilities are being modified and equipment is being installed in preparation for support of the Applications Technology Satellite (ATS). These augmentations will be completed in 1966. Figure 211 is a photograph of the station at Rosman, N.C., showing both 85foot antennas, the operations buildings, and supporting facilities. The antenna in the background is the primary scientific satellite data acquisition antenna. In the foreground is the second Rosman antenna which will provide specialized ATS support as well as support of other unmanned scientific satellites. While we have been able to effect cost savings through co nsolidation and closing of stations, the increasing scientific and applications satellite workload has resulted in a general increase in the cost of operating and m!jintaining the network stations. Along with the increasing workload of the network, there has been a corresponding increase in the volume of data to be processed. This inCludes both telemetr y and tracking data.
FIGURE
210
427
TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION STATION-ROSMAN N.C .
FIGURE 211
Normally, telemetry data are received and recorded on magnetic tapes at the network stations. The tapes are then shipped to the Goddard Space Flight Center where the data from the various experiments on a spacecraft are separ ated and placed in computer format so that each experimenter r eceives his data, together with time, orbi t parameters, and spacecraft attitude, if required , f or analysis. From a time near the very beginning of the space program until the end of calendar year 1963, data were being collected faster than they could be processed. At that time, the data processing capacity was increased to the e.\:tent t ha t the backlog of data could be eliminated and all data processing was on a current basis. Data are now being processed at a rate in excess of 100 million data points per day and are being supplied to the experimenters in 3 to 6 weeks after collection. Tracking data must be processed to compute the orbits for all spa'CeCraft supported. This workload has increased from 16 satellites in 196-1 to an estimated 4() to 45 in 1967. This workload has been further incr eased by the fact that many spacecraft are placed in highly elliptical rather than circular orbits.
COMMUNICATI ONS
During the past year, mu ch effor t has been directed towa rd meeting the com muni cations requirements of the Apollo progr am ( fig. 212). In Project Mercury, when comm unications to the contr ol center could not be maintained. the r elatiYely small amount of critical data could be monitored, interpreted, and utilized at r emote tracking stations by trained, on-site flight controller s. The same situation generally preYails in the Gemini program. although the increased amount of data has required the installation at each key station of a data processing system to digest, summarize, and display inform ation r equir ed f or real-time decisions.
428
For the extremely complex Apollo lunar missions, real-time operational control will be maintained in the mission control center where large scale data processing fa cili ties and technical specialists will support the flight director in exercising mission control. This requires fully reliable communications links to all land stations and ships. For Apollo, communications must be markedly increased to provide the required centralized real-time control. These circuits will pass to the mission control center essential data such as the status of propulsion, electri cal pawer , life support systems; reports of critical events such as staging and engine ignition ; and, of course, vital voice communi'c ations and track ing data. The <'ircuits will also provide for the transmissions of commands to the spacecraft~ There are six stations planned for Apollo support that presently do not have the requisite communications capability for Apollo. From the results of studies conduct ed with the National Communications System (NCS), it became evident that the Apollo communications requirements could not be met by conventional Rystems alone, but could be met through use of a communications satellite system (fig. 213). In June 1965, NASA requested the manager of the NOS to initiate discussions with the Communications Satellite Corp. to determine whether it could provide the required service. A proposal was submit ted by the Communications Satellite Corp. and evaluated 'b y a joint NCS working group. As a result of this evaluation, the Secretary of Defense, who is the executive agent of the NOS, authorized NASA to act as agent for the NCS in negotiating with the Communications Satellite Corp. for vhe required communications services. These negotiations are still in process. Communications satelli.te services will be provided to the three land stations at Canary Island, Ascensi6n, and Carnarvon, Australia, and to three instrumentation ships. To receive this service, the ships must be equipped with communications terminals. Funds have been reprogramed for this purpose and negotiations with the ship contractor have been completed to incorporate these changes.
FIGURE 212
429
COMMUHICATlON COVERAGE FOR APOllO
FIGURE
213
Funds for communications satellite services are included in the fiscal year 1967 budget request under communications operations. Increased funds also are required for additional conventional communications circuits in support of Apollo as well as for unmanned missions. In addition. the fiscal year 1967 budget reflects a full year's cost for many of the Apollo circuits planned for installation during the latter part of fiscal year 1966.
OONSTRUCTlON OF FACILITIES
The water distribution and sewage disposal system construction of facilities project is requested this year to provide the growing Goldstone, California, station complex with an ample water supply to llleet the demands of the increased technical equipment and the projected increase of personnel over' the next several years; and to provide the needed impro,ements to existing sanitation facilities. Four major new operartonal facilities (the 210-foot advanced antenna system, the Apollo 85-foot antenna facility, the deep space backup facility for Apollo, and the ATS support augmentation) will shortly l:){> acti,e at .the already busy Goldstone complex. These additional demands on the wat('r system plus the normal projected growth of existing activities clearly indicate that the existing operation of importing water to the Goldstone facilities by tank truck is relatively costly and burdensome. The pipeline water distrillution system proposed ~ill tie into the Fort Irwin water supply system and will utilize, on a prorated reimbursable basis, the water resources of that DOD establishment. The 4O-foot antenna test bed construction of facilities project "ill provide the engineering laboratories of the Goddard Space Flight Center at Greenbelt, lId., with the.necessary antenna equipment for performing field tests and evaluations of improved data acquisition and control systems prior to the integration of these systems into operational satellite support facilities; and for the determination and evaluation of radio fre<luel1cy compatibility between the spacecraft and ground data systems prior to spacecraft final configuration and launch.
430
The major equipments to be procured consist of an antenna reflector and mount, with necessary antenna drive and servo systems. Prototype electronic systems (such as antenna feeds, parametric amplifiers, tracking receivers, etc.) previously developed, or to be made available from approved equipment development projects, will be utilized with this antenna equipment to provide an operable testing capability. This antenna test bed facility will be located at the Engineering and Test Facility at Goddard. The project will include the necessary additions to that facility to support the antenna installation.
MANPOWER
Of the 34,524 NASA personnel authorized in fiscal year 1966, approximately 831 are directly chargeable to the tracking and data acquisition program. In addition, 448 personnel at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are assigned to the tracking and data acquisition program for a total of 1,279 NASA and Jl'L personnel. Figure 214 shows the distribution of these personnel among the field centers and NASA headquarters. These NASA and JPL employees plan and manage the worldwide network of tracking and data acquisition facilities. The actual operation and maintenance of the stations and control centers are done primarily by contractor personnel in the United States and by foreign nationals in most other countries. As shown in flgure 214, the number of direct personnel required for the tracking and data acquisition program will remain essentially unchanged in fiscal year 1967 except for Goddard Space Flight Center. At Goddard, an increase of 122 direct personnel plus 60 indirect personnel to perform administrative and other supporting functions is required to plan, manage, and control the tracking and data acquisition facilities for the manned space flight program. Funds for these personnel are included in the administrative operations budget of the (j)ffice of Space Science and Applications since Goddard Space Flight Center is ur.der the institutional ma~agement of that office.
TRACKING & DATA ACQUISITION NASA DIRECT MANPOWER
r--,
r--1
r---,
I I I I I I
364
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
448
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
448
I I I I I I I I
62 39
37
61 39
37
20
6
21
6
HEADQUARTERS WALLOPS STATION FRC LRC MSFC NASA T 66-711 REv. ?-?4~6
1965
FISCAL YEARS
FIGURE
214
431
During the fall of 1965, a very detailed study was conducted by GOOdilrd of the manpower required for manned space flight support. The results of the study were reviewed by all le,els of NASA management and by the Bureau of the Budget. As finally approved, the study indicated that an increase of 235 NASA positions was required at Goddard to assure adequate support of the Gemini and Apollo programs in addition to 33 positions which had already been transferred from other programs within the Center. Subsequent deferral of the Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory project made available 53 more positions reducing the total required to 182. Review by NASA general management of tatal agency manpower indicated that the remainder of the critical positions could not be provided from existing resources. The 182 additional positions have been very carefully screened to assure that they will be used only for key program responsibilitieS-reserving to contractors those tasks which can be accomplished by such forces working under Government contract. The significant increase in contractor personnel required for Apollo support was discussed earlier. The NASA employees will be assigned to such functions as contract management, program control, mission planning, performance analysis, operations documentation, inspection and acceptance of procured equipment, supervision of facilities construction, and station management. I assure the committee that the positions requested are the minimum required to insure adequate tracking and data acquisition support of the Gemini and Apollo programs.
NASA./DOD COOPERATION
Much was accomplished during the past year in the coordination of plans, programs, and opreations with the Department of Defense (fig. 215). A comprehensive agreement concerning land-based tracking, data acquisition, and communications facilities was reached between NASA and DOD, providing for improved planning coordination, single-agency management of logistics support and operations at collocated stations, and other measures to assure efficient utilization of the ground instrumentation facilities of both agencies in support of the national space program. As a result of the agreement, the Air Force will provide base support for the Apollo stations at Ascension Island and Antigua. The agreement also prescribes procedures for coordination of planning to assure that the netWQrk planning and development of each agency take into account the requirements of the other. Another part of the agreement states general operating poliCies and gives a framework for establishing procedures for operational cross-servicing to assure fuJI utilization of each agency's resources. I have already discussed the agreements which were reached with the Department of Defense on the sharing of costs on Apollo aircraft and ships. Also during the past year, operational responsibility for three tracking stations was transferred from DOD to NASA. These three stations, at present heavily involved in support of the Gemini program, are located at Canton Island; Corpus Christi, Tex.; and KauRi, Hawaii With respect to facilities, the continuing coordination in planning and the exchange of technical information between NASA and DOD have been instrumental in assuring that we have no unwarranted duplication of tracking and data acquisition facilities. Each agency keeps the other fully informed of its instrumentation planning and capabilities, beginning at an early stage, through briefings arranged under the auspices of the Space Flight Ground Environment Panel (SFGEP), through the actions of the Network Plans Sub-Panel and the Development Sub-Panel of SFGEP, and other joint technical groups. In addition, there is continuing day-to-day contact between technical personnel and managers in my office and in Goddard Space Flight Center for NASA, and in .the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), the Air Force National Range Division, and the Eastern and Western Test Ranges for the Department of Defense. As a result, each agency, in formulating its own plans and requirements, has been able to take into account existing capabilities and plans of the other agency and thereby make full use of existing facilities for cross support. For example, NASA has used down-range facilities of the Eastern Test Range to provide tracking and telemetry support of the parking orbit and early postinjection phases of the Ranger, Mariner, and Centaur flights. In some cases, this involved augmenting the DOD range facilities with some NASA-furnished instrumentation. We, of course, followed this same policy in establishing the ground facilities for support of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. DOD C-band radars, telemetry, and communications facilities constitute a vital part of the manned space flight support capability.
432
NASAOOD COOPERATION
TRANSFER FROM DOD TO NASA OF STATIONS AT:

HAWAII CANTON ISLAND CORPUS CHRISTI
FIGURE
215
In the case of DOD programs which require NASA facilities, corresponding policies are followed. The MOL project has requirements for ship support which might be met by the new Apollo ship instrumentation. A joint NASA and DOD committee is currently reviewing the Apollo and MOL requirements for this support and the resulting workload, scheduling, and deployment problems to determine if the existing ship resources are adequate for support of both programs.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have described what we have accomplished in the way of support, the trends in the deployment of resources and how we have employed existing resources in terms of operations, equipmE'nt, and facilities to provide tracking and data acquisition support. To provide such a support ('apabiIity, extensive planning and a dE'liberate, orderly implementation effort are rE'quired. We have established, and' are continuing to implement, E'quipmE'nt and facilities that are adaptable and fiE'xible. ConSE'quently, we are able to draw heavily on existing capabilities and stations to support new missions. Ry using such an approach in planning and implementation, we have been able to achieve a high degree of network reliability using proven equipmE'nt and techniques. The efficiency of such an approach is refiected in our ability to procure equipment and facilitiE's on an almost totally fixed-price basis. The results can also be noted in the record of meeting support requirements on time and in the proper manner. With the increasing emphasis on operations, the same orderly planning and implementation approach is being applied. Station staffs are being established and supplemented in a scheduled and deliberate manner. O{)(,rational procedures are continually under review for impact upon station workload and staffing. Careful consideration of these and other factors affecting operations will continue to be given priority in making the network an efficient support element in the Nation's space program. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

THURSDAY, llABCH 3, 1966
U.S. SENATE, CoMMITl'EE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES,
Washington, D.O. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :05 a.m., in room 235, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Anderson, Young, Cannon, Smith, and Jordan. Also present: James J. Gehrig, staff director; William J. Deachman, Everard H. Smith, Jr., Craig Voorhees, Dr. Glen P. Wilson, professional staff members; Donald H. Brennan, research assistant; Mary Rita Robbins, clerical assistant; Mrs. Eilene Galloway, special consultant to the committee; Frank Krebs, assistant to Senator Cannon, and Sam Bouchard, assistant chief clerk. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Today we hear from Dr. Mac Adams, Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and from Mr. Harold Finger, Director of Nuclear Systems and Space Power, NASA, and Director of the Space Nuclear Systems Division, AEC. Dr. Adams, the committee would like to welcome you in your first appearance before this committee and to receive your testimony. (The biography of Dr. Adams follows:)
DR.
MAC
c.
ADAMS, AsSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, ADVANCED RESEARCH AND TEcHNOLOGY
Dr. Mac Carter Adams is responsible for the planning, execution and evaluation of all NASA research and technological programs conducted in advanced concepts, structures, components and systems having possible application to the national objectives in aeronautics and space. Dr. Adams was appointed to his position on October 4, 1965. He directs a Headquarters staff of the Office of Advanced Research and Technology in Washington, D.C., and NASA field centers engaged primarily in research. They are the Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.; Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.; Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio; Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif.; Electronics Research Center, Cambridge, Mass.; and the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office jointly operated by NASA and the Atomic Energy Commission. The staff of the OART organization totals more than 12,000 employees. Before joining NASA, Dr. Adams was Vice President and Assistant General Manager for Space Systems of the Avco Research and Advanced Development Division, in Wilmington, Mass. In this position he managed the company's space programs, including contracted activities, company-sponsored research, and the planning and acquisition of facilities. He had held that post since it was created in 1963.
433
434
His employment with Avco began in 1955 with the inception of the Everett Research Laboratory, serving as Technical Director, and later Deputy Director. He organized and directed the research program. and made significant contributions of his own in the fields of high-altitude aerodynamics, heat transfer, reentry of hypersonic vehicles into the earth's atmosphere and associated physical processes such as ablation and radiation. Dr. Adams played a major role in the development of the theory which determines the type of ablating material and predicts the amount needed for the nose cones of spacecraft and ballistic missiles. In 1960 he was named one of the Nation's 10 outstanding young men by the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce. In that year he was appointed Associate Technical Director of the Avco Division in Wilmington, initially responsihle for all enginl'ering and research activities involving a staff of 2,500. In 1962 he was appointed Vice President and Technical Director of the Division. Prior to his work with Avco, Dr. Adams was an aerodynami<'ist with the Douglas Airraft Co. from 1953 to 1955, in Santa Monica, Calif. He was engaged in design and analysis of stability and control features of helicopters, and conducted similar work for the Sparrow missile. He began his professional career with the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (now NASA's Langley Research Center) as an aeronautical engineer, from 1949 to 1951. He conducted theoretical and experimental studies of supersonic flows on wings and missile body configurations. He was born January 3, 1925, in Gretna, Va. He is married to the former Jane Krist, of Ithaca, N.Y., and has three children. He attended the University of Virginia for 1 year, then completed his education at Cornell University, receiving a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering in 1946, and M.S. and Ph. D. in aeronautical engineering in 1949 and 1953 respectively. Dr. Adams is a member and director-at-large of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He is past chairman of AL~A's Entry Vehiclps Committee and has served as a member of the Aerospace Technical Council of the Aerospace Industries Association. He ser\'ed for many years as a member of a NASA Research Advisory Committee on Space Vehicle Aerodynamics and was chairman of that group from 1962 to 1965. He has published 25 pa,pers in technical and scientific journals.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. MAC C. ADAMS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, ADVANCED RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIS H. SHAPLEY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NASA; BOYD MYERS II, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR OPERATIONS, OART; A. O. TISCHLER, DIRECTOR, CHEMICAL PROPULSION, OART; AND CHARLES W. HARPER, DIRECTOR, AERONAUTICS
Dr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is my privilege to appear before you to present the advanced research and technology portion of the NASA budget request. I have a written statement to submit for the record (see p. 480) and a summary which I would like to make at this time. When I assumed the responsibility of the Office of Advanced Research and Technology last October, I found a strong program in progress. We have shaped our fiscal year 1967 request to continue this progress in the advancement of aeronautical and space technology for future missions.

AERONAUTICAL-SPACE OBJECTIVES
435
Aeronautical and space objectives share many requirements in common; our program takes advantage of this commonality and thus provides a broad engineering base for many future applications. In addition, an important objective of the program is to assist in the solution of problems arising from on-going development projects carried out within the total Government structure. The OART program not only develops and communicates new technology, it also increases national capability through research carried out by Government~ university, and industry groups. The fiscal year 1967 OART budget is $499.4 million. The budgets for Research and Development, Construction of Facilities, and Administrative Operations, that make up this total, are shown for 3 fiscal years (fig. 216). Also shown are the total positions in the five Research Centers--Langley, Ames, Lewis, Flight, and Electronics. The increase is for ERC and will bring their total complement to
1,000.
The eight major programs of OART are grouped under the headings of Aeronautics, Space, and Discipline (fig. 217). The Aeronautics program is devoted to research and technology for all types of aircraft. The Space effort consists of the Space Vehicle System, Chemical Propulsion, Nuclear Rockets, and Space Power and Electric Propulsion. In the Discipline group are Basic Research, Human Factors and Electronic Systems. The sum of R. & D. Construction of Facilities, and AO, for each of the three major groups, is compared for 3 fiscal years (fig. 218). The "other" is that portion of administrative operation spent to manage work of NASA Program Offices other than OART, and hence is not directly applicable to the OART R. & D. programs. OART
NASAOART BUDGET
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
600
531
TOTAL
483
500
tZ;
I I I
400
331
R&D
POS IT HiNS
(IN THOUSANDS)
18
300
12,597
12,964 12,671
AO
200
175
181
12
r
I I I I I I
\
I I I I I I
65
66
67
FISCAL YEARS
NASA R 65-2356 REV. 1-24-<>6
FIGum: 216
436
FIGURE
217
receives similar benefits from other program offices for work managed for OART at other Centers. The increase in the Aeronautics and Discipline groups are accompanied by a decrease in the Space group. We are proposing a net increase In the OART budget of $16.2 million. It should be pointed out that the delineation of our work by the three groups does not reveal the applicability of technology from one group to anoth~r. For example, we estimate conservatively that $30 million in the DIscipline and Space Groups is also applicable to the Aeronautics proo-ram. This raises the total aeronautics effort, in effect, from $94 to $124 million. More generally, I would note that the increase in the aeronautics budget reflects a concerted effort to strengthen our facilities position in support of air breathing propulsion and V / SrO L research. The increase in the research discipline will give added strength in these important program areas which underlIe both the aeronautics and space groups. I will now briefly dlSC USS the major programs, describe some highlights, and mention significant program changes between fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967.
AERONAUTICS PROGRAM
The Aeronauti cs program (fig. 219) is aimed at achi eving the tech nology required for all types of airCl'aft that span the speed and distance spectrum. These include verti cal and short takeoff and landing or V/ STOL, and ai rcraft for subsoni c, supersonic, and hypersonic flight. The technical effort includes investigations of the key prob-
437
OART PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION

R&D
+C
313
of F + AO
SPACE GROUP
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
J
DISC I Pli NE GROUP
AERONAUTI CS
OTH ER
65
66
FIGURE 218
FIGURE 219
438
lems of aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, dynamics, and operations; these lead to new design concepts. In fiscal year 1967, V/ STOL will receive increased emphasis, particularly in propulsion and zero visibility landing problems. A new facility, V/ STOL Transition Research 'Wind Tunnel (fig. 220), is requested for study of the critical transition between vertical and forward flight. A feature of the tunnel is an endless belt to provide l'ealisticground effect, and fli~ht speed simulation of 0 to 200 knots. Research in support of supersonic transports 'will be emphasized in fiscal year 1967 by expansion of the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (fig. 221) to enable a full- scale research on ad \'anced engine components and complete engin e systems at speeds up to mach 3. Three test cells, a heater, and coolers will be constructed. Existing air supply and exhaust equipment will be used. Research in operational problems, particularl y ]loise, will increase in fiscal year 1967, 'W ork will be continued' on investigation of engine components in the search for a quieter engine and this will lead to future flight tests of promising noise suppressors. ' Ve will continue to work very closely with the FAA on noise and sonic boom problems and will .rartiClpate in the National Sonic Boom Program of the Office of SClenceand T echnology. We anticipate the practicability of hypersoni c flight in the range of mach 6, but there are many research problems to be solved, particularly in propulsion, vVe are requesting funds in fi scal year 1967 to build a new type of hypersoni c tunnel for testing ramj et engines. The facility would use an existing heater to rai se mtrogen to a high tem-
V/ STOL TRANSITION RESEARCH WIND TUNNEL
NASA. R btJ( 2\-60
FIGURE
220
439
PROPULSION SYSTEMS LABORATORY
FIGURE 221
perature, mix it with gaseous oxygen, and expand this synthetic air to hypersonic velocities.
SPACE VEIDCLES PROGRAMS
Turning now to the space group (fig. 222), these programs provide the research and engineering base for complete launch vehicle and spacenaft system. The space vehicles programs covers many areas with emphasis on environmental factors, structures, and design data. Chemical propulsion includes solid and liquid rockets for both launch vehicles and spacecraft. The Nuclear Rocket effort, with a significant increase in performance oyer chemical systems, is based primarily on solid core reactors with some wor_ on advanced reactor k types. The Space Po\Ver and Electric Propulsion program provides research on batteries and fuel cells, solar cells, and several dynamic systems which utilize solar and nuclear energy. In Space Yehicles, increased emphasis \Vill be given studies of radiation effects on spa~craft materials, de\'ie-es, and components. This work is made possible by the new Space R adiation Effects Laboratory operated for NASA by the three universities comprising the Virginia Associated Research Center.
LIFTING BODY RESEARCH
Lifting body research \Vill continue. Last year we described landing tests of a plywood model of the ~f-2 configuration. A heaYier metal version (fig. 223) ,,as ordered and deJinred. This vehicle ,,-ill
59-941 0-&6--29
440

CHEMICAL PROPULSION
NUCLEAR ROCKETS
FIGURE
222
LIFTING REENTRY VEHICLE M-2
FIGURE
223
441
be carried aloft by an Air Force B-52 and then released-thus enabling flight research up to transonic speeds. A second configuration, the HL-10, has recently been delivered and will go through similartests. In chemical propulsion, work on the M-1 engine will be terminated on completion of component testing now underway. Demonstration of the oxidizer and fuel turbopump performance has been completed. Remaining work, to provide scaling and design information, involves operation of an uncooled thrust chamber to investigate injector and combustion characteristics. In fiscal year 1967, emphasis will be placed on advanced high performance engine concepts. In one approach, higher operating pressures will be used and in a second approach, a toroidal combustion chamber will be employed. I would like to add to my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, that of the $5.5 million allocated in fiscal 1966 to the M-1 engine, $2 million is now bt!ing used to complete the M-1 component test program. In order to initiate new work in fiscal 1966 on high performance engine concepts, we request your endorsement of our plan to utilize $3.5 million of the fiscal 1966 M-1 funds.
LARGE SOLID MOTOR PROGRAM
In the large solid motor program, we successfully fired the free world's largest single rocket motor on September 25, 1965 (fig. 224:). The maximum thrust was 3.5 million pounds and the test was over two minutes in duration. A second 260-inch motor firing was conducted February 23, 1966, to verify the design and previous results. In both tests, performance was in close agreement with predictions. The funds requested for fiscal year 1967, combined with funds from previous years, will cover the cost of an additional firing. The new test will employ a reentrant nozzle, configured similar to a nozzle for thrust vector control. The thrust will be approximately 5 million pounds and the duration 80 seconds. The increased thrust will be obtained with a larger nozzle diameter and modification of the propellant to give a higher burning rate. It will also incorporate a failure warning system. In Nuclear Rockets, there were a number of suc<:esSful tests (fig. 225) . These demonstrated altitude specific impulse of over 750 pound-seconds per pound-almost twice chemical rocket values-and a thrust of over 50,000 pounds. Accumu1ated running time was over 4,200 seconds with demonstrations of rapid start and restart and stability over a wide range of operating conditions. On February 3 and 11, 1966, we operated, for the first time, a breadboard nuclear rocket system. In fiscal year 1967, this engine test series will continue as well as other nuclear rocket technology. In addition, we plan to initiate development of a 5,000-megawatt nuclear rocket engine, NERVA, with application to attractive future missions. Mr. Finger will describe this work in more detail this morning. In Space Power and Electric Propulsion, we plan to continue the SNAP-8 program since power systems in the range of 35 kilowatts are very attractive for several future applications. All the major com-
442
Ni\SA AVTHORIZi\TION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
SOLID ROCKET MOTOR FIRING

260" O MOTOR IA 35M LB .THRUST fiRED SEPTEMBER 25.1965
FIGURE
224
FIGURE
225
443
ponents of SN AP-8 have successfully operated at full power conditions and are now undergoing endurance testing (fig. 226). T he cumulati,-e test time of the major components-ranges from 800 to 3,500 hours. Endurance testing of components will continue. This work will also be described in more detail today by Mr. Finger.
DISCIPLINE GROUP BASIC RESEARCH
Turning now to the Discipline Group (fig. 227) - Basic Research, Human Factors, and Electronics- we are conducting research applicable to both aer onautics and space. Basic Resear ch includes fluid physics, electrophysics, mathematics, and materials. In Human F actors, we study human performance and life support and protection. The Electrol1lcs program includes guidance and control, instrumentation, communication and tracking, data processing, and techniques, and components. In fiscal year 1967, the effort in thIS group will increase ten percent. Materials research, part of the Basic Resear ch Program, serves a vital role in all program areas. A good example is work in stress COl"r osion of titanium, a desirable material for supersonic tr ansports, compressor parts for jet engines, and tanks for space vehicles (fig. 228). Titanium alloys are known to crack under low loads and moderately high temperatures when exposed to corrosive substances such as salt. In the upper left of the chart is shown the effect of hot salt on cracking. You can observe the region of loads and times where cracks and
STATUS OF SNAP-8 TESTING

[AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1965)
795
MERCURY PUMP NaK PUMP
I
m
II , I
3028
3534
LUBE COOLANT PUMP
CONDENSER
AL TERNATOR TURBINE BOI LER
1549
830
830
I
1429
I I
I
. -C- - - ; c:::=::::J Y 196 4
!
' _
CY 1965
BOIL ER .
i REDESIGNED
530
~
1000
TIME
FIGURE
2000
226
3000
444
DISCIPLINE GROU
ADVA NCED RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
FIGURE'm
FIGURE 228
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR F I SCAL YEAR 19 6 7
445
f ractures occur. On the upper right, the plot shows that salt water can greatly reduce the strength of some titanium alloys in a few hours. We have also found that titanium tanks for nitrogen tetroxide can fail from stress corrosion as illustrated in the lmyer left. This tank exhibits a break around its entire periphery. Also shown are the many variables under study. In Human Factors, we wish to increase life support and protection systems, bioinstrumentation, and stress physiology. Life support is a key technology for long duration flights; for example, a large weight savings can be realized if oxygen, water, and other supplies can be reclaimed in a closed cycle. In fiscal year 1967, '\\e '\\ill continue our research in this area, using newly deliver ed equipment for manned tests of closed systems. \ork on biomstrumentation wi]] be continued to investigate human performance. In stress physiology work, for example, ""\\e have developed a portable instrument to measure a pilot's or astronaut's heartbeat without interfering with his performance of duties. In cooperation with the Navy, we obtained data from aircraft carrier pilots during actual combat operation (fig. 229) . The curves show heart rate and aircraft acceleration measurements during the time the pilot enters the cockpit, takes off and flies a bombing mission, and lands back on the carner. A significant finding was that heart rates '\\ere higher during takeoff and landing than during the actual combat period. We plan to continue work in fiscal year 1967 to measure human stress in
HUMAN FACTORS SYSTEMS PROGRAM SMALL BIOTECHNOLOGY FLIGHT PROJECTS
PHYS!OLOGICAl DATA FROM OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT FLIGHTS
FIGURE 229
446
different environments and to develop other techniques to assess man's ability to perform satisfactorily on long space missions.
ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS PROGRAM
In the electronics systems program, increased emphasis will be given communications, data handling and processing, and electronic components and techniques. The increased effort will be carried out at the Electroni cs Resea rch Center for which we are requesting fiscal year year 1967 funds for facilities to support qualifications and standards, electrical components, and space guidance laboratories. ERC now leases office and labor atory space in Cambridge. Land acquisition is moving forward so that the first construction contract could be as early as May 1966. Regarding the requested fi scal year 1967 facilities, present schedules mdicate that the Corps of Engineers could use authorized and appropriated funds as early as August 1966. As an illustration of advances in the Electronics Systems program, I would like to show you some significant results obtained in processing photographs transmItted from a distant spacecraft. New computer techniques make possible the extraction of significant data from photographs of marginal quality. These techniques were applied by JPL to the pictures of Mars taken by Mariner IV (fig. 230). The picture on the left is as received; the picture on the nght shows the same photograph after computer processing.
FIGURE
230
447
The method of processing corrects for geometrical and camera distortions, improves the picture contrast, removes electrical transmission noise, and restores detail degraded in the transmission process. New technology not only provides the base for forward steps in aeronautics and space, but often finds application in other fields. A very interesting example of technology transfer comes from research on aircraft tire skidding on runways. This work, reported previously, showed that aircraft tires can hydroplane in the same manner as a water ski on wet or slush-covered runways. An outgrowth of these investigations is a study of automobile skidding on wet pavements. We are working closely with the General Services Administration and the Bureau of Public Roads on the application of this research to highway safety. I have attempted to give you a brief summary of our plans for fis cal year 1967. I believe that continued support of the Advanced Research and Technology program is essential to preserve the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space technology. Thank you. AERONAUTICS
BUDGET
The CHAIRMAN. In connection with some hearings last year, there was feeling that not enough money was being spent in the field of aeronautics along the lines of what NASA used to do. Do you think this budget is deficient from that standpoint ~ Dr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, this budget is the largest budget that we have ever had in the aeronautics area. As I indicated on the chart previously, it shows an increased effort this year over lastlear. We have in the total programs, if you combine Research an Development, Construction of Facilities, and Administrative Operations, associated with this research, we have $94 million and I think it is a ~trong program and the largest that we have ever had. I also mention that we can consider other activities that are in the Space and Discipline groups. If you look at that work you find that a substantial amount of that effort also supports the Aeronautics Program. The CHAIRMAN. You say it is the largest. Is there a reduction in Research and Development and an increase in Construction? Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir, there is a reduction in Research and Development this year over last. One important reason for that-The CHAIRMAN. That is part of the reason they are worried. You may say it is the largest budget, but if it is going into bricks and mortar instead of into research, we are worried about that. Dr. ADAMS. Let me try to explain. The reduction in Research and Development is primarily attributed to a decrease in our request for the B-70 flight test program. Now, we had last year in the B-70 program about $10 million and that program did not get started due to a delay in the acceptance of the aIrplane. Consequently, starting around June of this year, that B-70 program will get underway in a major way. So, in effect, we are carrying forward from fiscal 1966 into fiscal 1967 about $8 million for that program. So it is because of that carry-forward that you do not see an increase in Research and Development; in fact, you see a decrease.
448
The CHAIRMAN. Would it be safe to say that while there seems to be a decrease, actually there is plenty of money-Dr. ADAMS. In actual fact, there is sufficient money there. Now, I would like to speak a little bit about your comment on the facilities. These facilities are not brick and mortar. These are research tools, and we will be able to run very important laboratory tests using these facilities, and I am sure that this will strengthen our program enormously. The CHAIRMAN. The NASA budget presentation for the Office of Advance Research and Technology asked $278 million for Research and Development, $32 million for construction and $189 million for Administrative operation, for a total of $499 million, or one-tenth of the total NASA request. Is that allocation of about one-tenth of the total amount of money being spent on Aeronautics and Space sufficient to provide the technology we will need in years to come? Dr. ADAMS. Well, this is a difficult question to answer. We, of course, always can find new and important areas to put further support in, but I am sure that you recognize that we have a very tight situation this year because of the Vietnam problem, and so we have had to tighten up our total budget across the board, throughout NASA. The CHAIRMAN. Then, all things considered, you tl1lnk this is a satisfactory sum? Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir, I think it is a satisfactory sum. BUDGET REDUCTIONS The CHAIRMAN. How does your advanced research authorization request compare wit h the initial budget request this year? Dr. ADAMS. The initial request was at the level of $5.53 billion, which I believe was referred to earlier when Mr. Webb testified. Our request at that level was a total of about $646 million compared to the $499 million. The CHAIRMAN. What were the significant cuts made? Dr. ADHIS. The significant cuts from the higher level to the lower? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, from the $646 million down to $480 million, or $499 million. Dr. ADAMS. We had cuts in chemical propulsion, in space power and electric propulsion, in nuclear rockets, space vehicles, electronics, aeronautics. So we had cuts, really, throughout the program, and we did this in such a way that we have, in our best judgment, a good program balance. BUDGET IN RELATION
TO
NATIONAL SECURITY
The CHAIRMAN. Well, knowing what the general situation is because of Vietnam, in your judgment, are we doing everything in our advanced research and technology to meet the needs of our national security? Dr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, is that question addressed to military needs as well ? The CHAIRMAN. No; t%ur own situation. Dr. ADAMS. In terms 0 the effort that we are devoting, I think we are doing the best that we can within the budgetary limitations. This
449
is not to say that we could not do more. We always can do more, and I am sure any program can. But within those constraints, I feel that we have the best balanced program that we are able to define. The CHAIRMAN. My real question was: Are those restraints causing some danger to our national security ~ Mr. SHAPLEY. If I could answer that, Mr. Chairman, in areas such as the V jSTOL aircraft, for example, which are of direct interest, long-term and short-term interest to the military and so on, I think we can say that we are fully su:{>porting what needs to be done. Dr. AnAMS. That is a good pomt. We have a substantial increase in the V ISTOL program this year. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cannon, do you have any questions' AERONAUTICS
R. &
D.
EFFORT EXPLORED
Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On this same subject, Doctor, in your judgment, is NASA doing everything that it ought to be doing in the field of aeronautics research and development ~ Dr. AnAMS. I think, again, that we are doing the most that we can within the total budgetary constraints. Senator CANNON. I do not think that quite answers the question. If you did not get any money, you would be doing the most that you could under the budgetary conditions. What I am asking is, in your ju<4rment, whether NASA is doing everything that it ought to be doing m the field of aeronautical research and development. Dr. AnAMS. I would answer that by saying that we are, in the sense that we have defined what we believe are the most important aeronautics research and technology problems, and we ~ave laid out a program to answer those questIOns and problems whIch we feel are mo"t significant. Now, I really cannot respond completely to your question, because it is always possible to take a given program, whether it be aeronautics, whether it be chemical rockets, or nuclear rockets, one can always identify important problems which should be done and which would cost more money. But what we have had to do is to try to come up with the best total balance that we can, in our best judgment, to give proper emphasis to ,. each of the important program areas. Senator CANNON. Well, is there any area of research and development in aeronautics which you think ought to be pursued that is not being pursued at the present time ~ Dr. ADAMS. I believe, sir, that we are pursuing all of the important technologies. Senator CANNON. Is there any area of research and development in aer~mautics in which you think we ought to be doing more than we are domg at the present time ~ Dr. ADAMS. I think that-well, I am afraid, sir, that I am not sure that I can properly respond there, because we could do more in any one of our programs. Senator CANNON. Well, I did not ask you are there areas in which we could be doing more. I said, are there any areas in which you think we ought to be doing more than we are doing ~
450
Dr. ADAMS. Well, I would foresee in the future that we ought to be doing more in hypersonic research. We are this year getting under way a very important program in hypersonic research by virtue of the new facility that we are asking for In this area. This will enable us to do research on the ~round. I think that in the future that should be followed up-not in nscal 1967. We would not be prepared for it in fiscal 1967, but in the future, I believe that we should emphasize that more in terms of flight. research. Senator CANNON. And we can likely see requests, then, for increased emphasis on that in following years? Dr. ADAMS. In following years, yes, sir. Now, I also think that, again in following years, you might see increased requests in the V/STOL area. There, of course, is a general feeling that V/STOL will serve a very important role in the problem of transportation in the future years, especially in that around thewell, I forget the exact period. But there are projections that indicate that about half of the total population or more will be living within three or four primary regions, in the country. There are a number of people who feel that V/STOL will be a very important means of transportation when we have these very concentrated areas. FUNDING FOR V/STOL AIRCRAFT Senator CANNON. How much money is NASA spending on V/STOL this year? Dr. ADAMS. On V/STOL this year. In the V/STOL aircraft for fiscal 1967, we are asking for $5 million. That is in Research and Development, as o}?posed to $2 million in fiscal 1966. We also are askmg for $5 million for construction of the V/STOL research facility. Incidentally, this will be the first-Senator CANNON. That is the wind tunnel? Dr. ADAMS. That is the wind tunnel. This will be the first such facility that has ever been built specifically for the V/STOL application. WIND TUNNEL AID TO V/STOL PROBLEMS Senator CANNON. Are the R. & D. problems on the V/STOL aircraft for military use different from those for the aircraft for civilian use or are they the same basic problems? Dr. ADAMS. I think there are certainly many problems in common and I am sure there are many other problems that may be different. The common problems which are very important are associated with the transition of flight between the vertical and the forward flight speed. There is a very difficult stability region there. Senator CANNON. Do you regard thart as the principal problem at this time of the V/STOL? Dr. ADAMS. That, plus the problem of zero visibility flying. I would say both of those are key problems, and I would not want to say which is the more important of the two.
451
Senator CANNON. And the wind tunnel which you are requesting will help solve both of those problems? Dr. ADAMS. The wind tunnel will not help in the zero visibility. The wind tunnel will help in the solution of this transition flight problem. Now, we have other flight research programs whose :purpose is to solve this or attem:pt to solve this zero visibility landmg problem. We are developing Instrumentation and pilot displays to be used in that way for zero visibility approach and landing. Senator CANNON. Now, will the wind tunnel help solve other problems, other major problems, other than this transition problem? Dr. ADAMS. Oh, yes. The unique capability of this wind tunnel is that it enables you to vary the speed from zero speed right up to the 200 knots forward speed, so it can go through this flight regime. This is its unique capability, comhined with the faot that we have this endless belt that is moving, so that it eliminates the ground effects. The tunnel could be used for other purposes, but I think this is the most important. Senator CANNON. The major purpose? FISCAL
1967
BUDGET REQUEST FOR AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Dr. ADAMS. The major purpose. Senator CANNON. Would you compile and furnish for the record a summary of the total amount of money being requested in the 1967 budget for research and development in aeronautics throughout the Government ~ In other words, to include other agencies of Government, so we can have a picture of it all in one place? Dr. ADAMS. I would certainly be happy to do it if I were able to. Mr. SHAPLEY. I think we can arrange to get that for you, Senator. (The material referred to follows:) (The following estimates were worked out with examiners in the Bureau of the Budget:)
Estimated abligations f()f" resem-oh and development in aeronautws
[In miIllons of dollars)
Flscal year
1965
Flscal year
1966
Fiscal year 1967

I,
National Aeronautics and Space Admiuistratlon______________ 1m 110 123 TotaL __________________________________________________ 1 - - ,-256- 1 ---1,-526- 1 ----1,-2881
1 FAA includes estimates for the supersonic transport program through 1st half of fiscal year 1966. There is now under consideration a budget amendment involving development funds whose amount Is undeter-
~:s~mI~~~:o~~:CY'C=================================
I,
0:
I,
mined at this time.
The estimates for DOD and FAA are based on data furnished the Bureau during the fiscal year 1967 budget submission. NASA esimates coincide with that contained in the consolidated statement on aeronautics in the 1967 congressional justification material.
452
U.S. POSITION IN ADVANCED RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY COMPARED TO THE SOVIETS Senator CANNON. Doctor, my final question. How would you assess the position of the United States in advanced research and technology in the field of space and aeronautics as compared to the Soviet Union? Dr. ADAMS. 'Yell, I would like to know that myself. Unfortunately, we do not learn very much about the research and technology efforts in the Soviet Union. Mostly what we know are the spectacular flights which do receive publicity. I just really do not know how we compare. I would like to Imow very much if they are running tests on solid rockets, on nuclear rockets, on advanced engines, if they are doing V/STOL. research. I would like to know those answers, and I am just sorry I do not know. Senat.or CANNON. I recognize that we do not know precisely but I Was interested to have your views as to how you might assess, based on what. information you do have available, their efforts. Dr. ADAMS. I think we must conclllde, by virtue of the great achievements that they have accomplished, that those achievements could not ha,-e been carried out had there not been a very important broad-based technology effort. t.hat.led up to those capabilities. So this is like looking backward and saying that they must have had a major effort. SOVIET AERONAUTICAL PROGRAMS That certainly goes for aeronautics as well. They have displayed in air shows some important achiewments in 'a('ronallti~<;. I would, therefore, project forward from this and assume that they must be oontinuing a very high level program. Senator CANNON. I might add that I was quite impressed with their display at the air show last. year, the Paris Air Show, because both in theIr operational equipment in the field of space activities, as well as the aeronautical displays, they had available there, where they had the world's largest airplane on display, that they had flown in for the meet, and they also had the world's largest helIcopter that they gave demonstrations with, and had some very fine exhibits of civilian type transport. aircraft. on display also. Dr. ADAMS. I certainly agree with you. Senat.or CANNON. At least they are making quite a major effort in that area? Dr. ADAMS. Indeed they are. There is no question about that, and I just cannot make any quantitative comparisions. Senator CANNON. Thank YOIl nry much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Would you like io be able to guess-you did not say anyt.hing about scientists, hut. some years ago, the Russians had a very wonderful scientist doing work in one field. Several years later, when we tried to find out where he was, we cOllld not find out. We finally found out that he. was enp:ap"ed in work ,,,ith ro('kets. Would you not. say that t.he R.ussians had some interesting rockets in t.he space show? Are they doing that same thing in the design of their airplanes? Are they taking tllPir good scientists for this kind of work?
453
Dr. ADA~IS. I am not sure I understand, Mr. Chairman. Is your question that the Rusians have outstanding scientists working in aeronautics ~ The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Are they working with .rockets, things of that nature, or are they staying with civilian airplanes? Dr. ADAMS. I am sure they have good scientists working in areonautics. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith? PLANNING Senator
S~nTH.
FOR THE }'O'l'ORE
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Adams, following up some of the questions previously asked,

I said the following to Dr. Bisplinghoff, 2 years ago, this month. and I would like to repeat it to you. '
You are the Director of Advanced Research and Technology. Therefore, you have the responsibility of being ready to keep the Space Program going on after the lunar landing. I do not expect you to be specific as to the future, but I do want to be sure that there is no lag in the planning. I want to be sure that every effort is being made in making constructive plans for the future so that there will not be any vacuums.
That is what I said to Dr. Bisplinghoff. I hope you are able to give this commttee that same assurance. Are you? Dr. ADAM:S. Yes, Senator Smith. We spent a great deal of time in the Advanced Research and Technology program to identify important future objectives. We used this approach combined with studies to identify the critical technological problems that need to be solved in order to accomplish those objectives, and in this way we focus on those technologies which we believe require more emphasis in order to be prepared for the future objectives. We do not have a single specific objective in order to define our program; rather, we look at many different types. e also look for common problems that are prevalent in many-for example, communications, data processing, propulsion. ".,.e can always see how advances in any of these tochnologies will be applicable to many different objectives. So I think that I c.an give you assurance that we are doing the best that we can within our ability to identify those important technical problems, and then to put concerted effort on those to be prepared. Senator SMITH. Then you are saying that the planning will continue and there will be no lag in the planning so far as the future is concerned? Dr. ADAMS. That is correct; and, in fact, we are emphasizing our planning. We set up, about a year ago, a division of the Office of Advanced Research and Technology. The purpose of that division is to do planning and design studies in order to pinpoint and identify more specifically critical technologies, so that this planning will be increasing.
"T
M-l, SNAP-8, AND 260-INCH
SOLID
MOTOR
Senator S~II'l'H. Thank you. Of the three major programs destined for cancellation last yearthat is, the M-l, SNAP-8, and the 260-inch solid-I gather the latter two programs are progressing satisfactorily? You say in your state-
454
ment that the $3.5 million you are requesting for fiscal 19'67, together with funds already available, will cover an additional firing. One, are these programs progressing srutisfactorily? Two, what does aU this mean in terms of keeping the large solid program alive? Dr. ADAMS. Let me respond first to the large solid program. That program is progressing very satisfactorily. We had two successful firings, .and we are planning a third. We are asking for $3.5 million in fiscal 1967. We have further request.ed and have had apportioned from the Bureau of the Budget $4.2 million, from the fiscaJ 1966 budget. Those two budgetary numbers, combined with carryover funds that we have, will enable us to conduct another important test. N ow, this new test will carry us another important step forward. We will increase the thrust to 5 million pounds by chamging the propellant and by inoreasing the size of the nozzle. It will also incorporate a failure warning system. It is important that we run tests that will enable us to be able to detect impending failures. The tests will also incorpora;te a new type of nozzle configuration, which is similar to a nozzle that would be required for controlling the thrust or thrust vector control. Now, going to the other two, I believe your question was, how are these other two programs progressing, the M-1 and t.he Snap-8? Senator SMITH. That is right. Dr. ADAMS. The M-1 will be completed this fiscal year. 'We have yet some tests to do on the comblistion chamber and the injection system and when these are completed and I believe wp will have important results that will enable us to establish scaling la \VS from small size to large size engines. In the Snap-8 program, we have requested and have received from the Bureau of the Budget the $1, million from the fiscal 1966 budget. We are further requesting $5.5 million in fiscal 1967 and we are certainly planning on continuing that program. 1Ve feel it is very important. We see many potential applications for this power level. So we feel that this program is going very w('l1 and We are most anxious to pursue it further. Now, in going back a mompnt to the M-1 termination, we believe that it would be a wiser decision for us to cancel that program as we have proposed and to put emphasis on a more advHnced engine concept. In fact, there are two candidate concepts that ,,-e see now, and we would like to pursue both of those. Then, finally, we "'ould select one, perhaps around the late H)60's or 1970, and then procppd into a development of a ne'" type of engine. We feel that this decision is the right one, because we do not foresee a need for a new engine, a new liquid pngine of this type until the middle to late 1970's. Now, I think this also gives you a feeling as to how we try to plan and then focus on the technology in ordpr to met't that plan. It was this type of planning process, trying to fort'see and anticipate the lweds beyond Apollo that has led us to the rpcoHlmendution to now moye forward on the more advanced engine.

TOTAL
455
INVESTMENT IN M-l ENGINE
Senator S~IITH. Dr. Adams, what will the total investment on this M-1 program amount to ~ If you do not have it right there, you may supply it for the record. Do you want to get it later? The CHAIR~IAN. I think he has it. Dr. ADAMS. It will total about $130 million after completion. Senator SMITH. How much? Dr. ADAMS. About $130 million will have been expended by the time the program is completed. PEGASUS EXPERIMENTS Senator SMITH. Thank you. In your statement, you say that 800 penetrations have been counted on 3 Pegasus spacecraft launched this past year. Other than confirming the safety of your present spacecraft design, what other effects have you learned from the Pegasus experiments ~ Dr. ADAMS. These experiments have confirmed, as you say, the safety and have demonstrated that the Apollo design is conservative. The data actually is even more significant, I believe, because with this information we now would be able to design future vehicles using this data and we would be able to achieve weight savings by virtue of having this information as opposed to using the previous estimates, which were conservative. Now, we also think that some of this data can be of benefit to Apollo on certain components which are not completely, finally, designed. For example, there is a possibility that the data can be used to design the space suit that the astronauts will use, and we might be able to reduce some weight there. But primarily, the advantage will be for future missions beyond Apollo. MAINE DISCUSSED AS
POTENTIAL
SITE FOR ERe ANTENNA RANGE
Senator SMITH. Dr. Adams, what criteria have been established for the antenna range in connection with the Electronics Research Center, and when do you propose to acquire a site for the range? Dr. 'ADAMS. That range will require a thousand acres. It must have very low interference from radio noise and it must also have very low vibrations. We also would like it to be in close vicinity to the Electronic Research Center in Cambridge in order to make it easier for the personnel to go back and forth. We will, during this calendar year, be initiating site evaluations. 'Ve have not yet made site evaluations. We would anticipate a request in fiscal 1968 to go forward with that site. But that is essentially the status. Senator SMITH. Dr. Adams, the State of Maine is within 50 miles of the Electronics Research Center. Do you think that 50 miles would be within the probable criteria for the antenna, range ~ Dr. ADAMS. I think 50 miles with a good super highway would not be unreasona;ble.
l\.9-941 066 . 30
456
Senator Sl\IITH. Perhaps I had better not ask fUliher, beyond that. Dr. ADAMS. We have tried to keep it close enough so that people can go back and forth readily. I do not know-I was just trying to see if we had arrived at a time here. About one hour driving time is the criteria, so on a good highway, one can tnwel 50 miles in an hour. Senator S::\IITII. I remember Dr. Bispling-hoff said that all a,reas would be studied when the time came for selection. I hope you feel that ,,'ay and not let an extra mile 01' two make any difference. Dr. ADAMS. I will assure you we will study all areas. Senator S:\fITII. Also last year, I asked Dr. Bisplinghoff some of the requirements for the antenna range, and he replied:
The main C'ritel"ion i;;; to gpt into all area \Vhit'll haR a low elp('tromagnetic noi;;;e len'l ill NO far a,; inteI'fl'I'PIl<'P iH ('on(,(,I'lledo "'itll antennO\H. we would have to g"(t far 1'IIOIlgh awa~o froUl tll!' Imsy section" of a city in order to ac('ompli;;;h this.
Is this what you were saying to US? Dr. ADAMS. This is correct. You have to be far enough away for the low radio frequency interferenee and also low seismic vibrations that would be associated with railroads. big trucks. My answer was essentially that same one, yes. Senator SMITH. I might. add that when I was talking with Dr. Bisplinghoff about this, Maine being close enoug-h, or far enough away, he did not register any objection to g-iving consideration to Maine, and he added that Maine would be a delightful place. I hope that you will ag-ree with him. Dr. ADAMS. I assure you that we will give consideration to Maine. The CHAIRMAN. Getting more specific now, does Maine have a low electromagnetic noise level? Dr. ADA:\IS. I am certain there are areas in Maine with a low electromag-netic noise level. The CHAIRMAN. Does it have very much earth movement? ',,"ould you call it a stable place? Dr. ADAMS. Yes, I think it is stable. Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your help very much. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Jordan? HYBRID SYSTEM COMPARED TO LIQUID AND SOLID SYSTEMS Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Adams, in the budget books submitted to the committee, you say that hybrid pro~ulsion systems offer advantages for certain missions but problems III the application of hybrid propellant systems must be resolved before these systems can receive consideration for use. Now, some people believe the hybrid engines ha,'e many advantages over either the solid- or liquid-fueled engines. I wonder if you would explain for the record what problems in the application of hybrid systems must be resolved before they can be considered, and state whether or not similar problems do not exist with liquid or with solid systems? Dr. ADAMS. Senator Jordan, if you do not object, I would like to have Mr. Tischler, who heads our propulsion program, talk to you about that because he is a much better expert than I. If you do not object, may I have him talk to that?
457
Senator JORDA~. Yes. Or he may supply it for the record. Dr. AnA~IS. Well, he is right here. Senator JORDAN. All right, let us hear from him. Mr. TISCHLER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Senator Jordan, the hybrid system does have some potential in comparison to the liquid and the solid propellant rocket systems. It, of course, incorporates some of the simplification of the solid rocket in that it has a solid propellent fuel which does not require the use of a pump for injection into the combustion chamber. That solid propellent fuel, of course is contained within the combustion chamber. A liquid propellant, which may be pumped or injected into that combustion chamber by a pressurized system, is supplied in a separate tank in the manner of a liquid bipropellent rocket system. A hybrid system incorporates some of the admntages and the disadvantages of both the other systems. This, indeed, is one of its handicaps. In looking at the hybrid system, we feel that one advantage lies in the potentially high specific impulse, the performance characteristic, that can be achieved with it. Another significant advantage is that, because of the separation of the solid fuel and the liquid OXIdizer, it is apparently a relatively safe system to handle. On the other hand, the use of the liquld oxidizer, which is usually injected into a solid propellent fuel combustion chamber, introduces problems of complexity that are normally associated with a liquid system. This is one of its disadvantages. We have been considering the hybrid system for its potential applicability in spacecraft systems, where, we felt, the somewhat simpler hybrid system, with its potentially high performance, had advantages over the typically complex turbopump bipropellent system. However, we have not considered the hvbrid as a contender for the launch vehicle system where we feel that'the solid propellant motor, such as the 260-inch-diameter motor, indicates to us simplicities in construction, manufacture, and handling that are attendant and consonant with low cost. We believe the hybrid system generally would run to It higher cost than the solid system, and therefore is not a strong contender in this area. Senator JORDAN. The hybrid system would run higher in cost ~ Mr. TISCHLER. That is my speculation, yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. Would it be lighter or heavier, or how would it compare in that regard ~ Mr. TISCHLER. As compared to the solid system. it would be somewhat lighter because of the high-performance characteristic of the propellant. Senator JORDAN. That is all I have on hybrid engines. The CHAIRMAN. Would you yield? Senator JORDAN. Yes. The CHAIR~IAN. You said it is more expensive? Do all your associates agree with you on that? Mr. TISCHLER. No. There is room for argument on that statement, I believe. The CHAIR~IAN. A great many of them believe it would be cheaper, do they not?
458
Mr. TISCHLER. Yes, there are people who believe the hybrid to be cheaper, but I do say to them, rather than to this committee, that the ClOst of the solid propellants now being put into these motors, the large motors, such as the 260-inch motor, should be looked at very carefully. These costs are now in the neighborhood of 30 to 40 cents a pound. The ClIAIR:M:AN. Are they not being looked at pretty carefully? Mr. TISCHLER. vVe are looking at these eosts very carefully, and that is why I can say this number with confidence. It is going to be rather hard to find a hybrid propulsion system that really competes with those cost numbers and offsets the cost problems of the more complex mechanical system. Dr. AnA:M:s. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just interject a comment here that we luwe, as an important part of our program, not only to define the technieal problems and try to solve them, but also to gain an nnderstanding on costs so that some of these questions on cost will be answered as we go forward on the program. So there are differences of opinion. This is normal. It is normal in a program which is new and is not understood. The CHAIR:M:AN. Go ahead, Senator Jordan. Senator .JORDAN. Do you have a program, then, on hybrids similar to the one you have on solids? Mr. TISCHLER. We have a program on hybrids, but it is not of the same scale of funding level as the program on solids. It is a program which is aimed at the application of the hybrid syst-em to the smaller spacecraft. AREA OF REUSABLE BOOSTERS Senator JORDAN. Dr. Adams. Do you have a program on reui"able boosters? This is a matter of concern to all of us, in considering the tremendous cost of our launch vehicles. Why are we not doing more in that area? Dr. ADA:M:S. We do have significant efforts which are directly applicable to recoverable boosters. We do not have a single recoverable booster project but our technology is very much related to it. I will give you some examples here. The high-performance propulsion program, we feel, will be an essential ingredient in a recoverable booster because it will be necessary to carry additional weight to protect a recoverable booster, so the work we are doing in high-performance engines will give us more efficiency and will, therefore, enable us to carry the added weight for recovery. We would estimate a substantial part of our chemical rocket program, therefore, is in support of recoverable boosters. Now, work that we are doing in the lifting body program, such as the lifting body that comes in and lands horizontally, IS also applicable. Recovery techniques, using parachutes, which can be guided are also applicable. Much of our work in ablative materials for heat protection is applicable. So we can add up efforts in these various technologies which total about $21 million, which you could say is applicable to recoverable boosters. Senator JORDAN. Do you have evidence that the booster would not be physically damaged beyond the point of being reusable?
459
Dr. AnAMS. Do I have evidence that-Senator JORDAN. Yes; do you have any evidence that once recovered, it might be reused ? Dr. AnAMS. I understand that one of the boosters that was rocr>vered from the water could be reused. It is not clear yet just how much the cost of refurbishing it would 00. It is not clear for that particular type of motor, which is the motor that we have in being today, that it would be economical to try to recover them from the ocean and refurbish them. I think the true payoff in the recovery of boosters, if there is one, and it is not clear yet, but if there is a payoff then it will be true for a new type of booster that is designed to be recovered and refurbished. Senator JORDAN. It might bring about some difference in design ~ Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir, I think it would be quite different in design. MANEUVERABLE-REUSABLE REE},'TItY SPACECRAFr Senator JORDAN. Turning now to another matter, would you describe NASA's program in maneuverable and reusable reentry spacecraft and, in that connection, discuss your coordination with DOD, explaining how DOD and NASA's programs complement one anothed Dr. ADAMS. This is maneuverable reentry vehicles, such as the lifting body program ~ Senator JORDAN. The maneuverable and reusable reentry spacecraft. Dr. AnAMS. Yes. Well, we have a program within NASA now the purpose of which is to conduct flight research up to velocities, and, therefore, investigate the problem of landing and transsonic flight. In addition, of course, we have wind tunnel investigations on models for both the transsonic and landing flight regime, as well as very high speed flights. Now, the Air Force program, I think, is a pertinent one. It will fly a small-scale vehicle at very high speed and obtain inflight data at very high speeds. So they are now working at the very high speed entry, or will be flying, and we right now are flying at the subsonic and transsonic speeds. So that the two programs are indeed very compatible. 'Ve have panels set up in this area, the purpose of which is to exchange information and coordinate our objectives.
OBJECTIVES
OF LIFrING BODY PROGRAMS
Senator JORDAN. Will you discuss briefly for the committee what the objectives are of your lifting body programs You mentioned them and you have discussed them somewhat in your text. Discuss the cost and how they compare with the DOD's DYNA-SOAR program and soon. Dr. AnAMS. Let me try to answer that. The concept of the lifting body is quite different from the DYNA-SOAR. The DYNA-SOAR was a vehicle that looked more like an airplane. It had fixed wings. It had a cooling system and had a metallic structure and relatively high lift, as compared to the lifting body. The lifting body has an ablative heat protection system; that is, a nonmetallic type. Therefore, its cooling is more of a passive cooling system instead of an active
460
cooling system. It has less lift and less maneuverability than the DYNA-SOAR. I believe that if you compared-there are some advantages and disadvantages for both of these configurations. The lifting body would have the advantage that it would be lighter for a given payload. On the other hand, it has a more difficult problem in landing and that is why we are devoting efforts to investigating the landing problem. Senator JORDAN. Did you mention a cost figure, Doctor, for the program? Dr. ADAMS. The cost that we are spending? Our current expenditures on lifting bodies? Senator JORDAN. On lifting- bodies, your M-2 and your HL--10, and the variables in geometry vehIcles. Dr. ADAMS. Let me see if I can get you a number there. The lifting body flight and landing test program has a budget of $1 million for fiscal 1967. That is research and development. Senator JORDAN. Do you think that is adequate? Dr. ADAMS. I think that is adequate. 'We have already paid for two of these metal configurations that I mentioned. 'We wiII begin running flight research with these two configurations, so I think we do have adequate funding for a good flight research program. Keep in mind also that our administrative operations funds pay the salaries of the people in the laboratories who are running associated projects. Senator JORDAN. That does not include the cost on your variable geometry vehicles? That is another thing? Dr. ADAMS. No, that does not. The variable geometry studies are currently in the model stage, wind tunnel investigations. I do not have a break-out of that. I could supply that to you. Senator JORDAN. Will you, please. Dr. ADAMS. Yes. (The information referred to follows:)
Tbe variable-geometry reentry configuration referred to in the testing is one of several types of reentry configuration included in our generalized lifting reentry research programs. It is in the laboratory research stage. involving inhouse analysis and wind-tunnel tests. Total expenditure to date on such variablegeometry reentry vehicle configurations has been approximately $90.000.
ASTRONAUT MANEUVERING UNITS Senator JORDAN. Dr. Adams, I believe the Air Force, as well as NASA, is doing research and development on Astronaut Maneuvering Units. To what extent is this work coordinated, and are you pursuing different concepts for both agencies, engaging essentially parallel ethics? Dr. ADAl\IS. You are speaking here of-Senator JORDAN. Astronaut Maneuvering Units. Dr. ADAMS. Maneuvering Units in spacel Senator JORDAN . Yes. Dr. ADAMS. I cannot speak too knowledgeably on this, sir. This work is largely in the manned space flight program office. The CHAIRl\IAN. Why not put it in the record for us? Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. I am sure there is coordination and we can provide that information for the record.
461
Senator JORDAN. Very good. (The infonnation referred to follows:)

ASTRONAUT MANEUVERING UNIT (AMU)
1. A joint NASA/DOD Ad Hoc Study Group was established in the first quartN of 1963 to delineate Air Force participation in the Gemini program. A manned Air Force experiment using an extravehicular astronaut maneuvering unit was proposed by this group for integration into the Gemini program. A detachment of Air Force people from the Space Systems Division was established at the Manned Spacecraft Center with the objective of monitoring and coordinating all DOD/NASA Gemini experiments including the AMU. The Air Force experiment is designated 0-12 and is scheduled for flights on Gemini spacecrafts 9 and 12. After coordination of the proposed AMU experiment with the Gemini program office, the Air Force awarded a development contract to Ling-TempcoVought Co. in May 1964. 2. The Astronaut Maneuvering Unit in combination with the Gemini Space Suit and NASA Extravehicular Life Support System (ELSS) chest pack is known as the Modular Maneuvering Unit (MMU). The MMU development is a joint NASA/Air Force development. NASA also proposes to further investigate and refine the MMU for Apollo Applications Program. The Manned Spacecraft Center is interested in this application. 3. The Air Force activities on developing an Astronaut Maneuvering Unit and a Remote ~Ianeuvering Unit (RMU) are undertaken in Project 8170, "Aerospace Site Support Techniques" in the Aero Propulsion Laboratory of the Research and Teehnology Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. The RMU, an Air Force development, is a feasibility demonstration which NASA is following with interest. 4. The Air Force is initiating a contract for study of a Dual Maneuvering Unit (DlIU). This contract proposes to study systems which can be used to transport an astronaut for space maintenance activities or can be operated remotely for inspection or transporting materials in spaee maintenance. This is an Air Force development which is being followed by the Marshall Space Flight Center. NASA has two other projects underway in this field: (1) a Jet Shoe Maneuvering l'nit which is a device in which propulsion is provided by means of jets located on the soles of the shoes of the astronauts, and (2) Flight tests of Rocket lIaneuvering Units with a space-suited man in simulated weightlessness and lunar gravity. Ancillary to studies on astronaut maneuvering units are the following NASA studies: (1) A study of Man's Self Locomotive and Work Capabilities in Redueed Gravitational Fields, and (2) The Use and Function of ~Ian on the Moon. A further example of the coordination which is practiced in this area is the National Conference on Space Maintenance and Extravehicular Activities. This conference was sponsored by the USAF Aero Propulsion Laboratory and was held in Orlando, Fla., on Mareh 1, 1966. DOD, NASA, and industry representatives interested in extravehicular maneuvering methods were present. Various sys terns techniques and equipment developments were described in detail.
Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Dr. Adams. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gehrig?
COST OF LIFTING MANEUVERING VEHICLES PROGRAM
~I": GEHRIG. Dr. Adams, at the point where Senator Jordan was askmg about the work that you are doing on lifting maneuvering vehicles that you are doing, would you put the total cost of these programs as you estimate it today, for those programs-for the M-2 and HL-10. Dr. ADAMS. HJr.10. You mean what we have expended on these programs to date ? Mr. GEHRIG. Yes.
462
Dr. ADAMS. Yes. I will supply that for the record, if that is all right. Mr. GEHRIG. Yes, thank you. (The information referred to follows:)
Expenditures to date on the current M-2/HT..-10 flight test program total $3,600,000. Of this amount $2 million was the contract cost with the Northrop Corp. for the deHign and construction of the two test vehides, with the remaining $1,600,000 being expended for vt>hide equipment and instrumentation and ground support equipment; $1 million has been reque:-;ted in fiscal year 1967 for flight test operations. Prior to the current program at Flight Research Center, a preliminary flight investigation was carried out using a lightweight plywood and steel tubing M-2 vehicle. This primarily in-house effort was completed for a total cost of approximately $2~0,000. TIll' rPHparch investigations carried out in-house at thp Langlpy and Ames Researeh ('pnters which led to the evolution and refinement of the M-2 and HL-10 lifting rppntry configurations have coverpd a span of ahout 8 years. The average yearly rate of expenditure over this l)('riod has been approximately $250,000, for a total eost to date of $2 million. The variable-geometry reentry configuration referred to in the t!'sting is one of several types of reentry configuration indud!'d in our generalized lifting reentry reS!'arch programR. It is in thE' laboratory rE'sE'arch stag'e, involving in-house analYRis and wind tunnE'1 tE'sts. Total eXp('nditure to date on such variablegeomE'try re!'ntry vehiele configurationR has be!'n approximat!'ly $90,000.
ELECTRONICS RESF.ARCH CENTER Mr. GEHRIG. I would like to ask a few questions about the Electronics Research Center. Is it correctly understood from your statement that the first tract, and here I am not speaking ahout. parcels, but about the t.racts, of the site for the ERC, fully cleared and ready for NASA construction, will be delivered to NASA by the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority by September 15, 1966, at the very latest? Dr. ADAMS. Yes. That date has been supplied us by the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. That date is arrived at by t.he following: CRA has initiated land taking. In other words, they have sent letters to the residents of t.he first two parcels, in fact, the land for the fiscal 1967 construction as well as for previous construction. These are eminent domain letters. There is a 120-day waiting period, during which the residents can negotiate or otherwise t.he Cambridge Authority can take over the property. Now, the letters went out for both of the tracts-Mr. GEHRIG. Both of the tracts or parcels? Dr. ADAMS. -Well, there is a little problem of terminology here. There are several different trarts. Eminent domain letters have gone out for all property required for fiscal 1967 construction, as well as all previous construction. Eminent domain has been exercised o the dates are based upon t.his. Mr. GElIRW. Then do you have a firm guarantee of delivery of this first tract for no later than September 15, 1966? Dr. AlUMS. May I call here on Mr. Myers, who runs our Administrative Operations, to give you more specifics 011 the contractual aspeds? Mr. GEIIHIG. Mr. Myers, woulU you state your full name and position, please?
463
Mr. MYERs. Boyd Myers II, Deputy Associate Administrator for Operations in the Office of Advanced Research and Technology. Mr. Gehrig, as Dr. Adams explained, the tracts which make up the land required for the fiscal year 1965--66 facilities, that have been authorized and for which funds have been appropriated, were filed for the rights of eminent domain proceedings on February 4 of this year. Those tracts make, in fact, three tracts of land-tract 1, tract 2-A and tract 2--B. I have a slide here if it would help, but I can assure you that those three tracts make up the first land required for the fiscal year 1965--66 facilities-would you like to see the slide? See chart 3 (p.465). The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead and put it on. When did they get the land ~ Mr. IIYERS. This (chart 3) is the staging plan for the Kendall Square site to be conveyed to NASA. If I could have someone point on the chart, as I speak, stage 1 as shown right at the edge 'Of the pencil there, and stage 2-B-which is down at the hoM,om, and stage 2-A, which is at the top-those three tracts make up the land, which is incorporated in the first so-called tract for this fiscal year 1965-66 facilities. Mr. GEHRIG. Those are tracts No.1,2-A, and2-B? :Mr. MYERS. Yes. Mr. GEHRIG. Now, do you have a firm guarantee of delivery 'Of these tracts for no later than September 15, 1966? Mr. MYERS. We have a firm guarantoo in the letter from the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. We are in the J?rocess of reviewing the contract whICh we are about to sign, which WIll specify the dates as shown on the plot for aU tracts to be delivered. Mr. GEHRIG. 'Vill NASA pay for each tract as it is delivered, or are you required to pay for all 29 acres at one time? Mr. MYERS. 'We will pay for the tracts as delivered, but within a fixed price for the entire acreage. Mr. GEHRIG. Is it correct that all the facilities authorized for the ERe in fiscal years 1965 and 1966 will be constructed on these first tracts? Mr. MYERS. That is correct. Mr. GEHRIG. All of the facilities will go on tracts 1, 2-A and 2-B? Mr. MYERS. Y~ sir. Mr. GEHRIG. When will the construction designs for all of fiscal years 1965 and 1966 facilities be ready for a.dvertising for bids? Mr. MYERS. The first design, which is foundations design and is the first to be completed, will be ready for advertising on April 1 of this year. Mr. GEHRIG. Will the facilities requested in your fiscal year 1967 budget be constructed on the first tract of land delivered by the Cambridge redevelopment agency, or will additional parcels of land have to be made available? Mr. MYERS. Approximately 80 percent of the facilities requested in fiscal year 1967 will go on the first tract of land on which we will construct these 1965--66 facilities. Part of one building is on tract 3, which is the next tract, which is-if someone will point that out-right here, will just go over the line here in tract 3. The Cambridge Re-
464
dbvelopment Authority filed for eminent domain on tract 3 on February 28 so we expect to have that well in time for construction which we hope will begin or are now planning to begin the award of the first contract on the fiscal year 1007 in October of this year. Mr. GEHRIG. Is that for the entire tract 3 or just those parcels ~ Mr. MYERS. That is for the entire tract 3, which should become available on those dates. Mr. GEHRIG. What. is the latest date on which you expect to acquire title to t.hat tract, tract 3 ~ Mr. MyERS. The latest date would be January 15. The earliest date is October 15. Mr. GEHRIG. ","'hat is the scheduled date for completion of construction design for the fiscal year 1967 facility and approximately when would construction bids be asked for ~ Mr. MYERS. The earliest design will be completed on September 23 of this year, and in order to proceed with construction we must be able to give the Corps of Engineers authority and funds by August 28. Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Chairman, we have three charts here prepared by NASA dealing with the Electronics Research Center. These are a staggering plan, the fiscal year 1965 and fiscal year 1966 Detail Design and Construction Schedule, and a fiscal year 1967 Detail Design and Construction Schedule, which I asked permissiQn to put in the record at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done. (The charts referred to follow:)
ELECTRONICS RESEARCH CENTER FY 65-66 Detail DesiRn & Construction Schedule

BASIC PLAN COMPLETE MAITER PLAN
1 Feb'66
DETAIL PLAN COMPLETE
7 June '66 FOUNDATION DESIGN COMPLETE
START DETAIL DESIGN
DETAIL DESIGN COMPLETE
15 Dec '65
DE~IGN
I Apr '66 ADVERT I SE AWAR D
21 July '66
BUILDING
I>BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTION __ BEGINS 1 April':':'66~I-::"O-:-Ma-y--:-G-:T:::-RA:-:C'--T'--2a-~b--:--~ 1st QUARTER CY 1968 '66 LAND AVAILABLE NASA RE66-15176 15 June '66 15 Sept '66 Rev _2-28-66
OHART 1
T 1 L r,
465
ELECTRONICS RESEARCH CENTER FY 67 Detail Desip &Construction Schedule

START DETAIL DESIGN FOUNDATION DESIGN COMPLETE DETAIL DESIGN COMPLETE
16 May '66
!:
DESIGN 23 Sept '66
j
8 Feb '67
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
ADVERTISE AWARD
rT
23 Sept
!:-'66:-r;-4:-Nov::---:-:'66-:--~--:-----Tr--J,.
TRACT 3 LAND AVAILABLE 12 Apri I '67
I> BENEfIC~:~,~CUPANCY
3rd QUARITR CY 1968
15 Oct '66
15 Jan '67
NASA REM-ISI77 Rev. 2-28-66
CHART
STAGING PLAN KENDALL SQ. URBAN RENEWAL AREA
'--_----,-_----'1 1
1 L-I_ _
.;
I[
CHART
466
Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Adams, will you, for the record, make a statement on the headway, reliability, and life expectancy of electronics systems that you might be making at the Electronics Research Center ~ Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. (The information referred to follows:)
STATEMENT .oN PROGRESSS IN RELIABILITY AND LIFE EXPECTANCY OF ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS AT ERC The reRearch pr.ogram at ERC is aimed principally at impr.oving the reliability and life expectancy in electr.onic systems. The .ong.oing pr.ogram is making pr.ogress on tw.o br.oad fr.onts; namely, (1) Devel.opment of impr.oved standards and qualifieati.on pr.ocedures for existing technology, and (2) research and tech n.ology investigati.ons seeking impr.oved perf.ormance in comp.onents, SUbsystems, and systems. Pr.ogress in the qualifications and standardR area is exemplifiE'd by the Center's rolE' in a NASA-WidE' micr.oelectr.onic reliability program. The rapid devel.oplIlent .of Remieonduet.or proceHsing techniques and the urgE'nt nE'eds .of application oriented projects has resulted in a prOliferation of specificati.ons and standards for nearly identical cOlllponentR, E'ach tailorE'd to the individual designer's needs. ERe, as the IE'ad CE'nter, in cooperation with othE'r CE'ntE'rs and the NASA Office of RE'liability and Quality AssurancE', haR undE'rway a program to develop a micrOE'lectronics qualifications and standards system in which component and prOCE'RS characteristic,; can bE' cataloged and upon interrogati.on, pel'tinent data will be furnishE'd to meet individual designer's needs. In the current stage of the program, ERC is formulating requirements for a data bank, establishing method,; and techniques for surveying and qualifying vendor procesRing lines, and devE'loping a pilot modE'l of the system. When completed and operating, thE' program will provide a central source of data SE'rving both the GovernmE'nt lind industry. It will furnish to users verifiE'd information on available components and prOCE'RSeS; to vend.ors it will be a central point f.or qualifying and li,;ting new devir>l's and developments for Rpace usage. ReRearch investigationR pursuing new or imprOVE'd componE'nts and dE'vices, and their associatE'd sYRtems, are constantly seE'king incrl'asl'd rl'liability and life expectancy. Although the ERC program is in its infancy, several examples of significant progress are apparent. SciE'ntists in the Components Lab.orat.ory have succl'ssfully devel.oped a s.olid RtatE' .oscillat.or, empl.oying the Gunn effect principle, which .operates at frE'quE'ncies up t.o 24 gigacyclE'S. This is a device which may, in the future, serve as a s.ource .of microwavE' E'nergy f.or b.oth c.ommunications and tracking purposes. Its s.olid state characteristic .offers considerable advantages .over current vacuum tube techn.ology in l'eliability, life expectancy, and efficiE'ncy as well as reducE'd size, weight, and powl'r r{,(}uirements. Research in the Guidance Laborat.ory is pr.ogre~sing .on the devel.opment .of no-m.oving-part sens.ors such as the laser gyr.o which av.oid the pr.oblems .of complex mechanical suspensi.ons and friction, the limiting characteristics of currently available sensors. In the Control Lab.orat.ory, work in fluid devices .offE'rs thE' pr.omise .of new components which can perform control functions, yet are unaffected by envir.onmental extremes .of temperature and radiation. The Instrumentati.on Lab.oratory has sp.omwrE'd the dE'velopmE'nt .of a nephel.ometer, an electr.onic device f.or measuring thE' sizE' and density of dust particles, f.or use in manned spacecraft. Data obtained by this instrumE'nt is essential to the design of both spacE'craft E'quipml'nt and lifE' support systems. H.olography is an.other area .of research at ERC which pr.omises increasE'd reliability in data storage and transmission systems. By use of this technique, large quantities .of data can be st.ored .on simple phot.ographic plates, translatE'd to mathematical anal.ogs, transmittE'd to gr.ound Dr a base point, and reconstructed for analyses and interpretation. Work in this area was initiated recently, however, the p.otential f.or simplified data handling and processing systems is .outstanding. Other areas of researr>h such as materials, electr.omagnetic and optical sensors, computE'rs, and E'lectroluminE'scent displays are undE'rway and have c.ommon .objectives .of incrE'asE'd reliability and pE'rformance. The ERC program is rE'latively new; alth.ough Rtaffing and facilltiE's arE' inc.omplE'te, important headway, as citE'd ab.ove, has bE'en made in the reliability and life expectancy of electronic systems. The caliber .of the pr.ofE'~sional staiT and the availability of modern research facilities promise m.ore substantive im-
467
provements in succeeding years as the implementation of the center and its research program achieves maturity.
LEWIS ENGINE TEST FACILITY Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Adams, with respect to the engine test facility that you are asking for at the Lewis Research Center-in the NASA Budget Books under Project Justification for the Supersonic Research Propulsion Systems Laboratory at Lewis, you state that facilities for such demands do not now exist. Do you mean that the facilities do not exist at Lewis, or do not exist in the United States ~ Dr. ADAMS. Such' facilities that we are proposing for Lewis do not exist in the United States. There are two that we are asking for. One is the supersonic test facility and the second is the hypersonic facility. Mr. GEHRIG. The hypersonic facility is at Plum Brook, is it not ~ Dr. ADAl\IS. Yes, but that is a part of the Lewis Center, facilities similar to this do not exist in the country. We have coordinated this with the Air Force. We have coordinating committees that review facilities of this type, and the Air Force has concurred that these facilities are required. Mr. GEHRIG. Where were the engines for the B-70 tested, and what difference or difficulties exist that prevent you from using those facilities ~ Dr. ADAMS. May I call on Mr. Harper to assist me in that ~ Mr. GEHRIG. Yes. Dr. ADAMS. Mr. Harper heads our Aeronautics Program. Mr. HARPER. The B-70 engines were developed both in the manufacturers' plants and at the Arnold Engineering Development Center at Tullahoma. These engines are about 30,000 pounds thrust level. The engines we are interested in for the supersonIc transports will be in the neighborhood of 45,OOO-pound-thrust level. There is simply a difference in the size of the facility and the air quantity required to be delivered to the engine. Mr. GEHRIG. So the existing facility at Tullahoma could not test these engines ~ Mr. HARPER. That is correct. If the Tullahoma facilities were to be used, they would have to be modified as well. Mr. GEHRIG. Have you studied the location of the new test facility, as to whether it ought to be at Tullahoma or at Lewis and why dId you decide to put it at Lewis Mr. HARPER. Yes, sir. We have a complete report that we have submitted to the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board that we developed between NASA and the Air Force. We studied both the Lewis and the Tullahoma locations. The final report was that the supporting research activities which already exist at Lewis and would have to be duplicated at AEDC to support NASA research would cause cost to be comparable in about a 4-year period, and beyond that the cost would be greater. Mr. GEHRIG. What is this supporting? Mr. HARPER. For example, materials, fuels and lubricants, research laboratories that are part of such and engine research activities which donot-Mr. GEHRIG. Does that include people ~
468
Mr. HARPER. Well, in a sense, yes, in that the AEDC is not fundamentallya research actiyity. It is a development center and it would be necessary to have a field station of the Lewis Research Center at Arnold to carry out this basic research on these engines. (The following additional material regarding the expansion of the Propulsion Systems Laboratory at Lewis Research Center was prepared by NASA for the record:)
Amplification of thl' ahove testimony regarding thl' hudgl't request for expansion of the Propulsion Systems Laboratory for rl'sl'arch on supersonic propulsion systl'ms at the Lewis Research Centl'r apppars Ill'cessary to a\'oid a misundl'r~tanding hl'tween the capabilitil's and functions of this proposl'd expansion and the capabilities and functions of the I'xi~ting facilitil's at thl' Air Force's Arnold Engineering Developnll'nt Centl'r (AEDC') whieh arl' to UI' used in support of thl' developm!'nt of th!' first operational supersonic transport (SST) engines. Thl' answer given during t'he above vl'rbal testimony was offered in the framework of research I'xperimentation for ."I'cond generation SST !'ngines as opposed to the developmental testing of the first gl'neration SST I'ngines. If the thrust of the committee's questions was to the dl'velopmental tl'sting of the first generation 45.000-pound thrust mach 3 enginl's for the SST; the answer is, such testing can be accomplished with existing facilitil's at AEDC. The following comments are submitted in an effort to clarify the distinction between reS!'arch !'xperimentation and developmental testing and to justify further the rl'quest for the expansion of the facilities at the Lewis Research Center. Research experimentation.-Aeronautical activities at NASA are a part of the Office of Advanced Research and Technology. It is the general practice of this Office, and the specific practice in the aeronautieal area (going back for many years to the ~ACA). to engage in research and technology activiti!'s directed at gaining new knowledge and capabilities required for development of new aeronautical systems. D!'velopmental testing is done only for oth!'r Government agencies at their request. Therefore. ~ASA's aeronautical programs and facilities are basro on resl'areh and technology requirements which are for the most part more dl'manding than the requireml'nts for dl'velopulI'nt testing alone. For example, facilities for research experimentation are generally designed with more elaborate instrumentation so that a greater amount of data may be recorded, and with greater flexibility so that a wider range of variables may be studied. Developmental testing.-Developmental testing. in contrast. is in a large measure a "proof" testing allowing correction of detailro deficil'ncies in a given design but without necessarily identifying the basic phenomena responsible for the deficiency. This type of testing is characterized by long hours of continuous operation of the system under test, and a detailed examination of those components which fail, in order to define necessary changes in design detail. There is no need for the extensive research-type instrumentation and hence "smaller" test cells are acceptable for developmental testing of propulsion systems. In the framework of the above distinction, eonsider now what the facilities at the AEDC are designed to do, and the role they will play in tlle development of the SST propulsion systems. The FAA has the responsibility of developing this eountry's first commercial SST which will fly and then become operational in the early to mid-1970's. Final contracts for this development have not been let either for the airframe or the engines. However, the basic design 'Of the first engine is pretty well fixed, bllsro on previous research work and experience. Once the engine contractor has been selectro, much dE'sign and test work will be necessary to perfect the specific details so that operational flight engines can be delivered to the airframE' manufacturer. Some of this testing will be done by the engine manufacturer at his own facilities; the I'xact amonnt will dl'ppnd on the manufacturer chosen beeanse of the fadlitiE's he has at his cOlllmand. But during the developml'nt phase and to demonstrate to thE' GovernmE'nt thnt hrunrantees will be met. much proof testing will be necessary and that is whE're the fncilities of the AEDC enter the picture. In faet, .Tanuary 21 the FAA slglwd an agr!'l'lllent with thl' Air Force for the use of the eXisting test faeilitiE's at the AEDC.
469
The test facilities to be used are the "J-l" test cell at AEDC; in this 16-foot diameter test cell the engines can be supplied with airflow at proper conditions corresponding to flight up to 1\:1 3.0 and altitudes at least up to 80,000 feet. The J-l cell has thrust-measuring capability and instrumentation (temperature, pressure, vibration, etc.) of quantity and type necessary to support adequately the developmental testing of engines appropriate to the SST. At no time has NASA considered that it would be required to supply major support in developmental testing of these "first generation" SST engines. Why tlte /l('W ielit facility at Lewis Research Center is needed.-Engineers at NASA and elsewhere have recognized that much potential improvement in engine performance exists beyond the present state of the art and every effort should be made to exploit this to the ultimate benefit of the SST. The situation is not unlike that at the time of the first introduction of the I'ubsonic jet powered by turbojet enginers. The questions of economic viability which were raised at that time were eliminated largely as a consequence of later introduction of the more advanced turbofan engine. Current designs for SST engines do not approach the theoretically possible efficiencies of M 2.5 to 3.0 propuh'ion systems. Some of the present engine component designs have remained relatively conservative. Marked innovations in dpsigns must be evolved and this can only come about from a broad exploratory research experimentation program. In considering the various tpchnical element.-; of SST design, improvements in the engine appear to be the major area where substantial advances in tpchnology can be found which will measurably improve the operational capability of the aircraft (and therefore the profits of the airline operators or logistic value for any military application). It should be emphasized at this point that the "cycle" time for a new engine from initial concept to final development is on the order of 8 to 10 years, so that these "spcond generation" engines will not be available until after thE' mid-1970's which iR several YPars after the first SST's, with "first generation" engines, go into commercial operation. But the 8- to 10-ypar devE'lopmental period must bE'gin with research and, at this time, proper facilities do not exist for thp conducting of such a resparch experimentation program that would lpad ultimately to the devplopment of these advanced "second generation" engines. Action Of tlte AACB.-The entire problem of SST engine research and development testing, and Rppcifically the need for such a facility as discussed above, was {'arefully {'onsidered by the Aeronauti{'s Panel of the AeronauticR and Astronautks Coordinating Board at the request of Dr. Seamans (NASA) and Dr. Brown (DOD), cochairman of the AACB. This Aeronautics Panel was composed ofChairman: Rear Adm. Noel A. 1\:1. Gayler, U.S. Navy, Director, Development Programs Di,ision, Office of Chipf of Naval Operations, DOD. Yice Chairman: Mr. Charles ,"Y. Harper, Office of Associate Administrator for AdYanced Re~arch and Tpchnology, NASA. ~Iembers: Dr. Floyd Thompson, Langley Research Center, NASA; Mr. 1\:Iark R. Nichols. Langley Research Center, NASA; ~fr. Woodrow L. Cook, Ames Research Center, NASA; Mr. Charles H. ChriRtf'nson, Office of Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development, DOD; Mr. T. C. Muse, Office of Defense Research and Engineering DOD; Col. A. J. Rankin, USA, Office Chief of Resear{'h and DeYelopment, DA, DOD. Secretaries: Mr. Jack D. Brewer, Office of Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Tpchnology, XASA: Mr. Clem ,"'eisman, DOD. Alternate: Lt. Col. J. W. Kritzar, U.S. Air Force, Office of Deputy Chief of Staff Research and DeYelopment, DOD. The difference between research experimentation and developmental testing were considered in detail during the study of the propulsion research facility qUf'stion by this Panel. As a part of its deliberations, the Aeronautics Panel and the Ad Hoc Propulsion Research Study Group advising on this question, gave due consideration to the question of development testing of thf' SST "first generation" engines to be built undf'r the FAA-SST program. It was re{'ognized that these engines would represent a most ad,anced state-of-thE'-art de~ign, that extensive de,elopment proof testing would be required, and that AEDC could, and should under its deHignated responsibility, perform such tests in existing facilities at that center. The Aeronautics Panel also considered whether thE' proposed research facility, if approved and built, should be located at the AEDC or at the Lewis Research
470
Center. The Aeronautics Panel agreed that the new facility was needed and, after detailed and prolonged study of the many considerations involved, recommended that it be located at the Lewis Rl'sl'arch Center. l<Jxcerpts of the report containing the Aeronautical Panel's recommendations to the full AACB are as follows: "a. Since, over any reasonable operating period for the proposed new facilities, NASA requirements cannot be more economically met by an upgrading of, and the use of, the U.S. Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center, it is recommended that the Lewis Research Center proceed with planning, as proposed, leading to the constru,ction of facilities at Lewis Research Center required for air-breathing propulsion research." The Panel recognized further that aeronautical development in the United States was constrained seriously by a lack of an aggressive national research and development program in all classes of air-breathing propulsion systems. As a consequence the Panel also recommended that"c. Facility plans and requirements must be responsive to, and derived from, all service and/or civil requirements to conserve resources and promote activl' progress. The Aeronautics Panel strongly recommends that effort be made to outline a coordinated national program of resl'arch and development activities in the field of aircraft propulsion." The AACB met on May 4, 1965, and approved the report of the Aeronautics Panel. The AACB members present were:
DOD delegation
Dr. Harold Brown, Director of Defl'nse J>search and Engineering, Cochairman. Dr. Albert C. Hall, Deputy Director of Defense Rl'search and l<Jngineering (Space). Dr. Eugene G. Fubini, Assistant Secretary of Defense (R. & E.). Col. Clifford J. Kronauer, U.S. Air Force, Assistant Director (Ranges and Space Ground Support), O.D.D.R. & E. Mr. Starr J. Colby, Assistant Director (Space Technology), O.D.D.R. & E. Mr. Albert Weinstein, DOD-AACB secretary.
N ABA delegation
Dr. Rolll'rt C. Sl'amans, Jr., Associate Administrator, Cochairman. Adm. W. F. Boone, U.S. Navy (retired), Deputy Associate Administrator for Defense Affairs. Dr. Raymond L. Bisplinghoff, Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology. Dr. GeorgI' K Mueller, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight. Mr. Milton Rosen, senior scientist, Office of the Deputy Associate Administrator for Defl'nse Affairs. Mr. Edmund C. Buckley, Dirl'ctor, Traeking and Data Acquisition. Mr. Charles W. Harper, Director, Aeronautics DiVision, Office of Advanced Rl'search and Technology. ~fr. Leonard Jaffe, Office of Assoeiatl' Administrator for Space Sciencl's and Applica tions. Mr. Richard J. Green, NASA-AACB secretary. This aetion, and the subsequl'llt approval of NASA Hl'adquartl'rs, the Budget Bureau, and the Presidl'nt, led to the inclusion of this fadlity in the NASA construetion of faeilities request for fiscal year 1007. It should be emphasized that the new facilities are to be "added on" thereby making I'xtensive use of existing facilities. The nl'w facilities will consist of threl' major elements, a compressor and cold turbinl' tl'st cell (costing with its accl'ssory I'quipml'nt, about $1 million), a combustor and hot turbinl' tl'st cell (costing with its accl'ssory I'quipml'nt about $10 million), lind a compll'te I'ngillP tl'st cl'll with II diametl'r of 24 fpl't (costing with its ne(~ssory equillllll'nt about $3 million). This resl'arch faeility complex is desiglll'd to ml'pt rl'quirplllpnb~ for rl'spnrch on I'ngine C()lIIponpllh~ for puginl'S, and compll'tl' engiul's, hn viug thrlJ.-;t levels in the range of 4:;,000 to [)O,OOO pounds. This lIlodification is also dl'signpd to augulPnt the capability of othl'r fadlitips of thl' Propulsion Systl'lllS Laboratory alrpudy I'xisting at Lewis Rl'sl'arch Cl'ntl'r sueh liS those faciliti!'fl rl'qllirl'tI for basic and applil'd reRearch. The Propulsion System Laboratory already hus facilities with whieh basic research is conducted in the areas ofHigh tpmpernture engine matl'rials. Internal aerothermodynamics.
~)
471
High temperature bearings, lubricants and seals. Mixing, ignition, and combustion of gasses. Heat transfer and cooling. The Propulsion Systems Laboratory also has facilities with which applied research is conducted. These facilities are capable of taking the results of the basic research work and applying them to the study of engine components and subcomponents at relatively small scale. They include facilities for in vestiga ting : Compressor and fan blade elements. Single and multistage compressors and fans. Combustors. Turbine blade elements (cooled and uncooled). Single and multistage turbines. Exhaust nozzles. Inlet-engine controls. The proposed addition will enable the more promising of these basic and small-scale results to be carried to large-scale research. This is a necessary step since the scaling laws for the physical processes under research, noted above, are imperfectly understood. Moving to large scale, however, does not obviate the need for the small laboratory support. Invariably the large-scale research reveals new basic problems and identifies areas where basic research must be intensified on recognized problems. The two activities thus have a continuing and important interaction. Advanced SST engines will have a diameter of about 6 feet. To conduct research properly on that phase involving full size complete engines, requires a test cell diameter of about 2! feet, since past experience with propulsion research has shown this size ratio of about 4 is the minimum acceptable. The ratio is established largely by the need for containing within the cell (and to allow ready access to and continuing modification of) the large amount of research equipment required to document fully and in great detail all of the aerodynamic and thermodynamic phenomena undergoing study. For example, in the research phase of a program, extensive use is made of special high-speed, quick-response recording equipment, cameras, traversing mechanisms, rakes, and probes for measuring aerothermodynamic phenomena (temperatures, pressures, vibration, fiutter, etc.). A great number of research information channels are required in order to study the aerodynamic, mechanical, and control coupling effects amongst the many intricate components of a complete propulsion system. It is quite common to use research equipment and instrumentation that is still in the experimental development phase. This type of equipment and instrumentation requires the constant attention by the instrument research personnel that developed the equipment to be constantly alert and available to monitor, calibrate, and improve the equipment as necessary. It is also quite common to design the particular engine component being studied during the research phase to have a maximum amount of flexibility so that relatively quick changes can be made to the engine component and/or research equipment and instrumentation so as to accommodate and incorporate advanced ideas as the research program progresses. The objective of these detailed stUdies is, of course, to provide better unders.tanding of these phenomena and to obtain quantitative data in a form that industry can use to improve current engine design and for final design of advanced engines. This understanding is a prerequisite for the development of specifications which will enable propulsion engineers to design the "second generation" SST engines.
mGH ENERGY LIQUID ENGINE WORK
Mr. GEHRIG. Thank you. Dr. Adams, with respect to your new program in high-energy liquid hydrogen and oxygen engines, you have advised the Committee of your intent to utilize $2 million of the $7.5 million reserved by the Congress in 1966 to continue the M-1 engine project and after an extensive review of the M-1 technology, you now plan to, if you get the consent of the Congress, as I understand it, to allocate $3.5 million of the remaining funds to the newer and more advanced high energy concepts. Where is the money in
50-941
~6----31
472
the fiscal year 1967 budget that you are requesting for this high energy liquid engine work? Dr. ADAMS. That is a part of the supporting research and technology line item in the Chemical Propulsion Program. We do not regard this advanced engine as a project at this time, but rather a technology program in order to move the technology forward so that we can design a project in the future. But I mentioned, and you have repeated that $3.5 million out of the supporting research and technology budget, is allocated to the advanced work in fiscal 1967. Mr. GEHRIG. That is how much from the fiscal year 1966 budget are you planning to reprogram? Dr. ADAMS. $3.5 million we are asking to reprogram. Mr. GEHRIG. When Congress authorized that $7.5 million last year for the M-1, they authorized it with the understanding that it would not be reprogramed. How much of the request in the Chemical Propulsion is for your high-energy liquid engine work? $3.5 million, as I understand it. Dr. ADAMS. For fiscal 1966, $3.5 million, and also, by coincidence, fiscal 1967 also will have $3.5 million. Your statement was certainly true that the money in fiscal 1966 was specifically allocated to M-1 and this is why we are requesting concurrence of this committee for us to reprogram that money for the advanced engine, and certainly we did not take any action yet, pending your approval. REQUEST APPROVAL TO REPROGRAM M-l FUNDS The CUAIRl\L\N. I>idn 'f Congress say you were not to reprogram it? Dr. AD.\:\IS. I think that the bill stated that the fiscal 1966 money was allocated to the M-l engine. I do not think the bill stated that we could not reprogram, but we are asking your permission at this time. The CHAIRMAN. 'VeIl, the conference before did so state, did it not? And didn't my statement on the floor so indicate ? We discussed it in conference very carefully, and perhaps the House Conference Report says it where the Senate does not, but did not the House Conference Report say something on that subject? Dr. ADAMS. Perhaps there is one there. Mr. SHAPLEY. Yes, sir, I believe the Conference Report had said the money was intended to be available for the M-1 proJect only. The CHAIRMAN. Didn't it say it should not be reprogramed? Mr. SHAPLEY. The language, as I recall it, is as I have stated. Dr. ADAMS. Can you read it? Mr. GEHRIG. The House Statement of Managers says:
Speaking of the $7.5 million for the continuation of the M-l development, the managers on the part of till' House and the Senate stipulated that this amount shall be used only for the continued development of the M-l engine.
Mr. SILU'LEY. Yes. I think, Mr. Chairman, it should be clear what our posture on this is. We recognize that this language was in the Conference Report. We have not depnvted from it. We are coming before you and before the House as the authors of the Conference Heport to present a different situation and request your approval of a new proposal.
473
Mr. GEHRIG. If the Congress authorizes the $12,700,000 you are requesting for liquid rocket research and advanced .technology and chemical propulsion, will you consider that you have approval to proceed with the reprograming of the $3.5 million from the fiscal year 1966 M-1 authorIZation to the new program? Mr. SHAPLEY. Well, I believe it would be up to the Committee to determine how they would like to advise us of their views on this subject. I would assume that in the absence of any other statement of rec.ord we would so assume, as you have indicated. Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of other questions that we believe should be answered for the record and, with your permi~sion, I shall submit them for the record. The CHAmMAN. With no objection~ that will be done. Thank you very much, Dr. Adams. vVe appreciate your being here this mornmg. Dr. ADAMS. Thank you very much. (Questions submitted by the committee to Dr. Adams and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
LARGE SPACE POWER NEEDS OF THE FUTURE
Question 1. Dr. Adams, what are the various alternatives for the large space power needs of the future? Answer. In the tens of kilowatt-power range, which appear to be needed for such possible missions as direct broadcast TV satellites, manned orbiting laboratories, and some phases of lunar exploration, the systems of interest are the solar photovoltaic, SNAP-8 Rankine and compact thermoelectric systems. The SNAP-8 Rankine system is under ground develnpment in the 3.'1--50 kilowatt range to insure the ldentifieation and resolution of major eompont'llt and systt>'Iil performauet>' aud developmt>'nt un~rtiiinties. Tht>' technology of compact tht>'rmoelectric convt>'rters and large solar arrays is under investigation to determine their feasibility and performance characteristies in the tens of kilowatt range. For the still larger power requirements of the morp distant future. whleh may be ueeded for electric propulsion to the outer planets of unmanned probeS,. orbiters and landers as well as for manned electric propulsion and large auxinary power needs, we and the AEC are studying various system ooncepts. These include the nuclear reactor-potassium Rankine turbogenerator system, the direct conversion thermionic system, the advanced Brayton /niS turhogenerator system and the liquid metal magnetohydrodynamic system. Most of these systems are in the te<'hnology phase of development in whkh systems parameters and oomponent design and performance information are heing oht<line~. All of' th~e systems operate at very high telhperatures and detailed investigations are n~ sary to evaluate the various alternatives.
ROLE OF AERONAUTICS IN NASA ORGANIZATION
Question 2. Dr. Adams, as you kuow many people feel that the aeronautics activity at NASA is a sort of orgaiii~titf.m"l '''stepchild.'' Bemuse of the importance of this actiivty. why isn't tbl'te lin ..dmce of Aeronautics" in NASA on a par with the other major offices? Yesterday the President sent the Congress a message on transportation. What will the impact of that message be on your programs in aeronautics? Answer. The NASA is fnlly aware of the coDet>'rn in the aviation and tran. portation industry over the role NASA has played and is playing in aeronautics. The statement is made often that NASA "should be doing more." The NASA has made a determined effort through its advisory eommittees to respond to the demand; however, in a very large number of instances it proves to be that what ie. desired is Ii program by NASA that extends far beyond a research phase into development. A dedsion to embark on sueh a policy of devt>'loplIIental support in a highly oompetitive industry. as is the aerospaee industry, involves coosldention of lllany factors beyond NASA aeronautics research.
474
It should be recognized that all of NASA research, space and aeronautics, is concentrated in OART control and that the other offices on the whole represent operational application of this research including all of the expensive, developmental, prove-of-concept activities. Operational responsibility carrying clearly established mission goals can be separated logically from research. It is difficult to conceive of research in space and aeronautics being separated since the scientific disciplines for each have much in common and the scientific talent NASA has in its research centers shifts between the disciplines as circumstances demand. On the whole NASA considers that its aeronautics research program has been very successful in pointing the way to many advances in aeronautics which are simply awaiting development. Under these circumstances it would not appear logical or effective to create an "Office of Aeronautics." On the other hand, if the Government chose to support development in aeronautics and NASA were to carry a major responsibility in this regard, a new office would require consideration. Even then the decision would be unclear since, in that case, NASA would not carry ultimate operational responsibility, as it does in space activities, but would serve an additional function between research and the ultimate user, civil or military. Establishment of a major governmental activity in transportation, designeli to accelerate transportation development, would certainly have a significant impact on NASA planning with regard its role in air transport development. Should the Government conclude that national interests would be served best by Government-supported air transport development, it seems likely that NASA aeronautics activities would undergo a major change.
AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEMS
Question 3. Dr. Adams, in view of the President's message of yesterday regarding aircraft noise, would you give us your technical judgment on the prospects of solving these noise problems including the problems of sonic boom? Answer. Considering first the airport noise problem; that is, engine-generated noise. At present only about 1 percent of propulsion energy is lost to noise generation; this represents a highly efficient system. To eliminate noise as a problem would require that less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the energy be lost to nOise; no research has shown yet how this can be accomplished. Present standards consider 112 PNdb (perceived noise level) as just tolerable; 100 PNdb would probably be acceptable since normal building construction absorbs about 20 PNd'b and a level of 80 PNdb approaches city background noise. Research does indica:te that 10 to 15 PNdb reduction in noise level (from 112 PNdb) is possible by using fully suppressed turbofan engines. However, use of maximum noise suppression techniques will entail economic penalties to the airlines; increased weight, increased complexity, increased maintenance of propulsion systems, increased fuel consumption and increased first cost, all will accompany use of suppressors. In the view of NASA it appears that some regulatory action and hence very careful economic analysis will be required to achieve a proper balance between airline economics and noise, or annoyance, control. It seems quite clear also that very close to the 'airport, complete noise relief will require some form of land use control. Finally, research does indicate that very substantial reduction in engine noise could be achieved if wholly new engines were developed with minimum noise objectives from the beginning. NASA is studying the design of such engines but, of course, this can be considered only as a very long-range solution. Turning now to the sonic boom. No theoretical analysis or experimental result gives any indication that it will be possible to prevent the creation of the shock wave, of which the sonic boom is the sensed evidence, when a body is moved through the air at supersonic speeds. Our objective is, then to reduce or control the sonic boom through aircraft design and aircraft oper~tion to a level that IDay be perceivable but not objectionable. While the sonic boom may not be eliminated Its characteristic signature can be controlled to a degree. One of our first objectives is to determine the form of the sign-ature least objectionable and design to achieve this. For example, it seems likely that the sharp "crack" produced by a small aircraft will be far more objectionable than the "runlble" the large SST is expected to produce. Nevertheless these conjectures remain to be proved.

PBOBLEM OF GETTIJ.'IIG TO AND FROM .AIB.POBT
475
Question 4. Dr. Adams, in his transportation message the President said: "We spend millions for fast jet aircraft-but little on the traveler's problem of getting to and from the airport." He went on to urge that we have more effective systems research programs. Does NASA in its aeronautics programs consider such problems as the President mentioned and just how involved is NASA's effort in this "systems research" area? Answer. The NASA is concerned increasingly with transportation systems and the part the airborne vehicle will play. Definitions of such systems is required before NASA can program its research into most rewarding areas. NASA funds some contract studies directed at defining most probable systems. It is clear, however, that definitive studies of this nature require information on economics, social habits, travel habits, urban development, and the like which are quite alien to NASA background. Therefore, NASA has both formal and informal contacts with FAA, Department of Commerce, NAS, CAB, and other groups more closely associated with the overall transportation problem; their inputs are used as a primary constraint on many NASA programs. NASA has not taken initiative in studies involving nonairbome systems related to airportto-town transportation.
NABA BOLE IN AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT
Question 5. Dr. Adams, NASA has steadfastly maintained that its traditional role, the same as NACA, is research only. When DOD decided that it had no large requirement for an SST the traditional fallout to civil aviation from military development was not realized. In light of this experience, don't you think that NASA may have to depart from its traditional role and move into some aeronautical development phases in the future? Do you feel NASA will maintain its traditional role of research only in any future U.S. transportation system, -especially in light of the President's transportation message? Answer. The question of whether NASA should depart from its traditional role in aeronautics can be answered properly only after the broader question is answered as to whether the Government should underwrite aeronautical development broadly as it is doing specifically for the SST. There is little doubt but that aeronautical development could be accelerated if the Government carried a portion of initial developmental risk. Since the NASA research program would provide a major base for such development it would appear logical for NASA to carry major responsibility if such a ,,1;ep were taken. The XASA would respond, of course, to any policy evolving from a Government transportation program which required NASA research and development support. It does seem unlikely that a positive program in this regard would leave NASA in its traditional research role.
NASA BOLE IN ,sST PBOGBAM
Question 6. Dr. Adams, in 1963, $60 million was appropriated to the FAA for a detailed design competition leading to the development of an SST. FAA, DOD, and NASA were to play major roles in this development. What is the status of the project now? How is NASA's work in supersonics related to this project? Will the FAA reimburse NASA for research work done by NASA toward the SST? What is the NASA-industry relation!>hip in this project? Answer. The NASA role in the SST program is one of technical support to the FAA and its contractors in the development of the prototype aircraft and research to provide the technology for second generation and future advanced supersonic transports and engines. At the present time the FAA's program schedule calls for evaluation of contractor's proposals for the SST prototype in the fall 1966 and prototype construction go-ahead in January 1967. The NASA's work in supersonics is very closely related to the SST project since the SST is an advanced supersonic aircraft -the success of which depends on utilization of 'the most advanced information and technology in aerodynamics, propulsion,
476
material~, and structures. Progress in these areas since the late 1950's has played an important part in the deci~ions to date to proceed with the SS'!' program. Since, there has been sustained progre~s in further refining the technologies whiC'h underlie supersonic commercial air transportation, largely through the efforts of industry to develop practical operational vehicles incorporating advanced design concepts. The NASA's resources and capabilties are available to the Government agencies on a nonreimbursable basis and the FAA will not reimburse the NASA for research work done by NASA toward the SST. Indu~.try representatives visit our research centers on a variety of suhjpcts related to the SST in the areas of aerodynamies, materials, struetures, propulsion, fiight dynamks, and operational enyironmE'nt on a frE'quent schedule. ThE' NARA assists in thE' solution of problems whenever possiblE'-such exchanges are also of considE'rahle bE'nE'fit to the GOYf'rnlllent in bringing problems to the attention of the researeh people so that solutions can be sought at an parly stage in the program. In short, since the SST is a GovernnlPnt program thE' ~ARA assist" the FAA's ('ontractors through making pertinpnt data and information availablE' to them as soon as it bpcomes availablp and by conducting wind tunnE'1 test" and simulator studips of eontraetor's configurations that the FAA requeHts.
V/STOL AIRCRAFT R. & D.
Question 7. Dr. Adams, are the V/STOL aircraft projects mentioned in your statement all being developed under DOD management? Have any been operationally evaluated yet? What value will civil aviation derive from these aircraft that are built under military requirements? As these aircraft have been developed, has there been any attempt by NASA or anyone else to mesh civil requirements with miiltary requirements so as to produce the best type of aircraft for both usages? AnswE'r. The XVr;A, XC-142, and X-2'2 are all being devploped under DOD management. The X-14 was developed by DOD then 'given to the NASA which has made extensive modifications enabling itH use aR a variable stability VTOL research aircraft. The P-1127 was devploped by the British and the Mirage 3V by the French; the NATO has had a strong hand in the development of these latter two aircraft and through the NATO, the DOD has a dirpct interest. Thp P-1127 is the only aircraft produ(,pd in suflkipnt number yet to rpceive any operational field trials; this hal' bepn a NATO exercise to date but shortly a U.S. evaluation will begin; the single XV5A is undergoing operational evaluation to the extent it can be accomplished with one aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base. The five XC-142 aircraft are undprgoing contractor demonstration but are scheduled for operational evaluation. The two X-22 aircraft are aimed at research although some operational problems will be studied. It is n.ot known the extent to which the French plan operational evaluation of the Mirage 3V. Civil aviation will benefit indirectly through fiight proof of theoretieal and wind tunnel predictiom; of VTOL performance, through data gatherpd on han(Hing qualities, and a first measure of deyplopmental prohlems. This exp('riencp will provide greatly increased confidence in interpreting studies of dpsigns pointed at civil use. Within these developments, civil requirements have impospd no constraints. However, studies of possible civil usp have identifiE'd civil requirPlllents. Civil reqnirempnts in general will be more stringent than military and these vphieles show the critical areas of technology.
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COOPERATION
Question 8. Dr. Adams, diseus!'l your coordination aetivities with the Defense Department? FAA? What progress has takpn nlace in the area of improved interdppartmental ('ooperation during the past year'! Answer. OART coordinatioIl activities with the Department of Defpnse are to a major extent centered in the aeronautics panel and the supporting space researeh and teehnology panel of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board. The aeronautics panel held three formal meptings during 1965. Major efforts were (1) the consideration of propulsion facilities, with the outcome a joint
477
recommendation supporting the construction of the proposed propulsion systems laboratories at the Lewis Research Center, and (2) the adoption of a NASA! DOD policy statement on joint partiCipation in aeronautical research and development, establishing guiding principles for the planning and coordination of complementary programs in NASA and the Department of Defense in the aeronautics area. The supporting space research and technology panel held five meetings during 1965. In addition to continuing consideration of general coordination between the two agencies, the panel investigated in depth and coordinated efforts on the SNAP-8 nuclear power system, large solid rocket engines, and advanced liquid rocket propulsion technology. The life sciences subpanel and the control, guidance and navigation subpanel continued activity in program coordination. A materials subpanel and an ad hoc subpanel on reusable launch ,ehicle technology were established during the year. Each of the four subpanels held three or more formal meetings, implementing coordination of programs of both agencies in the various technical areas. As a key element of the supporting space research and technology panel coordination, essentially all of the NASA research and technology program has been processed in standardized format for exchange with the Department of Defense. OART has recently signed a contract for the design of a data handling system which will provide automated processing of the total data bank. In addition to supporting internal NASA management, the system will greatly enhance inter agency infonuation exchange, processing of queries in defined areas, and coordination of program material. Underlying the formal coordination outlined above are a number of less formalized coordination activities. Among these is the NASA/OART-AFSC/ RTD steering group. This effort covers areas of mutual interest to OART and RTP, both as to coordination of existing programs and planning of future program elements. Technical areas which have been considered by individual working groups are hypersonic aircraft technology, V/STOL teehnolQgy, lifting reentry technol'Ogy, high pressure rocket engine techn'Ology, and advanced filaments and composite materials. The NASA-FAA Coordinating Committee was established t'O. strengthen the coordination between these two agencies. The formal agreement setting up the Committee was signed by Messrs. Webb and Balaby effective April 21, 1965. The primary functi'On of the Committee is to assure that programs of the two agencies are properly coordinated at the appropriate level. This function is effected through briefings on individual programs within each agency and through joint overall planning of national-scale programs which would inv'Olve both agencies. The Committee has met ~ix times since its authorization. The following are the major accomplishments of this activity: (1) Coordination of jet noise abatement programs. (2) Coordination 'Of V/STOL handling qualities criteria program, including participation of the military services. (3) Discussion of FAA needs and NASA technological capabilities with regard to the navigation satellite. (4) Discussion of biomedical area, regarding FAA needs and NASA achievements from astronaut biomedical investigations. (5) Briefing on NASA in-house simulators, and how use of similar facilities could assist FAA in the certification of new aircraft. The overall coordination with other Go,ernment agencies, insofar as OART i!l concerned, has been greatly strengthened during the past year. This enhanced coordination activity is contributing to the planning of mutually complementary programs and the aV'Oidance of unwarranted duplicative efforts, and has been instrumental in developing closer relationships between NASA personnel and those of other agencies at policymaking and working levels.
NASA EFFORTS ON AUTOMOBILE BRAKING
Question 9. Dr. Adams, you discuss the experiments conducted by Langley on automobile braking and skidding as an extension of NASA work on aircraft landing research. Under whose request was this work initiated? Is :\'ASA reimbursed for these efforts? Could such undertakings attain a frequency that would interfere with NASA's aeronautical and space research responsibilities?
478
Answer. For some years the NASA Langley Research Center has been making use of highway facilities to obtain basic information on aircraft tire tread and braking problems using automobiles as inexpensive test vehicles. In return the NASA has kept highway departments advised of its research on etrects of pavement roughness on braking characteristics which might be applicable to highway safety. More recently our Office of Technology Utilization brought the NASA hydroplaning and braking results to the attention of the GSA and Bureau of Public Roads for considf'ration. At their request NASA provided consultation and guidance to a series of experiments related to automobile skidding on wet surfaces. All special equipment required and special personnel were supplied; NASA costs were negligible. No reimbursement was supplied NASA for the services of its technical staff. No special equipment was purchased by NASA for these relatiYely brief studies. The support requested by NASA from nonaeronautics activities, but ones which might benefit by application of knowledge derived from aeronautics oriented scientific discipline, tends to be sli~ht. In almost every case if can be responded to on a noninterference basis, that is performed between aeronautics projects or when these encountered an unforeseen delay. In most instances NASA simply offers some initial guidance during early phases of a project or provides a source of data through use of its facilities which is processed and analyzed elsewhere. There is no evidence that these infrequent demands will rise to a level where loss, through interference with aeronautics research, would exceed the value of the activity to the agency making the request.
MATERIALS RESEARCH
Question 10 (a) Dr. Adams, how are advanced research and development programs in materials coordinated with the DOD to insure that duplicate programs are not undertaken? (b) Does NASA have any fiber materials programs? (c) Is ~ ASA dOing anything in boron fiber structure? Answer. (a) Extensive coordination on research and development programs exists within the materials community. The group charged specifically with comparing each NASA and DOD project to certify that no undesirable duplication exists is the sub panel on materials of the Space Supporting Research and Technology Panel of the AeronautiC's and AstronautiC's Coordinating Board. This subpanel consists of four representatives from NASA and a representative from DOD, Air I<~orce, Navy, and the Army. In addition coordination of activities is accomplished through several other interagency groups on which both NASA and DOD is represented. The principal ones are: 1. The Coordinating Committee for Materials Research and Development of the Office of Science and Technology. This group has NASA and DOD representation. 2. The NASA Materials Research Advisory Committee. This group has DOD, Air Force, Navy members as well as representation from each NASA installation. 3. The Materials Advisory Board of the National Academy of Science. This activity has extensive NASA and DOD representation on its many committees. (b) Yes; NASA has an extensive program on fibers. This program Is carried out in our Langley and Lewis Research Centers, at the Marshall Space Flight Center and 'by grants or contracts with several universities and industrial laboratories. The program includes the cOI.1sideration of suC'h metallic fibers as steel, beryllium, and tungsten; such inorganic nonmetallic fibers as carbon and boron; and a variety of organic (polymeric) fibers. These materials are being investigated In the form of continuous fibers for such applications as tanks and as short-chopped fibers which are dispersed in other materials for such applications as turbine blades. (c) Yes; boron is one of the material" incorporated into each of the programs mentioned above. More specifically, the Lewis Research Center is studying the applicability of boron fibers for compre"sor vanes in advanced air breathing engines; the Marshall Space Flight Center is looking at boron fibers in an aluminum matrix as part of their light weight tank development (this work is by contract with the Harvey Aluminum Co.) ; and our Langley Research Center has a more broad program to investigate boron (as wf'll as other fibers) for advanced structural application. Langley recently published a report (TN-D-3202) covering one aspect of their work.
479
NASA also has a contract with the General Technological Corp. of Alexandria to study ways to incorporate boron (and other fibers) into various matrices.
BORON FIBEBo MATERIALB
Question 11. Dr. Adams, it is our understanding that the use of baron fiber materials for structures would make possible large payload increases in our air and spacecraft but that manufacturing technology must be developed to reduce the price of the material significantly. Who do you think should do the R. & D. to improve such manufacturing technology? Is this a NASA responsibility when the applications of the such technology would be in the fields of aeronautics and astronautics? Answer. 1. The price of baron filament is dependent on the quantity produced, not on the evolution of some radically new manufacturing method. Thus to reduce the cost we must find uses. This means the whole spectrum of research and development activities is required. The range is from basic research on characteristics. optimization of properties, studies to increase uniformity, studies to incorporate the fibers into a variety of binders, and finally to application studies. 2. Structures made from boron filaments are potentially very useful to both ~ASA and the DOD and consequently each has a responsibility in its development. There is at present a recognition of this in both agencies, and the OART people are working very closely with the Advanced Filament and Composite Division at Wright-Patterson to assure that the required studies are conducted and to assure that there is no undesirable overlap.
HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN ENGINES
Question 12. Dr. Adams, have you examined your program in hydrogen and oxygen engine technology that is to be initiated after the cancellation of the M-l engine and are you convinced that your efforts in this area in no way duplicate work being done in the Department of Defense? Would you furnish for the record a discussion of the differences between DOD research and the NASA research in this area explaining how the programs complement one another and together provide a national program in hydrogenoxygen engine advance research and technology? Answer. Yes, I have examined our program in hydrogen and oxygen technology that is to follow the M-l work and we are working very closely with the .Air Force to make the NASA and .Air Force programs complementary and to avoid unnecessary duplication. In addition to coordination at various levels on details, the two programs were the subject of a jOint meeting of the Launch Vehicle and Supporting Space Research and Technology Panels of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordination Board on November 29, 1965. I chaired this meeting and it is my intention to follow this work very closely to insure that coordination at all levels continues. As a result of this meeting, a memorandum is in preparation which will set forth an integrated national program on advanced hydrogen-oxygen engines and the role of each agency in carrying out this program. When this memorandum is completed and fully coordinated, we will be pleased to forward a copy to the committee.
(The following question was submitted by Senator Young to Dr. Adams and the answer supplied for the record follows:)
PERSONNEL AT LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER
Question. Dr. Adams, we note a proposed reduction of 40 in administrative and research and development support personnel at the Lewis Research Center. Does this result from management studies of manpower utilization. or is there some specific factor such as reduced workload that accounts for the reduction? Answer. Manpower is our most critical resource, thus it is the subject of careful and continual review at all levels of management within OART, both at the headquarters level and the center level. In fiscal year 1967, in order to remain within the total complement budgeted for the OART installations, it is necessary to reduce the LeWis Research Center complement. In our desire to minimize the impact on our mainstream effort at Lewis, and based on the facts as we see them now, it appears that we may be able to reduce our support personnel by 40
480
positions without serious adverse effect. However, we will continue to review the tradeoffs between programs with a view toward achieving the best possible balance between personnel requirements and resources available.
(Questions submitted by Senator Byrd to Dr. Adams and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
MANpOWER REQUIREMENTS AT LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER
Question 1. Dr. Adams, I note that you project, in fiscal year 1967, a reduction of 55 people at the Langley Research Center. All the reduction, except for 10 people, is in the research programs. What accounts for this reduction in the technical eft'ort? Answer. A reduction in the Langley Research Center complement for fiscal year 1967 is necessary in order to remain within the total complement budgeted for the OART installations. During fiscal year 1967 the total funding level for the Langley effort. on OSSA spaee flight projects will decrease with the completion of certain activities and this will result in the reduction of Langley manpower assigned to OSSA projects. Also, there will be a slight reduction in manpower assigned to support OMSF advanced mission studies. The total R. & D. funding level in support of OAR'I' projects actually will increase slightly over the fiscal year 1966 level. As a result of these ehanging program requirements, reassignment of personnel between programs will be effected as well as a net reduction.
PROGRAM AND ITS RELATION TO ASTRONAUT TRAINING
Question 2. Dr. Adams, in your human factors area, do you have any research which is designed to test the adequacy or inadequacy of NASA's astronaut flight crew training? Answer. The Human Factors Systems program does not do research on the adequacy or inadequacy of the astronaut flight erew training. It does investigate biomedical and performance measurements that will help in establishing training requirements for future flight programs. In addition, there are some flight experiments in this program whieh require astronauts participation. Some training is required for this purpose. OAHT space flight simulation faeilitieH have supplemented astronaut training. For example, some astronaut training has been accomplished on Langley's rendezvous and docking simulator in preparation for Gemini rendezvous. Lunar landing training has been acconiplished on Langley's tethered Lunar Landing Research Facility and with Flight Research Center's free-flight lunar landing research vehicle. SOllle ineidental astronaut training has occurred when astronauts act as subjects for research programs using reseach center flight control simulation facilities. Of course, this training supplements the training regularly furnished in the Manned Space Flight program, but its purpose is an efIeetive use of speeialized personnel and facilities.
(The comprehensive prepared statement of Dr. Adams follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MAO C. ADAMS, ASSOOIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AI)VANOED RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you and speak about the advanced research and technology portion of the NASA program. When I assumed responRibility last October for this program, I found good progress was being made. 'Ve have planned the fiscal year 1967 request to continue this evolvement of sound aeronautics and space technology. I am glad to have this opportunity to speak to you about what has happened since last year and what we want to do in the coming year.
SUMMARY
Many technologieal advances were made during the past year. In aeronautics, work with various simulators was very productive in fUrnishing data for
481
future civilian and military aircraft. Configurations to improve the performance of subsonic jet transports were tested. Assistance to the FAA and industry on the supersonic transport was continued and there was more effort on propulsion for supersonic transports. The potential gains from the use of hypersonic transports ha"l"e led to increased efrort on critical problems in this /light regime. In space vehicle technology, the second and final flight of the Fire program was successful. Measurements were obtained for the critical peak heating portion of spacecraft reentry in this flight. Three Pegasus meteoroid spacecraft were launched and over 800 meteoroid strikes have been recorded. Work in chemical propulsion was highlighted by two successful firings of a 260-inch solid rocket, the second only last week. The year also marked a series of very successful tests of nuclear rockets, including two successful operations of a complete engine system. The key components of the SNAP-8 space power system have operatro for periods ranging from 800 to over 3,500 hours and an electric thrustor successfully completed 2,600 hours of operation. In materials research, a new polymer with superior properties, Pyrrone, has synthesized. Bioinstruments have been developed to better e"l"aluate man's capa;bilities in aeronautiNl and space. A new data processing technique has brought out more details in Mars photographs. As expected, many results of .the research for future missions have found immediate application. We have continued our assistance to other GoverllIJlent agencies and other ~ ASA offices on present problems. The program planned for fiscal year 1967 will continue the groW1th ofa sound technology base for future missions. It results from many consideration&-from analyses of future missions and their technology needs, from S()und progress made in many tasks where the path to additional gains is clear, from promising ideas and proposals from various sources, from direct requests, from communication with others to eliminate unwanted duplication, from restraints in resources, and finally, from our judgment of the best balance of all these factors in making up a total program. In Aeronautics, there is major emphasis on VISTOL, supersonic, and hypersonic aircraft, and on operating problems, particularly noise and sonic boom. In support of these efforts, we have planned unique new facilities for V ISTOL and hypersonic research, plus a major addition to an existing facility for supersonic propulsion research. In Space Vehicles, we are giving increased emphasis to environmental factors, particularly radiation effects. In Chemical Propulsion, we have planned another firing of a 260-inch solid rocket to continue the deyelopment of large motor technology and we are increasing effort on advanced liquid rocket engines. In Xuclear Rockets, we are initiating development of a NIDRV A engine with a thrust of about 250,000 pounds. In Space PO'Wer & Electric Propulsion, we plan to complete performance tests and evaluation of SNAP-8 components and continue endurance testing of the breadboard system. We plan increased effort in Basic Research, Human Factors Systems, and Electronics, all of which serve both aeronautical and space activities.
INTRODU<Jl'ION
The purpose of the Office of Advanced Research and Technology can best be described by two of the objectives of the Space Act; namely: "The impro"l"ement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles. "The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and, in the application thereof, to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere." The major thrust of the OART program is toward new technology for future applications. Future missions will have many requirements in common. In our plans, we capitalize on this commonality by emphasizing technology having a broad applicability. In this manner, a sound engineering base is established that supports a number of attractive future aeronautical and space missions. Once a choice is made, this technology then makes possible rapid development on It firm fiscal basis. In carrying out these objectives, OART responds to requests from other NASA. offices and other government agenCies for assistance in solving current technical problems. We also stay alert to possible immediate applications of new technology and take the initiative in making them known immediately to th9se who can use them. We feel, therefore, that our program yields immediate as well
482
a s future benefits, and that th e r esearch which we support in univer sity, industry, and governm en t groups is str engthening our national ca pabili ty in science and technology. The OART progrmn r anges from basic resea r ch in the physical sciences to advanced flight subsystems and flight experiments. The technica l scope of the program is described in eight 'budget line items whi ch, for conveni ence, are grouped into Aeronautics, Space, and Di scipline r esearch a nd technology (fig. 231) . The Aeronauti cs program covers th e entire atmospheric flight spectrum. l.'he Space effort consists of th e Space Vehi cle Systems, Chemical Propulsion, Nucl ear' Rocket, and Space Power & Electric Propulsion program s. The Discipline effo rt co nsists of Basic Resea r ch, Human Factors Systems, and Electroni cs Sys tem s program s. 'T he ter'm di scipline is used in the broad sense, fOr these progra ms range fr om basic r esearch to system studi es. The work of t hese pTOg ra ms supports both aeronautical a nd space activities. AOOOMPLIS1 [M ENTS Nineteen hundred and sixty-fiv e was a year of s ignifi ca nt accomplishments. These show in se veral ways- in th e large advanced technology and flight projects t ha t us ua lly attract the m ost attention, in the many small r esearch ta sks that rarely attract special attention but whi ch together f orm the str ength of the OART progra m, a nd in th e re ponse to requests for a ssistance by th ose engaged in curr ent development projects.
Aeronautics
La st year we expanded ou r ac1:ivity in aeronautics and made subs tanti a l progr ess in a number of a r eas. To illustra te thi s progr ess, I will di sc uss s imulato rs, some new ideas in heli copte rs, potential improvemen ts in subsoni c transports, and fli gh ts of the X - 15. Flight si1'lwLators.-Las t yea r , a num'ber of advanced fli ght s imulators became ver y productive as new r esea r ch tools in inves tigating problems of advanced
F'IOUlUJ
231
483
aircraft. " 'e have a number of simulators f or different purposes for there is no single simulator that can meet all research requirements just as there is no single universal wind tWllleJ. Three typical examples ha,e been selected as r epr esentati,-e of the group. The first example is a 3 of freedom simulator for evaluating the landing char acteristics of new aircraft. A photograph of the simulator at the Ames Research Center is shown in figure 232 along with some results. It provides visual simulation of the pilot's view of the landing. We are using this simulator in a j oint program with the Air Force to study the control requirements of the G-5A design in order to assure satisfactory landings in shor t fields. The G-5A is a large advanced transport, and dynamic characteristics of s uch aircraft are unknown. In e,aluating the dynamic properties of aircraft, oscillation fr~ quency and the amount of damping of these oscillations are key factors in the pilot's ability to control the aircraft satisfactOrily. The illustration shows a plot of these two parameters with boundaries defined as acceptable a nd unacceptable that were based on extrapolation of results from tests of smaller aircraft . A plus sign indicates the location of the preliminary C-5A design point. The simulator study disclosed that the acceptable area for very large aircraft, the ellipse on t he righ t, was much smaller than the area originally predicted and this ha s resulted in changes in specifications. The results show t h e value of simulator data in the absence of flight experience with very large aircraft fl ying at low speeds. The second example is a j oint study with the FAA on air tra ffic problems for super sonic transports_ Figure 233 shows a photograph of the supersonic transport simulator at the Langley Resea r ch Center. This simulator is connected to the Air Traffi c C-ontrol Center of the FAA's NAFEC activity at Atlantic City. The pilOts in the simulator at Langley fly the "SST" from takeoff to cruise to landing under a ir traffic control of KAFEC. The NASA is studying problems the pilo t may experience in f oll owing t r affic control instructions. The FAA is studYlllg tlie prol)lem of in tegrating the S::;T into other air traffic. The data on
AERONAUTICAL SIMULATORS LARGE AIRCRAFT DYNAMICS

BOUNDARY PRIOR TO SIMULATION UNACCEPTABlE ACCEPTABlE
IPRESENT
SPECIFICATIONSI
PRELIMINARY
+ C5A
DESIGN
DAMPING -
FIGU RE
232
484
the lower part of the figure a r e from some of the simulator studies which show improvements r esulting from better instrument displays. Because of the high speeds at which the SST fly, slight variations in aircr aft attitude can rapidly l ead to large a lti tude errors. The data show the altitude er rors that may be experien ced by the pilot as h e accelerates a long a fligh t path established to min imi ze disturban ces from so ni c boom. The curves on the left were obtained w hil e us ing conventional altitude and Mach number instruments while the curves on the ri ght indicate the g r eat improvement in flight precision that r esults with an ad va nced instrument display. It is through studies of this type, in many types of sim ul ators, thflt we lea rn how to build better transports and how to use them more effectively and saf ely. 1'h e third exan~ ple of the u se of aer onautical simulator s is the 6 of fr eedom equipment at th e Ames R esearch Center that was menti oned to you last yea r. During the year this simulator , shown in the center of figur e 234, has been used to explore a number of criteria that vertical takeoff and landing a ircr aft mu st m eet to be safe to fly. The fa cili ty has high ya lue for it makes possible detailed study of conditions that might be catastr ophic in an actual flirplane. Aside from the gene r a l stud ies of ha ndling qualities, the simulator h as a lso been used in NASA- DOD- industry p r ogr ams to examine the h overing chara cter istics of speci fic aircraft, some of which a r e illu strated. The XC-142A is a triservice aircr aft managed by the Air Force; the XV-5 A work was done for the Army; the X-14 is a fo r mer Air Fo r ce model modified by the NASA for resea rch; the X-:22 was examined for t h e Navy. Wor k is planned on the British P-1127 and for the F rench Mirage 3- V (not shown) for the Air Force. 'l'he t hree examples I have cited illustra te not onl y the value of the simulator s but also our close collabor ation with other government agencies in u sing them. H elicopt er r esearch.- 1'he NASA as been conductin g resea r ch involving t hree h eli copter improvements which give promise of overcom ing some major difficulties in heli copter design such as stability a nd contr ol , vib ration, and low effi cien cy.
AERONAUTICAL SIMULATORS
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
SST SIMULATORLANGLEY
FAA ATLANTIC CITY
ALTITUDE ERROR IN FOLLOWING SONIC - BOOM PROFILE

"illUDE
[FtROR FT
PRESE NT INSTRUMENT DISPLAY
ADVANCED INSTRUMENT DISPLAY
FIGURE 233
485
AERONAUTICAL SIMULATORS
V/ STOL STABILITY & CONTROL
P 1127
SIMULATOR
X 22
'JA,s,,o.
P.': o:,.- ~ ~<
1:-27-1:::-
F IGURE
234
A brief explanation of helicopter r otor s will help to under stand the problems and potential gains of the r esearch underway. As a helicopter rotor moves through the air in forwar d flight, the blade moving in the same direction as the helicopter will increase its lift because of h igher velocity (rotational velocity plus f orward velocity) while the opposite blade will lose lift because of reduced 'Ielocity ( rotational velocity minus f orward velocity). This difference in lift on the blade, which depends on the blade position, gives an asymmetric lift distribution; an analogy would be an aircraft with a portion of one wing miSSing. J ust as the airplane w ould t end to roll over under such ci rcumstances, so would the helicopter and several early experimental designs did. The classic solution to this pr oblem is to hinge th e blades at the root. As the lift starts to increase, the blade swings up, r educing the angle of attack and pr eventing lift increase. Conversely, as the blade sta r ts to lose lift, it swings down, increasing its angle of attack and preventing lift decrease. The movement of the hinged blades is called flapping. 'l'his solution, however, introduces two serious problems: one of stability and contr ol, and one of vibr ation. A heli copter flight path is alter ed. or the helicopter maneu,ered, by purposely intr oducing asymmetry of lift thr ough control of the blade angle of attack as the bla d e swings around. Thus, to roll the he' icopter , the aver age angle of attack of a blade is increased on one side of the helicopter and reduc-ed on the other . This operation produces exactly the same effect as ailerons do in r olling an a irplane by producing asymmet ric lift on the two wings. Although the rotor tilts immediately to a new pOSition after the asymmetry in lift is created, the fuselage an d pilot do not since they are hinged to the rotor and lag behind the rotor tilt. Once the f uselage and pilot start to tilt. they can tilt farther than the roto r, because of the hinge system. This ca n result in helicopter oscillation as indicated on the left of figure 235. The control problem might be likened to driving a ca r with a spring in the steering system. The pilot judges controls weak since he finds that rapid cont rol motion does not result in rapid response and finds the damping low because he often oycrshoots his desired change in attitude.
486
For these reasons , the stability and control are judged poor. The vibration problem is a direct result of course, of the blades swinging up and down (flapping) constantly. The vibration may 'b e further increased by erratic loading on the blades r esulting from ope ration in gusty air. The vibration leads to fatigue and short operating life of both machine and pilot. One apparent solution to t h e stability and control problem is, obviously, to elim inate the hinge. Then, when lift asymmetry is introduced for maneuvering, pilot and fu~elage move as an integralllnit with the rotational plane of the rotor. Thi s is also indicated on the left of figure 235. It is clear, however, thaWhe pilot ca nnot r espond fast enough in controlling blade inc idence to cancp.l the lift asymmetry created by fo rward flight. For several yea rs the Army and industry, with NASA support, studi ed hingeless rotors ana lyt ically and ell:-perimentally to devi se a imple automatic control system. In the last year, two systems r eached flight stnge ns prototype ma chines and NASA ha s been conducting flight r esearch with thl'm. The right s id e of figure 235 illustrates the tremendous improvement mad e in stabi lity and control by showin g how close these two ma chines come to meeting the pilot's des ired cri teria for combinations of man euvering power and damping. R esea r ch will continue toward obtaining even more improvements. By eliminati on of the hinges and blade fl a pping, both of these solutions also achieved usefu l reductions in vibration. However, the n ecessa ry changes in blade angle of attack were r ealized by oscillating the blade rapidly about its long axis whi ch continued to provide an annoying source of vibration. F or this r eason , the Army and NASA supported jOintly an exploratory research program of another solution stemming from a French developm ent shown on figure 236. Thi s solu t ion takes a dvantage of the fact that if a j et of a ir in the form of a sheet is blown fr om th e trai ling edge of an airfoil, as indi cated on the lower left, the angle of the j et will control the lift on the airfoil. The French d esigner developed a very ingeniou s technique for ch a nging the j et a ngle without u se of mechanical parts; he s howed that a s mall inflatable bladder lying along the trailing edge could be changed in shape rapidly and that the jet sheet angle and
HELICOPTER RESEARCH
CHANGE IN ROTOR DESIGN IMPROVES STABILITY AND CONTROL
PRESENT IMPROVED
HINGELESS \ H13 HINGELESS ROTOR HINGE
---r"""-
,. (
SATISFACTORY TYPICAL HINGED ROTOR
LEVEL FLIGHT
,_/
'\
/ OPTIMUM
~
~
H 51 HINGELESS ROTOR 3 BLADE
AVAILABLE POWER TO MANEUVER LESS OSCILLATION
OSCILLATION
MANEUVER
FIG URE
235
487
HEUCOPTER RESEARCH
FlAPPING REDUCED 85%
JET SECTION A-A DEFLECTION

NbSn
'O!
6'<'-,
12~~7~5
FIGURE
236
hence lift would change as well. The Army and NASA supported development of hardware, sketched on the upper left of the figu r e, to investigate the concept in );,ASA wind tunnels. The vibr ation le,el of this hingeless r otor is some 80 percent less than conventional flapping blade rotor s; the flapping is 85 percent less since all the flapping that remains results from blade bending. In addition, the jet serves as a force to turn the rotor, thus eliminating the drive shaft. Although far from flight status, this ('On<.:evl holus great promise for the future and w ork is continuing. The third helicopter idea is a compound helicopter utilizing a small win g and a roto r t hat is folded aft during high speed flight. This is illustrated by fi gu re 237. F or hovering, the helicopter r otor is used in the conventional manner. The plot compares the horsepower required to ach ieve various speeds f or p r esent helicopters and helicopters with small wings and folded rotor. The wings and the folded rotor permit much higher speeds for a given power level than convention a l r otors. Working with the Navy and the Army, NA'SA has completed the first exploratory r esearch on such a folding roto r in wind tunnels. Although there are many pr oblems remaining to be solved, the first results are promising enough to "arrant increased effort. These heli copter advances, like the simulator examples, illustrate how NASA teams up "ith other Government agencies, industry, 'a nd even foreign countries, to advance our aer onautical capability. Subsonic j et transport Te8 ea,r ch .-We are continuing our research to improve the performance of s ubs oni c t ransports. Figure 238 illustrates some of the results of thi s effort. The upper lef t figure shows shock-induced separation on th e upper surface of current design ai rfoils which produces the drag rise n ormally associated with high sub sonic speeds. The prima ry feature of the new shape, ShO\Yll in the uppe r ri ght figur e, is a slot between the upper and lower s urface in the rea rward por t ion of the airfoil. The ~lot provid es a simple but very effecth'e mean s fo r eli minating this shock-induced separation. The improved shape incorpor ates negati,e ca m ber f or the f or"ard part of the main ai rfoil;
59--941 0 -66 - -32
488
HELICOPTER RESEARCH
a::
~4000
III
1000
PRESENT
HRICOPTER
HELICOPTER WITH SMALL WING . FOLOEO ROTOR
~ 3000
~ 2000
II:
100
200
300
SPEED.
KNOTS
,. .. A
R05-2330
12-n~.5
FIGUIlE :lJ7
SUBSONIC AND TRANSONIC AERODYNAMICS

CURRENT DESIGN
SHOCK WAVE '--... . CAMBERED PYLON SHOCK AND SEPARATION SUPPRESSED '--... SEPARATED FLOW
IMPROVED DESIGN
2 .0
FLIGHT EFFICIENCY 1.0 INDEX
o
MACH NUMBER
FIGURE
1.0
238
489
i.e., greater curvature on the bottom than on the top. The rear part of the main airfoil and the surface behind the slot have substantial positive camber. Test results on a typical two-dimensional airfoil showed that the mach number at which the drag rises sharply was increased by about 18 percent. Very recent exploratory tests of models somewhat similar to the shape shown in the upper right, including wing-pylon-nacelle combinations, indicate that it is possible to change the interference effects of the combination from a liability into an asset. We have found that favorable interference can be achieved which reduces total drag. The pylon-engine can be made to act like a fence which favorably alters the leading edge vortex flow pattern to reduce drag. By awropriately cambering the pylon, the airflow approaching the wing can also be altered in such a manner that the local lift is increased. Hence, these favorable interference effects provide a moderate improvement in overall airplane aerodynamiC efficiency; i.e., the lift-drag ratio. Of significant importance is the fact that the favorable interference is greatest with nacelle shapes suitable for high bypass ratio fan engines, as Ulustrated on the upper right of the figure. Thus, use of this engine type in advanced aircraft such as the C-5A can give improved aerodynamic efficiency in addition to the much lower specific fuel consumption that is inherent in this engine. The graph on the lower part of the chart shows a flight efficiency index against mach number. Flight efficiency is a function of mach number, aerodynamic efficiency, and specific fuel consumption. A reference value of 1.0 has been given to current transports for comparison purposes. Present subsonic jet aircraft cruise efficiently at mach numbers between 0.80 and 0.82. An analysis of the results obtained thus far suggests that a swept-wing airplane incorporating all of the items discussed above, namely shock and boundary layer separation suppression, favorable interference including cambered pylons, and reduction in engine specific fuel consumption, should be capable of flying efticiently at mach numbers just under the speed of sound as shown by the curve marked "expected improvement." Furthermore, the flight efficiency index is expected to nearly double over that of current transports. This increase in the flight efficiency factor may be traded for significant increases in .range or payload, or conversely, in reduced gross weight. We believe research such as this will assist the Nation's aerospace industry to build more economical and competitive transports. X-1S Program.-During 1965 we flew the three X-15 airplanes 32 times, setting a new activity record. These aircraft comprise a unique research facility capable of providing data during actual hypersonic flight. The X-lfi-.2, modified to permit mach 7 flight, completed its first successful drop of external fuel tanks at supersonic speed, a necessary step toward higher mach number flight. Special probes were installed to permit improved measurements of flow fields on the wings, vertical fins and fuselage at high mach numbers. During the year, the two unmodified X-15 aircraft carried a variety of experimental equipment for aeronautical and space research. Ultraviolet stellar cameras, infrared earth and sky scanners, and APOLLOtype horizon photometers were evaluated at high altitudes and speed. Additionally, heat transfer data for mach 4.2 to 5.5 were obtained. Flights outside most of the atmosphere and entries from altitudes up to 45 miles have provided information on operation of aircraft at low dynamic pressures and with automatic reaction control systems. Recent flights also provided data on candidate ablation materials which may be needed for hypersonic aircraft. In October, the Fourth X-15 Conference was held at the NASA Flight Research Center to disseminate research results. The meeting was attended by about 500 scientists and engineers. At the end of 1965, the three X-15 airplanes had been flown 156 times, establishing velocity and altitude records of 4,104 miles per hour and 354,200 feet (67 miles), respectively.
Space
In the past year, progress was made in the many areas of space technology illustrated 'by figure 239. In reentry, progress was made in landing studies of lifting body spacecraft and heat transfer of blunt bodies at high reentry velocities. In meteoroid studies, three Pegasus spacecraft were launched and are yielding a large amount
490
FIGURE
239
of stati sti ca l data . W e successfully fired two 260- incb -solid rocket motors and ha d a seri es of s uccessful nuclear r ocket t ests. In nuclear electric power, endurance test tim es of SNAP-8 co mponen ts range fr om 800 to 3,500 bours, and an ion engine b as s uccessfully opera ted f or 2,600 bours. These will now be di scussed in m OI'e detail. R eentry.- La st year we d escribed successful landings of a plywood version of the win gless M- 2 lifting body. Lift ing bodi es al'e spacec raft capabl e of maneuv erin g and landing somewh a t like airpl a nes after r een t ry fr om orbit in t o the atmospher e. The nex t s tep in tbe fiigbt experimen ts will utilize b eavier and mo re co mpl ex vers ion s t h at r e prese nt expected opera t io na l chara cteri stics. The )1- 2 a nd t he I-IL-lO design s f or th ese experim en ts have been a cq uired . 'l'he hea vier 1\1- 2, sh own by figure U O, \\'as d eli ver ed in J une a nd is u n dergoing checkou t tes ts pri or to flight. The HL-I 0, shown by figure 241, wa s d eliver ed in Janna r y 19GG, and will be flight t es ted immedia tely f ollowing th e M- 2 flight progra m. 'Vork on th ese lifting r ee n t r y conce pts is generating a new technology whi ch will g ive li S a so und ba s is f or flltlll'e choice in s pace mission al)plications. The criti ca l period f or spa cecraft r eente rin g tbe a tm ospher e i s during ini t ia l a er odynami c d eceler ation from very hi gh speed s wb en air fri cti on gen er a t es extrem ely hig h b eating r ates. DUring the year our investiga ti on s of thi s phenomen on continued wi t h a second successful Proj ec t Fire fli g ht . This fligh t extend ed th e range of the fir st experim en t and r edu ced un certainty about maximum h eating inten sity. You may r ecall that th e Fire vehi cle was la un ch ed by an At las to a height of 500 miles and then propelled d own into tbe atm osphere at a speed of 38,000 f eet per second, a velocity higber tban will be eXl1eri en ced by spacecr aft r eturning from m oon mi ssion s. 'l' he r esults a r e shown on figur e 242 wher e b ea ting inten sity is plotted aga in st tim e of fli ght. Also sh own a r e t he boundari es of t b eor etica l pred iction and th e r esul ts of the Fire I ex pe rim en t . 'l' b e new data cover the peak h eating peri od llJ)d impro vc t he precis ion of previous Ill ~'as urf' m e n ts. These r es ul ts, obtilined in t he r ea l e nvironm en t, identifi ed radia tive hea ting in t h e ha rd ultra vi ol et r eg ion of th e spec trum , gave quantitative
491
LIFTING REENTRY VEHICLE

M-2
FIGURE 240
LIFTING REENTRY VEHICLE
HL-IO
FIGURE 241
492
FIGURE
242
measurements in the regions of interest to Apollo, affirmed confidence in our ability to calculate convective heating, and provided compari son data for corr elating and scaling data from smaller si7,e models in ground facilities. Meteoroid emperiments.-At the time of our testimony last year, we had just launch ed our first Pegasus spacecraft for measuring meteoroids. During the year we launched two more of these la r ge-area spa. ecraft. Over 800 penetrac tions have been counted on the three spacecr aft. These data and data from Explorers XVI and XXIII are shown by figure 243. The number of penetrations per year for 1,000 square feet of surface are plotted as a function of the equival ent aluminum thickness in inches. ' This type of plat is useful in telling a spacecraft designed what wall thicknes to u se for a given mission duration and penetration probability. As you can observe, data from I',xplorers XVI and XXIII, and Pegasus I, II, and III fall well on the safe s ide of the line selected for present spacecr aft design and indicate that we have been conservative in our designs. '.rhere is a need, however, for some additional data in the lower part of the curve for long duration flights. 260-'i11CII solid.- There have been three successful firings in the large solid rocket program. In Fpbruary, in a DOD-NASA jointly funded effort, a 156-inch motor loaded with 800,000 pounds of propellant, was successfully fired. A maximum thrust of 3.2 million pounds and a duration of 1 minute were obtained. The tests proyed t h e adequacy of avai lable chamber insulation and ablative materials required for very la rge nozzles. On September 25, we successfully fired the 260-inch motor-the free world's largest single rocket motor. Tbe maximum thrust was 3.5 million pounds and the test was over 2 minutes' duration, Figure 244 is a series of photographs of
1 The term "equivalent aluminum thickness" is used to compare meteroroid penetration chal'llcterlstics of various materials by converting data from other materials to the eq uivalent thickness of aluminum. Penetration tests in the laboratory determine this equ iva lence; for example, skin thicknesses of beryllium coppe r a nd stain less s teel are multiplied by a factol' of two to get their equivalen t a luminulll thickness.
493
FIGURE
243
SOLID ROCKET MOTOR FIRING
FIGURE 244
494
this highly successful test. Performance of the motor, the nozzle ablation material, the ignition system, and the ca se insulation was in very close agreement with predictions. The third firing, a 260-inch motor test, occurred on February 23, 1966. This operation was also a complete su ccess. Nuclear 1 ocket t e8ts.-La st year we di scussed r esults obtained with KIWI and NERVA reactors which demonstrated that graphite core reactors can provide the performance pz'eclicted for them and that these designs are suitable for continued development. During the past year, additional reactors have been tested as illu stra ted in .figure 245. A KnVI Transition Nuclea r Test was conducted in January 1965 to evaluate safety aspects associated with graphite core nuclear rocket operatiOIl. In this test, r eactivity was increased deliberately at an abnormally high ratf', causing the reactor to be dest royed. Measurements of the radiation wer e found to be very close to th e predicted levels. The NRX- A3 r eactor was ope rated at full power in April and again in May. It was restarted a second time ill May to evaluate r eactor startup and control r esponse cha racteristi cs. Thi s reactor operated at various power levels for over 60 minutes, 16 of which were at full power . The firs t of the Phoebus seri es r eactors, the I - A, wa s operated at full power for over 10 minutes in June. Because of an instrument malfUnction, the hydrogen supply was exhausted during the s hu tdown procedure a nd the r eactor was damaged by overheating. The test did, h owever , provide much valuable design information, particularly on graphite co rrosion. The KIWI-NERVA-Phoebus operations during 1965 demonstrated an altitude equivalent specific impulse of over 750 pounds-seconds per pound, equivalent thrust of over 50,000 pounds, and total duration of 4,200 seconds, or over an hour. The experiments have shown that rapid starts and restarts can be made and that operation is stable over a wide range of conditions. On F ebruary 3, 1966, we made the first power run with a complete nuclear r ocket engine system. Although the major components were spread out and
FIGURE 245
495
connected in a "breadboard" fa sbion, tbe system started and operated as a unit witb no external power. On February 11, tbe system was operated again. We feel tbat these runs are , ery significant milestones in the nnclear r ocket program. SN AP-8 progress.-During tbe past year, all the major power conversion system components of the SNAP-8; 18. nuclear electric power generation system, have been tested. All tbese components have successfully operated at full power conditions. Good progress bas been made in endurance testing of tbe ma jor components. Figure 246 sbows a bermetically sealed sodium-potassium (NaK) pump of tbe reactor coolant loop in an endurance test. This pump, the heart of tbe r eactor beat transfer loop, operates at bigb temper atures. Tbe pump is operating in a development test loop, wbere it is pumping NaK at reactor inlet temperature of 1,100 F. Over 3,000 bours of end urance ~g bave been completed on th:s component. This and tJbe endurance times of other components are sbown by figure 247. The cumulative test time of the major components ranged from 800 to 3,500 hours, at the end of 1965. As part of the endurance testing program, 'a complete mercury loop including a turbogenerator was operated for 830 hours while producing 35 kilowatts of electric pow.er. Electr ic thrustor endlM"anoo test .-During tbe year, we sucressfully tested a cesium electron-bonbardment thrustor. This tllrustor is the first electric propulsion de,ice to demonstrate the long life potential necessary for flight applications. Figure 248 is a photograpb of the l.8-kilowatt thl"\lS'OOr 'after 2,610 hours of operation. Inspection of 't he engine indicated that a lO,OOO-hour service life should be acbievable. During its operation, tbe engine produced 11:8
SNAp8 NaK PUMP TESTING

OPERAT ION AT HOO F
FIGURE 246
The SNAP-8 system uses a nuclear r eactor as a heat source and an electric generator dri\"en by a turbine. It does this through a complex serl~ of liquid metal loops. Molten sodium-pota ssiu m carr ies the heat from tLe reacto r to a boil er where It vaporizes mercury. The mercur~' drives the turbine con nected to the generator. A condenser, a third liquid metal loop to carry waste hea t to a radiator , a lubrication loop, and various pu mps complete the system. It Is design ed to generate the 35 kilowatts of power continuou sly f or o\"er a year_
496
STATUS OF SNAP-8 TESTING

lAS OF DECEMBER 31, 19651
795
MERCURY PUMP NaK PUMP -
3028 3534
LUBE / COOLANT PUMP

1549
CONDENSER ALTERNATOR
830
c:::::JCY 1964 _ C Y 1965
REDESIGNED BOILER
FIGURE 247
design specific impulse 01' 6,900 pounds-per-second thrns t of 10 miUi.pounds (mlh) and effi ciency of 80 percent. A second and third cesium ion oombardmerut engine, and a mercury bombardmeIllt thrrustor, are now being opeIiated to extend their endurance capabilities to 8,000 hours_ If expected life" time and perfonnance are achieved , then an electric thruSJtor coupled to a lightweight power source, such as an advanced solar ceN ~rr ay, C'Ould provide egpecially efficient midcourse propulsion f or interplanetary spacecraft a nd attitud e control, or stationkeeping for s!lJtelHtes.
Discipline Gl"OUP
Last yea r we increased t he effort in basi c resea r ch , hum a n factors , and electroni cs. A few examples of work in these programs have been selected to illnst r ate typi ca l activiti es a nd progress. New polyntel'.- Pol ymers, kno\vn more famili a rly as plastics, a r e widely u sed in ai rcraft an d space vehicles. Polymer s come in many f orm s-adhesives, laminates, seals, and thin film s. One problem in their use is th eir tendency to degr a de in hi gh te lllperature environm en ts a nd in space. 'l'he Langley R esea rch Center investigated the wea k links in t'h e chemical st ructure whi ch cause the degrad a tion of commercially ava il a hl e polymers. After they identified such wea.k spots, they were abl e to modify tilt' ato mi c a l'l'angement a nd thu s mal,e the polyme rs more r esistant to th e space env ironment. Through such stUllies, entirely new polymer s tructures ca n be syn t hes ized which h ave the desired stability in the space environm en t. Fi~ur e 24!) illust ra tes a new polyme r wh ich has come out of this r esearch pr og ram. It, like seve ra l of t he better polymer s today, is made of var ious combinations of th e ba s ic units show n in t he figure. Thi s new llIate rial h as been nam ed P yrrone and the therm a l sta bility is greatel- than the ot her polymer s as shoWJl in the lo\\' er left of th e fi gUre. Preliminary experiments indi cate t h at this new polymC' r will a lso have excell C'nt l'e~ i st an ce to th e hi!:h-energy r a di a tion prese nt in space. 'l'he importa nce of thi " new polymC'r is d emon str ated by i ts l-ecog' niti on by the magazine Chemi cfl l l~ Jl ~i n ee rin g, as the second most interesting developlIlen t f or 1965.
497
FIGURE 248
HIGH TEMPERATURE POLYMERS

POlYIMIDAZOPYRROlONE (pYRRONE)
POLYAMIDE (NYLON)
IllO I - -__-==_=_
MECHANICAl. PROPERTIES
.. ~':~:~..............
-"'--.-
ORIGIiAl
WEIGHT
oL---------~----~
TEMPERATURE
1800F
RIGIDITY OF MOlECULAR CHAIN -
FIGURE 249
498
The graph in the lower right of the figure compares the mechanical properties of Pyrrone with PBI, PI, a nd nylon. The elastic modulus is plotted versus the a pproximate rigidity of the molecular cha in of these polymers based on their chemi cal stru cture. Each material is shown as a vertical bar. The improved mod ulus of the Pyrrone is readily evident. 'l'he r esults a re so enco uraging that we are accelerating our r esearch with these new pol y mers. New high temperature adhesives and advanced ablator heat shi elds are two of the potential applications. Study of blood /low.-Figure 250 shows an interesting exa mple of interdisciplina r y r esea rch between life science a nd physical science. The figure shows the r esul ts af a hydrodynamic analysis of blood flow in capilla ries. Various hypotheses Oil the stru cture of capilla ri es have been proposed by experimental phys iologists to account for tbeir obser vations t hat a disproportionately large fraction of blood plasma ( i.e., the liquid constituent of blood) is found in blood in organs relative to that in la rge blood vessels. One model of a capilla ry proposed by phys iologists was investigated by NASA scientists at the Ames R esearch Cen ter . It is show n in t he upper right of the figure. The results of applyi n g the con ervation laws of hydrodynamics to this double-wall ed model have shown that one can account for a ll of the surplus plasma olJser ved in various organs and that the correspond ing pressure gradients fall within the ranges cited in t he medical literature. Surpris ingly, the model can a lso expla in t he obse rved deficit of plasma in the spleen. It should be pointf'd out that other explanations of thi s phenomenon h ave been proposed. The significa nce of this simple a pproach is tha t hydrodyna mic analysis of the fl ow in capillari es ca n expla in t he observed phenomenon und er a wide r a nge of fl ow co nditi ons. Additional work rema ins to be done as theory is still in a preli minary state of development. Once we und er sta nd the structure and flow characteristics of th ese relatively simple ph YSiological systems, we may be able to analyze more compli cated ones. Advanced space 8uit.-Last year we sh owed a ha rd type space suit which was in th e initial development stage. During the year we sponsored work resulting
FLUID MECHANICS OF BLOOD FLOW

ARTERY
BLOOD PLASMA
1I. . .iii_iiIf
PROPOSED DOUBLEWALL MODEL OF HUMAN CAPILLARIES CAPILLARY BED
ANALYSIS EXPLAINS
RATIO OF BLOOD PLASMA TO CORPUSCLES IN ORGANS COMPARED WITH THAT IN LARGE BLOOD VESSELS PRESSURE DROP IN CAPillARIES
FIGURE
VEIN
250
499
in a second, improved model of this type suit which might be made suitable for lunar and extra,ehicular operations. The work is carried out for the Manned Spacecraft Center under contract with Litton Industries. Figure 251 shows the new model being tested at the simulated lunar surface area of the Manned Spacecraft Center. The backpack on the suit, which furnishes environmental control, was developed by Hamilton Standard for Apollo. The suit uses constant volume joints, with essentially zero resistance to movements, as did the earlier model discussed last year. Thus, it will permit maximum mobility both in free space and on the lunar surface. This improved, hard suit features laminated honeycomb and aluminum construction which reduces bulk yet provides better protection against radiation and micrometeoroids than present suits. The suit can be used with two-gas atmospheres and di1ferential pressures of 10 pounds per square inch. Leakage has been reduced to less than one-half that experienced with present suits. Two of the major improvements during this past year were increased mobility on the shoulder section, achieved by incorporating three-axis shoulder joints, and reducing cross sectional area of t he rotary seals by 80 percent. The forces required f or movement are now so low that the wearer is scarcely aware of restrictions on his movement. Lite 8upport.-During the year, effort was increased on life support systems. I would like to cite one example of progress in reclaiming oxYgen from moisture in the air. This is accomplished by a water electrolysis cell illustrated by figure 252. The cell is used to reclaim oxYgen from exhaled and perspired moisture. The upper diagram of the figure shows a schematic of the internal cell design. The air containing the moisture flows through ducts in the celi and from electrolytic action the moisture is decomposed into oxygen and hydrogen. The oxygen is automatically returned to the air on the anode side while the hydrogen exits from the cathode side of the cell The cell is suitable for operation in a zero-gravity environment. The amount of exhaled and perspired moisture per day is enough to supply the required 2 pounds of oxygen needed
ADVANCED
SPACE SUIT
FIGURE
251
500
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR .FISCAL YEAR 1967
FIGURE
252
for a man per day. In addition, t h e cell serves the auxil ia ry function of cabin humidity co ntrol. The cell was developed by t he Battelle Memorial Institute und er contract to the Ames R esea r ch Center . Seyeral .laboratory mod els of t h e c!ll , such as pictured by the lower part of t h e figure, ha,e been operated for ove r 1,000 h ours. These cell s r epr esent on e of the most advanced and potentially most r eliable meth ods of obtai ning breathing oxygen from m oisture in air under zero-gravity conditi ons. Ma1';nel' I V TV picture processin!J.-Among the most serious of many tech ni ca l problems associated with photographs of planets t ransmittpd from spacecr aft a r e geometrical di sto rtion s r esulting from the angle of "i ew of the planet from the spacecraft, poor contra:;t a nd illumination of surface, distortion inherent in th e ca mera system, a nd electrical noi se in 1"11<' communi ca tio n s ch annel. As a r esul t of past r esearch in t hi s field , elect roni c systems and computer tpchniques have been developed for post-flight extra ction of s ignificant informat ion from photognlph;: which o rdin ar il~' would be con s idered of marg ina l qu ali ty. These tech niq ues make it possible to eOITPct t h e geo met ri cal and ca m era di stor tion. improve the p ict ure contnlst, r emoye electrica l t ran smi ssion n oise and r esto re t he high frequen cy detail which is degraded in t h e t r a n sm ission process. These techniqu es were a pplied to the pictures of Ma rs ta k en by Mariner I V, and fi g ure 2;::;a sh ows the effects of co mputer processin g on the 11 t h picture. The picture on the left is th e one r ecpivcd a t the Deep Space Instrulll en ta ti on Faci li ty and th e one on t h e ri gh t is th e same f r ame after processing at JPL. 'r11e a ddi t iona l deta il that ca n be seen is stliking. R eentry c0111m'ltnication s.-Wh en a s pacec raft r eentprs t he ea rth 's atmo,'ph e r e, it is em'eloped in an ion ized sh eath whi ch ca uses a blackout in CO lllmuni cation s. NASA hn s a project, kn own a" RAM ( R ndi o Attenuation Measurements). at the Langley Research Cen ter to inYestigate th is phenomen on a nd provide means of a llev intin g, if not enti r ely e limin nti ng. it. Tn figure 254, the a r ea belo\\' a nd to the right of the VHF cune indi ca tes the flight velocity and alti-
501
FIGURF. 253
REENTRY COMMUNICATIONS
GE~INI
300
VHf BLACKOUT
ALTITUDE 200 THOUSANDS FEET

100
~.'
WATER INJ ECTION AND RELIEF
10
20
30
40
VELOCITY THOUSANDS FT / SEC

FIG1::RE 254
502
tude conditions under which blackout of VHF communications with spacecraft occurs upon reentry. The ltrea below and to the right of the C-band curve shows the cond itions causing blackout of communications at the C-band frequency portion of the microwave spectrum. The figure illustrates the extent of the communications blackout problem and also indicates the areas where the blackout has been a lleviated during r eentry experiments. Blackout of communications at a given frequency is a fun ction of a ltitude and spacecraft velocity. The density of electrons in the ionized sheath is a function of the heat gener ated by the spacecraft during reentry, which in t urn depends upon velocity and air density. The Ram B speed and altitude profile is shown by the solid line. Water was injected into the plasma surrounding the spa cecraft as it entered the VHF blackout region. During the water injection period it was possible to communicate through the plasma. This is indicated by the absence of sha ding on the plot. During Gemini 3 flight, a similar type experiment was made; this provided data with a larger spacecraft and higher r eentry velocity. VHF communication was maintained during the water injection period, noted by the absence of shading, and checked the Ram results. Laser trackinu.-You will recall that last year we discussed experiments with Explorer XXII where several laser pulses transmitted from the ground were r eflected from the sa tellite and detected and recorded by the experimenters at the Goddard Space Flight Center. During the past year, continued effort has led to large improvements in equipment, techniques, and operational procedures. Today, laser ranging on the Explorer satellites has been redu ced to an almost routine operation. Figure 255 indicates the large number of points r ecorded during a single pass on May 5, 1965, of the Explorer XXVII. The parabolic nature of the curve is characteristic of the time-range history of a satellite in near-circular low Earth orbi t. By correlating the leading edge of both the transmitted and received laser pulses, a range accuracy of 1.5 meters is obtained. Analysis of data such as illustrated ca n be u sed to obtain the orbital l)arameters of a spacecraft.
LASER TRACKING WITH EXPLORER XXU & XXVII
1275
,..
ac. _
.... fJlLMIIt . . .
u ............___________........_ ......-'---' 110
.,
FIGURE
255

THE IMPaCT OF NEW TECHNOLoGy
503
New technology provides not only the base f or forward steps in aeronautics and space, but also immediate assistance to development work underway. A. number of immediate applications wer e described in the accomplishments previously cited. In the aeronautics area, research on V jSTOL will not only bring better transportation between urban areas in the futUre, but work, such as cited for helico~:ers, can be adopted for near-term applications in the DOD. The data on improved aerodynamic designs and the availability of versatile simulators can be of immediate benefit in improving present types of aircraft as well as laying the groundwork for more advanced designs. Similarly, work in the space group is also being applied to near-term problems. The data from Pegasus has increased confidence in the meteol"oid protection design for Apollo, and data from Fire has influenced the design of the A.pollo heat shield. Furthermore, we are planning to apply electric propulsion f or satellite atti t ude control in the near future. Use of computer techniques to increase the contrast of the Mariner IV pictures is a notable application of a recent technology development of the discipline group. These illustrations show that new technology need not wait for a future mission but can often be applied immediately. We find throughout our work a thread of present as well as future application. 'We also find many cases where technology developments in one area are transferred to another f or new advances. An interesting example of the latter is the linking of a computer and a wind tunnel in designing supersonic transports. This linking provides expeditious data acquisition and analysis and thus allows the exploration of a great range of possible configurations with a moderate amount of testing. The process is illustrated by figure 256. Theoretical calculations for minimizing wave drag and dra!1: due to lift are programmed into the com puter. A few selected models are placed in a wind tunnel and their characteristics measured. These measure-
SUPERSONIC
AIRCRAFT
AIRCRAFT
DESIGN . t'I'HODt M 1..EADING TO MAXIMUM FLIGHT "EfFICIENCY
DESIGNERS
NASA II: 65-::308 11-27-65
FIGURE 256
59-941 0-66---33
504
ments provide anchor points which are used by th e computer to predict the characteristics of many configurations from whi ch selections can be made for an optimum design. 'T his technique provides a powerful tool for minimizing the number of wind tunnel tests that must be made to obtain designs that maximize flight efficiency. The information generated is made available to industry and is a direct aid to the two selected superson ic transport design contractor s in their studies. An example of a multiple application of technology is our work on stress corrosion of ti tanium. Certain titanium alloys are known to crack under low loads and moderately high temperatures in the presence of co rrosive substances such a s salt. Thi s phenomenon has been studi ed intens ively by the NASA, for titanium is a desimble st ructural material for supersoni c transports, compressor parts of j et engines. and fuel tanks. In these a pplications. the materi a l may E'ncounter combi na tions of high temperature, loads, and corrosiYe suu sta nces that could prove to be a seri ous problelll. Fi gure 257 shows some of the work comp leted and und erway on this problem. The cha r t in the upper left s hows regions in which str ess co rrosion effect s were encountered in hot-salt cor rosion tests made at the La ngley Resea rch Center: These tests wer e di scussed with you last year. In one expe riment, a small amount of salt watel' at room tempE'rature was placed on a tiny crack in sheet titanium, ca usi ng the cra ck to grow and the sheet to lose str ength rapid ly. The lo\yer curve in th E' npper right section of the figure illust rates thi s effect. After only a f ew hours of exposure this material lost most of its str eng th. Even und er mildly co rros ive conditions, such as exposure to tap water, we find t hat a titanium part. with a small sharp cr ack. ca n fail und er low loads in just a few hours. 'W e a r e continuing to in vest igate this pheno menon and to r elate our laboratory r esults to actual practice. ~'itanium ta nks conta ining nitrogen tetroxide a re a lso subj ect to stress corrosion. T his oxidizer is widely used in propulsion systems and small attitude
STRESS CORROSION OF TITANIUM

HOT SALT (600"F)
100
Q C
HIGH PRESSURE NITROGEN TETROXIDE TANKS
VARIABLES BEING STUDIED

TEMPERATURE
TIME ALLOY COMPOSITION AIR sHED OXYGEN CHLORINE PRESSURE SALT COMPOSITION COATINGS ELECTRO POTENTIAL THICKNESS ACIDITY ,ALKALINITY MICROSTRUCTURE PURITY OF NITROGEN TETROXIDE
FIGURE
257
505
contr ol systems of spacecraft. In some instances, test tanks have failed from stress corrosion in only a few days. A photograph of such a failure is shown in the lower left of figure 257. This problem is under intensive in'estigation. Some of the variables ill the study of stress corrosion are listed in the lower right of the figure. Our work on dynamics of launch vehicles continued during 1965 and yielded data of interest to both );fASA and the DOD. Of particular interest is the study of the complex structu ral behavior of a vehicle when subjected to the combined forces of propulsion, attitude control. drag, and winds aloft. In some cases, vibration lllay cause structural failure. You may recall that we r eported last year on the technique, developed at Langley, of using instrumented scaled models 1"0 predict the dynamic cha racteristics of full-scale vehicles. During the year, Langley completed Titan III vibration tests requested by the DOD and began a stud y of other vibration modes to provide a more comprehensive understanding of vibra tion characteristics of this booster. Bioinstrumentati on provides in teresting examples of work having present and fu t ure applications. R esults of our studies of the responses of man in the space I:'nvironment are being applied in clinical medicine. We are de,eloping, under a Universi ty of California (Berkel ey) grant, miniature radio tr ansmittl:'rs which can be swallo\,ed or implanted to reveal physio.Iogieal information. The endoradiosonde or "radio pill"' is sho\yn on the lower left of figure 258 and an X-ray showing its location after being swallowed is shown on the right side of the figure. This deyi ce measures pressure. and a history of pressure in the intestine is plottl:'d on thl:' upper left of the figure. This devi<'e has been used for clinical studies in the u.S. Na,al H ospital. Oakland. ~imilar type instruments can be made to measure acidity and temperatur e. A number of endoradiosondes are being madl:' for the Xaval Aerospace Medical Institute at Pensacola to use in determining the onset of disorientation or motion sickness.
ENDORADIOSONDE MEASUREMENT
OF INTESTINAl ACTIVITY
30
"
20
10
FIGURE
258
506
We have also developed a portable instrument system for measuring a pilot's or astronaut's heartbeat. It is part of a project aimed at developing instruments to monitor a subject's condition, predict trends, and use the information to adjust environmental conditions. The goal of this study is to aid in deriving more obj ective measures of pilot fitness and incipient fatigue. Consequently, heartbeat m~asurement equipment is being used at the Flight Research Center to measure P~'s response to stress and at the USAF Aerospace Test Pilot School to obtain data for statistica l analysis. Some interesting and un expected results have been obtained. It has been found that among highly experi enced pilots, risk has little effect on the heart rate, but responsibility has a very large effect. When both pilots in a two place F-I04 were instrumented, the one flying the ai rcraft had an average heart rate much higher than that of his passenger. This was true regardless of which man was dOing the flying. Following an expression of interest by the Navy in the study of pilots' physiological responses to stress, a team of three NASA investigators studied the reactions of carrier pilots in Vietnam combat operations. Figure 259 illustrates this work and shows typical data. The curves show heart rate and acceleration from the time the pilot enters his cockpit to the instant of his landing back aboard the carrier. It was found that heart rates are higher during the periods just prior to takeoff and landing than they are during the mission. The Federal Aviation Agency is also interested in this program for possible application to civil aviators as well as traffic controllers. As another example of the impact of new technology, I wish to cite work at the Goddard Space Flight Center on a brush less DC motor for control system use. These motors use a photoelectric commutation. This eliminates hazards from brush sparking, giving these motors an advantage for space and hazardous atmosphere environments. Such motors are being used in the Apollo LEM spacecraft, in the Gemini, and in the Saturn IB and V launch vehicles. An interesting example of technology transfer comes from research on aircraft tire skidd ing on runways. This work, reported previously, showed that
HUMAN FACTORS SYSTEMS PROGRAM SMALL BIOTECHNOLOGY FLIGHT PROJECTS
PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA FROM OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT FLIGHTS
FIGURE 259
507
aircraft ti res can hydroplane on wet or slush~overed runways in the same manner as a water ski. These resul ts can be applied directly to automobiles, buses, and trucks. When automobile tire hydroplaning occurs, all braking and directional contr ol is lost. The speed at which this happens is primarily determined by tire pr essure.' R ecently, the work was extended to braking on wet pavements. It is known that locking all four wheels on a wet pavement is undesirable. If this is done on a curve at even moderate speeds, the car continues in a straight line as illustrated by figure 260. Test conditions wer e: 500-foot-radius curve, wet pavement. a typical car with new tires, and 30 miles per hour. Locking the two front wheels produced the same effect as locking all four wheels, but with less braking. When the two rear wheels were locked, the car spun around under the same conditions. This is illustrated by figure 261. In cars wher e dual master brake cylinders are used, the almost universal practice is to connect the front wheels to one master cylinder a nd the rear wheels to the other. A failure of one system gives front wheel braking or rear wheel braking, both of which can r esult in an uncontrolled skid if wheels a re locked on wet pavements. The Langley investigators noticed that one foreign ca r ( Saab) had dual master brake cylinder s with each serving one front wheel and the diagona l rear wheel. The Langley test car with the diagonal hookup was vastly superior to the other connections for locked-wheel conditions on wet pavements. Figure 262 shows a ca r with a locked front wheel and diagonal rear wheel successfully going around the 500-foot-radius curve at 4.0 miles an hour, 10 miles per hour faster than the speed for the uncontrolled skids pr eviously mentioned. This is true regardless of which diagonal pair is locked. One characteristic under
' The speed. in mil es per hour, at which tire hydroplaning occurs on very wet pavements is approximat ely lO,/i> where P i s the tire pressure on pounds per square inch. Other important factors are the type and depth of tire tread, depth of water or slush on the road way and type of roadway surface.
AUTOMOBILE BRAKING STUDIES

OUTGROWTH OF AIRCRAFT OPERATION STUDY
4 WHEELS LOCKED
FlOURE 260
508

REAR WHEELS LOCKED
FIGURE
261
study is the tendency of the car to pull to one side when diagonal braking is alJPlied. Additional tests a r e needed to evaluate tbe diagonal system und er a range of Yariables including car design, roadway condition s, and operator skills. Otber tests with con \entional four-\ybeel braking w e re made to compa r e tbe effect of thickness of tire tread. Stopping distances were longer and tbe car went into uncontrollable skids more readily with smootb tires than with tires witb good tread. We are working closely with the General Services Administration and the Bureau of Public R oads on t h e applications of our r esearch to tbe a utomotive field. We feel that this type of r esearch ca n lead to broader applications than improved emergency braking systems. A quantitative measure of the s upport that OART provides to othe r governm ent agencies is thc facility-hours and man-years of effort deYoted to work for them. In 1965, the five R esea r ch Centers provided :'12,767 facility-hours and 273 manyears to work r equested by other agencies. Of these total~ , 21.2G8 facilit.v-honrs nnd 193 man-years were in s upport of the DOD. Of tbe tota l interagency upport, 72 percent \yas in aeronaut ics. Indicatiyp of the importance of this effort is the fa c t tha t this activ ity r ep r esents 42 percent of Ollr tot1l 1 1l\ailable facility time and 23 pe r cent of our ava ilable professiona l manpower in the aeronautics area. Furtherlllore, this interagency suppo rt utilized unique facilities anel highly trained Illanpower, neither of which a r e available from any oth e r source.
NASA-OART FISCAL YEAR 1967 REQUEST
The OART portion of the NASA fiscal yea r 1967 budget r eq u est for its eight and the operation of fi,e Research Cente r s is $499,377,000 divided as follow s: Rpsea ,ch find DevelopmenL ____ ___ __ ____ __________ ___ __ ____ ___ $278,300, O()() Construct ion of F'aciliti es___ __ _________ __ ___ __ ___ ___ __ ___ __ ___ 32, 100,000 Administrativc Operations______ ________ ________ ____ _________ __ 188,977,000
pro~rams
509
AUTOMOBILE BRAKING STUDIES

ONE FRONT & DIAGONAL REAR WHEEL LOCKED
FIGURE
262
The eight pr ograms are Aeronautics, Space Vehicles, Chemical Propulsion, Ku clear R ockets. Space Po\yer and Elect ric Propulsion, Basic R esea r ch , Human Factors, and Electronics. The Adminil'trati,p' Operations covers the fixe Resea r ch Centers that administrati,ely report to OART: L angley, Ames, Lewi s, Flight, and Electronics. 'Yithin Administrative Operations we are requesting an incr ease of 450 positions tvr the Electronics R esearch Center. This is a net increase of 293 positions over last year's ceiling, for a new total of 12,964 positions. The request is compared with the funding fo r 2 previous years in Figure 263. The total fis cal yea!' 1967 request lies between those of fiscal years 1965 and 1966. Figu r e 264 shows the distribution of effort among t he thr ee major groups mentioned preYiously. The dollars are the total for all OART R. & D. effort, the C. of F. f or the Research Centers, and the Administrative Operations supporting the groups in the fiye Research Centers. Since budget totals f or the 3 years a re within;) percent of each other, the upwa rd trends in the aer ona uti cs and the discipline groups are accompanied by a downward trend in the space group. In fiscal year 1967, the total :-JASA effort supporting aeronautics r esea r ch is estimated to be $124 million. The $30 million above t h e $94 million sho\yn on the figur e for fiscal year 1967, is fr om OART supporting research and technology in the space and discipline groups applicable to aeronautics. Typical of this w ork is the study of the fatigue beha\' ior of materi a ls for the super son ic transport carried on under the Basic Research Program: studies of advanced integrated fligh t data systems unde r the Eleetronic~ Systems Program; determination of pilot dynami c chara cteristics under the Human Factors Program ; and inyestiga tion of gas flow in n ozzles and thrust augmentation under the Chemical P ropuls ion Program. The sum of the numbers on the figure is fr om 523 million to 525 million less than the totals for the 3 fiseal yearf'. This difference is the Administrative Operations portion of the budget of the fi "e R esearch Centers that is spent to manage w ork of XASA program offi ces other than OART and hen ce, is not
510
NASA-OART BUDGET
M I LLI O N S OF DOL LARS
600
53 1
TOTAL
POS ITI ONS

(IN THOUSANDS)
18
12 ,597
12,964 12,671 \
12
'-I ,
,
I , I I
, ,
, I , ,
FISCAL YEARS
NASA R 65 - 2356 REV . 1-24-66
FIGURE
263
DART PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION

R&D
C of F + AO
SPACE GROUP
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
313
DISC I PLI NE GROUP
'--1
AERONAUTI CS
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
145
o L.~~~~~ 65 ~~67"--~~~~aL~~--~~~~~~ 65 67~-

FISCAL YEARS
NASA R 65 - 2354 REV. 2-1-66
FIGURE
264
511
applicable to the OART R. & D. programs. I might add that we receive similar benefits from these other offices for OART R. & D. work managed for us by other Center s. I shall touch on the highlights of ou r fiscal year 1967 request in each of the program areas, but first I wish to make a few r emarks about planning for a total program in advanced resea r ch and technology. We provide assistance to other GO"l"ernment agencies and NASA progr ams on a continuing basis as a consequence of coordination and infor mation exchange which keeps us informed of current development problems. Our larger task is to envision goals and missions that advance air transportation and space exploration, determine critical technology needs, and then plan the best way in which to obtain the needed technology. This planning process is illustrated by figure 265. At the beginning of a planning cycle we receive proposals and requests from many sou rces. The Centers propose r esear ch and technology work, advisory committees make recommendations, other gO "l"ernment agencies make requests, and proposals f or continuing or new work come from universities and industry. These represent the basis upon which a program can be examined. We evaluate them in the light of a number of criteria: Are they consistent with our goals and missions? Are they unnecessarily duplicative of other work in-house or being done or planned in other agencies of the government? If successful, will they provide advances in critical technology areas? And finally, can the work be accomplished within the limitations of our resources of people, facilities, and funds? These processes naturally weed out a substantial number of these proposals and requests but the r emainder constitute a more meaningful and realistic plan. Once a plan has evolved, it becomes part of the program cycle depicted by figure 266. The plan is implemented by NASA Centers in-house, by universities, and by industry in the proportions shown by the bar graphs. The result of this implementation is new technology which is continuously fed back into the planning process in addition to being made available f or use by the scientific and engineering community.
PROPOSALS AND REQUESTS FROM MANY SOURCES
FORM THE BASIS FOR A PROPOSED PROGRAM
WHICH IS ANALYZED AND SCREENED
TO OBTAIN A BALANCED
PLAN
-CENTERS AND HDQ .
ADVISORS -000. FAA, AEC

-UNIVERSITIES _INDUSTRY
_GOALS AND MISSIONS -CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY -COORDINATION -PEOPLE -FACILITIES
-BUDGET
NA..SA. R 05 - 1323
FIGURE
265
512
PROGRAM CYCLE
PLAN
o
NASA CENTERS NASA CENTERS & HDQ. AEC DOD FAA UNIVERSITIES UNIVERSITIES
INDUSTRY
INDIVIDUALS INTERNATIONAL
o
IMPLEMENTATION
70
RESULTS
5 ,
One of the most powerful tools for the planning process is analysis to identify critical technology needed for future missions. The Mission Analysis Division, the formation of which was mentioned last year, examines the technological requirements associated with future aeronautics and space objectives. This is one of the objectives of the Space Act.
Aeronautic8
The aeronautics program is directed toward advancing the technology for all types of aircraft, civil and military, that span the speed and di stance spectrum, as depicted by figure 267. This includes personal aireraft, vertica l and short take-off and landing ( V/ STOL) aircraft, subsonic transports, supersoni c transports, and hypersonic transports. In this program, we strive to improve the effi ciency, usefulness, and sa fety of aircraft. 'Ve do this by resea rch programs where new ideas or concepts are generated and tested for their practicality and by condu cting experiments that generate design data. For convenience, we i1ivide the work into the areas of aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, dynamics, and operations. We are requesting $33 million in 1967 for research and development, and $21,011 ,000 for aeronautical facilities. The major portion of the aeronauti cs work is concerned with three flight regimes as shown by figure 2G8. V / S'.rOL propulsion and flight dynami cs will receive increased emphasiS. We are requesting $5.011,000 for a new facility , the V/ STOL Transition Resea r C'h Wind Tunnel, at the Langley Research Ce nter. Wind tunnel research will be paralleled by flight resea rch with all ex isting V/ STOL aircraft. Supersoni c transport R. & D . in fi sca l year 1967 will continue at al1proximately the sa me level as last year. Howevel', we are requ esti ng C. of F. fund s of $14 million to expand the Propul s ion Systems Laboratory at the Lewi s Resea rch Center to make it s uitable for snpeJ'sonic propulsion r esearch up to ma ch 3. In addition to the buildup in propulsio n resea rch, we are continuing study of operational problems of supersonic transports. For this work, we will be us ing
513
FIGURE 267
PROGRAM EMPHASIS
AERONAUTICS
V/ STOL
SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT PROPULSION
MODIFY A FACILITY
HYPERSONIC RESEARCH PROPULSION

HYPERSONIC RAMJET
PROPULSION
DYNAMICS
NEW FACILITY VARIO US EX IST ING AIRCRAFT
OPERATIONS
870
AERODYNAMICS
Flll
990
JETSTAR
MATERIALS
STRUCTURES
FIGURE
268
514
various aircraft such as the B-70, F-111, 990, and variable-stability Jet Star. A sizeable effort on materials for supersonic transports is budgeted under the Basic Research Program. In hypersonic research, the primary emphasis is on propulsion, aerodynamics, and structures. Propulsion work will extend ramjet engine technology into the mach 7 and higher speed regimes. This requires research on inlets, supersonic combustion, nozzles, and cooling, all of which are critically important at hypersonic speeds. We are requesting $2 million in the C. of F. budget for a new facility at the Lewis Research Center for research on the fundamentals of ramjet operation in the mach 5-7 range. I would like to discuss future trends in aeronautics and mention some of our fiscal year 1967 work and facilities in more detail. I believe we are on the edge of an upswing in civil aviation. V/STOL transports will have a major impact on local and short-haul transportation. Subsonic jet transports have shortened trip times and stimulated commerce between distant points. The supersonic transport will bring an additional surge in activities from this increased capability. Beyond lies the promise of hypersonic transports with semiglobal range. V/STOL research.-Studies of population growth predict that by 1985 there will be three super metropolitan centers in the United States. These are the corridors between Washington and Boston, Chicago and Buffalo, and Los Angeles and San Francisco. There is developing a large need for versatile shorthaul transports to serve such growing population centers and to provide transportation to large airports handling transoceanic jets. This is the incentive for increased work in new VjSTOL aircraft having speeds approaching 500 knots and ranges up to 1,000 miles. A key technology for this type transport is light and compact propulsion systems. Present lift engines produce about 16 pounds of thrust per pound of weight and 400 pounds of thrust per cubic foot of engine volume. We believe that, through research, these values can be raised to as much as 24 and 1,000, respectively. Such improvements, plus advanced structural materials, will make possible a new generation of short-haul aircraft. The Centers, and particularly the Langley Research Center, have identified the major problem of V/STOL aircraft as the terminal operation during zero visibility conditions. The problem is illustrated by figure 269. The left side shows landing under visual-fiight conditions. Under these conditions, the pilot does two tasks simultaneously: guidance of the aircraft to the touchdown point, Ilnd transition or converting the aircraft from conventional fiight to hover mode. This procedure has been demonstrated by existing VTOL aircraft. The approach under instrument fiight conditions and zero visibility is an entirely different problem and one which must be solved if VTOL aircraft are used to their full potential. As yet, no VTOL aircraft has accomplished this maneuver because of difficulties involved. However, our research pilots have analyzed the problem in light of their flight experience with various VTOL aircraft. With present guidance systems and VTOL aircraft, the maneuver would appear as shown on the right hand side of the chart. The important point to note is that the guidance and transition maneuvers must be done sequentially IlS a series of single activities. The costly consequence is seen in comparing the total maneuver times on the chart. Three and one-half minutes additional time is required for the instrument approach. During this added time, the engines are operating at high power to supply most of the lift. As a result, the increased fuel consumption could reduce the operational range by as much as one-third and, of course, increase cost. It is this problem that appeared to NASA to he a major hurdle in the deSign of a successful VTOL machine. The problem is worst, of course, in the supersonic machine of interest to the military since hover lift must come from the direct thrust of the turbojet engines. The solution of this problem will require fiight research since the pilot, the guidance system, and the aircraft are all involved. No fiight vehicle capable of this research exists. We are working with the DOD in using various aircraft and in modifying one into a VTOL research vehicle to study design and operational problems. STOL transports have a somewhat different problem for zero visibility landIng. The Ames Research Center is studying this using a conventional transport. By 1007, the fiight research should be transferred to a STOL vehicle in order to explore fully the display and piloting problems ass()('iated with low speed all-weather flying. The essence of the system is shown by figure 270. Three
515
FIGURE
269
simple, small, unmanned transponders. located near the end of the runway, enable instruments in the aircraft to determine the exact distance from the runway and the flight speeds toward the runway. The normal aircraft attitude and heading equipment defines the location of the runway ith respect to the fore and aft axis of the aircr aft. A radar altimeter provides precise height information. A digital computer. using all this information, calculates the view of the runway the pilot would have and a display generator places this on the windshield. Key points are that only very minimal and passive ground equipment is required and that the system will display to the pilot the same view of the run~-a y, but in symbolic form. that he sees under visual conditions. It is our intent that the information given the pilot ",ill enable him to make an approach and landing in exactly the same manner as used in visual flight condition. Work will continue in fiscal year 1907 on the three promising helicopter concepts mentioned earlier. The critica l fl ight problem f or Y / STOL aircraft has been defined clearly as the transition from conventional to Y / STOL flight during approach and landing. "'-or k on this problem r equires not only flight vehicles, as previously mentioned, but also \vind tunnels that accu rately simulate the transition conditions. The wind tunnel can explore a wide range of conditions rapidly and economically and r educe the number of test~ to be condueted by flight vehicles. \\'e are theref or e propOsing to r eplace one of the Langley 7 by lO-foot \yind tunnels with a n e ~- fac ility. In addition to being large enough (haYing a 15 by 20-foot test section) to accommodate appropriately detailed models. it will incorporate several unique features keyed to Y/ STOL re;:;earch. Four of these a r e indicated by figure 271. (1) The upper left drawing shows a "lift-engine" ai r craft being investigated with one wall of the tunnel te"t section r emoved t o prevent the nonflight effects of the jet recirculation.
516
AIRBORNE SYSTEM FOR ZEROZERO LANDING RESEARCH

DISPLA Y GENERATOR COMPUTER
FIGURE
270
EFFECTS OF GUSTS AND CROSSWftDS AT LOW SPEEDS (ONE WALL REMOVED FOR . TESTS AT LARGE ANGLES) .
JET V1'OL .. &OW RIGHT CLOSE GROUND{SIDE WAUS REMOVED TO OBTAW TRUE JET REFLECTIONS)
FIGURE
271
517
(2) The upper right illustrates a STOL aircraft in slow flight where a moving ground belt eliminates the nonfiight effects of the boundary layer flow at the wind tunnel floor. (3) The lower left shows a model at very large angles, typical of low speed flight with gusts. These test conditions can be accomplished by removal of one wall of the tunnel test section. (4) The lower right drawing shows tests of a turbojet lift-engine type VTOL aircraft near the ground with two wallR of the tunnel test section removed to prevent nonflight jet recirculation. By these techniques, the tunnel will simulate realistic 1light conditions from o to 200 knots which covers the critical flight transition region. Supersonic transport researoh.-We plan to continue research on the supersonic transport as a major part of our aeronautics program. The work is a! two types: (1) assistance to the FAA and its contractors on aerodynamic configurations, structural design, and the flrst generation engine; and (2) research aimed at second generation supersonic transports on materials, operations, propulsion systems, sonic boom, and noise. Work typical of materials research and aerodynamic configurations was discussed earlier. In propulsion, the research is directed toward advanced engines for mach 3 flight. Underlying this propulsion research program is a continuing basic research effort in areas such as fluid flow, combustion, bearings, seals, lubrication, and materials. Results from this work are fed into research on subcomponents such as cooled turbine blades. Promising subcomponents are then incorporated into advanced components-for example, a turbine-which are evaluated as complete units. If successful at this stage, a component must then be combined with other engine components to investigate their interactions. Only in this complete research cycle can it be determined that a potential advance in anyone of the many subcomponents is a truly realizable gain. In examining the research reqUirements of this program, it was recognized that no research facilities existed in the country appropriate for study of these advanced engine concepts. It was found that the equipment of the existing Propulsion Systems Laboratory of the Lewis Research Center could be used with new cells and equipment to provide the needed capability. Figure 272 shows the essence of the three major components of the facility. The most difficult problem is the hot turbine test cell, which requires a large supply of air at high temperature and pressure for testing it at conditions representative of mach 3 flight. Creating this hot test stream and then extracting the heat from the products of combustion before discharge represent the major facility problem. The other two test cells, enabling study of turbines and compressors in cold flow and component interactions of complete engine systems. represent lesser facility problems although important research requirements. An advantage of this facility at the Lewis Research Center is the presence there of many propulsion specialists skilled in thermodynamics, materials, fuels, etc., and their potential availability as activity on other projects decreases. In operational and flight dynamics research on the SST, we plan to use a number of aircraft as well as ground-based simulators. The B-70 and F-l11 represent two major and unique facilities for this work. We also plan to use the variable stability Jet Star, the Convair 990 and the Boeing 707 prototype. The FAA will work with us on this program to assure maximum benefit both to the SST office of the FAA and those FAA activities ultimately responsible for operational and airworthiness regulations applicable to the SST. Hypersonic aircraft research.-The research incentive, as well as the unknowns, for the hydrogen-fueled hypersonic transport, are illustrated by figure 273, which compares the Bregnet Factor-mach number characteristics of several types of transports. Breguet Factor is used here as an efficiency index as it contains lift-drag ratio (aerodynamic efficiency) and specific fuel consumption (a propulsion efficiency). This factor is proportional to the total range of an aircraft; the larger the factor, the farther an aircraft can fiy. The plot shows that at hypersonic speeds, greater than about mach 6, the potential range can become very large. Our analysis and limited experimental data show this to be the consequence of achieving very high flight efficiency through the use of hydrogen fuel and hypersonic flight speeds. Two very apparent applications of this high efficiency can he recognized. First, for the first time, semiglobal unrefueled range can be considered; this places anyone point on Earth in direct contact with any other. Second. a
518
EXPANSION OF PROPULSION SYSTEMS LABORATORY
1. HOT TURBINE CELL-(A~ ntERMODYNAMIC CONCEPTS) 2. ENGINE TEST CELL-(COMPONENT INTERACTIONS) 3. COlD TURBINE/ COMPRESSOR CELL-(AERODYNAMIC flOW STUDIES)
NASA RA M-2211 1227-6.5
FIOU RE
272
CRUISE EFFICIENCIES
32
BREGUET FACTOR
N .M.
24
16 SUBSONIC TRANSPORTS
.,;.,."
.((;;::~S
HYPERSON IC TRANSPORTS, HYDROGEN FUEL, SUBSONIC BURNING
11111111
HYPERSONIC TRANSPORTS HYDROGEN FUEL, SUPERSON IC BURNING (SCRAMJET)
SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT S JP l FUEL
10
MACH NUMBER
12
14
16
NASA RC65-155Bl 7-17-65
FIGURE
273
519
maneuverable first stage launch vehicle becomes a possibility, enabling launch from many airbases, freedom of orbit choice even after being airborne, and total recovery of a complex first stage. Such a vehicle is also a major step toward an orbital aircraft enabling routine space activity. It was recognized, however, that our knowledge is far from sufficient to assure that these potentials can be realized. The large areas of the figure for hypersonic transports represent the degree of uncertainty of their predicted performance. An assessment of the research required to eliminate the uncertainties emphasized the magnitude of the problem. Recognizing the Air Force interest in hypersonic fiight, we have been working very closely with them to plan a single coordinated program representing a national effort in hypersonic technology with each agency supporting that portion most appropriate to its capabilities. As previously pointed out, our work will emphasize structures, aerodynamiCS, and propulsion. Structures must be able to withstand the very high air temperatures created by compression of the air as the vehicle impacts it, over 2,000 F., and by friction of the air fiowing along the vehicle surfaces, over 1,000 F. Since large volumes are needed for the liquid hydrogen fuel, which must be insulated to keep it at _420 F., you can appreciate the materials and structural problems that must be solved. If cooling is used to solve materials and structures problems, the cooler surface will' affect the friction of the air over the surface. This fiction can be 20 percent of the total aircraft drag and must be known accurately to properly design the aircraft. Unfortunately, there is considerable uncertainty in predicting this skin friction as a function of wall temperature and considerable more research is required. Propulsion for hypersonic aircraft is another critical problem area. This is illustrated by figure 274, which shows the levels of internal thrust and internal drag, where equal external (net) thrust is produced, for a suqsonic jet and a hypersonic ramjet. It is evident that, at hypersonic speeds, the net thrust is th~ difference between two large numbers so that an unfavorable but small percentage change in either will produce a large percentage reduction in net thrust. As can be seen, the hypersonic engine thrust is far more sensitive to changes in internal thrust and drag than is the subsonic engine. Last year we described a program leading toward the construction of a small research-type hypersonic ramjet engine to be carried by the X-15 to proper operating speech! and .altitudes. We proposed the use of the X-15 as a carrier because no ground test facilities existed and the cost of constructing these appeared very high. In the past year, our propulsion research scientists have demonstrated a method of producing a hypersonic test stream in a simple and relatively inexpensive manner. The technique is illustrated by figure 275. It has been determined that nitrogen under high pressure can be brought to the very high temperatures required to create a hypersonic test stream. It has been found also that oxygen can be mixed and diffused successfully in gas at high temperatures and pressures. It is possible, in this manner, to create a hypersonic velocity stream of synthetic air while completely circumventing the formidable oxidation problems faced when an attempt is made to bring high pressure air to high temperatures. Because we believe that the capability of operating the research engine in a ground facility prior to flight test would make a major contribution to the information gained from this program, we are requesting funds for construction. The relatively modest cost is a direct result of the existence at the Plum Brook Station of the Lewis Research Center, of the more expensive segments of the facility which have been part of the rocket research and develoDment activities. These segments include the nitrogen and oxygen handling systems, the nitrogen heater and the steam ejector required to produce high altitude conditions. . Noise and sonic bQom.-To realize fully the potential of air transportation, we must find ways of keeping noise and sonic boom within levels acceptable to the population. We are engaged actively in research on both these problems, working closely with the FAA and the Office of Science and Technology. An important part of the NASA program is noise research aimed at control at the source. Many cut and try attempts to suppress exhaust noise have failed to do this without excessive cost in efficiency, weight, and complexity. It is clear that a more basic understanding of the mechanism of noise generation is required if a major reduction at the source is to be achieVed. The problem is a complex one. In addition to in-house studies of jet acoustics, NASA has con0 0 0
59-941~6----34
520
RELATION OF INTEIWAL TO .E.Afll:l

HYPERSONIC ENGINE
SUBSONIC
FIGU RE
274
FIGURE
275
521
tracts with four universities and one industry member, all taking different experimental and theoretical approaches toward reaching this understanding. Even a full understanding of the mechanism of noise generation will not guarantee that a solution can be found, but it is certainly a prerequisite. Fortunately, for the moment, the jet exhaust noise during approach and landing has been overshadowed by the fan-compressor noise emitted from the inlet. We say ''fortunately" because it appears this noise is more amenable to control than exhaust noise. NASA is continuing in-house stUdies with small laboratory compressors and air inlets to determine how the geometric details of the inlet, fan and stator affect the noise generated and emitted from the front of the engine. In fiscal year 1966, a design study by industry will be completed giving a full-scale inlet design based on research data obtained from laboratory tests; fiscal year 1967 should see construction and ground test of the full-scale unit. In fiscal year 1966, construction of a large-scale three-stage compressor will be completed. Laboratory research with this equipment to extend the current smaller scale research program on compre.ssor noise will be underway by fiscal year 1967. Finally, NASA has reactivated an industry sound suppressor program initiated some years ago but abandoned before the noise problem became acute. This experimental system will be completed and flown on the NASA 990 during fiscal year 1966. If the noise suppression is significant and the system is operationally acceptable, the program will be expanded to apply the same principles to other engines. H.csearch on the noise source is but part of the NASA research activity. XASA, working with FAA and industry, is examining the possibilities of moving the source away from the observer through steeper descent during approach to landing, and steeper climbout after takeoff. With regard to steep descents, it mllst be recognized that the safest approach to a landing is a fiat one using considerable power, although it is also the noisiest to an observer. Departures from this procedure create a more difficult problem for the pilot. NASA research will be directed at determining what aircraft characteristics can be changed to prevent this piloting problem from becoming unacceptably difficult, what new flight information might be required for the pilot, and what new piloting techniques might be required or beneficial. A very wide range of possibilities exist, ranging from simply changing flight techniques, through the development of new guidance systems, to major aircraft modifications. All of these possibilities are being examined. The steep climbout is a somewhat different problem. The climbout angle is fixed by the payload; any improvement in aircraft characteristies which could increase climb angle could also increase payload if no change in climb angle were taken. Thus, while NASA research will continue on means of improving aircraft characteristics, both aerodynamic and propulsion, which affect cUmbout. some regulatory action may be required to prevent these from being translated directly into more payload. Figure 276 illustrates what could be accolllplished in the way of reducing ground observed noise if it proves possible to use steep descent and climbout procedures. Figure 2i7 summarizes the target goals by combining all effects. Here we have used 100 PNdb as a threshold annoyance level since annoyance from lower noise levels seems to be eliminated by normal house construction. At this time, it appears that annoyance may be restricted ultimately to between 2 and 3 miles from the airport during approach, and 3 to 4 miles during takeoff. It would seem very likely that community planning will be required in order to assure that land usage in these areas will not be such that extreme sensitivity to noise exists. Our fiscal year 1967 effort in noise and sonic boom research will total about $3 million.
Space Group
Space group programs are concerned with the performance of launch vehicles and spa~ecraft through the atmosphere and space; orbit, descent, and landing on planets or other bodies; operations on these surfaces; and return to the earth's surface. Figure 278 shows the major efforts in the space group. The Space Vehicle program covers flight performance of space vehicles with emphasis on environmental factors, structures, and design information to operate successfully in space. The other programs involve propulsion and space power. Chemi~al Propulsion includes solid rockets and liquid rockets for launch vehicles and spacecraft. The principal work in N"uclear Rockets is on solid core (graphite)
522
CIVIL TURBOJET & TURBOFAN AIRCRAFT.

(AS DETECTED BY A GROUND OBSERVER DIRECTLY BENEATH THE AIRCRAFT)
NOTE: FIGURES SHOWN ARE fOR TUIIIIOJET AlC. NORMAL CLIM. 1. SUBTRACT II PNdb fOR TUIIIOfM Ate. NORIIAL CUM.. 2. SUBTRACT 5 PHdb fOR TUMOJIT Ale. STEEP CLlMI. 3. :~~~:
IDS STUP CLIMB, .......
NORMAL CUM.
PERCEIVED NOISE LEVELS
1lO1'I: ..ntACT . . . . FOIl
NItrJUIT 011 .. QUD

aOPE
'
....
FOIl . . . . . . AIC,
I'
PNd~
101 PM ....
liZ PIllA
. ....... 1....,. .
.;
,
i""ooo..
......
, I
'
MILES
DISTANCE FROM AIIPORI'-
IIUI NASA RA 65-1870 11-29-65
ITEEP CUMI DUE TO LOWEI

GROIS WEIGHT, lAME ENGINE POWER ,EnlNGl ,
FIGURE
276
APPROXIMATE ANNOYANCE ZONES

(BASED ON 100 PNdb LIMIT)
(AREA BETWEEN ARROWI II DPOIIO TO NOlIE LEVELS ABOVE 100 PNdb FOR EQUIPMENT AND 1JCItIIJQUES INDICATEDI
II
10
NASA RA 65- 1877

11 _?9~"t
FIGURE
277
523
reactors with additional work on advanced reactor types. Space Power covers batteries and fuel cells as chem ical sour ces; solar cells, thermionic, and dynamic types deriving energy from the sun; and thermoelectric, thermionic, and dynamic types using n uclear energy sources. Our init ial electric propulsion work has been concentrated primarily on thrustor development but we are now moving into investigations of integrated systems comprising the electric power source and power conditioning, in combination with thrustors. The four programs in the Space Group and the bulk of the effort of the Discipline Group that f oll ows, a re aimed at providing technology for future space missions. I mentioned earlier that mission analysis is conducted to determine opportunities, problems, and technology needs. P otential missions may involve large earth orbital stations, extended lunar surface operations, or planetary and interplanetary exploration. We make these studies t o identify key technical pr oblems that must be solved and technical areas of greatest commonality. Emphasis on these a reas will produce the greatest payoff for the research done. In addition, a study of very difficult missions often helps t o determine limits or goals which provide useful challenges for imaginative work. Progress toward such distant goals often provides the capability to more readily do t he closer or more immediate tasks. These processes provide a guide in developing a broad base of technology that will give us options to do many new missions. In this connection, potential planetary and interplanetary missions are very useful for identifying critical problem areas. They require substantial extensions of our knowledge and technology beyond the levels developed f or the manned lunar land ing mission. Consequently, in discussing the fiscal year 1967 pr ograms relating to space, these missions are often used as examples delineating technology pr oblems or goals. I will now d iscuss work of the f our programs in the Space Group.
Space V ehicles
Our fi scal year 1967 budget request for the Space Vehicles Program is $36 million to provide a sound technical basis f or the design and development of
ADVANCED RESEARCH AND TECHNO OGY
UClEAR .ROCf(,ETS
FIGURE
278
524
future space vehicles. It is an applied research program of basic importance to all regimes of space flight, and it embraces a variety of research activities designed to meet both NASA and military requirements. 'Ve are studying advanced structures and the flight loads imposed by winds aloft in order to improve the effectiveness of future launch vehicles. We are investigating ways to recover and reuse both launch and reentry vehicles to reduce the cost of lifting payloads into orbit. 'Ve are also investigating structures to withstand the meteoroid hazards of space and to protect the occupants from radiation; the use of planetary atmospheres for slowing down spacecraft; how to land on planets and take off from their surfaces; how to return and enter the Earth's atmosphere and withstand high heating rates while doing so; and how to provide lift to give the returning astronauts a choice of suitable landing area and the maneuvering capability to land somewhat in the manner of an airplane. These tasks require a better knowledge of the environment than we now possess, new vehicle deSign concepts, and much additional experimental data on vehicle performance covering a wide range of conditions. Let us consider briefly one aspect of this program where increased effort is planned-the infiuence of environmental factors on spaee vehicle design. An important aspect of space environment is the hazard presented by meteoroids that the spaeecraft may encounter in its journey. Our Explorer and Pegasns flight experiments during the past year have greatly increased the reliability of data on meteoroid penetrationR of thin sheet material. However, for long duration orbital missions, or for trips beyond the near-Earth environment, particularly those which will traverse the asteroid belt, more data are required for for the thieker materials that will be needed. Our knowledge of the meteoroid population of importance to long-duration orbital missions in the vicinity of the earth is inadequate and our knowledge of the distribution of meteoroids in interplanetary space is uneertain by orders of magnitude. Our fiscal year 1967 program will initiate further steps to reduee these inadequacies in our present knowledge. 'Ve will also continue our search for improved ground laboratory techniques to simulate the meteoroid hazard for studies of protective structures. Radiation is another major space hazard. The new Spaee Radiation Effects Laboratory operated by the Virginia Associated Researeh Center will enable us to increase our studies of the effect of high-energy protons and electrons on spaee vehicle materials and components. Other environmental tec'hnical problems encountered in space are weightlessness and heat exchange between the spacecraft and its environment. Spacecraft landing on a distant planet such as Mars may use the planetary atmosphere for slowing down and landing. Recent measurements of the Martian atmosphere by Mariner IV indicated a surface pressure in the range of % to 1 percent of that at the Earth's surface. Earth-based observations have generally indicated surface pressures on Mars somewhat higher than these values. This uncertainty needs to be resolved by more measurements. Enough is known, however, to permit us to study the use of parachutes or other drag devices, with or without lift, for decelerating spacecraft in such thin atmospheres. We therefore have a substantial program in this area, because the potential payoff in reduced spacecraft weight provides a strong incentive.
Propul8ion
Before describing the three programs concerned with propulsion and electric power generation, I would like to diseuss propulsion systems for future missions where a wide range of sizes and typeR will be needed. The liftoff from Earth of a launch vehicle is best accomplished by chemical propulsion because of the fllyorahl<- thrust-to-weight ratios obtainable and the radiation hazards of the nearl'st competitor, nudear rockets. Chl'mical propulsion is also preferred for landing and liftoff from the planets. Between thl'se two end points of a journey are a number of propulsion phases-upper stages of launch vehicles providing departure from Earth orbit, decelerating into orbit around a planet or other body, departure from a lunar or planetary orbit for rE'turn to Earth, midcourse or other trajf'ctory changes, attitude control. and rendpzvous, to mention some of the major onl's. At prp8ent, tbE'se propulsion phasf's arf' done by ehemical propulsion systl'ms whif'h will contillll!' to be used in the imnw!liatf' future. The potpntial of chE'mical systf'ms has not b!'en exhaustpd: mUf'h work remains to be dOlle to improve their pE'l'formance and increase their already wide thrust range to meet future mission needs.
525
For the many propulsion phases between liftoff and landing, other propulsion methods will compete with chemical rocket propulsion. Air breathing engines or combinations of air breathing and rocket systems may be used while in the Earth's atmosphere, while nuclear rockets and electric systems are attractive for departing from and decelerating into orbit about a planet. All are more efficient than chemical rocket propulsion but each has limitations on its use. Electric propulsion is the most efficient of these methods but is limited to very low thrust levels and accelerations. It promises to compete with chemical rocket propulsion in some near-term, low-thrust applications, such as attitude control and station keeping. Studies of a manned Mars landing in the 1980-99 period provide another useful basis for comparison of these rocket propulsion methods. Figure 279 shows the Earth orbit launch weights for an eight-man spacecraft for chemical, nuclear, and electric propulsion. The nuclear solid core rocket (SCR) offers a significant saving in spacecraft weight over a high-energy chemical rocket. Electric propulsion systems are further in the future than solid core reactors, but offer even greater advantages. The electric propulsion estimates, however, are based on two assumptions: assist from Earth orbit by chemical propulsion and electric power generation systems weighing 64 or 33 pounds per kilowatt in the jet. The specific weight figures of 64 and 33 pounds per kilowatt are both beyond present technology. With these background considerations of our propulsion needs, we now will discuss the individual propulsion and power generation programs in the fiscal year 1967 budget.
Chemical Propulsion.
In fiscal year 1967 we are requesting $37 million for chemical propulsion, of which $3,500,000 is for work on large solid motors. We are also requesting $1,089,000 for a C. of F. item to cover additional essential reactive storage area
EARTH -ORBIT LAUNCH WEIGHTS

MARS MISSION
1980 -1999
BRAKING AT MARS: ~ PROPULSIVE !,",:",q ATMOSPHERIC
:z:: o 3z
::>
.-
..J
2-
NUCLEAR SCR
FIGURE
ELECTRIC 641b/kWj
279
ELECTRIC 331b/kWj
526
at the Langley Research Center. Most of the request is for supporting research and technology effort at the same level as last year. The work is related to many sizes of solid and liquid rockets for launch vehicles and spacecraft. In considering launch vehicle propulsion, figure 279 showed that the Earth-orbit launch weight for a manned Mars mission ranged from about 1 million to 4 million pounds. We are developing the technology of large solid rocket motors and of advanced liquid rocket engines not only to lift such heavy payloads into orbit, but also to reduce the cost of transporting smaller sizes of payloads into orbit. Large solid motor project.-The large solid motor project is directed toward demonstration of the technology, economics, and manufacturing methods for large solids, and toward providing estimates of their reliability. During the past year, two approaches to fabricating large solid motors were investigated after smallscale experiments showed both to be feasible. Both were used to fabricate and test 260-inch-diameter cases. One of the cases failed during the pressure test and the failure was traced to welding flaws not detected with the inspection technique used. Work on this approach was halted. The other approach proved feasible and the case was used in the 260-inch motor firing mentioned earlier. A second 260-inch motor was successfully fired February 23 to verify the design and predicted performance. The funds requested for fiscal year 1967, plus available fund3 from previous years, will cover the cost of an additional firing with a reentrant nozzle suitable for thrust vector control and inert inserts at the case wall to control the thrust decay at end of burning. The thrust will be approximately 5 million pounds and the duration 80 seconds. This thrust level will be obtained with a larger nozzle diameter and modification of the propellant to give a higher burning rate. It will also incorporate a failure warning system. Large launch vehicle engines.-The M-1 engine is being terminated. Demonstration of the oxidizer and fuel turbopumps has been completed. Remaining work, to provide scaling and design information, involves operation of an uncooled thrust chamber to investigate injector and combustion characteristics. In fiscal year 1967, emphasis on launeh vehicle engines will be on advanced concepts involving a stepup to higher operating pressurl's in one approach and use of a toroidal combustion chamber in a second approach. Higher operating pressures make possible an inerease in the thrust pl'r unit volume. Modular units clustered around a so-called plug nozzle can be USl'd for high-thrust systems. The toroidal ehamber also produces a compact engine and is attractive for very high-thrust systems as it distributes the thrust load over a large area and reduces structural weight. In flscal year 1967 work will be on components at the 200,000 to 300,OOO-pound thrust scale and is being coordinated closely with related work by the DOD. We will continue to work on fluorine-hydrogen for upper stage propulsion units for such applications as solar probes and deep space probes. To enhance space storability of propellants, work is under way on oxidizer-fuel combinations that can be contained in spacecraft with minimum evaporative loss on long journeys. Oxygen-difluoride (OF2) or mixtures of oxygen and fluorine (FLOX) with fuels such as liquefied petroleum gases (methane, ethane, and propane) or diborane appear attractive. A major difficulty in the use of these combinations is the very high combustion temperatures-as high as 8,000 F.-which pose difficult materials and cooling problems. In the coming year, we will continue studies of spaee storable propellants to provide vehiele designers with data for their application. We are continuing the study of high performance solid propellant and hybrid systems using solid and liquid propellants. Investigation of techniques to stop and restart or even vary the thrust of solid motors will continue as an attractive ml'ans of providing compact, instant propulsion after long coast periods in space.
Nuclear Rockets
The NASA portion of thl' joint AEC-NASA nuclear rocket program for fiscal year 1967 is $53 million. ,With the HUCCI'SS of the reactor program. increased emphasis has bl'en placed on I'ngine Systl'lllS. In the first tl'st Sl'ril's, thl' componl'nts are arrllnged in breadboard fashion but operate together as a system. The turbopump is driven by hot hydrogen bled from the reactor exhllust. Thifl firflt series (l<JST) is now underwllY; power rum'1 were made Fl'hruary 3 and 11, as previously mentioned. A second seril's of engine tests (XE) is planned for next year. For this series, the components will be located more nearly as they
527
will be in a developed system and, in particular, the nozzle will be operated in a downward position with simulated altitude exhaust. The jOint AEC-NASA work on reactors will continue with experiments at higher temperatures and longer durations at 1,000 megawatts and development of the 5,OOO-megawatt Phoebus 2. During fiscal year 1967, we plan to initiate the development of a 5,OOO-megawatt nuclear rocket engine (NERVA) with application to attractive future missions. In addition to the NERVA engine development project, technology work will continue on advanced reactors, materials, components, controls, and systems. Advanced reactors include cavity types in which the fissionable materials are in gaseous, liquid, or particulate form. Materials are studied that can withstand the combined space environment of radiation and almost zero pressure and absolute temperature. Other work includes turbopump research, studies of dynamic response and control of systems, and investigation of propellant heating from nuclear radiation. Details of the joint AEC-NASA work on nuclear rockets will be presented in a separate discussion before the committee.
Space Power and Electric Propulsion
The Space Power and Electric Propulsion Program is directed toward providing the technology for light, efficient, and reliable electric power generation systems for space vehicles and extraterrestrial uses and for complete electriC propulsion systems. We are requesting $42,500,000 for this work in fiscal year 1967. Space power.-Electric energy can be stored chemically by batteries, produced chemically with fuel cells and produced from solar energy by solar cells, thermionic diodes, and dynamic engines. It can be produced from nuclear energy using thermocouples, thermionic diodes, or dynamic engines. Electric power requirements in space applications range from a few watts for unmanned probes to tens of kilowatts for large ea!'th orbital satellites, multiman voyages to the planets, or extensive operations on the lunar or a planet's surface. Unmanned space vehicles using electric propulsion require kilowatts of power while manned interplanetary transportation of space vehicles using electric propulSion requires megawatts of electric power. We are convinced that the electric power needs for future space and aeronautic missions will be substantially greater than for present missions, and that there is a critical need for more technology on electric power geueration. We need turn only to past experience to note how rapid the growth in power has been in flight systems. Early aircraft transports used about 0.5 kilowatt; presentday transports require about 300 kilowatts. The early satellites used power levels of a few milliwatts to a few watts. Project Mercury used 0.5 kilowatt, Gemini has a capacity of about 2 kilowatts, and Apollo over 4 kilowatts. Future missions will require much more power. We not only have to provide a wide range of electric power levels for space missions, but we must do so with reliable and lowweight systems. Weight is one of the most important figures of merit used in comparing systems and setting goals. Figure 280, shows our goals for rechargeable space batteries. At present, these batteries weigh 200 pounds for each kilowatt-hour. Advanced types with silver oxide cathodes offer the potential of reducing specific weight to 100 pounds per kilowatt-hour and, with zinc anodes, to less than 25 pounds per kilowatt-hour. However, we must learn how to overcome difficult problems such as silver migration and zinc solubility if we are to achieve these advantages. Batteries are high-capacity, short-duration, power-storage devices and must be recharged for long-duration missions. The prevalent recharging method is by photovoltaic or solar cells. Figure 281 shows the present weight and projected weights for solar photovoltaic arrays. The specific weight of the Mariner IV photovoltaic arrays was 50 percent less than that used on Mariner II. We believe that our work on lightweight structures and thin solar cells will make possible photovoltaic systems with a specific weight of 50 pounds per kilowatt. Ten or more kilowatts appear feasible. Their chief disadvantage is lowenergy output per unit area, arising from the limited solar energy flux and low conversion efficiencies. Thus, very large exposure areas are needed for high-power systems. A 10-kilowatt system, for example, would need an exposed area on the order of 1,000 to 2,000 square feet.
528
FIG U RE
280
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS

HARDWARE
250~-------------4---------4------------~
EARLY TECHNOLOGY
LONG RANGE TECHNOLOGY
POUNDS 200 PER KILOWATT 150

100 50
CY YEARS 1962
~--~----r---~----~--~----~------~
1964 1966 1968 1970 1972
FIGU RE
281
NASA AtJTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
529
Photovoltaic systems convert solar energy to electric power directly. Another direct method is by use of a thermionic diode. In this converter, the energy source heats the cathode to a high temperature, electrons are boiled off and, in passing a gap to the anode, an electrical potential is created. Either nuclear reactors or solar collector s can supply the cathode heat. This method has many problems which will require considerable research. The major problems in nuclear thermionic systems are: finding materials suitable for cathodes operating at high temperatures (greater than 3,000 F.) ; and reducing uranium fuel loss which occurs at the high temperatures. Working with the AEC, we are investigating use of uranium oxide and uranium carbide fuels for this application. Solar thermionic converters have demonstrated a life of 10,000 hours but more work is needed to r aise their efficiency and increase the power density. A very attractive class of power generators are those employing rotating machinery. This class offers the potential of medium to very high power levels. In these systems, heat is converted to mechanical power which drives an electric generator. The SNAP-8 is of this type a nd is designed for a thermodynamic cycle called the Rankine Cycle. A Brayton cycle system is also of interest. It avoids the vapor-to-liquid condenser problem of Rankine Cycles but is somewhat heavier. We have work under way on a Brayton system where the heat could be supplied by an isotope heat source, a nuclear reactor , or a solar collector. SNAP-8.-Progress on SNAP-8 component testing has been described. In fiscal year 1967, we are r equesting $5,500,000 to continue the component testing and operation of the first power conversion system. We believe that SNAP-8 technology fills a critical need in the trend toward higher power. Fignre 282 shows possible applications in the SNAP-8 power level range and the estimated future time it will be needed. Details of our plans on SNAP-8 and on isotope power systems will be presented in a separate discussion before this Committee. Electric propulsion.- An electric thrustor converts electric energy into kinetic energy of a propellant. In electric thermal thrustors, the propellant is simply heated by an electric heater. This type is under consideration for attitude con-
PROJECTED S A -8
PPL
FIGURE
282
530
trol of a n Advanced Technology Satellite, and ma y find early application in other programs. In elect rostatic th ru stors, ionized gas is accelerated by an electrostatic field to very high velocities. The thrustor shown earlier ( fi g. 248) is of this type. An electromagnetic thrustor uses magnetic f or ces to accelera te the ionized gas. In recent work, very high effi cienc ies (abou t 70 percent) have been obtained and we wish to give electrom agnetic thrustors increased attention in fiscal year 1967.
D isci,pline Group
The three discipline programs a nd some of their major subdivi sions are shown by figure 283. These programs support both aeronautical and space activities. The work varies in scope from fund amenta l r esea rch through applied research a nd systems engineering.
Basw R esearch
The fiscal yea r 1967 budget request f or Basic R esearch is $23 million, Examples of work in this progr am have been cited in new polymer s. blood flow measurements, and stress-co rrosion of titan ium , This wO['k will continue in the coming year. In fluid Physics, we will continue studi es of chemic a l r eaction r ates in high ~'eloc ity flow processes, nonequilibriuID flows that occur at ve r y hi gh altitudes, a nd investigate fluid s that have unu sual viscous and magnetic properties. In electr ophysics, we will stud y the interaction of pa rti cles and for ce fields. '.rhis includes a study of positrons a nd their behavior in the E a r th's gravitational fi eld , 'Ve will inc rease our work in nu clea r physics research to help unders tand, for example, the collisions between sola r protons and spacecr aft structures. In ma teri als, we will conti nue studies of all types of mate ri a ls for aeronautical and spa ce systems. Fundamental stud ies of solid state physics are planned to help us und er stand the distribution a nd a rrangement of atoms in a material and h ow to alter them or introd uce other atoms to obtain desira ble properties.
IPLI
G OUP
ARCH AND TECHf'40
Fro U RE
284
531
An interesting aspect of this work is the possibility of eliminating the need for lubrication between certa in metals in sliding contact. Virtually e,ery type of equipment with moving parts would be very much improved if the mating metal surfaces could slide upon each other more readily. In most cases, the fri ction of the mating surfaces is high and we use an intermediate layer of lubricant to reduce it. However, it is still desirable to understand friction between unlubricated surfaces. Some of the results of the studies ca r ried out at the Lewis Research Center are shown in figurE 284. The tests shown were conducted in a high vacuum, since atmospheric gases eontaminate the surfaces and drastically change their frictional behavior. The first major observation was that the fri ctional characteristics of a pure metal are strongly dependent upon its natural atomic a rrangemen t, as shown in the left panel of the figure. Some metals solidify with the atoms in hexagonal prisms while in others, the arrangement is a cubic pattern. The metals in which the atoms are in a hexagonal pattern were shown to have mu ch less friction than those having a cubic pattern. Several hexagonal metals, with varying distances between the surfaces of the hexagons, were then studied, and it was observed that the friction decreased as the hexagonal pri&m was vertically elongated, as shown in the center panel of the figure. The met~IR with least fri ction were those with the highest ratio of basal plane spacing tv prismatic plane spacing. This observati on is in accord with theories dealing with the deformation of metals. The next step in th is investigation was to take a hexagonal metal such as litauium, whi ch is kn own to have relatively poor frictional char acteristics, and 3ee if it could be impro'ed. This was done by alloying the titanium with other metals whkh would expand the atomic lattice. As expected. the fri ctional forces dropped sharply as the distance between the base planes increased, as shown in the right panel of the figure. Additional experiments to effect further improvements a re now in progress. For example, we can "order" an alloy; that is, arrange the different kind of atoms in a more suitable pattern-by heat treat-
EFFECT OF ATOMIC STRUCTURE ON FRICTION

(NO lUBRICANn
t!i1
HEXAGONAL LATIICE
$
CUBIC LATIICE CLOSE LAYERS EXPANDED LAYER HEIGHT
z 0 ;::
u
~
r:l
~!
;:::
I I
HAFNIUM
0 0
ZIRCONIUM
...
...
TITANIUM COBALT LANTHANUM

o
0
Ig;
o
10 20
ALLOYING ADDITION IN TITANIUM ALLOY ING CAN ALTER SPACING AND REDUCE FRICTION
. ~
z '"
SPACING IN PURE METALS. "THE PRIMARY FACTOR IS THE "TYPE OF LATIICE SPACING BElWEEN LAYERS OF ATOMS IS ALSO IMPOR"TANT
FIGURE 284
532
ment a nd obser ve the effect upon fri ction . Knowled ge ga ined in this area sh ould result in incr eased l'E'lia bility of r ota ting machinery. The potential applications are obviously very broad. In mathematics, WP. strive to develop improved m ath ematical techniques for t.he solution of physical problems. The work covers an interesting range of problems incl uding analyses of aerodynamic shapes of wings and bodies in supersonic a nd hypersoni c flow , heat di stribut ion in spacecraft a nd in turbine blades in j et engines, and optimizing perfor mance of aircraft.
Human Factors
The Hum a n Factor s program con siders those elements involving man's r ole in aer onautics a nd space--what h e can do, how to protect him, how to provide for hi s esse nti a l needs, a nd h ow to get the best performance out of man-machine combination,.. W e a r e r eq uesting a R esea r ch and Development budget of $17 million in fi scal yea r U)67. 'l'he fisca l yea r 1967 progra m is a broad one but emph asis will be placed on lifE' suppor t systems, ex traveh icular oper a tion s, bioinstrumentation, a nd s t r ess physiology. Life support i s a key technology area for long-d uration space fli ghts of t he future. Figure 285 illustrates the life support elements needed f or manned space fli ght. Air for breathing, water , food, h eat, a nd moisture in the air must be supplied; ca rbon di oxide, body waste, odors, gases f rom equ ipment, heat, moisture, and other harmful substances must be r emov ed. Thi s must be done with reliable sensing a nd con trolling equipment. In atmospheric fli ght and present space misSions, the life s upport ingredients a r e nvailable or are sto red a board and a re discard ed aftel' u se. Systems ,o perating in this manner are called "open " system s. Gemini a nd Apollo a r e t hi s type a nd provide for 14-day mission s. For long-duration trips, h owever, t h e stores needed become g r eat; th e longer the trip, the greater th e incentive to reclaim a nd r eu se some of these ingredien ts. The first step is to reclaim oxygen and water. The electr olysis
LIFE SUPPORT
BREATHING CABIN AIR WATER FOOD HEAT / MOISTURE
SU PP LY
CARBON DIOXIDE BODY WASTE , ODORS EQUIPMENT EFFLUX

REMOVE
HEAT / MOISTURE OTHER HARMFUL SUBSTANCES

OPEN
(DISCARD )
OXYGEN WATER INERTS
CLOSED (RECLAIM )
WITH RELIABLE , SENSING , CONTROLLING , & PROCESSING
FIGURE
285
533
cell previously mentioned is an example of this effort. The weight savings possible for such a "closed" or regene ration cycle over an open cycle for one mission studied is illustrated by figure 286. The weight savings can be appreciable for longtime earth orbi t on luna r missions and becomes greater for the 400- to 700-day trips f or Venus and Mars. In more sophisticated systems, nutrients may be reclaimed. We feel that the technology of life support is lagging many other technologies and we wish to increase the effort on it. Figures 287 and 288 show equipment recently installed at the Langley Research Center for manned tests of recycling systems. These tests are planned for fiscal year 1967. The overall life support system performance, subsystem interactions, a nd maintenance requirements will be determined under simulated space conditions. This will p rovide essential data for computer studies of mission analyses. In extr avehicula r operations, we are investigating various concepts to provide maneuvering capability for the astronaut in space. The advanced space suit cited ea r lier is pa r t of this work. The Langley Resea rch Center is working on a jet shoe idea where small th rustor s on the f oot produce thrust perpendicular to the sole of the f oot. Such a technique would free the astron aut's hands f or extr a,ehicular work. Instrumentation development will receive increased attention in fiscal year 1967. Sever al instruments ha ve been mentioned previously but I would like to mention two other s. One is a nephelometer to measure 0.5- t o 10-micr on dust particles which could be biological hazards in the weightless environment. The Electroni cs Resea r ch Center contra cted with Block Engineering of Cambridge. ~Iass .. f or a prototype instrument which has already been calibr ated at H a rvard UniYer sity. It is scheduled to be used aboa rd one of the early Apollo spacecraft. The second instrument is an oculometer being developed by H oneywell for t he Electronics Resear ch Center. An oculometer uses the reflection of a beam of light fr om an eyeball to determine exactly where the subject is looking. We plan to continue the development of these and other instruments for measur ing man's r eactions, performance, and evir onment.
HUr.=AN FACTORS SYSTEM PROGRAM
LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS WEIGHT
OPEN CYCLE
(STORED SUPPLIES)
10
SYSTEM
WEIGHT .
lB/ MAN
V E
5
N U
REGENERAT IVE
(EXCEPT fOOD)
50
100
300
500
700
TOTAL TRIP TIME . DAYS
FIGURE 286
534
HUMAN FACTORS SYSTEMS PROGRAM LIFE SUPPORT AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS
RECYCLING LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM TEST
LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER
FIGURE
287
HUMAN FACTORS SYSTEMS PROGRAM LIFE SUPPORT AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS
INTERIOR OF SIMULATED VEHICLE FOR LIFE SUPPORT TEST
FIGURE
288
535
The ability of man's various body systems and functions to witbstand and adapt to the stresses encountered in aeronautical and space flight must be known to provide information for proper vehicle design. The more important areas of research are: cardiovascular physiology, respiratory physiology, endocrinology, water metabolism, psychology, radiobiology, vestibular physiology, microbiology, vision, and noise effects. For instance, respiratory physiology is an area of concern for long manned space flight. Pure oxygen at reduced pressure has been used successfully in short-duration missions. However, animal experiments indicate that pulmonary damage can be caused by long-term breathing of pure oxygen. Investigations of this effect are being conducted at the Ames Research Ceuter. Experimental techniques have been developed to study the effects of various atmosphere mixtures on animals. Complementary studies at DOD installations are providing data using humans. Various inert gases are being studied for use in the two-gas systems required for very-Iong-duration space flight.
Electromc& 8Y8tem& Program
The development of electronics technology for advanced aircraft, space vehicles, and associated ground-based equipment is the goal of the Electronics Systems Program. The term "electronics" is used in a broad sense to include devices and systems that sense, collect, process, and transmit information and either control machines or present information to humans. Electronics, then, is the nerve center of an aircraft or space vehicle and its role is growing as we seek versatile, high-speed, all-weather aircraft and as we develop the technology for complex, long-duration space missions. We are requesting $36,800,000 for Research and Development and $10 million C. of F. for this program in fiscal year 1967. Flight projects comprise $2,800,000 of the R. & D. budget. The R. & D. request. up 14 percent over fiscal year 1966, reflects our increased emphasis in this technology area and the growth of capability by the Electronic Research Center (ERC) The C. of F. request of $10 million is for ERC facilities for electronic components, for development of qualifications and standards, for space guidance, for optical communications, and for center support. The core of the Electronics Systems Program is in electronic components, and in qualifications and standards research aimed at improving reliability. New activity is required particularly in providing the research base for standardizing electronic component specifications for NASA-wide use. The guidance work we have done in the past few years, in cooperation with the DOD, has brought the electrostatic gyroscope to the application stage. We expect in fiscal year 1967 to begin construction and aircraft test of a gimballess or strapped-down inertial platform using electrostatic gyroscopes. Additional work is planned on laser gyroscopes and optical radar, the latter of which offers promise of weight and power savings for rendezvous operations. Last year we had a laboratory model of the optical radar system. Much progress has been made during this past year, particularly with respect to the laser elements used. Gallium arsenide laser diode technology has improved markedly, resulting in a range capability increase from 25 kilometers to 100 kilometers in the prototype system, a unit constructed by International Telephone & Telegraph for the Marshall Space Flight Center. Figure 289 illustrates the prototype verSion of the optical radar. In the typical mission illustrated, a beacon on the target vehicle is used to assist in initial detection by the laser radar on the chase vehicle. After acquisition, the target beacon is turned off and the chaser tracks the target in range and angle all the way to rendezvous and docking. Included in the figure is a table showing weight, power, and accuracy characteristics of the optical radar for comparison with a representative radar. It can be seen, from this comparison, that combined use of optical and radar techniques can provide lightweight, low-power, and accurate guidance equipment for effecting rendezvous from extreme ranges down to and including docking. The prototype shown is considered to be a significant advance in the state of the art. Development of a flight model is planned for the coming fiscal year with a p0tential for flight testing in 1969. Optical radars of this type have direct application to all manned rendezvous missions. Further development efforts will examine applications to those unmanned missions where automatic rendezvous and docking are required.
59-941
Q-6~5
536
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR F ISCAL YEAR 1 967
FIGURE
289
The control and stabilization research is characterized by the operation of simulators and the deve lopment of new control devices, such as the control moment gyro and b r ush less e lectri c motors, for space and aeronautical use. Communications is a criti cal technoLogy area that must be improved man:\, orders of magnitude before man ca n venture to Mars and beyond. '.rhe index of comparison for such systems is how many bits of data pel' second can be transmitted. Mariner IV transmitted 81fl bits per second and it took days to send back a few photographs. 'W e believe co mmuni cation rates can be improyed in the next few years by engineering changes, such as: increased frequency (from present 2,300 megacycles to beyond 10,000 megacycles), reduced noise (from present equivalent nOise temperature of 70 K . to 20 K.), larger antenna on the ground (p resent 8:) to 210 feet) and on board spacecraft (from present 3 to 30 feet) , and higher onbolu'd power (from present 10 to 1.000 watts). These chan ges will come in steps but. when reached, will increase t he communi cation r ate to 10' bits per seco nd. This is sufficient for many missions, but falls short of tile rates needed for r ea l time TV and hi gh-resolution scientifi c photographs whidl r equire data rates from 107 to 10[2 bits per second. \Ve believe the laser ma.\' make possible these ver y hi gh bit rates and our communi ca tions work is emphasizing this approach. Instrnmentation to coll ect and monitor spACe data, data proce'sing methods, informn tion sto rage in spncecraft, and the trnnsmission of data to Earth, are other technology areas requiring major advancements to meet future mission needs. Advances in spacecraft technology proyide the ability to collect volumes of expe rim ental data which often exceed the ca pa city of the co mmuni cations link with Earth. Methods are, therefore. r eq uired for processing the d ata aboard the spacecrilft so as to transmit onl~r t'hat which is required to derive s ignifica nt infOl'l11llti on on Earth, One method ha s been deyeloped at the Goddard Spa ce F light Center suita ble for ce r ta in physical measurements, such as those made on board the IMP series of spacecrnft.
537
Figure 290 shows a bar graph or histogr am typical of the distribution a nd amplitude of a pa rticula r range of energetic par ticles in the interplanetary magnetic field as measured with a plasma probe aboard the IMP spacecraft (Inter planetary monitoring Probe. ) The instrumentation is a rranged to count par ticles fr om the di rectional sensor into 16 groups, each of which contains the total number of particles encountered during one-sixteenth of a revolution of the spinning spacecr aft. It has been shown mathematically that certain major characteristics of this type hi stogr am can be obtained t o a reasonable degree of accuracy if only two key properties a r e known: the sum of the lengths of a ll bars ( Le., the area or total number of counts) and the sum of the squares of the individual lengths. These two values ca n be transmitted to Earth using a total of only 13 binary digits, nine to identify the tota l a rea a nd four to pro,ide the sum of the squares. The conventional method of transmittal of all data in each of t he 16 groups would require 144 digits. Real time television on future inter planetary missions may require onboa rd data storage capabilities about a thousand times greater than that anticipated to be available in the next several years. Continued emphasiS will be given to bulk stor age techniques based on solid state or optical technology. Resea r ch is being directed toward devices incorporating these techniques by inducing changes in molecular structure of cr ysta ls, or energy t ra n sitions within the elect r on shells of atoms in solid state materials, to store up t o 10'" bits in a practical size pa ckage. F a r ther into the future are adaptations of the genetic coding of biological molecules which offer a potential data storage capability a billion times greater than presently envisioned for magnetic recording. Multifunctional central computer systems for spacecraft will receive added uttention . Recent evolutiouary advancement in the techniq ues f or time sharing. real time experiment contr ol, and on-line data manipulation applicable to large scale ground computer complexes has indicated a potential ad,antage in weight, power, r eliability, aud data handling capability for onboard computing. Such
STATISTICAL DATA COMPRESSION

16 SAMPLES
PU REV
pAftTlC\
~IlO
BtN ARY NUMBERS REPRESNmtG f'ARltClES COOHTEO IN EACH Of 16 INTERVAlS PER REVOlUTIOII OTAl = 1 BITSI
FIGURE
290
538
systems would incorporate many onboard computing and data processing functions into a single ultrareHable, time-shared, spacecraft computing center. With the complexity of spacecraft electronic systems increasing, it becomes necessary to have equipment which consumes less power, has higher reliability, and is smaller in size. This is being accomplished by using solid state electronics instead of vacuum tubes as illustrated in figur e 291. As shown in the example ,m the figure, a drastic weight and size reduction h as been realized, the weight being reduced from 17 pounds to 2.2 pounds and the battery weight from 4 pounds to 1% pounds. At the same time the power output was doubled to 800 watts. A further reduction in weight to less than 1 ounce ca n be realized by utilizing the integrated circuit technology as shown on the right of the figure. Since the resulting system is smaller, redundant circuitry can be utilized. Also, through rhe use of integrated circuitry, the number of connections that need to be made is sharply r ed uced. These additional advantages will greatly enhance system reliability.
RESEARCH CENTERS
The Office of Advan ced Research and Technology is responsible for the institutional direction of the Langley Resea r ch Center, the Ames Research Center, the Flight Resea r ch Center, the Lewis Resea r ch Center, a nd the Electroni cs Research Center. These Centers do work not only for the R&D program of Advanced Research and Technology, but also have r esponsibilities assigned them by other NASA program offices. These Centers, teamed up with university, industry, and other Government groups, are nationa l resoUl'Ces which provide new technology for aeronautics and space. Four of the Centers have been established for many years and their competence in aerodynamics, structures, m aterials, propulsion , space power, dynamics, and operating problems of aircraft and space vehicles is well known. 'l'he Electronics Resea r ch Center (ERC) is the newest Center. It was estab lished to increase in-house capability in this key t echnology and to stimUlate
IMPACT OF INTEGRATED ELECTRONICS ON ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

PAST PRESENT
hoJT
IN
PRI
Til"
Jllf
WELD
FIGURE 291
539
more electronics effort on the stringent requirements of advanced aircraft and space vehicles. Most of the effort in electronics is being carried out by contracts with universities and industry working with ERC as a team. The complement at ERC was 375 at the end of January; about 40 percent of them are research professionals. Sixty percent of the professionals hold advanced degrees. We expect to have a complement of about 550 by the end of June and the fiscal year 1967 request will increase the complement to 1,000. ERC now leases temporary office and laboratory space in Cambridge. Sound progress is being made in the steps necessary to acquire the land. We expect that parcels of the first tract of land could be conveyed to NASA as early as March 15, 1966, but no later than June 15, 1966. The entire first tract, on which the authorized and appropriated facilities of fiscal year 1965-00 will be constructed, could be conveyed to NASA as early as June 15, 1966, but no later than September 15, 1966. The basic master plan for the entire Center is complete. Detailed designs for the fiscal year 1965-00 facilities are in progress and the first contract award for construction could take place as early as May 10,1966. . Regarding the requested fiscal year 1967 facilities, the schedules for land acquisition and facility design are such that the Corps of Engineers could use authorized and appropriated funds as early as August 28, 1966. CONCLUDING REMARKS I have attempted to give you an insight into the accomplishments and plans of our program and how our work helps others. Those of us who have engaged in research know from experience how the results find application in many ways, as expected, and sometimes in ways that are completely unexpected. This multiple benefit of good research pays rich dividends for the investment. In my short time with NASA, I am continually being impressed by the accomplishments of the dedicated people engaged in the aeronautical and space effort. I cannot adequately describe to you, by means of a few individual examples, the contributions and impact these men and women in government, university, and industrial laboratories are making toward the goals laid down by the Space Act, summed up as, "The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology."
The Chairman. Mr. Finger? (The biographical data for Mr. Finger follows:)
HAROLD B. FINGER, MANAGER, SPACE NUCLEAR PROPULSION OFFICE, AEC-NASA; DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR SYSTEMS AND SPACE POWER, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE AnMINISTP.ATION; DIRECTOR, SPACE NUCLEAR SYSTEMS DIVISION, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMISSION
As manager of the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office, Harold B. Finger directs all aspects of nuclear rocket propulsion development for both NASA and AEC and the isotopically heated rocket thrustor work for the AEC. As Director of Nuclear Systems for NASA's Office of Advanced Research and Technology since November 1, 1961, he manages research, development, and flight testing of nuclear electric power systems and electric propulsion and the flight testing of nuelear rocket systems. In 1964 this work was expanded to include NASA's solar and chemical power generation systems technology. On June 21, 1965, Finger was named Director, Space Nuclear Systems Division, AEC. In thifil assignment, he is responsible for a new Space Electric Power Office. He administers the space reactor and isotope electric power systems work, including the SNAP (Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power) program, and space-directed advanced reactor concepts activities. Finger hal> been on the NASA Headquarters staff since it was established in October 1958. He was Chief of the Nuclear Engine Program. On March 5, 1961, he was appointed Assistant Director for Nuclear Applications. Finger joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the predecessor to NASA, in 1944 as an aeronautical research scientist at the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, Cleveland, Ohio. In 1952, he was named Head of the Axial Flow Compressor Section and in 1954, Associate Chief of the Compressor Research Branch. Three years later, after nuclear training at Lewis, he was
540
made Head of the Nuclear Radiation Shielding Group and of a Nuclear Rocket Design Analysis Group. Finger was born iu New York City, February 18, 1924. He earned a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from City College of New York in 1944. He was awarded an M.S. degree in Aeronautical Engineering at Case Institute of Technology in 1950. Finger has specialized in research on turbo-machinery, gas turbine engine:;;:, nuclear rockets, and shielding. Author of numerous technical papers, he was co-winner of the 1957 Society of Automotive Engineers Manley Award for the best paper on aeronautics. He is a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Editorial Advisory Board of Advanced Energy Conversion, an international journal. Mr. aud Mrs. Finger (the former Arlene Karsch) and their three daughters live in Bethesda, Md.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HAROLD B. FINGER, DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR SYSTEMS AND SPACE POWER, NASA; DIRECTOR, SPACE NUCLEAR SYSTEMS DIVISION, AEC; MANAGER, SPACE NUw,EAR PROPULSION OFFICE, AEC-NASA
Mr.. FINGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the commIttee. I appreciate very much the opportunity to present to you the work being done and planned by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and also the Atomic Energy Commission to provide nuclear energy systems for space applications. My comprehensive statement describing this work has lwen submitterl to the committee. (See p. 561.) I would like now to briefly summarize the highlights of our nuclear systems programs, emphasizing the accomplishments of the past year and indicating our future plans. HIGHLIGHTS OF NUCLEAR SYSTElIfS PROGRAMS
It is generally agreed that nuclear propulsion will be required for propelling large and heavy spacecraft to the high velocities that are required to reach distant space objectives. In arlrlition, it is generally agreerl that nuclear reactors will be used to provirle the source of electrical energy in future high powered, long life space app1iclltio~s. Radioisotope energy sources, in which heat is generated from the radIation emitted by these isotopes have already been userl in space. Four satellites launcherl by the Department of Defense .since .Tune .1~61, have used electricity generated from the heat prOVided by radIOISOtopes; one of these units is still operating after four anrl a half years in space. There is now a growing interest anrl a growing list of requirements for these radioisotope electric generating systems in NAS.A as well as in the DOD. vVe believe, that it is important to maintam strong technology rlevelopment programs on all of these nuclear systems to aSsure our ability to unrlertake any advancerl space missions that may be necessary and to provide a sound basis for rleciding how best to accomplish future missions. The past year has seen continuing progress in these nuclear system developments. Significant arlvances have heen made in the rlevelopment and use of radioisotopes for generation of electrical power. The wirlespread and growing interest in radioisotope appliclLtions has led to two NASA
---
~~-------------
541
missions being committed to the use of radioisotope power. The NIMBUS B weather satellite, scheduled to be launched late in 1967, will use two 30-watt SNAP-19 generators to provide supplementary power in an experimental application of isotope power. Since this is the first NASA spacecraft that will have a nuclear generator aboard, NASA and the AEC are working out an interagency agreement which will give NASA and the NASA contractors the necessary insurance protection against nuclear hazards afforded by the Price-Anderson Act.
LUNAR SURFACE EXPERIMENT PACKAGE
A major new program initiated by the AEC at NASA's request during 1965 is the development of the SNAP-27 isotope-thermoelectric generator to power experiments that will be left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts. This Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) is intended to transmit data about the Moon baek to Earth for at least a year. The SNAP-27 isotope power supply will provide 50 watts to the experiments and will weigh about 40 pounds. It will use a single plutonium loaded fuel capsule which will be inserted into the generator on the lunar surface by the astronauts. In addition to these two developments that are underway, work is being conducted to extend the capability of isotope systems from the tens of watts required for NIMBUS and Apollo to a system producing several hundred watts for possible application in DOD missions and on into the kilowatts of power that we believe will eventually be required in the space program for a wide variety of missions. Work on isotope fuel and thermoelectric conversion as well as some thermionic and dynamic conversion concepts is being carried out by the AEC. In addition, work on very efficient Brayton cycle gas turbine systems to convert the heat given off by the isotope to electrical energy is being conducted by NASA. Component performance data have indicated the feasibility of obtaining the high efficiencies that have been calculated for these gas turbine power conversion systems. The combination of all of this advanced teclmology work should provide a capability to extend the use of isotopes to as high as 10 kilowatts of electrical power. In fact, a most significant development in isotope power systems has been the general recognition that these systems have important potential space mission applications at power levels up to about 10 kilowatts if our work to develop the technology of the isotope fuel and the conversion equipment is successful. An important demonstration of the ability of nuclear reactor electric power supplies to operate in space in a manner similar to operation in ground test facilities was also accomplished during the past year. The first reactor powered electric generating system-the 500watt SNAP 10-A system-was launched on April 3, 1965, by the U.S. Air Force for the AEC and the system operated perfectly in space for 43 days. It was started up automatically on command from the ground. Its operation for 43 days duplicated almost exactly the operating characteristics that had been measured in ground test facilities. On the 43d day after the unit had made 552 orbits of the Earth, the system stopped operating. Each of the possible failure modes pos-
542
tulated was experimentally evaluated by simulated testing of components an~ subsystems on the ground. Although no absolutely certain explanatIOn can be made by such simulation, the ground test data strongly support the conclusion that the shutdown was the result of a sequential failure of electrical components in the spacecraft resulting from a failure of a voltage regulator. All of the operating characteristics encountered in the space shutdown of the system can be dyplicated on the ground through this piece-part failure mode analySIS.
It should be emphasized that the SNAP 10-A nuclear reactor power system itself operated well. In fact, a duplicate of the system that was flown has been operating continuously in a ground test facility for over a year. On February 16, we increased the operating temperature of that system and it has continued to operate well since that time. It is planned to continue its operation through a total of 10,000 hours which will be reached in March; at that time we will shut the system down to disassemble and examine it. The most important results achieved in this flight test program of SNAP 10-A were associated with proving that reactor power systems can be developed, transported, installed, checked out, launched, and operated in space in a safe and predictable manner. The data obtained during the tests clearly indicate that reactor systems can be developed in ground facilities that simulate the space environment in a manner very similar to the development techniques used for all other space systems. The operation in space can be simulated on the ground and no unexpected space phenomena arise to affect the operation of reactors. This SNAP 10-A flight should serve to dispel any concern that may exist among those mission planners who are unfamiliar with nuclear systems, about the problems that might be introduced by using such systems in space. No unusual problems were encountered.
NASA-l.EO SNAP-8 PROJECT
In the joint NASA-AEC SNAP-8 ground development project aimed at developing a 35 to 50 kilowatt nuclear electric power system long duration component and subsystem testing ,,~as conducted during the past year. SNAP-8 is designed to be suitable for a wide variety of potential mission applications such as lunar base powerplants, direct broadcast TV satellites, large orbital laboratories, and manned planetary missions. An experimental version of the SNAP-8 reactor operated on the ground for a total of 8,300 hours at or above SNAP-8 power levels. The test was started in May 1963 and was completed in April 1965. This is in itself a major accomplishment. Since the shutdown, however, detailed examination of the fuel element rods has shown that a majority of them have cracks in the metal cladding. The cause of the cracks and their significance is being thoroughly evaluated and corrective action is being planned. It appears that the cracks resulted from irradiation embrittlement of the metal cladding alloy combined with swelling of the nuclear fuel; detailed examination of the fuel rods will be completed in the next few months. Although some corrective action is already being taken, fabrication of the development reactor
543
fuel is awaiting complete evaluation of the data obtained from examination of the experimental reactor. Since January 1965, performance testing of the major power conversion components of SNAP-8 was completed and component endurance testing was initiated. Dr. Adams mentioned some of this testing in his statement this morning. Components of the turboalternator system to convert the heat of the reactor to 35 kilowatts and, eventually, to as high as 50 kilowatts of electric energy have operated for hundreds and some for thousands of hours. In all, we have achieved a total of about 13,000 component test hours during 1965. All of the components are satisfactory for continued development and will be used in power conversion system tests. However, the turbine and the boiler cannot yet be considered as fully satisfactory, although they can be used in our ground test program. Endurance testing of the turbine as a part of the complete mercury test loop terminated at 830 hours due to mechanical interference of an internal retaining ring with the first stage turbine wheel. Correction of this design fault involved straightforward mechanical modifications which have been completed. Tests of the redesigned turbine in a turboalternator package have been started. The bOIler has also ~n redesigned. The first boiler designed was run for 1,400 hours; however, it did not give satisfactory startup performance. The redesign has now been tested for over 450 hours and has shown significant improvement over the first design. Further methods of improvement are being investigated. The SNAP-8 power conversion system has now been assembled, including the redesigned turbine and boiler, and is now being prepared for extended test operation. Funds are being requested by the AEC and NASA in the fiscal year 1967 budget request to continue the development of the reactor and the power conversion systems. Fiscal year 1967 should, therefore, provide continued growth in test time and operating experience with the major subsystems of this power supply before initiating full SNAP-8 system tests in which the reactor and power conversion subsystems would be joined together. Beyond the power level capability of SNAP-8, progress has also been made in many of the technological development areas that are required to eventually provide nuclear reactor systems that will be able to deliver thousands of kilowatts of electric power. Thermionic diodes that convert nuclear reactor heat energy direct~y to electrical energy have been operated for thousands of hours outsIde of reactors and long operating times are now being accumulated in test reactors. Turbines that are driven by high temperature metal vapors have been operated for 2,000 hours with no apparent indication of life limiting phenomena. Liquid and vaporized metal test loops are running for long periods of time after many years of .learning how to build and operate such high-temperature loops. Irradiation tests of nuclear reactor fuel that could be used in the high power, fast reactors that will eventually he needed as heat sources for such electric systems are underway. Work is underway in the many detailed areas that must be better understood before high power system developments can be undertaken.
544

NUCLEAR PROPULSION
Turning now to nuclear propulsion, the work done during the past year on nuclear rocket propulsion continued the successful accumulation of experimental data that has proven the high performance capabilities of these systems. Two more reactors-the NERVA NRX-A3 and the Phoebus l-A-were tested during 1965, adding a total of 27 minutes of full power, full temperature test operation to our growing log of experience. Space equivalent specific impulse of over 750 seconds was achieved in these reactor tests and in our tests run during 1964; this compares to the 425- to 450-second specific impulse of hydrogen-oxygen chemical combustion rocket engines. The NRX-A3, operated at power for over 60 minutes in three power periods with fun power operation for over 16 minutes. Data obtained by examination of the reactor parts after testing and the results of laboratory tests on reactor fuel elements point toward still higher specific impulse and substantially longer operating times. Reactors have been started, stopped, and restarted without difficulty. The wide, stable operating range of these systems has been demonstrated. The reactor testing during the past years, combined with development of nonnuclear components, such as turbopumps, nozzles, and controls has culminated in a series of tests that is now underway on a full "breadboard" engine system (NERV A NRX/EST) that combines all of the major components that will be needed in a flight engine, although they are not arranged in a flight arrangement. It has now been experimentally proven that such a self-contained engine can start on its OWn power-that is caned a "bootstrap" start-since the engine, in effect, pulls itself up by its own bootstraps in these systems-and can go stably to operation at any power level without supplying external energy to the system. By opening the valve to the pressurized hydrogen supply and properly controlling the power of the reactor in a wide variety of possible control modes, the turbopump speed can be increased to pump hydrogen into the reactor producing engine thrust at high specific impulse. It is interesting to point out that during the five tests conducted to date on this breadboard engine system, a total of 50 minutes of operating time was experienced at powers up to about 40 percent of design power; even at these comparatively low powers and the accompanying relatively low temperatures specific impulses of 520 to 550 seconds were achieved. The breadboard engine system is being prepared for its first test in this series that will go to the fun design power of 1,100 megawatts (millions of watts). That test is due to be run today. The test was delayed a week by a faulty valve actuator, requiring test qualificat~on and installation of a new actuator. Our development approach whIch emphasizps component and subsystem testing and development combined with system analysis work before undertaking major system tests has he en verified by the success of all of our test operations. This breadboard engine test series is indicative of the transition that took place in our nuclear rocket program during the past year as emphasis was transferred from the establishment of the technology of graphite nuclear rocket reactors and demonstration of their high performance capability and operating reliahility, to emphasis on engine
545
system technology and engine operating and performance characteristics. Continued work is still required on the nuclear reactor portions of the system to achieve extremely long life, higher power, higher temperature and higher specific impulse. However, we are now in a new phase of the program in which we are developing as detailed and thorough an understanding of the operation of the entire engine system as we now have of the reactor. Therefore, this appears to be a good time to review all that has been produced in the nuclear rocket program since it was started. From a technical point of view, we have operated reactors for significant periods of time at powers of over a thousand megawatts and Il,t temperatures over 4,000 0 F.-with white-hot temperature in the reactor and temperatures of 400 0 below zero only inch(>S away. This accomplishment has required an understanding of graphite, the material used in these reactors, far beyond what had been generallyavailable in that art. Methods had to be developed to protect graphite from chemical corrosion and erosion by the hydrogen propellant. In the last 3 years we have progressed from a time when graphite fuel elements could be tested in electrically heated furnaces for only five minutes at hydrogen gas temperatures of over 4,000 0 F. until today, when we have had fuel elements run in these laboratory tests for over an hour and up to almost 2 hours at the same conditions. The methods of designing nuclear rocket reactors have been defined; analytical methods have been developed to predict their operating characteristics under all conditions. In short, we have advanced a technical field from almost scratch to thorough understanding and brought almost all of the required basic reactor technology along in that time.
NEW NUCLEAR TEST FACILITY
Also during this period, a test site with substantial facilities in which nuclear rocket systems can be tested under required power conditions has been established for the country. Two reactor test facilities and one engine test stand are now available. Large radiation shielded facilities are available for remote assembly and disassembly operations. In this year's NASA budget submission, additional funds are requested for design of a facility consisting of two test stands that would be used for engine and, eventually, stage development of nuclear rocket systems. It is important in this regard to recognize the unique test capabiliti(>S that we have established at this Nuclear Rocket Development Station. This nuclear rocket test installation is the only one existing in the United States. Chemical rocket test facilities are located throughout the country at Government installations and at all of the contractors' sites involved in that work. However, those facilities are adequate only for nonnuclear test work and they are used in our program for operations that do not involve the generation of nuclear power such as in component development and cold flow engine tests. But the country's capability for power testing of nuclear rocket systems is provided only at the Nevada Nuclear Rocket Development Station. Since the nuclear rocket program started, therefore, a significant facility capability has been established, and our current budget request anticipates needed growth of the country's facilities in this area.
546

ESTABLISHED MANPOWER CAPABILITY
In addition, we now have an established manpower capability-a resource of scientists, engineers, and technicians-well versed in the disciplines involved in nuclear rocketry. The experience of aerodynamicists, metallurgists, mechanical, civil, electrical, and chemical engineers has been broadened so that their scope and competence now includes nuclear physics, nuclear materials, radiation effects, and, generally nuclear phenomena. They are all now deeply involved in the broader evaluation of their equipment in extreme environments, including nuclear radiation fields and extremely hot and cold temperatures. This resource of manpower is available in almost 40 government, industry, and university organizations that are directly participating in the nuclear rocket program. In addition, there are many other engineers, scientists, technicians, and production people in the many vendor and lower tier subcontract levels involved in the program. We have also, during this time, begun to define specific process and product improvements that were required by our program and that have imposed high demands on the ingenuity and initiative of industry. These improvements may also offer utility in other areas not directly associated with the nuclear rocket program, or, more generally, with either the space or atomic energy programs. These items vary from a portable instrument to indicate cracks in tubing of less than lJs-inch diameter to a high-temperature liner in a smoking pipe. We have indeed come a long way sineR, 1955 to bring nuclear rockets from the idea stage to reality, from the paper promises of high specific impulse with reasonable weights to an experimental verification that now permits the already achieved performance to serve as a basis for future mission planning. But much still remains to be done to provide the systems that will eventually be needed in the space program.
GOAL IS MISSIONS BEYOND APOLLO
The goal of the nuclear rocket program is to provide an adv~nce in space propulsion performance for missions beyond Apollo. Smce the exact eourse of the space program a decade or two from now cannot be firmly specified, one of the objectives of our technology development programs must be versatility in mission application. An advanced propulsion system should be applicable to a wide spectrum of missions. The nuclear rocket engine, used in an appropriate propulsion module, can offer such mission versatility. As a result of our mission and application studies, we have defined a propulsion module made up of a 200,000- to 250,OOO-pound thrust NERV A nuclear rocket engine and a 33-foot-diameter hydrogen tank and stage subsystems that could be applied in the wide variety of future manned and unmanned sp:we missions for which nuclear rockets would be advantageous. Though it would be much larger than the reactor-engines that are now being used to provide the basic technology for nuclear rocketry, this high powered NERVA engine will directly apply the technology being developed in our program using smaller systems.
547
Funds to initiate the development of this 200,000- to 250,000-pound thrust NERVA engine are included in both the NASA and the AEC fiscal year 1967 budget requests. In addition, the NASA budget request includes funding for the design of test stands that will be re<J.uired to develop this engine and any nuclear rocket stage or propulSIOn system in which this engine would eventually fit.
NUCLEAR ROCKETS FEAsmLE
We have proven nuclear rockets to be feasible; we have proven their high performance capabilities; we have established the manpower resources needed to work in this area; we have established a test installation and facilities to do our technology: development and are planning for needed growth of our test capabIlity; we have provided a technological understanding of these efficient propulsion systems so that we can confidently proceed with the development of a large NERVA engine that could perform all of the potential future space missions for which nuclear rockets would offer significant performance advantages. In summary, good progress is being made in providing radioisotope power systems for already approved space missions and in developing the technology and hardware of nuclear electric generating systems and nuclear rocket propulsion systems that will help to give this country the ability to exercise mission options that will keep it preeminent in space exploration for the indefinite future. Within the framework of the fiscal year 1967 budget limitations, required to satisfy the country's broad needs and responsibilities, we have been given the opportunity to continue to advance our space nuclear system capability on a sound technical basis. Thank vou very much, Mr. Chairman. (The following tables were presented as part of Mr. Fingers summary statement:)
TABLE
I.-ABC space program and related support activities

[In mlllIons]
Fiscal year
1965
Fiscal year
1966
Fiscal year
1967
Operating costs: Special nuclear materials__________________________________ Reactor developmenL____________________________________
$13.2 193.9
$12.4 164. 6
$9.4,
I=======I======I=====~
142.5
Rocket propulsion (Rover)I___________________________ 83.9 84.4 79.1 Satellite and small power sources (SNAP)I____________ 77. 7 48.7 39.9 Generator reactor technology_________________________ 11.9 11.6 11.6 Advanced Syatems___________________________________ 11.0 10.3 6.9 Nuclear Safety--------------------- -------------------1===9=.4=1====9=.6=1====5.0 Isotopes development _____________________________________ ===3=. 0=1====4.=5=1====6=. 4,
1-------1-------1--------
p~~~~JI~:it~ti_~~============================= 1--------11-------1------2~ ~ ~~: ~ 1~ ~

Total space program and related support activities______
232.2 201.0 173.7
1
See tables 2 and 3 for detall.
548

TABLE
2.-Rocket propulsion (Rover)

[In millions] Actual, fiscal year 1965 Fiscal year 1966 Cumulative through 1966 Fiscal year 1967
AElc~Wi~t_~~_~~~~~__________________________
NERVA___________________________________ Advanced Research and technology________ NRDS operations__________________________
~2cllFtWi%t~~ri~i-r~~~;;;;:::::::::::::::::::::
$2.8 44.7 $42.5 26.8 32.2 9.4 9.4 1-----1--84.1 5.6 3.0 1---92.9 92.7
$136.9 174.2 83.1 38.4 432.6 24.0 76.0 532.6 183.4
$39.5 29.6 9.4 78.5 5.3 2.0 85.8 33.1
1:~
Research and development: NERV A technology project..__ ____________ 35.4 36.0 Supporting research and development technology _____________________ __________ 20.9 21. 0 NRDS operations__________________________ .7 1.0 KIWL _______________________________________________________________ _ RIFT _________________________________________________________________ _ Total research and development. ________ Facilities ... _... _ ___ .. ___ . ___ .. _____________ Total NASA (obligations) __ . ___ .. _______ Total AEC-NASA ___ . __________________ 57.0 .6 58.0 2.0
-----1--------1--------1------307.8 29.3 57.6 150.5 60.0 152.7 337.1 869.7
16.9 81.2 3.0 2.5 21.6 -------------19.1 --------------
53.0 2.0
55.0 140.8
TABLE
3.-AEO programr--space electric power systems sumnw.ry

[In millions]
-
------------------------------Fiscal year 1965 Fiscal year 1966 Cumulative through 1966
-----
Fiscal year 1967
Operating costs: RadiOisotope power systems __ . ___ ._. ______ Reactor power systems ____________ . ________ Power conversion technology _______________ Total operating costs ___________________ ._ Equipment costs. __________________ Facility costs ... ______________ . _______
$3.3 60.3 14.1 77.7 5.1 1.7 84.5
$11.5 23.3 13.0 48.7 3.3 .7 52.7
$29.6 292.5 39.1 361. 2 24.6 11.9 397.7
$14.2 14.2 11.4 39.8 2.1 .5 42.4
==::::::::
Total AEC costs _________________ . ______
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Finger. You continue to be one of our most satisfactory witnesses. Mr. FINGEH. Thank you very much. TESTS VERIFY NUCLEAR ENGINE STABLE The CHAIRMAN. Did the recent series of tests of the breadboard nudear rocket engine system confirm the feasibility of using this engine? Mr. FINGER. Oh, yes, it does. The system starts stably, it starts quickly, it operates well when it gets to power. It can be shut down and restarted; it indicates a very wide range of stable operation. It certainly does verify what we had calculated. The CHAIRMAN. What is the significance of the fact that during these recent tests the engine was able to start up by itself? Mr. FINGER. This is the way the engine would have to start in space. It does provide a great simplification over having to carry some auxiliary power supply, for example, a gas generator, as is carried in
549
many of the chemical rockets. Essentially, we would be using the power generated within the reactor itself, without any auxiliary systems included. It is a great simplification and I believe adds greatly to the reliability of these systems.
NUCLEAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGY
The CHAIRMAN. In your statement you say that during the past year, emphasis was transferred from the establishment of the technology of graphite nuclear rocket reactors and demonstration of their high performance capability and operating reliability to emphasis on engine system technology and engine operating and performance characteristics. Is this a step in the direction of an operating engine in the nuclear stage ~ Mr. FINGER. Yes, sir, it is. We now know a great deal about the nuclear reactor technology. The important point now is that we are going on to learning as much about the engine system, which includes not only the reactor but the nozzles, the bleed ports in the nozzles that feed hydrogen to the turbo pumps, and automatic control systems.
FLIGHT TEST OF NUCLEAR SYSTEM
The CHAIRMAN. What is the earliest stage at which we could flight test a nuclear rocket propulsion system? Mr. FINGER. The program approach we have laid out involves going ahead and initiating development of a large NERVA engine system. We believe that IS a proper approach to go because that one engine system could perform a very wide variety of future missions. With that kind of a system, we, technically, could layout a program that would permit us to fly this engine about the mid-1970's, about 1975. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it necessary to flight test a nuclear propulsion system before it is assigned to use on a mission? Mr. FINGER. No, sir, I do not. I believe that the ground test work that has already been accomplished should give great confidence in the feasibility and ability of these systems to perform as required for space missions, with high specific impulse and high reliability. I believe that flight testing should be considered as a step involved in qualifying systems for actual mission use, but it need not be done in order to make a decision to use these systems. I think that decision can be made on the basis of very extensive ground test work that we are already performing.
NUCLEAR
ROC~
OFFER ADVANTAGES
The CHAIRMAN. In your statement, you state:

We can confidently proceed with the development of Ii large NERVA engine that could perform all of the potential future space missioru; for which nuclear rockets would offer significant performance advantages.
When you talk about the flybys to Mars-maybe we are interested in landing at Mars. Don't these things seem to suggest a mission for the engine~ Mr. FINGER. Yes, sir, they do. This large engine I mentioned would certainly be very important for a manned planetary landing mission.
550
In fact, the nuclear rocket program plan is laid out to insure that we develop that kind of capability in our nuclear rocket development program. But, in addition, that same engine could be used for direct flight lunar landing missions, if it were used as a third stage on Saturn V. It could be used as well for unmanned deep space missions-again on Saturn V-to extend the useful payload capability of that vehlCle. As a result it has a very broad mission applicability and does clearly indicate potential mission uses. The CHAIRMAN. When the engines start and stop up at Mars, at the moon or some place else, it is a great event, is it not ~ Mr. FINGER. It is in some mission applications. We have not really imposed that as a requirement on these systems. The start-stoprestart characteristic is very important, however, in a sound development program on the ground. Quite obviously, we would not be very economical if every time we started one of these systems, we had to move it off the stand and replace it with a new one. We can do our development work through repetitive testing as we have already shown. But, for example, in the Mars mission we have talked in terms of having three separate nuclear propelled stages that would perform that mission and the engine in each stage would fire for a relatively short period. The maximum time of firing would be about 30 minutes to perhaps 45 minutes. So that we are sure that we have the operating capability required in those systems that will be used for such missions. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator .Jordan ~ NUCLEAR REACTOR HEAT ENERGY CONVERSION Senator .JORDAN. In your statement, Mr. Finger, you said thermionic diodes that convert nuclear reactor heat energy d-irectly to electrical energy have been operated for thousands of hours outside of reactors and long operating times are now accumulated in test reactors. Do you foresee the time anywhere near in the foreseeable future when this process might be competitive with conventional thermal or hydroelectric energy production ~ Mr. FINGER. The real advantage of these systems, I believe, will tend to be in space. The major space advantage relates to the very high temperatures at which these systems operate, and therefore, the radiators that are required are small. The systems are compact, they can be quite reliable. We have very reliable systems on the ground for generating power. So that I do not think there will be a very drastic change of emphasis to these thermionic devices in terrestrial applications, although there may be some interest in these systems. Senator JORDAN. Wen, you are shortcutting one process here, really, are you not? Mr. FINGER. Yes, you are shortcutting the process of turbines and electrical generators and so on. Senator .JORDAN. That is right. Mr. FINGER. Therefore, there may indeed be an increase in reliability, but the terrestrial systems operate at relatively low temperatures, and they are quite reliable.
551
I should not discount the possibility of having that kind of an application, but it certainly has characteristics that are much more important to us in the space area than in the terrestrial applications. Senator JORDAN. The intriguing pof*libility of your translating heat energy into kilowatts without going through the thermodynamic process--Mr. FINGER. That is correct, it is very interesting.
NUCLEAR PROGRAM: BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Senator JORDAN. Now, what program was it necessary for you to drop because of the reduction in your budget for fiscal year 1967 from fiscal year 1966? Mr. FINGER. In the nuclear rocket area, the only program that was dropped, actually, was the work that we had underway on tungsten reactor systems. We had already planned to reduce that effort because we felt we had been making good progress in establishing the basic technology of the materials, and some physics understanding of such reactors. So that we were, in effect, in a phase-out program already. We tended to cut the work off a little sooner than we would have done otherwise; but we believe that we have a very fine technology base that could be brought back in the event that a mission application for subsistence came forward. Essentially, tungsten systems appear to have applicability for extremely long-life propulsion applications. Senator JORDAN. Do you see any advantages of the tungsten core engine over a graphite core ? Mr. FINGER. The major one is the one that I mentioned. There is the possibility of getting much longer life out of these systems, much more than the hour that we are aiming at in the graphite system at this point, into many hours of operation. Also, there may be an advantage in being able to start and stop these reactors more frequently. I should, however, mention that the possibilities of getting higher specific impulse are not real. The specific impUlse in a tungsten system will probably be lower than the maximum that can be achieved in a graphite system. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cannon? Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SPECIFIC IMPULSE SOLID CORE OF NUCLEAR PROPULSION SYSTEMS
While you are on that point, you indicated here that we could probably get higher specific impulses that you heretofore planned. What range are you talking about? Mr. FINGER. Yes, sir. Without changing the temperatures in the reactor itself, we are quite sure we can get up to 800 seconds and probably somewhat more than that. I think there is a distinct possibility based on our laboratory tests of getting it to 850 and perhaps to 900 seconds. Senator CANNON. How does that compare to our conventional methods, now ~
59-941
0--6~6
552
Mr. FINGER. The best in the chemical rocket systems that we have is 425. There are some tests that have been performed that go to alm~st 450 ~econds; so we ar~ talking about levels that are twice the best III chemIcal rocketry at thIS point. BUDGET REQUEST FOR DESIGN OF NUCLEAR PROPULSION TEST STANDS Senator CANNON. Now, you say in your statement that some funds to initiate the development of this 200,000- to 250,OOO-pound thrust NERVA engine are included in both the NASA and AEC fiscal year 1967 budget request. In addition, you say the NASA budget request includes funding for the design of test stands that will be required to develop this engine and any nuclear rocket stage or propulsion module in which this engine would eventually fit. How much of the fiscal year 1967 request will be used to initiate the development of the 2!)0,OOO-pound thrust nuclear engine ~ That is bot h NASA and AEC ? Mr. FINGER. In the NASA budget that number is $2.5 million. In the AEC budget, it is a million dollars. I should, however, mention that a very major part of the technology work that is underway on the smaller systems does relate directly to the large engine development, but that is the funding for the initial design work and initiation of component design of the large NERV A. Senator CANNON. How much is in the NASA budget request for the design of test stands? Mr. FINGER. $2 million is included in the advanced design item in the NASA budget, specifically earmarked for these test stands. Senator CANNON. When do you estimate that construction of these test stands would begin? Mr. FINGER. We have no funding as yet for the construction. That is something that would have to come in later year funding. W"e only have design money at this point. Senator CANNON. I understand that. Rut I mean when you are talking about-you were indicating here that you could come along with this type of capability in the mid-1970's. Mr. FINGER. Yes. Senator CANNON. To do that you would have to have at some stage a test stand. What stage ~ Mr. FINGER. In that statement and in the program that leads to that kind of a flight capability, we plan on starting construction in fiscal 1968, and we would try to do our design work well in advance of fiscal vear 1968 so that we would be in a position to start construction then . . Senator CANNON. Now, would the construction be a pacing item in the development of an operating nuclear engine ~ Mr. FINGER. It generally is. The facilities have, in general, turned out to be a pacing element in our program. It would take about four years to build and activate those facilitips to thp point that we could actually start doing test work in the facilities. So it is a very significant span of time and, in general, it does become pacing. NERVA COMPATIBILITY WITH SATURN
V
Senator CANNON. Now, I note that in your statment as to the size of the engine, you indicated a 33-foot diameter for the tank.
553
Mr. FINGER. Yes. Senator CANNON. Will that fit on a first stage engine that we have capabilities for today ~ Mr. FINGER. That 33-foot diameter was specifically chosen so that the nuclear rocket stage could be used as a third stage on Saturn V, which is also 33 feet in diameter. The combination has been studied quite extensively so that the bending loads, bending moments and control characteristics are feasible and practical. So we specificall;r chose that figure in order to make it fit on Saturn V and, therefore, It permits increasing and extending the useful life and payload capability of that system.
NUCLEAR ROCKET APPLICATIONS
Senator CANNON. Has NASA studied the use of nuclear rockets for earth orbital plane changes, for example, going from equatorial to polar orbits, or by expansion to high orbits in rotation of the orbital plane and return to a new lower orbit ~ Mr. FrNGER. Those are very unique sorts of missions. I think the important point that tends to pull these together is that wherever you have a very large velocity change that must be made, either in small amounts or in one maXImum propulsion period to accomplish this large velocity change, the high specific impulse of nuclear rockets would be advantageous. Now, we have studied, in general, applications of nuclear rockets for these various high velocity increments. It is quite difficult to be very specific about a study like that, since one of the important parameters that enters is what IS the total weight of the spacecraft that is to be propelled through all of these maneuvers. We have approached the problem a little differently and we have started to study, actually some months ago we started studying, the very smallest kinds of nuclear rocket systems that could be made in order to see how small in vehicle application we can get. The large engine that we mentioned could propel a system that weighed up to 1 or 2 million pounds. But it may not be necessary to propel that large a system. Therefore, we have gone smaller down to spacecraft of 50,000 pounds and less in earth orbit. And in those cases, again wherever there is enough velocity increment, the nuclear rocket will look very advantageous. Senator CANNON. Generally, how do masses of fuel required to change the orbit of given payloads compare with the systems of used chemical rockets ~ Mr. FINGER. This is where the major saving is made. You need far less fuel. You will recall that specific impulse is the thrust developed per pound per second going through the enne. With a high specific impulse, therefore, we could get by, for a given velocity increment with less fuel being stored in the system. There is a sigDificant propellant saving. Now, the propellant weight saved increases as you go to higher and higher velocity changes of the spacecraft. So the higher the velocity, the more advantageous the nuclear system will be.
554

NUCLEAR PAYLOAD STUDIES
Senator CANNON. Has NASA studied the use of nuclear rockets for transfer of payloads to the moon and return to lower earth orbit for refueling and possible new payloads? Mr. FINGER. Yes. That is an entire family of missions that we have looked at which we call the earth orbit-to-lunar-orbit-ferry mission, where we keep a nuclear propelled system in space. It operates between the earth and lunar orbits, carrying supplies to the lunar orbit and then returning men or used supplies to the earth orbit. That is not an easy mission, in that, to be really economical, it would require very long operating time and the ability to start and restart many times. Every time you come back to the earth orbit, then, we would have to refuel this vehicle with hydrogen. The more times it could operate the more economical the operation would be. We think this is a mission that the nuclear rocket will eventually play, but it is not an easy one to get at the first opportunity. Actually, when you get down to it, we think a manned planetary mission for nuclear rockets is easier because of the shorter operating times involved and the fact that such systems need not restart. But we are working on and thinking of that'kind of a lunar application. I should mention that the tungsten reactor systems appear to have potential advantages for that application because they could operate for long periods and through many cycles of operation. Senator CANNON. Well, now, have you compared the requirements in your studies for a nuclear rocket for the type of mission we were just discussing with those requirements for a chemical system? Mr. FINGER. 'Ve have not made that comparison directly. Based, however, on our other mission calculations involving nuclear propulsion for lunar missions, we have come to the conclusion that there was an advantage, and if you could keep using that same system, without incurring the added cost of a new system for all trips, it would be an increased advantage to operate that way. I do not have a direct comparison. Senator CANNON. On the studies that you have made in the mission we were discussing initially, are they definitive enough that you could supply them for the record, or are they still in general ter~s? Mr. FINGER. Some of them are in general terms. Some of them mvolve, more specifically, design studies of the kinds of engine systems we would use, so that we are really not quite ready yet to layout the exact payload that we might be able to anticipate. We have some of that information. I will certainly look over what we have and see what we have that could be submitted for the record that would add to this discussion of the advantages that could be achieved with these systems through large velocity increments. (The infonnation referred to follows:)
There have been many missions that have been investigatM in evaluating the advantages of nuclear propulsion over othl'r forms of rocket propulsion, These various missions include lunar fl'rry missions, direct flight lunar landing missions. unmanned dl'l'p spaCl' missions, dosl'-in solar probl's, mannM planetary landing!>., The atta('hM list is indi('ativl' of the varil'ty of mission studil's that havl' bet>n done on this subject. They also vary in dl'pth of dl'tail. One of the most thorough studies performM to datI' on the uS{> of nuclear rockets in a
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967 manned Mars mission has recently been completed for NASA by TRW of the Thompson, Ramo, Wooldridge Co.
N ABA ADVANCED STUDIES INVOLVING NUCLEAR ROCKETS
555
system~
Manned planetary landing missions
1. "A Study of Early Manned Interplanetary Missions," General Dynamics/ Convair, January 1963, contract NASS-5026. 2. "A Study of Manned Interplanetary Missions," General Dynamics/C{)nvair, April 1964, contract N AS8--5026 (follow-on). 3. "A Study of Manned Mars Exploration in the Unfavorable Time Period (1975-85)," General Dynamics/Fort Worth, February 1964, contract NAS811004,5 volumes. 4. "Manned Mars Exploration in the Unfavorable (1975-85) Time Period," Douglas Aircraft Co.-MSSD, January 1964, 12 volumes. 5. "Manned Mars Landing and Return Mission." TRW Space Technology Laboratories, March 1964, contract NAS2-1409. 6. "Manned Mars Landing and Return Mission Study," North Ameircan Aviation S. & I.D~ April 1964, contract NAS2-1408, 5 volumes. 7. "Manned Mars and Venus Exploration Study," General Dynamics/Convair, March 1965, contract NAS8-11327, 4 volumes. 8. "A Study of Mission Requirements for Manned Mars and Venus Exploration," General Dynamics/Fort Worth, May 1965, contract NAS8-11318, 3 volumes. 9. "Mission Oriented Advanced Nuclear System Parameter Study," TRW Space Technology Laboratories, March 1965, contract NAS8-5371, 9 volumes. 10. "Manned Mars Landing Mission via Means {)f High-Thrust Rockets," Luidens, R. W. et aI, NASA TN D-3181, January 1966. 11. "Study of a Manned Mars Landing Mission Using a Mars Orbit Rendezvous Profile," Spencer, D. F., OMSF Office of System, Augnst 1963, 3 volumes.
Manned planetary flyby missions
1. "Manned Interplanetary Mission Study," Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Mareh 1963, contract NAS8-5024, 2 volumes. 2. "EMPIRE-A Study of Early Manned Interplanetary Missions," Aeronautronics Division-Ford Motor Co., December 1962, contract NA88-5025. 3. "~:lanned Interplanetary Missions-Follow-on Study," Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., January 1964, contract NAS8-5024, 3 volumes. 4. "Manned Planetary Reconnaissance Mission Study: Venus/Mars Flyby," Marshall Space Flight Center In-House Study, NASA TM X-53204, February 1965.
Lunar missions
1. "Nuclear Lunar Logistic Study," Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., December 1963, 2 volumes. 2. "Saturn D (Nuclear Rocket Upper Stage) Mission Studies," Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Augnst 1962, contract NAS8-1601. . 3. "Saturn D Nuclear Rocket Upper Stage Mission Study," General Dynamics Astronautics, Augnst 1962, contract NAS8-1600. 4. "Reusable Nuclear Ferry Vehicle," Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., February 1964, contract NAS8-5020, 3 volumes. 5. "Advanced Lunar Transportation Study," Lockheed ~Iissiles & Space Co., January 1963, contract NAS8-5020, 2 volumes. 6. "Operations Analysis of Advanced Lunar Transportation Systems," LingTemco-Vought/Astronautics, February 1964, contract NAS8-5027, 4 volumes. 7. "Comparative Study of Advanced Lunar Transportation Systems," LingTemco-Vought/Astronautics, January 1963, contract NAS8-5027. 8. "Study of an Advanced Lunar Transportation System," Martin Co., January 1963, contract NAS8-1531.
Other
mi.~8ion.~
1. "Post-Saturn Class III and IV Launch Vehicle Study (Phase III)," report No. S~I-45804 (7 volumes), Douglas Aircraft Co., ~Iarch 1964. contract NAS8- 1)021. 2. "Post-Saturn Launch Vehicles Study (Phase III). Cla~s IV Vehicles," report No. GD/A OK--64-{)()9 (5 volumes), Gl"neral Dynamics/Astronautics, May 1964, contract NAS8-5022. 3. "Nuclear Interplanetary Mission Study," Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., March 1964, Contract N AS8-5600.
556
Related studies (in which consideration of nuclear rocket propulsion is a secondary objective) 1. "Space Technology Analysis and Mission Planning," General Dynamics/ Astronautics, January 1965, Contract NAS8-11084, 3 volumes. 2. "Space Technology Analysis and ~Iission Planning." ~Iartin/Denyer, .January 1965, contract NAS8-11057, 4 volumes. 3. "Study of Interplanetary Mission Support Requirements." Boeing Co., May 1965, Contra('t XAS9-3441, 3 volumes. 4. "Interplanf'tary Mi~sion Support Rf'quirf'mf'nts," Douglm;; Aircraft Co., June 1965, Contract XAS9-3440, 3 volumes. ri. "Orbital I,aun('h Facility Study," B()('ing Co., O('tober 1965, Contract NAS8-l13f'..'5, 4 volumf's. 6. "Advanced Orbital Laun('h Opf'rationA," LTV Astronauti('s, May 1964, Contract NAR8-ri344, 9 volumf's. 7. "Advan('ed Orbital Laun('h Operations, Phasf' R," LTV A~tronautic~, Xovembf'r 1965, contract NAR8-5344, 4 volum'f's.
Current studies
1. "Study of Trajectories and Upper-Htage Propulsion Rpquirf'lllf'nts for Exploration of thf' Solar Systf'm," Unitf'd Aireraft Rf'sf'ar('h Laboratorif'R, Contract NAS2-2928. 2. "Mission Oriented AdYanced Nu('lf'ar RYHtem Paramf'ter Study, Phase IV," TRW Systems, Contract NAS8-5371. 3. "Advanced Electric Propulsion Vehicle Utilizing High/Low Thrust Propulsion for Mannf'd Mars Missions," Genf'ral Electric (NAS8-11423) and United Aircraft Research Laboratorif'S (N AS8-11309).
SPECIAl, DESIGN HYDROGEN TANKS
Senator CANNON. In making those studies, have you considered using hydrogen tanks specifically designed for use at low accelerations as a weight-phasing device? Mr. FINGER, Well, there are two ways of handling the pumping of hydrogen, One is to use a pump which permits us to go to relatively low tank pressnres, The pressure is then increased as we go through the system. That is the conventional way that we are considering for nuclear rockets. The minimum tank pressure is limited by pump and system startup and development considerations. "" If we go to very low thrust systems, it may be possible to pressurize the tank and, in effect, do away with a pump system. I have a feeling that it will not look as good from an overall performance point of view, although I have not gotten detailed numbers on it. I have a feeling it will not look as good from an overall point of view because the tank will become a very large part of the system, even if we go to very low structural weights in the tank. If we had to pressurize the tank to provide propellant then the tank weight would become a more si~rnificant part of the entire system. I think that could very well hurt. We would have to look at that in more detail.
ROVER PRo.TECT BUDGJ<;T CUT
Senator CANNON. (}ptting to the specifirs of your budget here, the 1967 request, for example, in the Royer project is down; you show, about $fi million reduction over 1966. Mr. FINGER. Yes, sir. Senator C.\NNON. "That is the efl'ed of that! Mr. FINGEIL lVhat is the effect of that? Senator C.\NNON. 'Vhat is the siO'nifiranee of that. type of a reduction? '"
557
Mr. FINGER. Well, we have tried, Senator Cannon, to maintain our mainline effort which is to go ahead with the NERVA program and the development of the NERVA technology and initiate development of this larger NERVA engine. However, we have had to cut back somewhat, as you can see in that NERVA line item. 'Ve have about a $3 million reduction, compensated, you might say, by a $2 million increase in the operations out in Nevada in that program. In addition, we have a reduction in our budget in the supporting areas, particularly the tungsten work that I mentioned earlier was eliminated from our budget and in the mission analysis work that we had underway. 'Ve have provided no funds for mission analysis work in fiscal year 1967. Those two items explain the major part of the cut other than the NERVA reduction. Senator CANNON. So that it should not significantly affect the continuance of the program at an orderly level? Mr. FINGER. That is correct. Senator CANNON. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith? INTEIt.-\GENCY AGREEMENT Senator SMITH. Mr. Finger, you mention in your statement that NASA and AEC are preparing an interagency agreement which will give NASA Nimbus contractors the necessary insurance protection against nuclear hazards afforded by the Price-Aliderson Act. I assume that agreement is not yet available? Mr. FINGER. That is correct. It is being worked on by the staff of the two agencies and it has not yet been formalized in any way. Senator SMITH. I will ask the Chairman if, at such time as it is available, a copy could be furnished to the committee for reference purposes, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. We will ask that. Mr. FINGER. We would be happy to do that. NUCLEAR STATION BtTDGET INCREASE Senator SMITH. I discussed with you last year the operations cost at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station, and I noticed this year that $3 million is requested for general site support, which is a $2 million increase over last year. 'Would you discuss that increase ~ Mr. FINGER. As you recall, Senator Smith, we pointed out that that item in the NASA budget is the NASA share of the total cost of maintaining and operating that installation. It is more of an allocation of cost than funding directly related to pieces of technical work. Essentially, the increase this year is the result of NASA's facilities in Nevada advancing in their operating status, so that we. now have a greater NASA contribution to that total expenditure out 1ll Nevada. The two facilities that are beginning to be activated-this is a NASA funding responsibility-are the En~ine Maintenance Assembly al~d Disassembly Building and the En~ine Test Stand that has been ~m~1t and is now being activated so that test equipment can be tested 111 It.
558
In addition to this funding item, however, I think it is important to point out that there is a much larger investment that is directly allocated to the testing of particular test equipment. Some money, therefore, that is spent at NRDS, at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station, is contained within the NERVA program itself. Senator SMITH. Then would I be right in assuming that it will increase each year? Mr. FINGER. Yes, as the NASA activities in Nevada go up, that is correct. I should also mention that the AEC share of that NRDS operations budget is $9.4 million. SOVIET COMPACT NUCLEAR GENERATORS Senator SMITH. Is there any indication from Soviet Scientists as to their progress on small onboard power generators for space use? I recall that a year ago they announced that they were working on compact nuclear generators. Mr. FINGER. Yes, in Geneva they unveiled a reactor power supply capable of generating 500 watts of electrical power that uses thermoelectric elements, similar to those that were used by us in SNAP 10-A. The power capability of that particular system was quite limited, because it had no auxiliary heat transfer fluid to transfer heat from t.he reactor to the thermoelectrics. That system apparently is still being worked on, from everything we hear, and they have discussed it at various t.imes. It is apparently operating. In addition to that, I think it should be mentioned that they have flown two isotope power supplies. These are two units that they announced. You recall they had two flights in which they launched five separate payloads. In each of those flights, one of the payloads was powered by an isotope power supplier. I have no knowledge of what the power of those units was or what the isotope was. So it is very clear that they have work going on in this area and they certainly have a capability to do it, because it is also clear that they have a very strong nuclear energy capability. They have demonstrated it by their reactor work. SNAP-27 GENERATOR FOR APOLLO EXPERIMENT PACKAGE Senator SMITH. Is the development of the SNAP-27 generator referred in your statement intended for exclusive use in the Moon landing or will it have other applications? Mr. FINGER. Its first application will be in the Apollo System but it is a very versatile system. It can generate 50 watts of power anywhere, essentially. It could be used in Earth orbit, it could be used on any instrumented mission placed anywhere in space, on deep space pr~bes, l!'nd so on. So it is really a very versatile kind of system. It IS deSIgned to operate safely and reliably for over a year. Senator SMITH. Is the SNAP-27 power supply package scheduled for the first Apollo flight or for later ones? Mr. FINGER. This depends a great deal on what the mission's intentions are in the first flight. It depends really more on when this
559
ALSEP package, this Apollo-Lunar-Surface Experiment package is to be placed on the :Moon. The SNAP-27 would have to go with that, because there is no other power supply available for that package. So if that system is put on the Moon in the first flight, SNAP-27 will too. There is some discussion of this point. I do not think that has been firmly resolved. We are aiming the development of SNAP-27 so that it will be available for a first flight of Apollo. Senator SMITH. How soon do you have to make that decision? Very soon? :Mr. FINGER. Well, we are going on with the development, assuming that that is when we would go and, therefore, it would not be a critical matter in making that decision. NIMBUS-B WEATHER SATELLrrE Senator SMITH. You say that the NI:MBUS-B ':Veather Satellite will have two nuclear generators aboard. What will be the life span these generators will be designed for? :Mr. FINGER. They are designed to operate for at least a year. It actually uses two operating in tandem, mounted together as a single package. I think here again it is important to indicate the usefulness of these systems. This would provide supplementary power to the large solar panels that are being used on Nimbus, which themselves provide 250 watts of power. This 50 watts of supplemental power that is being provided by these isotope power supplies, would have been enough to continue to charge the batteries in the first Nimbus that was launched, so that even after the solar panels were stuck in place-you recall they could not rotate and be alined to the Sun-the Nimbus would have been able to continue to operate in that case. So it is a very useful kind of an auxiliary power system. Senator SMITH. That is very interesting, Mr. Finger. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gehrig ~ NUCLEAR STATION DEVELOPMENT NEEDED Mr. GEHRIG. In your statement, you say a significant facility capability has been established at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station and that the current budget request anticipates needed growth of the country's facilities in this area. Would you give the Committee your opinion as to what kind of growth is needed, particularly- with respect to the need for additional research and development faCIlities? Mr. FINGER. 'Wen, the growth I was speaking of, Mr. Gehrig, is specifically related to development capability. The need for engine test stands and stands that also have a capability to test and develop stages in order to prove that they have the reliability required for a flight mission and to prove that they will operate as they are designed and that they will give the performance that has been intended. So I was speaking specifical1y of the development facilities. I believe that these two test stands should provide us with the capability to carry on the large engine development and eventuany the development of a stage into which this engine would fit.
560
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOl{ FISCAL YEAR 1967
In addition to that, there will have to be some component facilities, needed to go along with this engine facility. Specifically, we will have to have a place in which we can evaluate radiation effects of these reactors on the components that will go around the system in order to assure that there is no damaging effect of radiation, and we need pump test stands. The Research and Development facilities that we already have, I believe, will tend to be adequate for continued research activities and for continued work on providing the basic technology of these systems. There may be some continuing growth needed in those areas, but no major new facilities would be required for that work. COMPLEXITY
OF
NUCLEAR TEST STANDS
Mr. GEHRIG. Are the test stands you need at the Nevada site any more complex than test stands for chemical rockets located at other places in the United States? Mr. FINGER. Yes, they are. We already have one test stand capable of testing these engine systems at reduced powers, up to, perhaps, as much as 3,000 megawatts. Drawing from the experience on that system, I can indicate some of the differences between nuclear stands and chemical stands. For one thing, because of radiation heating, it is necessary to cool the structure so that the large supports that hold the entire stand have water spray-cooling within them. In order to avoid radiation activation of the stand materials, aluminum is used in these stands rather than steel, some constituents of which tend to become radioactive. Also, a shield would have to be available to enclose this engine during test. That involves development work. One of the areas that is really a major development activity for us in this facility work is the flame detector duct, the duct that takes the exhaust from the engine, turns it up and deflects it to high altitudes so that it is in no way' any hazard and removes the flame from the test stand so that the facIlity itself is not endangered. It is a flame deflector somewhat like those we use in chemical systems. However, the heat fluxes are high. The flame deflector duct, therefore, must be water cooled and in order to avoid activation of the water, the water is held internally in the duct in brge tubes very mnch as in a rocket jet nozzle. So that the duct itself becomes an important development job. There are really quite significant differences, although at a first glance they look very similar. There is one other point I should mention along these lines. The ground experimental engine test work that we will be conducting next year, in 1H67, on the small engine systems in Engine Test Stand 1, IS as much related to developing the technology of the test stand as it is to developing the technology of the engine. 1Ve think it is important to get early tests of that kind of a system in a real test faeil ity to assure that we really understand these large test stands. Mr. GEHRIG. In building these large test stands, does it require that the architect and engineer on these test stands spend more time in their duties related to test. stands, to the building in the test stand? Mr. FINGER. Yes, it does. There are real tradeoffs ilH'olved. There are tradeoff studies that mnst he done to determine radiation levels involved, fmd how the systelll is to he protected. In other words, this
561
is work that is not specifically related to doing the final design work. It is work in preparation for the final plans. We also han, in the past, done supporting, you might almost call it supporting research, although it is not really classed that way, in order to assure that we really understand how to build these facilities. At times some of this study work was done by the Architect-Engineer and became a part of the Architect-Engineering contract. So that there is additional work related to the design and construction of these stands, because of the added complexity involved. The CHAIR;\IAN. There will be some additional questions which will be submitted to you later on. (Questions submitted by the committee to Mr. Finger and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
QUESTIONS ON SNAP-S, SNAP-19, SNAP-27 Question 1. Are the two 30-watt SNAP-19 generators for Nimbus B funded by AEC or :\'ASA? What are the ('osts of these two generators? Answer. The AEC funds the costs of the SNAP-19 generators for Nimbus B. It is estimated by the AEC that the ('ost of these two generators after deyelopment will be about $40.000---$50.000. exclnsiw of fuel. Question 2. What is the ('ost of deyeloping the SNAP-27 isotope thermoelectric generator for the Apollo Lunar Experiment Package (ALSEP): Answer. The rost of deyeloping the SNAP-27 isotope thermoeleetri(' generator for the Apollo Lunar Experiment Package (ALSEP) is estimated by the AEC at approximateoly $13 million coYering the period 1965 through flight. Question 3. With the funds being requested for SNAP 8 for fis('al year 1967, what will it be able t-o acromplish? Answer. The funds requested for SNAP 8 for fiseal year 1967 will enable NASA to continue deyelopment of the SNAP 8 power conversion system toward its 3."i-kilowatt, 10,OOO-hour objective. Endurance and performance testing of all power ronyersion romponents will be continued and at least 1,000 hour tests of all romponents will be completed. Full power conversion system performance and limited enduran('e testing will be conducted. The automatic startup demonstration of the power ronversion system will be completed. Supporting technology programs in heat transfer, materials, system dynamics, and endurance instrumentation will be initiated to provide the necessary basis for understanding system behavior and to improve perfurmance as required. Question 4. Is the primary program emphasis now on running a complete system or is it on insuring that all romponents have the inherent life and reliability necessary for system functions: Answer. The primary program emphasis is on condu('ting component developlllent including performance and endurance tests followed by full power conyersion system tests. Combined system testing with a nuclear reaetor is planned after both the nuelear and power ('onYersion systems have demonstrated satisfactory performance and endurance milestones. The current program will not insure that all components have the necessary life and reliability for mission needs but rather the program emphasis is on insuring the identification and resolution of major romponent and system performance and development uncertainties.
(The complete statement by Mr. Finger follows:)

STATEMENT OF HAROLD B. FINGER, DIRECTOR, NUCI.EAR SYSTEMS AND SPACE POWER, NASA, DIRECTOR, SPACE NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, AEC, MANAGER, SPACE NUCLEAR PROPULSION OFFICE, AEC-:\,ASA INTRODUCTION Mr. Chairman, members of the ('ommittee, I appreciate very much the opportunity to present to you the work being done and planned by the National AeronautiC's and Space Administration and the Atomic Energy Commission to proyide nudear E'nergy systems for spaCE' applications. Attarhed is a very eomplete statement describing this work; I would like first to briefly summarize the highlights of this work and, in particular, to des('ribe the a('complishments of the past year.
562
It is, as you know, generally agreed that nuclear propulsion will be required for propelling large and heavy spacecraft to the high velocities that are required to reach distant space objectives. In addition, it is generally agreed that nudear reactors will be used to provide the source of electrical energy in high powered, long life space applications. Radioisotope energy sources, in which heat is generated from the radiation emitted by these isotopes has already been used in space; four satellites launched by the Department of Defenf'e since ,Tune 1!l61 , have used electricity generated from the heat provided by radioi>;otopes. There is now a growing interest and a growing list of requirements for these radioisotope electric generating systems in NASA as well as in the DOn. ASRuming a continuing, active, space exploration program, nudear reac-tor systemR will also eventually be needed to supply larger amounts of electrical power to the spncecraft than is possible with isotopes. Nuclear reactors will also provide the Rource of energy needed to propel heavy spacecraft, ineluding manned spaeeeraft, to high velodties. It is, therefore, important to maintain a strong te('hnology development program in this area to provide options in undertaking advanced missions and in deciding how best to accomplish future missionR. The past year has seen continuing progress in these nu('\ear sYRtem developments. The first reactor powered electric generating system-the GOO-watt SNAP l(}-A system-was launched on April 3, WGri, by the V.S. Air Foree for the AEC and operated perfeetly in space for 43 days. The sudden shutdown of the system in spaee, after 552 orbits, has been duplieated on the ground and can be explained as a sequential failure of electrical components in the spacecraft: the reactor eleetric power system appears to have operated well. In fact, a S;"\AP 10-A system, exactly like the one that was flown has been operating on the ground in a vacuum tank for over a year eontinuously. It is plllnned to shut that sYRtem down in March after 10.000 houn; of ('ontinuous operation so it can be disusHembled and examined. These testR-on the ground and in sl}l\ee--have dearly proven that nuelear systems can he su('('es~.fully developed in spa('e environmental simulation facilities in a manner similar to thut used in developing all other space Rystems; they have shown that the system- can he ~afely transported, ehecked out prior to lanlleh, and flown. Most important, the tests have Hhown that the ground and spaee operation of these nu('lear systemR is the same. No new, unexpected. hask phenomena arise in Rpaee use of nul'lear reaetors. At higher power levels, an experimental version of the SNAP 8 reaetor operated on the ground for a total of R,300 hours at or above SNAP 8 power levels. Fuel material cra('king that was eneountered during the test is being thoroughly evaluated and correetive action is being planned. Components of the SNAP 8 turhoalternator system to eon vert the heat of the reactor to 3G kilowatts and, eventually, as high as riO kilowatts of electrk energy have operated for hundreds and some for thousands of hours. The SNAP R power conversion system has been assembled and is now being prepared for extended tests. Funds are heing requested hy the AEC and NASA to ('ontinue the development of the reactor and the power conversion I'lystems. Signifieant advanees have also been made in the use of radioisotopes for generation of electrie power. Radioisotope systems are now under dev('lopment hy the AEC at NASA's request for applieation to the Nimbus satellite und for powering experiments that will be plaeed on the moon in the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) b~' the early Apollo astronauts. In addition, te('hnologieal development is under way to extend the capahility of iHotop(' sy;;tems from the tens of watts required for Nimhus and Apollo to seYl'ral hundred watts for possihle applkation in DOD miHsions and on into the kilowatts of power that we believe will ev('ntually he required in the spaee program for a wide variety of missions. Work on isotope fuel and thermoeleetri<' (onyer~.ion aR well as some thermionie and dynamic conversion ('olleepts is heing earried out by the AEC. In addition, work on \'er~' effident gas turhine RYKtemR to ('onYert the hent given off hy the h;otope to eleetrkal energy is being condu('ted hy NASA. The ('omhinHtioll of all this work should provide a eapnbility to extend the use of isotopes to nfl high IlS 10 kilowatts of elel'tril'1l1 power. Indepd. a most signifi('ant de\'ploIHllPnt in j:,.;otope power s~stem~. has heen the general re('ognition that thesp HYHtemfl will hnn' important spaee mifl>lion Ilpplkations at powet levels up to ahout 10 kilowattH if the t('('hnology of the isotope fuel anel thp (onVeri".iOll p(Juipment ('lUI Ill' slIi!lIhly advanced.
563
The work during the past year on nuclear rocket propulsion continued the successful accumulation of experimental data that has proven the high performance capabilities of these systems. Specific impulse of over 750 seconds has been experimentally achieved; this compares to the 425 to 450 second specific impulse of hydrogen-oxygen chemical propulsion. A single reactor has operated at power for over 60 minutes with full power operation for over 16 minutes. Examination of reactor partR and promising laboratory results point toward still higher specific impulse and substantially longer operating times. Reactors have been started, stopped, and restarted without difficulty. The wide, stable operating range of these systems has been demonstrated. The reactor testing during the paRt years, combined with development of nonnuclear components, such as turbopumps, nozzles, and controls has culminated in a series of tests that is now under way on a full "breadboard" engine system that combines all of the major components that will.be needed in a flight engine, although they are not arranged in a flight arrangement. It has now been experimentally proven that such a self-contained engine will start on its own energy and will go stably to power operation without supplying external energy to the system. By opening the valve to the pressurized hydrogen supply and properly contrOlling the power of the reactor in a wide variety of possible control modes, the turbopump speed can be increased to pump hydrogen into the reactor producing engine thrust. Our development approach, emphasizing component and subsystem development combined with thorough system analysis work has been verified by the success of our test operations. We have proven nuclear rockets to be feasible: we have proven their high performance capabilities; we have established a technology that did not exist before; we have provided a technological understanding of these highly efficient propulsion systems so that we can confidently proceed with the development of a large XERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) engine having a thrust of 200,000 to 250,000 pounds that our mission analyses indicate ('ould perform all of the future space missions for which nu('lear ro('kets would offer significant performan('e ad,-antages. Funds to initiate the development of such a large engine are included in both the NASA and the AEC fifiCal year 1967 budget requests. In addition, the NASA budget request includes funding for design of test stands that will be required to develop this engine and any nuclear rocket stage or propulsion module into which this engine would eventually fit.
NUCLEAR ROCKETS
The nuclear rocket program is managed by the Joint AEC-NASA Space Nuclear Propulsion Ofike. This Office was established by NASA and the AEC in August, 1960, to carry out both agencies' responsibilities for nudt'ar rocket propulsion development. The program is, therefore, planned and conducted as a single effort. The following discussion describes this total technical program; it does not attempt to differentiate between the NASA and AEC portions although the agreements between the agencies do define the responsibilities of each.
INTRODUCTION
The past year can be des('ribed as a year of transition in the nuclear rocket program, a year in which emphasis transferred from the establishment of the technology of graphite nuclear rocket reactors and demonstration of their high performance capability and operating reliability, to emphasis on engine system technology and engine operating and performance characteristics. The breadboard engine system tests now under way are indicative of this transition. Continued work is still required on the nuclear rocket portions of the system to achieve extremely long life and high temperature and high power capability. However, we are now in a new phase of the program in which we are developing as detailed and thorough an understanding of the operation of the entire engine system as we now have of the reactor. Therefore, this is a good time to take stock of what has been produced in the nuclear rocket program to date before we go on to discuss the possible applications of nuclear rockets, the more specific accomplishments of the past year and the plans for the future. We have operated reactors for significant periods of time at powers of over a thousand million watts (1,000 megawatts) and at temperatures over 4,000 0
564

0
~'.-with white-hot temperature in the reactor and temperatures of 400 below zero only inches away. This accomplishment has required an understanding of graphite far beyond what had been generally availabll' in that black art. Me.thods had to be developed to protect graphite from chemical corrosion and I'roslOn by the hydrogen propellant. In the last three years we have progressed from a time when we could test graphite fuel elements in electrically heated furnaces with hydrogen fiowing through them for only five minutes at exit gas temperatures of over 4,000 0 F. until today when we h!lYe had fuel elements run for over an hour and up to almost tW() hours at the same condition. The methods of designing nuclear rocket reactors have been defined; analytical methods have been developed to predict their operating charaetl'rh,ties under all conditions. In short, we have advanced a technical field from scratch to thorough understanding and brought almost all of the required basic reactor technology along in that time. In addition, during this period we have established for the country a test site with substantial facilities in whi<-h nU('\l'ar rockl't ~ystems ean hI' tl'sted under required power conditions. Two reador test faeilities and one engine test stand are now available. Large radiation shielded facilities are available for remote assembly and disassembly operations. In this year's NASA budget submission, we are requesting additional funds for design of a facility consisting ot two additional stands that would be used for I'ngine and, eventually, stage testing of nuclear rocket systems. It is important in this regard to recognize the unique tl'st eapabilities that WI' have establishM at this NU('\l'ar Rocket Development Station located in Nevada. This nudear rocket test installation is the only such capability in the Gnited States and, as far as we know, anywhere in the world. Chemical rocket facilities are generally distributed throughout the country at all of the contractors' sitl'S involved in that work. Howevl'r. those facilities are adequate only for nonnuclear test work. They are used in our program for operations that do not involve the generation of nuclear power such as in component development and cold fiow engine tests. But the eOllntry's ('apability for power testing of nudear rockl't systems is provided only at the Nevada Nuclear Rocket Development Station. Since the nuclear rockl't program started, therefore, a significant facility capability has bel'n established. and our eurrent budget request provides for growth of the country's facilities in this area. In addition, we have established a manpower capability-a resource of scientists, engineers, and technicians-well versed in the disciplines involved in nuclear rocketry. The experience of aerodynamici~ts, ml'tallurgists, mechanical, civil, electrical, and chemical engineers has been broadened so that their scope and competence now includes nuclear physics, nuclear materials, radiation effects, and, generally, nuclear phenomena. They are all now deeply involved in the broader evaluation of their equipment in extreme environments, including nuclear radiation fields and hot and cold temperature. This resource of manpower is available in more than 37 government, industry, and university organizations that are directly participating in the nuclear rocket program. In addition, there are many other engineers, Scientists, technicians, and production people in the many vendor and lower tier subcontract levels involved in the program. The capability that has been established also includes the equipment and facilities at various contractor and government locations that provide for the country an ability to work in this area that was not previously available. We haye alS(), during this tim(->, b(->gun to define I"pecific process and produet improv<~ments that were required by our program and that have imposed high demands on the ingenuity and initiative of industry. These improvements may also offer utility in other areas not directly associated with the nuclear rocket program or, for that matter. with either the space or atomic energy programs. 'J'hese items vary from a portable instrument to indicate eracks in tubing of less than % inch diameter to a high-temperature liner in a I"mokillg pipe. WI' haye indl'M coml' a long way since 19ii5 to bring nucIl'ar roekl'ts from thl' idea stag(-> to reality. from thl' papN promises of high specifi(' impulsl' with rl'a~onabl(-> weights to an I'xpl'rinwntal verification that now pNmits the alrl'ady aehlevl'd l){'rforllllln('1' to se1'\'(-> as a basis for future mission planning. But much still remains to hp d01l1' to provid(-> thl' systl'ms that will PYl'ntually b(-> nel'lll'd in thl' space program. The goal of the nllcll'a r r(wk(->t program is to III'oY\(lp all advau('p in SIUIC(-> propulsion performan('p for mission>; following- Apollo. Sill('1' flIP (->XI1l't ('ourR(-> of the spacl' program a <IN'adl' or two froll! now cannot hI' firmly Rlweifil'd, onl'
565
of the objectives in our technology development programs must be ,ersatility in mission application. An adYanced propulsion system should be applicable to a wide spectrum of missions; a space propulsion stage should be useful in ,ehicles co nfigured f or a variety of missions. The nuclear r ocket, used in an appropriate propulsion module, can offer such mission versatility. It is as a result of our application studies, which I will discuss first, that we ha,e established the versa tile mission applicability of nuclear r ockets. and defined the nuclear r ocket engine that will be needed f or future space missions. The AEC and :\'ASA budget r equests that are now, befor e the Congress contain an increment of funding to initiate deyelopment of that engine.
MISSIO!\ APPLICATIO,,"S
Wbateyer route the space program follows beyond Apollo, there ,,"ill be highenergy, high-payloa d missions. :\'uclear rockets offer substantial adyantages in all >:uch missions. a~ has heen described in pre,ious years' testimony. 'We have. during this past year, made further studies of the nuclear r ocket propulsion module which is shown in figure 292. It consists of a 200.000 to 250,000 pound thrust engine with necessary propellant tankage and stage subsystems. As; I mentioned in the hearings conducted by this Committee last August on po sible futu re space missions. this module may ser>e as both an orbital-assembly building block and as a Saturn V third stage. Figure 293 illustrates the versatility of such a module. The>:e various applica tions use the same basic propulsion module and would require de,el oplllent of only one basic set of subsystems: one engine Illodel. one set. of stage systems. one basic tank configuration. Our tudies indicate that eyen though we ,,-ould use the same hardware f or all of these \'arious missions, significant performance ad,antages would be proyided by nu clear rockets; The payload would be increased significantly for manned planetary landings or flybys. manned lunar missions. '1nd unmanned deep-space probes. Thus. nuclear rockets can play an important r ole in a number of the alternate route:;: which the fu ture space program may take.
PROPULSION MODULE CONCEPT

OPTIONAL CLUSTERING . VARIABLE TANK STRUCTURE ~APACITY\00K'35OK LBSI
':'..._ 1
I
OPTIONAl RENDEZVOUS
AND DOCKING STRUCTURE
,.'.,:
}<'IGl1 RE
292
566
FIGURE
293
Manned planetary missions
The manned Mars landing mission has received major emphasis in studying mission applications of nuclear rocl,ets because of the high energy and payload r equirements of that mission and its importance as a possible future space objectil'e. Propulsion requirements for this mission are based on mission calculations such as illustrated in figure 294. Initial weight of the spacecl'aft for such a mission established in Earth orbit is plotted against launch year for two mission modes: (1) t he straightforward , all-propulsive mode in which nuclear r ocl,et propulsion is u sed for Earth-orbit departure, Mars-orbit establishment and Mars-orbit departure, a nd (2) the Mars aerocapture mode, in which atmospher ic braking at !\lars is used to decelel'ate the spacecraft into the Mars orbit. 'fhe latter is r epresen tative of mission modes which utilize special techniques or trajectories to reduce the energy requirements of the mission and , thereby, the total space vehicle weight. Anothet su ch mission mode is the Venus-swingby mode of Mars round-trips. The figure shows that variations from one mode to allother and ovel' the full cycle of launch opportunities result in a runge of initial space vehicle weights required in Earth orbit of 1 to 5 million pounds with nuclear rocket propulsion. Chemically propelled spacecraft would weigh two to four times as much. so millions of pounds of additional weight would have to be carried to Earth orbit if the less efficient space propulsion system s were used . In addition to these gross miss ion calculations, detailed analysis ha s been conducted on the effect of nuclear rocket engine s ize or thrut on the spacecraft weights r equi red in Earth orbit. Figures 295 and 296 illus trate some of the results of this analYSis for the manned Mars missions. Data are presented for 1978, the hard est year for accomplishment of the manned planetary mission, and for 1986. nn easy year. Th('se data were co mputed for the nil -propulsive mode of mit'sion allolllplishlllellt.
567
EART HORBIT WEIGHTS FOR MANNED MARS MISSIONS

NUCLEAR-ROCKET PROPULSION AT EARTH DEPARTURE AND AT M ARS CHEMICAL RETRO TO 50,000 FT/ SEC AT EARTH RETURN
INITIAL W EIGHT IN EARTH ORBIT (MILLIONS O F LB S. )
MARS CAPTURE MODE
PROPULSIVE
76
78
80
82
B4
B6
BB
90
LAUNCH YEAR NASA NPO 65 - 2197
12 - 14-65
FIGURE
294
FIG LRE
29[;
59-941 0-6&---37
568
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCi\L YEi\R 1967
..IIIlD IUS UIIDI1I6 IISSIOII, 198&
FIGURE 296 In figure 4, which is for the 1978 planetary opportunity, is shown the effect of engine thrust on the weight that would be required in Earth orbit to perform the mission and on the operating time of the nuclear engines that would propel the vehicle out of Earth orbit. It was assumed in these calculations that the propulsion out of Earth orbit would be provided by a cluster of propulsion modules. Therefore, data are presented fo r clusters of two, three, and four engines. It is assumed that single engines of the same size would be used in the second stage to enter the orbit at Mars and in the third stage to leave the Mars orbit. It can be seen from this figure that if the thrust of the individual engine is too lOW, below approximately 150,000 pounds, the weight required in Earth orbit to perform the mission would rise rapidly. As the engine thrust increases, the weight required in Earth orbit is a l most coustant over a wide range of thrust. Therefore, in looking toward such a mission that is a long way off in the future and that involves many assumptions and uncertainties concerning the payload required, the number of men that will make up the crew. the radiation shielding required , etc., it is necessary to allow for a performance margin. This is done by wOIking on engines having thrust levels significantly greater than the minimum thrust value. Further, only minor weight increases result from dOing so. The vertical band in figure 4 shows that an engine in the thrust range of 200,000 to 250,000 pounds, which is a good compromise value from many considerations, would adequately pel'folm this mission. It is also important to note that as the powel increases, for a fixed number of engines in a cluster, the operating time required for the engine decrease . Such a reduction in operating time on the engine may permit an increase in the specific impulse. which would further reduce the weight required in Earth orbit to perform the mission below the values shown here. Figure!) Rhows similar r eRuits for 198fi. Here again , the important point iR that lit the highel powpr levels the weight required in Earth oIbit to perforlll the lIIi""ioll is apprOXill1l1tel~r constant "0 thnt the same engines as thoRe in-
569
dicated on the previous chart, shown again by the ver tical band, could also perform the mission in this easy year . It is, therefore, apparent that a single propulsion system could provide the thrust that would be needed to perform a manned Mars mission at all planetary opportunities- in the easy or hard years. Furthermore, with an engine thrust level of approximately 200,000 to 250,000 pounds, margin would be provided to compensate for and tolerate any uncertainties that might arise in the ~r formance of the mission. A stage module of about 200,000 to 250,000 pounds liquid hydrogen capacity, shown in figure 1, could serve a8 the space-vebicle building block. Uses of the module would range from a single-module, minimum-propellant stage for the Mars departure phase in a favorable yea r to a three or four-module cluster for Earth department in an unfavor able year. For example, in 1986 the Marsdeparture vehicle gross weight could be as little as 350,000 pounds. Although 200,000 to 250,000 pounds of thrust would be higher than the optimum value, only a small performance penalty would result. At the other extreme cited, when the Ear th departure gross weight may be 5 million pounds, the compromise t hrust IHel is high enough to keep the number of modules in the Earth-departure cluster down to a reasonable number (3 or 4). I n spite of the emphasis on Mars, the versatility of the pr oposed nuclearrocket systems should be r ecognized. A vehicle configured, as shown in figure 297 to perform Mars landing missions in all or most launch opportunities would he adequate for Venus stopover s and, perhaps, manned missions to other destinat iODS such as some of the asteroids. This mission flexibility would be particularly important if interest in Mars should br oaden into a general interest in manned solar system I;'xploration. Another manned planetary mission which may find a place in the future space program is a flyby of Mars or VenDS. Flyby missions may precede manned landings on these planets. A single nuclear-rocket propulsion module, as illustrated in figure 298, could perform this mission with rendezvoDS in Earth orbit of one or two Saturn V payloads. The initial Earth orbital weight would bl;' 400,000 to 600,000 pounds.
FIGURE 297
570
FIOURE298
Saturn V third-Btage a1J1)licatioW!
As illustrated in figure 2, the same basic propulsion module (engine/stage combination) can serve as a third stage on Saturn V for direct flights to the moon or other solar system destinations. Potential gains in lunar missions, including manned direct-landing capability or a 65 percent increase in landed cargo per launch, have been described in the past. Another important point is that this third stage could be in many respects the same as the orbital-assembly module which would evolve for manned planetary missions. The tank sections and stage subsystems would be basically the same; the 200,000 to 250,000 pound thrust engine would be identical. Changes in insula tion and some design features would be permitted by the less severe hydrogen storage requirements of the third stage Saturn V application. 'l'he same third stage would be useful in heavy-payload or very-high-energy unmanned space missions, such as Mars or Venus orbitel's, planetary probes, and close-in solar probes, as illustrated in figure 299. In comparison to all-chemical Saturn V vehicles, payloads would be increased by 70-100 percent by use of the nuclear third stage. Thus, a nuclear third stage would extend the operational capability and useful life of the Saturn V for a large spectrum of unmanned solar system missions and the snme nuclear propulSion module would give the country a capability for effiCiently performing manned planetary missions.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND OVERALL STATUS
The objective of the nuclear rocket technology program is to provide the country with the ability to satisfy these various m ission requirements with a high specific impulse, relia ble, multipurpose nuclear propulsion system. The introduction of a new propuL'Sion system into space missions requires a solid foundation of technology and advanced development pl'ior to the decision to use it in a vehicle or mission. The nuclear rocket engine and vehicle programs a r e being guided so that such decision s can be made with maximum confidence. To nC'hieyp thi~ aovan('(' in propul~ion. ,,"ork is unoerway to establi~h the ba~i(' te<:hnolngr for ~l1t'h systems through tll(, s('\'era I elements of the nnc'lea I' rod,et p'ognllll. lister! in fig-tII 'e 300.
571
INTERPLANETARY MISSION SUMMARY

MARS ORBIT VENUS ORBIT JUPITER SATURN SOLAR 1 A.U 0.2 .I EXTRA-E CLIPTIC 1 251 SOLAR SYSTEM ESCAPE
10
NUCLEAP. SATURN V 11111111111 SATUI\N V _
20
30
40
50
PAYLOAD 1 1000 LBI
Major emphasis has been and continues to be on t.he relati,ely near-at-hand graphite react.ors and engines ( Kiwi-XERVA Graphite Reactor and Engine T echnology) including longer term efJ'orts (Phoebus) which will provide the basis for impr o,ing the performance of such systems beyond the near term goals. In addition. since nuclear r ockets a re a relatively new field of propulsion holding promise of long term usefulness, we have been exploring other con<.:epts (solid fuel element tungsten reactors an d cavity reactors) which hold the theoretical promise of higher performance. In ex amining this spectrum of reactor possibilities it is important to keep in mind that the performance of graphite systems is weli substantiated by experimental results, but the performan ce of advanced conc-epts such as cavity reactor systems is based largely on theory or assumptions with little or no experimental basis. Whil e the success of any nu clear r ocket system depends heavily on nuclear reador technology, advancement mnst be made in other areas also. The technologies of non-reactor engine components are coyered in the actiYities of Item III listed on this figure. The application stud ies, such as those discussed aboye, are used to guide the se\'eral elements of the technology program toward their most profi table goals, Based on these appli cation studies, the thrust leyel of the nuclea r rocket engine we will need to perform future missions has been determined to he 200,000 to 250,000 pound s, corresponding to about 4.000 to 5,000 megawatts of reactor therm al power. The graphite r eactor and engine system technology, which is being carried out on 1,100 megawatt systems, giving a thrust of abont 55,000 ponnds, has progressed to the point at whi ch it is possible to proceed with initiation of development of this large (200,000 to 250,000 pound thrust ) ~ERVA engine in fiscal year 1967. Thi" represents a logical techni cal progression from the t echn ology deyeloprnellt \York that has been J)f'rformed [IUd the capability
572
NUCLEAR ROCKET PROGRAM PARTS

GRAPHITE SOLID-CORE REACTORS AND ENGINES KIWI/NERVA REACTORS - LOS ALAMOS, AEROJET AND WESTINGHOUSE NERVA ENGINE TECHNOLOGY-AEROJET AND WESTINGHOUSE PHOEBUS REACTORS-LOS ALAMOS PROPOSED NERVA ENGINE DEVELOPMENT-AEROJET AND WESTINGHOUSE ST AGE TECHNOLOGY OTHER CONCEPTS .TUNGSTEN SOLID-CORE REACTORS-ARGONNE AND LEWIS CAV ITY REACTOR CONCEPTS NON-REACTOR COMPONENT AND ENGINE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY-LEWIS APPLICATION STUDIES
NASA NPO 65-1913 12-14-65
FIGURE
300
achieved in the program to date. The following discussion describes the overall status of our technology work and how it contributes to the NERV A engine development. Last year, when we reviewed the status of the nuclear rocket program, I described the successful reactor tests, listed in figure 301 that we had conducted in 1964 and early in 1965. I was able to point to the successful operation of these three reactors (Kiwi and NERVA NRX reactors) having a design power of about 1,000 megawatts for a total of almost 15 minutes at high power and at temperatures equivalent to specific impulse of about 750 seconds. This successful reactor power operation continued during the past year with the testing of the NERVA NRX A-3 reactor and the Phoebus I-A reactor (also listed in fig. 301). The growth of operating time at about design power is shown in the next figure 302. You will recall that the first nuclear rocket reactor tests were run in 1959 at low power. The important feature of the data presented in this figure is the growth in full power testing since we resumed testing in 1964, after a 1 % year suspension of power testing during which we conducted extensive design analysis and reactor component, subsystem, and full reactor system development work. The NRX A-3 and Phoebus I-A testing in 1965 increased our full power operating time by 27 minutes. These operating times do not represent an experimental limit of full power endurance for the reactors after tested, there is evidence that both were capable of longer operating times. With reactor performance firmly established and demonstrated, we are able to devote increased attention and emphaSis to the development of non-reactor components and subsystems and to their incorporation into an experimental nuclear engine system. The engine system technology program is using the 1,100 IIlpgHwutt XERVA NRX reactor in 55,000 pound thrust experimental engine SYStplllS, to dptprmille thp allowable range of fltartup charactpristies, to pxplorp perfOI'IIlHn('p ehul'llctpristics, pngine operating limits and cOlllponpnt interaetions
NASA AUTH ORIZATION F OR FISCAL YEAR 19 6 7
573
GRAPHITE REACTOR AND ENGINE SYSTEM

TEST ACTIVITIES
KIWI B4D POWER KlWIME POWER KIWI ME RESTART NRXA2 POWER NRXA2 RESTART KIWI TNT NRXA) POWER NRX -A) RESTART(l ST) NRX.A) RESTART (2KO) PHOEBU5-1A POWER NRX/ EST MAY 13. 1964 AUGUST 28. 1964 SEPTEMBER 10. 1964 SEPTEMBER 24 . 1964 OCTOBER 15. 1964 JANUAR Y 12. 1965 APRIL 23. 1965 MAY 20. 1965 MAY 28.196 5 JUNE 25 . 1965 OEC . 1965 EARl Y 1966
FIGURE
301
REACTOR TEST lOG

CUMULATIVE TIME AT OR NEAR DESIGN POWER , MINUTES 50
40
30
20
10
1962
1963
F IGl: RE
302
574
tbrougbout tbe operating range, to evaluate various control concepts, and generall y to develop design metbods . .'\. significant step in this direction is tbe series of test operations on tbe NERVA breadboard engine systems (NRX/ EST) sbown in figure 303, wbicb was star ted in December. Tbe first power startups of tbis system on February 3 were a major milestone in advanced propulsion. Tbis test series is being carried out using a breadboard arrangement of a NERV A reactor, a NERV A turbopump and a jet nozzle containing a bot bleed port to provide bot gas drawn fr om tbe reactor exbaust to drive tbe t urbine. For tbe first time we are accumulating data on the bebavior of a complete system wbere fission energy is produced and tbe power to drive tbe turbine is provided by tbe system itself ratber tban from the test facility. Beyond the NRX/ EST tests, several tests tbat are listed in figure 304 are now planned. The NRX/ EST test operations are enabling us to verify and improve our anal~' t.ical predictions of nuclear engine bebavior and are providing an improved oasis for proceeding toward the XE engine, tbe ground test of an experimental nuclear engine system. Tbe XE engine tests noted on tbe scbedule chart are the final ground system tests in the 1,000 megawatt tecbnology portion of our engine program, incorporating tbe features essential to tbe investigation of component interaction and system operation in a test facility such as would be used in fligh t system developments. Our tecbnology development work on tbe bebavior of tbese small size reactors and experimental engines provides directly applicable design and operating information for tbe bigher power NERV A engine wbicb will also be based on grapbite reactors but of nominal 5,000 megawatts power level. This technology is very s imilar to that of the small reactors and will be proven in tbe Pboebus reactor program. Tbe development of bydrogen feed systems and nozzles adeQuate for ground testing of the higber power reactor (called Pboebus 2) is well underway based on our tecbnology development work. Tbese components will be used in the Phoebus 2 tests listed in figur e 304.
E!:iT
FIG ITHE
R03
575
GRAPHITE REACTOR AND ENGINE SYSTEM

TEST ACTIVITIES
1(1111-840 POWER
MAY 13. 1964 AUGUST 2B. 1964
SEPTEMBER 10. 1964 SEPTEMBER 24. 1964 OCTOBER 15. IH-4

JANUARY 12. 1965
APRIl 23 . 1965
MAY 20. 1965
MAY 21.1965 ...,. 25.1965

DEC. 1965 ,EARl Y 1966 SUIIIIEJt 1966
SUIIIIat 1966 _Tat 1966 67
SPPtG 1967
..-ER19I7
SPItiNG 1967
FIGURE
304
As I pointed out earlier, we propose to initiate development of the nuclear engine of this 4,000 to 5,000 megawatt power which will have a thrust of 200,000 to 250,000 pounds in fiscal year 1967. In addition, we will continue our studies on the fundamental aspects of the behavior of the materials and components to add to the catalog of data gathered in previous years which now serves us well in the design and development of the high powered nuclear engine. Design studies of the engine test stands capable of testing this high pow.e red engine under a simulated altitude envir onment are underway. These test stands will also be used for eventual development testing of the full propulsion module. Our vehicle technology work has emphasized pr opulsion module studies. I will now discuss in more detail these elements of the nuclear rocket program to descr ibe the specific accomplishments of this past year, the work that is still required. our plans for the next year, and our longer range view of this nuclear rocket program effor t. We will show in more detail how our technology wor k c:ontributes to the KERV A engine development.
GRAPH ITE REACTOR TECHNOLOGY
As indicated earlier, continued progress was made in 1965 in extending the demonstrated capability of the reactor and in improving our understanding of its behavior. The total operating time at or nea r design power was increased from about 14 minutes to more than 40 minutes in two reactor tests, the NRX A- 3 and PhoebUli; I-A.
NRX A-3 test series
The first of these tests, the NRX A-3, had the objectives of achieving long operating time, approximately 20 minutes, at design power in two cycles and performing a series of reduced power mapping and control experiments. Fig ure 30G shows the owrall results of this testing. During the first cycle of power operation the reactor was shut down aftf'r about three minutes at full power because of a spurious signal '''hi eh indicated
576
NRX-A3 TEST RESULTS

!" FUll POWER TEST
2nd PARTIAL POWER
STEADY $1 ATE DESIGN CONDITION I
FUll POWER TEST
MAPPING TEIT
DURATION AT POWER, MINUTES
18
45
DURATION AT FULL-POWER HOeD, MINUTES
3 1/2
13
POVv'ER, AT FUll-POWER HOLD, MW
1120
1120
1090
420 MAX.
CHAMBER TEMPERATURE, oR
4090
3970
4010
2500 MAX.
PROPELLANT FLOW RATE, Lo/SEC
71.3
73.5
71.0
54 MAX.
CHAMBER PRESSURE, PSIA
569
567
560
292 MAX.
NASA NPO 0-19(1 12-14-65
FIGURE 305
a turbine overspeed. The second run went smoothly, adding 13 minutes more of operation at design power for a total of 16% minutes at design power, the longest duration which has been achieved on a single reactor in the nuclear rocket program to the present time. The NRX A-3 reactor was operated through a series of operating paths and power holds to determine its behavior as it approached the various design or operating constraints we have placed on the system. During these runs the reactor was operated in a variety of control modes including one in which the reactor was operated with the reactor control drums in a fixed position, using controlled variation of the hydrogen coolant flow to vary the reactor power. The reactor was also operated while alternately controlling temperature, power, or flow at a given value while varying the other reactor parameters. Throughout the 45 minutes of continuous operation required for these reduced power mapping and control tests, the reactor operated in a stable fashion adjusting rapidly to variations in the demand for power, temperature, or flow. In this reactor test, as in all of our other reactor tests, the NRX A-3 propellant feed system, turbine drive system, and reactor power were independently controlled and not close-coupled as they would be in a nuclear engine where the effect of a change in reactor flow rate, for example, is felt in the pressure nnd temperature of gas available to drive the turbine.
Phoebus reactors
This past year also marked the first reactor tests (Phoebus I-A) in the Phoebus advanced graphite reactor technology effort. The relationship between the Phoebus 1, Phoebus 2, and Kiwi or NERV A reactors can be seen in figure 306. The differences in design between the small size Kiwi/NRX and Phoebus 1 reactors and the larger Phoebus 2 are nIl in the direction of performance improvements. The larger diameter reactor core gives the designer a little more fiexibility in achieving both improved performance and increased reliability. You will note that the design objectives of the Phoebus 2 reactor are mOl'e than simply to scale up the Kiwi/NRX reactors; they include higher exit gas temperatures (higher specifie impulse) and greater power density (lower reactor and engine weight). These improvements translate directly into increased mission eapability. The increase in temperature from 4,100 R. to 4,800 R., for exalllple, ('OInbiIlPd with some design ehanl!"es corresponds to nn inerense of approxilllll tely 73 seconds of spedfie ilullulse. This spe<'ifle impulse inerease npplied to a spact'eraft lellving }l;arth for Mill'S would allow 1\ reduetion of about
577
FrGUllE
306
375,000 pounds in the weight of the spacecraft below the weight required for the equivalent specific impulse of 760 seconds obtained from the Kiwi/ NRX reactors. This 75 second specific impulse increase, we believe, is well within the Ylilues that can be a chieved in the Phoebus reactor development. The three Phoebus 1 tests that are scheduled put us in a much better position to a :ssure s uccessful design of the Phoebus 2 reactors. The smaller size Phoebus 1 is an economical test device to verify design or process improvements which avpear promising f or incorporation into the Phoebus 2 reactors. As indicated in figure 15, fuel element modifications which promise much higher temper atures a nd longer operating durations are a primary test objective in the Phoebus 1 reactor,.:. These modifi ca ti on~. if pr oven successful, can be used directly in the Phoebus 2 reactors. H igher local power density oper ation will also be tested in Phoebus 1 size reactors, and will give us an early experimental indication of what power density could be attained in Phoebus 2 reactors. The Phoebus I-A reactor . tested last June, is shown in figure 307. It had the objective of testing several experimental r eactor core design features. This reactor was able to complete only one of the three ten-minute runs at design power originally intended f or it because a f acility hydrogen tank ran dry nea r the end of the first run and the r ea ctor overheated. A liquid level gauge indicat ed an a mple supply of liquid hydrogen in the propellant tanks when, in f act, there was none. This e rroneous liquid le,el indication has been determi ned to be the result of an irradiation e1Iect on the gauge used to determine liquid lenl in t he tank. This gauge ha s been replaced by one which has successfully passed a series of environmenta l tests. including radiation in excess of that which it will undergo in th e test cell. We have. in addition, made a thorough re, iew of present test pra cti ce ~ a nd of our fa cili ties. From this review a number of cha nges ha,e been indicated and ha, e been made both to the test f a<'i lity and to the operating procpdures to minimize the possibility of such an in('ident occurring a ga in.
578
PHOEBUSIA REACTOR AT
TEST CELL
~t.
,.
FIGURE 307
When the core overheated it suffered damage which obscured many of the effects of the ten-minute operation at power. We were able to make qualitative determinations of the value of se"eral of the experimental design features , howeyer. Operation during the ten-minute design power period was excellent, and reacto r operating temperatures for the ten-minute steady-state run were the highest yet a chieved. Test facility modifications are being made to allow testing of the higher power Phoebus 2 reactors. These modifications will be ayailable in time for the next Phoebus 1 reactor test in Test Cell C this summer. These improvements include additional liquid hydrogen storage capacity (1,000.000 ga llons) and an emergency pressurized liquid hydrogen storage dewar whkh can supply propellant in the event any mi shap should occur to the tu rb opump feed system that is normally used . A photograph of Test Cell C s howin~ the increased liquid hydrogen sto rage is shown in figure 308. The increased capa bility and operational fle xibility of the Test Cell C will be fully utilized by consolidating all our future reactor test activities in that T est Cell. After tests of the NERV A reactor (N RX A-5) to be conducted next spring. we will <'lose Test Cell A and conduct all of our reactor operations in Test Cell C. This will indeed complicate our scheduling ; h owever, we believe tha t we will be able to cope with that problem, and the reduction in costs that would be achievable justifies the added co mpli cation of conducting operations in a s ingle cell.
Reactor f'!t el element devefopment
R eactor performance is r elated in a maj or way , to the performance of the fuel elements within which nuclear fission energy is genera ted. 'I.'he best measure of the marked progress which ha s been mad e in extending fuel element duration anel s imnltnneously rai s ing operatin~ telllperatllres in the last few years is the inerellsingly ambitious goals we h",'e es tnhliHhed in the rea cto r t(,8t se ries IIOW underwa y. Beealls(' of tbe inevitable lag IlPtween la boratory fl c(-olllpl ishmentH
579
FIGURE 308
in development and the incorporation of that development into the design of a reactor , however, many of the r eactor test goals ha ye already been exceeded by la bor atory results. The improved perf ormance which has been achieved in the past few years may be seen in figure 309, which relates reactor and laboratory tcst performance of fuel elements to mission and development requirements. Successful sixty-minute test runs in our electrically heated, hyorugen corrosion test furn aces are now as common as ten-minute runs were only two or three years rlgo. Furthermore, the results of recen t test runs in these furna ces indicate a IJotpntial f or higher temperature oper ation than the 4.800 0 R. noted ea rlier. Our fuel element development people at Los Alamos, Westinghouse, and the Y- 12 Plant of Oak R idge deserve much credit for these accomplishments.
Future reactor tests

As shown in the schedule figur e 304 the reactor test program in the coming twelve to fifteen months includes four mor e reactor tests, the Phoebus IB a nd l C lJy LASL and the NRX A-5 and A-6 by "WAXL. The XRX A-5 and A-6 objectives include the demonstration of increa ed operating duration and the eya luation of mechanical deSign improvemen ts. The Phoebus IB objective will be to demonstrate an a verage incr ease in power density of 40 percent, but certain sections of the react or core are designed so that they will be operating at thermal stresses compa r able to those expected in the larger. higher power Phoebus 2 reactors ; this information should giye us a better understanding of the design of the Phoebus 2 reactor to obtain its best performance and reliability.
Components t or highe, power rea.f'tcn {lrOllnd.
t es t.~
The ~t ep- up in power and temperature represented by the Phoebus 2 rea ctor deSigns reqnires that we develop turbopumps and nozzles to meet the e adva nced te~t conditions. The deyelopment of a feed system f cr gr ound testing the larger Phot'bus r eactors has bf>f'n unrlf'nvay fo r tht' past three years. Figure 310 i" a photo of this feed Sy"tf'Bl. knO\Yll a,. tht' XFS 3a . It i,. based on a modification of tlw turuopump system originally dpveloped and ust'd for the Khyi and
580
FIGURE 309
NRX reactor tests at NRDS. In the NFS 3a two of these tUl'bopump feed systems are operated in parallel to provide the higher fiow rates required for the Phoebus 2 power level. In addition, the pumps are being d\!veloped to a higher pressure capability than was required in the Kiwi and NRX tests. A single turbop ump similar to this is installed at Test Cell C and using only one of the parallel pumps will be used for the Phoebus 1-B test. This feed system has been successfully tested at up to 30,000 r.p.m., although we are at present having bearing problems at the higher speeds we will have to achieve. Since our hearings last year, we have selected Aerojet-General Corporation through a competitive proposal evaluatio-n to design, develop and fabricate a nozzle for the Phoe bus 2 tests. The nozzle design chosen for Phoebus 2 reactor testing is similar in design approach to the U-tube nozzle which has been successfully used for all of the NERV A NRX reactor tests. The Phoebus 2 nozzle, however, will be fabricated from Hastelloy-X instead of stainless steel to withstand the higher heat flux and temperatures of the Phoebus tests. The biggest problem in developing this nozzle is its large size. A comparison of the Phoebus 2 nozzle size with the nozzle used on the NRX A-3 r eactor is shown in figure 311. The forging s for the nozzle pressure vessel, figure 312, are the larges t Hastelloy-X forgings ever made. The ones shown in the photo weigh over s ix tons each . The work we do on this nozzle will lead to a bleed port flight nozzle for higher power engines in the same way that the NRX- A nozzle led to t he EST a nd XE nozzles. Here is one of many examples of the forward push of our program on this country'S pro-duction process technology.
NERVA ENGINE TECHNOLOGY
During th is past year we have Increased our emphasis on the behavior of l11\('lear rod, pl engi ll e ~ "ystem s. A number of related test events have demons tl"ll tp(i 1111' IIl1dea l' I'<Kkft" II bility to ;;ta rt SllIoothly. operate a s commaml pd anel perforlll stablr o,'e r :I wielp operating nlDgp. These test events include the l<~n-
581
FIGURE 310
FIGt'RE
311
582
PHOEBUS-2 NOZZLE DEVELOPMENT

PRESSURE VESSEL FABRICATION
ROUGH MACHINED
, M$A r-./PO c>o-340 .-1--<..6
FIGURE
312
gine System Test (NRX/ EST) series, tests on cold-flow engines, and the NRX A-3 mapping experiments. I would like to review quickly the essential features of the nuclear rocket engine system. Figure 313 is a schematic drawing of the nuclear rocket engine. After the propellant is pumped from the stage propellant tank through the nozzle wall and the reflector to cool those components, it is turned around and flows through the hot fuel elements of the reactor core and out the jet nozzle. An important point to note is that a small amount of hot hydrogen is bled from the reactor exhaust through a hot bleed port in the nozzle wall and is mixed with cold hydrogen to a desired temperature. This hydrogen is then used to drive the turbine whi ch drives the hydrogen feed pump. The turbine drive gas is expelled through the auxiliary nozzles shown. In such an engine system, a change in any of the controlling parameters may cause a corresponding change in another operating parameter. For example, a reduction in the flow rate will cause reactor power to drop because of the negative neutronic effect of the lower pres"ure or smaller amount of hydrogen in the reactor. This in turn causes a drop in temperature of the exit hydrogen gas so that the hydrogen to drive the turbine is lower in temperature. Because there are many such complex interactions, the engine system work is of great importancE' in establishing nuclear rocket technology. The goal of this work is not only to assemble the necessary components a nd flnd a way to make the resulting engine operate to produce thrust. It is to thoroughly understand the way each component in the engine will operate under any given conditions, to have a clear outline of the limits under which engine operation is entirely satisfactory, and to know the margin which exists between normal and abnormal operation. Although we have been working towards an understanding of engine behavior for SLlme tilli e, til e Engine System Tes t (NRX/ F,ST) series being carried ont if;: the fir st operat"ion of a powered engine asselllbly as a self contained, self sustaining- eOllt rolled s~ "'telll with no externa l ene rgy assi st . It uses the hot bleed
583
FIGURE 313
hydrogen to drive its own tUi"bopump which pumps hydrogen from a storage tank in to the reactor. A photograph of the NRX/EST is shown in previous figure 303. A comI.a rison of the NRX/EST configuration with earlier r~actor test configurations is shown in figures 314 and 315. This breadboard engine is basica lly a modified NRX reactor test car having a NERVA turbopump and a XERL\. jet nozzle cGDtaining a hot bleed port to provide gas to drive the turbine. The main differences between this system and that of the actual engine system are that the lJUID}! is not in its fligh t engine location (it is located in the !"losed COllll,artment at the left end of the test car ), the engine fires upward rather tha n downward, and the exhaus t gases discharge into the atmosphere rathe r th an into an altitude simulation (,acuum) duct. The engine operating information obtained during these tests is, however. indicative of a nd directly appl icable to that of the actual engine system. We ha,e completed the first series of the NERVA Reactor Experiment/Engine System Test ( NRX/EST) power tests. The purpose of this test series was to demonstrate feasi'b ility of engine system bootstra p start up, that is, start up and ac('('I{'r ation of the tu rbopump using as energy sources; reactor power, heat stored within the reactor. and the pressure of the stored liquid hydrogen. These start up tests were limited to approximately one-third full power. In addition to star t up investigations, controls experiments were conducted at partia l power to investiga te dynami c response and a lternate control systems. The NRX j EST star t up experiments to intermediate power were conducted on two separate days, February 3, 1966, which wa s the first time a nuclear rocket engi ne operated and eight days later on February 11. 1966. Two days of testin g were needed because the liquid hydrogen storage capacity at the test cell was insufficient to conduct all the tests on one day. On February 3, two start ups were conducted. The first start demonstrated bootstrap capability with norm al initial conditions. Tn addition. the temperature control ~ystem was tested at partial power . The peak operating !.'Ondition during this run was 440 megawatts at an (':\oit gas tem{){,rature of 2.;)50 R.
59-941 0-66---38
584
REACTOR TEST
_'"' ,.
~.
,-:: , .:--1_ _ _ _- ,
FIGURE
314
BREADBOARD ENGINE
I I I I
I
SYSTEM TEST
(EST)
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
~:::,..
NA~'P()6
FIGURE
315
585
The second run was conducted to demonstrate feasibility of starting the engine system after reactor components had been cooled with cold hydrogen. This test proved that the engine system could be started without using heat stored within the reactor ; therefore, there is a wide range of initial temperature conditions (including those that might arise from space storage) under which satisfactory engine start up can be obtained. Eigh t days later, after replenishing the liquid hydrogen supply, the NRX/EST was restarted three additional times. The first start demonstrated a bootstrap without mOving the reactor control drums. This start showed a potential control simplification by using the engine pressure control system to control reactor power during the start up. The second start up was conducted with a lower liquid hydrogen supply pressure, more nearly approximating the pressure in a flight type tank. The start was terminated before steady state operation was reached because a test parameter limit was being approached in this breadboard system configuration. This type of start up will be reattempted. The third start up using nominal initial conditions was conducted to perform additional dynamic tests of the control system and to test an alternate reactor control system. The NRX/EST operated at power range frOID 200 to 440 megawatts and at exit temperatures ranging from 2,000 R.. to 2,500 R.. during all of these intermediate power tests. The operating time at these power levels on February 3 was about 24 minutes and on February 11, 30 minutes for a total operating time of 54 minutes. During this operation, the engine was providing thrust at an equivalent space specific impulse of 520 to 590 seconds as compared to advanced chemical rocket engine specific impulse of 420 seconds. At full power and full temperature conditions which are planned for this breadboard nuclear engine and which have already been run in reactor tests, specific impulse values of over 750 seconds are achievable. Figure 316 shows the hydrogen feed system developed by Aerojet for the EST tests. This feed system uses a centrifugal pump designed to operate at 27,000 rpm, although the full power EST conditions require only 22,000 rpm. At
0 0
NERVA/ EST T URBOPUMP
FIGU RE
316
586
22,000 rpm the pump delivers 75 pounds per second of liquid hydrogen at over 900 pounds pressure. The nozzle used on the EST engine is the basic Aerojet designed U-tube nozzle similar to the ones which have been used in the earlier NRX A-2 and A--3 reactor tests. This EST nozzle, however, is the first to have a hot bleed port (figu re 317) to allow withdrawal of hot gas from the nozzle chamber to drive the turbine. The Engine System Test is the most dramatic and important of the steps taken to date in achieving a thorough understanding of engine operation. It was, however, preceded by mapping tests on all key components, by a great deal of analytical work, and by more than forty cold flow tests on cold flow engines at the Lewis Resear ch Center and at Aerojet-General's plant at Sacramento. Cold flow engines are nuclear rocket engines which have no fissionable uranium in the r eactor so that no power can be generated. The only energy available is, therefore. the heat picked up by the cold hydrogen as it flows through the ambient or ambien t or atmospheric temperature materials of the engine. Tests using cold flow engines, however, can simulate the behavior of a real nuclear engine through the first several seconds of startup. This is a critical stage, when the possibility of hydrodynamic oscillations is greatest, a nd when the energy available in the engine to bootstrap (self start) the pump is at its lowest. Because cold flow engines are long lived and do not become radioactive, we are able to operate these tests fairly frequently and use the same basic equipment repeatedly. More than 26 runs were made at the Lewis Plumb rook Facility in the test configuration shown in figure 318. More than 20 runs were made at Aerojet in the Cold Flow Development Test System (CFDTS) shown in figure 319. The work at the two fa cilities has heen complementary with the Lewis program concentrating on engine behavior using an axial flow pump, and Aerojet on engine behavior using the NERVA centrifugal pump. The overall findings of the cold flow engine tests are that the nuclear engine is stable over wide operating limits during startup and can bootstrap (self start)
HOT BLEED PORT NOZZLE - ENGINE SYSTEM TESTS
FIGURE
317
NUCLEAR ROCKET SYSTEMS EXPERIMENT

LEW IS RESEARCH CENTER
587
FIGURE
318
FIGU RE
319
588
under a wide range of conditions. They have provided important data on the behavior of the two systems using the different pumps which will aid in the eventual selection and design of a pump for the 200,000 to 250,000 pound thrust NERVA engine. Analytical models which describe the behavior of the engine with no power added have been developed. Methods of introducing liquid hydrogen to the pump have been developed which allow the engine piping to be chilled down to near the eventual operating temperature without causing oscillations. Data from the Aerojet CFDTS were used directly to determine the useful range of test parameters for the EST test. An example of how these data were used is shown in figure 320 where the effect of tank pressure on the ability of the cold flow engine to bootstrap start is indicated. From data like these we were able to conclude that it was feasible to bootstrap the EST reactor against the atmospheric turbine backpressure which was present during the EST operations in our reactor Test Cell A. The EST cold flow tests have matched well with the results predicted using the CFDTS data and the EST power tests of February 3 indicated satisfactory bootstrap starts for these engines. The Reries of mapping experiments carried out in NRX A-3 were described earlier in the Graphite Reactor Technology section. These tests were important in that they treated the reactor as an engine component which might find itself subject to any of a variety of conditions; low flow and high power, high flow and low power, and many intermediate conditions. These data assured us that the tests planned for EST would not bring the reactor into an area which might cause it to malfunction in any way. While the combination of analysis, cold flow engine, and EST engine system testing has provided a good understanding of the hot bleed nuclear rocket engine, the Ground Experimental Engine (the XE engine) which will be tested .starting early in 1967 will provide further systems data and will evaluate the test facility technology as well as of component and system operation. Figure 321 is a draw-
12
COLD-flOW ENGINE TESTS EFFECT OF AMBIENT PRESSURE ON BOOTSTRAP STARTUP

TANK PRESSURE: 35 PS IA
10 TURBOPUMP SPEED, RPM (THOUSANDS) 8
?ESSURE 10. ~ PSIAI
4
LEVEL PRESS URE
0
TIME, SECONDS
}<'IOVRE
NASA RN 65-2048
12-14~
320
589
GROUND EXPERI MENTAL ENGIN E IN TEST STAND
FIGUBE
321
ing of the engine installed in our Engine Test Stand No.1 ( ETS-1) in which our first duwnfiring tel;tts will be conducted. The XE engine will use flight type components wherever the component characteristics would affect the system operation. Where they wiii not, such as in the pneumatic gas system of the engine, we will use facility type components. The flight type components which will be used in this engine include the nozzle, turbo pump, and controls. We have a large backlog of component test data on these and are confident of their performance on the XE engine. In order to avoid having to radiation harden aU engine components, an external shield will be added at the top of the XE engine to lower the radiation dose received to a level which can be tolerated. The XE engine will be tested in ETS-1, as shown in this drawing. Cold flow testing of this XE engine is scheduled to begin late in 1966 and power testing early in calendar year 1967. It has been our experience that the development and construction of facilities to test components is sometimes as difficult as the development of the component itself. This photograph (figure 322) illustrates the size of the exhaust duct that is r equired for ETS-1 oper ation. The f abrication of this duct has turned out to be an extr emely difficult technology item in itself. The high temperature hydrogen exhaust gases from the engine are directed away f rom tbe test stand by this duct so that these gases will not be a safety hazard. Pumping the duct down to below atmospheric pressure before the engine is started produces stable flow in the jet nozzle at an early stage in the start sequence. Another area of concern in the development of the NERVA engine has been the need for remote assembly and disassembly. We have concluded that a modular approach which would allow us t o remotely connect and disconnect major subassemblies is more practical than trying to develop a capability for remote reassembly of each component in the system. We continue to consider remote operations in our component and assembly designs. Such remote assembly and disassembly opera tions will take place in the EMAD ( Engine Maintenance, Assembly a nd Disassembly Building ) as will other
590
EXHAUST -0 UCT ELBOW FABRICATION (ETS-l)
FIGURE
322
assembly, disassembly, and post-mortem activities. Construction of the E-MAD facility has been completed for several months, and its activation is now in progress. The large disassembly area is shown in figure 323. The two major remote handling systems in the fa cility are the wall-mounted handling sys tem and the overhead positioning system shown here in the disassembly bay. The wall-mounted handling system is used to do the major tasks of disassembly remotely so that components which are radioactive can be examined. 'I.'he overhead positioning system is used to place the various engine subsystems and components in position to be operated on by the h andling system. The E-MAD facility is scheduled to receive the first reactor for disassembly early in 1967.
Component development
Other engine components which have received attention (besides the reactor, feed system, and nozzle), include control systems and instrumentation. The objective of our control systems work is primarily to provide systems that are Simple and that will be reliable in the environments in which they must perform. The work we have carried out over the past few years has resulted in the establishment of the technology of pneumatic actuators for engine and reactor co ntrol. This type of actuator appears more reliable in the radiation and thermal environment of the engine than hydraulic actuators now in hand. The photograph in figure 324 shows tw.o pneumatic actuators under development for the NERVA engine technology part of our program. The first actuator powers the turbine power control valve and uses a pneumatic gear motor drive. The second actuator, which rotates t he reactor control drums, uses a piston driving a rack and pinion assembly to provide r otary motion. These actuators have undergone radiation testing either as a complete assembly or as critical components and have been tes ted OVf" a wide range of eX[l('cted operating condition s. 'l'hf' turbine power control va lvf' actuator i" being used during the EST test seri e,;. The pneumatic reactor cont r ol drum actuators will be used during tIl{' ground experimental ( XE) engi ne testing.
591
E-MAD HANDLING EQUIPMENT
FIGURE 323
FIGURE 324
592
We have also been active in applying the principles of a new field to the problems of nuclear rockets. Fluid interaction devices, similar in principle to electrical and electronic devices can be combined to perform the functions of computation and for motor drive for which electrical and electronic devices are now generally used. While the use of fiuid interaction devices to replace electronic parts is expanding rapidly in every industrial usage, these devices are particularly valuable to meet nuclear rocket requirements since they are relatively insensitive to extremes <Jf temperature, and to radiation. We have developed fiuid interaction devices to use with the actuators discussed above, to replace the few electromechanical components of the pneumatic actuator selected for use in the NERV A engine. In addition, a completely pneumatic control actuator using GR, working fiuid which appears to meet all our requirements for use as a reactor control drum actuator, or an engine turbine power control valve actuator has been designed and fabricated. This actuator combines the control logic elements with the actuator elements in a small package, eliminating transmission lines and increasing reliability. It is now undergoing breadboard tests at the Lewis Research Center. The problems of instrumentation in the NERV A technolgy program are not much dift'erent than the normally difficult problem of measuring temperatures from -423 F. to 4,000 F., except that the intense radiation field is an added environmental burden which must be considered. For example, many of the instruments used to make high temperature measurements need to be well insulated electrically. The intense level of gamma radiation, however, generates very high temperatures in the internal parts of the instrument which would cause it to melt unless good paths are provided to conduct the heat away. The requirements are basically in confiict; good electrical insulators are generally good at preventing heat from being transferred out as well. Our approach has been to work with the instrument manufacturers, testing their instruments for our requirements and modifying them to meet our needs. A sampling of the instruments which have been screened for just a few measurements is shown in figures 325, 326, and 327.
0 0
~~::.c,,~;~~T
. : ?: ' ~, ,
.UT ..... AC(.(LrttOtH;l'liI
,6.1O>I1IIil
....,'
,.,
1!'1~.'",~A"" ";11-
j""f'f!n.-,~'
.~
.... " 'W{."... ' ~..
.. eo ee,
.,t.llt",,,,,,. ",","!lVf'(
. . . It-to
~II:A"t".,~
i
f II
'0'
,.
StAlE
t--3"~
FIGURE
321\
N ASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
593
CABU AID CABlE ASSOIBIIS tESTED F..lICtfAI lOClET

Ploct.. APPUCATI8II
c .
,.
_,,- -..- . ..... --- -....... - ..- .-' ----,
~~ ,
-, \
.. ........----"
@
---
---
--
FIGURE
326
fUU.ISlSTAIIC ltIPWM TlAll8UCERS TESTED M.uAI 18CIT 'IOWI APPUCATIOII

";".f. Y.~""'f
I!' c.$(",,~ ~ t
....
_ ,.. c_
," n ..
1I 0U.... O~. f
....
c u . colto n
. ~ .t
l.e _ e,- _,,0
... ....... - -,
......... ......... -.-~
. ...... :: ~~
-.0 1l1.. OI;JII,T
..
~
.cst. IID""
n . n ...
- ...
- -~
l~r.:':T~'
FIGrRE
32i
594
Radiation effects on materials
The programs which have been carried out over the past few years to determine the properties of engineering materials which are subject simultaneously to both cryogenic temperatures and high radiation doses have provided a catalog of useful informations which is now available for the designers use. Generally, the combined effect of both radiation and cryogenic temperature has not been much different than the effect of cryogenic temperature alone for metals which will not be used in the highest radiation fields of the nuclear engine. The threshold for many of these metals to begin showing effect:.'!, however, appears to be between the low and high dose levels found at various locations of the nuclear engine. We are now engaged in extending the range of radiation doses for which data are available to the highest doses expected to be reached in the 5,000 megawatt NERVA engine.
ApplWability of 1,000 megawatt N.ERV A teohnology to 5,000 megawatt NERVA engine development It is important to summarize briefiy the direct applicability of all of the work
being performed in developing the technology of nuclear rocket engines in the 1,000 megawatt, 55,000 pound thrust engine size to the large, 5,000 megawatt, 200,000 to 250,000 pound thrust NERV A engine development, particularly since our 1967 budget request provides funds for initiating development of such an engine. The Kiwi and NERVA NRX reactor tests have proven the ability of nuclear rocket reactors to achieve the high performance that was predicted for them. The materials, fuel element configurations, and general design features and design methods developed in this part of the nuclear rocket program are those that are being directly used, almost identically, in the design of the large NERVA engine. Advances in reactor technology that will be required are being evaluated first in the Phoebus 1 reactor tests before proving them conclusively in the Phoebus 2 reactor tests. In addition, laboratory testing is continuing to provide the methods for achieving the highest possible fuel element life and temperature. The engine system technology work is providing analytical methods for predicting nuclear rocket engine performance and operating characteristics under all design and off-design conditions, including both steady si:ate and transient operation. These analytical methods are being evaluated in the cold flow test systems and in the breadboard Engine System Test (EST) and will be further evaluated in the Ground Experimental Engine (XE). Though, as indicated in flgure 328, the 200,000 to 250,000 pound thrust NERV A engine is much larger than the Ground Experimental Engine, introducing primarily fabrication technology items that are not fully proven, the engine system design and analysis methods that are now being evaluated in the smaller size systems will be used directly in the larger system design and development. In addition, the component design methods that have been established are also directly applicable to the large engine components. Most important, the development approaches that will be needed for a flight engine development are being developed as part of our engine technology program. The experience that is being and will be obtained with the engine test facilities is providing a firm basis for the construction of the test stands that will be needed to develop the large NERV A engine and the propulsion modules or vehicle stages that will use that engine. The required foundation of technology for the development of the large NERV A engine is being firmly built by the smaller hardware of the 1,000 megawatt systems which are less expensive than the large systems will be, but the technology of which is nevertheless, completely applicable to the large system.
In addition to the work underway to establish the graphite reactor and NERV A engine technology, the advanced research and technology portion of the nuclear rocket program conducts research and development on tungsten reactors, analytical and experimental work to develop analYtical models for operation of nuclear rocket systems, studies of the ellect of radiation on the properties of materials and the bl'havior of componl'nts, thl' dl'vl'loplIll'nt of advanced, radiation resistant control cOlllllonents and instrumentation and basil' studil's to l'xtend our fundamental kllowll'<igl' of SUi'll divprsl' phl'noIllPllll as hl'at transfl'r, fluid flow stability,
595
FIGURE
328
and optimal control of systems behavior througb the application of the mathematics of non-linear systems. Research work on the very advlinced cavity reactor nuclear propulsion concepts such as dust bed, liquid, and gaseous fuel reactors is also carried out in this part of the program. This work emphasizes the fundamental problems involved in a ,ariety of concepts so as to be broadly applicable to whichever concepts appear promising. Finally, we have been active in work on radioisotope propulsion in which the isotopes are used to heat hydrogen which prodnces thrust.
Tungsten reactors
Because of the importance of nuclear rockets in space exploration, we have conducted a relatively small effort on the technology of reactors using tungstennranium-dioxide fuel elements which offer promise for extremely long operating time. The high melting points of both materials. the good structural properties of tungsten at high temperature, and the freedom of this material from corrosion by hydrogen indicated the possibility that this material system might pro,ide extremely long operating duration at high tem.per atu r e. The major problems anticipated and investigated in this effort on tungsten based nuclea r reactors were the fabricability of suitable tungsten-uranium-dioxide fuel elements a nd the compatibility of tungsten-uranium-dioxide fuel material in a hydrogen environment when subjected to various steady state temperatures and cyclic temperature va r iations. In addition, there were the usual problems of analyzing the design, nentronics, and control cha racteristics of a reactor based on materials with which there had been little previous experience. The first thermal cycling test, carried out in 1963, resulted in a rapid disintpgration of the fuel materials after only a few temperature cycles. Figure 329 indicates the effect of the thermal cycle on the structure of the tungstenro, matrix ea r ly in our investigation. Uranium has been released from the {'O, and has penetrated the grain boundarie~. Further rea ction of the CO, nranium in the grain boundaries has caused loss of all structu r al integrity of
596
the sample. One of the major thrusts of the research effort on tungsten-based reactors since that time has been understanding and developing solutions to this problem. By 1964 we were able to extend the useful cyclic operation by a factor of 10, and in 1965 increased understanding of the phenomena has resulted in further extension of the thermal cycling ability of this fuel so that tbere appears to be little problem in meeting any cyclic capability desired for a mission use or for development at temperatures equivalent to specific impulses in the range of 750 to 800 seconds. The 1965 specimen shown in figure 330 has undergone more than 100 temperature cycles of the same kind that caused breakup of the 1963 specimen in figure '329. The new specimen does not appear to have reached its limit of operation. Research and development on fabrication methods carried out in the past three years have developed several methods of fabricating structurally and metallurgically acceptable fuel elements. The extent of our ability to fabricate tungsten in 1963 is shown in figure 3'31. Thi s simple shape had few of the characteristics required for successful opemtion as a reactor fuel element. Our evaluation and development effort on tungsten fabrication methods carried out in 1964 Dnd 1965 considered every conceivable method of fabri cation. Some of the fabrication techniques and fuel element geometries considered during 1964 and 1965 are shown in figure 332. As a result of this broad survey, it was possible early this year to define satisfactory fabri cation methods for producing satisfa ctory fuel element subsections. Sound fuel specimens are now being supplied for simulated environmental tests to complete the final step in our tungsten reador evaluation, the determination of the performance capabilities of reactors based on this fuel form. While our mission studies have revealed some interesting benefits from the use of low thrust, light weight, long duration nuclear rockets, both in manned and unmanned applications, such missions are not well defined at this time. As a result of the uncertainty of its uses and the need to restrict our budget, our tungsten work will be phased out in fiscal year 1966. The work which has been
THERMAL CYCLE FAILURE OF TUNGSTEN URANIUM- DIOXIDE FUEl IN HYDROGEN
TUNGSTEN
AS FABRICATED
URANIUM-DIOXIDE
AFTER THERMAL CYCLING IN HYDROGEN
. ......-uftANIUM- DIOX IDE
FIG U RE
321)
597
IMPROVED TUNGSTEN URANIUlI-OlOXIDE FUEL

II'IOVED 'IOCESS COITllt
BEFORE TEST
AmI RST
IMPROVED PROCESS CONTROL PLUS OXIDE ADDITlYES
..
BEFORE TEST
..
NASA "-.;pO ,,; _19<7-0
1: _1" . . . .
FIGURE 330
performed, however, will have provided a SO!!Dd basis for eval1lB.ting an operational system based on these materials should a mission need !!.rise. In addition, it will have provided valuable technology for the advanced space power systems which will be based on the use of refractory metals such as tungsten.
A.dvanced conceptlf
In the last year's discussion of work on very advanced cavity reactor concepts such as dust bed, liquid core, and gaseous core reactors, I mentioned that the very high performance potential of these advanced propulsion concepts is balanced by the immensely difficult technological problems which must be overcome before their performance potential can be realized. Our work on advanced C'oncepts includes work on concepts with various orders of increased performance potential, and closely related increasing development difficulty. Figure 333 lists t.hree of these advanced concepts: the dust bed in which the fuel is in the form of tine dust particles containing a mixture of one of tbe carbides of uranium and other metals, and the liquid core reactor in whieh fuel is allowed to become molten, and the gaseous core in which the fuel is in the form of gaseous uranium atoms. Figures 334, 335 and 336 are artist sketches illustrating the essential features of such concepts. These advanced concepts have several characteristics. Because the fuel form is operating at temperatures beyond the maximum operating temperatures of the pressure vessel-wntainer, the container walls must be cooled. In order to (lbtain the maximum performance from the system, heat transfer to the propellant gas must be maximized, while the proportion of energy reaching the walls js reduced. Reasonable thrust to weight performance requires fairly h igh tlow rates of propellant through or around the fueL Fuel economy and other reasons, however, dictate that the fraction of fuel entrained or carried off with the propellant be kept to a minimum. One can readily see why, as the performance potential of these concepts increases. so does the development difficulty. In the dust bed fuel concept , mate-
598
TUNGSTEN URANIUMDIOXIDE FUEL

FABRICATION STATUS 19621963
PLATE FABRICATION
HOT FORMING
NASA NPO
-10
FIGURE
331
TUNGSTEN URANIUM DIOXIDE FUEl

FABRICATION SURVEY 19631964 PNEUMATIC IMPACTION COEXTRUSION COLDROLLED WITH BINDERS ROLL FORMING SWAGING MAGNETIC FORMING elSOSTATIC COMPACTION PRESSING AND SINTERINS eDlffUSION BONDING e YAPOR CEMENTATION
FIGURE
332
599
COMPARISON BETWEEN SOLID-CORE REACTORS AND CAVITY REACTOR CONCEPTS
CONCEPT SOLI D CORE REACTORS
SPECIFIC IM PULSE , SECONDS
PROPELLANT COND ITIONS TEMP. oR PRESS. , psi
NUCLEAR
FUEL
TEMPR URE AT
DR
850 - 900
5(xx)
<1(xx)
5500
CAVITY REACTORS DU ST BED LlQU I D NUCLEAR FUEL GASEOUS NUCLEAR FUEL
1100 1500
2500
6200 10, (XX) 30, (XX)
1000 4000 15, 000
6500 15, (XX) 140, (XX)
NASA NPO 65 - 1996

Re v. 2- 23-66
FIGURE 333
FIGl: RE
334
~9-941
0-6&---39
600
F I GU RE
335
CAVITY REACTOR CONCEPTS
COAXIAL FLOW GASEOUS NUCLEAR FUEL REACTOR WITH FUEL SCOOP
FIGU RE
336
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAB 1987
601
rials behavior and beat transfer regimes which must be studied are llmited to somethiDg below about 6,700 F. since this is the highest melting point of any solid material known. Wblle such studies are di1Ilcult, they are comparatively llmlted extenslons of our work on solid core graphite reactors. The liquid nuclear fnel introduces a host of new and di1Ilcult problema. Simply devising an experimental apparatus to study the behavior of material in the molten state up to 10,000 F. is a d11Ilcult scientiflc and engineering achievement. PredBe measurements of the vapor pressure, stoichiometric ratio, and other thermodynamic property data, are tasks that in other ages would have been a life's work, and probably unsuccessfnl, for a dedicated scientist but can, at least, be considered now. The gaseous reactor concept which has the highest performance potential of all envisages fnel in the plasma state. Studies of this concept indicate that it might be necessary to obtain temperatures as high as 140,000 F. in the center of the gas core in order to achieve the high specl1lc Impulse potential (2,500 seconds) desired. As the temperatnre goes up, the pressure needed to keep the uranium fnel density within the llmlts of criticality also goes up. At 140,000 F. the system pressure required would be about 15,000 p.s.i. At these conditions atoms lose many of their electrons and have properties which cannot be accurately predicted. Before we can design and develop this kind of reactor, we will have to find ways of attaining these temperatures nnder the controlled conditions of a laboratory where measurements can be made of the properties of mixtures of hydrogen and uranium as they will be in a gaseous core reactor. In spite of these dHBculties, the performance potential of such concepts is 80 great that a reasonably-sized research effort in their direction is justifted. Progress for a long time, however, will be measured in greater understanding of problems rather than solutions to them. Working in such very advanced areas, it is of paramount importance that the investigators be chosen for their demonstrated outstanding competence. In this regard, I believe we have an excellent mixtnre of scientists and engineers from the Nation's best research laboratories and universities hard at work on these cWBcult problems.. A partial list of those engaged in this WOl'k is shown in figures 337 and 338.
Radio4.llotQPe p~
Recent mission studies have indicated a number of potentlal useIJ for light weigbt, very low thrust systems with reasonably higb speciftc Impulse such as migbt be achieved by the use of radioisotope propul8ion systems. The radioisotope beat source is encapsulated in a refractory metal as shown in figure 339. Wben no propellant is ftowing, enougb beat energy is transferred away from the capsule by radiation to maintain the capsule at a reasonable temperatnre 80 that it does not melt. When in operation, a valve is opened to allow hydrogen ftow to pass from tbe propellant tank into tbe tIne passages around the capsule wbere it is beated to a fairly higb temperatnre and exbausted out the nozzle. Such systems could be usefnl for attitude control and station keeping for satellites, and for propelling deep space probes.. The work to date has been largely llmlted to studies of the problems of providing higb temperature Isotope fnel forms and capsules and studies of beat transfer, supported by the AEC. Sbould the usefnlness of these devices appear to warrant further development, a system development effort would be initiated.
TECHNOLOGY UTILD..lTION
It has been possible in the past year to increase our emphasis upon identifJing and reporting inventions, innovations, processes, etc., which bave evolved from the nuclear rocket effort, but which a180 may have some potential application in tbe Nation's commerclal market&.. This search and documentation program functions under policies and procedures that have been establlsbed by NASA in the frequently enunciated belief that tbe civilian economy should reap maximum be.netIt from our space efforts. The results of this utilization effort have been successful in at least two respects. First, we bave created formal new technology reporting organizations in important segments of our contractors-Aerojet-General and Westlngbouse. These organizations bave come to recognize tbat patentab1l1ty is no longer the guiding criterion by wbicb ideas sbould be judged for tbeir possible interest to tbe Government. This realization, coupled with tbeir top level management
602
CAVITY REACTOR CONCEPTS RESEARCH TASKS PART A

LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER .CONCEPT STUDIES .COAXIAL FLOW FLUID MECHANICS .HYDROGEN OPAC ITY
(--7
20,OOOoR)
.RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER .CAV ITY REACTOR NEUTRON ICS UNITED AIRCRAFT RESEARCH LABORATORY .VORTEX FLOW FLU I D MECHAN I CS .RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER
FIGURE
337
CAVITY REACTOR CONCEPTS RESEARCH TASKS PART B

eTRW SYSTEMS - CONCEPT STUDY eDCUGLAS AIRCRAFT - FLASH HEATING TESTS .G. E. NMPO - CAVITY REACTOR CRITICAL TESTS .BROGKHAVEN NAT ICNAL LABORATORY - DUST BED CONCE PT RESEARCH .ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY- VORTEX FLUID MECHANICS eCEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNGLOGY - RADIATIVE GAS HEAT TRANSFER eCASE INSTITUn OF TECHNGLOGY - CAVITY REACTOR SUBCRITICAL TESTS eCATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA - VORTEX FLUID MECHANICS .PRINCETON UNIVERSITY - HIGH TEMPERATURE CO-AXIAL FLOW eTEMPLE UNIVERSITY - LIQUID CARBIDE TESTS
FIGURE
331'
603
ISOTOPIC THRUSTER
PROPELLANT
PROPELLANT
FIGURE
339
enthusiasm for our objectives, has led to a second result-namely, a marked increase in their reporting activities as indicated in figu. c 340. The quantity of Reportable Items received from each company during the past year has exceeded the total of submissions for the four previous years. Coupled with the quantity improvement is a noticeable increase in quality. In figure 341. are shown three typical items to demonstrate this fact, as well as to indicate the variety of subject matter. The portable Eddy Current probe can detect virtually ilJvisible cracks in extremely small tubing. Its adaptation to the inspection of heat exchangers, air conditioning and refrigeration equipment requireE, only, logical extensions of the basic design. The High Temperature Thermocouple IDay be of significant value to the steel industry. The smoking pipe is already being marketed on the west coast. It features the use of a pyrolytit.:! graphite liner-the technology of which being a direct otIshoot of development work in the nuclear r ocket Kiwi reactor. We are pleased with the progress attained so far in this important etIort. Such progress has been realized through the creativity and inventiveness which our contractor s have brought to bear in the solution of difficult problems within the program. Many of these solutions may impact, either dir ectly or indi r ectly, upon technologi cal r equirements of the non-aerospace community. Our purpose is to share this knowledge with the widest possible spectrum of users, in the anticipation that these solutions will eventually bear fruit in new products and processes of benefit to all.
NUCLEAR BOCKET S U MMARY
It is a pleasure this year to be able to report continued progress in our reactor activities, ano to outline for you the steps we are taking towa rds a thorough understa nding of the systems behavior of nuclear rocket engines. The wide sta ble opera ting r a nge tha t h as been dem onstrated in react or tests and being demunstra ted in the first engine ;;:ystems test early this yea r is a major step in
604
NUCLEAR ROCKET PROGRAM

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION SUBMISSIONS UNDER NERVA CONTR ACT
225 207 200 FIRST YEAR OF TECHNOLOGY UTI LI ZA TI ON EMPHASIS
175
150
IN VEN TI ONS, I NNOVATIONS, METHODS, PROCESSES, ETC.
~~
~
~
125 REPOR TABLE ITEMS 1 00
85
75 75
50 33 25 NONE 1961 1963 CO NTRACT YEARS 1964
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1965 NASA NPO 65-2188 Rev . 2- 23-66
AEROJET - GENERAL CORP . AND WESTINGHOUSE ASTRONUCLEAR LAB.
FIGURE
340
NUCLEAR ROCKET TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION PROGRAM TYPICAL REPORTED ITEMS 1964 . 1965
EDDY CURRENT PROBE DETECTS CRACKS IN TUBING
--
HIGH TE;MPERATURE THERMOCOUPLE SMOKING PIPE LINED WITH PYROlITIC GRAPHITE
FIGURE
341
605
providing an allS1lred technological base for tbe high powered engines which will one day take men to Mars. Each reactor test has been succeesful in substantially extending the proven performance domaIn in time or temperature. Our component test results on fuel elements which have J1Qf; yet reached reactor test indicate good prospects for further improvements. The breadboard engine system tests (EST), in addition to making a major contribution to systems understanding, is a test bed for a number of components whose performance is vital to tbe success of tbe nuclear rocket. Underlying tbese successful reactor and EST test operations in Nevada, is a carefully built up structure of understanding, beginning with analysis of component behavior and extending through environmental tests such as tbe cold flaw engine tests which are aboost as complex as the tests of tbe nuclear engine itself. I would like to make it very clear tbat it is this thorough, careful structure of understanding which is tbe technoklgical 'basis for tbe next step forward in space propulsion systems; tbe individual success of tests of reactors and engine Systems are gratifying in that they verify tbat this structure is sound. It is as a result of this sound technological base that we are confident of our ability to proceed into the development of tbe large NERVA engine tbat will be needed for future space missions. Our tungsten reactor program has determined tbe performance potential and development diftlculties of tungsten based reactors for space applications and has provided an excellent technology base should a mission need for such systems develop. Even as we prove the ability of many of our components, more advanced versions appear. For example, tbe field of fiuid interactl.on devices promises to allow the designer freedom from harmful effects of temperature and radiation. Our research progress on cavity reactor concepts has continued. AJlQther important year lies ahead-final preparations for the first XE Ground Experimental Engine test, tbe transition of our work in NERVA technology to components for the high power engine, preparations for tbe first 5,000 megawatt Phoebus reactor power test, and the conduct of the first Phoebus 2 cold fiaw test. All of tbis work is planned to assure that tbis country has the. ability to exercise mission options that will keep it preeminent in space exploration for the inde1lnite future.
ELECTBIC POWEB IN BPACB
IfItrodtICH<M
Electric power is essential in all space vehicles. Because tbere is no one power system tbat can meet all of tbe current or anticipated mission requirements, we are developing or improving tbe technology of a variety of solar, chemical, and nuclear power systems, i.e., solar cells, solar collector systems, batteries, fuel cells and radioisotope and nuclear reactor systems. Future missions will require substantially improved solar and chemical system performance and the successful development of practical nuclear systems. The power levels required will range from watts for small unmanned space science vehicles to megawatts for large manned interplanetary spacecraft utilizing electric propulsion. In discussing our work on power generating systems for space applications, we have generally grouped tbe various system concepts in accordance witb the source of energy tbat was used in tbe power system. However, tbe work tbat we are describing is advanced technological development work aimed at providing mission planners and developers witb tbe information and hardware experience that is required to permit them to choose tbe power system that will best fit their mission requirements and provide tbem witb cOnfidence tbat the system they select will operate reliably under all required conditions. As is indicated in figure 342 each of the power sources that are available tend to fan into certain regions of power and life applicability. In this figure, we have presented tbe region of power and operating duration in which each energy source appears to provide low weight systems. These are important system variables in making a selection of a power system for a particular mission application. Although the boundaries between the systems cannot be accurately defined and we are working to extend the boundaries of each energy source, tbe data indicate tbat tbe chemical battery systems tbat have been used in every space mission are short duration systems. The solar cell systems are long duration energy sources suitable for those mis!\ions that are in sunlight for a significant part of their mission trajectory. The combination of solar cells and chemical batteries has provided power for all of our Earth orbital unmanned missions.
606
In these applications, the batteries provide the power when the satellite is in the dark or night part of its flight and the solar cells provide power during the day or sunlit parts of the flight including the power needed to recharge the chemical batteries after their power is depleted by dark time operation. Figure 342 indicates that if sufficient sunlight is not available for the space mission, or if other mission or system considerations make solar systems unsuitable, then radioisotope systems can provide the source of electrical energy up to perhaps as high as 10 electrical kilowatts and nuclear reactors can provide the source of energy for higher powers. Our advanced technology development work covers all of these various sources of energy for electric power generation. We are trying to increase the life of the chemical batteries including the fuel cells and we are t rying to provide more IJOwer per pound of weight for these systems. In the solar cell and solar collector systems, we are trying to reduce the weight of the large solar panels so as to increase the power level capability of solar energy devi ces. In addition, we are trying to flnd ways of extending the use of solar energy to further distances from the sun than now appear efficient and also to distances closer to the sun than ou r cUiTent, relatively low temperature solar cells will perm it. In the nuclear area. NASA and the AEC are working closely together to assure that all of the required technology is available to permit radioisotope and nuclear reactor energy sources to be used in our space missions. In connection with the nuclear development activities, it is important to point out that close, efl'ective and consistent collaboration exists between NASA and the AEC. In addition to my duties as Director of Nuclear Systems and Space Power in NASA, where I am responsible for NASA's technology development work on electric systems, I am also Director of Space Nuclear Systems in the AEC and have responsibility for the AEC's development work on nuclear electric power systems. Since the AEC program also supports the DOD nuclear power requirements, there is a close r elationship among the nuclear plans and programs of the three agencies. In addition, the normal coordination arrangements, such as
OPERATING RANGE OF POWER SOURCES

1000
aoo
600 POWEI
LEYEl
IW
400 200
50
10
6,000
a,ooo
'OWII ...ATlO .. , HOUIS
FIGU RE
342
607
the Interagency Group on Power and the AACB, further help to assure coordination of DOD and NASA programs. Up to this point, I have summarized the energy sources that are available to generate electrical power in spaoce. However, with each energy source, there are !!everal di1ferent means for converting the source energy (for example, the heat generated by a nuclear reactor) to electrical energy. Figure 343 shows some of the various energy conversion systems that are being investigated as part of the NASA advanced research and technology program. Operational systems that we are trying to improve are llsted with an asterisk. The remaining systems listed are advanced concepts that are under investigation and development. It should be pointed out that these are not the only 'COnversion systems that are possible nor are they the only ones that are being invesigated by the various agencies of government. For example, in the AEC, we are investigating a mercury Rankine system that may be used with isotope power sources and we are also initiating some exploratory work on an organic Rankine system for isotope sources. In addition, we are investigating thermoelectric devices for conversion of reactor heat to electricity. In fact, the SNAP lO-A which was 1I0wn by the AEC in cooperation with the Air Force last year, was a nuclear reactor-thermoelectric power supply. It is important also to emphasize that most of our work in this area is not done on full power systems. Rather, work is done on the components of the energy sources and of the power conversion systems until such a time that the combination of these components into energy source subsystems or into power conversion subsystems is required to provide understanding of and experience with the operation of these separate subsystems. With new types of system concepts for which the available experience is limited or non-existent or for sys-
SPACE POWER SYSTEMS UNDER INVESTIGATION
CHEMICAl
PRIMARY BAITERIES" SECONDARY BAITER IES" FUEL CEllS" ENGINES
SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC BRAYTON THERMIONIC
NUCLEAR RADIOISOTOPE
THERMOElECTR IC* BRAYTON THERMIONIC RANKINE " OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
FIGUBI!: 343
REACTOR
BRAYTON RANKINE THERMIONIC MAGNETOHYRDODYNAM IC CONVERSION (MHD)
608
tems that are to be used in planned space missions, we would combine the energy source and the power conversion subsystems into a full system so that its performance could be fully evaluated, understood, and operational experience provided. This is essentially our plan on the SNAP 8 system in which the AEC is now developing the reactor heat source and NASA is developing the mercury Rankine power conversion system. Because these subsystems have never been investigated in a full, combined system and because there are technical questions that remain unanswered about such full system operation, we would expect to put these subsystems together when they have each reached a point that they are understood, well developed, and can operate reliably. We are not yet at that point; this will become clearer later in this discussion. Therefore, although we have a tendency to describe our work in terms of the various systems to which our work is applicable, it should be understood that we are conducting a technology program on the various components and subsystems of the various types of electric power systems that can be used in space. Although solar and chemical systems will continue to play an important role in space for the indefinite future, and we are actively trying to extend their operating regimes, I will restrict the following discussion to work on electric systems using nuclear energy sources, the area in which both NASA and the AEC are partiCipating. The work underway in the AEC and in NASA on nuclear electric power system technology is aimed at providing a broad range of nuclear electric power systems from watts to megawatts for currently planned and advanced mission use. It is important to re-emphasize here the cooperation and collaboration, which I mentioned earlier, between NASA and the AEC. Figure 344 indicates the various kinds of nuclear heat sources that are now under investigation by the AEC. These are the small and large (or low and high powered) isotope heat sources, the SNAP zirconium-hydride reactors, and advanced reactor concepts aimed at providing hundreds of kilowatts of electrical power up into the thousands of kilowatts of electrical power. As I indicated earlier and as is shown in the figure, there are many dift'erent types of systems for converting the heat developed in these nuclear heat sources to electrical energy. Some of them, such as the thermoelectric and the thermionic devices, convert the heat energy directly to electrical energy without requiring moving parts In the system. Others, such as the mercury and potassium turbine-alternator systems and the Brayton gas turbine system, are called dynamic systems because they require moving or rotating parts. It Is shown In this figure that some of these conversion systems can apply to several dift'erent heat sources. Each of them has advantages in certain areas that require that we give them a fair technical evaluation In order to provide enough information to permit informed selections to be made of those systems that will finally be developed for space flight mission use.
RADIOISOTOPE ELEOTRIO POWER SYSTEMS
The AEC develops all thermoelectric, radioisotope electric generators for NASA use. The AEC also provides all of the DOD needs for space radioisotope generators. There is no funding in the NASA budget for the advanced development of the low power radioisotope-thermoelectric systems although NASA is evaluating conversion systems that will be applicable to high power radioisotope systems and funds are provided in the NASA request for such work. The widespread and growing NASA interest in radioisotope applications is indicated in figure 345 by the many Centers that have been testing AECdeveloped radioisotope power generators. In addition, some of the NASA Centers, particularly Ames and Langley, assist the AEC safety programs by conducting analytical and experimental investigations in areas such as reentry bumup and trajectory analysis where NASA has special competence. This interest and activity by NASA Centers has led to two missions that are firmly committed to using radioisotope power. The first, Nimbus B, will utilize two 8O-watt SNAP 19 generators, mounted as shown in figure 346, to provide supplementary power in an experimental "appllcation of isotope power. Nimbus B is presently scheduled for a late 1967 flight. Since this is the first NASA spacecraft which will have a nuclear generator aboard, NASA and the AEC are preparing an interagency agreement which will give the NASA Nimbus contractors the necessary Insurance protection against nuclear hazards aft'orded by the Price-Anderson Act.

NUCLEAR HEAT SOURCE
609
Small
ISIK~e
Large
ISIK~
Small U-Zr-H Reactor
Heat Source
Heat Source
large Advanced Spice Reactor
,
I I
,.........
......
-:."~."",,.
:....
."."
~~
ttfII"
""'"
'\
_ ..........c..., :;., ... '...

Thermoelectric
............ '\
. . . . . \ . .,
#'
............
....,"..
"'"
,
\
.............
.''"
"
.it,' ... Ie..'.
.... , -
:.
'.....
.t',....
,~
",
.~:
_,_'
.....;".- \ -'
.,.." .."
.,It-'
,fII"'-\
:"."..-
..........
\.
........
....
Mercury Rankine
. .,....; '\ ...

,\
-,.-'
_It"""
.. .,.' \
" .-
.....
. " .-
\" "", ,.
\ . ! ...... 0 ~
.,....,
'\
..
Therml"on"lc
Organic Rankine
AMlkaIii 8 ayt t e a r on Rankine
----_.-/
POWER CONVERSION UNIT
J1'IGUBE
344
AEC THERMOELECTRIC GENERATORS

BEING TESTED AT NASA CENTERS POV'ER
(~
.ill:illli
GENERATOR (2) SNAP-19
50
SNAP-ll
25 25
3
SNAP-9
LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER
SNAP-3
AMES RESEARCH CENTER (WITH LIVERMORE)
SNAP-19
25
MAR SHALL SPACE FLI GHT CENTER
SNAP-19
FIGUBE 345
25
610
NIMBUS- B SNAP-19
OBJECTIVES
PROV IDE ADDITIONAL POWER FOR NIMBUS-8
o PROVIDE EXPERIENCE fOR USE O f RADIOISOTOPE POWER fOR METEOROLOGICAL SATELLITES
STATUS
o PRELIMINARY PROTOTYPES TESTED IN 1965
oENGINEERING MODEL IN FAaRlCATlO N
o SPACECRAFT MODIFICAT IONS IN DESIGN

H UEl BEING PROOUCED
o INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT DRAFTED
FIGURE
346
A major new progra m initiated by the AE C at NASA's request during 1965 is the de\'elopment of the SNAP 27 thermoelectric generator for t he Apoll o Lunar Surface Experiment Package ( ALSEP) which will be placed on the moon by the Apollo astronauts, figure 347, The SNAP 27 system is be ing developed by the AEC f or the NASA Manned Spacecraft Cen ter, It will provide 50 watts to power experiments left on the m oon f or at least a yea r and will we igh a bou t 40 pounds, The current design will u t ilize a single plu tonium f uel capsul e \vhich will be inser ted in the generator un the lunar sUl'face by the Apollo a ~t rona uts, The above two syste ms are r epr esentath 'e of a family of low power thermoe lpctri c devices whi ch have been developed over a period of yea r s by th e AEC, Fuur sueh isotope power systems h ave already been used in space, One of these units launched in 1961 is still ope ra t ing after llh years in space, All of these uni ts were fueled with plutoniulll 238 a nd operated sa ti sfa ctorily in l'iavy nltvi~ational satelli tes, Some performance decn'ase wa:; encounter ed during the ope rating period of these systelll s; however , the performance decrease is underst'ood a lld eorrections han" been m ade in follow-on des igns that s hould eliminate the po~sihilitT of s uch decr ease, The elpetri e po\ver achievable in these radiuisotop('-lherlll oelpctri C dev ices is now lilllitpd by radiOisotope a vailability and cost co nsiciPI'ation f.l to va lu p~ of about a kil owatt, For radioi sotope sy s tem s d e \'elopin~ powe rs higher than about a kilowatt, there is a need f or better powe r convel'sion effi ciency tha n ean bp obta ined from t hermoelec tri c powe r conve rsion, Sever a l dynami c conver sion system;;, are thprpfol'e, be ing- investigated for tilE' hig-her power isotope uni ts, 'f he Iller cury working fluid turbonlternator system that haR bee n unde r investigat ion by the AgC for :;ewrnl yea r s ha s been operating for significant periods of ti llle, 'l'his is a difficult development requiring e xtre me atten t ion to tempera t Ul'!' ;,:r:l<li Pllt s, therlllal distortion, hpn ring (I('sigll an d elea ran ee, a voi dnl\('p of COlTosioll , ek, 1 ';H\"i PIH'ips of 7 or ~ pt'n'Pllt ha\'e hee n aehip\'ed ('Olllpllr!'!! to t he ii PPI'(,Pllt that Illar \,1' possihl p with thPI'lIlOplp!'tri<' e l!'Ill Pnts, The e tli eiPIH'Y
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 19 6 7
611
FIGURE 347
of this equipment could be increased if the maximum operating temper ature could be increased and some efficiency gain could also !:>P. achieved if the temperature in the radiator were decreased. An efficiency of about 10 percent appear s to be as much as could be reasonably expected for this equipment. This would permit deli,ering twice as much electric power with a given isotope loading as is possible with thermoelectrics. In our efforts to achieve still higher efficiency, we are now initiating. under AEC contract, preliminary investigations to deter mine the feasibility of using organic fluids, which a r e essentially oils, in low temperature, tur boalternator systems. Such systems may operate with efficiencies up to 15 percent even though they operate at maximum temperatures of only 600 to 700 F. These low temperatu r es should ease the pr oblems associated with development of the isotope power systems and may permit increased reliability. No commitments are being made to carry these organic con,ersion systems further into hardware evaluation until the operation of the fluids at oper ating conditions is evaluated and appea r s satisf actor y. Beyond these two dynam ic systems, the Brayton gas tu rbine type of system offers the possibility of efficiencies of 20 to 25 percent-4 to 5 times as high as could be a chieved with thermoelectrics- if high component efficiencies and low losses can be achieved. It appears on the basis of test work done by NASA contractors and by the Lewis R esearch Center , that such com ponent per fo rmance can indeed be achieved. The Brayton gas turbine cycle is schematically illustrated in figure 348. With this gas turbine power conversion system. it may be possible to obtain as mucb as 10 kil owatts of radi oi sotope electric power, which is probably a n upper limit, considering radioisotope cost and avai labili ty. The r adioisotope Br ayton system is, therefore, of particul a r interest in future manned missions such as orbital laboratories in which these higher powers a re likely to be needed. Such a radi obotope-Brayton cycle power system installation in a representative orbital laboratory concept is shown in figure 349. It should be noted that the Br ayton cycle
612
BRAytON TURBOELECTRIC
ARGON GAS
COMPRESSOR
RADIATOR
FIG U RE
348
FIO U RE
349
613
is also of interest in BOlar power systems where its high efticiency will reduce the size of the collector needed. The AEC is conducting research and development on heat sources having the capability of operating at the higher temperatures and higher powers that will be required and the NASA Lewis Research Center is studying both axial and radial flow Brayton cycle power conversion turbomacbinery such as shown in figure 350. Excellent test results and e1Iiciencies were obtained from cold flow tests of the radial flow turbine and compressor under investigation at Lewis. The development and experimental hot gas testing of a gas bearing supported, radial flow, turbocompressor and gas-to-gas recuperator or heat exchanger is continuing as part of a broad technology program on Brayton cycle component development, with particular emphasis on high efficiency and reliability. This work which is conducted on the critical problem areas, such as the high temperature gas bearings, component efficiencies at low Reynolds numbers, recuperator effe ctiveness and flow distribution, and component off-design performance, is providing an excellent foundation for future systems development at any required level of power. The program will continue in flscal year 1967 with the objective of obtaining performance characteristics of a breadboard system using the radial and axial flow turbomachinery equipment.
NUCLEAR REACTOR ELl!lCTRIC POWER SYSTEMS
SNAP 1(}-A
An important demonstration of the ability of nuclear reactor electric power supplies to operate in space in a mauner similar to operation in ground test facilities was accomplished during the past year. The 500-watt SNAP 100A system (shown in fig. 351) made up of a SNAP zirconiumuranium-hydride fuel reactor and thermoelectric conversion elements was launched on April 3, 1965. It was started up automatically on command from the ground. Its operation for 43 days duplicated almost exactly the operating characteristics that had been
IUYTOII CYCLE RESEARCH TOIIIIE 6 IIICH DIAMflEl
FIG tJtIE 350
614
measured in ground test facilities. Although both the space and ground test operations indicated some minor deviations from the design values, the system operated in a fully satisfactory manner and gave important information that will help in future designs. On the 43d day after the unit had made 552 orbits of the Earth, the system stopped operating. It was apparent that the cessation of operation was abrupt since no indication of impending failure had been indicated in data that were telemetered to the ground in the 552d or earlier orbits. Based on the telemetered data made before shutdown, observations made immediately after the shutdown, and data that were transmitted by the spacecraft later. several failure mode explanations were formulated. Each of these was experimentally evaluated by simulated testing of the components and subsystems on the ground. Although no absolutely certain explanation can be made by such simulation, the ground test data strongly support the conclusion that the shutdown was the result of a sequential failure of electrical components in the spacecraft resulting from a
FIG URE
351
615
failure of a voltage regulator. All of the operating characteristics encountered in space can be duplicated on the ground through this piece-part failure mode analysis. It should be emphasized that the SNAP 100A nuclea r reactor power system itself operated well. In fact, a duplicate of the system that was flown has been operating continuously in a ground test facility for over a year. On February 16, we increased the operating temperature on that system and it has continued to operate well since that time. It is planned to continue the operation of that system through a total of 10.000 hours which will be reached in March ; at that time we will shut the system down to disassemble and examine. Perhaps the most important results achieved in this flight test program of S:\'AP 100A were associated with proving that reactor power systems can be developed, traMported, installed, checked out, launched, and operated in space in a safe and predictable manner. The data obtained during the tests clearly indicate that reactor systems can be developed in ground fa cilities that simulate the space environment in a manner very similar to the development techniques used for all other space systems. The operation in space can be simulated on the ground and no unexpected space phenomena arise to alIect the operation of reactors. The next three figures (flgs. 352,353, and 354) are intended to indicate how reactor systems can be shipped through cities, how they can be checked out in advance of launch by personnel having direct contact with the reactor system, and how little additional instrumentation is required in the launch control room during launch and space operation of the system. This SNAP 100A flight should ser ve to dispel any concern that may exist among those mission planners who are unfamiliar with nuclear systems about the problems that might be introduced by using such systems in space. No unusual problems were encountered.
SNAP 8
The SNAP 8 ground development project is aimed at developing a 35 to 50 kilowatt power system using a mercury R ankine power conversion subsystem being developed under NASA contract and a nuclear reactor that is being de-
59-9410-66---40
616
veloped under an AEC contract as the heat source. A schematic diagram of the SNAP 8 system is shown in figure 355. It is designed to be suitable for a w~de variety of potential mission applications I31lch as lunar base powerplant, direct broadcast TV satellite, large orbital laboratories, and manned planetary missions. To provide mission flexibility and because we wish to make as much use of state-of-the-art technology as possible, the components are separated wherever possible and a low temperature lubricant/coolant is provided. AerojetGeneralis the NASA contractor for the power conversion System, working under the direction of the Lewis Research Center, and Atomic International is the AEC.contractor for the reactor. The AEC has completed its test on the SNAP 8 experimental reactor (S8ER) shown in figure 35fl. The reactor, which is less than 2 feet in diameter, was l'Itarted up in May 1963, and was shutdown in April 1965, after completing a year's operation under SNAP 8 power conditions. Since the shutdown, detailed examination of the fuel rods has shown that a majority of them have crack!' in the metal cladding. The cause of the cracks and their significance have not yet been fully determined. It appears that the cracks resulted from irradiation embrittlement of the metal cladding alloy combined with fuel swelling; detailed examination of the fuel rods will be completed in the next few months. Some corrective action is already being taken, but fabrication of the development reactor fuel is awaiting complete evaluation of the data obtained from examination of the experimental reactor. Since J anuary, Aerojet has completed performance te!'ting of the major prototype power conversion components and has initiated component endurance testing. Figure 357 summarizes the maximum single unit operating time obtained for the components listed as of the end of last year. A single mercury pump, figure 358, ha s run for 750 hours and appear!' in good shape. A NaK pump, figure 359, has just satisfactorily completed a planned 3,OOO-hour endurance test. A lube/coolant pump, figure 360 has been operated for over 3,500 hours without any indications of difficulty. Similarly, the condenser, figure 361 has operated
FlOUIlE
353
617
..
FIGURE
. ......... ...

'
.f
354
well during its 1,400 hours of testing. Finally, the alternatur, figure 362 whirh is coupled to and driven by the turbine has demonstrated acceptable electrical performance in an 830 hour test. In all, we have achieved a total of about 13,000 component test hours during 1965. The above-mentioned components are satisfactory for eontinued development and will be used in power conversion system tests. HoweYer, the last two components listed in figure 357, the turbine and the boiler cannot yet be considered as fully satisfactory, although they can be used in the ground test progran... Endurance testing of the turbine as a part of the complete mercury test loop terminated at 830 hours due to mechanical interference of an internal retaining ring with the first stage turbine wheel as indicated in figure 363. One of the retaining rings is shown mounted on the third state diaphragm. Correction of this design fault and several other potential failure modes found dUring the posttest inspection involved straightforward mechanical modifications which have been completed. Tests of the redesigned turbine in a turboalternator package have been started. The boiler, figure 364 has also been redesigned. As noted on fignre 357 the first design r an f or 1,400 hours; however, it did not give satisfactory startup performance. The second generation design has now been tested for over 450 hours as indi cated by the dashed line in figure 357. The above tests have shown significant improvement over the first design, but further methods of improvement are being investigated. The problem is one of obtaining satisfactory heat transfer to the mercury immediately upon startup in a controlled and reproduci ble manner and is apparently greatly affec ted by the cleanliness of the system. the boiler tube surface condition, and the materials used in the boiler tubes. This problem, in varying degrees of severity. ha;: been a long standing one in all boiling mercury systems. Currently the Lewis Research Center is conducting a joint investigation with the AEC to seek a eomplete and practieal sol ution.
618
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR F I SCAL YEAR 1967
........... I.,i-I
asn
. ._ _...,,~ 4 .,
MERCURY PUMP
FIGURE 31)5
SNAP 8 EXPERIMENT Al REACTOR
'_ Q( ~. ~
CI
.~~
".
'ST<,
, .. !.
N'5;. RN bO - ,lQO
l -l-oo
FIGURE
356
619
FIGURE 357
FIGURE 358
620
SNAPI NaK PUMP
FIGURE
359
SNAp, LUIE/COOLANT PUlP
FIGURE
360
621
NASA R:N 65-19,47 12-14-6;'
FIGUBE 362
622
SNAP8 TURBINE FAILURE

OCCURRED @ 830 HRS OF MERCURY OPERATION
FIRST STAGE DAMAGE
THIRD STAGE DIAPHRAM
FIGURE
363
I..__...,.-~:,;o;;;~
::;;;--t-
Hg OUHET
1 _ - - - - - -38.
66"-----lnr~...~~~!Ip~"'"-..-~~
FIGU RE
364
623
During fiscal year 1967, we plan to continue with power conversion system development leading to the eventual development of a 10,OOO-hour endurance capability. Our program plan calls for 30,000 hours of power conversion development testing, supported by work on ,heat transfer, materials, and other technical areas. It is planned to assemble the development reactor and install it in the Ground Prototype Test Facility, shown in the ftgure 365, that has been built by the AEC. The reactor will be tested in a performance checkout test of up to 2,500-hoUfS duration. A second phase of the program is then planned after specific technical restraints or goals have been achieved in the power conversion system development phase. This second phase will consist eventually of a test of the combined SNAP 8 reactor and power conversion system. At least 1,000 hours of component and power conversion system endurance will be required before we will begin fabrication of combined system test support equipment and about 2,500 hours of endurance will be required before delivery and installation work of the power conversion system are initiated. It should also be pointed out that the reactor being developed for the SNAP 8 Mercury Rankine System could also be used to provide the source of heat for a thermoelectric conversion system. Concepts are now under study as part of the AEC program to evaluate the capabilities and development problems associated with providing thermoelectric elements that could operate at the 1,300 0 F. output temperature of the SNAP 8 reactor. Such a combined SNAP 8 reactorthermoelectric power system could give up to about 20 kilowatts of electrical power with an overall efficiency of up to about 5 percent. In e1fect, such a concept would be an extrapolation of the system experience obtained in SNAP 100A. It also indicates the versatile applicability of much of the technology being developed in our electric power program. Various kinds of power conversion equipment can be used with the various heat sources under investigation. This work should, therefore, put us in a better position to select the best possible power source for any particular family of applications.
Advanced reactor electric power It1fstems
SNAP 8 is an early turbogenerator system that could be available for use by the middle seventies. A comprehensive technology program aimed at providing the information required in the selection and design of higher powered systems that may be needed in the future for both auxiliary power and electric propulsion applications is also being conducted. The goals of the advanced nuclear electric power technology program are ligh t weight, especially for electric propulsion,
FIGU RE
365
624
and long life--over a year. Such lightweight, high power systems cannot be built with information available today. In meeting these goals of high power (hundreds to thousands of kilowatts, and lightweight (10 to 30 pounds per electrical kilowatt), and long life (years" we are inevitably forced toward higher and higher temperature. High temperature is not generally compatible with extremely long life; however, the importance of going to high temperature in order to achieve the extremely low weights that are required to make deep space, high payload electric propulsion advantageous causes us to aim at such an objective. From our analysis it appears that the lowest weight, high powered systems could be achieved with either liquid-metal-cooled-reactors with turbine-alternators driven by vaporized metals, or with liquid-metal-cooled-tlhermionic-reactors in which the nuclear fuel element is the hot side of a thermionic diode that converts nuclear heat directly to electricity. However, because high temperature liquid metal systems are beyond our current technological capability, we are also pursuing work on Ii gas-cooled reactor that could provide high temperature gas to a Brayton gas turbine power conversion cycle similar in concept to the gas turbine cycle being investigated for the isotope and solar collector heat sources. Such a gas system will probably not be as low in weight as either of the liquid metal systems; however, should those systems encounter major difficulties because of their high temperature fuel element and liquid metal environment, the gas system could serve as an appropriate alternate to provide large amounts of on-board electric power. It could probably not, however, satisfy the requirements of large electrically propelled spacecraft, because it would not be low enough in weight. In addition, such It gas system may have other advantages including the avoidance of zerogravity condensing and boiling effects and elimination of the need to provide heat during long tenn storage in space to keep the metal working fluids in the molten state as would be required of liquid metal systems. The work being conducted by NASA and the AEC in this advanced power area is all aimed at establishment of the technologies involved. None of it is as yet associated with putting majol' subsystems together or with developing full system hardware. This technology development work is, however, being done with an understanding of system operating problems and performance requirements developed over the years through studies conducted by many industrial and government groups throughout the country. In the reactor area, work is being initiated at the AEC's Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, to investigate the technology that would permit building a liquid metal cooled reactor operating at the highest possible temperature. This is a broadly based technology development 'area that aims at the best possible performance by starting with a fundamental investigation of containment materials, nuclear fuel fonns, and working fluids. It starts with the technology that was provided in the SNAP 50 reactor power system program and aims at improving on that technology. Although, as the following discussion will indicate, very encouraging progress and accomplishments have been made in the thermionic conversion of heat directly to electrical energy, studies of thermionic reactor concepts are still required to define system operating characteristics and problems. Such studies will be undertaken and should help to serve as a basis for eventual reactor development. The high temperature gas cooled reactor (710 reactor) work is being continued under AEC contract and is now directly oriented toward the space power systems applications. Work on fuel element materials and on the flow of inert gases through sample fuel elements is now underway as is evaluation of the radiation behavior of these materials. Such work is required before commitments are made to development of a fast reactor for this application. It is important to point out that all of these reactor types are being investigated in a phased technical program approach. A decision to build a reactor of any of these types will have to wait for the establishment of the fuel materials, physics, fiow system, etc. technology which will provide a basis for evaluating the feasibility and performance capabilities of these concepts before decisions are made to embark on full reactor experiments. The AEC program provides for continuing work in all of th!'se areas. In th!' NASA program. the technology of the advanced power conversion systems liAted in flgure 366 is under inv!'stigation. The major portion of the NASA
625
e1rort is on the llquld metal BanJdne turbogenerator power conversion qstem and the thermionic direct conversion system. A 8IWLIl continuing effort is underway on the magnetohydrodynamic converter concept and the Brayton gas turbine work being carried out for isotope and solar collector applications will provide applicable technology for high power, but not in extremely lightweight systems. Generally our approacb in this advanced power system area is to obtain basic design and component information, test breadboard systems, and to ultimately demonstrate full system performance as required. The critical problems of turbogenerators and thermionic converters as well as those common to both are shown in figure 367. Indicated under the Bankine cycle are problem areas typical of those that are involved in trying to eIt:end the operating llmlts of long-lived turbomacbinery to hIgher temperatlm!fl than they have ever been operated at before. We will continue to work on these problems in 1lacaJ. year 1967. Tbe ligbtweIght Bankine cycle system program discussed in prior years is continuing. As you will recall, the achievement of lightweight Rankine systems is dependent upon achieving high system temperatures, ftgure 368. We have been obtaining the basic high temperature information, such as heat transler, materials strength and corrosion properties, etc., that is required for the design of components. Typical of this information was the data needed for the design of high temperature (-2,000" F.) boiler and high tem~ (-1,500" F.) condensers. In order to obtain these data, it was 1lrst necessary to design and construct facilities of a type never before attempted. These facilities were placed in operation during 1lsca1 year 1963 and in the eDSUing period, over 6,000 hours of useful testing have been obtained. A major phase of the boUer-condenser program-the accumulation of single tube boUing-oondensing heat transfer data-will be completed by the end of lI.scal year 1006. The heat transfer pressure drop data have indicated that from a heat-transfer standpoint, oncethrough ligbtweIght boilers and lightweight condensers are feasible. Tbe test facilities are now being modi1l.ed for the next step, obtaining multitube boUercondenser test data. This testing will begin during lI.scal year 1967. With regard to our high temperature turbine program, we have satlsfactorlly completed 2,000 hours of testing on a two-sta.ge potassium turbine assembly at 1,600" F., ftgure 369. Tbe excellent condition of this turbine after the test is shown on figure 370. It is planned to continue this program into 1I.scaI year 1967 towards an endurance goal of 5,000 bours. In addition, a three-stage turbine assembly will be built and tested in order to obtain a more realistic simulation of
ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY

CONVERSION SYSTEM
LIQUID M:TAL RANKINE
STATUS
COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY
THERMIONIC DIRECT CONVERSION
COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY
MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC CONVERSION
RESEARCH
"JASA RN 105-1 ')48
12-14-65
FIGURE 366
626
ADVANCED SYSTEMS
ClmCAl 'IOILEIS
RANKINE
TUIiINE EIOSION LIQUID METAL COIIOSION IN IIMnAL SYSTEMS TEST fACIlITIES
THE.IONIC
""" nlllllAl1III IlATUIAU
COIYllnl ptlfOlllAllCE
CU.ON
tADIATOI TECHIIDlOGY 'UM' AND HEAT EXCHANGEI TECHNOLOGY
FAST REACTOR DESIGN
,'"
FIGURE 367
SYSTEM WEIGHT VS. TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE

SPECIFIC WEIGHT lBS PE R
KlllOWAT!
100
60
20
1200
1600
TEMPERATURE OF
2000
NASA RN 65 - 2171 EV. -15-66
FIGURE
368
627
the turbine blade erosion conditions that may occur in a full scale five-stage potassium turbine. It is important to recognize that this test unit is essentially an experimental unit, mounted on oil bearings and not suitable for use in an actual power conversion system. However, the important turbine characteristics, such as blade height, blade tip speed, aerodynamic design and working fluid are accurately represented. A continuing effort is planned on radiators. Programs on micrometeorite penetration mechanism and protective devices (bumpers) as well as investigations of newer concepts, such as segmented radiators utilizing vapor chamber or heat pipe devices, are underway. Preliminary estimates of radiators designed to utilize the heat pipe or vapor chamber concept indicate that weight reductions of 40 percent at the desired high reliability and confidence factors are possible. Important information has been obtained from the Pegasus satellites as well as from high velocity impact damage experiments. The Lewis Research Center has recently completed an investigation of a condensing radiator operating between 1,400' F .. and 1,600' F. and has correlated the results with predicted performance. Finally, significant progress is being made on the development of high emissivity coatings for radiators. Such coatings are needed to promote high rates of heat radiation from the radiator surfaces in order to minimize the size of the radiator. One material, iron titanate, gave exceptionally good results at temperatures near 1,700' F. when operated for a year under simulated space conditions. The major problems associated with thermionic converters concern the very high temperatures that are required to obtain lightweight systems. This is illustra ted on figure 371. The AEC and NASA are conducting and supporting coordinated nuclear fuel r esearch programs aimed at investigating two broad classes of materials: the uranium oxides and the uranium carbides. We have been concentrating upon the fabrication and materials problems associated """ith operating these devices in an intense radiation environment at fuel temperatures exceeding 3,000' F., figure 372. During fiscal year 1967, fuels will be irradiated to
FIGURE
369
628
FIGURE
370
THERMIONIC SYSTEM WEIGHT VS OPERATING TEMPERATURE

SYSTEM SPECIF IC WEIGHT LBS. PER KILOWATT
70
50
30
28000 F
3000 0 F
AVERAGE EMITTER TEM PERATURE

FIG U RE
371
629
FIGURE 372
determine the suitability of the fuel under conditions expected to be encountered at high power densities. Fission product m!!.nagement and fuel evaporation and condensation will also be studied. The results have continued to be encouraging. Diode operating life in electrically heated nonnuclear tests has increased from a few hundred bours in 1961 to nearly 10,000 hours, as shown in figure 373. Single converter tests of diodes In test reactors have also shown good progress. However, reproducibility from cell to cell is not yet satisfactory and additional test data and development are needed. One of the problems peculiar to nUclear fueled diodes is that fuel materials and fission products can diffuse through the fuel element cladding, as indicated in figure 374, into the diode and collect on the anode. Because the presence of such impurities in the diode might affect the performance of the diode, it was considered to be important to measure the rate of this transport of the fuel and fission products through the dad. This was done during the past year and the rate determined to be quite low. During the past year, a high capacity electromagnetic pump was operated at 2,000 F. for several thousands of hours, figure 375. This achievement has encouraged us to deSign a lightweight version which will not be any heavier than the usual mechanical pump and will offer the potential reliability inherent in a component which has no moving parts. Also, during fiscal year 1966, considerable progress was made in determining the suitability for high temperature operation of various electrical insulators, magnetic materials, electrical conductors and bore seal materials. During fiscal year 1967, tests of promising materials will be extended to long times and higher temperatures. This is of particular importance since considerable amounts of heat, perhaps 150 kilowatts, will have to be rejected from a typical one megawatt alternator. As is well known, the rejection of heat to space occurs most efficiently at high temperatures and it is, therefore, important to try to determine the highest temperatures at which promiSing new electrical materials and components can operate. The liquid metal MHD conversion system may be likened to a no-moving part turbo-alternator for possible use with Brayton or Rankine cycle power conver0
630
NUCLEAR REACTOR THERMIONIC CONVERTER EXPERIENCE

10,000
8,000
OPERATING LIFE IN HOURS
6,000
MAXIMUM LIFE OUT -OF-PILE CONVERTER TEST
4,000
2,000
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
FIGUU 373
THERMIONIC FUEl TRANSPORT
1800"C
700"C
FUEL DIFFUSION RATE
1 ATOMIC LAYER PER HOUR 0.0001 CM PER YEAR
NASA RN 65-2152 REV. 2-15-66
FIGURE 374
sion systems. Because it has no moving parts, the MHD system has potential reliability advantages. However, there are several basic problems such as liquid metal separation and high losses that require solution and are under study as part of an In-house program. Gaseous MHD systems are also under study in an In-house program as very high temperature devices which, in theory, could
631
\...
'1~
,...
....
,~~~
-.fLIGHT DEStGH f'OIt SAM C";ACtTY ~/101H 'ntf wtlGHlp ....re 375 _ _ _ __
FIGURE
375
be very lightweight systems. In these 8ys tems the efficient production of high strength, magnetic fields is a prerequisite to obtaining high efficiency systems. Consequently, we are conducting an in-house evaluation of super condu.cti.c magnet materials.
NUCLEAR ELECfRlC POWEB SUMMARY
In summary, we are finding growing interest in and application of the radioisotope systems for the generation of power in space. The NASA Centers are becoming increasingly familiar with these power supplies and are considering these systems for many missions that are being studied. In addition, isotope systems are being investigated for possible Department of Defense missions. A majQr development during the past year has been the recognition of the potential applicability of these isotope systeIDB up to power levels as high as 10 electrical kilowatts. The space 1light experience with the SNAP lO-A system has proven that nuclear reactor operation in space can be simulated in ground test facilities ; no new phenomena in space were encountered during the SNAP lO-A 1light. Test experience has continued to accumulate on the components of the SNAP 8 reactor-mercury Rankine electric power system. Problems that have been encountered during this component test phase are being investigated to develop fully satisfactory solutions. Further endurance testing will be conducted on the reactor and the power conversion subsystems before they are put together in a full system test. Work on the technology of still higher power systems is under investigation. This work should provide a basis for a factual assessment of the feasibility of developing the systems that are potentially able to provide high powers in light packages; this technology will also provide a basis for evaluating the real performance that can be expected from the various candidate systems. Such inf onnation will provide a sound basis for eventual development of high power ( hundreds to thousands of kilowatts) systems.
59-941
~&--41
632
The overall program on nuclear electric power technology is providing the information that will permit building power supplies of any required power level and that will permit selection of the best possible system for a particular family of applications. The growing need for power in space exploration missions requires the flexibility provided by such a broad technological development approach.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for appearing. We appreciate your testimony. We shall meet again at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, this time in executive session. (Whereupon, at 12 :45 p.m. the hearing recessed to reconvene the next morning, Friday, March 4.1966, at 10 a.m. in executive session.)

FBIDAY,
JlARCl[
4, 1966
Co:HHlTl'EE
U.S. SENATE, ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE ScmNCES,
Washington, D.O.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :05 &.m.J in room 235, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Anderson, Byrd, Smith, and Jordan. Als<> present: Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., Director, D.R. & E, DOD; John E. Kirk, Assistant Director (Space Technology), O.D.D.R. & E.; Albert Weinstein, O.D.D.R. & E.; Capt. Howard J. Silberstein, USN, O.D.D.R. & E.; Maj. Everette L. Harper, OSD(LA); Col. William B. Arnold, Air Force LL; Col. Alfred Diehl, USAF; Lt. Comdr. Herbert Brickson, Navy LA; Comdr. John McCord, USN; Milton Rosen, NASA; J. S. Brown, NASA; and R. V. Mrozinski, Space Council. James J. Gehrig, staff director- William J. Deachman, Dr. Glen P. WIlso~ Craig Voorhees, Everard H. Smith, Jr., professional staff members; :;am Bouchard, assistant chief clerk; Donald R Brennan, research assistant; Mary Rita Robbins, clerical 8J3Sist.a.nt; and Robert G. Cantor, official reporter.
OPENING STATEXENT BY THE QHAlBVAN
The CuAmxAN. Dr. Foster, we are very ha.ppy to have you with us here today. We have studied the prepared statement for the record and it is one of the finest expositions that I have ever seen on how we are using our space ability to keep the peace. It shows clearly the importance of our space effort to the national security, but it also shows that there is nothing incompatible between using our space capability for national security purposes yet directing those efforts toward a more peaceful world. All who read this record should feel a little more secure because we have these space systems. Dr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. ChaIrman. The CuAntJ.rAN. You are doing a very fine job. (The biographicalSkef..ch of Dr. Fosterfollo~:)
DB.
lOHN
s. I'oIrJ.w, lB., ~ 01' Dl:rll:N81C RI:stiBoB: Alm JllNGDrIZIUlfQ
Dr. lohn S. Foster, lr., was bom In New Haven, Conn., on September 18, 1&22. He received as B.S. degree In 19f8 from McGill University, Montreal, canada, and a Ph. D., In physics In 1952 from the University of California, Berkeley. During a part of 19i2-45, Dr. Foster was a clvllian CODSUltant, U.S. Air Foree, Mediterranean theater. In the 81lDlIDel'8 of 1SK6 and 1947 he was with
633
634
the National Research Council, Chalk River, Ontario. From 194&-52 be was a staff member at the University of California Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley. Dr. Foster was a division leader, experimental physics, at the Livermore Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, 1952-58; associate director, 1958-61; and became director at Livermore and associate director of Berkeley in 1961. He left the University of California to become director of Defense Research and Engineering on October 1, 1965. Dr. Foster's first interests were in radar and radar countermeasures, then nuclear physics, plasma physiCS, and high vacuum technology. Since 1953 he has been involved in the design and development of nuclear explosives for peaceful and military purposes. He has been a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board since 1956. In 1958 he became a member of the Army Scientific Advisory Panel and became a member of the Ballistic Missile Defense Advisory Committee, ARPA, in 1965. He has been a panel consultant to the President's Science Advisory Committee since 1959. In 1960 Dr. Foster received the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Memorial Award of the Atomic Energy Commission for his contributions to the field of nuclear weapons. In 1946, he was married to Barbara Anne Wickes, of Montreal, Canada. They have four children, Susan, Bruce, Scott, and John.
STATEMENT OF lOHN S. FOSTER, lR., DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPAHIED BY DANmL 1. FINK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC AND SPACE SYSTEMS; AND THOMAS F. ROGERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Dr. FOSTER. Once again it is my privilege to appear before you. With me today are Mr. Daniel .J. Fink, the Deputy Director for Strategic and Space Systems, and Mr. Thomas F. Rogers, the Deputy Director for Electronic and Information Systems. I am here this morning in response to your request for a review of the space programs of the Department of Defense. At the suggestion of the chairman, I have prepared a comprehensive statement for the record. (See page 656.) The statement addresses, in detail, the ongoing DOD space and space-related activities. This oral statement is designed to cover the program highlights. I will be pleased to answer any questions on my detailed statement for the record.
MILITARY SPACE PROGRAM IS MISSION ORIENTED
The military space program and the R. & D. effort supporting it is mission oriented. Space systems, in selected instances, offer a potential for more effectively satisfying specific operational needs. These include such satellite systems as communications, navigation, and meteorology. In other instances, satellite systems satisfy a [deleted] early warning need. These military systems operating in space are important because they either cannot be performed any other way or they represent the most cost competitive solution to satisfying a particular mIssion requiring worldwide coverage. The supporting technology programs are represented by such efforts as spacecraft technology and reentry tests, materials and structures, the space power program, and propulsion technology. In the space
635
sciences, the military program includes projects for the study of the aurora, solar flares, solar and ga,lactic radiation, solar winds, very low frequency radio.propagati~n in the ~etosphere, ~e Earth's gravity field, and experIments III bIOastronautIcs, to name lust a few. To place our space program in perspective, let me say that we recognized very early in the ga,me-before 1955-the potential of space-based systems to augment Earth-based capabilities. We knew that the uniqueness of the space environment could make possible many concepts for augmenting our defense posture. Since many of our ongoing systems were identified and undertaken over 10 years ago, there really has been very little change in our space objectives since those early days. There has been, however, a very dramatic change in our capability to achieve a meaningful approach to realizing those objectives. This is the result of two fundamental technical achievements. First, we are no longer constrained by lack of booster lifting capability. Second, our technology has penmtted us to begin to realize the full potential of the area of sensor developments. This does not means that all uncertainties in achieving our desired capabilities have disappeared. It simply means that we have reached a level of maturity so that more and more of the military potentials of space can be realized.
DOD SPACE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967
The Department of Defense space budget for fiscal year 1967 is $1.621 billion. This is very close to the same funding level as in fiscal year 1966. In fact it is down about $73 million. I should note that this compares with the $3 million allocated in 1955 for military space. We expect that the military space program will remain stable at or below the $2 billion level for the next few years. The ratio of R. & D. to procurement will vary with the number of systems being brought into operation, but no dramatic change is expected in the total dollar alloCation. An explanation of our fiscal year 1967 budget for space and historical summary is contained in the comprehensIve statement for the record. I have mentioned use of the space environment for such activities as communications, early warning [deleted] and other military support missions. We eXJ?8Ct to continue to improve such systems and, hopefully, simplify theIr design and increase their useful life in orbit. The motivation, of course, is our continuing drive to reduce the cost of developing, debugging, and deploying space-based systems. We see nothing special about exploiting the space environment for defense purposes. Over the past decade, our program has reached a stage of sophistication where the emphasis is no longer on whether a specific mission can be performed in space. Today the problem is to determine which means of performing the mission is most effective from the standpoint of operational and economic attractiveness.
SPACE ACHIEVEMENTS SINCE 1955
Using 1955 as a baseline year, let me give you some idea of how far we have come along. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that we attempted to launch our first orbital payload, a Vanguard, in early 1957.
636
The result was a disappointing failure. Our first success came 1 year later when the Army successfully put a crude satellite in orbit with a modified Redstone rocket. We, as a nation, achieved 7 successes out of 17 attempts that year. In contrast, 1965 saw the United States place a total of 94 payloads in space using 63 launch vehicles. The committee should note that by comparison the Soviets placed 73 payloads in orbit with 48 successful launches. The CHAIRMAN. What was that again, 73 ~ Dr. FOSTER. Yes. They placed into orbit 73 payloads with 48 sucoossfullaunches to be compared with our 94 payloads using 63 launch vehicles. I should like to point out that 40 of the 63 successful space launches and 70 of the 94 payloads placed in orbit in 1965 were DOD missions. This comprises about 65 percent of the launches and about 75 percent of the payloads launched by the United States. I think it is important to emphasize that about 90 percent of the satellites J?laced in orbit by the Department of Defense are mission [deleted] orIented as opposed to research and technology. Since the military space program emphasis is mission-oriented in nature, I am primarily interested in the selection of discrete developments which will maintain a qualitative superiority in all aspects of the program. It is also true that in order to bring mission-oriented space systems into fruition, it is necessary to support a broad t.echnological base in research and development. Here we must consider the DOD effort as an integral part of the national space program. Care is always exercised to avoid unnecessary duplication as well as to make certain that the DOD can take full advantage of the research and development being performed by all Government agencies. Now I would like to summarize some of the major points covered in my comprehensive classified statement for the record. [Deleted.] We have [deleted] reoriented and extended the capabilities and mission of our program. [Deleted.] In an early warning capacity this system is bemg configured to provide worldwide coverage of all strategic ballistic missile launches including nth country attacks and, particularly, those from submari!!flS. These developments offer a potential for significant increases in the capability of the strategic offense force and for limiting damage to the United States by providing highquality real time information at command centers. [Deleted.] MANNED ORBITING LABORATORY We discussed major aspects of this program during the course of the hearing before this committee on February 24, 1966, when the need to launch the laboratory from the Western Test Range was explored in some depth. The program is currently undergoing contract definition and it is expected to be completed in June, at which point we expect to embark on a full-scale development about the first of June at the completion of that definition. NASA participation in MOL will be extensive, including the use of the basic Gemini spacecraft. In addition, we plan to adapt a considerable amount of NASA-developed components in the laboratory module. Principally these are fuel cells, of either the Apollo and Gemini variety, for supplying electrical power and water, and other life support subsystems developed
637
under the NASA manned space flight programs. NASA may also ca.rry out certain technica.l experiments of scientific interest on a noninterference ba.sis. We hope to la.unch the first manned MOL before the end of ca.lendar 1969. There are five manned flights planned for this pha.se of the program. Any follow-on planning will be contingent on further a.na.lysis of the mission from a.n opemtions and economic sta.ndpoint.
NUCLEA1l Tl!ST BAN MONITORING
This ha.s been one of the most successful satellite experiments underta.ken by this country from a technica.l sta.ndpoint. Six satellites are currently in orbit performing the monito!"ing mission of detecting nuclea.r tests in the outer rea.ches of space. The Vela satellite program also supports other spa.ce~programs. At the request of NASA the Vela. satellites have been opera.ted in a near real time mode for ea.ch of the Gemini launches. This is to provide the Houston Mission Control Center with. information on any large increa.se in space radia.tion such as might occur from a nuclear detonation or a large solar flare.
THE Gl!lODmIC PROGBAK
The basic interest of DOD in this prow-am is to insure the collection a.nd reduction of geodetic informa.tlon which will provide the basis for revision of the world geodetic system. [Delete.] To accomplish the stated objective, the DOD is engaged in a joint program with NASA and the Department of Commerce.
:METEOROLOGY
As the committee knows, the DOD participates with NASA and Commerce in a cooperative national satellite meteorological effort known as TOSS (Tiros operational satellite system). Although Tiros is providing us with some interim military capability, it cannot always satisfy our needs. For one thing, the national system cannot always be responsive to our ever changing need for weather information over a variety of potential military areas of interest. [Deleted.] Dr. Brown, in this appeara.nce before this committee in August 1965, made mention of DOD interest in the potential of performing the meteorological mission from synchronous orbit. The most obvious advantage is one of the continuous [deleted]'. of an area of interest. [Deleted.] It is natura.! to consider comoining these functions into a multiple-purpose satellite system. In order to ascertain if such a multiple-purpose satellite is technically a.nd opemtionallysound, we plan to conduct a feasibility demonstmtion experiment of synchronous meteorological capability. The details of our approach in conducting this experiment as early a.nd as economically as possible are covered in my statement for the record.
DEFENSE SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS A<Tl'IVITIE8
Secretary Va.nce, in his March 1965 statement before this committee, advised you of actions leading to the decision to proceed with a defense satelhte communications program, and our progress up to
638
that time. In addition, in January of this year General Starbird, Director of the Defense Communications Agency and Mr. Rogers, here on my left, appeared before you to discuss the defense satellite communications program. I would now like to bring you up to date on our more recent activities. The Initial Defense Communication Satellite Project, primarily an R. & D. system. [Deleted.] The first group of satellItes will be placed in orbit with a Titan III- U booster out from the Eastern Test Range. There will be up to seven communications satellites placed in orbit on the first launch followed by two additional Titan III-C launches [deleted] to complete the constellation. This R. & D. system will permit us to conduct comprehensive testing of various surface terminals, control facilities, and satellite testing of various surface terminals, control facilities, and satellite repeaters on a worldwide network. As R. & D. testing is completed, the Initial Defense Communications Satellite Project will be operated with its limited capacity to pass high priority operational traffic in support of unique and vital security communications needs. We are also continuing our R. & D. effort to follow the IDCSP with an Advanced Defense Satellite Communications System directed at providing a truly operational system by approx~mately 1970. In addition, within the past 6 months we have authorized the military departments to delineate appropriate R. & D. programs aimed at brmging into being a tactical satellite communications system. The departments, through a triservice working group, are directing their imtial efforts toward studies and experiments. The objective is to determine the feasibility of using satellite relays to meet those tacticalmobile communications needs where a high degree of flexibility and reliability are required. Development of an operational system will, of course, depend on the results of our initial experimental program. Again let me say that the details of our satellite communications program, its relationship with NASA efforts and our policy with respect to the Communications Satellite Corp. are covered in my comprehensive statement for the record.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND MUTUAL SUPPORT
Cooperation and program coordination with other Government agenices, particularly NASA, in the space program is a continuing formal and informal process. Such efforts include joint research programs, procurement of launch vehicles, use of ranges and instrumentation facilities, conduct of studies and the assignment of highly trained personnel. The major coordination mechanism between DOD and NASA is the Aeronautics and Ast.ronaut.ics Coordinating Board. The Board met four times during 1965 and the first meeting of 1966 was held on .January 21, 1966. Of course its panels and subpanels are meeting at very frequent intervals. During the past year such problems of common concern were addressed as the National Launch Vehicle Program, reusable space booster technology, management of DODNASA range and instrumentation facilities, procedures for inte~a tion of secondary payloads and the fiscal year 1967 proposed facilIties
639
construction program. In addition, coordinating efforts continued on such program areas as DOD participating in Gemini and DOD support of the Apollo program. We have jm;t recently set up with NASA the Manned Space Flight Policy Committee. ThIS coordinating mechanism was created in recognition of the growing need to provide an expeditious means of review, at the policy level, the Manned Space Flight programs of the DOD and NAS..:\. The first meeting of this committee took place on January21, 1966. We expect this new coordination group to meet at frequent intervals to address such matters as cannot be resolved at a lower management level in support of National Manned Space Flight program. CONCLUSION
I have attempted to provide you, a panoramic view of the military space program. Although touching only lightly on some aspects and omitting others, my statement for the record covers the major features of our effort. We believe that the military space program is ~n sive to the present and future needs of national defense. It IS a balanced program which, when taken together with the program of NASA a.nd other Government agencies, represents a most vigorous national effort. This completes my formal presentation, Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to answer any questions you or members of the committee may have. The CHAIRMAN. How much of your comprehensive classified statement has been edited out for the unclassified version, do you have any idea Dr. FOSTER. No, Mr. Chairman, but at the close of the session today I will leave with you an unclassified version if you wish. The CnA.nuu.N. We have the unclassified version. Many of us would like to read the classified version. Dr. FOSTER. Yes. The CHAIRlUN. I don't want to take this to my office. I ha.ve to sit here and read it. Dr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, only about 25 percent of the presentation this morning is deleted to form an unclassified version. Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Foster, would you furnish the committee with a eopy of the classified version, marking those parts that are cla.ssified Dr. FOSTER. Certainly, Mr. Gehrig, I will be pleased to do that. (The document referred to is in the committee files.) The CHAIRMAN. There are 48 pages in one and 68 pages in the other. It is pretty hard to go back and decide why you have cut things out.
OOIr-NABA COORDINATION
Are there any specific areas of research and development which you believe NASA should emphasize more heavily in order to give the fullest support to the requirement of the Department of Defense Dr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, we are working verr. closely in cooperation with NASA, each one telling the other in detaIl
640
about the programs that are being undertaken. To my knowledge the answer to your question is that, there are no avenues of special interest to the DOD which we think the NASA should enhance. MOL FUNDING The CHAIRMAN. How much money is in the DOD budget for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program? Dr. FOSTER. $158.7 million I believe is the amount. The CHAIRMAN. What was the DOD request from the Bureau of
theBudget~
Dr. FOSTER. You mean the Air Force, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Dr. FOSTER. I believe if I recall it was $394 million. The CHAIRMAN. The DOD request? Dr. FOSTER. No, the DOD request is just the number indicated, $158.7 million. The CHAImIAN. The budget worked on it a little bit. What was the original request? Dr. FOSTER. The original request from the Air Force? The CHAIRMAN . Yes. Dr. FOSTER. I believe it was $394 million. The CHAImIAN. What is the total amount of money available to the MOL program in fiscal 1967 ? Dr. FOSTER. The new obligation authority being requested is $158.7 million. The CHAImIAN. Plus carryover? Dr. FOSTER. Anticipate that the carryover, Mr. Chairman, will amount to perhaps $50 or $60 million. The CHAIRMAN. Around $90 million? Dr. FOSTER. I don't believe so. NASA EXPERIMENTS ON MOL FLIGHTS The CHAIRMAN. Is there any room on the MOL flights for NASA experiments? Dr. FOSTER. There are no firmly planned experiments by NASA or DOD to be included on the early launches of the MOL experiments. The CHAIRMAN. The first MOL flights are filled, aren't they? Dr. FOSTER. That is correct. MOL USE OF APOLLO
FAC~
The CHAIRMAN. In the statement submitted for the record you discuss very briefly the use by MOL of the Apollo facilities. Are there any other areas where Apollo and MOL might use the same facilities? Dr. FOSTER. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. I would like to look into that one and add to the record if there are any that have escaped my memory. The CHAIRMAN. Very fine, Dr. Foster. Senator Smith. Senator SMITH. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAB 1987

DOD AND NASA COOPERATION ON SPACE EXPLORATION
641
I would like to join with you in complimenting Dr. Foster and his people on this comprehensive statement that he has given to us. Dr. Foster, as you know, we are not only interested in DOD space program operations but particularly its interface with NASA programs and operations. Throughout your statement you cite numerous examples to show the cooperative arrangement to insure that smooth interface. The NASA witnesses have done likewise in their statements to this committee, and this mutual effort is commendable. In an effort to best understand how these problems of common concern are worked out, I would like to refer to your unclassified statement, and ask you several questions. Doctor, you list six common problems that received the attention of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinated Board during the past year. Who makes u~~hat Board Dr. FOSTER. While we are getting the exact membership, Senator Smith, the board is cochaired by Dr. Seamans of NASA. and myself. The DOD members are Mr. Fink, Mr. Rogers, General Kronauer, Mr. Kirk, and Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for R. & D. Alexander Flax. Now for NASA, in addition to Dr. Seamans there is Dr. Homer Newell, Dr. Mac Adams, Dr. George Mueller, Admiral Boone, and Bob Garbarini. I believe that is the complete list on both sides. Senator SMITH. Thank you. You may check on that for the record so that it will appear correctly. (Information referred to follows:)
MEMBERSHIP
OF THE
NASA-DOD AERoNAUTICS AND ASTBON'AUTICS CooBDnuTlNG BoARD AND PANELS
Cochairmen: Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Deputy Admlnistrator, NASA Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., Director of Defense Research and Engineering. DOD Secretaries : Mr. Richard J. Green, NASA Mr. Albert Weinstein, D.D.R. &; E., DOD Members-at-Iarge : Adm. W. F. Boone. USN(retlred). Assistant Administrator for Defense Aft'airs. NASA Mr. DeMarquis D. Wyatt, Assistant Administrator for Programing. NASA Dr. Homer E. Neweli. Associate Administrator for Space Science and Ap. plications. NASA Mr. Daniel J. Fink, Deputy Director (Strategic and Space Systems). O.D.D.R. &; E., DOD Dr. Alexander H. Flax. Assistant Secretary of the Alr Force (R. &; D.), DOD Mr. Thomas F. Rogers, Deputy Director (ElectroniCS and Information Systems), O.D.D.R. &; E., DOD Aeronautics panel: Chairman-Rear Adm. Noel A. M. Gayler, USN. Assistant Chief of Naval Operations (Development). OP 07-B, Oftice of Chief of Naval Operations, DOD Vice Chairman-Mr. Charles W. Harper, Office of Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology. NASA
642
Members: Dr. Floyd Thompson, Langley Research Center, NASA Mr. Mark R. Nichols, Langley Research Center, NASA Mr. Woodrow L. Cook, Ames Research Center, NASA Lt. Col. Frank Cole, AF, DCSIR. & D., Director of Science and Technology, DOD Mr. T. C. Muse, Office of Director of Defense Research and Engineering, DOD U.S. Army member vacant-nomination pending. Secretaries: Mr. Jack D. Brewer, Office of Associate Administrator for Advanced Re search and Technology, NASA Mr. Clem Weissman, Assistant for Aircraft Systems, OPNAV, DOD Alternate: Maj. Philip J. Conley, USAF, Missile and Aerodynamics, AFRDQPM, DOD Launch Vehicle Panel: Chairman-Dr. Alexander H. Flax, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (R. & D.), DOD. Vice Chairman-Mr. Milton W. Rosen, Office of Assistant Administrator for Defense Atrairs, NASA. Members: Mr. Edward Z. Gray, Office of Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, NASA. Mr. Vincent L. Johnson, Office of Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA. Mr. John L. Sloop, Office of Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, NASA. Oapt. O. O. Andrews, U.S. Navy, Bureau of Naval Weapons, DOD. Lt. Col. James C. Fitzpatrick, .Jr., U.S. Air Force, Directorate of Development, DCS/R. & D., DOD. Mr. Heinrich J. Weigand, Directorate of Development, DCS/R. & D., DOD. Secretaries: Maj. Romain C. Fruge, U.S. Air Force, DOD. Mr. Alfred Nelson, Office of Assistant Administrator for Programing, NASA. Alternate: Mr. A. O. Tischler, Office of Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, NASA. Mr. Joe Jones, Office of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (R. & D.), DOD. Manned Space Flight Panel: Chairman-Dr. George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, NASA. Vice Chairman-Dr. Alexander H. Flax, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (R. & D.), DOD. Members: Col. Jack Bollerud, U.S. Air Force, Deputy Director, Space Medicine, Office of Manned Space Flight, NASA. Maj. Gen. David M. Jones, U.S. Air Force, Office of Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, NASA. Mr. Edward Z. Gray, Office of Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, NASA. U.S. Air Force member vacant-nomination pending. Brig. Gen. Glenn A. Kent, U.S. Air Force, Deputy Director of Development Plans, DCSIR. & D .. DOD. U.S. Air Force alternate member vacant-nomination pending. Capt. H. L. Anderton, U.S. Navy, Assistant Director Development Facilities, Astronautics and Ranges Division, OPNAV, DOD. Secretaries: Lt. Col. Richard Dennen, Space Division Directorate of Operational Requirements and Development Plans, USAF, DOD. Mr. Jay Holmes, Office of Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, N MIA.
643
Alternate : Mr. John H. Disher, OtIlce of Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, NASA. Mr. Franklin J. Ross, OtIlce of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (R. & D.), DOD. Space Flight Ground Environment Panel: Chairman-Brig. Gen. ClitIord J. Kronauer, USAF, Assistant Director (Ranges and Space Ground Support), O.D.D.R. & E., DOD. Vice Chairman-Mr Edmond C. Buckley, Associate Administrator, Tracking and Data Acquisition, NASA. Members: Mr. Gerald M. Truszynski, OtIlce of Tracking and Data Acquisition, NASA. Mr. John T. Mengel, Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA. Capt. John Holcomb, U.S. Navy (retired), 01Ilce of Associate Admlnistrator for Manned Space Flight, NASA. Capt. E. N. Hitchcock, Jr., U.S. Navy, Head, Range Support Branch, Oftlce of Chief of Naval Operations (Development). DOD. Col. George Sammet, Jr., USA. Assistant Director of MissIles and Space, OtIlce of the Chief of Research and Development (OCRD) , DOD. Col. James B. Tapp, USAF, Chief, Range and Facilities Division, AFRDDC, DOD. Secretaries : Lt. Col. V. W. HllIiunond, U.S. Air Force, O.D.D.R. & E., DOD. Mr. Frederick Bryant, OtIlce of Tracking and Data Acquisition, NASA. Alternate: Mr. H. R. Brockett, OtIlce of Tracking and Data Acquisition, NASA. Col. James W. Heyrotb, U.S. Air Force, Deputy Chief, Ranges and Facilities Division, AFRDDC, DOD. Supporting Space Resear('h and Technology Panel: Chairman-Dr. Mac C. Adams, Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, NASA. Vice Chairman-Dr. Chalmers W. Sherwin, Deputy Director (Research and Technology), O.D.D.R. & E., DOD. Members: Mr. Milton B. Ames, Jr., OtIlce of Associate Administrator for Advanced Research Rnd Technology, NASA. Mr. William H. Woodward, OtIlce of Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, NASA. Dr. Walton L. Jones, OtIlce of Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, NASA. Mr. Frank J. Sullivan, OtIlce of Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, NASA. U.S. Navy member vacant-nomination pending. Brig. Gen. Edward B. Giller, U.S. Air Force, Director of Science and Technology, DOD. Dr. Guilford G. Quarles, OtIlce Chief~f Engineers, DOD. Secretaries : Lt. Col. Edward D. Harne)", U.S. Air Force, O.D.D.R. &: E., DOD. Mr. Reece Hensley, OtIlce of Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, NASA. Alternates: None desired. Unmanned Spacecraft Panel: Chairman, Mr. Robert F. Garbarini, Director of Engineering, OtIlce of .Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA. Vice Chairman, Mr. John Kirk, Assistant Director (Space Technology), O.D.D.R. & E., DOD. Members: Dr. John E. Naugle, 01Ilce of Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA. Mr. Leonard Jatre, OtIlce of Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA. Mr. Oran Nicks, OtIlce of Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA. Col. Francis J. Pallister, U.S. Army, OtIlce Chief of Research and Development, DOD.
644
Capt. C. C. Andrews, U.S. Navy, Astronautics Program Officer, Bureau of Naval Weapons,. DOD. Brig. Gen. Edward B. Giller, U.S. Air Force, Director of Science and Technology, DOD. Secretaries: Capt. Howard Silberstein, U.S. Navy, O.D.D.R. & E., DOD. Mr. Jack Posner, Office of Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA. Alternate: Mr. E. O. Pearson, Office of Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, NASA. Col. Chester .T. Butcher, U.S. Air Force, Directorate of Operational Requirements and Development Plans, DOD.
REUSABLE BOOSTER PROBLEMS Senator SMITH. One of the problems that came before this Bo~rd was to assess the desirability and feasibility of recovering and reusmg launch vehicles. This committee has been interested in that problem since as far back as 1961. On the occasion of that hearing, the testimony was, and I quote:
Studies have been conducted by both NASA and the Department of the Air Force over the past 2 years covering many conceivable techniques on recovering large boosters.
This quote from our June 1961 authorization hearings would indicate that NASA and DOD have been studying this problem for over 7 years. In your judgment, Dr. Foster, when would the subpanel currently studymg the problem reach a decision ~ Dr. FOSTER. Well, Senator Smith, the problem of being able to reuse the boosters economically will be overcome if one of two things takes place. Either we significantly increase the rate of launches or, two, we come across a new idea which substantially reduces the costs of using boosters a repeated number of times. . Mr. FINK. May I just add to that one. The current effort on reusable boosters is an ongoing study being conducted by the Panel, Senator Smith. Its primary pur{>ose is to try to identify those areas of research and development in thIs reusable booster area which should be pursued by both agencies, and that report I believe is due in June. Dr. FOSTER. That is correct, y,es. Senator SMITH. Of course If you can reuse them, then you would decrease the cost. Dr. FOSTER. Yes; that is certainly correct. Senator SMITH. Now is the delay coming about because you are waiting for new developments? Dr. FOSTER. As I tried to indicate, Senator Smith, I think the delay is that we have on the one hand either not a sufficiently high launch rate to justify reusing techniques, or we have not found to date a scheme which would provide for reusing the boosters at an economical cost. Senator SMITH. Of course this is a great task, but it does seem to me that we ought to have some kind of a specific report after a 7-year study of this problem. Dr. FOSTER. Yes. Senator Smith, I heard a preliminary report by the Panel in .January, and there was some niscussion, and now the formal report I unner'stann is due in ,J nne.
645
Senator SMITH. When that is ready, will it be available to this committee , Dr. FOSTER. I presume it would, Senator Smith. Senator SMITH. Would you have your people make a note of that! Mr. Chairman, I think the committee should have that. The CHAIRHAN. Have you specifically told your people to try to design a reusable booster ~ Dr. FosTER. We certainly are stud~ it, Mr. Chairman. That has been an intense effort, as Senator SmIth indicated, for a number of years now. If we were to launch at 5 to 10 times the rate then the current technology would provide for some benefits through the use of reusable boosters. The only alternative with our current rate of launching is to try and find some much more efficient way than those that have Deen imagined and calculated. The CHAIRMAN. Does your current rate of launching increase as the years go by' Dr. FosTER. It increases for a year or two, and then it seems to decrease. No one booster seems to get used heavily enough to support the reusable scheme. Senator SMITH. Do you know whether the Soviets reuse their launch vehicles, Doctor' Dr. FosTER. [Deleted.1
DOD-NASA COORDINATION ON CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIE8
Senator SMITH. Another common eroblem considered by the Board was the fiscal year 1967 proposed facilities construction. Do I understand correctly from your statement that each construction item appearing in the NASA fiscal year 1967 authorization request was reviewed by the Defense Department to determine if it duplicated an existing Defense Department facility' Dr. FOSTER. Yes, Senator Smith, that is correct. The Defense Department did review each one of these facilities, both those planned by DOD as well as those by the NASA, in addition, this Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board had a subcommittee to review just this particular area, and also made a report in January, and indicated that there were no unnecessary duplications. Senator SMITH. .And I presume that NASA reviewed the Defense Department's construction proposals in the same way for fiscal year 1967' Dr. FOSTER. Yes, that is correct, Senator. Senator SMITH. Do you know whether the Board was instrumental in removing any ~uested DOD or NASA construction item' Dr. FOSTER. I think, Senator Smith, that tends to be a bit of a chicken and egg problem. I think that those who would propose facilities know well that such scrutiny will arise. Senator SMITH. So the answer i~N0'" Dr. FOSTER. I am sure there is a tendency for each department to propose a facility, and then before it is formally requested, there is a certain amount of self-examination. .And so in fact none was proposed that the committee found represented an overlap.
646
Senator SMITH. Doctor, what I am getting at is that I have had experience with some of these committees and have tried to determine in my own mind just how far in agreement they are. Sometimes they are in agreement 98 percent of the time but the 2 percent when they are not III agreement often pertains to the big items. What I am trying to ascertain is whether this cooperation between the Defense Department and NASA is as real as would be indicated by the testimony before this committee, or are there differences requiring considera,ble give and take in order to find the solution? Dr. FOSTER. Well, Senator Smith, I must say quite ca,ndidly the first opportunity I had to come into contact with the space effort was on the particular meeting of the AACB, and when the reJ?ort was made on the particular item of overlap III construction actIvities, I questioned the report, feeling that of all of the activities in NASA and a,ll of the activities in Defense, surely there must be something, some issue somewhere. And so with the concurrence of Dr. Sea,mans, we sent the committee back to work to see if they couldn't identify some gradation somewhere. The slate simply seemed too clean. REACHING FINAL AGREEMENTS Sena,tor SMITH. That is what it seems to me, Dr. Foster. I'd like to find out just who makes the final decision. In this case you and Dr. Seamans get together, and if you don't agree entirely then it goes to this full coordinating board as I understand it. Dr. FOSTER. Well, I believe that it starts first at the oper&tional level, informal conversations between the individuals in NASA and in DOD on a common project or in a common area. It then goes to the AACB, where it is reviewed by a panel for that particular purpose. In the event there are any disagreements or need for policy guidance, it goes to the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinat.ing Committee, chaired as I indicated by Dr. Seamans and myself. That is the committee that has to resolve the issues. Senator SMITH. And that is the end of the line ~ Dr. FOSTER. No. Then it can go to Mr. McNamara and Mr. Webb. Senator SMITH. And is that the end of the line? Dr. FOSTER. Then I imagine it can go to the Space Council and perhaps even to the President. Senator SMITH. I know how hard it is to get agreement, especially between the Defense Department and NASA on some matters. I would feel as suspicious as you perhaps did, that there must be somethink there that is wrong. Sometime undoubtedly we will have a real example to follow through with, and see how far it does go, and how long It is delayed for that final decision. This is what I am referring to, the delay because of the disagreement. Dr. FOSTER. Well, I think, Senator, that the objectives of NASA and the objectives of Defense in the main are very different. Senator SMITH. That is right. Dr. FOSTER. And the Department of Defense, realizir.g that activities in space can hold the balance of power [deleted] make every effort to see that they are doing what ought to be done. In the snme way NASA sees space as a way to control the minds of men, and nre doing e,-erything they can, and there is very, very little
647
in common other than the ground facilities that support these two massive operations. I honestly can say I am just very impressed at the attitude and the spirit of cooperation that in fact does exist to the extent I can see it between these two agencies. Senator SHITH. Thank you very much Dr. Foster, I marvel at the way you get along and the progress that is made. I am not complaining, but I am always hoping there will be ways of preventing too much delay in areas requiring a decision. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRJ[AN. Senator Byrd. IMPORTANCE OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY
TO THE
NATIONAL
SECURITY
Senator BYRD. Dr. Foster, going through your statement, there are many applications of space technology to the national security. I will Hst several of them : One is [deleted] system which as I understand it will be able to detect ballistic missile launches anywhere in the world. 2. The Vela program which is already very successful and important to the test ban treaty, and we will soon be able to detect nuclear explosions all the way from those on the surface of the Earth to those in deep sI>ace. 3. Geodetic programs so imJX?rtant to the [deleted]. 4. Your meteorological actIvities so important to the military operations, [deleted]. 5. The defense satellite communications systems so necessary for command and control. 6. The Manned Orbiting Laboratory. Now it seems clear that our space capability is contributing significantly to the national security and to the security and freedom of not only the United States but of the rest of the world. Would you like to speak to that point. Dr. FOSTER. Well, Senator Byrd, I don't think I can put it any more sharply nor more effectively than you have. The Department of Defense IS not pursuing activities in space for the sake of activities in space. It is pursuing these activities in order to enhance our military capability,. INTERCHANGE OF PERSONNEL
BETWEEN
NASA AND
DOD
Senator BYRD. Let me ask you one other question. In your statement YOH say that 237 officers are currently. assigned to NASA, and that an additional 128 Air Force officers WIll be assigned for further training to NASA Mission Control Center at Houston, and that at the completion of their training they will be available to reassignment to the Air Force for the MOL program. Now how many NASA personnel are assigned to the Department of Defense ~ Dr. FOSnR. To my knowledge, Senator Byrd, at the moment there IS one. Senator BYRD. One assigned to the Department of Defense' Dr. Fos'T'ER. Yes; that is correct. Senator BYRD. Thank you. Dr. Fosua. Dr. Yarymovych.
59-941 0---66------42
648
Senator BYRD. Thank you. The CHAIRM AN. Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BUDGET FOR TITAN lIT R. & D.
Dr. Foster, how much is in your fiscal year 1967 defense space budget for the Titan III research and development? Dr. FOSTER. I believe it is about $65 million. Let me just check. It is $65.8 million. Senator JORDAN. Is all of that for the Titan IIIC, either the five se~ment or seven segment 120-inch solid strapon? Is any part of this required because of a stretched out schedule to meet the MOL requirements? Dr. FOSTER. The answer to the first question is "Yes," and to t.he second question I believe in all honesty there might be some total merease in dollars, due to the extension of the MOL schedule. Senator J OlmAN. How much ? Would you care to put an evaluation on it? Giv(j us a figure? Dr. FOSTER. Senator Jordan, we simply can't know. It might be as much as $2 or $:3 million though. Senator .JOI!DAN. What is the total cost of the Titan III now listed at? Dr. FOSTER. You mean-Senator JORDAN. The total. Dr. FOSTER. The total Titan III program? Senator .JORlJAN. That is right. Dr. FORl'ER. It will be about $955 million at the completion of the basic development program. Senator JORDAN. A little under $1 billion. Dr. FOSl'EF. That is correct; yes. Senator .JORDAN. How much of this is for construction funds for either the Eastern Test Range or the Western Test Range. Dr. FOSTER. The Eastern Test Range is $154 million, and the cost for the Western Test Range will be about $114 million, of which only $18 million for launch pads construction is included in the $995 million total. Senator .10HDAN. The total for both? Dr. FOSTER. For the Western Test Range. Senator .JORDAN. These sums are included-Dr. FOSTER. That is for construction and equipment. Senator .JORDAN. Yes, I see, and these are included in the overall figure you gave me? Dr. FOSTER. No. The overall figures I gave you are for the development of the Titan III vehicle. Senator .JORDAN. Yes. But the figures you gave me for the Eastern Test Range and the W"estern Test Range are not included in the overall. Dr. Fos'I'1m. The money for the Eastern Test Range that I quoted was included in the total costs that I gave earlier for the Titan III pl'Ogralll. The $IS millioll of the $1}.t. million for the Western Test Range costs represellt an addition that has yet to be added.
649
Senator JORDAN. To be added to the total. Dr. FOSTER. And the major part will be picked up under the Manned Orbiting Laboratory funding. Senator JORDAN. What was the original estimate for the basic research and development program on Titan Dr. FOSTER. I believe it was about a billion dollars.
m,
U6-INOH SOLID MOTOR
Senator JORDAN. How much money is in the DOD budget for the development of the solid motor ~ Dr. FosTER. In fiscal 1967 ~ Senator JORDAN. Yes. Dr. FosTER. It is $2 million, Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. How much is that down from the year before. Dr. FOSTER. In fiscal 1966 it was $6 million. Senator JORDAN. Indicating that you have about achieved what you want to know about it. Dr. FOSTER. Yes. I think, Senator Jordan, if we do not find a use for this vehicle in the next year and a half, we will likely terminate the effort. Senator JORDAN. Do your plans include application of the 156-inch solid motor to the Titan III' Dr. FOSTER. There are no firm plans for such use. Senator JORDAN. No firm plans. How far along are you in the development of this 156-inch motor! Dr. FosTER. Well, we have had a number of firings, Senator Jordan, at various thrust levels and for various times and with various cases, and thrust vector controls. It has reached the stage where we would have very high confidence of being able to use such a booster for manned or unmanned missions with perhaps a year and a half to 2 years of finalizing and configuration work. Senator JORDAN. No doubt you have studied the possibility of replacing the 120-inch motors with the 156-inch ~ Dr. FosTER. Yes, we certainly have, Senator. Our feeling at the moment is that there is no need to use these large boosters either for MOL or for any other of the likely missions. Senator JORDAN. That supports your statement that you don't feel constrained with respect to booster capability. Dr. FOSTER. Not at present. Senator JORDAN. At this level. I think that is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MILITARY
SEES
NO
NEED
FOR
260 "SOLID"
MOTOR AND
M-1
ENGINE
The CHAIRMAN. He stopped with the 156 inch. Does the military have any present or contemplated need for a 260 inch ~ Dr. FOSTER. No, Mr. ChaIrman; we do not. The ClLuRxAN. Or for the M-1 engine' Dr. FOSTER. I beg your pardon' The CHAIRMAN. Or for the M-1 engine?
650
Dr. FOSTER. No; I understand we do not have a need for that one either, Mr. Chairman. The CHAffiMAN. Mr. Gehrig. HIGH -ENERGY, HYDROGEN -OXYGEN ENGINES Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Foster, would you describe or furnish for the rec~rd a description of your program in high energy hydrogen-oxygen
engmes? Dr. FOSTER. I would prefer, Mr. Gehrig, to supply a description of that program for you for the record. (Information referred to follows:)
Answer. The high performance cryogenic liquid rocket technology program, based on the hydrogen-oxygen propellant system, is of interest to both NASA and the Air Force. For this reason, it was deemed appropriate to pursue a highly coordinated advanced development program which will serVe the future needs of both agencies for high performance chemical rocket propulsion systems. NASA and the Air Force are pursuing complementary program.s which are predicated on a substantial amount of exploratory development work sponsored by each agency over the past 4 years. The objectives of the Air Force program are: In phase I, to secure demonstration at the 250-K thrust level of critical performance goals and requisite cooling capabilities tor two essentially different technical approaches of comparable merit in order to evaluate each; and in phase 11, to demonstrate an integrally packaged engine module embodying a ,synthesis of the selected concepts. components 'and matching pumps. The contracts for phase I of the Air Force program have been awarded to two competitors. One will employ a 3,000 p.s.!., transpiration-cooled combustion chamber together with a topping cycle turbine drive and a high expansion ratio bell nozzle; the other a 1,500 p.s.i. toroidal combustion chamber together with a chamber tapoff turbine drive and an altitude compensating aerospike nozzle. [Delfted.] Sufficient data are not available at this time on which Ito base a choice between these concepts. Pursuing both approaches initially will preclude premature elimination of a promising approach and will assure that the approach selected for ultimate engineering development will incorporate the superior features of both concepts. Phase I of the Air Force program will run for 15 months from March 1, 1966, and will cost $10 million. It makes no provision for the development of high pressure hydrogen and oxygen pumps since this complementary effort is being funded by NASA. Phase II of the program will demonstrate an integrarted breadboard engine, but it is still a technology program which will support engineering development of fiight weight engines in the thrust range from 100,000 to 500,000 pounds which covers the specrtrum of potential interest to both agencies. The engine modules ultimately developed will serve singly as a high energy upper stage, or in a variety of multiple-engine clusters for the propulsion of reusable launch vehicles.
Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Chairman, I have some othe.r questions along that line that I will just submit to be answered for the record. The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. Mr. GEHRIG. Are you satisfied that your program in this field of advanced technology is fully coordinated with NASA's program ~ (Information refe.rred to follows:)
Answer. This program has been the subject of extensive coordination between NASA and the Air Force at both the working and the management levels. The Air Forcp issued a reviRed advan('ed development plan in August 1965 to provide for coordinated ('omplementary development of the te('hnology in the lig-ht of NASA programR. At subsequent meetfng~. NASA and the Air Force defined the
NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAB
ton
651
speci1lc content of the tecbnlcal effort to be funded by each agency in achieving complementary, nonredundant coverage of the program objectives. Both agencies collaborated in writing the request for proposal for the Air Force portion of the program. Both agencies collaborated in evaluating the bids, and NASA will continue to share in the technical surveillance of the Air F()ree program. On November 29, 1965. this program was reviewed by a joint session ul the Launch Vehicle Panel and the Space Supporting Research and Technology Panel of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board. It is the intention ()f these Panels to conduct simIlar reviews of the advanced liquid rocket technology program periodically. In brief. I am satls1led that eVery effort is being mad& toaeeu.re effective coordination and to conduct a national program.
Mr. GEHRIG. Are there any areas of duplication' (Information follows:)

Answer. There was some justl1la.ble duplication in the very early phases of the exploratory development program, but there is no dupUcation in the present program. This is a deliberate objective of the working level coordination that has been achieved.
Mr. GEHRIG. And how much are you requesting for the DOD portion of the national program in high-energy hydrogen-oxygen engines! (Information follows:)
Answer. The High Performance Cryogenic Liquid Rocket Teclmology Pr0gram of the Air Force is in the advanced development category, with an FY 1966 allocation of $8.0 milliOn, and proposed FY 1967 funding of f6.0 million.
Mr. GEHRIG. In your statement, Dr. Foster, you discuss your highperformance, high-pressure hydrogen-oxygen engine technology and say thata joint memorandum of agreement was worked out to prevent duplication of efforts between NASA and DOD in this area through calendar year 1969.
Would you put a copy of that agreement in the record at this point with the committee's permission, Mr. Chairman ~ Dr. FOSTER. Mr. Gehrig, I would like to check with NASA; and if they have no objections, I certainly have none. The CHAIRMAN. Could we leave it this wa.y ~ We will ask to have it submitted to the committee for its files, and you will check with NASA as to whether or not it can be put in the record. Dr. FOSTER. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The information referred to follows:)
~ASA and the Air Force worked out a memorandum of agreement which was signed by working level representatives of both agencies on or before April 15, 1965. This memorandum (which is avaIlable) covers only the procedural aspects of pursuing a coordinated technology program and was executed prior to a definition of the technical content of the NASA and Air Force portions of the program. For this reason I believe that your committee would be better served by a position statement which is currently being coordinated by two panels of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board. This statement will describe the responsibilities of each agency with respect to the substantive content of the program as well as the commitment to pursue a national progriun. A copy of this statement will be furnished for your committee files as soon as it has been reviewed and approved by the AACB.
Mr. GEHRIG. What is the relationship of your efforts in meteorology that you speak of in your prepared statement, and those that are being conducted under NASA's Nimbus program! Dr. FOSTER. Well, are you referring to the [deleted] satellite?
652
Mr. GEHRIG. I am referring to the work in-Dr. FOSTER. [Deleted.] Mr. GEHRIG. [Deleted.] Dr. FOSTER. [Deleted.] Mr. GEHRIG. [Deleted.] NIMBUS SATELLITE IMPORTANT TO DEFENSE Mr. GEHRIG. Do you believe that the Nimbus experiments are important to meeting the requirements of the Department of Defense ~ If you would prefer, you might answer that question for the record. Dr. FOSTER. Yes, they will provide valuable data to the Department of Defense. Mr. GEHRIG. If you would like to review that and put something additional in the record, I think that might be very helpful to the committee. Dr. FOSTER. Certainly. I would be pleased to. (The information referred to follows:)
Dr. FOSTER. The Nimbus meteorological satellite experiments, as planned and conducted by the NASA, will certainly make important contributions to the state of the art and thereby provide useful information that can be used in future operational satellite systems. The main thrust of the program is toward the collection of quantitative measurements of atmospheric parameters that will contribute to long-range forecasts produced by computers. The DOD has a requirement for long-range forecast for strategic and logistiC purposes, but our most urgent need at the present Is to improve short-range forecasts for tactical operations. A part of the Nimbus program is devoted to testing sensors and other devices that might be considered in a potential military system design. We are closely monitoring this portion of the Nimbus program and will use such means as are at our disposal to Sef> that the best technology available is used to satisfy our needs.
Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Foster, your discussion on nuclear test monitoring in the prepared statement was very interesting. [Deleted.] Dr. FOSTER. [Deleted.] Mr. GEHRIG. [Deleted.] Dr. FOSTER. [Deleted.] Mr. GEHRIG. [Deleted.] Dr. FOSTER. [Deleted.] Mr. GEHRIG. [Deleted.] Dr. FOSTER. [Deleted.] Mr. GEHRIG. [Deleted.] Dr. FOSTER. [Deleted.] Mr. GEHRIG. rDeleted.] Dr. FOSTER. [Deleted.] Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questioning I have. Senator Cannon has some questions that he would like to have answered for the record. He can't be here this morning, and there are a few other questions that we would like to have answered for the record. The CHAIRMAN. Will you do that, Dr. Fosted Dr. FOSTER. Certainly, we will be pleased to do that. (Quesfions submittp<-{ hy Senator Cannon to Dr. Foster and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)

BEVEN SEGMENT TITAN
m~
653
TO DELIVEB KOL PAYLOAD
Question 1. Dr. Foster, it is understood that to accommodate the weight of the MOL it is necessary to utilize seven-segment 12O-inch solid strapons for the Titan III rather than the ftve-segment strapons originally planned. Is this a correct statement? Answer. That is correct. The five-segment 12O-inch solid motor which was developed for the Titan III-C will be lengthened to seven segments. This increased solid motor total impulse together with several other performance improvements to the Titan III core vehicle will provide approximately a 50percent increase in payload capability. This seven-segment Titan III-C oonfiguration will meet the MOL payload delivery capability. Question 2. Do you feel that the weight growth of the MOL is under control or do you think additional launch vehicle capability is going to be required to support this project? Answer. The weight growth of the MOL is under control. At this point in our program definition phase we feel confident that the MOL contractors can meet the target weights and that the seven-segment Titan III-C can satisfactorily launch the MOL payload. Our changes to the Titan III-D are the miuimum necessary for MOL and we have no plans to further uprate the vehicle at this time.
NO CUBBENT PLANS FOB MOL TO CABBY NASA ED'I:BIlIENTS
Question 3. Is there Ilny payload weight available in the MOL launches now planned for NASA experiments? Answer. There is no payload weight available for NASA experiments on the currently approved series of manned MOL launches. As you know, we are presently in the contract definition phase of the MOL program. Detailed engineering studies are being made of the orbiting vehicle configuration. Until studies are completed we cannot detenuine whether any payload weight will be available for NASA experiments. The Air Force will, of course, make aVailable to NASA any capacity wilich is not required for meeting DOD objectives. Question 4. Does this mean that if NASA wants to use the Titan III-C MOL for manned experiments, additional MOL laboratories over and above what you have now planned would have to be launched? Answer. This is yet to be determined as I have pointed out in my answer to your previous question.
LONGER I.II!'It'l'DoIE IN ORBIT
Question 5. DOD has 11 Manned Orbiting Laboratory program which will have an orbital lifetime of 30 days. NASA earth orbiting Apollo miBBions will have a maximum lifetime of 45 days-later maybe 90 days. [Answer deleted] Would much longer orbital lifetimes for manned systems be of interest to the DOD? [Answer deleted.]
BEDlCSIGN OF UPBATZD TITAN
III~
Question 6. Do you have to redesign the Titan core to uprate the Titan III-C to use the 7-segment, 12O-inch solids? [Answer deleted.] Question 7. To uprate the Titlln III-C to the 7-segment, 12O-lnch solid must you redesign the core with larger tanks and also redesign the nozzles of. both the core engines and the solid engines? Please discuss. [Answer deleted.] Question 8. Isn't that quite a drastic redesign 80 that the Titan III-C with seven solids is a completely new booster? Answer. The changes planned for the Titan III-C vehicle are the miuimum necessary [delete] the MOL [delete]. These changes do provide a substantial increase in vehicle performance; however, they are considered to be comparatively modest, not drastic, changes. Question 9. What is the estimated cost-research, development, and testing-to uprate the Titan III-C to a seven-segment solid? [Answer deleted.] Question 9. When you go to the Titan III-C seven-segment, 12O-inch, solidmotor launch vehicle, will that require you to go through a completely new test program [deleted]? [Answer, deleted.]
654
Question 10. How long will it take to develop the 120-inch, seven-segment, solid launch vehicle? Answer. The Titan III-C seven-segment launch vehicle for MOL development will require approximately 2lh years.
SOVIET MILITARY SPACE PROGRAM
Question 11. Can we have your ideas on the scope and probable direction of the Soviet military space program? [Answer deleted.] Question 12. Dr. Foster, DOD and NASA have an interagency a~reement f~r joint participation in the early gravity gradient stabilization experIment. It. IS noted that now both DOD and NASA have undertaken separate follow-on graVlty gradient satellite experiments. (Remainder of question and answer deleted.)
NASA BIOSATELLITE PROGRAM
Question 13. Dr. Foster, as you know NASA has a six-flight biosatellite research program underway. To what extent is the Department of Defense participating in the NASA program and utilizing these spacecraft to conduct its experiments? Answer. The Department of Defense has closely followed the developments in the NASA biosatellite program and the Air Force specifically has worked with the Office of Space Science and Applications in the design and selection of experiments which are incorporated in the NASA program. The Department of Defense has made available to NASA its experience in development of life support systems which are related to biosatellites. Question 14. Has the Air Force proposed a separate biological sateHite program? If so, what is the current status and why could not this be accommodated within the NASA biosatellite program? Answer. At various times in the past Air Force has considered a separate biosatellite program. However, at present, no such program is being planned or pursued. The Air Force will rely on the NASA program entirely to obtain such data as it requires.
(Questions submitted by the committee to Dr. Foster and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
TITAN lll-C FAILURES
Question 1. The Transtage of the second Titan III-C you launched exploded in orbit. Would you give the committee the details of that failure? Answer. The second launch of the Titan III-C occurred on October 15, 1965. On this fiight all four stages operated successfully in achieving an initial elliptical orbit with apogee at 407 nautical miles and perigee at 99 nautical miles. Following a coast period the second Transtage ignition was commanded at the proper time and the second burn was nominal. At the end of the second burn one of the two Transtage engines continued to operate after shut down command. This resulted in loss of control of the Transtage, tumbling and subsequent breakup. The difficulty was traced to a pilot valve failure. Corrective action was taken and this component operated without difficulty on the third Titan III-C flight. Question 2. Would you describe the failure of the third Titan III-C launched? Answer. The third launch of the Titan III-C occurred on December 21, 1965. This development launch was to demonstrate the capability of the Titan III-C vehicle to achieve a near synchronous equatorial orbit [deleted]. The initial 90 nautical miles parking orbit with the required 28.6 inclination was achieved. With the second burn of the Transtage, the required transfer orbit with apogee at 18,260 nautical miles and perigree at 100 nautical miles was also achieved. However, shortly after the initial parking orbit was rooched, telemetry data confirmed a leak in the oxidizer control valve on one of the Transtage attitude control pitch engines. Subsequently, the attitude control system oxidizer supply was depleted. This attitude control system malfunction prevented flnal injection into the desired near synchronous orbit.
655
It should be noted that payloads LES-3 (UHF experiment), LES--4 (X-band experiment), and Oscar (amateur radio transponder) were ejected and provided useful data, although not in the proper orbit. OV 2-3 (particle and field experiments) was not ejected and provided no data. Subsequent analysis of this flight showed that the attitude control valve failure was due to contamination in the oxidizer system. In preparing the next Titan III-C vehicle for flight in May 1966, extensive effort is being placed on reviewing and tightening all critical procedures relating to manufacturing and quality control, particularly those which are related to contamination control. Reacceptance testing of all critical hardware and recycling the vehicle through the contractor's vertical test facility is currently underway.
USE OF HOUSTON CONTROL FOR MOL
Question 3. Dr. Foster, has the use of the Houston Control Center for MOT. flights been studied? Answer. During the past 2 years the Air Force has made extensive studies of the already existing and planned major facilities, including the Houston Control Center, which could lend themselves partially or wholly to the support of new space programs. Personnel of the Air Force Space Systems Division, Aerospace Corp., National Range Division, Satellite Control Facility, NASA, Army, Navy, and associated contractors have participated in various phases of these studies. These studies indicated the SCF network is ideally situated to provide required coverage for satellites in polar orbits and does not represent unnecessary duplication of ETR facilities. The SCF has been in continuous operation for over 4 years [deleted]. It is a multimission oriented network nnder central control of the Satellite Test Center, Sunnyvale, Calif. It already maintains a continuous operational manning level providing station support 24 hours a day, 7 daYB a week. The capabilities exhibited by the SCF in support of unmanned flights will adequately cover the majority of support reqnired by manned flights. Additional requirements by a manned military satellite program will consist of stringent abort pr0cedures, manned recovery, receipt and analysis of biomedical data, and secure voice communications. Question 4. Could the Houston Control Center be used to control the MOL mission in an emergency? Answer. Based on studies referenced in the previous answer the MOL mission could not be a<-"Complisbed using the Houston Control Center. [Deleted.]
DEFENSE COMMUNICATION SATELLITE SYSTEM
Question 5. How often do you estimate the satellites of the Initial Defense Communications Satellite System will have to be replaced? [Answered deleted.] Question 6. At what level is the Defense Communications Satellite Program funded for fiscal year 1967? [Answer deleted.]
DOD'S USE OF ETR
Question 7. What is the trend in the use of the Eastern Test Range by the Department of Defense? Answer. DefenRe use of Cape Kennedy was heaviest during the development of large ICBM and space boosters. A peak in such activity was reached during the 196()..6I time period. While the workload is now somewhat reduced, the present DOD launch rate is expected to remain about constant with only minor fluctuations occurring during the foreseeable future.
URE OF CAPE KENNEDY FOB INTERNATIONAL LAUNCHES
Question 8. Would the Defense Department have any adverse reaction to the greater use of Kennedy by NASA for international cooperative launches? Answer. The DOD has no objection to the greater use of Cape Kennedy by NASA for international cooperative launches so long as adequate security safeguards for military programs at the cape can be satisfactorily maintained. Question 9. Can Defense make use of any of the Apollo ground support net stations for the MOL operations? That is, are we building any flexibility into this net? [Answer deleted.]
656
(Questions submitted by Senator Holland to Dr. Foster and answers supplied for the record are as follows:)
DOD'S BUDGET FOR SUPPORT AT ETR
Question 1. How much is in the Department of Defense fiscal year 1967 budget for the support of the Eastern Test Range? Answer. The total DOD funds requested for support of the Air Force Eastern Test Range for fiscal year 1967 is $224.2 million.
DOD'S BUDGET FOR SUPPORT OF WTR
Question 2. For the Western Test Range? Answer. The total funds requested for support of the Air Force Western Test Range for fiscal year 1967 is $69.6 million.
(The prepared statement submitted by Dr. Foster referred to on p. 634 follows:)

PREPABED STATEMENT BY THE DIRECTOR DEFENSE RESEARCH DR. JOHN S. FOSTER, JR. AND ENGINEERING
The Department of Defense Space Program

GENERAL REVIEW
The Department of Defense space program covers a broad spectrum of orbital operations, technology, and science. Our mission oriented programs include such diverse systems as the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, navigation, early warning, meteorology, and communications. The technology programs are represented by such efforts as spacecraft technology and reentry tests, materials and structures, the space power program, and propulsion technology. In the space sciences, the military program includes projects for the study of the Aurora, solar flares, solar and galactic radiation, solar winds, very low propagation in the magnetosphere, the Earth's gravity field, and experimetns in bioastro nautics; to name just a few. Over the past decade, the military space program has reached a stage of maturity where the emphasis is no longer on whether a specific mission can be performed in space, but rather which means of performing the mission is the most effective operational and economical approach. Consequently, the DOD space effort enjoys no unique position in our research and development program, but rather is a listing of space or space-related elements spread on a functional basis throughout the R.D. T. & E. program and budget structure. When proposed space systems compete directly with ground-based systems, they are judged by the same rigorous standards as those applied to all of the other defense activities, despite the environment. In those cases which clearly indicate specific functions that can only be performed in space, the potential alteration of basic military strategies that could accrue and the effect it may portend on other ground-based equipments is carefully weighed. To bring mission-oriented space systems into fruition, the DOD must support a broad technological base in space research and development. Here the DOD efforts must be considered as an integral part of the National Space Program. Care is always exercised to insure that there is no unnecessary duplication, as well as to make certain that the DOD can take full advantage of the research and development being performed by all Government agencies.
THE DOD SPACE BUDGET
The military space program funding plan for fiscal year 1967 calls for $1.621 billion. This compares with $1.694 billion in fiscal year 1966. If the accompanying budget table is examined, it can be seen that the reduction is baSically associated with the vehicle and engine development category. This is brought about by the fact that the major funding needs of the Titan III family of space boosters has been sa tisfied. . The fiscal year 1967 outlays for space rese(lrch and exploratory development amount to about $195 million or about 13.0 percent of the total DOD eft'ort in
657
these R. & D. categories. These funds are spent for projects which are not required to have a detailed justification in terms of end use approval. It is in this budget category that is found the so called space-related programs where an estImated percentage of the program element is determined to be space or space-relatcifeffort. Examples in this category are Biological and Medical Research, Materials Research, Aerospace Propulsion, Laboratory Research Support, and a variety of study efforts.
DOD Spaoo aM Space-Related Programs 1
[By :fiscal years In mill1ona)
1963
1964
89.7 80.2 27.9 6L5 66.9 389.8 171.9 157.9 553. 5 1,599.3
1965 47.0 25.7 27.6 50.4 32.1 274.4 235.1 167.1 713.0 1,579.4
1966 152. 0 53.11 17.7 511.9 9.0 199.1 239.2 155. 5 807.2 1,693.5
1967 166. 7
62.3
'-.
~unSCo!s~~~~~~.~~=:::::=:::::::::::::=::::=
Navigation .. _. _._ ....... _. _.... _.. _............... _. Spaceborne detection .......... _..................... defense .. _ ............. _... _.... _............. ehicle and engineering development.._ .............. Space ground support J_ " . . ' . ' . " . . '." ' . " . ' _ Supporting research and development "_ ............. General support __ ........ _.. _._ ............ _..... _. TotaL_ ... __ ... "' ... _..... __ ........ _.........
13L8 35.4 42.1 102.4 40.9 286.1 167.7 174. 3 569.2 1. MIl. 9
20.9 46.0 10.1 103.0 268.2 157.1 794..4 1,620. 7
1 All plOKl8l1l totals are as contained In the PresIdent's budget for fiscal year 1967. J Includes range supportt.~entstion, gronnd-balled satellite detection, trsck:Ing and I Includes basic and appliea research and component development.
control.
Includes laboratory and _ c h centel" In-house programs, development support Mganlzatlons, general operational support, spaoo-related mlJ1tsry construction, not otherwise charged to speclfte space protects.
In Advanced Development there is about $307 million, representing about 37 percent of the total program in this category. These funds support programs that represent distinct hardware develppments which have a potential for evolving into operational space systems. It is in this funding category that you find such major efforts as MOL, SatelHte Communications, Early Warning, and Reentry Technology. About $1.1 billion is programed in fiscal year 1967 representing space systems effort in engineering development, operation systems development, associated procoremeIlft, general support, and operations and maintenance. Included here is also the space-related funding associated with the National Missile Ranges and other general support requirements. It is expected that the mliltary space program will remain stable at or sligh!tly below $2 billion for the near future. The ratio of R. &; D. to pr0curement will vary with the number of systems being brought into operation, but no dramatic change is expected in the total dollar allocation.
DEFENSE MISSION PROJECTS AND 8UPPOBTING TECHNOLOGY
The basic objective of the Defense Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Program is the pursuit of discrete developments which will insure that the United States maintains qualitative superiority in all aspects of the defense program. This principle is applied equally to the military space program. During the early years of the space age, it was recognized that there was a potential for space-based systems to augment eartb-based capabilities and to provide capabilities that only the uniqueness of space operations made poee1ble. These included such systems as navigllltion, meteorology, early warning, communications, and geodesy. There has been really no change in our space system objectives since those early days. There has been, however, a dramatic change in our capability to achieve a meaningful approach to achieving those objectives. We are no longer constrained by lack of booster lifting capability, and our technology has permitted us to begin to realize the full potential in the area of Ren!'or developments. This (foes not mean that all uncertainties in achieving the desired capabilities have disappeared. It simply means that we have reached a level of maturity so that more and more of the military potentials of space can be realized.
658
The program set forth in this statement has been designed to be responsive to clearly defined, high priority national defense needs. The following is a summarization of those neeus and the mlssion programs designed to fulfill them.
Early warning
We are reorienting and extending the capabllities and mission of the program. 'l'he continuing advance of technology now will allow us to add significant new and additional capabilities to this satellite. These capabilities include location of ballistic missile launch points, detecting nuclear detonations for mi.ssile strike reporting, attack assessment, and test ban monitoring. The early warning features under development offer the potential for significant increases in the capability of the strategic offense force and for limiting damage to the United States by providing high quality real time information to command centers. In an early warning capacity, the system is being configured to provide worldwide coverage of all strategic ballistic missile launches including Nth country launches, and, particularly, those from submarines.
Manned orbiting labwatory
On August 25, 1965, the President approved the development of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory in a program which includes five manned orbital tests, each of about 30 days' duration. The objectives are to improve knowledge of man's ability in space and its application to military purposes, to develop technology and equipment for the advancement of manned and unmanned space flight and to perform meaningful military experiments. The MOL will concentrate on the investigation, developing, and testing, in a spacecraft laboratory, of those equipments and ideas which bear promise of military usefulness. The entire program, therefore, falls within the Research and Development classification. Upon program approval, Contract Definition was initiated with the MOL contractors who were selected from the previous competition. During the current period, which is expected to extend until about May of this year, development proposals will be prepared, accurate cost estimates will be made, and interface specification will be finalized, based upon designs for the system. Detailed schedules will be established during this definition phase. The DOD program management is established and in full-scale operation. Management and technical interfaces among contractors, subcontractors, and government agencies are being defined. NASA participation in the MOL will be extensive, primarily related to the use of the basic Gemini spacecraft in the Gemini UR" and the adaptation of a considerable amount of NASA-developed components in the laboratory module. NASA may also participate by carrying out certain technological experiments of scientific interest on a noninterference basis. The Navy is also participating in the MOL program. There is a Navy field office, to aid in the cooperative efforts, located at the Space Systems Division in California. The Navy is currently studying certain experiments peculiar to their interests. The committee recalls that an extensive study of the Apollo suitability to perform the MOL military mission was conducted by the Air Force with NASA assistance prior to the President's decision. This examination was given careful consideration in the course of arriving at that dl'cision. It waR determined that, as now designed, the Saturn-Apollo is not wl'll configurl'd to perf(}rm the MOL military mission. The development cost to adapt the Apollo system, as well as projected recurring costs, would be much grl'ater than to u"e Gemini and suitable NASA life support subsystems with the Titan IIlC. The cost of such an approach would most certainly have exceeded the prollram now in progress. Support resources will consist primarily of those already in existence. All of the Satellite Control Facility in Sunnyvale, Calif., will support MOL. In some cases, augmentation which is already planned will apply to the MOL. A modest amount of further addition and alteration will be nl'edl'd in order to handll' the peculiar mannl'd nel'd~ of the MOL. MOL will U~I' the Allollo facilitil's wherever possible and acceptable to NASA for either direct support or for !'tandby needs. I refer to such things as selectl'd ground monitoring station!' and Apollo range ships. Discussions are in progress on use of sllch facilitil's; however,
659
details are not yet worked out. at the Western Test Range.
Nuclear test ban monitoring
Finally, a new launch pad will be constructed
The Vela Nuclear Test Detection Satellite is a research and development effort in the design and 1Hght test of suitable sensors to support the fourth safeguard of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. The Vela satellite development is aimed at providing a capability for detection, location, and reporting of nuclear explosions from the outer reaches of space to the surface of the Earth. There are presently 6 Vela satellites operating at altitudes of 60,000 miles performing this function. Two were launched in 1963; two in 1964; and two in 1965. All are performing the mission of sampling the normal background radiation and mOnitoring for clandestine nuclear test anywhere in space. A unique advantage of a satellite-based nuclear test detection system is that the satellites can operate above the radiation absorbing atmosphere. Thus, the detector systems can observe direct nuclear radiations from weapons detonated in space and the upper atmosphere. The orbiting altitude, 60,000 nautIcal miles, of the Vela satellites has also been chosen to be above the magnetosphere where charged particle radiations are low and offer little interference with n;uclear sensors and solar power systems. A small portion of the effort of the Vela Satellite program is devoted to very basic research into new types of sensors suitable for satellite application and for studies of satellite detection systems; the primary emphasis, however, is on the design, development, and launch of satellites specifically designed to evaluate new sensors and detection techniques. To meet this objective, space radiation background is measured, and the performance of prototype detectors in the environment of space is evaluated. Vela Satellite is actually a joint effort of the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission. The Advanced Research Projects Agency provides overall program management, particularly in regard to programing, planning, and policy. The USAF, through the Air Force Systems Division, acts as an agent of ARPA for the design, development, launching, and traCking of the spacecraft. The AEC, through Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and Sandia Corp., supplies the nuclear sensors and logic Systems and evaluates their performance. Information on space background radiation is of great interest and importance to Project Vela. Earlier it was mentioned that the radiation detectors and some auxiliary spacecraft detectors supply some background environment data. On each of the three launchings, a small research satellite has also been carried aloft and placed into a high elliptical orbit, 100 by 60,000 nautical miles, to measure trapped radiation, cosmic rays, solar and galactic gamma rays, and solar X-rays both inside and outside the magnetosphere at all altitudes of interest to Vela satellite experiments. The first two research satellites did not provide a significant amount of usable data; however, the last satellite, designated an Octohedral Research Satellite, or ORB-III, transmitted good data for about 4 months. The data will soon be reduced and distributed to the general scientific community. The l'!iASA/STADAN stations provide orbital computations, satellite tracking and telemetry data acquisition for the Department of Defense.
The Geodetic and Geophysical program
The DOD program is coordinated with those of NASA and the Department of Commerce and the Coast and Geodetic Survey (C. & G.B.) to take advantage of the specialized skills and equipment available. The geodetic data aceruing from this national effort will be used to improve the world geodetic system (WGS). The Army is presently utilizing their Secor (Sequential Collation of Range) system in the Pacific Ocean area to fulfill operational reqUirements. They are observing Secor transponders that were launched pick-a-back, and Geos A. The Navy has been observing Doppler instrumented satellites in variOUS orbital inclinations for several years. As part of the DOD GSP, the Navy will continue to acquire, reduce, and analyze the variations of the Doppler frequencies from the geodetic and navigation satellites to provide data for the determination of the Earth's gravitational potential and geodetic coordinates for stations location as required. The Doppler Satellite Geodetic Tracking Network is made up of 13 semipermanent stations, which were established under the Navy's R. &: D. program, primarily for navigation purposes, plus five mobile vans.
660
The Air Force will observe the fiashing light on Geos A and B with their ballistic camera systems. At the present time, they are observing Geos A from sites in the southeastern United States. The very precise observational data from these sites will serve several purposes in the imprOVement of the World Geodetic System. This and other satellite data will be used in conjunction with gravity measurements to establish a more precise earth gravity model. As has been stated before, the DOD program is designed to take advantage of skills and equipment of several participants working together in a coordinated program. Each organization is providing a vital piece of data which will be utilized to accomplish the required revisions of the World Geodetic System.
Na'lJigaUon
Current Earth-based navigation aids and celestial navigation techniques have limitations in providing accurate position-fixing information. These limitations range from lack of an all-weather capability in the case of celestial systems to the requirements for plaCing a number of transmitter stations on foreign soil in the case of radio navigation systems. As for accuracy, the Navigation Satellite is about an order at magnitude more accurate than other navigation techniques. The current Navy Navigation Satellite has been in use operationally for over a year. It is providing precise positioning information for the Fleet Ballistic Submarine Force, attack aircraft carriers, and other select surface ships which require precise position information. The Satellite System has demonstrated that it is far superior to any other scheme for position fixing currently in use. Very recent tests to determine the possibility of using the Navigation Satellite to determine aircraft position have indicated that high accuracies are well within the capabilities of the system. Further testing is in order before the Navy can determine the operational and economic advantages of using the current satellite for aircraft navigation. However, it appears most promising.
A.nti-8ateZUte program
At the present time, there are two operational Anti-Satellite Systems. The Army system, employing Nike-Zeus missiles and radars, has been operational since 1963. The Air Force system employs Thor missiles. This system has been operationally in place since 1964. Both systems utilize detection and tracking information provided by the SPADATS network.
M eteoroZogv
History is replete with instances where accurate judgment of the weather conditions, or lack of such knowledge, has been a major factor in the outcome of a land campaign or a sea engagement. Military operations on a global scale, if successful, must acquire accurate knowledge of the present and future meteorological conditions anywhere in the world on a 24-hour basis. As has been stated earlier before this committee, the DOD is participating with NASA and the Department of Commerce in a cooperative national satellite meteorological effort known as the TOS (Tiros Operational Satellite) System. One of the objectives of TOS is to provide the DOD with an early interim military capability. However, from a military standpoint, the TOS System cannot always satisfy our needs since it places an undue burden on the national system to guarantee that we will get a satellite pass over the area of interest which will coincide with the need for weather information in a given theater of military operations. With the development of better sensors, it is now possible to consider seriously performing the meteorological mission from synchronous altitude. The obvious advantage is the fact that the dynamics of the weather over an area of interest can be kept under observation continually. Our interest in such a system has been made known to NASA and the Department of Commerce, and the DOD intends to conduct a feasibility demonstration of such a meteorological concept in calendar year 1967. It is our intent to provide the data, not only to the weather services of the three military departments, but to NASA, the Department of Commerce, and the scientific community as well. In order to conduct this experiment as early as possible with the least cost to the Government, the Navy has been directed to modify an existing spacecraft which was to be a backup for the near synchronous altitude DOD Gravity Gradient Experiment (Dodge). The Dodge Satellite already contained many of the necessary subsystems for performing the experiment and, in addition, should
661
it be necessary to repeat the Dodge experiment, both experiments will be performed in a Bingle spacecraft. This is a graphic example of planning for economies in space development. The synchronous meteorological feasibility demonstration experiment, dubbed DODGE-M, is not intended as a forerunner of a unique meteorological satellite system, but is instead designed to ultimately determine the practicality of combining the meteorological sensor function with other satellite functions.. This then would represent an approach to the multipurpose satellite concept which Dr. Brown described to the committee during his appearance in August 1965.
Deteme satellite commuftWattoM activitiu

In his statement to this committee in March 1965, Secretry Vance advised you of actions leading to the decision to proceed with a Defense satellite communications program and of our progress up to that time. I would now like to bring you up to date on these activities to include(1) the Initial Defense Communications Satellite Project (IDCSP), (2) the Advanced Defense Communications Satellite Project (ADCSP), (3) the operation of Syncom sateilites and ground terminals, (4) the Tactical Satellite Communications Program (TSCP), (5) supporting research and development, and (6) actions with the NASA and the Communications Sateilite Corp. Secretary Vance advised you of our planned use of Titan III-C R. & D. boosters to launch our satellite repeaters and that we were retaining the option-by proper satellite and dispenser design-of launching these satellites using Atlas/Agena boosters. Following the successful first launch of the Titan III-C in 1une 1965, we dropped the option to launch on the Atlas/Agena and committed the IDCSP to Titan III-C R. & D. boosters. This program has progressed well but, of course, not entirely without problems. For instance, developing the country's first "production line" for communications satellites has uncovered certain problems not clearly anticipated, and realization of only a partial success with the Titan III-C launch last December has had some impact on the program schedule. My people have been working very closely with the Air Force, and we are satil'1led that the Air Force is taking appropriate corrective action on both the satellite and the booster programs. We now anticipate the first launch for the IDCSP in May. I should reiterate that the IDCSP is primarily an R. &: D. system which wlll permit us to conduct comprehensive testing of various surface terminals, control facilities, and satellite repeaters in a worldwide network. However, as R. & D. testing is completed, the IDCSP will be operated with its limited capacity so as to pass high priority operational traffic in support of unique and vital national security communications needs-and it will always be immediately available to meet any emergency. Our advanced defense communications satellite project-or ADOSP-is directed to the provision of a trUly operational system by approximately 1970. This system will take advantage of advances in both booster and communications technology which will permit the establisbment of an economical, highly reliable system capable of providing secure, jam-resistant, long-range communications circuits to many users to support vital national security operations wherever they occur. In August 1965, the Defen!'e Communications Agency, acting in our behalf, contracted with six companies (including the Communications Satellite Corp.) for studies of possible operational system configurations. The Army, Navy, and Air Force have prepared similar studies using their in-house resources. The DCA, with the assistance of the military departments, is now evaluating these completed studies and will make recommendations to my office before the middle of this year. Depending on results of these evaluations, we will be in a position to conduct contract definition of the ADCSP in fiscal year 1967; of course, we will also apply our experience with the IDCSP and the knowledge gained from further space experiments now scheduled for early 1967. We have obtained important experience from current operation of Syncom II and III. In April 1965 the DOD assumed responsibility for operation of these satellites, the NASA then having completed its R. & D. experimental program. Certain tests and experiments have been conducted, high priority operational traffic has been transmitted upon occasion, and the Gemini program has been supported thereby.
662
.\fter SOille considerable discussion between my staff, the military departments, DCA, and the Joint Stall', a tactical satellite communications program was approved by the Deputy Secretary of Defense which authorized the Departments to delineate appropriate research and development programs. The Departments are working very closely and have formed a triservice executive steering group-with representatives from both the secretarial and military staff levels-to manage a coordinated research and development program. Their initial efforts will be directed to studies and eXperiments to determine the feasibility of using satellite relays to meet those tactical-mobile communications needs where high degrees of mobility, flexibility, and reliability are required. We are particularly concerned with applications at lower operating echelons and with ships and aircraft. Our current planning provides for the launch of a satellite repeater for testing with experimental models of seaborne, airborne, and land mobile terminals. Development of an operational system will, of course, depend on the results of our experimental program. The tactical program and the advanced system project will both benefit from experiments we are conducting within the framework of the IDSCP. For example, the Titan III-C launch last December put two experimental satellites into orbit. One of these is being used in a propagation experiment to investigate problems that might be encountered in UHF satellite transmissions. The other device is a satellite repeater on which Earth-sensors select, from several antennas, the one antenna pointing most directly at the Earth. We are obtaining useful data from both experiments. Other experiments, utilizing spacecraft planned for launch in early 1967, include an electronically despun antenna experiment, a three-axis gravity gradient stabilization experiment, and a UHF satellite experiment. I should also note that one of the first IDCSP launches will include a two-axis gravity-gradient experiment-one which we are conducting jointly with the NASA. Additionally, the military departments continue to conduct research and development on land, sea, and air mobile terminals and on techniques and components related to improving the terminals, the satellite repeat'rs, and overall petwork efficiency, toughness, and flexibility. I This has been a very quick review of the various research and !levelopment programs we have underway. Now I would like to touch briefly on three other 'satellite communications areas of interest. First, let me reiterate Secretary Vance's assurance to you that all of our efforts are tailored to meet unique governmental needs recognized in the Communications Satellite Act. In line with the policy that, where feasible, the Government will use Intelsat and other common carrier communications systems for the transmission of the bulk of its traffic, the Defense Communications Agency has held a number of discussions with the Communications Satellite Corp. for the purpose of exploring the use of the corporation's services as they become available. More specifically, the Department of Defense has been quite active in assisting the NASA and the corporation in negotiations concerning the use of corporation-supplied satellite communications services in support of the NASA Apollo program. I should note that this matter was handled primarily in NCS--national communications system---ehannels rather than in research and engineering channels. Another example of our investigation of the possibility of using corporation services is our testing with the Early Bird satellite in June 1965. The purpose of these tests was to determine the performance and operational characteristics of governmental user-to-user circuits when routed via the Early Bird satellite and interconnecting facilities. We passed voice, teletype, and data; the tests were generally successful. We concluded that the Early Bird provides a high quality tranRmission path for user-to-user communications in support of general governmental requirements. However, at the present time, the Early Bird satellite operates for only 16 hours a day, and for Defense use we require 24 hours a day of operation. Consequently, at this time we are not leasing service through Early Bird; however, we do look forward to the time when the corporation and its foreign partners will have an established 24-hour global system that could be used for transmit;;sion of our bulk traffic. I also want to as'sure you that the Department of Defense and the NASA continue to effect close coordination and cooperation in our satellite communications programs. The primary formal mechanism for this coordination is the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board and its Unmanned Spacecraft
663
Panel. As you know, the Technical Committee for Communications Satellites of this Panel has been in existence since early 1961. And, of course, there is much closer and more detailed coordination at the working level on specific projects. Finally, at the March 1965 hearing your committee showed great interest in the cost of our program to put up a military satellite communications system. You will recall that, in the discussion in response to a question, Secretary Vance estimated the cost of the space segment of our initial system-referred to as the "Philco approach"-at $30 million. Since the decision in October 1964 to go ahead with the military system, we have committed just over $30 million for the space segment of the program. Of this amount, the bulk-somewhat more than two-thirds--has been spent for final development and production of satellites and dispensers, with the remaining one-third spent for development and life test of travelling wave tube amplifiers, general spacecraft and dispenser testing, engineering, and management. We anticipate some relatively small additional costs as the results of the satellite "production line" problems and the December 1965 Titan III-C launch results which I have previously mentioned. Titan III booster family The Titan III is a standardized space launching system which will effectively and economically support diversified space missions. Several standardized vehicle building blocks are used to achieve the desired configuration. The Titan III-A consists of a modified Titan II first and second stage and a new restartable storable propellant upper stage (Transtage) with a control module; and, will place 5,800 pounds in a 100-nautical-mile orbit launched from ETR. The Titan I1I-C consists of two 12()..inch-diameter, five-segment solid motors added to the Titan III-A to achieve a 25,OOO-pound payload capability. The TItan I11-A has been highly successful in four flights conducted to date. On June 18, 1965, the first Titan III-C launCh was successfully accomplished, placing a 21,OOO-pound dummy payload into a 100-nautical-mile orbit. All systems performed as planned. On October 15 and December 21, 1965, the second and third Titan I11-C's were flown. Again the large solid motors and the first and second stages performed very well; however, separate and unrelated malfunctions occurred on the storable restartable upper stage (Transtage) on both of these development flights after the initial orbit had been satisfactorily achieved. Tbese dlfticulties were not of a fundamental nature and corrective action has been taken. It should be noted that three of the four satellites launched on the third Titan III-C flight provided meaningful data although not in the desired orbIt. The fourth payload was not ejected and did not provide data. The success achIeved and our understanding of the difficulties encountered in the early flights of the Titan III-A and Titan III-C vehicles has given us sufficient confidence in this vehicle to firmly commit payloads to the remaining 10 R. & D. vehicles. The Initial Defense Communications Satellite (IDCSP) payloads will be flown on Titan III-C R. & D. vehicles starting in 1966 and another vehicle will be reserved for IDCSP replenishment at a later date. One Titan III-C R. & D. vehicle will launch a Vela satellite and one will provide a Vela back-up launch, if needed. Two Titan III-C R. & D. vehices will support the early unmanned payloads of the MOL program and two vehicles are now planned for launch of multiple engiileering payloads. These multiple payloads include a three-axis gravity-gradient, an ultra high frequency and a despun antenna engineering experiment. Other payloads under consideration include a meteorological and additional communications experiments. In December 1964, a 12-month stretchout in the completion of the Titan III R. & D. program was authorized for the purpose of making the Titan III development schedule more compatible with the schedules of future user programs. We are requesting $65.8 million fiscal year 1967 R.D.T. & E. funds to cover the major part of the additional expense incurred as a result of this stretchout, and certain performance improvements to the Titan I1I-C vehicle to meet MOL requirements. These changes include increasing the five-segment 12()..inch diameter solid motor length to "even segments and improving the core engines. The additional performance will permit us to place 30,000 pounds of payload into polar orbit. It is planned to provide continued funding in the future for a modest product improvement effort which will permit updating of the Titan III ,ehide as required during its operational life. Firm military payload reqUirements resulted in authorization in Df'cf'mb!'r 1964, by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to proceed with a third Titan III
664
configuration, the Titan III-B. The Titan III-B (formerly Titan III-X/Agena) consists of the Titan III-A first and second stages modified to accept the Agena D vehicle. The third Titan III-A stage is not used and certain equipment not required for unmanned flights is removed. The Titan III-B development is proceeding on schedule toward a full operational capability. The $36 million provided in fiscal year 1966 will complete the deyelopment of the Titan III-B and the activation of the launch pad.
RANGES AND NETWORKS
A discu>lsion of Defense Department space activity would be incomplete wIthout mention of the ranges and networks that are so important in facilitating the actual launches and collection of the yast and complex array of data from each mission as it is launched, placed into orbit, while in orbit and in some cases the recovery from orbit. This activity should ue prefaced with a brief discussion of range management philosopsy, the purpose and scope of the major range and network actiyitie>l and finally the relation with the NARA in this discipline. The range management philosophy iR that ranges and networks exist solely to serye research and development or operational pro/.!ramR: Lc., range and network users. The ranges and networks are therefore a reflection of the needs of their users. As the nature of programs and their support needR change, the ranges must adjust to those changes. The ultimate mC'asure of RUCCI'S;; in planning and management of ranges and networks is the succeHS of the programs hping supported. There is reason for considerable satisfaction with the record of snccess of Defense ranges and networl,s. Many diffeult problems were solved uy the ranges in connection with the early development testing of ballistic missile systems. Today, complex support of missile and space operations has become relatively routine. Although this statement is oriented basically to space activities, it must be appreciated that the term "ranges and networkH" or simply "ranges" onen iH u,",c(l in a broad sense to encompass an extremely wide spectrnm of facilities. On one cnd of thl' Rpcctrum are major research and deYelopm('nt ins1aIIatiom;; snch as the Air Force :Rastern Test Range. This range may concurrently serve the needs of a dozen major development programs and a host of minor ones. A community of 30,000 people work at the J.Jastern Test Range, rl'presenting the interests of more than flO GoyprnnH'ut organizations, and ahout 40 aproHpnep in<iu~try ('011trnctorH. Highly complex aud precise operntionH aIHI mea~ureltlpntH of tllp typ<, normally confined to the carefully controlled environment of a laboratory are performed in what is really an outdoor laboratory extending one-quarter of the way around the world. At the other end of the spectrum, the term "range" is applied to relatively simple llombing and gunnery training faciIitie._, which haye elenwntary eQuipment. The primary purpose of tlless ranges is to provide a safe place to expand ordnance under controlled conditions. Because of this wide spectrnm, DOD has, based on elements of similarity, found it useful to identify selected Defense ranges and networks m; so-callNI National Facilities and to apply special policies to certain aspects of their management. Six installations now are ineluded in this category. 'l'hese are the Army White Sands Missile Range and Kwajalein Test Site; the Navy Paci1ic Missile Range; and the Air Force Eastern and 'Western Test Ranges and Satellite Control Facility. A brief description of each of these activities is given below. Among the primary common characteristics of these facilities, it is noted that: 1. Each faCility, although assigned to a single Service for management, supports test programs of more than one Service and also may support non-DOD organizations such as NARA. 2. Each is a large facility, representing significant investment and requiring substantial O. & M. funding. 3. The progrnmR served by these facilitips include many of the most imJlortant weapon systems and space programs of the United Rtates. In planning for ranges genernl trpnds are anticipatpd. In praetjc>p, a balanced program of range mo<iprnization and improvl'ment whieh is responsivp to dpfinite needR as statpd by individual program managers, and whieh also IJrovides for npdating of range facilities is conducted. Ahout 10 percent of the annual R.D.T. & E. costs of the major ranges is alloeated to overall rangp modernization.
665
The foregoing discussion has outlined !'ome management philosophy attendant to DOD ranges and network. With this background the following description of the National Facilities becomes more meaningful.
White Sands Missile Range (WSMR)
The WSMR, located in southern New Mexico, is managed by the Army. Army mis!'ile testing began at this site in 1945 when a group from California Institute of Technology was placed under contract to conduct an extensive test program involving the launching of German V-2 rockets. The U.S. Navy began testing at 'VSMR in 1946 and during this same period the USAF commenced test activities at Holloman AFB, located on the eastern part of the range. The missile testing activities of the three Services in the WSMR area were integrated in 1952. The range has a nominal size of 40 by 100 miles and can be extended by the activation of an additional 40 by 4O-mile area immediately to the north. The range can be further extended by conducting launches from off-range sites located at Fort Wingate, N. l\lex.; Blanding, Green River, and Gilson Butte, Utah. By using these sites, missile flights of up to 420 miles are possible. This overland range provides the advantages of conducting tests under simulated field conditions and of allowing for the prompt recovery of missile components. The \YSMR has a heavy triservice schedule of small missile and rocket testing including surface-to-surface and surface-to-air vehicles. At the present time there are more than 130 active test programs assigned to the range. WSMR conducts the tests of Army Missile Systems including Sprint, Pershing, Lance, and Shillelagh; of Navy Typhoon missiles and Intruder and Vigilante weapons systems; and of Air Force RF-4C aircraft systems and Athena reentry vehicles_ Several ARPA and NASA test programs are also conducted at WSMR- These include ARPA's Hibex and NASA's Apollo component tests in the Little Joe program. WSMR tracking of various satellites complement the NASA ground facilities. About 40 percent of the total WSMR workload is devoted to Army programs and an equal amount to Air Force programs; the rest of the effort is devoted to supporting programs sponsored by the Navy, NASA and ARPA.
Kwajalein Test Site (KTS)
The Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands, was selected in July 1955 as the test site for the Nike Zeus Weapon System. The facility was aSSigned to the Pacific Missile Range and placed under the management control of the U.S. Navy. On July 1, 1964, the responsibility for the management and operation of the installation was transferred to the U.S. Army at which time it was established as a National Range and designated as the Kwajalein Test Site (KTS). The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) established the Pacific Range Electro-Magnetic Signature Studies (Project PRESS) on Roi Namm in the Kwajalein Atoll on November 1960. With the concentration of Nike-X tests, Project PRESS, and DOD full-scale reentry measurements tests at KTS, this installation became a national facility in fact as well as name. The primary mission of this Pacific Test Facility is to support the Nike-X anti-missile-missile development program and a unique feature of the KTS is the fact that there is more range user equipment than National Range equipment located within the test complex. Although most of the instrumentation belongs to the Army's Nike-X program and ARPA's Project PRESS, this important test facility is made available to all agencies interested in applicable missile testing and reentry phenomenology studies.
Pacific Musile Range (PMR)
PMR is managoo by the Bureau of Naval Weapons. It provides range support for DOD and other Government agencies for launching, tracking, and collecting data in guided miSSile, satellite and space vehicle research, development, evaluation,and training programs and actual operations. Point Mugu, Calif., is the command center for all operations within PMR. Communication networks link it with all parts of the range and with other agencies. Facilities are available for testing of missiles from assembly through launch and for the support of R.D.T. & K and operational training programs. P:1IIR has several range test areas. The Aerodynamic Range parallels the Oalifornia coast for approximately 250 miles and extends seaward 176 miles. It includes PMR instrumented flight corridors that extend from Point Mugu, Point Arguello, and Vandenberg Air Force Base. When necessary, the dimensions or the range can be extended to 500 miles and 250 miles, respectively, through the poordinated efforts of other Government agencies.
666
Offshore islands, range ships and various range aircraft furnish the instrumentation for the support of launches from the sea area, Point Mugu and VAFB. San Nicolas Island, 55 miles to sea and southwest of Point Mugu, is the hub of the Aerodynamic Range. It provides sites for precision instrumentation supporting operations within the range and of polar-orbit launches from VAFB. Installations under PMR 'Command in the Hawaiian area include Barking Sands, Kauai, and the Johnston Island special group. The installation at Barking Sands is used in support of fleet training exercises. Johnston Island is largely supporting JTF-8 operations. Missile Impact Location System (MILS) at Wake and Midway Atolls are part of the PMR. The PMR operational schedule for launch and support operations is in excess of 1,000 operations per month. The workload is approximately 61 percent Navy, 29 percent Air Force, 7 percent NASA, and 3 percent other agencies.
Air Force Ea8tern Te8t Range (AFETR)
The AFETR, formerly known as the Atlantic Missile Range, has its headquarters at Patrick Air Force Base, Fla. It is under the management and planning direction of the National Range Division, of the Air Force Systems Comllland. Thl' range provides support in the areas of tracking, data handling and processing, command control, and communications for all missile and space launches from Cape Kennedy and the NASA John F. Kennedy Spa'Ce Center. It also supports, as requested, probes or space vehicles launched from the Air Force Western Test Range and the NASA Wallops Island facility. The launch and operations support area at Cape Kennedy Air Force Station has facilities for preparing and launching vehicles ranging in size from small weather rocket,; to large space boosters of the Saturn IB and Titan III class. In addition to the extensive instrumentation in the Cape Kennedy area, AFETR operfttes eight major instrumentation stations located on islands in the Caribbean Sea and South Atlantic Ocean, and one station in the Republic of South Africa. 'l'he lann-hased range instrumentation is augmented by 10 instrumenten ships which are deployed to positions in the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Also, 18 instrumented aircraft are assigned to the range to 111f'f't requirements which are most effectively or economically satisfied by airborne instrumentatiolJ. A force of 15,900 people manage and operate the AFETR. The range has played a major role in the development of U.S. missiles, inclnding Thor, Polaris, Atlas, 'l'itan, and Minuteman. Beginning with the Vanguard program, the space activitiPH at AFETR have steadily increased. In addition to the Mercury and Gemini manned space programs, the range has supported significant numbers of DOD and NASA unmanned space launches. The AFETR is expected to continue to grow in importance as a space program support facility, and to remain a vital rl'souree for further research and development testing of U.S. weapon systems.
Air Force We8tern Test Range (AFWTR)
The AFWTR has its headquarters at Vandenberg AFB, Calif. It is under the management direetion of the National Range Division of the Air Force Systems Command. It provides technical range support (tracking, telemetry reception, impact scoring, range safety command and control, and data procl'ssing) for all missile and space vehicle launches from Vandf'nberg AFB. Support is also provided for launches from the Pacific Missile Range and the Air Force Eastern Test Range. as requested. Major programs supported include SAC ICBM training and evaluation launches (Minuteman, Titan II) ; R. & D. launches for advanced ballistic missile programs (ARUES, Advanced Minuteman, Nike targets); DOD space system launches and NASA space system launches requiring polar orbits. 'l'he four principal land stations are at Vandenberg AFB ; Pillar Point, Calif. ; Wheeler AFR, Hawaii; and IiJniwetok. The AFETR operates eight range instrumentation ships and three range aircraft. ~Ianjlowe!' strl'ngth is abolll 2,500 plus personnel from several supporting contractorg.
Air Porcc Satellite Oontrol Facility (AFSOF)
Tile AFSOF, an element of thl' Space Systems Division, AFSC, is a generalpurpose network which provid!'s the traeking', t('lemetry, command, data readout lind recovery services, as required, for all DOD space programs exeept the navigation satellite program. It includes a Satellite Test Cf'nter (STC) at Sunny-
667
vale, Calif., and seven stations deployed throughout the world. All but one station is equipped with an instrumentation radar. Additionally, four stations are equipped with 6O-foot antenna systems. All sites presently ha,e a variety of other command and receiving equipment. The workload has varied from the support of a single satellite at any given time in 19!'i9 to oyer a dozen simultaneously in 1965. A similar trend is expected to continue. Government employees currently exceed 2,000. A major support contractor is also employed. In 1962 it became evident that many diversified systems would have to be supported concurrently. In late 1963, a network reconfiguration and augmentation was begun. The computer complex at the control center was expanded to provide more automated control of the remote stations and to more rapidly pro(.'Css the increasing amount of received flight data. Development of the Space Ground Link Subsystem (SGLS) is now nearing completion. This subsystem will eliminate the current diverse systems and greatly increases the workload capability. The STC is being increased to provide separate secure mission control complexes for the various using programs and better routing, reduction and display of mission data.
DOD-N ABA range and network inter-relationship
Several observations should be made concerning the relationship between the DOD and NASA in the range and network area. 'Vhen ~ASA was created, in 1958, there of course was very little in existence that might be called a space network. The most elaborate facility of this nature was the Minitrack net designed by the Navy to support their Vanguard program. This network was assigned to NASA shortly after the agency was established. The Defense Department at this time possessed a well-developed set of ranges and had accumulated considerable experience in range support of missile programs. This missile range equipment and functions were c}osley akin to the ground support required for early space operations. As a result, much of the Defense Department equipment and experience was directly applied to solve ground support problems of the newly emerged civilian space agency. Ground support facilities having application to NASA programs were freely offered by the DOD, and close interagency working relationships developed at installations such as the Eastern Test Range. The resulting joint effort produced excellent results. The performance of the ground network for Mercury, and of the present Gemini ground support, involving as they have a combination of resources of the DOD and NASA, are examples. In the years since 1958, the NASA!DOD relation in this area has gone through a number of evolutionary stages. Through this period, the DOD has maintained a consistent policy of close collaboration with NASA. includin~ co-use of facilities wherever possible. A large number of cases of joint enterprise between NASA and the DOD have resulted. In each case, however, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has borne in mind the criterion that we bear responsibility for accomplishing Defense Department programs. Similarly DOD h'as respected the NASA view that the desirability of joint arrangements must be judged by that agency in the light of what is be!"t for their programs. Interagency ground support arrangements have required ndjust.ment in consonance with the chan~es in our respective mi~sions during this period. For example, the concept of an appropriate relationship between ;\"ASA and DOn at the Eastern Test Range was modified by the ef'<tablishment of the lnnnr landing program in 1961. and the resultin~ increa!':e in the !'lize and SCOPf' of NASA activitips in the Cape Kennedy-Merritt Island area. As NASA activitief'l have expanded with a commensnrate increnf'<f' in the magnitude of DOn sunport. principles of NA~A reimbl1J'l:f>ment to non for a wide range of services hRVf> heen sou~ht. A!'l R rN'ent examplf' nn a~reement has been reached wherf>by NASA reimhurses thf> non for in~trum!'nt!1tion ship nnd airrrnft f'lmport thnt will hI' af'fornf'd to thl' Apollo program by DOD-operated anll maintained ship Rnd aircraft units. The DOD beli!'ves that its r!'lationf'hin witJ-. NASA in thp rnngp ann netw01'k area if'l on a h1l!'if'l that if'l conf'i"tent with '1rhievement of the ohj(>{'tivef'< of thE' prog"ramf'l of the two ag-f'nciE'f'. l\foreoVE'T. the grounrl E'nvironment nro!!"ran1 f' of thf' DOD and NASA ArE' !'ffertivelv roorn.in~tE'rl thl'Oll!!"h !'xi~ting pro(,pdnr('". inrlU(1in~ the ('oordination nroce,,~pf" At tbe ioint-m:e rnnr-ef'. thp mor!' OJ' lpf'f'< ('ontinuou~ intel'changp Rmong nrogram offl('E'~ finn. hE'AdOlHlrtpr<. Rnrl tJ-.p flrtiyitiP!' of "perinI gronp" "llrh At: the ~pn!'!' Flight Oronnd Bnvirol111lPnt PAn!'1 of
668
the AACB, and the Office of the DOD Manager for Manned Space Flight Support Operations. It is not expected that the NASA/DOD relationship will remain static. It is considered, however, that effective procedures exist for future accommodations which may be necessary.
SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Support of the military space program in the categories of research, exploratory development and advanced development amounts to about $502 lllillion in fiscal year 1967. The programs described in this section are representative of the effort which is defined as space-oriented or space-related research and teehnology.
H('cntry and recovcry
The Department of Defense Iia>! bN'll advancing- the reentry vphide fipld silH'e the early ]\)50's in support of ballistit' missile development. As a result of early heat dissipation design concepts and materials teehnology explored by the arllled services, coupled with valuable eontributions by NASA on the aerodynalllies of blunt nosed shapes, great strides were made, taking the technology through several generations of more advanced ICBM reentry vehicle shapes and ablative heat shielding design concepts. Numerous testing facilities and research techniques were brought into beiug as a result of the military requirements. As space programs evolved, much of this ballistic missile reentry vehicle technology was adapted to the Mercnry and thpn the Gemini progralll. Apollo lias also benefited frolll the long series of well-planned flight tpsts, invpstigating materials, dynamics and phenomenology associated with blunt reentry vehicles, The Department of Defense has continued its ballistic missile reentry vchicle technology to include, for a higher probability of penctrating sophisticated antiballistic-missile defenses, maneuverable reentry vehicles employing both ablative and radiative cooled techniques. Under the ABRES program and through advam'ed research efforts in vehicle flight ('ontrol, lifting hody COll<~Ppts are IlPinginvestigated. Problem areas in aerodynamie stability and control, heat transfer, materials, navigation, and control have been under investigation for determination of design criteria, with feaRibility of eonccpt to be demonstratpd. For the past 5 years we have been studying the longer term potential benefits from larger maneuver capability on military payloads returned from orbit. '],he technolog-y being explored is for efficient recovery of payloads from orbit, bringing data recovery vehicles to a precision landing at a selected site, as opposed to ballistic type reentry of the Gemini!Apollo class. Currently, under the START program, the Air Force is developing an advanced lifting-body reentry vehicle, START, an acronym for Spacecraft Technology and Advanced Recntry Tests, encompasses sneh project,; as the ASSE'l', a hypersonic, radiative cooled, glide vehicle designed to test a series of radiative metals (successfully completed last year) ; PRIME, a data capsule retnrn test vehicle utilizing ablative material coating-s (thp SY-;; vehicle) ; and PILO'r, an pnlarg-ed lllanned version of the SV-5 configuration to investigate the flight regime for lifting bodies between maeh 2 throug-h the trammnic speed range including an investigation of the approach and landing stahility and control characteristiC's of the vehicle. 'i'he PRIME vehicle is currently being built and will undergo suborhital flig-ht testing fI t velocitips approaching- the orhital rpgime. It will I'mploy a n SLY-3 (Atlas) boosipr. The PILOT vehicle will be takpn aloft hy a mothl'r aircraft in the manner of the X-15. The program of near term interest is the PRIME project using the f'\y-r; v('hidp, TIlls aerodynamic configuration, which has bpen under intensive development hy the Air Force during the past several years, has an attractive lift capability at h~'penwllic s)leeds for itf' high volumetric efficiency. The 8Y-5 if' d~sigll(,ll to he capahle of returning a sllIall payload from space to a prl'i'iRC lalllllllg at selP('tpd Rites. This permitI', the first time, an investi,gation of thl' j"l'clmology of highly mfillPllVerahll' lift-body reentry vehicles in the hYPPl'Ronic slll'l'rlrpgilllP in ('ontrollerl flight pl'ofilps. 'l'he [lppartllH'lIt of ])pfenf'P is coorrlinating- I'fforts ~u('h fll'; S'l'ART with XA~A nlHl WI' illtl'lHl to ('ontilllH' to in~1lre mflximulIl information exchang-e hetwPl'n p:t('h a,g'pnlT'H program:,; involving lift-reentry .
.lr(/I(:l'ials anll
8i1'1Ictlll'(,8
'I'he non mfltl'rial" R. & n. pj'fort ad~ in !lrollil s1lpport of all it;; \\"('apOIlf' Hystelll:';. NA~A's program in tlle sallle fiel11 op('l'atr';; in a similar mann!'r, anll
669
there are many mutual areas of interest, particularly those associated with the environment of space, reentry, and propulsion systems. One of our primary efforts concern those materials which must operate at high temperatures because of aerodynamic heating, reentry conditions or combustion in propulsion systems. DOD has had in being for over a decade a continuing program in refractory metals and alloys for hot structures and combustion units. Interest in this area led to the initiation of the DOD refractory metals sheet rolling program, which was pointed toward the production of conSistently high quality sheet molybdenum, tungsten, tantalum and columbium alloys. Program emphasis is now being placed on refractory metal foil and tubing. Both of these areas are of great interest to NASA. While the sheet metal rolling part of the program is phaSing out, the effort on tubing is continuing. A follow-on effort is the DOD ceramic processing program. This project was established in recognition that the operational temperatures of some aerodynamic structures and rocket engine components would be higher than could be tolerated even by the refractory metals. Another very active program is the metals process and equipment program, deSigned to obtain scientific data in the metals forming field for application to the new exotic metals which are very difficult to fabricate. DOD also supports a vigorous effort in the areas of ablative materials and graphites where high-temperature operation is a major design problem. DOD-sponsored work in the graphite field bas had se,eral direct NASA applications. Some examples are the rocket nozzles on the Archer and Little Joe Rockets, engine sleeves and lines in the Gemini engines, and nozzles in the Apollo engines. Another area of mutual concern to DOD and NASA is that of lightweight-high strength, lightweight-stiffness materials, which includes the high strength steels, beryllium, and an assortment of composite materials reinforced by high strength fibers. DOD has been very active in this field, particularly in the use of maranging steels in the large solid boosters cases, and of filament wound compoSites in ballistic missiles. Recently the possibility of filament composites for structures has been enhanced by the advent of high stiffness boron and graphite filaments. There are indications of achieving weight savings of up to 35 percent on many applications. The Air Force has a well-supported effort on expandable stnlctures for space, embodying such concepts as framed-in-place plastics, rigidizing metallic skeletons, and metallic fabrics. An example of the results from the Air Force development of a metallic fabric made from superalloy filaments is the outer extravehicular garment worn by the Gemini IV astronaut, Lieutenant Colonel White, during his "walk in space." The DOD materials program has de,eloped refractive metal coatings for the purpose of providing a protective sheath against oxidation during reentry conditions; optical materials for space; transparent materials for aerospace structures; and laminated materials for meteoroid shielding. In the fabrication field, of particular note are the efforts on joining and forming of reactive metals, and a newly formed cooperative effort between NASA and the Air Force on nondestnlcti,e testing of adhesive bonds and correlation of the results with bond properties. Results of ARPA's three new coupling programs, on carbon fibers and composites, organic composites, and high-energy rate forming are also of interest to NASA. The programs described have utilized the services of the Materials Advisory Board of the National Academv of Sciences for advice and guidance. The Board is so organized that it can set up panels of experts to delve into the problems of nOD in the materials R. & D. field and recommend solutions. The principal coordination effort between DOD and NASA is through the Materials Advisory Board. NASA also makes use of the Defense Metals Infonnation Center at Battelle Memorial Institute where it is estimated that about 25 percent of the Center's output serves NASA directly. In addition, there is representation from O.D.D.R. & E. and the military services on the NASA Research Advisorv Committee on Materials, and a new subpanel on materials has been established under the Supporting Space Research and Technology Panel of the Aeronautics and Astronautics CoordinAting- Board. The function of this last-named Rubpanel is to f>xchange information on, and jointly review. the materials R. & D. programs of DOD and NASA, form basic research throug-h applied reRearch to de'elopment.
670
DOD space power program In the recent past our national space program has been largely focused upon the problem of achieving the capability of boosting large payloads into orbit, and great progress has been made. Now, as we shift our focus down to the next tier of problems, we quickly recognize that provision of the necessary electric power to operate payloads of ever-increasing complexity and sophistication should be very high on our priority list. The problem of formulating an acceptable overall development program is complicated by the multiplicity of potential applications and methods of power generation in space. The suitability of a particular solution is governed as much by operational characteristics, such as survivability features, the spacecraft configuration, the flight profile, or the mission duration, as it is by the power levels required. Overlaying these factors is the trend in requirements for increasing power levels and longer operating lifetimes for the equipment. These increases in performance in turn imply longer development cycles and higher development costs. The problem of implementing an acceptable overall program for space power is further complicated by the fact that firm military space requirements are often not identified as early as the development lead time dictates. This forces us to support advanced developments over a broad spectrum to insure that we can respond to unpredictable requirements with short leadtimes. In addition to our own projects, we coordinate closely with NA~A and AEC and rely heavily upon the much higher investments which these agencies are making in the space power area. Because of the many common hardware features of military and civilian space programs, it is reasonable to expect a high degree of integration among the space power projects of all a,gencies. 'We are constantly attempting to obtain such an integrated effort. Included among notable examples of progress in this direction are several nuclear power projects under joint sponsorship by DOD and AEC and the closely coordinated mutual work by DOD and NASA on advanced solar cell and turbogenerator equipment. However, it is well to recognize that there are some important differences between the ensembles of military and civilian space missions. These differences are reflected in each agency's space power objectives. In general, the military missions must be carried out with hardware that is ready to operate continuously under unfavorable conditions which might be created naturally or by man. This requires power generator features which are highly invulnerable to unpredictable external environments. In contnH~t, the NASA miRsions are characterized by one-of-a-kind flights which, in the fl1ce of adverse flight conditions. may be reRcheduled without great detriment to the national security. The military hardware development program must also be designed so as to provide a high probability that operational dates will be met. Our approach to meeting such development objectives is to engage in a comprehensive and continuing study program which attempts to id(>ntify the best maTria,~e of technology and estimated system rf'quirements for both the near term and projected time periods. Concurrently we are carrying along promising technology not supported by NASA and AEC to the point that we ('an identify the critical problems ann a.'lsess development risks. We are also attempting to redu('e development lead times to within acceptable bounds on those devices '''hieh our studies identify as most critical. Our fls('al year 1007 progra m Is aim(>d at both the nea r-t(>rm and the longterm objedives. For the near-term appli('ations. we re('ognize the in('reasing utility of deploying downward looking satellite systems at sy'nchronous altitude. Thp ('hoic(> of power :;;upply for theRe RYRtemR is based upon survivahility re<1uirem(>nts. Yehi('le orientation, powf'r leyel and operating lifetime. The unmanned synehronous RY1't(,IllS are expeded to rely upon .'lolar ('ells where survivahllity and oripntation is fayornble. and lllwiear thermoelectric g('nprah)rs in otllPr cn1'('S. High penk po\\'('r loads would be 1'upplied by re('hargenbl(' hntteriN'. 'fo Rupport sll('h requirements we are dpveloping more relinhle and lighter w('il-!ht solal' ('ell systelll.~ anfl battpries. We nlso nre n('('el(>rating our effort to obtain morl' I'ffirient. rl'linhle. flexihlf' :-md less ('o:4Iv nnrlf'nr th('rlllo('I(,(tl'i(' Illodnll's fnr a numhl'r of spa('e system applicntions. . l\Tamwd RYf'tems at any altitude are g(wrally Rubje('t to mnny of thl' Rame ronsidf'rntionR and solutions as the unmann('d RYRtelllR eX(,f'pt that fuel (,I'lls would he uSf'd in plar(' of. or to,g'l'tlwr with. hattl'rif'f'. I1mI thl' ('hoi('(> of nn(']l'ar fUl'l would bl' limitf'd by the prespn('1' of t.he ml1ll or nth PI' radiation "ensHi"e payloads. Wp are exploring more effirif'nt aIHI long!'r Jj"Pfl fnpI ('I'll S~'Rt'PJJl
671
concepts, including the use of hybrid fuel cell and nuclear thermoelectric applications. We will pursue advanced fuel cell technology and, together with AEC, the advanced nuclear thermoelectric technology to apply to these system concepts in the early 1970's. In the longer term power applications for the midseventies and beyond, where power levels of 10 kilowatts and above will be needed, we are continuing to support exploratory development of power conversion by turbomachinery using the organic Rankine and liquid metal Rankine cycles and the Brayton cycle. This work is very closely coordinated with both the AEC and NASA for maximum mutual benefit. We are also pursuing alternate methods for achieving these higher power levels without turbomachinery. These include the use of very large solar cell devices and thermionic diodes coupled to high temperature heat sources. Associated with the use of such advanced power generation equipment, we recognize and are investigating related operating problems such as the survivability of large solar cell arrays and large space radiators and the maneuYerability of vehicles employing such equipment.
Large solid-motor technowgy
The large solid-propellant motor program was formally initiated as a result of a joint DODjNASA agreement on November 2, 1962. The initial effort was designated to be a generalized technological advancement principally investigating 156- and 260-inch diameter motors. The Air Force was designated to conduct the initial program to exploit its capability in this area although it was understood that 260-inch motors were of primary interest to NASA, whereas DOD interest centered on 156-inch and smaller motors. Subsequently, NASA assumed funding responsibility in December 1963 and complete management responsibility in March 1965 for the 260-inch motors. DOD has continued to support 156-inch motor demonstrations and supporting technology effort. The 156-inch motor program has been highly successful. The fiscal year 1963-64 effort resulting in several demonstration firings; two 1 million-pound thrust class. fiight weight 156-inch motors with jet tab thrust vector control; one 1.4 million-pound thrust flight weight 156-inch motor with movable nozzle thrust vector control; one 12O-inch motor to test 260-inch propellant, case, and nozzle designs; and one 3 million-pound thrust 156-inch motor with a 260-inch motor nozzle. In addition, new technology was obtained on thrust termination, ablative nozzles, hot gas thrust vector control, nondestructive testing hazard claSSification, large motor transportation, propellants, case materials, and solid motor application studies. The fiscal year 1965--66 program is designed to demonstrate the capability of 156-inch motors over a range of time-thrust characteristics; a 3 million-pound thrust motor with a 55-second burn time; a 1 million-pound thrust motor with a 62-second burn time; and an advanced fiberglass case 325,OOO-pound thrust motor with a llO-second burn time. Hot gas thrust vector control will be demonstrated in a submerged nozzle on a 120-inch size motor. A segmented 1;)6inch fiberglass case will be test fired at 1.2 million pounds thrust for 2 minutes. Supporting technology effort will continue in areas such as nozzle materials and process ('on trois. cyclic hydrotest of 156-inch cases, motor quench, transporters. and application studies. The large solid motor program provides a technological base which supports both future ballistic missile and space launch vehicle applications. These advanced concepts offer significant advantages in motor cost, reliability, and maintainability.
Liquid rocket propulsion technology
The Air Force has undertaken a program to demonstrate an advanced storable liquid propellant engine which consolidates many exploratory development advances in turbo pumps, combustion chambers, and nozzles. This engine will improve performance with proven propellants to such a degree that single-stage vehicles for ICBM and possibl)" low orbit missions become practical. This program is based on the modular engine concept which greatly reduces the time and cost traditionally associated with the development of large liquid engines, while enhancing the reliability and versatility of the product. The Air Force and NASA are cooperating in an advanced technology program which has for its objective the demonstration of a high-performance, highpressure, hydrogen-oxygen engine affording very substantial improvements in thrust-to-weight ratio and delivered specific impulse. This engine will also be capable of multiple-restart, long-duration, variable-thrust operation. Developed on the modular concept, the new engine can serve both in a high-energy upper stage, and, in a variety of clustered configurations in a versatile space booster.
672
This technology is considered to be prerequisite to the development of a reusable space launch vehicle. Significant effort is being placed under exploratory and advanced development programs on supersonic combustion ramjet systems. The feasibility of supersonic combustion under laboratory conditions simulating hypersonic flight has been demonstrated, but the design of efficient aerodynamic structures and inlets for high dynamic pressure trajectories represent a development challenge. In the development of the supersonic ramjet or scram jet engine, DOD and NARA are again pursuing complementary programs. NASA, for example, is planning to employ the X-I5 rocket plane as a hypersonic test bed for scramjet experimentation and evaluation. The Air 1<~orce and the Navy are both pursuing extensive experimental programs as well as sponsoring analytical studies on the application of scramjet propulsion to hypersonic vehicles and possible integra tion with rocket powcrplants.
Gravit1f gradient
8tabili.~ati()n
for satellites
During 19(;;;, the Navy conducted two significant gravity gradient experiments. On March D, ID(j;" two satellites were launched as secondary payloads aboard an Air Force Thor-Agena booster. These were the first two-axis and three-axis gravity gradient stabilization experiments to be performed. Two other gravity gradient stabilization experiments were being scheduled to be flown in support of the defense cOlllmunication satellite program. The Air Force is sponsoring a two-axis stabilization experiment at near synchronous altitude to be flown as part of the initial payload of IDCSP satellites to be launched later this spring. The Nayy, also in support of the DCSP, is fabricating a spacecraft experiment to demonstrate three-axis stabilization at near synchronous orbital altitude. The results of these experiments are intended to assess the applicability of utilizing this stabilization te('hnique at neflr synchronous altitudes for improYing the communication system capability.
COORDINATION AND MUTUAL SUl'POltT
Cooperation and program coordination with other Government agencies, particularly NARA. in the space program is a continuing formal and informal pro('ess. Such efforts in('lude joint research programs, the procurement of launch vehicles, the use of ranges and instrumentation facilities, the conduct of studies on te('hnology and their potential application, and the assignment of highly trained personnel.
ACl'onauUes and astronautics coordinating board
The Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board met four times during 196!i, and the first meeting of Hl6G was held on January 21. During the past year such problems of common concern were addressed as : Launch vehicle program study. Modifica tion to the Atlas SL V-3. Management of Antigua and Ascension Islands tracking fadlities. Reusahle space booster technology. Procedures for integration of secondary payloads. Fiscal year 1967 proposed facilities construction. In addition, coordination efforts were continuing on such program areas as DOD participation in the Gemini program, DOD support of the Apollo program, genpral range supoprt for NASA programs, joint program efforts utilizing the XH-70 in Rupport of the national supersonic transport program, and DOD personnel support of NASA. We have just recently jointly Ret up with NASA a Manned Space Flight Policy ('olllmittee. Both Secretary McNamara and the Administrator of NASA, Mr. "'I'hh. flgreed that it is now ne('esRary to provide an expeditious means to coorclinfltp. fit the policy level. the Manned Space Flight programs of the DOD I1nd ~ARA. The firRt meeting of the new coordination group took place on .January 21. HlG(;. 'We expect this CommitteI' to meet at frequent intervals to lul<lrpss Rl1('h matterR flS cannot be resolvpd at a lower manageml'nt level ('on('PrIling mllt unl participfltion in. aIHI support of, the l\Iflnnl'd Space Flight progrflIlls of tllp two ngPTH'il's: to arrive at aJ,(repmentR involving top poli('y detPl'minntioll: nnd. to fa('ilitfltl' px('hangl' of vipwpoiMs an!l information of importI1IH'P to ('oordinfltp<l planning in thp Mflnnp(l RPlH'(' Flight programs of both TIl(' "fannl'd Rpaee Flight Poli('~' Committpp has tllp following IllPllliJl'rship: COC'!lnirmfln: nr. John R. FORtpr. Jr., Dire('tor of Defpnsl' RpRPflrdl I1nd Engineering. Dr. Hoh(rt C. Rpamans, Deputy Administrfltor, NARA.
673
Additional DOD members: }Ir. Daniel J. Fink, Deputy Director of Defense Research and Eingineering (Strategic and Space Systems). Dr. Alexander H. Flax, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Research and Development). Additional NASA members: Dr. George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for }Ianned Space Flight. Dr. Homer Newell, Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications.
Other cooperative efforts
~Iany instances have been noted throughout the various sections of this statement where the DOD and NASA are either engaged in cooperative technical or operational efforts or are exchanging technical information on related technology. There are same areas of mutuality whic'h have not been highlighted that impact on the national space program.
SecolUiary payload integration coordination It is not unusual for a particular primary space experiment to require Il'Ss
than the full space or weight-carrying capacity of its assigned launCh vehicle. Thus, opportunities are available to accommodate additional or secondary payloads. Recognizing the need to utilize the full capacity of NASA and DOD launch vehicles, particularly the large launch vehicles now becoming available, parallel procedures are being developed for this purpose and are being coordinated by NASA and DOD. NASA has completed its review of the procedure for handling primary and secondary payload space within NASA. As a result of the review, recommendations and steps were approved to make information on payload space available in a single set of unified NASA documents. Meanwhile, the Space Systems Division of the .Air Force has completed the development of procedures for the management of DOD secondary payload space activities. The implementation of these procedures will become effective as an operating program in fiscal year 1967. The procedures provide forI. The operations of a central business office which accepts requests for DOD launch support of space experiments from all three services, from other DOD nonservice R. & D. activities, and from NASA. Such support includes integration of the experiments aboard a primary payload spacecraft or multiple payload dispenser and other prelaunch and postlaunch operational support. 2. A three-step screening process for all experiments proposed for secondary payload support. The screening is accomplished by panels of eXIK'rts who judge the experiments on the basis of their R. & D. and operational feasibility, merit, and need. 3. The preparation of launch priority lists of screened experiments. The priority determinations are made by a highly competent triservice panel. 4. The preparation by fiscal year of flight program support documentation and budgets which maximize the use of secondary payload space. 5. The preparation of catalogs of DOD space launches, available payload space, and assigned secondary payload space. 6 . .An annual cycle and calendar of events covering those provisions described and other key programing milestones. This calendar is arranged to mesh effectively with the national and DOD fiscal processes. The procedures and documeutation associated with this program are also designed to provide the desired compatibility with those procedures employed within NASA so that the greatest degree of mutual visibility is obtained. The exchange of such documentation is planned and formal coordination of both the DOD and NASA secondary payload programs is being carried on through the appropriate panels of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Boarll. This new program appears to have very broad connotations for the future DOD space program and is expected to show strong evolutionary development over the next 2 years.
Reusable launch vehicle technology
For the past several years consideration has been given to the desirability of a launch vehicle that could be recovered and reused. Although the advantages of such a vehicle have not been fully analyzed, it seems necesasry to support technologies that could contribute to such capability. A review and aR~eS8ment
674
of these technologies is being undertaken by an ad hoc subpanel of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board. This study, when completed, will assist in evaluating the technical feasibility, potential operational applicability, and the advantages or limitations of the reusable launch vehicle concept.
Facilities coordination
NASA and DOD are engaged in the construction of new facilities to meet their respective needs. In order to assure that neither agency constructs new facilities that would unnecessarily duplicate existing or planned new construction of the .other agency, a formal procedure of coordination is conducted each year. Under these procedures, the proposed construction of facilities by each agency in fiscal year 1967 have been jointly reviewed, compared and coordinated.
Ooordinated USAF/NASA advanced hydrogen-oxygen rocket engine program
The Air Force and NASA have throughout the year conducted exploratory development in this area of mutual interest to examine the problems associated with the program. The success of component investigations on two high pressure engine concepts has encouraged the USAF and NASA to consider the integration of these components into mockup engine demonstration programs. In order to prevent duplication of eff.orts between the DOD and NASA in this area, a jOint memorandum of agreement was worked .out. This agreement was a steppingstone from which a nati.onal program plan ev.olved. The plan contains each agency's planned activities in advanced hydr.ogen-oxygen rocket engine development through calendar year 1969.
Personnel support of NASA
The practice of supporting NASA through the assignment of particularly qualified military officers was continued during this past year. A total of 237 officers are currently aSSigned throughout NASA; of these, 128 are Air F.orce, 80 are Army, 23 are Navy, and 6 are Marine officers. An adflitional128 Air Force officers, with experience in planning and conduct of ballistic missile operations are to be assigned for further training to NASA's Mission Control Centpr at H.ouston, Tex. At the c.ompletion of their training they will be available for reassignment back t.o the Air F.or('e f.or the MOL Pr.ogram. We believe that the current interagency f.ormal and inf.ormal management mechanisms such as th.ose I have just described are w.orking well, and they are responsive t.o thp day-t.o-day planning pr.ocess. Thr.ough such groups as the AACB and the Manned Space Flight P.olicy C.ommittee, b.oth agencies are able t.o set forth their I.ong range planning requirements at a management level that minimizes unwarranted duplicati.on in nati.onal pr.ogram goals. C.oNCLUSION We believe that the Military Space Program is resP.onsive to the present aIHI future needs .of National Defense. It is a balanced pr.ogram which, when taken t.ogether with the pr.ograms of NASA and other Government agencies, represents the most vigorous technical and scientific eff.ort ever m.ounted by the United States .or any other nati.on. We will c.ontinue to exploit the space environment to acc.omplish those military missions for which space offers uniqne military advantageH. Spa('e systems will continue to he reqnirefl to compet<' with Enrthbased systems for th.ose missions which may be perf.ormed in either environment. We believe that we are pursuing the proper devel.opment approaches to achieving a definitive increase in our defense posture through the use of the space environment that mal{es both economical and technological sense-always keeping in mind that the objective is to develop and maintain a qualitatively superior military capability as a cornerstone for national security. As a corollary. we make our considerable DOD resources of scientific and military manpower and facilities availahle to NASA and other Government agencies In COllsonR/we with national poliey and nafional goals. In turn, we ('xpP('i: to exploit the science, technology and hardware development of the other Governllll'nt agencies engaged In related space pursuits.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank yon very much. (Whereupon, at 11 :10 a.m., the ~ommitte(' was aCljonrneCl.)
INDEX
A
AACB. (See Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board.) ABL. (See Automated Biological Laboratory.) ABRES. (See Advanced ballistic reentry system.) A.C. Electronics, interindustry cooperation __________________________ _ Ad Hoc Committee on Scientific Qualifications and Selection of Scientist Astronauts _____________________________________________________ _
Page
182
174 Adams, Dr. Mac C.: Biography __________________________________________________ 433,434 General testimony __________________________ 447-462, 466, 472, 473-539 Prepared statement _____________________ 434-447,461,462,466,467.473 ADCSP. (See Defense communications satellite project/Advanced system.) Administrative operations: Appropriations and budgeL _ _ _ ___ _ ____ ___ __ ______ ______________ 5, 64 Budget in excess of appropriation ____________________________ 20,21 JIeadquarters _____________________________________________ 84-88 Contract personnel at NASA centers, table_ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ ____ __ __ _ 83 Financial operating plan, table__________________________________ 20 Management capabilities_ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ ____ _ __ ___ 14 Reprograming _________________________________________________ 20-24 ADP. (See Automatic data processing.) Advanced ballistic reentry system (ABRES), lifting body investigations __ 668 Advanced manned missions program: Apollo Applications program relationship_________________________ 148 Appropriations and budgeL ________________________________ 4,148,267 Background _________________________________________________ 254-260 Earth orbital missions _______________________________________ 260-262 Fligh t vehicle _ _ __ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ ___ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _____ __ _ __ 264 Lunar and planetary missions_ _ __ _ ___ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _____ _ __ 262-264 MSF experiment coordination _________________________________ 167,168 Summary report, Future Programs Task Group_ _ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _ __ _ _ 254 Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory (AOSO): Comparison with Apollo Applications __________________________ 293,294 Project canccllation ______________________________________ 279,294,347 Effect on personneL _____________________________________ 394,431 Space Science Board recommendations_ _ ____ _ __ _ __ ___ _____ _ _ __ _ __ 66 Advanced research and technology program (see al.'lo Office of Advanced Research and Technology): Appropriations and budget: Budget breakdown, table_ __ _ _ ____ __ ___ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ ____ _____ _ 435 Increased needs ___________________________________________ 66,67 Research and developmenL_________________________________ 508 Compared to U.S.S.R. efforts _________________________________ 452,453 Impact of new technology ____________________________________ 503-508 Interagency support_ _ _ __ _ _ __ ___ _____ ___ __ _________ ____________ 508 Launch vehicle supporting R. & D_______________________________ 368 X ew flight projects_ _ _ _ ____ __ __ _ __ ____ __ __ ___ _____ ________ _____ 78 Xuclear rocket program __________________________________ 597,599-602 Post-Apollo objectives____ _ _ __ __ _ ____ _ ___ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _____ __ _ _ _ _ _ 453 Priority in space program_____ __ _ __ __ _ _____ ___ _ _ ___ __ ___________ 65 Program summary ___ ___ _ _ ___ __ _ ___ _ _ ____ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _______ __ ___ 511 Proposed propulsion system using high-energy fuels________________ 71 Reprogramed funds from OTDA________________________________ 415 Space flight simulation facilities, astronaut training________________ 480 675
676
INDEX
Ad\'anccd Rescarch Projects Agency (ARPA): Cooperation with DOD, program testing at White Sands Missile Page Range_____________________________________________________ 665 l\la terials research_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ ____ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ _ 66r) Pacific Range electromagnetic signature studies (PRESS)___________ 665 VELA satellite program manageL __ ___ __ _ _ ____ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ 659 Acl\'anced technology satellite, electric thermal thrusters _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ 529, 530 Advanced vidicon camera system, TOSS use__________________________ 354 AEC, (See Atomic Energy Commission,) AB~DC (See Arnold Engineering Development Center.) Aero Propulsion Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, national conference on space maiIltenance and extravehicular activities____ __ _ __ _ __ 461 Aerojet-General Corp" Sacramento, Calif.: Cold Flow Development Test System (CFDTS) _________________ 586-588 Ilydrogen feed system develop men k __ _ __ __ ____ _ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ 585, 586 SNAP 8 power conversion system_______________________________ 616 Technology reporting_ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ ___ ____ _ 601 Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board (AACB): Ad hoc subpanel on reusable launch vehicles tcchnology____________ 674 Aeronautics PaneL __________________________________________ 476, 477 Membership ________________________________________ 469,641,642 Supersonic transport recommendations _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ 469, 470 DOD/:-; ASA gravity gradient program coordination_ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ 2112 DOD/OART activity coordination _____________________________ 476,477 L~lUnch Vehiele PaneL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 479 Membf'rshi p _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6-12 Manned Space Flight Panel membership_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ 642, 64:~ Membership ________________________________________________ 641-644 Objectivcs_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ 176, 638, 36!) Program review _ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ 672 Relationship to Joint i\Iannpd Space Flight COllllllittee_____________ 51 ReuHable launch vehicles studies _______________________________ 644, 645 Review of advanced liquid rocket kchnulogy progralll_ _ _ _ _ ________ 651 Review of 1IlG7 proposed facilities constnictiOlL _.' _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ 615 Space Fligh t Ground Envirollmpnt PanpL _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ 39G, 431, 667, !l!l8 Membership_ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ (j4:{ Supporting Space llesearch and Technology PalwL __________ 477, 47H, GGH i\Icmbprship_ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ ____ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ li-l:~ R. & D. materials coordination with DOD____________________ 478 Unmanned Spacecraft Panel: Mcmbershi\L ___________________________________________ 64a, 6-1-1 Technical committee for cOIllmunications satellites_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ li62, (j(i3 Aeronautics program, OART (see also Hypersonic flight; specific aircraft; Subsonic flight; Supersonic transport): Accomplishments ____________________________________________ 482-481l Appropriations and budgeL ________________________________ 4, 477, 50B Budgetincrease___________________________________________ 438 Construction of facilitics-Funding__ _ _ _ ___ ___ __ _ ____ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ 512 FundiIlg ______________________________________________________ 75 Objectives __________________________________________________ 436,438 Program review _____________________________________ 468,473-475,512 Hesenrch and development ___________________________________ 441l,450 Budget reduction__ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 447 Funding ________________________________________________ 451, 512 Technology utilization_________ _______________________________ 477 U.S.S. R. program compurison _________________________________ 452,453 Aerospace Test Pilot School, Air Force, heartbeat measurement equipment usc____________________________________________________________ 506 Aerothcrmodynamic elastic structmal svstems environmental tests. (See ASSET project.) . Agena target vehicle: Air Force/industry/NASA team _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ 14 Gemini III use_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ __ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 41!l Agriculture, Department of: Coopemtion with NASA, natural resonrces progmm _____________ 144,141) Purdue University grant_ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ _ ____ ___ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 145
7~
INDEX
677
Page
Aiken, Senator George D _- ___ - - - - __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ _____ _ 102, 103 Air Force, Department of (see also Aero Propulsion Laboratory; Aerospace Test Pilot School; Arnold Engineering Development Center; British P-1l27; Eastern Test Range; French Mirage 3-V; Manned Orbiting Laboratory; Satellite Control Facility; Space Systems Division; Western Test Range; XC-142A aircraft): Advanced storable liquid propellant engine projecL________________ 671 Aerospace site support techniques, Project 8170_ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ ____ __ _ _ 461 Aircraft testing .at White Sands Missile Range_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _____ _ _ _ 665 Antisatellite system ____ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _____ - - _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ 660 Astronaut maneuvering unit development_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ ____ ___ _ _ 461 Base support for NASA ground stations ________________________ 395,431 Budget request from Bureau of the Budget_______________________ 640 Cooperation with AEC on SNAP 10-A launch____________________ 541 Cooperation with Army/Navy/NASA on materials research_________ 478 Cooperation with FAA on SST testing___________________________ 468 Cooperation with NASA: Advanced hydrogen-oxygen rocket engine program_____________ 674 Advanced propellant research_______________________________ 479 Advanced technology program______________________________ 671 14 Agena target vehicle failure_ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ ___ _ _ _ 658 Apollo suitability for military missions_______________________ Biosa telli te program _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ ___ ___ __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ 654 Flight simulator for C-5A transport studies___________________ 483 Gemini AMU experiments___ _____ _____ __________ __ ___ ____ _ _ 461 Gemini experiment coordination_ ___ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _______ _ _ _ 177 High performance cryogenic liquid rocket technology _________ 650, 651 Hypersonic aircraft research________________________________ 519 Loan of personneL _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ _____ _ _ 162, 178 Procurement of launch vehicles _____________________________ 52, 369 Propulsion systems facility coordination __________ _______ 467 Reusable launch vehicles studies ___________________________ 644,645 Space medicine__ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ ___ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ __ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ 175 Spacecraft reentry research_ _ _ __ __ __ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ ________ _ _ _ _ 459 Dyna-Soar vehicle compared with NASA lifting bodies ___________ 459,460 Expandable structures for space research__ _______________________ 669 Gemini participation__ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ____ __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ ______ _ _ _ _ 108 Geos A and B observations_____________________________________ 660 Gravity gradient experiment_ _ __ _ ____ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ 672 Ground station use____________________________________________ 400 High performance cryogenic liquid rocket, funding_________________ 651 Instrumentation Ships Project Office _______________________ 389,390,417 Reimbursement for support at Kennedy Space CenteL_____________ 73 VELA satellite program_ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ ____ __ __ _ _ _ _ 659 Air Force Electronic Systems Division, Apollo instrumentation aircrafL 391,420 Air Force National Range Division: Cooperation with NASA ______________________________________ 396,431 Eastern Test Range managemenL_ __ __ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ ____ ___ _ _ _ __ 666 Instrumentation ship operation____ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ ______ __ _ _ __ 418 Western Test Range managemenL______________________________ 666 Air Force System Command Liaison Office, Gemini experiment coordination____________________________________________________________ 177 Aircraft (see also British P-1l27 aircraft; C-5A transpor~ French Mirage 3 V aircraft; Helicopter research; Subsonic transport; ;::;upersonic transport; X-14 aircraft; X-22 aircraft; XC-l42 Aaircraft; XV-5A aircraft): Advanced flight simulators ____________________________________ 482-484 Braking research ____________________________________________ 506, 507 Alouette II: Launching____________________________________________________ 345 Project summary _ __ ___ _ __ __ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ____ __ __ ___ _ _ _ _ __ 309 Alphomrus lunar crater ___________________________________________ 277,349 ALSEP. (See Apollo project/Lunar surface experiment package.) American Bar Foundation, legal problems of space _____________________ 57,58 American Geophysical Union, OGO data presentation ________________ 345,346
J_ _ __
678
INDEX
Page Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.: ABL feasibility studies ________________________________________ _ 359 Assistance to AEC safety program ______________________________ _ 608 Construction of facilities ______________________________________ _ 91 Contract with Battelle Memorial Institute _______________________ _ 500 Lifting body testing __________________________________________ _ 462 OART institutional management _______________________________ _ 538 OSO II experiments __________________________________________ _ 345 Research and development: Blood flowstudy__________________________________________ 498 Breathing pure oxygen experiments_ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ 535 Coaxial cable cutter and strippeL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ 96 Flight simulators ________________________________________ 483, 484 Zero visibility landing_ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ 514 Total personnel complement_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ ___ _ __ 436 Anderson, Senator Clinton P______ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ ___ 1, 2, 8, 9, 17, 20-24, 27-31, 33, 47, 49, 51-53, 55, 63, 69, 71-77, 101-103, 117-122, 126, 151, 275, 276, 280-286, 295-298, 312, 319,322,336,379,380,391,400,401,404, 405, 408,433,447-449, 452, 453, 455-458, 460, 472, 548-551, 561, 632, 633, 636, 639, 640, 645, 649, 650, 651, 674. Letter from James E. Webb ______________________________ 26,27,69-71 Letter to James E. Webb ____________________________________ 26,70, 7I Letter from Richard L. Callaghan ______________________________ 24, 320 Written questions answered by NASA _________________________ 316-319, 401-403, 473-479, 561, 654, 655 Andover, Maine ground station, Gemini recovery coverage ___________ 357, 358 Antigua Island ground station: Air Force base support _______________________________________ 395,431 Construction plans_ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ 420 Management__________________________________________________ 399 Apollo Applications project (see also Saturn/Apollo Applications Office) : Accomplishments, 1965____ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ 242 Advanced manned missions relationship_ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ ____ _ _ ___ _ __ 148 Alternate and follow-on missions ______________________________ 238,239 AOSO task replacement __________________________________ 279, 293, 294 Apollo equipment adaptation_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _______ ____ _ _ __ ___ 122 Apollo facility use ___________________________________________ 125, 126 Apollo project delay _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ ____ __ __ __ _ 140 Appropriations and budget _______________________________ 139,146,147 Budget request__ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ 150 Background _________________________________________________ 225,227 Communication satellite___ ___ ____ _ __ __ _ __ ___ ___ _ _ ____ ___ __ __ ___ 144 Contract with Ball Bros_ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ 294 Experiments _____________________________________________ 82, 151, 298 Extended lunar exploration operations _________________________ 237, 238 Funding______________________________________________________ 284 Options, table___ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ 240 Program cost as a function of program completion, table_______ 241 Importance to U.S. prestige____ __ ______ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 54 Leadtime items_____ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ ___ ____ _ _ __ _ 127 Long duration manned flight operations ____________________ 234, 236, 237 Manned space station requirements_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ 57 Manned synchronous and high inclination orbit operations ________ 232-234 Manpower __________________________________________________ 135,136 Natural resources program ____________________________________ 144, 145 Objectives ______________________________________ 112,113,122,229,231 Chart____________________________________________________ 226 Operational capabilities ______________________________________ 227-22!l Orbital assembly and resupply _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ 234 Payload integration management________________________________ 241 Planned activities, 1966_ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 242 Planning schedule _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ 239 Post-Apollo applications studies _______________________ 255,257,260,262 Rcientific and technological importance ___________________________ 67, 68 Titan III-C use _____________________________________________ 128, 12!1 Unmanned effort reduction_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ 298
INDEX
679
Apollo project (see also Instrumentation ships; Instrumentation aircraft; Saturn I-B; Saturn V): pqe ________________________________ 108,154,155,195,197 Apollo applications project basm _______________________________ 140,227 Appropriations and budget _________________________ 4,130,139,140,268 Adequacy of 1967 budget____ _ _ _______ __ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ 65 Appropriated, obligated and expended_______________________ 59 Overall cost estimat83__ _____ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ ___ __ ___ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ 8,9 Command and service module, contract with North American Aviation________________________________________________________ 217 Construction of faciliti83, cost estimate __ _ __ _ _ __ __ ___ __ _ ____ __ ___ 9 Contractual services, funding increase__ ___ ______ __ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ 73 Cordination with MOL _______________________________ 432,640,658,659 Current st.atus_ _ _ __ _ ___ ____ ___ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ __ __ __ _ 131, 132 Earth orbital missions____ _ __ __ __ ___ __ _ ___ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ 146 Electric power _ _ _ _ ____ __ __ _ __ __ __ ___ _ __ ___ ___ __ ___ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ 527 Engine development_ _ __ ___ _ ____ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ ____ ___ _ __ _____ ___ _ 454 Funding__________________________________________________ 267 Equipment adaptation_ _ ___ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ ___ _ __ __ ___ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ 122 Experiment definition__ _ __ __ ____ ___ __ _ ___ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ ___ 362 Facility capabilities __________________________________ 125,126,211,212 Funding ______________________________________ 59,73,266,267,386,416 Government-industry team_ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ 195, 197 Incentive contracts __________________________________________ 207,208 Joint Manned Space Flight Committee review ____________________ 51,52 Launch vehicle production__ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ 128 Life support systems__ ___ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ ____ _ __ _ _ 532 Lunar excursion module (LEM): Contract conversion to incentive form________________________ 28 Contract with Gruman Aircraft Engineering Corp_ _ __ ____ _ _ __ _ 220 Cost estimate_ _ _ _ ___ ___ __ __ ___ __ ___ ___ _____ ___ _ ____ __ __ _ __ 28 Current status_____ _ __ __ ____ _ __ ___ __ ___ ___ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ ____ _ 109 Des~--------------------------------------------------132 Design for lunar topography ___ _ _ __ _ __ ___ ____ _ _ __ _ __ ____ _ ___ _ 349 Development______________________________________________ 136 Developmental testing of propulsion engines_ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ __ ___ _ 220 Luna 9 effects_____________________________________________ 304 Simulator _______________________________________________ 116, 117 Subsystems_ __ _ __ __ __ _ _____ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _____ ___ ___ ___ __ _ __ _ 307 Surveyor data use ___________________________________ 281,306,307 Lunar landing: Delays _________________________________________________ 123, 124 Effects of budget cut _______________________________________ 29,30 ~Iission communicalions ______________________________ 392,427,428 Lunar surface experiment package (ALSEP): DevelopmenL_____ _ ___ _ __ __ _ _ ____ __ __ _ _____ _ __ ___ ____ ___ _ _ 541 SNAP 27 use ____________________________________ 558, ,559,561,610 Management: 202-209 Capabilities ___________________________________________ 61,62,210 Change controL___ _ _____ _ _____________ _________ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ 204 Data controL ___________________________________________ 204,207 Interagency exchange______________________________________ 208 Measurement of progress_ _ ___ _ ___________ _ __ ___ __ _ __ __ _ ___ _ 202 Program phasing_ _ _ _______ _ ___________ ___ __ ___ __ _ __ ___ ___ _ 198 Iteviewprocedures ______________________________________ 203,204 Manned mission operations_____________________________________ 249 Manufacturing Liaison Office_ _ _ ___ ____ __ ________ ___ __ ____ __ _ __ _ 182 Objectives ___________________________________________ 65, 199-202, 194 Personnel: Astronaut, pilot training _________________________________ 142-144 Astronaut, selection and training __________________________ 174, 253 Astronaut selection, table_ __ ____ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ 363 Capabilities _____________________________________________ Flight controller training _________________________________ 251,253 Increased requirement _____________________________________ 23,36 Launch crew training_ _ _ _ ________ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _________ _ _ _ 251
,~ccomplmhments
21~211
59-941--66----44
680
INDEX
Apollo project (see also Instrumentation ships, etc.-Continued Page Post-Apollo program responsibilities_ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ 130 Recovery ships and aircraft____________________________________ 195 Reentry operations____________________________________________ 123 Hesources analysis ___________________________________________ 210-212 Schedule ___________________________________________ 131,136,204,239 Spacecmft: Current status_ _ ___ ______________ _______ ____ ___________ __ _ 131 De~gn-------------------------------------------------__ 136 Experimental payload eapabilities___________________________ 228 FIUldblg__________________________________________________ 266 Hardware cheekout_ _ ___ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ 204 Leadtime procuremenk _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ 126 Utilization _____________________________________________ 129, 130 Suitability for military missions_ ________________________________ 658 Support from other programs _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ 197 FIRE project influence on heat shield design__________________ 503 Gemini applications ______________________________________ 193,194 Pegasus experiment applications ___________________________ 455, 503 SN AP 27 utilization _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ _ 558, 55!) Surveyor certification of landing sites _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ 306 Systems applications_ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ 68 Technical complexity _____ __ ___ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __ __ _ 60 Technology utilization _______________________________________ 113, 114Tracking and dat.a acquisition: Communications network___ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ 408 Communications requirements ____________________________ 392, 4-27 Deep space network support- ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ 423 Fundin!5 increase ________________________________________ 386,416 Ground station network __________________________________ 387, 420 Network adaptibility to other projects _____________________ 404, 405 Unmanned mission operations___ __ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _____ ___ 24\) Applications technology satellites (ATS) (see also Communications and applications technology satellites program) : ESSAsupporL________________________________________________ 374 Gravity gmdient experirnent____________________________________ 292 Increased funding needs _ _ __ _ _ __ ___ _ ___ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ 20 Launch schedule_____ _ _______ _ _ __ _______ _ _ _____ _ ___ ______ __ ____ 357 Meteorological satellite application ____________________________ 355, 374Tracking and data acquisition network supporL___________________ 425 Applied Physics Laborntory, Silver Spring, Md., DODGE contmctoL___ 2\)2 Appropriations and budget (see also specific centers and programs) : Administrative operations_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ 5 Authorization bill for fiscal year 1967, S. 2909: Section analysis _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 6-8 Text_____________________________________________________ 4-6 Authori"""tion bills, fiscal years 1966 and 1967, differences __________ 88-90 Budget requesL ____________________________________________ 31, 63, 64Reduction_ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ 45 Construction of facilities_____ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 4 Contmctor support- ___________________________________________ 72, 73 Effects of budget eut ___________________ 17,29,30,39-41,43,286,287,294 ESSA, 1!J65-67 ______________________________________________ 378, 379 Fiscal yen.r 1\)68 impact on space prograrn ________________________ 68, 69 PersonneL ____________________________________________________ 35, 36 Priority of space progrnnL ______________________________________ 62, 63 Research and development- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 Space importance rebtive to Vietnam___________________________ 54 APT. (See Automatic picture transmission.) Argentina: NASA cooperation____ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ 58 OSSA launch assistance________________________________________ 30!J Argus Island tower _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 145
INDEX
681
Army, Department of (see also Nike-X anti-missile-missile development project; Redstone Arsenal; XV-5A aircraft): Page Antisatellite system___ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _____ ___ _ _ 660 Army ~Iap Service cooperation in Pageos_________________________ 377 Army Test Range, Kwajalein _________________________________ 378,665 Cooperation with !\ASA: Helicopter research ______________________________________ 486,487 Loan of medical personneL _______________________________ 175,178 Cooperation with !\avy/Air Force/NASA, materials research________ 478 Corps of Engineers, Electronics Research Center construction __ 446,464,539 Secor satellite _ _ _ _ __ _ __ ____ __ _ __ _ ___ _ ____ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ ____ ____ _ _ 659 Transfer of JPL to NASA______________________________________ 50 Water supply to Goldstone station_______________________________ 401 White Sands Missile Range management_________________________ 665 Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tenn.: Loan of facilities to FAA_ ______________________________________ 648 SST developmenL _______________________________________ 468,469,648 XB-70 developmenL _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _____ __ _ ___ __ _ _ __ 467 ARPA. (See Advanced Research Projects Agency.) Ascension Island ground station (see also Cable and Wireless, Ltd.): Air Force base support _______________________________________ 395, 431 Apollo communications _______________________________________ 393, 428 Construction completion_____ _ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ _ 420 ManagemenL____ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ ___ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _____ ___ _ __ ___ ___ _ _ _ 399 ASSET project dcscription_____ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ ____ _ ___ _ _ _ 668 Astronauts: Scientists_- _____________________________________ 142-144, 174, 362, 363 363 Training_____________________________________________________ ATDV. (See Gemini project, augmented target docking vehicle.) Atlas-Agena launch vehicle (see also Agena target vehicle): :\:lariner 1967 mission use___ __ _ _ _ __ ___ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ ____ __ 351 369 Perlormance__________________________________________________ Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle--procurement funds_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ _ __ 293 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (see also Ground Prototype Test Facility; Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory; Sandia Corp.): Contracting policy ___ __ __ _ ___ _ __ ___ _ ____ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ _ ____ ___ _ _ __ 76 Cooperation with DOD, VELA nuclear test detection satellite_______ 659 Cooperation with NASA: Advanced reactor electric power systems_____________________ 624 178 Apollo radiation studies____________________________________ Architect and engineering services___________________________ 76 Nuclear fuel research_______________________________________ 627 Cooperation with NASA and DOD, space power ________________ 670,671 Limitation on architect and engineering services___________________ 76 NERVA appropriation _______________________________________ 552,558 Nuclear electric systems funding, table _________________________ 547,548 Nuclear rocket program ______________________________________ 526,527 Radioisotope electric generator development ____________________ 608-611 Radioisotope propulsion research________________________________ 601 SNAP research and developmenL _____________________________ 541-543 SNAP 8 reactor contract_ _ ____ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ __ _ _ __ 616 Space program funding, table _________________________________ 547,548 Atomics International SNAP 8 reactor contracL______________________ 616 ATS. (See Applications technology satellites.) Australia (see also Canberra ground station; Carnarvon ground statil.n; W oomera ground station), agreement for construction of ground station_ 420 Australian Overseas Telecommunications Commission (.see also Carnarvon, Australia) charges to NASA for ground station support______________ 406 Automated Biological Laboratory (ABL): Feasibility studies_ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ __ 359 :\Iars landing_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _____ _____ _____ __ _ ___ ___ ______________ 78 Automatic data processing (ADP): Data point description _____________________________________ 47,48,405 Digital process control system ________________________________ - -98 Equipment acquisition ___________________________ 382,383,408,411,412 Goddard Institute for Space Studies ___________________________ 333,334 OTDA management responsibilities ____________________ 381-383,410-412 Research requirements for spacecrafL __________________________ 536-538
682
INDEX
Automatic picture transmission (APT): Page ESSA II use ________________________________________________ 372,373 TOSS use__ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ ___ 354 Avondale Shipyard, New Orleans, La., reentry ship conversion__________ 418
B
B-70 aircraft. (See XB-70 research aircraft.) Ball Bros. Co., contract for ATM_____ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ ____ __ _ __ ___ _ __ ____ _ 294 Barking Sands, Kauai, installation under PMR_________________________ 666 Basic research program, OAR T: Appropriations and budget _____________________________________ 4,530 Electrophysics________________________________________________ 530 Fluid physics_________________________________________________ 530 Materials research ___________________________________________ 530--532 Polymers _______________________________________________ 496, 498 Stress corrosion of titanium _______________________________ 504,505 Supersonic transports_ _ ___ _ _ __ ___ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ 514 Mathematics__________________________________________________ 532 Program components _________________________________________ 443-445 Battelle Memorial Institute: Defense Metals Information Center __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ 669 Water electrolysis cell development- _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ ___ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ 500 Beacon Explorer. (See Explorer project.) Bendix Corp., instrumentation aircraft modification contracL__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 420 Bermuda tracking station: Apollo manned missions_ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ ___ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ 249 Construction__________________________________________________ 420 415 Center_________________________________________________________ 533 Biomedical applications: Lunar'valker _________________________________________________ 73,95 Sight switch_ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ 73, 95 Telemetry research _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ ___ __ __ __ _ __ _ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ 94, 95 Biosatellite project: Air Force/NASA cooperation___________________________________ 654 Cost increase_ ___ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ 291 DOD participation __________________________________________ 291,292 Increased funding needs_ __ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ __ _ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ 19 Project plans ________________________________________________ 358, 359 Tracking and data acquisition___ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ___ 425 Bioscience program, OSSA (see also Automated Biological Laboratory; Biosatellite project) : Accomplishments ____________________________________________ 358-360 Appropriations and budget_ _ _ _ _ ________ __ ____ ______ _ ___ _ _______ 4 Life support systems research_ _ __ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ 360 Objectives____________________________________________________ 343 Planned program funding, table_ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ 19 Status of U.S.S.R./NA8A agreement _____________________________ 33,34 Blanding, Utah _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 665 Blossom Point, Md. ground station, deactivation_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 426 Boeing Co.: Contractor for 8--1B and 8-1C stages____________________________ 215 Contractor for Voyager _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ 352 Interindustry cooperation___ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 182 Prime contractor for Lunar Orbiter _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 296 Boeing 707 aircraft, supersonic transport research_ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ 517 Brazil: NASA cooperative efforts___ __ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____ _ 58 OSSA launch assistance _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 309 British P-1127 _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ 484 Buckley, Edmond C.: Biography____________________________________________________ 409 Prepared statement. _________________________________________ 409-432
BlOlE~a:i~:~~~~,itt;~-b-ridg~,- M;;;.~ ~~~t~~~t- ~ith - Ei~~t~~~i~s- R~s~~~~h
INDEX
683
Bureau of the Budget: Page Approval of Lewis Research Center SST facilities__________________ 470 Authorization for reprograming funds_ ____ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ __ __________ 24 Criteria for data processing equipment acquisition_________________ 408 Original NASA budget request cuL______________________________ 31 Personnel classification_ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ ___ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ 37 Research grant cost sharing, NASA.. ___________________________ 335,336 Review of Goddard MSF support manpower ___________________ 394,431 Uniform contracting policy _____________________________________ 76, 77 Bureau of Naval Weapons, Pacific Missile Range managemenL_________ 665 Bureau of Public Roads, cooperation with NASA: Braking research applications_ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ __ ___ ___ _ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ 508 Highway safety _____________________________________________ 477, 478 Byrd, Senator Harry F., Jr _______________________________________ 647,648 Written questions answered by XASA _____________ 148,149,322-336,480 C-54transport____________________________________________________ 483 Cable & Wireless, Ltd. (see also Ascension Island), charges to NASA for ground station support_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ 406 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. (See Jet Propulsion Laboratory.) California University, Berkeley, Calif.: Lunar exploration summer conference_ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ ______ _ _ _ _ __ 174 "Radio pill" _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _____ __ ___ _ _ _ _____ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __ _ 505 Callaghan, Richard L., letter to Senator Clinton P. Anderson __________ 24,320 Cambridge Redevelopment Agency ________________________________ 462-464 Canada (see also Alouette I; Alouette II; Churchill Research Range, Fort Churchill) : Alouette launching___________________________________________ 309,345 Launch assistance by NASA__ __ ___ __ ____ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ______ _ _ _ __ 58 Canary Island ground station (see also Compania Telefonica Nacional de Espana): Apollo communications _______________________________________ 393,428 Construction plans_____ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ __ __ ____ __ _ __ _ _ 420 Canberra, Australia, ground station: Consolidation with Woomera station__ ____ __ __ _ ____ _ _ _____ __ _ _ _ __ 426 Construction of facilities_ ____ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ 420, 426 Deep space facility _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ _ ____ __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ ______ _ _ __ _ 423 Canoga Park, Calif., facility, fabrication and assembly of F-l and J-2 engines____ __ _____ _______ ____ _ _ _ __ _ __ ____ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ 215 Cannon, Senator Howard W _________________ 39-48,74,103,119, ]30-134, 144, 298-305,312, 313,449-452, 551-55~556, 557,653-655 Written questions answered by NASA _________________________ 134-136, 143-145,305-307,408,652-654 Canton Island ![round station, transfer from DOD to NASA ______ 395,396,431 Carnarvon, Australia ground station (see also Australian Overseas Telecommunications Commission): Apollo communications ___________________________________ 249,393,428 Construction completion______ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ ____ __ ___ _ ____ _ __ _ __ __ 420 ('"nified S-band communications _ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _____ __ _ __ __ 249 Centaur launch" ehicle (see also Atlas-Centaur): Accomplffihnlcnts ___________________________________________ 366,368 ~1ariner 1969 mffisions use ____________________________________ 351,352 Sun'eyor program use__ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ ___ 341 Chemical Engineering magazine article on polymers_ __ _ __ _ __ ____ _ _ _ __ __ 496 Chemical propulsion program, OART (see elso Launch vehicle propulsion technology project; Large solid motor project): Advanced liquid propellant research, funding ____________________ 471-473 Appropriations and budget- _ _ ____ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ __ ____ __ _ __ __ 4, 525 Scope________________________________________________________ Chrysler Corp.: Contractor for 8-IB and S-IC stE.ges____________________________ Interindustry cooperation_____ _ ___ _____ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ __ _
g~~~~~~~~a~~h=========================-==================== 4~~ 521

215 182
684
INDEX
Page
Churchill Research Range, Fort Churchill, Canada, operation controL __ _ 58 Civil Service Commission: Posi tion classifi cation _________________________________________ _ 37 Security investigations, KASA reimbrusement ____________________ _ 73 Coast and Geodetic Survey, U.S.: Basic research ________________________________________________ _ 376 Cooperation in Pageos ________________________________________ _ 377 Cooperation with DOD and NASA on Geodetic satellites __________ _ 6.59 Funding _____________________________________________________ _ 379 Lunar exploration summer conference ___________________________ _ 174 Coast Guard, U.S., Joint Navigational Satellite Committee ____________ _ 290 Columbia University ______________________________________________ _ 333 Commerce, Department of (.gee also Emironmen(.al Scipnccs Sprvicc Administmtion) : Cooperation with DOD and NASA: Geodetic satellite progralll ________________________________ 637,65!) Tiros operational satellite (TOS) system ____________________ 637, 660 Cooperation with NASA: ESSA program_ __ __ __ _ ____ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ ] 78 Technology utilization _ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 94 Federal 'space weather' agency __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ 37.1 Joint Navigational Satellite Committee membership _____________ 290,321 NOMBS requirements___ __ _ _ ___ _ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 373 Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, legal problems of space ___ 57,58 Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), U.S./V.S.S.R. data exchange_ 38 Committees and Boards: Ad Hoc Committee on Scientific Qualifications and Selection of Scientist Astronauts_ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ 174 Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board and PaneL _ 51, 176,292, 46n, 470, 476-479, 638, 63n, tl41-645,651, 662, 663, 667-669,672-674 Committee on the Peaceful 'Uses of Outer Space_ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ ___ 57 Comlllitt!'e on Spac!' Research (COSPAH)__________ _____________ 3.<; Coordinating COIl1mittee for J\1at('rials H('search and Develojlll1enL _ 478 Inventions lind Contributions Board _____________________________ 92,93 Joint Economic Committee_____________________________________ 50 Joint Manned Space Flight COIl1mittee ___________________________ 51-53 Joint Navigational Satellite Committc(' _________________________ 2no, 321 Manned Space Flight Experiments Board ______________ 51,52,82, ]29, 2n7 Manned Space Flight Policy CommiUee ____________ 176, 177, 639, 672, G7;~ Materials Advisory Board_ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ 478 Materials Research Advisory Committee, N ASA ________________ 478, (jG9 Meteorological Program Review Board_ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ 287 NASA-FAA Coordinating Board_ _ ___ _______ _____ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ _ 477 President's Scientific Advisory Board __________________________ 174,] 71i Science and Technology Advisory Committee______________________ ]7~ Space Sciences Steering COll1rnittee ___ .. _________________________ 82,297 Communications and application:'> technology satellites program, OSSA (see also Applications technology satellites) : Accomplishrnents ____________________________________________ 35G-358 Appropriations and budget _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 4 Objectives____________________________________________________ 337 Planned program funding _______________________________________ 19,20 Prograln content______________________________________________ 343 Supporting research and technology __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 358 COllllllunications and navigation: Apollo applications progmm __________________________________ 233, 2:~4 Early Bird laullch_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 341 COllllllunications network (N ASCO:\l): Apollo applications support ____________________________________ _ 242
,j,i~~l\\~l~\~~~t~~:~~.~~~~~~l~;~~~l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ===========================Bin!): ===== COllllllunicatiolls Satellitr Corp., WUohingtoll, D.C. also Early
(SI'C
412
5:iu
ChargP8 for services by NASA ________________________________ 35G, ;{!i7 ConlllH'rcial transa1 bntic commll1licatiolls service__ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 277 DiscllHoiolls with DCA _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G(i2
INDEX
685
Communications Satellite. Corp., Washington, D.C., etc.-Continued Page Satellite station_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ 144 Services for NASA __________________________________________ 405,406 Charges for ground station support__________________________ 406 Contract for Apollo Communications Network __________ 393,408,428 Systems difference from ODRS _______________________________ 407,408 Communications satellit~ (see also Communications and applications technology satellites program; specific satellites): Charges to NASA for ground station supporL____________________ 406 Commerical use_ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _____ __ ___ 144 DOD/NASA cooperation _____________________________________ 662,663 Operational system _______________ - ___ -_ _ ___ ___ _____ __ ___ _ __ __ _ 341 Compania Telefonica Nacional de Espana (see al.so Canary Islands), charges to NASA for ground station support._______________________ 406 Comsat. (See Communications Satellite Corp.) Construction of facilities (see also specific centers, offices, and programs): Appropria tions and budget_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ __ ____ _ __ __ 4, 64 Architect and engineering services_ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ ___ __ ____ _ _ _ __ 32, 33 AEC limitations on fees_ _ _ ___ _____ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ ___ _ ____ _ _ _ ___ 76 Six percent limitation on fees _____________________ 7,8,75-77,88,89 DODjN ASA cooperation_ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ ____ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ 174 Receipt of funds from R. & D ___________________________________ 89,90 Contracting and procurement (see also Sustaining university program; specific projects) : Air Force procurement for NASA________________________________ 52 Appropriations and bud geL _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ ____ _ __ __ 73 Computer acqllisition ________________________________ 382,383,411,412 Contract personnel at NASA centers, table_ _ _ ___ __ ___ _ __ ____ _ _ __ _ 83 Contract type evaluation___ _ ______ _ ___ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _____ _ _ __ _ _ 50 Expenditures _________________________________________________ 49, 50 Future decline in requirements __________________________________ 45,46 Incentive contracts _____________________ 28,29,81,82, 169, 171-173,295 Launch vehicles_ __ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ ______ __ _ 368, 369 Overseas expenditures___ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _____ _ _ ___ _ 50 Convair 990 aircraft, supersonic transport research_____ _ ___ ______ _ _ ____ 517 Coordinating Committee for Materials Research and Development., interagency cooperation______________________________________________ 478 Cornell University, lunar surface simulated studies_____________________ 303 Corpus Christi, Tex., ground station: Construction plans_____ _ _ _ _ _ ______ ___ __ ______ __ ___ ______ _ _ _ _ __ _ 420 Transfer from DOD to NASA ____________________________ 395,396,431 Cosmos satellites, completed launches________________________________ 16 COSP AR. (See Committee on Space Research.) Crawler project: Contract fee reduction_________________________________________ 27 Fllnding______________________________________________________ 27 Croatan, USS: IQSY equatorial electrojet studies _____________________________ 310, 312 IQSY sounding rocket launchings___ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _____ _ _ __ __ _ 344 CurtiS, Senator Carl T _____________________________________________ 14,15
D
Data acquisition and analysis (see also Automatic data processing), technology utilization program ________________________________________ 93,94 Data dissemination: . Distribution time___ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ __ __ __ _ ___ __ __ ____ _____ _ __ _ __ 400 Technology utilization program _________________________________ 93,94 Data processing. (See Automatic data processing.) DCA. (See Defense Communications Agency.) _ Deep .Space II;tstrumentation Facility (DSIF), Mariner IV picturerecelvmg statJon____ __ ___ __ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ __ __ _ ___ _____ _ __ __ __ ___ __ _ _ 500 Deep space network, concurrent ::\Iariner and Ranger mission support. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ ____ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _____ _ _ 384, 385, 413 Deep space probes. (See :1\1ariner; Yoyager.) Defense Communications Agency (DCA): Contracting and procurement. _ __ _ __ _ ___ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ ____ __ __ __ _ _ _ 661 Discussions with Comsat on use of services_ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _____ _ _ _ ____ _ 662
686
INDEX
Defense communications satellite project: Page Advanced system (ADCSPL____________________________________ 661 Experiments _ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ ___ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _ __ ___ __ __ _ 662 Initial system (IDCSP) _ _ _ __ __ _ __ ___ __ _ ____ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ __ __ __ __ _ 662 Gravity gradient experiments_ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ _ 672 Program review _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ __ _ 63R Titan III -C launch vehicle_ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ _ __ _ ___ 663 Objectives_ _ _ _ ___ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ ___ __ __ ___ _ __ 638 Program cosL _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ ___ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ 663 Program review _ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ 661-663 Tactical system (TSCP) ____ _ __ ___ _ __ __ __ _ ___ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ ___ _ 662 Defense, Department of (DOD) (see also Advanced ballistic reentry system; Advanced Research Projects Agency; Aeronautics and Astronautics; Air Force; Army; ASSET project; Coordinating Board; Interagency cooperation; Navy; Octohedral research satellite; PILOT project; PRIME project; Spacecraft technology and advanced reentry tests; VELA satellite project) : Contract Administration Services_ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ 178 Cooperation with AEC on VELA nuclear test detection satellite__ __ _ 659 Cooperation with AEC and NASA on space power _______________ 670,671 Cooperation with Commerce Department and NASA: Geodetic satellite program ________________________________ 637, 659 Tiros operational satellite (TOS) system ____________________ 637,660 Cooperation with NASA: Activity coordination with OART _________________________ 476,477 Aeronautics research and development funding_ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ 451 Agreement formulation ___________________________________ 646,647 Apollo instrumentation aircraft and ships agreement_ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ 389, 391,397,398,417,420 .\pollo _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ___ _ ____ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ 208 Electronics research_ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ ___ 535 Exchange of personneL _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ 83, 64-7, 674 Facilities coordination and construction ____________________ 645, 774 Gemini experiment coordination_ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ 461 Gravity gradient stabilization experiment___ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ 292 :\lanlled space f1ight experiments __________________________ 129,167 Malln~d Space Flight Policy Committee ________________ 639,672,673 :\'1atenals and structures research ______________________ 478,668, 669 National Conference on Space ::\Iaintenance and Extravehicular Acti \' i ties ____ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ 461 Plans, programs, and operations eoordination ___________ 395,396,431 Ranges and networks ____________________________________ 667, 668 Satellite communications programs ________________________ 662, 66:3 Secon dary payload integrat ion coordination_ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ 673 Solid motor projeets ______________________________________ 492,671 Technical liaison office_ _ _ _ ____ ________________ _ _ _______ _ __ _ 177 Tracking and data acquisition supporL ________________ 381, 425, 666 Western Test l{lUlge facilities use__ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 371 \-Vhite Sands Missile Range use______________________________ 665 492 156-inch motoL_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ Cooperation with XASA and industry: Hovering characteristics of specific aircraft____________________ 484 -Manned space f1ight _________________________________ 178-181,187 Early Biru satellite use__ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ 662 Joint Manned Space Flight COlllmittee ___________________________ 51-5a .Joint ::\ avigational Satellite Committee membership _____________ 290, 321 Launch vehicle evalllation_ _ _ _ _____ __ ___ _ _ _________ ________ _ __ __ 55 Limitation on construction of facilities_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ 76 Loan of personnel to NASA_____________________________________ 36 .:vlannpd Space Flight ExppriIllPnts Boarcl _________________________ til, .')2 MOL tracking networL _____________________________________ 404,405 Nimbus use___ ___ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _________ __ ______ _ ____ _ 652 Operational control of Syncoll1 II and III_________________________ 661 Participation ill biosatellite prov;mnL __________________________ 291,292 lladioiHotope I!;t'nerator acqllisition _________________________ 540, 541, 608 Ranges and networks _________________________________________ 664, 665 H.equircments for NOMBB_______________________ _______________ 373
INDEX
687
Defense, Department of (DOD), etc.-Continued Page Respiratory physiology research_ __ ___ __ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ _ _ 535 Space program: Appropriations and budget- _ _ _ __ ___ ____ _ ____ _ ____ ______ ____ 635 Description_ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ 282, 283, 634, 635 Funding ________________________________________________ 656,657 Program review _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ __ ___ __ _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ ___ ___ 636, 656 Syncom satellites use _________________________________________ 277, 357 TOS system requirements_ _ _ _ ___ __ __ __ __ ____ ___ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ 354 Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the Director, cooperation with _______________________________________________________ 396,431 Defense research, development, test, and evaluation program: Antisatellite projeet____ __ ___ _ ___ _____ _ __ __ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ _ 660 Early warning project, current status_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ ____ __ _ _ 658 Geodetic and geophysical project_ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ __ _ 659, 660 ~Ieteorology satellites program, DODGE ::\1 experiment __________ 660,661 X avigation satellites project- _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ 660 Supporting research and technology: Funding__________________________________________________ 668 Gravity !!radient stabilization_ _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ ___ __ ____ __ ___ 672 Larg:e solid-motor technology _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ ___ __ _____ _ _ _ _ 671 Liquid rocket propulsion technology _______________________ 671, 672 Materials and structures __________________________________ 668,669 R cen try and recovery _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ ______ _ __ 668 Space power project _____________________________________ 670,671 Delta launch vehicle (see also Thor-Delta launch vehicle): Capability____________________________________________________ 341 Failure_______________________________________________________ 345 Pioneer launch success _ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ __ _ _ ___ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ __ __ _ 348 Reliability __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _____ __ _ _ _ 369 Department of Agriculture. (See Agriculture, Deparrment of.) Department of the Air Force. (See Air Force, Department of.) Department of the Army. (See Army, Department of.) Department of Commerce. (See Commerce, Department of.) Department of Defense. (See Defense, Department of.) Department of Health, Education and Welfare. (See Health, Education and Welfare. Department of.) Department of the Interior. (See Intrior, Department of.) Department of Labor. (See Labor, Department of.) Department of the Kavy. (See Navy, Department of.) Department of State. (See Stat, Department of.) Department of the Treasury. (See T'realjury, Department of.) DOD. (See Defense, Department of.) Doppler satellite geodetic tracking network, description _ _ ___ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ 659 Douglas Aircraft Corp.: Instrumentation aircraft modification contract _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _____ _ ___ 420 Interindustry cooperation___________________________________ __ 182 S-IVB stage contractor _ _ _ ______ _________ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ 215 Downey, Calif., industrial plant, description ________________________ 217, 220 DSIF. (See Deep space instrumentation facility.) Dutch Guiana, OSSA launch assistance _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ____ __ _ _ _ 309
~ASA
E
Early Bird communications satellite: Commercial transatlantic communications service__________________ 277 DOD use__ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ ___ ____ __ _ __ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ 662 Genrinirecovery coverage ____________________________________ 357,358 Launchsuccess ______________________________________________ 341,356 Operational commercial communication, satellite ________________ 338,342 Tracking and data acquisition___________________________________ 425 East Grand Forks, Minn., gronnd station, deactiYation________________ 426 Eastern Test Range, Patrick AFB, Fla.: Construction of facilities, ftmding ______________________________ 648,649
~~~iri~1ig;a~~~============================================~64,~ii
DOD/XASA cooperative efforts _______________________________ 396,431 Tracking support from Western Test Range_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ____ __ _____ 666
688
INDEX
Page
Eastman Kodak Co., camera contract for Lunar OrbiteL _____________ 295,296 Echo passive communications satellite, project complction_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 357 Echo II, u.S.S.R. cooperation_______________________________________ 38 J~du~a:ional progra?1s. (See Sustaini~1g university I?rogram.) Edwards AFB, Cahf., acceptance testmg of F-1 engme_________________ 215 Electron ics research: Batt ery separator materiaL_____________________________________ 96 Coaxial cable cutter and stripper _ _ __________________ ____________ 96 Cold cathode ionization gage__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 95 Damped piezoelectric accelerometer ___ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ 96 Differential temperature transducer _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 97 Elpctromagnetie hammer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 95 Reetifil~rs replacement____ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ml Temperature transducer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 96 Electronics Re~earch Center, Cambridge, l\bss.: Activ~~H_____________________________________________________ 466 Antenna range site __________________________________________ 455,456 Appropriations and budget- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 Construction of facilities _____________________________ 446, 462-464, 535 Contract with Block Engineering________________________________ 53;~ Contract with Honeywell, Inc___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ 533 EstablishmenL ______________________________________________ 538, 539 Intraagency cooperation, NASA Office of Reliability and Quality Assurance__________________________________________________ 466 Objectives____________________________________________________ 466 Personnel increase _________________________________________ 35,36,509 Electronics systems program, OART (see also Radio attenuation measurement" project): Activities ___________________________________________________ 446, 447 Appropriations and hudgeL _____________________________________ 4,535 Marinier IV TV picture processing____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 500 Reentry eOnlllluniel,tions _____________________________________ 500,502 ELSS. (Src Extravehicular aeti vit)' / Life support systems.) Engineering 1'(';;(,"1'ch: 98 l-[jgh-pn'osu1'e seals _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Slip and bush rings _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 97 Thill wall cylinders _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 99 Engines. (Sec speciflc engines.) England. (See Great Britain). Eniwetok, :;\1a1'shall Isbnds_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ____ ____ ______ _________ 666 Envirollllwntal Sciencc fkrviccs Administration (ES::lA) (see also Coast and Geodetic Burn:y; ESSA meteOl'ologieal satellites; Institute for TcIPcommunication Sciences and Aeronomy; National Enyironmental Satellite C('ntl~r; ~ Mional Operational Meteorological Satdlite Senicl' (NOM;';S); Weathcr Blll'P:W): Appropri"tions :,nd obligations, 1\)63-67 ________________________ 378,37\) BUl'eall of Standa\'(l~ ncti\'i(,~,.,- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2SS E~t!Lhli~ll1nell L ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 178 Institlltp of Ruth S'ieI\(l'~______________________________________ 378 NASA R. & D. sllppork _____________________________________ 374,373 Nation,d OI)('1'!ttional \\'(':(tl1('r satellite sv:'\tem_____________________ 277 Purposc __________ , ________________ ~__________________________ 372 R('hti()n~hip with ~AS,L ________________________________ 287,288,272 TOSS funding :111([ managelll('lIL____ __________________ __________ 354 Ellyiron1l11'1It:Ll "III'V"~' "atdlite. (See ESSA meteorological ";t,tellit(,s.) ESH,O ~:1jpllitp~, ()SSA partil'ip:ttioIL________________________________ :109 ESSA. (8ce ElIvirOlllnclltal Science Sen'ices Admillistr!Ltion.) ESSA met"orolo:~icttl sfltPllit cs: COllljl()nl'lll~ of 'I'OS8 ________________________________________ 372, 37:~ Lallllch succe~ses _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 277 ESSA I: Ad vancelllell L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13 :'.Iissioll SUCCl:SS____ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _____ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 372
~~~~~l~-_-_-~ ~~ == === == === == === == ====== === ==~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~-464, 4~~
INDEX
689
ESSA II: Page Advancement_________________________________________________ 13 Launch plans _______________________________________________ 372,373 EST. (See l"uclear rocket de\'elopment station/Engine system test.) ETR. (See Eastern Test Range.) European Space Research Organization (ESRO) (see also ESRO satellites) : Cooperation with XASA________________________________________ 15 Satellite R. & D_______________________________________________ 345 Space technology cooperation _ _ __ _ _ ___ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ ___ __ ____ 15, 309 EVA. (See Extravehicular activity.) Exametnet. (See Experimental inter-American meteorological rocket network.) Experimental inter-American meteorological rocket network, agreement with Argentina and BraziL ____ ___ __ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ __ __ ______ ___ 58 Explorer project (see also Geodetic satellite program; International cooperation) : Accomplishments ____________________________________________ 277,345 Beacon Explorer participation___ __ _ ___ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _____ _ _ _ 309 Meteoroid penetration experimenL _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ ___ __ _____ _ _ _ _ 524 OWL Explorer satellites, Rice Lniversity studies_.________________ 345 Relati011ship with OGO and 080 ______________________________ 334,335 Tracking and data acquisition____ __ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _____ ______ __ _ __ 425 Explorer XVI, data, tabular summary_____ __ _ _ ____ _ _ __ _ ___ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ 493 Explorer XX, ITSA scientific operations controL______________________ 375 Explorer XXII, laser beam experimenL______________________________ 502 Explorer XXIII, data, tabular sllmmary_____________________________ 493 Explorer XXVIII. (See Interplanetary monitoring platform.) Explorer XXIX. (See GE08 A.) Explorer XXX, IQSY X-ray measllrements _________________________ 309,311 Extraterrestrial life_ _ ___ __ _ __ _____ ___ _____ __ ___ _ __ _ __ ___ _________ _ _ 359 Extravehicular activity (EVA): Engineering on long duration flights____ _________________________ 236 Life support systems (ELSS)____________________________________ 461 :\Ianeuvf'ring units___ _ __ __ _ _ ______ ___ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ ____ _____ 461 National conference on space maintenance and extravehicular actiYities_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ ________ ____ __ __ _ _____ _ __ __ ____ __ _ _ __ 461 SpacesuiL_ _ __ ___ __ _ __ __ ___ ___ _ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ _____ _ _ _ _ 533
F F -1 rocket engine: Development and testing ______________________ - _______________ _ 215 Acceptancc testing at Edwards AFB ____________________________ _ 215 De\'eloped at Santa Susana test facility _________________________ _ 215 Fabricated and assembled at Canoga Park, CaliL ________________ _ 215 Importance of project _________________________________________ _ 67 ::\lanufactured by Rocketdyne __________________________________ _ 213 F-ll1 aircraft, supersonic transport research _________________________ _ 517 FAA. (See Federal Aviation Agcncy.) Facilities. (Sec Construction of facilities.) Facilities ::'.-ianagement Office, functions and authority _________________ _ 92 Fairbanks, Alaska, ground station, facility addition ___________________ _ 426 Falmouth, :'Ias5., conference: Lunar exploration recommendations __ _ _ ____ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ ____ _ _ _ _ __ 263 Recommendations on space program alternativcs ____________ 113,114,362 Federal A Yiation Agency (FAA): Air traffic control center _______________________________________ _ 483 Commercial supersonic transport developmenL _______________ -- __ 468 Cooperation with Air Force, use of AEDC facilities _______________ _ 468 Cooperation with NASA: Aeronautics research and development funding____________________ 451 Apollo mana~emenk-, __ __ __ __ __ ____ _ __ ___ _ __ __ __ __ __ ___ _ ____ __ 208 ~ASA-FAA -coordinating board_________________________________ 477 ~oise and sonic boom research ____________________________ 438, 5Ir! Supersonic tran~port research _____________________ 475, 1i6, 483,517 Heartbeat measurement equipment program interesk______________ 506 Joint X:wigational Satellite Committee membership _____________ 290,321
690
INDEX
Finger, Harold B.: Page Biography __________________________________________________ 539, 540 General testimony ___________________________________________ 548-561 Prepared statement_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ 540-548 554-556, 561-632 Fink, Daniel J., general testimony _________________________ ~ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ 644 FIRE project: Accomplishments__ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ 490 Effect on Apollo heat shield design_______________________________ 503 FIRE I accomplishments _________________________________________ 490,492 Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif.: Heartbeat measurement equipment use __________________________ _ 506 Lifting body testing __________________________________________ - 462 Lunar landing research vehicle, astronaut training ________________ _ 480 OAnT institutional management- ______________________________ _ 538 Total personnel complement __________________________________ -436 )(-15 conference ____________________________________________ --489 Fort Irwin, CaliL ______________________________________________ - -429 Fort Wingate, N. Mex ____________________________________________ _ 665 Foster, Dr. John S., Jr.: Biography __________________________________________________ 633-634 General testimony ___________________________________ 634-641, 644-656 Prepared statement_ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ 656-674 France (see also FR(French) I satellite.) Sounding rocket instrumentation provision _______________________ _ 309 Soviet/French conference ______________________________________ _ 37, 38 Space technology cooperation __________________________________ _ 15 French Mirage 3-V aircraft- _______________________________________ _ 484 FR(French) I satellite: Launching ___________________________________________________ _ 345 Projectsummary _____________________________________________ _ 309 Tracking and data acquisition _________________________________ _ 425 Fuel cells, moisture removal S} stenL ________________________________ _ 97 Funding (see also Reprograming): Adequacy of 1967 budget for lunar mission_______________________ 65 Expenditures outside Government _______________________________ 49, 50 Geographical distribution of R. & D. funds_______________________ 90
G
GAO. (See General Accounting Office.) Gehrig, James J ______ 53-55, 75-81, 117, 136, 137, 139-141, 145, 313, 315, 316, 322, 405-408, 461-464, 466, 467, 471-473, 559, 560, 639, 650-652 Written questions answered by NASA ____________________________ 55-63, 76, 77, 81-84, 149-150, 313, 314 Gemini mid program conference____ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 174 Gemini proj ect: Accomplishments _______________ 106-108, 154, 155, 184-187, 189-192,342 Air Force participation_ _ _ __ _ _ __ ___ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ 108 Appropriations and budget_ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ _____ _ ____ _ _ __ _ 4 Budget reduction_ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ 265 Augmented target docking adapteL _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 149 Contract with McDonnpll Aircraft Corp_ ____________________ 192 Communications requirements ________________________________ 392, 427 Early Bird recovery coverage _________________________________ 357, 358 Electric power _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 527 Experi ments_ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ 298, 360-362 Flight requirements __________________________________________ 148, 149 Funding, cost estimate stability _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 60 Hardware contract with Martin Co_ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 108 Incentive contracts _________________________________________ .. 108, 187 Joint .Manned Space' Flight Committee' J'eyie\L ____ . ____ . ________ 51,52
== :\10L applications ______________________________ 125, 17S, 1\)4,636, Objectiycs ______________________________________________ 184, H)2, Personnel transfer to MOL prograllL ___________________________ Photograph correlation with Tiros_______________________________
~i~~I~~S~'l~;;e~r~~~I~l~==== == ==== == == == == ==== == = =~ = i90-~~~ = == = == = == = = - (i5S
193 14D
:341
INDEX
691
Gemini project-Continued PUt! Public reports ____ --- -- _-__________ _______ __ _ ___ __ _______ __ __ _ _ 174 Relationship to ~pollo____ _ ___ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ __ __ 193, 194, 197, 227 Recovery operatlons _________________________________________ 187-189 Rendezvous and docking _____________________________________ 107,108 Spacecraft---------------------------------------------_______ 130 Contract with McDonnell Aircraft Corp- _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ____ 108, 184, 187 Tracking and data acquisition: Global instrumentation network support------------------- 384,412 Ground station support---------------------------------- 387,420 ~etworkadaptability------------------------------------__ 404 Gemini III reentry communications experiment_ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ 502 Gemini IV accomplishments- _ _ ___ _ __ __ ___ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ 189-192 Gemini V accomplishments- ______________________________________ 189-192 Gemini VI: Accolllpillihlllents---------------------------------------- ____ 189-192 Rendezvous___ ___ ___ ________ ___ ____ _ ___ __ __ _ __ _ _____ ___ ___ ___ _ 197 Gemini VII: ACCOlllplishlllents---------------------------------------- ____ 189-192 Rendezvous__ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ 197 Gemini VIII extravehicular activities________________________________ 149 General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation of proposed facility-----33 General Dynalllics Corp. instrulllentation ship conversion contract_______ 418 General Electric Co.: Biosatellite contracL _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ __ __ ____ ____ _ _ _ 291 Interindustry cooperation_____ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ 182 Voyager contract_ __ _ __ _ __ _ _____ __ _____ ___ _ __ _ __ __ _ _________ _ __ 352 General Senices Adminllitration (GSA) cooperation with ~ASA: Braking research applications- __ _ ___ _____ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ ________ _ _ 508 Highway safety _____________________________________________ 447,478 General Technological Corp_ contract for boron fiber research___________ 479 Geodetic satellite progralll (see also GEOS A; GEOS active geodetic satellite; Pageos passive geodetic satellite; Secor geodetic satellite project ; World Geodetic SystelllS) : DOD interest_ __ _ ______ __ ___ __ ______ ____ _ _ __ ___ ________ ____ ___ 637 ESSA program, appropriations and budgeL_______________________ 378 Geological applications, Seislllollleter _ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _____ ____ ___ _ _ _ 96 Geological Survey, U.S.: Cooperation with ~ASA, oceanography studies __________________ 144,145 Lunar ell\-irOnlllent operation studies_____________________________ 262 Lunar exploration SUllllller conference____________________________ 172 Geolllagnetic field lllapping, U.S.S.R. cooperation______________________ 38 George C. ~Iarshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.: Adlllinllitrative operations, appropriations and budget______________ 267 Advanced Saturn static test stand, future program potential-------224 Air Force personneL_ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ ___ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ ______ __ _ 162 Apollo application project: Experiment integration____ __ __ __ ___ _ __ ______ _____ ___ __ _ __ 151, 166 Responsibilities----- __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ ___ __ ___ _ __ _ __ _ 241 Appropriations and budgeL____________________________________ 4 Boron fiber research___________________________________________ 478 Capital investment as of June 30, 1965___________________________ 212 Construction of facilities ______________________________ 211,270,271, 535 Description- _ _ ___ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _____ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ ___ __ __ _ _____ ___ _ _ _ _ 212 Dynalllic testing of Apollo Saturn V space vehicle_________________ 267 Interest in dual maneuvering unit development____________________ 461 Launch vehicle cost reduction effort______________________________ 55 J~aunch vehicles development, lllanufacturing, and test capability ____ 212 LEM payload integration_____ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _____ ____ _ 136 :Manpower __________________________________________________ 135, 136 Manufacturing engineering laboratory ____ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ ___ __ _ _ __ _ 182 S-IC stage transported from Michoud Assembly facility-----------195 Scientific Advisory COlllmittee management review________________ 175 Technology utilization: Digital process control system_______________________________ 98 Electromagnetic halllmer _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ _ _____ __ _ __ ___ _ ___ __ _ 95 GEOS A, launched with Secor transponders___________________________ 659
692
INDEX
Page Germany: Sounding rocket instrumentation provision _______________________ _ 309 Space technology cooperation __________________________________ _ 15 GGTS. (See Gravity gradient test satellite.) Gilson Butte, Utah _______________________________________________ _ 665 GISS. (See Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York.) Global instrumentation network: Gemini flight suppork _______________________________________ 384, 412 Ground station organization __________________________________ 383,412 Global navigational satellite system, national policy __________________ 31\)-321 Global Weather Central, Offutt AFB, Nebr., ESSA use_________________ 373 Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York (GISS): Establishmenk ______________________________________________ 333, 334 Research grants, list_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 326 Goddard launch operations, transfer to Kennedy Space Center _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 163 Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, :\ld. (see also Satellite tracking data acquisition network): Appropriations and budgek _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 Brushless d.c. motors researclL__________________________________ 506 Comparison with JPL __________________________________________ 50, 51 Construction of facilities ______________________________________ 42\),430 Construction of facilities, OTDA ______________________________ 385,416 Cooperation with DOD ______________________________________ 396, 431 Cooperation with ESSA_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ 2g7 Data analysis_ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 427 Distribution time___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 400 Spacecraft data___________________________________________ 536 Explorer X XII laser ex peri men L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 502 GISS establishmenk ________________________________________ 333, ::134 Lunar exploration summer confercnce_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ii 4 Manpower increase _______________________________________ 2::1, 2\)0, 3~6 Planned ullocntion _______________________________________ 3nl->, ;:I!H1 Tracking and data acquisition ________________________ 3\)4,430,431 o A 0 experiments _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ 347 OUO mallagemellk _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ 74 OSSA institutional managcllll>nL_ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ ______ _ ___ _______ 3iO Personnel costs increase_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 64 Scientific and technical lllanpower _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2\)3 Sounding rocket observations_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 345 Goldstone, Calif., tracking station: Construction of facilities: Advanced antenna system ________________________________ 420, 423 l\Iodifica tion for A TS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 426 Water distribution Hnd sewage disposal system __ 386,401-403,416,429 Hanger IX picture tmnsmissiolL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 415 Goonhilly Downs, England, ground station, Gemini recovery coverage_ _ _ 35R Grand Bahama Island, overllight problem ____________________________ 57, 58 Gravity gradil'nt test satellite (UUTS): DOD gravity experiment (DODGE) ___________________ 292,293,660,661 DOD/N ASA coordinatiolL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2\!2 Great Britain (see also Cable & WirPiess, Ltd., Goollhilly Downs ground station; Grand Bahama ISlalHl; Joelrdl Bank Experimental Station; UK-;:I satdlite) : Satellite R. & D _____________________________________________ _ 345 SOllnding rocket instruIllentatiolt provisioll _______________________ _ 309 Space technology eooperatioll __________________________________ _ 15 Green River, Utnh ______________ ._________________________________ _ 665 Uroult(l prototype test facility, SNAP R installatioll ___________________ _ 62:3 Grumman Ellp;illeerillp; Aircraft Corp., Bethpage, N. Y.: In \(,l'iltd llHtry eooperatioll__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 182 L E j\[ cOlltracL ______________________________________________ 29, 220 l\fallll('<! Hpacp flight program llhaseollk_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 121 Scit'ntific AdyiHory Committee m1\nap;ement review _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 175 GSA. (See U(~lleral Services Administmtion.)
INDEX
693
Page
Guam tracking station: Apollo manned mission_ ___ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ __ Construction completion___ __ __ ___ __ __ __ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ _____ _ _ __ __ Guaymas, Mexico, tracking station: A polIo manned mission_ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _____ _ __ _ _ Construction completion______ ___ _ ______ _____ __ __ _ ___ _____ _ _ __ __
249 420 249 420
H H-l rocket engine: Developed at Santa Susana test facility _________________________ _ 215 Fabricated, assembled, and tested at Neosho, Mo _________________ _ 215 3Ianufactured by Rocketdym> __________________________________ _ 213 Hamilton Standard Division, United Aircraft Corp., contractor for advanced spaeesuit backpacL __ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ __ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ __ _ 499 Harper, Charles W., general testimony _____________________________ 467,468 Harvard College Observatory, 080 II experimenL____________________ 34.') Harvard University, prototype instrument calibration__________________ 533 Hawaii tracking station: Apollo manned missions _______________________________________ _ 249 Construction completion ______________________________________ _ 420 Unmanned Apollo Saturn (A8-203) _____________________________ _ 249 Health, Education, and 'Velfare, Department of: Cooperation on lunar walker ____________________________________ 73,!J5 Sterilization recommendations___ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ 137-139 Helicopter research ______________________________________________ 485-487 HEW. (See Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of.) High resolution infrared radiometer, adaptation for TOSS ____________ 354,373 HL-lO reentry vehicle: 441 Deli very ______ _ __ ____ __ __ __ __ ___ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ ____ _ _ _ __ Flight experiments____ __ ____ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ 4\-)0 Holland, Senator Spessard L., written questions answered by N ASA_ _ _ _ __ 6.56 Holloman AFB, N. Mex., location___________________________________ 66.5 Honeywell, Inc., oculometer development_____________________________ 533 Hughes Aircraft Co., Surveyor spacecraft contrac1- ___________________ 29,307 Human factor program, OART: Appropriations and budgeL____________________________________ 4 Astronaut training__ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ 480 Bioinstrumentation ______________________________________ 505, 506, 533 Blood flow study _ _ _ ___ ___ __ __ ___ ___ _______ ______ __ ____________ 498 Life support and protectiYe systems studies (see also Extravehicular acti vities) _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ 532, 533 Advanced spacesuiL _____________________________________ 498,499 Gemini spacesuit_ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ ___ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ ___ _ 461 Oxygen regeneration methods _____________________________ 499,500 Long duration maImed flight operations ________________________ 234,236 Program components _____________________________________ 443,445,53;) Research and de\-elopment appropriations and budgeL_____________ 532 Humphrey, Hon. Hubert H., letter from James E. Webb ________ 2-4,17,18,25 Hunstville instrumentation ship damage and conversion costs _____ 389,417,418 Hypersonic aircraft: DOD/NASA research_ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ ____ _ _ _ __ _ 672 Program review _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ ____ _ __ _ 517-519 Research emphasis____ _ _ __ ___ _ __ ___ _ __________ __ ___ _______ ___ _ _ 450 Research facility: Funding_________________________________________________ _ 514
I
IK\L (See International Business ~Iachine.) IDCSP. (See Defense communications satellite project/initial systems.) I~IP. (See Interplanetary monitoring platform.) Incentive contracts. (See Contracting and procurement.) India: Cooperation with U.S.S.R., Thumba international rangc___________ OSSA launch assistance_ _ __ _ _____ __ __ _ ____ ___ _ __ __ _ _ ____ __ _ ____
37 309
694
INDEX
Page
Indiana University, data dissemination ______________________________ _ 94 Industry (see also Technology utilization program) : Air Force/industry /N ABA team, Agena target vehicle failure _______ _ 14 Cooperation with Army and N ABA, hingeless rotors helicopter research _____________________________________________________ _ 486 Cooperation with DOD and NASA: Hovering characteristics of specific aircraft____ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ 484 :Manned space flighL ________________________________ 178-181,187 Cooperation with N ABA: Instrumentation testing_ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _____ _ _ _ 592 Nuclear rocket progranL _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ 546 Incentive contract advantages ___________________________________ 81,82 Interindustry cooperation in technology developmenL _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ 182 521 Noise research design study_____________________________________ Percentage of NASA's expenditures ______________________________ 49,50 Technology utilization data dissemination_ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ 94 Transfer of technology for nonairspace uses _______________ 94-\)9, 601-6U3 Infrared interferometer spectrometer (IRIS) radiation measurements___ _ _ _ 356 I nstrumentation aircraft: Assigned to Eastern Test Rnnge_________________________________ 666 DOD/NASA agreement, texL _________________________________ 397,398 Funding_ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ 391, 396, 420 Modification contract with Douglas Aircraft and Bendix- _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ 42U Purpose ____________________________________________ 390, 391, 418-420 Reimbursement to DOD _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ 667 Instrumentation ships (see also Huntsville; ~lercury; Redstonc; Vangw,rrl; 'Watertown): Air Force awl Navy opemtiolL _ _ _ ____ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ 41H Apollo :::;~Iturn (A~-2U3) unmt\lIlled mission usc__ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ 249 Apollo scheliuk __________________________________________ 387,417 Assiglle(\ to EasL(,!,1l T{',;t, Itang('__________________________________ 666 DOD/NASA agn'{,lll{'nt, tl~xt __________________________________ 397,398 Funding: Co~t cstimatc_ ____________________________________________ 396 DOD/NA~A agreelllent _________________________________ 397,667 General Dym<lnicti contract for eonversioIL __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ 418 lVI0L use_ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __________ _ _ _ 405 Operation schedule, chart_______________________________________ 39\) Purpose _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ 389, 39U, 416, 417 Support of first Apollo-Satu\'ll I manlled mission___________________ 24H Instrulllentatioll Ships Project Office (IRPO) construction program __ 389, 390, 417 Institute of Telecommunications Science and Aeronomy: Funding______________________________________________________ 37~ NASA lL & D. support ______________________________________ 375,376 Scientific operations control of ExploreL _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ 375 Interagency cooperation: AEC/Air Force SNAP 10-A launch ___________ "__________________ 541 AEC/DOD VELA nuclear test detection satellite_ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 659 AEC/DOD/NASA space power ________________________ 608-613,670,671 AEC/NASA: Advanced reactor electric power systems_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 624 Apollo radiation studies_ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ 178 Architect and engineering services_ _ _ ___ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ 76 NRDS funding___ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ ____ _ ____ _ _ __ _ _ _ 55S Nnclear/electric systems funding, table _____________________ 547,548 Nuclear fuel research_______________________________________ 627 Nuclear rockets program _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ 526, ,"127 Price-Anderson Act __________________________________ 541, 557, 608 SN AP rE'~earch and development __________________ 541-543,615-623 Space N uclellr PropUlsion Office_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 563 Agriculture Department/Geological Survey /N It vy /N ASA oceanography studie~ _______________________________________________ 144, 145 Air Force/FAA use of AECD facilities for SST testing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 468 Air Fllrce/indllst\'y/NA~A: Agena target vehicle failurc_____________ 14
INDEX
695
Interagency cooperation--Continued Air Force/NASA: Page Advanced technology program ____________ 479, 650, 651, 671, 672, 674 Apollo suitability for military missions_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ ____ ___ __ 658 Biosatellite program_ _ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ ___ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ __ _ 654 Flight simulator for C-5A transport stlldies___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ 483 Gemini experiment coordination ___________________________ 177,461 Hypersonic aircraft resealch_ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ _ ___ _ _ ____ _ __ __ 519 ~lodular maneuvering unit development______________________ 461 MOL Gemini B program___________________________________ 192 Personnel transfer _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ 162 Procurement of launch vehicles_ ____ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ____ __ _ _ 52, 36;:1 Propulsion systems facility coordination_ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ 467 Reusable launch vehicles studies_ ___ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ____ _ _ _ 644, 645 Spacecraft reentry research_ _ __ _ _ __ ____ _ ___ ______ __ ___ _ __ _ __ 459 Air Force/Navy/NASA: Instrumcntation ship operation______________________________ 418 Instrumentation Ships Project Office ___________________ 389,390,417 Army/NASA: Construction of facilities for NASA__________________________ 539 Helicopter research ______________________________________ 486,487 ARPA/DO D /N ASA testing at White Sands ~1issile Range_ ____ _ __ _ _ 665 Bureau of Public Roads/GSA/NASA braking research applications___ 508 Commerce Department as Federal "space weather" agcncy ____ _ _ _ __ 375 Commerce Department/DOD/NASA: . Geodetic satellite program ________________________________ 637,659 Tiros operational satellite (TOS) system ____________________ 637,660 Commerce Department /NASA: ESSA satellite system_ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ ____ _ __ 178, 277 Technology utilization_ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ 94 DOD/AACB/NASA, SST recommendation approvaL______________ 470 DOD/FAA/NASA: Aeronautics research and development funding____ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ 451 Appollo management_____ __ _ __ ____ ____ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ 208 DOD/industry/NASA: Hovering characteristics of specific aircraft-____ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ _ 484 Manned space fiighL ________________________________ 178-181,187 National Conference on Space Maintenance and E,,:travehicular Activities___ __ __ ___ __ _ ____ _ ___ __ ___ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _____ __ _ _ __ _ 461 DOD/NASA: Aceomplishmellts _______________________________ 395, 396, 431, 432 Agreement formulation ___________________________________ 646, 647 Agreement on instrumentation ships and aircraft ____ 391,397,398,420 Biosatellite program _____________________________________ 291, 292 Electronies research_____ ___ __ _ __ _____ _ __ _ __ ___ ___________ _ _ 535 Exchange of personneL ____________________________ 36,83,647,674 Facilities coordination____ _____ ____ ____ ____ __ __ _ ____ _ ___ _ __ _ 645 Facility construction_ _ __ __ ________ _____ _ __ ___ __ ____ _ _ __ __ _ _ 674 Gemini experiment coordination____ _ ____ ___ ___ _ __ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ 461 Gravity gradient area coordination_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _______ _ _ ___ _ _ 292 Launch vehicle evaluation_ _ _ _ __ _ ____ _ ___ _____ _ _____ __ _ __ __ _ 55 Materials and structures research ______________________ 478,668,669 MSF experiment review __________________________________ 129,167 Radioisotope generating systelllS in satellites ________________ 540, 541 Reliability and Quality Assurance Office______________________ 92 Secondal'Y payload integration coordination___________________ 673 Solid motor projects _____________________________________ 492,671 Syncom satellites ________________________________________ 277,357 Technical liaison office_ _ _ _ _ __ __ ___ __ _ __ __ ____ _ _____ __ _ ___ __ 177 Tracking and data acquisition _____ 381, 399, 400, 425, 662, 663, 666-668 Weather Bureau support of NASA___________________________ 377 DOD/Public Health Service/NASA loan of medical persoIlneL_ 174, 175, 178 ESSA/NASA: Geophysical services_ _ _ ___ __ __ ____ __ __ _ _ ____ _ __ ____ _ _ ____ _ _ 378 Installation of ground stations for TOSS______________________ 373 Meteorological satellite program ___________________________ 372-375 Working relationship _____________________________ 287, 288, 374, 375
59-941--66----45
696
INDEX
lllteragelley eoolleratioll-Continued FAA/NASA: Paa:e Noise and sonic boom researeh_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 438 Supersonic transport researeh _____________________ 47.~, 476, 483, 517 GSA/Bureau of Public lloads/N AHA, highway safety __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ H7 HE W / N AS A lunar walkeL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ n, \Hi Labor llelations Offiee_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 92 Mmliled space flight aetiviti!'s, tablPs ______________________ 176,177 Office of Sciellce and T('cllllology / FAA/N ASA, noise and SOllie boom research____________________________________________________ 519 Public Health Service/NASA_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ____ ______ ___ ____ _ ___ _ __ _ 178 Small Busilll':;S Adlllinisimtion/N AHA, agreement of t.echnology utilization progralll_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 94 Ht.ate Dcpartment/N ASA, discussions on international spacl~ technology _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15 Technology utilization progralll_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !l4 Interior, Department of, Joillt "'iavigational Hatdlite COlllmittee melllbershi p__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 290, 321 Intel'llationul llusillesH Machines Corp., illteriwlustry cooperation, technology devdopments__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 182 International cooperation (sec al~o Europmlll Space Itesearch Organization; specific countries) : Australia/United StateH construction of ground statioll_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 420 Canada/Ullited i::ltates Alouette laullching________________________ 345 ESSA/ Peru/N ASA Jicamarca lladar Obscrvatory __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 377 European i::lpace Research Organi za (ion discUS8ioll_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 309 l<'rance/Ullited StateH Fll1 laullching______________________________ 345 International Quiet Sun Yeul _________________________________ 309-312 Kennedy bunch facilitie~_______ _ __ _______________ __________ 127 Legal prolJlem;; of space______________ __ _____ _ _ _ _______ 57,5S NASA illvestllwllt ill over8eas data facilit.iPH_ _ _ _ _ _ 400 ()~HA proj(~eL participation, IH6iL _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 30\) Physic:; and :t8trollomy progl'allL __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ :1:~8 Iluiatiom;hij'H with Canada, Ja)l:tll, awl Latin Americ:L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5S Hjmin/United Htate:; com;(l'uction of f.(roullil statiolL_______________ 420 Tmcking and daLa ael[ uisitioll nd.work support- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 425 Ullit,pd NuiiollH lit:; agPllt_________________________ _______________ 55 U.H. Jlolicy frameworL________ _______________________________ 62 lU:LH. H. coop(~mtion and agl'eclllPlltlL ____________________________ 37, 38 11 .H.H. It./N ASA: Ueomaglwtic <lata exchange_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 302 Space agreement status _____________________________________ 33,34 WPHt.f'rIl Europe/!I;ASA ~pace (,echnoluf.(y prograrn ___________ 15, Hi, 41, 42 International Quiet Sun Year (IqSY):
======== === = ==== radar ====== ======_ Internat.ional Telepholle & Telegraph =Co. =Opt.iClll ===== system =construction____________________________________________________________ Interplanetary mOllitoring platform (11\1 P):
ts~sl ~~~I~~~~n;l~ppO~.t=
~m)- ~U
535
== === BOlli'll function, === ======== _____________ InVIHltiolls an (I Contributions ========= ======an(i=ItllthoriLv========== 92,9:\ IQS Y. (See International quiet Sun Y par.) Israel sOllnding rockl't instrunH'ntation proviHiulL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :lO9 Italy (see also Sail Marco project), Hpaee technology coopemtioll_________ 15 ITSA. (See Institute for '\'elecollllllllllication ~ci('n<'('s and Apronomy.)
J .J-2 rocket engine: Developed and tester! at Ranta HllSall:\ test faeility_________________ Fabricated and assembled at Cllnoga Park, CnliL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l\Imlllfacture<! by ltocketdylle____ _____ _ __ ______ _________________ Japan, cooperation with NASA__ ____________________________________ .Jet Propubioll Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. (see also Space Flight Operations Faeilit.y; Hterilization an(! ] )evdo]lment Laboratory): AnL system managempnL _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ A ppro]lriations and bw l"eL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
215 215 21:! 58 :l59 4
~?:~~~p~i;~~~s~~~T~--:
g~g: g~~
INDEX
697
Page Jet Propulsion Laboratory, l'asadE'ua. Calif., etc.--C'ontillllPd Construction of facilities funding _______________________________ _ 91 Mariner IV picture processing __________________________________ _ 500 OSSA management: Construction of facilities_ ____ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ __ _ ___ _ _____ _ __ _ _ 371 Contract administration with California Institute of Technology _ 370 NASA resident office___ _ __ _ ___ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ ____ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ __ 370 Photographic data extraction by computers_ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ ____ __ _ __ _ 446 Relationship to NASA _________________________________________ 50, 51 Scientific and technical manpoweL ____________________ 293, 393, 394, 430 Surveyor project: Increased funding needs ___________________________________ _ 19 Progress _________________________________________________ _ 29 Jet Star aircraft, supersonic transport research _______________________ _ 517 Jicamarca Radar Observatory, Lima, PenL __________________________ _ 377 Jodrell Bank Experimental Station, Great Britain, services to U.S.S. R __ _ 37 John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA, Kennedy Space Center, Fla: Air Force personnel and services ________________________________ 73,162 Administrative operations appropriations and budget______________ 267 Apollo applications project: Experiment integration ____________________________________ _ 151 Payload delivery _________________________________________ _ 241 Responsibilities __________________________________________ _ 241 Apollo project: Command and service modules delivery _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ ______ _ _ _ _ 220 Launch crew training_ _ _ __ __ ___ _____ _ __ ___ __ ___ _ __ _____ __ _ _ 251 Capital investment as of June 30,1965___________________________ 224 Change in postal address _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ 90 Constmction of facilities__ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ ___ _ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ 124, 125, 211, 268 OSSA launch facility modifications___________________________ 371 Tracking station completion _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ ____ __ _ _ _ _ 420 International interest- _ _ _ ____ ___ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ ____ _ __ _ __ 127 International satellites launches_ _ ___ _ ____ _ _____ _ _ __ _ _ ____ __ _ _ _ __ 655 Labor problems_ _ _ __ ___________ _____ ___ __ ______ ___ _ ______ ___ __ 92 Launch complex 34: Capability _______________________________________________ _ 221 Conversion ______________________________________________ _ 195 Launch complex 37: Conversion ______________________________________________ _ 195 Description ______________________________________________ _ 224 Launch complex 39: Construction___ _ __ ____ __ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ __ 195 Descrip(,ion_ _ __ __ __ _____ _ __ __ _ _____ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ __ _ __ 221 Funding ________________________________________________ 124,125 Saturn V launches_ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ __ _ _ _ __ 267 Launch operations capability __________________________________ 221-224 LEM simulator _____________________________________________ 116, 117 Mission Control Center, backup from ~Iission Control ('('nter, Houston____ __ _ ___ ____ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _ __ _ __ 270 Operational facility increase_____________________________________ 83 Personnel cost increase_ __ __ __ _ ____ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ __ _ __ 64 Personnel __________________________________________ 20,23,36 Saturn I-B launch vehicle erected_______________________________ 204 Scientific Advisory Committee management review _ __ _ _ _ ____ __ _ __ _ 175 Tracking support from Eastern Test Range _ _ ____ _ _ ___ _ ______ _ _ __ _ 666 Unmanned Apollo Saturn lallnch('s and tracking___________________ 249 221 Vehicle Assembly Building (V AB) description_ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ _ _ __ Weather BurE'au support- _ _____________________ _______________ 377 Johnston Island, installation under ]>:\IR_ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ __ 666 Joint Economic Committee contract method evaluation _ _ _ _ __ ____ _ _ _ ___ 50 Joint Manned Space Flight Committee (see also Manned Space Flight Experiments Board): Establishment and purpose _____________________________________ 51-53 Relationship to AACB_ _ _______________ _____ _ _ _ _ ___ __ ____ _ _ _ ___ 51 Joint Navigational Satellite Committee: Functions and memberRhip ____________________________________ _ 290 Interagency agrppmpnt, text _ _ __ ______________________________ _ 321
increa~e
698
INDEX
Page
Jordan, Senator Len B _________________________________________________________________________ 48-53, 128-130,151,293-298,404,405,456-461,550,551,648,649 Written questions answered by NASA _______________________________________ 74-75,151,405 JPL. (See Jet Propulsion Lahoratory.) .Jupiter (planet), planetary objectives_______________________________________________________ 284
K
Kansas City, Mo., University conferenco__________________________________________ 329 Kauai, Hawaii, ground station, transfer from DOD to N ARA ________ 395,396,431 Kennedy Space Center. (See John F. Kennedy Space Center.) KIWI research reactor: InduRtrial applications _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ ___ __ __ ___ __ ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ ____ _ ___ __ ___ ___ __ __ 60:~ NEflVA--Phoebus-KIWI comparisoIL _____________________________________ 576,577,580 Nuclear rocket implementation _____________________________________________________________ 571, 572 Project review _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ ___ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ _ _ ___ __ __ __ ___ __ 4!)4 Koehig & Koebig, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif., fp:Lsibility study for Goldstone water system________ ___ __ __ __ __ __ ___ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ ___ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ _ __ __ __ 401
L
Labor Hdations OfTice fundions and authority ___________ .___________________________ Langky Re~earch Cpnter, Hampton, Va,: Aircraft and au tomobil8 braking fl's(mrch _______________________________ 478, 507, Appropriations and ImdgeL __ __ _ _ __ __ ___ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ ___ ___ __ __ _ ___ __ Assi;;tanc() on AEC safety program_______________________________________________ Astronaut training facilities__ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ __ ___ __ __ _ _ Const.l'Ilction of facilities, funding ________________________________________________ 525, Equipment for manned tests of recycling syskms__ __ __ _ _ ___ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ _ .J et shoe rcsparch __ _ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ __ _ ___ __ __ __ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ _ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ _ Lifting body testing_ ______ __ __ __ _ ___ __ __ ___ __ ___ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __ __ ___ _ ___ ___ __ __ __ _ ___ _ Materials rcsf'arch: Boron fibcr_______________________________________________________________________
D2 508 4 608 4S() 52() 533

5:t~
4()2 478
=================================== 5aS OART institutionalmanagempllL________________________________________________ l'prsoll!lel complellHmt_ __ _ __ __ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ _ __ __ ___ __ ____ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ 4:{6 ItAl\I projPcL __ _ _____________ ____________________________________________________________________ 500 Sup('rsonic transport. simulator _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 48a Titan III vibration t!'sts_________________________________________________________________ 505 V/STOL aircraft resparch. ___________________________________________________________________ 514 V/STOL transiUoll research wind tll111H'L ____________________________________________ 515,517 Fllnding_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 512 Large solid motor project: Accomplishments____ ___ ______ __ ______ ____ __ __ ____ ______ __ __________ ____ ______ ______ __ ______ ________ ____ ____ 441 Budget reqnest, fiscal yenr 1967 _ ______________________________________________________________ 454 Current status _________ ______ __ _________ ___ __ ________ __ _____ ____ _____________ __ ____ ____ ______ __ ____ __ __ __ 454 DOD program funding_______________________________________________________________________________ 649 Funding________________________________________________________________________________________________ 525 Objectives ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 441,443 t2U--inch improvemcnts _____________________________________________________________________ 653, 654 lIi6--inch _______________________________________________________________________________ 492,649,671 2()()--inch _________________________________________________________________________ 492, 494, 526, 671 Military use__ _ _ __ ___ _ ___ __ ___ ___ __ __ __ __ _ ___ __ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ 649 Program ohjecti,'es_ _ ____________________________________________________________ 79 Laser heam tracking project program review __ _ ____ __ __ __ __ _ _ ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 502 Launch vehicle and propulsion program, ORRA (see also Agena; Atlas; Cnnl:lI1r; Delta; Little .Joe; Thor-Agena; Titan): Accolllplishrnellt.H, 1\)65 ___ .. __ ___ ___ __ ___ __ ___ __ __ ___ _ ___ __ ___ __ __ _ ___ __ __ __ __ __ _ ___ __ ___ 341 Ad":In{'ed liquid-propellant systellls ________________________________________________ 471,472 Appropriatio11s and budget.. __ __ __ __ __ __ _ ___ __ _ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 4 Cost studies __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ __ ____ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ ___ ___ __ __ __ __ ___ __ __ _ ___ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 56
~yKlllril{:~;~--;t~,~~; ~~~l~;si~;l
~g~
INDEX
699
Launch vehicle and lIropulf;ion program, OSSA, ptc.--Continned Development, manufacturing, and test capability, Marshall Space pqe Flight Center_______________________________________________ 212 Development program: Accomplishments __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _______ _ 366-368 Funding__________________________________________________ 4 DOD/NASA evaluation __ - - --- - - ----- - - -- - __ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ __ ___ 55 Hybrid systems ___ - ---- ----- - -- ---- _________________________ 457,458 Large vehicle engines ______ - _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ ____ _ __ _ 526 Procurement program ________________________________________ 368,369
Reusability studies __________________________________ 458,459,644 645 Structural dynamics __ - - - - - - - _____ - __ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ ___ _____ '505 Lawrence Radiation Laboratory reactor research______________________ 624 LEM. (See Apollo project/Lunar excursion module.) Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio (see also Plum Brook reactor facility) : Appropriations and budget__ _ _ _ ___ __ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ _ ____ __ __ __ 4 Brayton cycle research _______________________________________ 611, 613 Hypersonic aircraft research facility __ __ _ ___ __ ____ __ ___ _ ____ ______ 514 Materials research ___________________________________________ 478, 531 NERV A control systems testing___ ____ _ __ __________________ _____ 592 OART institutional management- ___ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ ________ __ 538 Personnel complement_ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ ____ __ _ _ _ _ 436 Personnel reduction ____ - - ____________________________________ 479, 480 Propulsion systems laboratory extention ____________________ 467,468,517 Funding__________________________________________________ 512 Radiation research _ _ _ ____ ___ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ 627 SNAP 8 contract management__________________________________ 616 SNAP 8 investigation___ _ ___ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _____ _ __ _____ _____ _ ___ 617 Supersonic jet engine research ___________________________________ 66,67 Supersonic transport facilities _________________________________ 467-471 Ling-Temco Vought, Inc., reentry ship conversion contract_ ____________ 418 Little Joe launch vehicle: 198 Apollo flight test progrnm______________________________________ Testing at White Sands Missile Range___________________________ 665 Litton Industries, contractor for advanced space suiL__________________ 499 Lockheed Aircraft Corp.: Interindustry cooperation______ __ __ _ __ ___ __ __ __ __ __ _______ __ _ _ __ 182 OAO X-ray experiment_________________________________________ 347 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, N. Mex.: Fuel elcmcnt dcYelopment__ __ _ __ __ __ _ ____ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ ______ _____ 579 VELA satellite program ___ . ____________________________________ 659 Luna 9: Comparison with Surveyor______ __ __ _ ___ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _______ _ ____ 305 Data received by United States __________ . ____________________ 132-134 Effects on Surveyor mission __________________________________ 280, 281 Tnformation received_____ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ 102, ] 03 Photographs value ___________________________________________ 302,303 Ranger findings, confirmation___ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ ____ _ 277, 303, 304Release of photographs to public_ __ __ _ ___ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _______ _ ___ _ 312 Lunar and planetary program, OSSA (.see al.~o Lunar exploration; planetary exploration) : Accomplishments, 1965 _________ . ___ . ____________________ 277,278,341 Appropriations and budget _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ ____ __ __ ___ 4 Improved R. & D _ _ _ _________ ___ _ __ __ ______ __ _ ___ _____________ 352 Objectives _________________________ . _ __ _ ___ _ _____ __ ___________ 343 Planned program funding, table_________________________________ 19 Program content _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ ___ _ _ ______ _ _ _ 348-352 Tracking and data acquisition: Funding increase ________________________________________ 386, 416 Support__________________________________________________ 423 U.S. lead_____________________________________________________ 280
Purpo~~~~:::=============================================== ~~~
700
INDEX
Lunar exploration (.~cc also Lunar and planetary programs, OSSA): Page Advanced manned missions ___________________________________ 262, 2(i:~ Extended opemtions __________________________________________ 237, 2:~8 MSC lunar sample receiving facility____________________________ _ :371 National goaL ______________________________________ ~ _ _ _ 1ao, 282, 28:~ Orbit rendezvous_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 227 Space Sci~nlee Board rC'commendations_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :~08 Surveyor landing data for LI~M_____________________________ ____ :~06 Surveyor project progress_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ 29 U.S.S. R. landing capability _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 28:l Lunar exploration summer confcrcnc()_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 172-174 LIlIIar Marill__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 277 Lunar Orbiter project: Apollorequirements ______________________________________ 5(j,57, 1!17 Boeing Co., prime contractoL____________________________________ 29(j Cost estimate _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2!J5 Deep space network support_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 42:~ }<;astman Kodak Co., camera contrack _________________________ 2!-J5,2H(i Ground photograph ic reconstruction equipmenk _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,12:) Incentive contraek __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 2\).5 Increased funding needs_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1!1 Ohjectives ______________________________________________________ :Wl, :H!l Radio Corp. of America, electronic subsystem cOlltrack _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2!)(i Schedule_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2!)5 Lunar sample receiving faeility_________________________________ 123, :~71 Lunar surface: Bearing strength _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2~ 1 LEM surface st.rength rc(ptiremel1ts___________________________ 1:)1 Luna !-J photography _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ :;o2-:lO 1 PhotographiL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l:l Rangers VIII ami IX photography_________________________ _ __ _ :14!l Lunar walkC'L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7:1
M
M-I rocket engine: Callcellation __ _ ___________________________________ (Hi, liB-72, ,154, .,)2(i Analysis __________________________________________________ sa, 81 Funding_________________________________________________ 441 1\-1 ilitary use _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6W, 650 Recoverable asset proposed use ___________________________________ 71,72 Total investment_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 45.'; Transfer of funds to advanced liquid-propellant rpsPHrch __________ 471-47a 1\1-2 lifting borly: Flight experiments_____________________________________ ________ 4!)() Progres~ ____________________________________________________ t3n,441 :'ll1drid, Spain, ground st,ation: Construction plans _____________________________________________ _ 420 Deep spacc facility ___________________________________________ _ 423 Manned orbiting laboratory (MOL): _\pollo facility usc______________________________________ __ 610 .\pollo tracking nct,work use _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40;; Current status __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 6:W Gemini hardware transfer _________________________________ 125,178, l!ll Gemini hcat shidd testillg _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17S, 1\12 Experiments, 1\ ASA ____ - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 120, 6-W, 0.'):3 Fundinp;_____________________________________ 610 .Joint Manned ~pace Flight COlllmittee rede\\' _ _ _ 51, 52 PcrROIlllel, NASA______ _____________ 12~, 1,~n Possible use with Saturn V -Apollo _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ in, 1';0 Program r('\ic\\- _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _____ _ _ 658, 6fin Schedule coordillntion with Apollo_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 432 Ulllllanned spacecraft, Titan III-C iaullch vphiclc___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6{ia Weight growth_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.'ia Manned Orbiting Laboratory Sy~tcllls Program Ofiicl', Lo~ Allgples, Calif., Gemini pcrsonnel _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________ _ I\)4 __ 146,260 Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory (MORL) description :\IannNI Space Flight Cooroinnting COlll m it.{ ('(' __ 172
-------------
---
INDEX
701
:\Ialllled Space Flight Experiments Board: Page Experiment selection ________ - _________________________ 82, 129, 134, 167 Review of NASA/DOD programs ________________________________ 51,52 :\hnned Space Flight network (see also Tracking and data acquisition), Apollo applications support ____ -- - - ______ -- _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _ __ 242 Manned Space Flight Policy Committee functions and membership_ _ _ _ __ 176, 177,639,672, 673 :\hnned space flight program (see also Apollo applications project; Apollo project; Gemini project; Mercury project; Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory; Office of Manned Space Flight) : Accomplishments ______________________________ 12,13, lO6-108, 154-157 Compared to U.S.S. R ___ -_ _ ____ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ __ 104 Appropriations and budget- __ - -- _________________________ 115, 116,265 Biosatellite potentiaL______ ___ __ _ ____ __ ____ __ __ _ ________ ___ __ __ 359 Construction of facilities: Funding___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ 115, 124, 125 Future program potentiaL ________________________________ 224, 225 Phaseout of facilties _________________________________ 121,126,140 Total cost to date_ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ ___ ___ __ _ __ 211 Cooperation with physics and astronomy program_________________ 347 Current status __________________________________________ 109, 153, 154 Experiment selection _____________________________________ 134,167,168 .Joint Manned Space Flight Committee ___________________________ 5]-53 2\Ianagemenk ________________ ~. __________________________ 109, 157, 158 Manned versus unmanned missions: Cost effectiveness___ ___ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ ___ ___ ___ _ __ __ _ 56 ExperimentatioIL _______________________________________ 297,298 J\Ieteorological experiments_ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ ____ _ ___ _ __ __ ___ _ ___ 135 Mission support fundiug____ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ ______ __ _ 267 Objectives table_ _ __ __ _ _ __ ___ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ ______ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ 155 PersouneL __________________________________________ 109-111, 181-182 Increase__________________________________________________ 36 Phased project planning __________________________________ 147, 167-171 Post-Apollo objecth-es ________________________________________ 117-]20 Priority in space program_____ __ _ ____ _ _ __ ___ ___ _ _ ___ __ _____ __ __ _ 64 Program decision deferral costs___ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _____ _ ___ __ _ __ _ 82 Program evolution ___________________________________________ 255-260 Puhlic relatiollS _____________________________________________ 172-174 Hesearch and development _____________ ~~________________________ ]37 Appropriations and budget- _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ ____ __ _ 115, 265 Manufacturing technology ________________________________ 182, 183 idOL applicatiollS _______________________________________ 636,637 Schedule _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ ___ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ ___ _ __ ____ _ _ _ 156, 157 System restructuring__ _ _ ___ __ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ _ ____ __ _ __ _ 82 Weather Bureau support-______________________________________ 377 :\fanned space science program, OSSA, program content___ _ _ _ ____ 343, 360-364 :\lanned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Tex. (see also Lunar sample receiving facility) : Admiuistrative operations appropriations aud budgeL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ 267 AEC development of SNAP 27__________________________________ 610 Air Force ~ersonneL------- _____ _ __ __ ___ _ __ _____ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ ___ 162 177 Air Force ysterns Liaison Office________________________________ Apollo Applications experiment integration _____________________ 151,166 Apollo Applications project responsibilities____ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ 241 Apollo launch crew trailling_____________________________________ 251 Apollo spacecraft test facilities__ _ __ _ ______ _ _ __ _ _____ __ ___ _ ____ _ _ 195 Appropriations and budget___ _ _ _ _ ____ ___ _____ __ ____ __ ___ __ _ ____ 4Capital investment as of June 30,1965___________________________ 215 Construction of facilities __________________________________ 211,268,270 Contract with Litton Industries for advanced space suiL___________ 499 Environmental facility _ _ __ ___ _ ____ ______ _ _ ___ __ ____ __ _____ ___ _ _ 76 LE",,1 simulatoL ____________________________________________ 116,117 ""Iodular maneuvering unit interest_ _____ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ ___ _ 461 Mission Control Center _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ____ _ __ __ _ _____ _ ___ __ ___ __ _ __ __ 217 Air Force personnel training_ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _____ ___ __ _ _ _ __ 674 MOL emergency controL___ _ __ ____ __ ______ __ _____ ___ _ __ _ __ _ 655 Space radiation information from Vela satellites_______________ 637
702
INDEX
Manneu Spacecraft Center, Hou~tOll, Tex., etc.-Continueu Personnel: Page Increased employmenL _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ 20, 23, 36 Transfer to MOL Systems Program Office____________________ 194 Pro gram potentiaL _ __ __ _ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ 225 Scientific Advisory Committee management review _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ 175 Spacecraft development __________________________________ 136,215,217 Weather Bureau support- _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ 377 Manufacturing Liaison Office. (See Apollo project.) Mariner project: Deep space network support_ ___ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ 423 Increased funding needs_ _ _ ____ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ ___ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ 19 Mars 1969 missions __________________________________________ :~51, 352 Planned for closing gap with V.S.S.R____________________________ 299 Planned planetary exploration____ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ 67 Reinstatement ______________________________________________ 279, 280 Reprogramed fund;; from VoyageL _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ 299 Venus 1967 mission, spacecraft modifications_ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ 308 Mariner II: Deep space network support_ _ __ _ ___ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ ___ __ 413 Proposed 1967 complementary mission_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ 351 Solar photovoltaic arrays weighL________________________________ 527 Venus surface dattL _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ 301 Mariner IV: Accomplishments ____________________________________________ 342, 350 Data analysis _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ ____ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ 348 Deep space network support __________________________________ 384,413 Mars photographs _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ ____ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ 13 Martian atmosphere measurements _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ 524 Missioll success filldings _______ .. _._ __ __________ '277, '278 Picturc translllisHioll _______ .. ____ ... ___ _________ 536 Holar photovoltaic arrays weight. __ . ________ ". __ . __ _ __ __ _ _ _ 527 Trackillg ~lIpport for l'(':wqlliKiLioll . ____ . __ ___ _ __ _ 4'2;~ Mariner V: l\lo(lificatioll cost,,_ _ ___ __ _ __ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _. ________ . __ _ __ 30S Tnillsf('r of \' oyag!'1' planK_ _ _ __ _ _ __ :Hfi Mnrit,ime AdllIiniHtmtioll coopl'ration Oil dl,(.tl'olll:t!-(nPt.ic hallllll!'!'_ _ _ \}5 Mar;; (plallet): Advanccd IlHlllllPd lIIissions stlldil'H ______________________ .. __ _ _ _ _ _ '263 Atmosphere cff!'cL on lallding space vphiell's ______ . _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ 524 Flyby ______________________________________________________ . _ 56\} Importnnce of spacccraft Ht('l'ili~atiOlL _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 301 Landing capsule devclopuwnt schpdnle _________________________ 313, 314 Landing mission_ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ 566, 567, 569 Launch windows_ ___ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 285, 286 Manned landing l\}SO-!)!), rocket propulsion methods_ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ 525 Mariner IV photo!-(mphs ______________________________________ 350,351 Mariner 1!J6!J missions ____________________________________ 67, :{51, 352 Nuclear rocket illlplenwntatiolL ______________________ 54!}, 550, 554, 555 Planetary goaL _____________ .. _________________ .. _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ 284 \'oyager objective ________ . _____________________________ 77,78, ;{52 Marshall Hpace Flight C"Il(I'r. (Sel~ (:porge C. l\bl'shall Hp:tcI, Flight C(,nter.) MarLin Co. Gemini flight haniware cOlllracL_________________________ 108 Maryl:1nd University data diHserninatiolL _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 94 l\'Ia~Hachusetts Institute of Technology: Lunar exploration sUlllmer conference_ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 172 OAO g:tmnl:l-ray experimcnt.___________________________________ 347 Materials Advisory Board __ " ________________ .. _ _ _ _ __ _ _____ ____ __ __ _ _ 478 l\laleriab re;;earcil: Boron fiber resean:h _____________________________ .____________ 478, 479 Hcinfor(:c!\ plaSUCH =====determination===.________________________ cure ============ ___ ======================_ i\l:d!'riaiH l{('~e:lr('h Advisory COlllmitt<:e, NAHA______________________
~/~!:l ~~~~~~:~~i~~l- ~
~68, 6~~ 97
478
INDEX
703
McDonnell Aircraft Corp.: Pap Gemini spacecraft contract ___________________________ 108,184 187,192 Interindustry cooperation, technology developments _____________ ~ _ 182 McN amara, Robert S., memorandum with James E. Webb_ _ _ _ ____ __ _ __ 53 Medical applications. (See Biomedical applications.) Mercury instrumentation ship _____________________________________ 389,417 Mercury project: Electric power ____ --- ---- ----- -- --- -- - ---- -- ____ -_ - __ ___ ______ 527 Tracking network adaptability _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ____ -_ _ _ ____ __ _ __ _ 404 Merritt Island, Fla., construction of facilities__________________________ 270 Metallurgy: Alloy development ____________________________________________ _ 97 Nickel alloy welding __________________________________________ _ 98 Portable brazing tooL _________________________________________ _ 97 Weld testing and inspection ____________________________________ _ 98 Meteoroids (see a/so Explorer project; Pegasus), penetration experiments __ 493 Meteorological Program Review Board, coordination of NASA/ESSA activities ______________________________________________________ _ 287 ;\Ieteorological satellite program, ESSA, appropriations and budgeL ____ _ 378 ;\Ieteorological satellites program, OSSA (see a/so ESSA meteorological satpllite; Environmental Science Servicps Administration; ~imbus; Sounding rockets; Tiros; Weather Bureau): Appropriations and budgeL _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ _____ ____ _ _ __ _ 4 DOD interesL_____ __ ____________ ____ __ ___ _ __ __ _ __ ____ ________ 637 Experiments_ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ 135 Infrared interferometer spectrometer (I RIS) development_ ____ _ _ ___ 356 Objectiws __________________________________________________ 337, 343 U.S.-U.S.S.R. exchange of data ______________________________ 33,34,38 Meteorology, accomplishments, 1965 ___________________________ 341, 352-356 Michigan University, Navy funding for oceanography studies___________ 145 ;\Iichoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, La. (see also Slicipll Test Facility, La.): Appropriations and budget. _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ ___ ___ __ _ ___ ________ _ __ 4 Capital investment as of June 30,1965___________________________ 215 Contruction of facilities __________________________________ 215,268,271 :\Ianned space flight program phaseout__ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ ____ __ __ _ 121 Name change_ _ ____ _ _ ___ _____ __ _ _ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ __ _ ___ _ __ __ _ 90 S-IC stage transported to Marshall______________________________ 195 Midwest Research Institute, data dissemination_______________________ 94 Minnesota University: OSO-II experiment_ _ __ ___ _ __ _________________ 345 Mi'Ssissippi Test Facility, Bay St. Louis: Appropriations and budget_____________________________________ 4 Capital investment as of June 30, 1965___________________________ 212 Construction of facilities __________________________________ 268,271,272 Description___________________________________________________ 213 Future program potential _____________________________________ 224, 225 Manned space flight program phaseouL__________________________ 121 Saturn V first- and second-stage testing _________________ 72,212,215,267 Weather Bureau support. _ _ _____ ___________ __ __________________ 378 MIT. (See Massachusetts Institute of Technology.) Molniya communications satellite, effectiveness_______________________ _ 16 MOL. (See Manned orbiting laboratory.) Mondale, Senator Walter F ___ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ ___ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _______ __ _ _ _ 101 Written questions answered by NASA__________________________ 145-148 Moon. (See Lunar headings, e.g., Lunar exploration.) MORL. (See Manned Orbital Research Laboratory.) Mount Palomar Observatory _______________________________________ _ 295 Mount Wilson Observatory ________________________________________ _ 295 MSF. (See ~Ianned space flight program.) Mueller, Dr. George E.: Biography____________________________________________________ 105 General testimony _____________________ 28,29,101-104, 117-134,139-142 Prepared statemenL _________________________ 105-116,134-139,144-273 Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C________________________ 174 Myers, Boyd, II, general testimony ________________________________ 463,464
59-941-66--6
704
INDEX
N
NAS. (See National Academy of Sciences.) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (see also Materials Ad isory Board; Space Science Board) : "High School Ability Patterns-a Backward Look from the Doc- Page torate" ____________________________________________________ _ 364 Sterilization recommendations __________________________________ _ 123 National Aeronautics and Space Aet of 1958: National space goals _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ 282 Proposed amendmenL _______________________________ 7,8,32,33,88,89 U.S. international cooperation policy _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 62 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (see also Administmti\'e operations; Appropriations and budgct; Contracting and procuremcnt; Construction of facilities; Funding; Interagency cooperation; International cooperation; R('search allfl rleYe1opmcnt. See also speeifie field installations and related cstablbhment::;. See also specific programs and program ofliees) : Approprintions and budget- ___________________________________ _ 4-8 ] leadquarters: ABL sturty implementation_________________________________ 359 Appropriations and budgct _________________________________ 84-8~ Cost analysis ______________________________________________ 86-88 Funding requirements__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 84 Operations costs ________________ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ____ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ 88 PersonneL __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 85, 290 Joint Navigation Satellite Committee, membership ______________ 290,321 Management capability developmenL ____________________________ 61,62 Public release of Luna 9 photogmphs_____________________________ :112 Rehttionship to JPL ____________________________________________ 50,51 National Communications System (NCS): Apollo Communications Network usc _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 408 Apollo cOllllllunications studieiL ___________________________ 3\)2, 3\)3, 428 National COnfCl'elll'c on Spaec :\Iaintpll!lll('P :tllrl Extm\,phieular Al'liYitil's_ 461 National Environmental Satellite Centcr (NESC): ESSA sy::;tem control ccntcL ___________________________________ _ 373 R. & D. budgcL _____________________________________________ _ 378 N lttionl111Iurricanc Center, Miami, 1<'1:1., URe of ESSA satdlitl's _______ _ 373 National Illstitutes of Health (N Ill), cooperation with N A8,\, mcdical experiments ______________________________________ - __ - __ - _______ _ 178 National Operational Meteorological Satellite Service (N0118S): Interagency requirements ______________________________________ _ 373 _Major elements ______________________________________________ _ 374 National Research Council (NRC) opl'ration of Churchill Re::;earch Range_ 58 National sonic boom program, OAUT participation ___________________ _ 438 Naval Aerospace Medical Institute, Pemmcola, Fla., "radio pill" in Illotion sickness research ___________________________ - _____ - _____ - __ - __ - __ 505 Naval Hospital, Oakland, Calif., clinical studies with "radio pill" _______ _ 505 Naval Research Laboratory (NRL): OSO-II experiments ______________________ - _____ - _ - - _ - - __ - _- - __ 345 Solar radiation Stl telli te launch _____________ - _- - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - _ 345 Navy, Department of (see also Doppler ::;atellite geodetic tm('killg network; Instrumentation ships; X-22 aircraft) : Cooperation with Air Force/Army /N ASA, materials rescarch __ - __ - __ 478 Cooperation with Army /N ASA, folding rotor helicopter re::;elll'ch ____ _ 4~7 Cooperation with NASA: Loan of medical personneL_ _ ___________________________ 175,178 Oceanography studies ____________________________________ 144, 145 Dopplcr instrumented satellites_____ __ _ __ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ 659 Gemini reeovery ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 108 GraYity gra(lil'nt experinwnL___________________________________ 672 Instrumentation ::Ship::; Project OHice _______________________ 38!), 3!)0, 417 Kwajalein teHt site management tran::;fer to Army _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6(j;, Military t-lea Transportatioll Hervi('c, inst.rumentation ;.;hip opemtion_ _ 41 s Gti;-) Missile te::;tillg at White t:lands J\li::;::;ile Range _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Navigation satellites _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Hill Partieipation in MOL progrtlIlL______________________ ____________ 65S SN:\P system slwce~::;____________ _____________________________ til 0
INDEX
705
Pap NCS. (See National Communications System.) Neosho, ~Io., facility, H-1 engine fabrication, assembly, and testing ____ _ 215 NERVA nuclear rocket engine project: Advanced missions ____________________ - ______________________ 549, 550 Appropriations and budget_____________________________________ 552 Budget reduction ________________________________________ 551,557 Construction of facilities, test stand funding_ - - _____________ 552, 559, 560 Control systeffiS _____________________________________________ 590-592 Engine systems technology ___________________________ 580,582,583-594 JCEengine ______________________________________ 574,588,589,594 Instrumentation__ __ __ __ _ _ ___ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ____ _ _ _ __ _ ____ ___ __ __ 592 Phoebus-KIWI-NERVA comparison ___________________ 576,577,580,581 Program plans ______________________________________________ 441, 527 Program review ________________._ __ __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _____ __ __ 494 Radiation effects_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ ___ _ _ __ 594 Reactor, experimental (NRX) testing: NRX-A-3 ______________________ 494,544,572,575,576,582,588,594 NRX-A-5 __________________________________________ 578, 579, 594 NRX A-6________________________________________________ 579 NRXjEST (breadboard system)_____________________________ 544, 545,548,549,574, 582-585,588,594 Research and development, reactors ___________________ 571,572,595,596 Saturn implementation _______________________________________ 552, 553 Technology utilization _____ - _____________________________ 546,547,580 NESC. (See National Enyironmental Satellite Center.) Netherlands, space technology cooperation_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ __ 15 New Mexico University: Data dissemination ___________________________________________ _ 94 OSO-II experiment- __________________________________________ _ 345 New Zealand, OSSA launch assistance _______________________________ _ 309 Newell, Dr. Homer E.: Biography __________________________________________________ 275,276
General testimony _______________________________ 275,276,180-305,322 Prepared statement __________________________ 276-280,305-319,322-372 NIH. (See National Institutes of Health.) Nike-Cajun sounding rocket, meteorological observations ______________ _ 355 Nike-X anti-missile-missile development project, Kwajalein test site ____ _ 665 Nike-Zeus weapon system, Kwajalein test site ________________________ _ 665 Kimbus meteorological satellites: Ad vanced meteorological sensor requirement- _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _____ _ _ _ __ 291 Contractor insurance protection____ _ __ ___ _ __ __ ___ __ _ ___ ___ ___ __ _ 557 DOD use__ __ _ __ ____ __ _ ___ _ _ _ ____ _ __ ___ __ _ ____ _ ___ _ ____ ___ _ __ _ 652 ESSA use of R. & D___________________________________________ 374 Flight successes_ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ __ ___ __ ____ __ _ __ _ 352 Funding______________________________________________________ 289 355 Lo.ng-range .we~ther forecasting _____________________________ - __ _ _ Prunary obJectlves _____ - ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ ____ _ __ _ 289 338 Technology for TOSS_ _____ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _____ _ _ __ _ Use as operational satellite ____________________________________ 288,289 Nimbus-B: Nuclear generator auxiliary power system ___________________ 541,559,561 SN AP-19 generator use _ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ ____ __ __ __ 608 Noise research: Aerodynamic noise damping _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ _ __ ____ _ _ __ _ 99 Aircraft research_ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ _ ___ 474 Funding______________________________________________________ 521 Program review _____________________________________________ 519,521 NO~ISS. (See Xational Operational ~Ieteorological Satellite Service.) Korth American Aviation, Inc.: Apollo command and service modules contractoL _________ - __ - - - - 217 Interagency cooperation, technology developments _________ - __ - - _-182 S-- II stage con tractor _____________________________________ - __ - 215 Scientific Advisory Committee management. reyiC\y ___________ - ___ _ 175 North ___________________________________________________________ _ tion Carolina Science and Technology Rese:lrch Center, data dissemina94 K orthrop Corp., contract for lifting body vehicle _____________________ _ 462 Norway, OSSA launch assistance ___________________________________ _ 309
706
INDEX
Paa:e
N ova vehicle, lunar mission ___ - _____ - __ ___ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ ___ 47 NRC. (See National Research Council.) NRDS. (See Nuclear Rocket Development Station.) NRL. (See Naval Research Laboratory.) NRX. (See NERVA nuclear rocket engine project/reactor, experimental.) Nuclear engine for rocket vehicle application. (See NERVA project.) Nuclear propulsion. (See Nuclear rockets.) Nuclear Rocket Development Station (NRDS), NERVA: Appropriations and budget ___________________________ 545,557,558,559 Architect-engineer contract limitation ____________________________ 88, 89 Construction of facilities _____________________________________ 559, 560 Engine maintenance assembly and disassembly building (E-MAD), establishment _________________________________________ 557,590,591 Engine test stand 1 (EST-I), establishment ______________________ 557, 560, 58!) Nuclear reactor tests ____________________________________________________ 579,580 Nuclear rockets program, OART (see also KIWI; NERVA; Nuclear Rocket Development Station; Space Nuclear Propulsion Office; Phoebus; SNAP): Accomplishments _____________________________________________________ 78,79,441 Advanced missions __________________ 549,550,553-556,565-569,571,596 Appropriations and budgeL ______________________________________ 4, 526 Chemical rocket compal'ison _______________________________ 552,55:3,566 Engine systems testing (EST) __________________________ 549, 554, 559, 560 Feed system (NSF 3A) __________________________________________ 579, 580 Fuel elements development ____________________________ 578,579,596, 59U Manpower capability _ _ _ _ ___ _____ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ 546 Objectives _____________________________________________________ 570-575 Post Apollo objectives____________________________________________ 546 Progra m priority _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ 551 Program review _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ 118, 119,439,494, '195, 526, 527, 544, 545, 54H, 565, 56H, 570 Radioisotope propulsion_ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ 601 Reactors__ ___ ___ ___ ____ ___ _____ ____ _______ _____ ____ _____ _________ ___ _____ ___ ____ ____ _ 550 Testing___________________________________________________________________ 579 Tungsten reactors __________________________________ 551,571,595,596,598 Research and development _________________ 540,541,543,545,549,550,594,595 Scope ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 521,523 Technology utilization _______________________________________________________ 546, 601-603 Test facilities__ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ ___ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ ___ _ _ ____ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ 545 Nuclear test ban, monitoring by VELA satellite _____________________________ 637,659
o
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Tenn.) Y-12 plant, fuel element development__________________________________________________________________________________________ 579 OAO. (See Orbiting Astronomical Observatory.) OART. (See Office of Advanced Research and Technology.) Octohedral research satellite (ORS-III) __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ ____ __ __ _ __ __ __ ___ __ _ ____ __ ___ __ _ 659 ODRS. (See Orbiting Data Relay Satellite System.) Office of Administrator, organizational changes__ __ _ __ ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ 12 Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART) (see also Advanced research and technology program; Aeronautics program; Basic research program; Chemical propulsion program; Electronics systems program; Human factors program; Nuclear rockets program; Space power and electric propulsion program; Rpace vehicles program): Activity coordination with DOD ________________________________________________________ 476,477 Administrative operations, appropriations and budget __________ 436, 448, 508 Appropriations lII.1d budget._ - - - ________ .________________________________ 436,448,508-512 Budget relatIOn to natIOnal securlty_____________________________________________ 449 Table - _-- ______________________________________________________________________________________ 436, 437 Construction of facilities, appropriations and budget __ -- ______________ 536, 448, 508 Direct program support - _ - _____ - _ _ __ _ _ ___ __ _ __ __ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ ____ __ __ ___ _ __ __ __ __ 86 Distribution of effort, tahk ___________________________________________________ 510 Fundin!);, tabk -- - - -- --- - - _____ - - _________________________ -- -- -- __ ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ 510 Institutiollalll1ltnap;('Ill('1l t r('spollsiililiti('s ________________________________________ 538, 539 Major programs __ - -- - - - - _ __ __ ___ __ _ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ 435 Personnel requiremcll \S__ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ 85 Research and development, appropriations and budget ___ -- - ____________ 436, 448 Role in Apollo Applications program evolution_____________________________ 227
INDEX
707
Office of Industry Affairs (see also Facilities Management Office; Inventions and Contributions Board; Office of Procurement; Office of Reliability Page and Quality Assurance) __ - - - - - _- -_ - _____ - _________________________ 91-93 Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF) (see also Advanced missions; Apollo Applications project; Apollo project; Gemini project; Manned space flight program; Manned space flight committees and boards; Space medicine) : Administrative operations: Appropriations and budget ____________________________ 115,116,267 Organizationalchanges ___________________________________ 157-159 Construction of facilities, appropriations and budget_ _ __ __ ___ ___ ____ 268 Direct program support _______ - - ______ -_ ___ ____ ____ _ __ ___ __ _____ 86 Mission Operations Office, organization __________________________ 162,163 Personnel requirements ___ - __ - - - - __ _____ __ ______ ___ _ _____ ___ ___ _ 85 Office of ProcuremenL ______ - ____ - - - ________________________________ 91, 92 Office of Reliability and Quality Assurance ____________________________ 92,466 Office of Science and Technology (Executive Office of the President) (see also Coordinating Committee for Materials Research and Development, national sonic boom program ____________________________________ 438, 519 Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) (see also Bioscience program; Launch vehicle and propulsion program; Lunar and planetary program; Manned space science; Physics and astronomy program; Space science and applications program) : Administrative operations_____ __ ____ __ ____ ____ _____ __ _____ ______ 370 Appropriations and budget________________________________ 370,412 Budgetrequest________________________________________________ 283 Construction offacilities, appropriations and budget_ __ ___________ 370, 371 Direct program support_ __ __ ___ ___ _____ __ _ ___ _____ ___ __ ______ __ 86 Personnel requirements ________________________________________ 85,293 Role in Apollo Applications program evolution____________________ 227 Space Science Steering Committee_______________________________ 297 Office of Technology Utilization: Aircraft tire research reports ___________________________________ _ 478 Direct program support _______________________________________ _ 86 Personnel requirements ________________________________________ _ 85 Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition (OTDA): Construction of facilities, funding requirements __________________ 385,416 Direct program support_ _ _____ ______ ______ ___ ___ __ __ ____ _______ 86 DOD/NASA agreement, agent- _ ___________ _____ ___ __ ________ ___ 397 Personnel requirements____ __ __ ____ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ______ _______ 85 Reprograming of funds to OART________________________________ 415 Research and development, funding requirements ________________ 385,415 Responsibilities __________________________________________ 380, 409, 410 Role in Apollo Applications program evolution____________________ 227 OGO. (See Orbiting Geophysical Observatory.) 345 ~uccessfUI failure ___ -- - - - - - - - - - -- -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---
ggg::::h
Data exchange with U.S.S.R ___________________________________ _ 38 Launch success _______________________________________________ _ 345 OMSF. (bee Office of Manned Space Flight.) Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO): Equipment costs_ _ _ ____________ _______ __ ___ ______ __ __ _____ ____ 297 Experiments ________________________________________________ 346, 347 Launchreadiness______________________________________________ 346 Tracking and data acquisition___________________________________ 425 Orbiting Data Relay Satellite System (ORDS): Difference from Comsat system _______________________________ 407,408 Feasibility studies ___________________________________________ 406,407 Orbiting Geophysical Observatory (OGO) (see also OGO-l; OGO-U): Data exchange with G .S.S.R__ _ ____ ___ _______ _____ _ __ _____ ______ 302 277 Launching____________________________________________________ Program reduction____ ____ ___ ___ ____ ______ __ _____ _ _______ __ ____ 74 Relationship with OSO and Explorer ___________________________ 334,335 Tracking and data acquisition____ ___ ___ ___ _ ____ ___ _ __ ____ ___ ____ 425
708
INDEX
Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO) (see also Advanced Orbiting Solar Observatory; OSO-C; OSO-II): Pail AOSO cancellation effects ________________________________ 279,294,347 Launching____________________________________________________ 277 Relationship with OGO and ExploreL _________________________ 334,335 Tracking and data acquisition___________________________________ 425 Orlando, Fla______________________________________________________ 461 ORS. (See Octohedral research satellite.) OSO. (See Orbiting Solar Observatory.) OSO-C, launch failure_ _ _ _ _____ __ ____ _ ____ ___ ________ _ _____ __ __ ____ 345 OSO-II: Experiments_ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ 345 Objectives____________________________________________________ OSSA. (See Office of Space Science and Applications.) OTDA. (See Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition.) 345
P
Pacific Missile Range (PMR), Point Mugu, Calif.: Description _________________________________________________ 665, 666 Missile impact location system (MILS) __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ 666 Tracking support from Western Test Range______________________ 666 Pageos passive geodetic satellite: Interagency cooperation________________________________________ 377 Research and development ___________________________________ 345,377 Pakistan, OSSA launch assistance _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ 309 Pasadena, Calif., university conference_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ 329 Pegasus meteoroid detection satellite: Data application ____________________________________________ 503, 627 Data, tabular summary _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ 493 Experiments__________________________________________________ 455 Meteoroid penetration experiment_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ 524 Personnel (see also Apollo project/Astronauts; Scientific and technical manpower; specific centers and programs): Budget needs _________________________________________________ 35-37 Exchanp;e with DOD _________________________________________ 83,647 Future NASA-wide reduction _______________________________ 45,46,290 Increase, fiscal year 1966 _______________________________________ 36, 37 Increased Apollo requirements_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ 23 Total complement at NASA research centers, table________________ 436 Tracking and data acquisition ________________________ 393-395,430,431 Philco Corp., ABL feasibility studies_________________________________ 359 Phoebus research reactor: Instrument malfunction_ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ 494 KIWI-NERVA-Phoebus comparison ___________________ 576,577,580, .581 Nuclear rocket implementation___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ fi71 Testing ____________________________________ 527, 544, 572, 574-580, 594 Physics and astronomy program, OSSA (see also Explorers; Orbiting Astronomical Observatory; Orbiting Geophysical Observatory; Orbiting Solar Observatory; Sounding rockets) : Accomplishments, 1965 __________________________________ 338,347,348 Apollo applications telescopes_ _ __ _______ ____ _ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ 233 Appropriations and budget_ _ _ _ _ __ ________ _ ___ ___ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ 4 Cooperation with Office of Manned Space Flight- _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ 347 Lunar exploration summer conference_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ 174 Objectives____________________________________________________ 342 Program content ____________________________________________ 344-348 Solar physics, AOSO objectives_________________________________ 347 Pillar Point, Calif _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ __ __ __ 666 PILOT project, description_ ___ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ ___ ______ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ 668 Pioneer space probes: Increased funding needs___ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _____ __ ________ ___ __ __ __ _ __ 19 Instrumentation_____ _____ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ______ _____________ 348 Launching____________________________________________________ 278 Telemetry processing equipment________________________________ 423
INDEX
709
1"..Pioneer VI, launclring ____________________________________________ 348,423 Pittsburgh University, data dissemination____________________________ 94 Planetary exploration (see also Lunar and planetary program, OSSA; specific planets): Advanced manned missions_ _ __ __ _ ___ _ 263, 264, 549, 550, 554, 555, 566-569 Communications requirements ________________________________ 536-538 Funding______________________________________________________ 300 Future Mariner missions ________ - -- _ __ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _____ _ _ _ _ 67 Goals beyond 1970_ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __ ___ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ ______ _ _ _ 284 Program decision deferral costs ___ -_ __ __ ___ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ _ __ 82 Space Science Board recommendatioIlS___________________________ 308 Plum Brook reactor facility, Sandusky, Ohio: Cold flow development test system (CFDTS) ___________________ 586,587 Hypersonic aircraft engine research ____________________________ 467,519 P:\l R. (See Pacific Missile Range.) Point Barrow _ ____ _ _____ ___ ______ ______ ____ _ _ _ ___ __ _____ _______ __ _ 145 Polymers _______________________________________________________ 496,498 Preparedness of resources in mission evaluation. (See PRIME project.) President's Scientific Advisory Committee __________________________ 174,175 Price-Anderson Act, AEC-NASA insurance agreement ___________ 541,557,608 PRIME project, description________________________________________ 668 Princeton University, OAO high precision spectroscopy experimenL _ _ __ _ 347 Propulsion. (See Chemical propulsion; Large solid motor project; Launch vehicle and propulsion program; Nuclear rockets; Space power and electric systems.) Propulsion systems laboratory. (See Lewis Research Center/Propulsion systems laboratory.) Proton satellites: Advancements_ _ _ _ _ __ __ ______ _______ _____ ___ __ _ ___ __ __ __ ______ 16 Thrust capability ___ _ __ _ __ __ __ _____________ __ _ __ ___ __ ___ ______ _ 47 Public Health Service, U.S., cooperation with NASA: Loan of medical personneL ___________________________________ 176,178 Lunar experiments_____ _ __ ______ ___ _______ _ __ __ ____ ___________ _ 178 Purdue University, agriculture funding for oceanography studies________ 145
R
R. & D. (See Research and development.) Radio attenuation measurements (RAM) projecL_____________________ 500 Radio Corp. of America, electronic subsystem contract for Lunar Orbiter_ 296 RAM. (See Radio attenuation measurements project.) Ranger project: Deep space network support ______________________________ 384,385,413 Launch plans_________________________________________________ 19 Lunarphotography ___________________________________________ 13,277 Comparison with Luna 9___________________________________ 302 Partial cancellation_ _ ____ _ __ ______ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ ____ ___ ____ ___ _ 315 Relationship to Apollo project___________________________________ 197 Ranger VIII, lunar photography____________________________________ 349 Ranger IX, lunar photography ____________________________________ 342,349 Picture transmission_ __ ___ ___ _ _____ _ ____ _____ _____ _________ ____ 415 Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Ala., :Marshall Space Flight Center location_ 212 Redstone instrumentation ship ____________________________________ 389,417 Relay active communication satellite, project completion_______________ 357 Reprograming: JPL Sterilzation Laboratory____________________________________ 24-27 Justification __________________________________________________ 31, 32 Percentage of funds from R. & D. to Construction of facilities _______ 89, 90 Transfer from R. & D. to Administrative operations _______________ 20--24 RepUblic Aviation Corp., AOSO contract cancellation__________________ 347 Research Advisory Committee on :Materials__________________________ 669
710
INDEX
Research and development: Page AEC turboalternator research _________________________________ 610, 611 Appropriations and budget_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ ___ _ __ ___ _ _ _ 4, 64 Contract personnel at NASA centers, table_______________________ 83 Funding______________________________________________________ 20 Expenditures outside governmenL___________________________ 49 Geographical distribution____ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ ___ ___ _ _ __ 90 Table____________________________________________________ 18 Incentive contract advantages __________________________________ 81, 82 Innovation applications ________________________________________ 94-9D Long-range weather forecasting_____ ___ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ ___ _ __ __ __ _ 355 Transfer of funds to Construction of facilities _____________________ 89, 90 Rice University, OWL Explorers studies_____________________________ 345 Hocket engines (see also Chcmical propulsion; Large solid motors; Launch vehicle and propulsion; N uelear rockets; Space power and clectric propulsion systems; specific engines) : High energy hydrogcn-oxygen cngines, DOD research program ____ 65U, 651 Hybrid engine _______________________________________________ 457, 458 Hocketdyne, Canoga Park, Calif.: H-1, F-1, J-2 engines manufactureL____________________________ 213. Manned space flight program phaseout___________________________ 121 Rosman, N.C., ground station: Facility modification___________________ 420 ROVER nuclear rocket project ____________________________________ 556, 557 Russia. (See U.S.S.R.) Sacramento Test Facility, Calif.: Construction of facilities____ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ 272 Saturn testing _______________________________________________ 215,267 San Marco poject, 08SA participation_ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 309 8andia Corp., VELA satellite program_ ______________________________ 659 8anta Susana, Calif., test facility: F-1, H-1)J-2 engines developmenL__ 215 Satellite control facility (SCF), Sunnyvale, \Jalif.: Dcscription _________________________________________________ 666, 667 MOL support- ______________________________________________ 655, 658 Satellite Test Center (STC), Sunnyvale, CaliL ______________________ 666, 667 Satellite tracking and data acquisition network (STADAN), octohedral research sa telli te _____________________________________ - - __ - - __ - __ _ 659 Satellites. (See specific satellites.) Saturn-Apollo Applications Office (see also Apollo applications project): Establishment ___________________________________________ 163,165,241 Objectives____________________________________________________ 165 Saturn launch vehicle: Advanced Saturn static test facility _____________________________ _ 212 Contracts with Boeing Co., and Chrysler Corp ___________________ _ 215 Cost estimates _____________________________________ - ___ - __ - __ _ 8, 9 Effects of budget cu t __________________________________________ _ 29 Future applications _________________________ -_ - - - __ - - _- - - __ - __ _ 67, 68 Saturn I launch vehicle: Phaseout_____________________________________________________ 110 8aturtl I-B launch vehicle: Apollo flight test prognlllL _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 198 Availability for alternative missions___ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ 75 Comparison with Proton satellite capabilities______________________ 47 Comparison with Titan III-C ___________________________________ 55,50 Funding______________________________________________________ 266 Hardware checkout_ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 204 Mission objectives ___________________________________________ H)9-201 Replaccment by i:-latul'll \' and Titan III -C _ ___ __ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ 82 H-IB sta g;l' , lcarltime procurement _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ 126 8-1 VB stage: Acceptance testing at Sacramento test facility ___ _ __ _ ___ __ _ __ _ _ 215 Contract with Douglas Aircraft Co _____ - - - - - _ - __ - - _ __ _ __ __ _ _ 215 Transportation ________________________ - - - -- - ___ - ________ __ 195 Schedule ___________________________________________________ 135, 260
~~~~~Rl~~j~c~~~~~~~~~~~===~=~~=~==~=~===~==~==========~~~==-1~~~~6r
INDEX
711
Saturn V launch vehicle: Pap Acceptance testing at Mississippi test facility _ _ ____ ___________ ____ 215 Accomplishments ____ - - ____ - -- ___ - _________ - __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ____ _ 108, 109 Availability for alternative missiollS____ ___ _ _ _ ____ _ ____ __ ___ __ _ _ _ _ 75 132 Capabilities____ _____ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _____ _ __ _ Current status_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ ___ __ _ __ ___ _ __ _ 131 Flight schedule __________________________________________ 135,198,266 Funding ________________________________________________ 149, 266, 267 ).iission objectives ___________________________________________ 201, 202 Production___________________________________________________ 149 Replacement of Saturn I -B_ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ ____ _ ___ _ ____ __ __ _ __ 82 S-IC stage; Acceptance testing at Mississippi test. facility ________________ _ 212 Transportation ___________________________________________ _ 195 S-I1 stage: Acceptance testing at ).1ississippi test facility ________________ _ 212 Contract with Xorth American Aviation, Inc ________________ _ 215 Fabricated and assembled at Seal Beach facility ______________ _ 215 Failure analysis __________________________________________ _ 72 Transportation ___________________________________________ _ 195 8- IV B stage: Acceptance testing at Sacramento test facility ________________ _ 215 Applica tions _____________________________________________ _ 570 Contract with Douglas Aircraft Co _________________________ _ 215 Voyager project use _______________________________________ _ 300 Science and Technology Advisory Committee, activities _______________ _ 174 Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports (STAR), funding ___________ _ 87 Scientific and Technical Information Facility, funding _________________ _ 86,87 Scientific and technical manpower (see also Personnel): ~lal1l1ed spacc flight program _________________________________ 135,136 Position leveL _ _ _ ___ __ __ __ __ _____ __ ______ ___ __ _____________ ___ 37 Sustaining university program_ _ _ _____ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ 364 Scientific satellites (see also specific satellites), tracking and data acquisition network supporL____ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ ____ __ ___ _ 425 Scout launch vehicle, reliability ___________________________________ 341,369 Scipps Oceanographic Institute: Lunar exploration summer conference_ ___ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ ______ _ ___ 172 Navy funding for oceanography studies__________________________ 145 Seal Beach, Calif., test facility: Construction of facilities ______________________________________ _ 272 ).Ianned space flight program phaseout __________________________ _ 121 Saturn 8-n stage development _________________________________ _ 72 Seamans, Dr. Robert C., Jr.: Biography____________________________________________________ 11 General testimony _____________________________________________ 21-23, 27,31,33,47,49-51,63-69,71-81,121,122,130,289,312,379 Prepared statement ____________________________________________ 81-99 Secor geodetic satellite project, current status_________________________ 659 Sequential collation of range. (See Secor geodetic satellite project.) SFOF. (See Space Flight Operations Facility.) Slidell Test Facility, La., appropriations and budgeL__________________ 4 Small Business Administration, interagency agreement_________________ 94 Smith, Senator )'largaret C _________________________ 8,31-39,72,73,121-126, 286-291,307,396,398-400,453-456,557-559,640,641,644-647 Written questions answered by NASA ________________ 35--38,307-312,400 Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, OAO ultraviolet sky survey experiment- _ _ _____ ___ _ _ ___ ____ ____ __ _____ _ ________ __ ___________ 346 SN AP 8 project: Budget requesL__ ___ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _____ _____ ___ _____ ______________ 454 Contractors___ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ __ _ ___ __ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ 616 Experimental reactor (S8ER)___________________________________ 616 Funding ____________________________________________________ 529,561 Project review __________________________________________ 495,615-623 Rankine and thermoelectric systems ___________________________ 473,623 Reduction of effort _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ ______ _ _ __ _ 66 Research and developmenL ___________________________________ 542,543 Testing_______________________________________________________ 443
712
INDEX
P_
SNAP SNAP SNAP
10-A project, operational accomplishments ........... 541,542, 613-615 19 project, Nimbus B use .............................. 541,561, 608 27 project: Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) use ........... 610 Research and development ............................ 541,558, 559, 561 SNAP 50 project, technology development ............................ 624 Solar cells, attachment to aircraft .................................... 98 Solid rockets. (See Large solid motor program.) Sounding rockets (see also Nike-Cajun) : ESSA recoimnendations ........................................ 288 Launch successes .............................................. 278 Meteorological use ........................................... 355, 356 Southeastern State College, data dissemination ........................ 94 Southern Methodist University, legal problems of space ................ 57 Southwest Research Institute, hmar exploration smmner conference ..... 174 Soviet Academy of Sciences, negotiations with United States ............ 57 Soviet Union. (See U.S.S.R.) Space detectior_ and tracking system (SPADATS), information for antisatellite systems ............................................... 660 Space Flight Operations Facility (SFOF), Pasadena, Calif.: Capability expansion .......................................... 423 Rauger IX picture broadcasting ................................. 415 Space medicine, OMSF: Gemini flight accomplishments ............................... 190-192 Interagency cooperation ................................... 175, 176 Medical Experiments Panel .................................. 174 Spae(_ Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO): Architect and engineering contract with Vitro .................... 75 Purpose ................................................ 563 Space power and electric propulsion program, OART: Advanced reactor electric power systems ...................... 623-631 Appropriations and budget ..................... -l, 527 Electric power advantages and problems ................. 527, 529 li',leetric propulsion, thrusters ....................... 495, 496, 529, 530 Program corot)orients ................................. 439, 523 Program plans .................................. 441,443, 473, 524, 525 Nuclear reactor electric power systems ......................... 613-631 Radioisotope electric power systems ............................ 608-613 Reusable booster applic:ttions ................................. 458, 459 Space program: Budget request reduction ....................................... 45 Economic resources .................................... 39, 40, 111, 112 Future goal decision ............................... 44, 45, 114, 115, 131 Importance of contiimity ....................................... 68 Military program. (See Defense, Department of/Space program.) National goals ................................ 62, 63, 74, 75, 2_2, 283 Post-Apollo objcctiv,,s ................................ 117-120, 130, 141 Priorities ..................................................... 64, 65 U.S.-U.S.S.R. comparison .................................. 43, 2S7, 298 Space Radiation Effects Laboratory: Operated by Virginia Associated Rese-_rch Center .................. 524 Space vehicle research .......................................... 439 Space science and applications progr.m_ (see also Office of Space Science and Applications): Accomplishments ................................ 227, 278, 336, 338-342 Appropriations and budget ................................... 278, 279 Effects of budget cut ..................................... 279, 286, 287 Funding request ............................................... 337 Manned versus unnmnned experimentation ..................... 297,298 Objectives ............................................. 284, 337, 338 Priority in space t)rogram ............................ 65 Program content ............................................ 342-372 Program phms .............................................. 336, 337 Space Science Board: Planct.try exploration recommendations ......................... 67, 280 Recominendations for future NASA programs ................ 66, 308, 362 Recommended Mars mission .................................... 352
INDEX
713
pap
Space Sciences Steering Committee, experiment selection_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ __ _ 82 Space station: Apollo Applications project, earth sciences experiments____________ 237 Future capabilities____ ___ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ ___ _ ____ __ _ _ __ _ 257 Post-Apollo Applications efforts ________________________________ 260,261 Size research __ - ___ - - - - - __ - - - - ___ - - - ____ - - - - ___ - __ __ _ _ ____ _ _ ___ 57 Space Systems Di"ision, Air Force (see also Satellite control facility), DOD secondary payload space activities management procedures______ 673 Space vehicles program, OART (see also ,:\1-2 lifting body, HL-IO lifting body; Space Radiation Effects Laboratory): Appropriations and budget _____________________________________ 4,523 Lifting body research:
Contract with Northrop Corp____ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ __ 462 Testing cost_ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ __ __ ____ _ ___ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _____ ___ __ 462 Program components ________________________________________ 439, 521 Program review _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ ______ _ _ __ 524 Reentry research ____________________________________________ 459,460 DOD program_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _________ _______ _ __ __ _ _ ___ __ ___ __ 668 Flight experiments__ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ ___ __ __ _ __ __ ____ _ ______ __ 490, 492 Variable geometry studies_ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ ___ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _____ _ _ __ 460 Spacecraft Technology and Advanced Reentry Tests (START) (see also ASSET; PILOT; PRBfE), program review________________________ 668 Spacecraft strilization (see also Sterilization and Development Laboratory) : Bioscience R. & D. efforL _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ ___ _ ___ _ _ _____ _ _ _ 359, 360 U.S.S.R. Venus probe_____________________________________ ____ 301 SPADATS. (See Space detection and tracking system.) Spain, agreement for construction of ground station___ __ ___ _ _ _ ____ __ _ __ 420 SST. (See Supersonic transport.) STADAN. (See Satellite tracking and data acquisition network.) Stanford University, ABL feasibility studies_ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _____ __ _ _ _ 359 START. (See Spacecraft technology and advanced reentry tests.) State, Department of: NASA's negotiations with SO\-iet Acadpmy of 8ciences___________________________________________________________ 57 Sterilization and Development Laboratory: Funding ______________________________________________________ 24-27 Requirement for Voyager __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _____ __ __ _ 313 STO L aircraft, zero yisibility landing problem_ ____ _ __ __ ___ _ ______ __ _ 514, 515 Subsonic transport (see also X-15 research airplane), research program_ 4S7,489 Summary Report, Future Programs Task Group_ _ _ __ __ _ ___ __ ____ __ ___ 254 Supersonic transport (SST) (see also Boeing 707 aircraft: Com-air ~J90 aircraft; Jet Star aircraft; XB-70 aircraft; F-111 aircraft): AACB recommendations _____________________________________ 469, 470 Advanced engines, descriptioll____ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ ______ _ __ _ 471 AEDC deyelopmenL _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ ______ __ _ __ 46S DOD/NASA research_ _ _ __ __ _ ______ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ ___ ____ __ _ __ _ _ 672 FAA commercial deyelopmenL_____ _ ___ _____ __ _ __ ___ _______ __ _ _ _ 648 FAA/NASA study on air traffic problems_____ _ __ __ ___ __ ____ _ _ ___ _ 483 Program redew _ _ _ _ ______ ___ __ _ ___ ____ ____ _ __ _____ _ ____ __ __ _ __ 517 Propulsion Systems Laboratory expallsioll_ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ ______ _ __ _ _ 438 Research activities _______________________________ 467-469,471,475,476 Sonic boom research_ ___ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ __ _ 474 Surveyor project: Appropriations and budget- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ ___ _ __ ____ _ _ _ __ 307 Cameras______________________________________________________ 304 Comparison with Luna 9 _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _____ _ __ _ _ _ 305 Cost estimate ________________________________________________ 19, 282 Deep space network support_ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ _ _____ _ __ _ __ 423 Delta launch vehicle readiness___________________________________ 341 Lunar exploration ________________________________________ 29, 132, 133 Objectives ______________________________________________ 281,305,306 Project difficulties_ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ ___ __ __ _ ___ _ ______ _ _ __ _ 349 Project duration estimate___ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ ___ ___ _ _____ _ __ _ _ _ 315 Relationship to Apollo ______________________________________ 56,57,197 Spacecraft____________________________________________________ 301
~~d~~~~~~~~t~========================================_~39,!:~ Compared to Air Force DYNA-SOAR _____________________ 459,460
714
INDEX
Sustaining university program: Page Accomplishments_ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ ___ _ 342 Active research grants, Mar. 1,1966, list _______________________ 325,326 Appropriations and budget- _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ ___ __ _ __ ___ __ ____ _ __ __ ____ 4 Development _______________________________________________ 278,367 Funding, percentage of NASA's expenditures_____ _ ___ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ 49 GISS research grants, lisL______________________________________ 326 Predoctoral training program: Fiscal year 1966 participants, Iist_ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ 322-324 Graduate employmenL _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ 327, 328 Program content _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ 364-366 Purpose _ ___ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ 344 Hesearch facilities, list _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ ___ _ ___ _ 327 Research grant cost sharing ___________________________________ 33.5,336 "Strengthening Academic Capabilities for Science and Engineering throughout the Country," texL________ __ ___ ____________ 329-332 Sweden, sOllllding rocket instrumentation provbiun _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ 309 Synchronous meteorological Hatellites, operational pussibilities_ ____ _ _ __ _ _ 374 Syncolll, act.ive cOlllmunicational ,;atellite: DO]) operational controL _____________________________________ _ {llll Pattern for Early BinL _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _____ _ 277 Project completioll ________________________________________ _ 3.57
T
Tananarive, Madagascar, ground station: System addition _____________ _ 426 Technology utilization program (see also Office of Technology Utilization): Appropriations and budgeL_ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ 4 Biomedical applications _____________________________________ n, \)4, \).5 Data disseminatioIL ___________________________________________ \):3, 94 Development identification and evaluatiolL _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ 03 Industrial applications of NASA R. &D __________________________ !J.5-\)\) N uch'ar rocket applications ___________________________________ 60) -603 Purpose _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ !J3-!H) Tdecommunicatiom; and aeronomy program, ESSA: Appropriations and budgeL ________________________________________________________ _ 378 ThomJlson-Ramo-Woolrlridge, Inc.: Mmlllgenl{)nt of OGO __________________________________________ _ 74 Voyagcrcontract _____________________________________________ _ 352 Thor-Agena launch vchicle: Gravity gradient stabilization experimcnts ________________________ _ 672 Perfonnance _________________________________________________ _ 369 Thumba, India ___________________________________________________ _ 37 Tiros meterolo gical sa tp lli tes: Completion of NASA launch series ______________________________ _ 277 Flight successes ______________________________________________ _ 3.52 Photograph correlation with Gemini ____________________________ _ :H1 Technology for TOSS _________________________________________ _ 338 Tiros operational satellite system (TOSS): Commerce Department/DOD/NASA cooperation_ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ 660 ESSA funrlittg attd management_ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 31i4, 372 Program platts_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 352-3.55 Rcplncement by Nimbus________________________________________ 289 Replacement by polar orbiLing satellites_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ 374 HeCjuired modifications_____ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ ____ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ 373 Hupplcmcntal system for N()M~:-L______________________________ 374 Westem Test H.ange/ Delta bUllch capability ___ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ 369 Tiros IX: AccompliHhm!'ntl"L __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ __ __ __ 341, 342 Illtenmt.ional partil'ipatioll__ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ __ __ _ 309 Tracking and data tLcquisition___ ________________________________ 425 Tiros X, tracking and data ac<juisition_______________________________ 42.5 Tischl('l", Arldb!'rt 0., geueml testimony ____________________________ 457, 458 Titan III lauuch vehicle: Capability increase for MOL laullclL _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 653 Funding_ ___ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ____ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 648, 649 ltescarch lind development: 663 Appropriatiolls and budget- ____________ - - ___ - - - _- - - - - - - - - -649 Original cost estimate _________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
INDEX
~
715
Titan III launch vehicle---Continued Totalcost _____________________________________________ _____ _ Page 648Vibration tests at Langley _____________________________________ _ 505 Titan III-A, program review_______________________________________ _ 663 Titan III-B, program review ______________________________________ _ 664 Titan III-C: Comparison with Saturn I-B _________________________________ 55,56,82 Defense communications satellites launches _____________________ 638,661
~;~~!~~~s~~============================================_~54, 663 ~g Progrrun review _____ -____ __ __ _________ __ ___ ___ __ ____ __ ___ __ ___
Uprating: Development time__ ______ ___ ___ _______ ____ _ _____ _______ ___ 654 MOL launch ____________________________________________ 643,654 Use in Apollo applications program ____________________________ 128,129 Titan III-X/Agena launch vehicle. (See Titan III-B.) TOSS. (See Tiros operational satellite system.) Tracking and data acquisition (see also Instrumentation aircraft; Instrumentation ships; Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition; specific locations and networks): Accomplishments ____________________________________ 383-385,412-414 Apollo support ____________________________________________ 9,387,420 Appropriations and budget- _ _ _ _____ __ ___ ___ ___ _____ _ _____ _____ _ 4 Construction of facilities_____ __ ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ _ ____ ___ ___ 420 Investment in overseas facilities_ ______ _____ _ _____ _ ____ ___ __ _ 400 Satellite support facility changes_ _ _ _ __ __ __ ____ __ _ __ ___ ___ ___ 425 Funding________________________________________________ 385,415,416 Ground station adaptability _ _ _ _____ __ _ __ ______ _ ____ _ __ ______ __ _ 4(}4 Manpower__________________________________________ 393-395,430,431 U.S.S.R. network ______________________________________________ 37, 3S. Treasury, Department of. ________________________________________ 290, 321 Truszynski, Gerald M.: Biography____________________________________________________ 80 Generaltestimony ___________________________ 38O,391,396-401,404-40S. Prepared statement __________________________________ 380-396,401-403
U
TSCP. (See Defense communications satellite project/Tactical system.) UK-3 satellite, OSSA participation_ _ __ ____ __ ___ ___ ______ _ _____ _____ _ 309 United Arab Republic, agreement with U.S.S. R. on Helwan Observatory ___ 37 United Kingdom. (See Great Britain.) United Nations (see also Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space), international space agreements ____________________________________ 55,57 University program. (See Sustaining university program.) Unamanned space flight program: Apollo applications effect__ _______ ____ __ ____ __ ___ ___ _____ _____ __ 29S. Experiment selection___ _____ _______ __ ______ __ _ ____ _ _____ ___ ____ 134 Manned versus unmanned missions: Cost effectiveness_____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ ____ ______ _______ 56 Experimentation ________________________________________ 297, 298 Meteorological experiments_ _ _ _ ___ _______ __ ___ _ ____ _ _______ _____ 135 Program efficiency comparison ________________________________ 296, 297 U.S.S.R. (see also Cosmos; Luna 9; Molniya; Proton; Soviet Academy of Sciences; Venik; ______________________________________________ 16,62,63 Achievements Voskhod): Data. exchange with U.S ___________________________________ 58,59,302 International cooperation ________________________________ 33,34,37, 3S. Lunarprogram _________________________________________ 102,103,283 Effect on U.S. program_ _ __ _ ____ _ __ _____ _ _____ _ ____ ________ 131 Manned space flight capabilities_________________________________ 102 Nuclear reactor developments ____________________________ - - -_ ___ 558 Program comparison with U.S _________________ 43, 104,287, 298, 452, 453 Spacebudget_________________________________________________ 300 Space goaL _____________________________________ 48, 49, 60, 61, 101, 106 Spacecraft sterilization_ __ ______ _____________ ___ ___ _ ____ ___ ___ __ 301 Use of launch windows_________________________________________ 300 Venus flights ________________________________________________ 101, 102
716
INDEX
v
V/STOL aircraft: Applications ________________________________________________ 450, 503 DOD management___ __ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ____ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 476 Funding ____________________________________________________ 449, 450 Problem arcas ______________________________________________ 450, 451 Program plans __________________________________________ 436, 438, 450 Program revicw _____________________________________________ 514-517 Transition rcscarch wind tUlllleL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 438, 450, 451 Vanguard instrumcntation ship ___________________________________ 389, 417 VELA nuclear tcst dctection satellite: Curr!'l1t status ______________________________________________ 647, 659 Monitoring uuclear tcst baIL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 637 Titml III-C launch vehiclc_ _ _ _ ________ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ____ ___ _ __ ___ ____ 663 Venik II, Ycnus flyby______________________________________________ 280 Venik III, illlJl!tct Oil yClllls_________________________________________ 280 Venus (planet): Adyanced manllcd missions studics_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2G3 Flyby________________________________________________________ 5G9 l\larincr 1967 missiOlL ________________________________________ 67,351 Planetary goaL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 284 Hussian ftights __________________________________________ 101,102,280 RllI'facc data____ _ ______ __ __ __ ___ _______ _____ _ ____ _______ __ ___ _ 301 Swillgby modc ______________________________________________ 56G, 5G9 Virginia Associated Rescarch Centcr. (See Space Radiation Effects Laboratory.) Vitro Enginccring Co., contractor for SNPO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 75 Voskhod spacecraft, flight SUCC(',,_____ ___________ ____________ 16 Voyager project: Exohiology objective___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _____ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 359 Fu lIoi ng_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 352 InvcsLmcllt to datc________________________________________ 285 Hcouction _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 19 Requiremcnts to avoid dcferraL_____________________________ 286 Laullch windows ________________________________________ 285, 28G, 2!)9 Lunar and planctary cxploration, linc itcm_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 91 1\lars landing capsulc devclopment schedulc ____________________ 313, 314 Mars 1973missioll _____________________________________________ 77,78 Objectives ______________________ - ___________________________ 284, 352 Planned for reducing gap with U.S.S.R___________________________ 299 Projeet deferral_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 78, 279 Project duration analysis_______________________________________ 315 Rcprogramming for :'.Iariner _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 299 Spac(' Science Board rccolllmendations_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G6, 308 Spacecraft contractors_ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 352 Sterilization laboratory rcquirelllents_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24-27, 313 VTOL aircraft, zero visibility landing prohlcll1,_______________________ 514
W
Wallops Statioll, Wallops Island, Va.: Appropriations aIHI budget- _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _____ _ __ __ _ _____ _ _____ 4 OSSA institutional nUlnageIlH'Ilt_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :370 OSSA balleh facility modifications_______________________________ 371 Tracking ~uPJlort from Eastcm TeDt Hangc_______________________ 666 Washingtoll P08! ________ ._________________________________________ 54 Wasp, U.S.S.: Gemini cov"rag" through Early Bird____________________ 357 Wa\,(>rto\\"n instl"llmt'ntatioll ship ______________________________ 389,417,418 Wayne State Uni\.,rsity, data dissemination__________________________ 94 WelltlJ('r Bureau, U.S. (See a/so Envirolllllclltal Sciences Service Admillistration) : Fund ing __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 i!l SP:l!'C :\ I \'t('orology (; rOll]L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Support for NASA_____________________________________________ T( )1-'1-' teehnology ____________________________________________ 338, W(,slt'rI1 Test Hange Faeilities use_______________________________
~li:~;\;~~:'~~~'~)~:.\\)L\)l(:'~'t se~~ i_c~'~= ================================ === 3 i7 ~Zi

377 354 371
INDEX
717
Pap
Weather forecasting, Apollo applications program______ __ ___ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ 233 Weightlessness ______________ - - - _________________________________ 234, 236 Webb, James E.: Biography____________________________________________________ 10 General testimony ________________________ 11-17,20-24,27-52,54,55,63 Letter from Senator Clinton P. Anderson_________________________ 26 Letter to Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey _____________________ 2-4,17,18,25 Letter to Senator Clinton P. Anderson _____________________ 26,27,69--71 :\Iemorandum with Robert S. McNamara________________________ 53 Prepared statement ________________ - - ____________________ 35---38, 55---63 Western Operations Office, Santa .:\Ionica, Calif.: Cooperation on lunar walker - _- _____ - _______ - ___________________ 73, 95 ~ ASA resident office-JPL salaries_ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _____ _ _ _ _ __ 370 Personnel reduction _____ - -- - - - - - __ - - - - __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ 290 'Westerll Test Range, Vandenberg AFB, Calif.: Construction of facilities, funding ______________________________ 648,649 Delta launch capability________________________________________ 369 Description_ _ ____ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 666 DOD funding_ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ ___ ____ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 656 DOD/XASA cooperative efIorts _______________________________ 396,431 DOD/Weather Bureau/~ASA launch vehicle service tower__________ 371 :\IOL launch facilities ________________________________________ 636,659 OSSA launch facility modifications_______________________________ 371 Tracking support from Eastern Test Range_______________________ 666 Weather Bureau services_ _ _____________________________________ 378 Westinghouse Electric Corp.: Fuel element developmenL_____________________________________ 579 Technology reporting___________________________________ ______ 601 Wheeler Air Force Base, HawaiL__ ___ ___ _____ __ ____ _ _ __ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ __ 666 White, Robert :\1., Administrator on the Space Program of the Elwironmental Science Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, prepared statement ____________________________________________________ 372-379 White Sands :\Iissile Range, ~. ':\Iex.: Description___________________________________________________ 665 OSSA launch facility modifications_______________________________ 371 Sounding rocket launch_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ ____ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _____ _ _ _ __ _ 309 White Sands Test Facility, ~. J\1ex.: Apollo propulsion system development facility, descriptioll_ __ _ _ __ _ _ 220 COllstruction of facilities ______________________________________ 268, 270 Dl'vdopnll'ntal testing of propulsion engincs of LE:\L______________ 220 Little Joe II launch facilit.ies, description _______________________ 220,221 \Yi~consin l~niversity, OAO experiments______________________________ 347 \Yoods Holl', :'.Iass., conference: Space Science Board ________ 113,114,145,362 "-OOlllcra, Australia, ground station: Consolidation with Canberra______ 426 Workl C;codetie System, DOD program contributions__________________ 660 World :\Ia gnctic Survey, 000- II data acquisition_ __ _ _ ___ __ _____ __ _ _ __ 345 38 "-oriel :\Iptporological Organization, U.S.S.H. exchange of data__________ Worlel "-cather Cent.er, Suitland, J\Id., use of ESSA L_________________ 372
X X-14 aircraft _ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ __ _ __ ____ __ ____ _ ___ __ _________ __ ___ _ __ 484 X-I.'> research aircraft, program review _____________________________ 489,672 X-22 aircraft.. _ _ __ _ _ _____ _______ _ __ ______ __________________ _ __ ____ 484 XB-70 research aircraft: Arnold Engineering Development CenteL________________________ 467 Sehedule delay _ __ __ __ _ __ _ ___ ___ ______ __ ______ _________________ 447 Supersonic transport research_ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _____ _ __ __ _ ____ ___ _ ___ _ 517 XC-142A aircraft.. _ _ _ _ _ __ _____ _ __ _____ _____ _________________ ______ 484 X Y-5A aircraft_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ __ __ __ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ 484
y Young, Senator Stephen M _______________________________ 126,127,291-293 Written questions answered by NASA __________________________ 479,480
z
Zero gravity.
(See Weightlessness.)

NASA Authorization For Fiscal Year 1967

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NASA Authorization For Fiscal Year 1967

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEARINGS

AERONAUTICAL Ali!) SPACE SCIENCF8' UNITED STATES SENA.TE

oPEB.,lfiOlt:'3;, ANJ),.J'OB tmIER~.

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES UNITED SrrATES SENATE

FEBRUARY 28, MARCH 1,2,3, AND 4,1966

GOVERNJIENT PRINTING OFFICE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES

155 155 156 157 158 162 163

164 165 166

170 170 171

176 179 180

185 187 188

246 246 247 247 248 249

:357 :l;"j8 :3;")!l :360 :){i 1 :H11

370 371 381 382 383 384 385 386 387

584 5:-\6 5a7

538 565 566 5(j7 567 569

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

WEBB, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

pltlilPt Venus and

2 passed within 224,000 kilometers.

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

Other program adiust. ments

Fiscal year 1966 authoriza tlon act amounts (adjusted)

TotaL ......................... 4,536,971

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

5. Lunar and planetary exploration

Mariner ________________________________ - _____________________ _

Pioneer ______________________________________________________ _ TotaL __ ______ _____ _____________________________________

3,800,000 43,000,000 8, 000, 000 214, 915, 000

Snpportingresearch and teehno\ogy ___________________________ Relay ___________ _______ ____________ ___________________________

Applications technology satellites_____________________________ TotaL__________________________________________________

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

Tota1. .................. _..........

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

A8sistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs.

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

from fiscal year 1966 facility planning and design.

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

Construction ____________________________ $829,200 Equlpment______________________________ 111,100 Design ,_________________________________ 0 Tota!..________________________________

Funded from fiscal year 1966 facility planning and deSign.

Hon. JAMES E. WEBB,

February 11, 1966.

Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C.

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

MOON LANDING STILL POSSIBLE BARRING MISHAP

Mariner ____________ - _ _

Pioneer ______________________________________________________ _ TotaL __ _ ___________________________________

Snpportingresearch and teehno\ogy _____________________ Relay _ _ _________________

Applications technology satellites_ TotaL______________________

Construction __________ $829,200 Equlpment 111,100 Design ,_ 0 Tota!..________________

-----------------------------------------[-------: Ames Research Center. __ . _. _. _______________________________ . _ _

Total, NASA .... . . _____ . _ . _. __ .. _.. . ________________ . _