PAGENO="0001" t7r7~~~~ Yt'ib 1978 NASA AUTHORIZATION HEARINGS BEFOEE TUE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OF TUE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFflI OONGBESS FIRST SESSION oz~ ILL 2221 (Superseded by ILR. 4088) FEBRUARY 2, 4, 5, 0, 7, ~, 10?? [No. 10] VOLUME I Part 2 Printed for the use of the Committee on Selence and PechnoIog~ 0 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92-0820 WASHINGTON: 1977 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON SOIEN(JE AND TEOHNOLOGY OLIN E. TEAGIJE, Texas, Chairman DON FUQUA, Florida WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey MIKE McCORMACK, Washington GEORGE E. BROWN, JIL, California DALE MILFORD, Texas RAY THORNTON, Arkansas JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New Yori: TOM HARKIN, Iowa JIM LLOYD, California JEROME A. AMBRO, New York ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina THOMAS J. DOWNEY, New York DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas BOB GAMMAGE, Texas ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, Califcrnia ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee WES WATKINS, Oklahoma ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey JIM LLOYD, California THOMAS J. DOWNEY, New York RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama BOB GAMMAGE, Texas ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee WES WATKINS, Oklahoma TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado JOHN W. WYDLER, New York LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey ELDON RUDD, Arizona ROBERT K. DORNAN, California ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey CHARLES A. MOSHJIR, Enecutive Director HARO~D A. GoULD, Deputy Director PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel JAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant WILLIAM 0. WELLS, Jr., Technical Consultant RALPII N. READ, Technical Consultant ROBEaT C. KETCEAM, Counsel JOHN P. ANDELIN, Jr., Science Consultant JAMES W. SPENSLEY, Counsel REGINA A. DAVIS, Chief Clerk PAUL A. V~NDER MYDE, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS DON FUQUA, Florida, Chairman LARRY WINN, Ja., Kansas LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey ELDON RUDD, Arizona (II) PAGENO="0003" * CONTENTS WITNESSES February 2, 1977: John F. Yardley, NASA Associate Administrator for Space Flight; accompanied by Glynn S. Lunney, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Flight; James C. Harrington, Deputy Director, Spacelab Program; Dr. Myron S. Malkin, Director, Space Shuttle Program; Captain Chester M. Lee, Director, Space Transportation System Operations; Haggai Cohen, Director, Reliability/Quality/Safety; James L. Vance, Director, Resource Management/Administration; John H. Disher, Director, Advanced Programs; and J~sepli B. Page Mahon, Director, Expendable Launch Vehicles Program 2 February 4, 1977-Field hearing: Mike Ross, Deputy Director, Kennedy Space Center 83 February 5, 1977-Field hearing: Robert C. Littlefield, manager, Michoud assembly facility 179 George E. Smith, vice president and project director, Martin Marietta Corp., Michoud facilities 197 February 6, 1977-Field hearing: Dr. Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Director, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, NASA; accompanied by Thompson, Charlesworth, Piland, Johnston, and Rice 275 February 7, 1977-Field hearing: Dr. William R. Lucas, Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, accompanied by J. A. Bethay, Director, Center Plans and Resources Control Office 423 R. E. Lindstrom, Manager, Space Shuttle Projects Office, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 461 James R. Thompson, Jr., Manager, Space Shuttle Main Engisie, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 46 James B. Odom, Manager, External Tank, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 520 George B. Hardy, Manager, Solid Rocket Booster, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 560 Thomas J. Lee, Manager, Spacelab Program, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 577 Dr. F. A. Speer, Manager, Space Science Projects Office, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 609 W. C. Keathley, Manager, Space Telescope, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 625 B. C. McKannan, Manager, Space Processing Applications Task Team, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 639 J. M. Price, Deputy Manager, Solar Heating and Cooling Project, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 651 J. T. Murphy, Director, Program Development, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 698 J. B. Kingsbury, Director, Science and Engineering, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center 729 February 9, 1977: Dr. Noel W. Hinners, NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science 979 Dr. James J. Kramer, Acting NASA Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Technology 1074 Edward Z. Gray, NASA Assistant Administrator for Industry Af- fairs and Technology Utilization 1113 Edmond Howie, Director, Knowledge Availability Systems Center, NASA Industrial Applications Center, University of Pittsburgh_ 1121 Dr. R. P. Morgan, Director of Research, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Lykes Corporation, Youngstown, Ohio 1122 R. D. Ginter, NASA Assistant Administrator for Energy Programs_ 1129 Dr. Eric H. Willis, ERDA, Assistant Administrator for Institutional Relations 1169 (III) PAGENO="0004" PAGENO="0005" 1978 NASA AUTHORIZATION WEDNESDAY, PEBRUARY 2, 1977 U.S. HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, StTBCOMMr[TEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS, Wa8hMgton, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:40 p.m., in room 2318, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Don Fuqua (chairman of the sub- committee)., presiding. `Mr. FuQuA. The subcommittee will be in order. We welcome today to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications-our first meeting of the 95th Congress-Mr. John F. Yardley, the Associate Administrator for Space Flight, NASA. `This is a continuation of the hearings of the subcommittee on the NASA fiscal year 19Th authorizations. Hearings in September of last year provided program review's. Since that time substantial progress has been made in NASA'S pro- grams and we look forward to Mr. Yardley's assessment of those pro- grams this, afternoon. A number of areas within the Office of Space Flight have been par- ticularly important to the subcommittee during the last year-estab- lishment of a reimbursement policy for the users of the space shuttle; the goal of completion of the hardware for shuttle flights within 2 years, and completion of the space shuttle fleet so that operational capability can be achieved within 3 years. Of equal importance to the subcommittee is the progress in program planning and development for the future. In this area it is apparent that the already modest funding is being reduced. There is $1 million being reprogrammed from Advance Programs in fiscal year 1977. The Subcommittee and the Committee specifically increased `ad- vanced p'rograms in fiscal year 1977 by $1 million. The ultimate au- thorization and appropriation bills' provided a $500,000 increase. Our statement last year was that NASA should induce a sense of urgency into advanced program planning. We know that this year 0MB `reduced substantially your proposed advance program funding. Your commen'ts on this situation will be most welcome. The progress of the Space Shuttle program, development of Shuttle payload planning, and evolution of an operational Shuttle capability have all undergone major change since our last hearings and we wel- come your comment on this subject also. Before proceeding I would like to invite Mr. Winn, the ranking minority member, to make any comments that he `might wish to offer. (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 Mr. WINN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to welcome John Yardley and his team today for this hearing. I am sure that we will have some questions after he makes his presentation. Speaking of Space Shuttle, the other night on television I heard the announcer say "tune in, we are going to have pictures" or some- thing to that effect of the rollout of the Space Shuttle craft. I had been out to what I thought was the rollout of the Shuttle* in California but I did not realize we were going to have a rollout w1wre they roll it right down the main street in Lancaster, Oalif. I think that is a first for the space program. I think also it is an indication of the type of PR in an indirect way of rolling that out so that the people of the town could see it and the students were let out of school. It is my understanding the students were let out of school so they could participate in history in the mak- ing and I am sorry to say that I had to find out that it was not NASA's idea to do that in the daytime. They wanted to do it at night, but that a Congressman suggested they do it in the daytime. Anyway John, welcome to the subcommittee. Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Winn and now, Mr. Yardley, if you will proceed. You may introduce for the record your associates at the table with you. STATEMENT OP TOHN P. YARDLEY, NASA ASSOCIATE ADMINIS- TRATOR FOR SP4CE PLIGHT, ACCOMPANIED BY GLYNN S. LUN- NEY, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE FLIGHT; JAMES C. HARRINGTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SPACELAB PRO GRAM; DR. MYRON S. MALKIN, DIRECTOR, SPACE SHUTTLE PROORAM; CAPT. CHESTER ~M. LEE, DIRECTOR, SPACE TRANS- PORTATION SYSTEM OPERATIONS; HAGGAI COHEN, DIRECTOR, RELIABILITY/QUALITY/SAFETY; TAMES L. VANCE, DIRECTOR, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATION; JOHN H. DISHER, DIRECTOR, ADVANCED PROGRAMS; AND IOSEPH B. MAHON, DI- RECTOR, EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES PROGRAM Mr. YARDLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me at the table to my far left is Dr. Myron Malkin, our Shuttle Program Director. On my immediate left is Jim Vance, our Office of - Space Flight Resources Director and on my right is Glynn Lunney who is my Deputy. Mr. Ohairman, we have sttbmitted a statement for the record and if it meets with your approval we would like to proceed with viewgraphs and an informal discussion of that statement. Mr~ FUQUA. Without objection the statement will be made a part of the record. [The statement of Mr. Yardley follows:] PAGENO="0007" 3 Hold For Release Until Presented by Witnes~ February 2. 1977 Statement for the Record by Mr. John F. Yardley Associate Administrator for Space Flight National Aeronautics and Space Administration tothe Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I appreciate having the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Fiscal Year 1978 budget request for the Off ice.of Space Flight (OSF). In view of the status hearing on September 14, 1976 and in keeping with the desires of this Committee, my discussion today will be generally limited to our FY 1978 rec~uirements, Exceptions to this will be activities which have occurred since last September. As you know, OSF ls'charged. with management responsibilities to de- velop the national Space Transportation System (STS) which consists of the Space Shuttle, the Spacelab. and Upper Stages. The SIS will provide domestic and international users with regular and economical round trip access to space during the coming decades. The STS era will enable us to capitalize on the unique advantages of space, to expand human knowledge and to increase practical benefits on earth. OSF is also responsible for managing the expendable launch vehicles for unmanned space flight missions and for planning future space programs. With your permission, I will now discuss each of the OSF programs. First is the Space Shuttle which Is the principal element of the STS. SPACE SHUTTLE The Space Shuttle (MSY6-634) will be reusable, versatile and depend-. able, and Is designed to carry many different types of payloads to and from low earth orbit. It consists of four basic flight hardware elements the orbiter, the main engine, an external propellant tank, and twin solid rocket boosters and the launch and landing PAGENO="0008" N 4 PAGENO="0009" 5 systems. All these projects are well underway and the Shuttle program is now in the period of peak development leading to the planned approach and landina tests this year and the orbital flight tests starting in 1979. For the Space Shuttle program In F~ :1978 we are requesting $1,349.2 million for Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) and for production to establish a national fleet of five orbiters. Comprehensive studies over the past five years have determined that five orbiters are the minimum cost effective fleet to meet our na- tional requirements. Fewer than .five orbiters would require the continued use of the more costly expendable launch vehicles and would result in a substantial cost penalty during the 12 year traf- fic model now projected for the STS from 1980 through 1991. To provide added assurance of successfully accomplishing the inten- sive development ground and flight test efforts, NASA has proposed increasing the funds available for the FY 1977 Space Shuttle pro- gram by $30 million. Provision for the increased FY 1977 Shuttle requirements, within the total appropriations available to NASA, will maintain progress toward the critical gr.ound and flight test milestones ahead and will help to assure that the challenging de- velopment program is successfully completed on plan and within the cost estimates. The additional FY 1977 Shuttle requirements of $30 million represent a rephasing of the total funding requirements, and the development cost commitment still remains $5.220 million ($1971). The $30 million will be used to meet increased FY 1977 requirements in the Shuttle Orbiter, external tank, and solid rocket booster development projects, to deal with unforeseen technical difficult~ies encountered and to ensure timely delivery of ground and flight test articles. The Space Shuttle program has stimulated business in virtually every state of the Union and the District of Columbia. Almost 200 con- tracts, each over one million dollars and many smaller ones have been awarded. Forty-seven of the states have substantial Shuttle contracts; twenty states have contracts totalling over ten million dollars each and in eight of these states we have awarded Shuttle contracts in excess of one-hundred million dollars. The Shuttle program now directly employs about 45,000 industry workers. Contractor hardware development and testing throughout the program continues to progress on plan. Since February 1976, we have awarded a number of major contracts ranging in value from almost three million dollars to over forty million dollars. One of these is the Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) Assembly and Checkout Contract awarded to United Space Boosters Inc., Alabama/Florida, arid another is the contract for ground data and systems software awarded to the Ford Aerospace and Communications Company in Texas. There are some important contracts still to be awarded, for example, a closed circuit TV system, extravehicular mobility units and an air traffic control comunications system. 3 PAGENO="0010" 6 Space Shuttle Test Program - Success of the Space Shuttle depends on a thorough ground test program (MS 76-1830). Since much of our FY 1978 funding request is to maintain progress in this essential area, we would like to give you an updated description of this comprehensive program. Extensive activities are necessary to insure that the hardware, as designed, will operate properly when assembled as a system over the full range of conditions which may be encountered during Space Shuttle operations. Testing extends from overall system tests including parts of each program element, down to subsystem and component tests on each project. This will provide the best assurance of achieving overall mission success and the required. crew and passenger safety. The test data is used in two ways - to directly verify the expected operations and to Verify pre- dictions based on previous analyses. Some of the major tests are described below. 1. Ground Vibration Test LGVTj The objective of the Shuttle GVT is to verify the analyses used to determine the structural dynamic characteristics of the Shuttle vehicle. Testing will be performed at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, Alabama, during the last half of 1978. Orbiter No. 1, an external tank, and two sets of solid rocket boosters (one set loaded with inert propellant and one set empty) will be used to assemble the test configurations. Preparations and planning for this key test are on schedule. Modifications to the MSFC test tower,which were started in September 1975,will be completed in the third quarter of 1977. Design and fabrication of special equipment used to support test operations are underway at both MSFC and the Rockwell International Space Division in Downey, California. 2. Quarter-Scale Shuttle Vibration Test - The quarter-scale Shuttle vibration testing scheduled for 1977 complements the full-scale Shuttle GVT. The objective of the quarter-scale testing is to obtain vibration data for a wider range of test configurations than allowed by cost and schedule constraints of the full-scale GVT and to obtain these data as much as a year earlier so that maximum benefit is obtained from limited testing of the full-scale GVT. This testing will be performed on replica models of the Shuttle orbiter, external tank (ET), and solid rocket boosters (SRB) in both individual and mated configurations and will be performed at a Rockwell International laboratory located in Downey. The test stand for supporting the test article has been completed. A system of vibratory shakers and associated computer controller equipment (which will also be used in the full-scale GVT) has also been completed. The ET model and an SRB model have been 4 PAGENO="0011" SPACE SHUTTLE SYSTEMS TEST PROGRAM FLIGHT TESTS GROUND VIBRATION TESTS IGVTJ MAIN PROPULSION TEST ORBITER TESTS AVIONICS TESTS MAIN ENGINE IPREBLJRNER TESTS EXTERNAL TANK SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER TESTS I = FARHICAIION I ASSY Si T (0 NASA HO MS16-1830f1J CERTIFICATION FOR I FIRST FLIGHT A ~- ~%_%~ FIRST 60 SEC. INTEGA ~ SYST. TEST FIRING1 BED STATIC TEST I DELIVER PRELIM. A3MPTA A FLIGHT ENGINES CERTIFICATION { v,~w~ow,w,~#1 I MOTOR FIRINGS PAGENO="0012" 8 delivered and fabrication of the orbiter model is nearing completion. Vibration testing was started late last year on the SRB model and is now in progress on the ET model. 3. Main Propulsion Test (MPTJ - The objective of the MPT is to demonstrate main propulsion system performance and compatibility with interfacing elements and subsystems. The configuration includes an Orbiter aft fuselage structure, the Space Shuttle main engines and an external tank. The testing will be conducted at the National Space Technology Laboratory (NSTL). The MPT program will include cryogenic tanking tests, short duration and long duration static firings including engine gimballing and throttling, and investigation of off nominal conditions. It is the only test program during which cluster firings of all engines will be conducted prior to the firing of the first flight vehicle at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The test program will include 12 static firings, with the initial firing scheduled for early 1978. An important test objective was added to the MPT program this past year, that is to obtain vibro-acoustic data during engine firings. Previously, response data wa~ to have been obtained on an aft fuselage test article subjected to an acoustic noi'se en- vironment in a Johnson Space Center (JSC) test facility. This test was deleted in favor of obtaining the data on the MPT article. Instrumentation is being added' to the orbiter MPT article to measure the acoustic and vibration levels. The data will be used to verify analytical predictions of the dynamic response characteristics of the structure and the internal equipment vibration levels. 4. Orbiter Static Testing - The structural test article is a fuli'Tcale replica of the orbiter airframe built to flight specifications. Final assembly is scheduled to be finished in the 3rd quarter 1977 with testing completed in the first half of 1979. The test article will be subjected to loads expected in all the critical flight conditions and testing will be phased to support the first manned orbital flight. The structural test article will be tested by Lockheed at their Palmdale facility adjacent to the Rockwell orbiter assembly building. Part of the test fixture was completed and activated in early 1976 for proof testing of the MPT article which is a full scale aft fuselage section used in the main propulsion test program. The remaining sections of the reaction frame are in design and fabrication. Engine loads will be simulated by large * hydraulic jacks applying forces at the points where the main engines are attached. Air loads are simulated by bonding pads to the surfaces and loading them with computer controlled hydraulic jacks to reproduce loads anticipated in the spectrum of flight conditions. 6 PAGENO="0013" 9 5. Orbiter Avionics Testing The majority of Orbiter No. 1 avionics component development testing has been completed. The component qualification tests have started. Integrated avionics testing is now underway at the avionics development laboratory (AOL) at the Rockwell Corporation in California and at the electronics system test laboratory (ESTL) and the Shuttle avionics integration laboratory (SAIL) at JSC. Testing on Orbiter No. 1 avionics system at Palmdale is proceeding using test procedures demonstrated on the ADL and SAIL facilities. The combined AOL and flight control hydraulics laboratory testing has started in Downey, California and closed loop end-to-end flight control testing is underway. Combined operation of the SAIL and ESTL at JSC has been demonstrated and preliminary closed loop flight control tests in the SAIL have begun. The ESTL is used to demonstrate the combined ground station and flight hardware radio frequency communications systems. These facilities are being used in the development of the Orbiter No. 1 subsystem and the systems software operating routines. At points in the software development cycle, software packages are checked in SAIL and AOL to determine their ability to support formal avionics certification and verification test procedures. Formal avionics verification runs are scheduled to be completed prior to their need on the approach and landing tests. Detailed plans for Orbiter No. 2 configuration modifications to the ADL, SAIL, and ESTL have been established. The Orbiter No. 2 configuration component deliveries to these facilities will begin in 1977 and be completed in 1978. The Marshall mated element system (MMES) preliminary design has been completed and delivery to SAIL is scheduled for December 1977. This system,when installed in the SAIL,will provide representation of the orbital flight test mated vehicle tonfiguration. This SAIL facility, in combination with the ESTL, will be used to verify the Shuttle avionics system including hardware/software operation., operation with the mated element avionics system and interfaces with other selected orbiter systems. 6. ~p~çe Shuttle Main Engine Tests - Three engines have been delivered and tested on the two engine test stands at NSTL. More than 140 tests with total test time greater than 2500 seconds have been achieved. We expect to complete a 60-second engine firing at rated power level during the first quarter of 1977. The main engine critical design review was held in September 1976, at which time the engine system design drawings analyses, component test data and engine test data were reviewed. No major problems were discovered. Delivery of the three engines for .the main propulsion test article is scheduled for mid-1977, with preliminary flight certification scheduled for late 1978. A 35 start, 2 1/2 hour life demonstration will be performed on a preselected development engine as part of the flight certification program. 7 PAGENO="0014" 10 7. External Tank Structural Tests - The external tank structural testjrogram will be performed at MSFC to confirm the structural analyses and to verify the structural design. The major test elements will consist of the flight configured oxygen tank, intertank and hydrogen tank. The test program is comprised of intertank structural tests, oxygen tank strength and modal survey tests, and hydrogen tank strength and interface hardware tests. The static structural tests will be performed to simulate the loads during the critical periods of prelaunch and flight which establish the external tank design. The ox.yqen tank modal survey tests will be performed in addition to the static tests to determine the hydro-elastic properties of the fluid/structure combination in order to verify the analytical model. These tests will begin in the third quarter of FY 1977. 8. Solid Rpcket Booster(SRB) Systems Test - Preparation for these major tests on the SRB systems began during the latter part of 1976. These tests will include static structural strength tests of the SRB, integrated electrical and instrumentation subsystem verification tests, recovery drop tests for the parachutes and booster separation motor development and qualification tests. Flight type hardware will be utilized and the integrity of the subsystems, both in terms of Its structure and performance characteristics,will be demonstrated. The solid rocket motor (SRM) development tests will begin with the first of four development firings in the third quarter of 1977. Three SRMs will be static fired beginning in late 1978 to complete qualification. The last qualification test will use refurbished hardware from the first qualification test to demon- strate the reusability of motor cases. 9. Approach and Landing Test (ALT) - The ALT program of the orbiter will be conducted at the Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) beginning in the first half of 1977. Orbiter No. 1 configuration will be that required for atmospheric flight. The systems required only for space flight will not be installed. This series of ALT will verify the performance of the orbiter for the low altitude, subson~c portion of the return from an orbital flight mission. TheJ tests increase in complexity from (1) taxi tests with the unm~nned orbiter on the Boeing 747 carrier aircraft, to (2) ma1~ed flights with the orbiter unmanned, to (3) mated flights with a two-man crew in the orbiter, to (4) the last series of tests in which the manned orbiter will be separated in flight from the 747 and flown to landing. After successful completion of these tests the orbiter will be transported to MSFC in mid-1978 for the mated ground vibration tests prior to being modified for orbital flight. 10. Orbital Flight Tests (OFT) - The OFT program, beginning with the first manned orbital flight in mid-1979, will use the second orbiter and will consists of a series of launches from the Kennedy Space Cehter~(KSQ!jth landings atEdwards AFB in California and 8 PAGENO="0015" 11 at KSC* These flights will verify the performance of all Space Shuttle systems. The orbiter will have additional Instrumentation to verify the system performance. Flight test objectives will increase in complexity as the orbiter's launch, flight, entry and landing characteristics are explored. Consistent with the engineering evaluation of the Space Shuttle system, science and engineering payloads will be flown on these development flights. At the completion of these orbital flight tests the Space Shuttle system will transition, along with the Spacelab and the Upper Stages, to an operational space transportation system. Orbiter ~DDT&E We are requesting $690.5 million for the orbiter project in F~ 978. The Space Division of Rockwell International has completed the fabrication, assembly and checkout of Orbiter No. 1 (MS 77-1240) which will soon be used for the approach and landing test (ALT) program. Modification of the Boeing 747 carrier aircraft to be used for these tests has been completed and flight testing is proceeding. Captive flight tests of the orbiter mated to the carrier aircraft will begin in the first half of 1977 from the DFRC in California. Major structural elements for Orbiter No. 2 are being delivered to the Rockwell orbiter assembly plant in Palmdale, California. Individual systems installation and checkout will continue during 1977 and early 1978. FY 1978 activities will include the completion of the approach and landing test program; continuation of development, qualification and verification testing to support the first manned orbital flight; and delivery of Orbiter No. 2 to KSC in late 1978. A major activity in FY 1978 will be the final assembly and checkout of Orbiter No. 2 at the Palmdale plant of Rockwell International. All of the major structural subassemblies will have been delivered to Palmdale and partially assembled by early 1978. During the first half of 1978, major subsystems of this orbiter will be installed and checked out. In the latter half of 1978, Orbiter No. 2 will be mated to the 747 carrier aircraft and ferried to KSC to prepare for the first manned orbital flight in 1979. Rockwell has completed manufacture of a sled test article which is `being used to qualify the ejection seats and the crew escape system. Static and dynamic testing is now being conducted at the Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. 9 PAGENO="0016" 12 7 A PAGENO="0017" 13. The one-quarter scale model of the Space Shuttle system consisting of the orbiter, external tank, and solid rocket boosters will all be delivered in 1977 to the test location in Downey, California. Ground vibration testing of the individual quarter-scale elements and of the quarter scale mated Space Shuttle configuration will be completed early in 1978 and results used to verify the analytically developed mathematical model. Development and verification testing of major test articles will continue during FY 1978: the main propulsion test article, the structural test article, and the crew module structural test article which will be assembled during FY 1978 with structural tests scheduled to start in mid-1978. Characterization and materials testing of the thermal protection system will continue during FY 1978. Manufacture of reusable surface insulation tiles and the reinforced carbon-carbon surfaces for Orbiter No. 2 will proceed through the fiscal year. Also, during FY 1978, qualification testing of the major parts of the life support system will be completed. They include the active thermal control system; food, water, and waste management; and the atmospheric revitalization system. The emphasis during FY 1978 on avionics subsystems will shift from support of the ALT flights to providing support to the OFT program. Software development, integration and performance analyses, and detailed design of the OFT software packages represent major avionics activities during FY 1978. Coding and checkout of early releases of the entry, ascent, on-orbit and abort packages will be accomplished in early 1978. Certification of the orbital flight test hardware and software configuration will begin during FY 19.78. The Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory will be used to develop and demonstrate the launch processing system avionics software and systems interfaces. A simulated flight checkout test will be demonstrated in the SAIL and conducted on Orbiter No. 2 to verify the overall systems operation in the flight configuration using the actual orbital flight hardware. Simulations will be conducted in the avionics development lab- oratory at the Rockwell Space Division's plant in Downey, California, to develop and confirm the design of the flight control system with refined data on structural forces (airloads), aerodynamic effects and flight trajectories. The Space Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (RMS) for handling payloads in the course of space operations is being developed and produced by Canada. Under an agree- x~ent between Canada and the tTnited States, the National Research Council of Canada has been designated the Canadian agency responsible for providing the RMS to NASA. During the first quarter FY 1977, the preliminary 11 92-082 0 - 77 - 2 PAGENO="0018" 14 design review was completed on schedule establishing the RMS fundamental design. This event permits the detailed engineering drawings to proceed and subcontracts to be initiated on electrical and mechanical hardware and subassemblies. In FY 1978, the manipulator booms, end effector, joints, hand controllers and operator displays are to be fabricated, tested and qualified. Interface hardware, such as the manipulator control interface unit and stowage fixtures will be completed and integrated with the Space Shuttle systems. Simulations will be conducted first in Canadian facilities to evaluate the final space qualified designs. Subsequently, integration and verification with the Space Shuttle control systems will be accomplished in the SAIL at JSC. Many other orbiter project activities being performed by JSC will require funding in FY 1978. These include the White Sands Test Facility reaction control system testing, simulators for crew training and mission procedures development, extravehicular mobility unit design and fabrication, and modification of the JSC mission control center for the orbital flight test program. Space Shuttle Main Engine (DDT~J A total of $219.9 million is being request~c1 for the Space Shuttle main engine (SSME). In FY 1977, the prime contractor, Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International, is testing and fabricating major subsystems of the Space Shuttle main engines. Components tested at Santa Susana, California, include the ignition system, thrust chambers, fuel and oxidizer turbopumps, and the preburners. Continued testing of these components is scheduled for FY 1978. Engine firings were conducted at the NSTL (MS 77-1249) throughout 1976. Fabrication of the main propulsion test article engines will be completed this year and delivery to support the main propulsion test activity is scheduled for early 1978. Also manufacturing of the initial set of flight engines has started and they will be delivered to KSC in late 1978. Throttling of the SSME from rated power level (100% thrust) to minimum power level (50% thrust) has been accomplished recently and soon we expect it to operate at rated power level for 60 seconds. These two major development tests were originally scheduled to be completed in 1976, but two significant problems with the high pressure fuel turbopump were identified; rotor shaft vibration, and turbine end bearing cooling. Extensive effort was required to solve these problems. As a result, the actual rate of progress compared to the engine test plan shows that while we have achieved the planned number of tests, we have not achieved our planned duration. Our test rate capability has proven better than we had postulated in laying out the engine development schedule so that we should be able to make rapid recovery toward achievement of all test objectives. We expect to 12 PAGENO="0019" 15 PAGENO="0020" 16 recover our planned rate of testing in late 1977, exceed this rate during 1978, and to recover to the total accumulated duration prior to the first manned orbital flight. Although the overall engine test program is now estimated to be four months behind schedule, none of the future milestones such as delivery of the main propulsion system test engines and engines for the first orbital flight have been revised. It is anticipated that much of the schedule slip will be recovered. FY 1978 funding requirements for the main engine development provide for intensive test activity. Engine component certification testing will continue at Santa Susana on such components as the fuel and oxidizer preburners, ignition subsystem, main combustion chamber, and the high and low pressure turbopumps. Testing of these components will be conducted at operational power levels to certify their performance and reliability characteristics for flight operations. Concurrent with component testing at Santa Susana, testing of flight-configured engines will be conducted at NSTL to demonstrate engine flight readiness. Main propulsion system verification tests of three engines combined with the orbiter and external tank test articles will also be conducted at NSTL during FY 1978. The first three flight engines will be completed, acceptance tested at NSTL, and shipped to KSC in late 1978. Prior to this time, the engine ground support equipment necessary to support engine installation, checkout, and operational support of the first manned orbital flight will be available at KSC. Additional engine project support activities requiring funding during FY 1978 include hardware for the engine systems simulation labora- tory testing, engine software integration support, and propellant procurement for the test programs at both NSTL and Santa Susana. External Tank (DDT~)~ We are requesting $80.0 million for the ~tern~i~F tank. Development and fabrication by the prime con- tractor, Martin Marietta Corporation, is taking place at the government-owned Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans, Louisiana. In FY 1977, major assembly and weldingoperations will be com- pleted on the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks, as well as on the intertank for the main propulsion test article at the Michoud plant (MS 77.1247). These three major portions of the tank will be assembled into a complete tank for delivery to the NSTL test site in late 1977. Assembly of the structural test article intertank and simulators for testing at MSFC are in the final phase to support a delivery to the test site in the middle of FY 1977. 14 PAGENO="0021" 17 PAGENO="0022" 18 At MSFC, during .FY 1978, a complete load test of the first inter- tank structural test article will be accomplished to verify structural integrity. Later a second intertank test article and liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen structural test articles will each be completely assembled and delivered to MSFC for structural verification testing. The design of the test support equipment will also be completed during fiscal year 1978. Assembly of the external tank ground vibration test article will be accomplished by mid-F? 1978. This tank will be shipped to MSFC where it will be assembled with two solid rocket boosters and Orbiter No. 1. The mated ground vibration tests will expose the vehicle to vibration environments, and.data will be obtained to verify mathematical models of vehicle dynamics including flutter, flight control, loads, and longitudinal oscillations called POGO. In the second half of 1978, the first orbital flight external tank will be completely assembled, acceptance tested, and prepared for shipment to KSC. Assembly of the second, third, and fourth flight tanks will continue and component fabrication and initial assembly operations on the fifth and sixth flight tanks will begin. Solid Rocket Booster (DDT&Ej We are requesting $83.6 million for the Solid Rocket Booster (SRB). The main element in the solid rocket booster system is the solid rocket motor (SRM), which is being developed by Thiokol, Wasatch Division, Utah. The other booster system elements such as the recovery system, thrust vector control, attach structures, forward and ~ft skirt, and separation motors have been or will be procured separately. The MSFC will perform designated systems integration tasks and has the responsibility for total systems integration of the SRB effort. In F? 1977 the first development motor case was delivered to Thiokol on schedule. A group of these motors segments are shown in (MS77-l248). Development motor no. 1 will be loaded with propellant in mid-F? 1977 and static fired late in the fiscal year. Development motor no. 2 is scheduled for test firing in early FY 1978. The SRB critical design review and the deceleration subsystem preliminary design review were both completed in December 1976. The full scale development test firings of four booster separa- tion motors were also completed with preparations underway for conducting a second set of four motor firings. In addition to initiating testing for our major components, the booster assembly contractor,United Space Boosters, Inc. was selected and will start work on preparation for assembly and check- out of the booster at KSC. 16 PAGENO="0023" 19 PAGENO="0024" 20 In FY 1978 extensive efforts will be devoted to manufacture, pro- pellant loading, and delivery of solid rocket motors. Two develop- ment motors will be fired early in this period to complete the development test series of four motors. These will be followed by the first two qualification motor firings near the end of FY 1978. In addition, four dynamic test motors will be manufactured and delivered to MSFC to begin the ground test program. Solid rocket motors for the first orbital flight will also be manufactured and delivered to KSC during the latter half of 1978. A major activity on the solid rocket booster project during FY 1978 will be the continuation of the qualification and verification test program. This includes the completion of the electrical and instrumen- tation verification testing, the drop test program to verify the recovery system parachutes, completion of booster separation motor development and qualification static firings, and the verification of the overall thrust vector control system. During FY 1978, the fabrication of flight hardware will continue and the hardware required for the first orbital flight will be delivered to KSC. The booster assembly contractor will complete preparations for check- out and assembly of this hardware and will also continue with planning and activation of an SRBrefurbishment facility. Launch and Landing (DDT&~j Funding requirements for the launch and landing project total $133.5 million for FY 1978. During FY 1977, design requirements will be established for essentially all of the ground support equipment (GSE). Procurement will proceed during the next two fiscal years and the GSE will be incorporated into the launch and landing station sets at KSC and DFRC. The schedule and milestones planned for the launch processing system (LPS) have been maintained. The LPS hardware designed by KSC engineers for checkout of the SRB electronics at MSFC was assembled, checked out and accepted by MSFC. The required operating software was successfully developed by the KSC/IBM team and the hardware and software have been installed at MSFC to meet the SRB checkout need date. Minicomputers have been delivered and will be used as part of the checkout, control, and monitoring subsystem (CCMS) being developed by the Martin Marietta Corporation (MMC). The CCMS design is complete and the initial system has been delivered to KSC for software development. Honeywell Information Systems, the central data subsystem (CDS) contractor, delivered and installed the primary and secondary computer systems with peripherals in the launch control center at KSC in 1976 (M77-l050). Software simulation support is now being provided for checkout procedure development. The development contractors' on-site launch support efforts at KSC have been initiated with Rockwell International and Martin Marietta. The booster assembly contractor, United Space Boosters, Inc., started work in January 1977. These contractors are pre- 18 PAGENO="0025" 21 PAGENO="0026" 22 paring test documentation for vehicle assembly, test servicing, checkout and launch requirements, process specifications and procedures. The LPS hardware deliveries required to initiate processing of the first orbiter at KSC will be completed early in FY 1978. The final increment of hardware and system software for the central data subsystem will be delivered to KSC by mid-1978. Installation of the LPS checkout, control, and monitoring subsystem and integra- tion with other ground support equipment will continue through mid-1978. Operating systems software development, verification and validation will reach its highest level of activity during FY 1978. Some of the major launch support systems to be cOmpleted in FY 1978 include the orbiter forward umbilical, tail service mast/umbilical and ET vent umbilical/access systems for providing fluid services and ground monitor and control up to the moment of launch; the SRB support holddown mechanisms to release the vehicle for lift-off; and the crew compartment access/egress arm for boarding the crew. The development contractors' support at KSC during FY 1978 will become a large portion of the launch and landing R&D budget and contractor manpower buildup will continue. Before the end of 1978 processing of the vehicle for the first orbital flight, will begin. The launch team is also the operator of the launch processing station sets, launch support equipment, and the GSE. Detailed procedures for assembly, test, servicing, checkout, and launch of the total Shuttle flight vehicle will be developed. Production Production will be initiated during FY 1978 and will require $141.7 million. The production phase will provide for the fabrication of Orbiters 3, 4, and 5, and for the modification of the first two orbiters which are being procured in the development program. Orbiter No. 1, following completion of the ground vibration test program in late 1978, will be upgraded to full, manned orbital flight capability. Later, Orbiter No. 2 will be modified to operational status after the initial orbital flight tests. Produc- tion also includes the fabrication of the flight engines. In addition, the ground and launch support equipment for the second series of ground processing stations at KSC for simultaneously processing two Shuttle vehicles and the flight equipment spares will also be part of the production activities. Procurement of components and materials and subcontracting for Orbiters 3, 4, and 5 will be initiated during FY 1978. Purchasing of long lead items for these production orbiters will be combined to obtain the most economical procurement. Also during FY 1978, components and subsystems will be procured and hardware fabrication will be initiated for upgrading Orbiter No. 1. 20 PAGENO="0027" 23 The prime contractor will begin fabrication of primary structures for Orbiter No. 3, including the aft fuselage, the crew module, and the forward fuselage. Procurement of the payload bay doors and the avionics *airborne hardware will be initiated. In addition to long..lead procurements, activity on Orbiter~ 4 and 5 will include start of detailed parts manufacturing for a number of subsystems including wings, vertical stabilizer, orbital maneuvering system engine, orbital maneuvering/reaction control system pod, and air revitalization system, and the power reactant storage assembly. Efforts on the main engines to be installed in the production orbiters will start in FY 1978 with the procurement of critical long-lead components. These include the hot gas manifold forgings, the engine nozzle jacket, and the housings for the high pressure fuel and oxidizer turbopumps. 21 PAGENO="0028" 24 SPACE FLIGHT OPERATIONS We are requesting $267.8 million for Space Flight Operations in FY 1978. Included in this budget line item are Space Transportation System (STS) Operations, STS Operations Capability Development, Planning and Program Integration; the common support activities conducted under Development, Test and Mission Operations (DTMO); and, Advanced Programs. STS Operations, which I will discuss first, is a new project under Space Flight Operations. ~pace Transport~ation System (STS) Operations - As the development activities of the STS continue to progress, we are directing an increasing proportion of our efforts towards planning and establish- ing operational policies and procedures for the STS. These activities include user development, mission planning, launch and flight operations planning, payload integration and development of financial plans including user charge policies. In FY 1978 we are requesting $17.8 million for STS Operations. Agency user charge policies have been established for commercial, foreign and civil U.S. government users. Negotiations on reim- bursement are underway with the Department of Defense (DOD). A guaranteed fixed price will be charged from 1980 through 1983 for standard Shuttle and payload services for both dedicated and shared flights. Operational services are available at additional cost. The policy provides for short term call-ups, postponements, can- cellations, standbys, and for substantially reduced prices for exceptional and small, self-contained payloads. Proposals for five self-contained science payloads have been received from individuals wishing to use the Space Shuttle for scientific experiments. For example, a private citizen has offered one ~half of a $10,000 payload to Utah State University. It will be offered, in turn, to high school students who will submit proposals to fly their own equipment in small, self-contained payloads. Those selected will be given tuition waivers at Utah State University which is also establishing a follow-on program to be offered to high school students. In addition, a German consultant is con- tracting for two $10,000 payloads, one for space processing, one for biological experiments and the Battelle Institute has contracted for two $10,000 materials science payloads. Examination of the long range projection of payload activities for the decade of the 80's and the Shuttle traffic required to support this effort is continuing. Although the 1973 Traffic Model is still representative of the kinds of payload activity being planned for the Shuttle, the level of flight activity has been adjusted and reduced to be more consistent with current agency objectives and budget constraints. A reference payload model has been developed which includes payload programs for 1980-1991 based on current planning of the various users requiring STS support. It was determined that 560 Shuttle flights were needed to carry out the 22 PAGENO="0029" 25 overall payload program over the twelve year period. In planning our mission activities for Shuttle, particular emphasis has been given to defining near term cargoes during the initial years of Shuttle operations. Cargoes are being developed for flights in the 1980 and 1981 time period. For example, a major effort is under.. way to formulate missions for Spacelab flights I and 2. Several cargoes of mixed payloads, e.g., a combination of pallet elements, high energy spacecraft requiring upper stages and free flyers on a single cargo, are being examined to determine how best to support multiple payload operations on a single flight. Discussions are underway with a number of external users who require launch support in the 1979-1981 time period. Agreement was reached with COMSAT in the summer of 1976 to develop a INTELSAT V spacecraft~ series that can. be launched both on Atlas/Centaur and on Shuttle. COMSAT has con- tracted with the Ford Aerospace and Communications Company to design and build INTELSAT V with this compatibility, and NASA is currently negotiating an agreement to provide Shuttle launch service for the INTELSAT V program, following the initial four launches on Atlas! Centaur in 1979 and early 1980. The first Shuttle launch would provide a back-up launch to the initial four spacecraft and is planned for November 1980. Subsequent INTELSAT V launches will be scheduled on Shuttle. Effort is also underway to develop an overall plan to transition launch support from Expendable Launch Vehicles to the Shuttle. Studies have shown that designing the spacecraft for dual compatibility causes minimal cost impact. Discussions are underway with many users requiring transportation service during the transition period and specific plans are being developed to effect this transition with minimum impact on the user. NASA currently expects to complete transition of allcivil payloads to the Shuttle at Kennedy Space Center by 1981 and at Vandenberg Air Force Base by 1983. In compliance with NASA policy to provide assured launch service to users during transition to Shuttle, we are actively studying. back-up strategies to provide this assured launch capability while minimizing investment by both NASA and the user in expendable launch vehicle hard- ware. Transition planning and back~up requirements have been developed separately by the DOD for its programs and coordinated with the overall transition plan for STS. Planning for payload verification of Integration concepts, by using the Convair 990 aircraft Is continuing. A mission is scheduled for late May 1977. The lessons learned from this simulation are expected to provide better insight into developing operational concepts for Spacelab. Flight operations planning and crew training/simulation planning are progressing. The initial Baseline Flight Operations Plan, which contains the basic operations concepts, is being updated. 23 PAGENO="0030" 26 NASA has recently announced opportunities for additional pilots and mission specialists; actual selection and appointment into NASA will be made in December 1977. Guidelines and plans are also being developed for selection and training of payload specialists. A review of approximately 25% of the applications received, indicates that the candidates appear to be well qualified and we are pleased with the response we have received to date. Examination of payload support requirements, both engineering and scientific in nature, is continuing. Requirements are currently undergoing close scrutiny since they will have a bearing on the sizing and design of equipment and facilities. Payload users have been informed of our initial results and should respond to the con- cepts proposed to them by about mid-1977. With the initial operational flights of the Shuttle scheduled for 1980, funding is required in FY 1978 to initiate vehicle spares procurement, crew training, flight simulations, software development, and flight and mission planning. We will initiate procurements of long lead-time hardware and spares for the external tank and the solid rocket booster. Funds will be used to supply raw materials, castings and forgings to machining vendors to assure availability of finished parts at the start of external tank assembly at the Michoud assembly facility in early FY 1979. Solid rocket booster initial procurement will include motor components, electronic and instrumentation parts, recovery and separation motor parts. FY 1978 funding will also provide for initiation of crew training and procedures, engineering support, console handbooks, training records and flight data checklists. STS Qperations Capability Development - We are requesting $63.0 million for STS Operations Capability Development. This activity includes space transportation system development and support activities to facilitate the planning and orderly transition to STS operations. Principal areas of effort are the Spacelab, the STS Upper Stages, Multi-Mission and Payload Support Equipment (MMPSE), Mission Control Center (MCC) Upgrading (Level II), and, Payload and Operations Support. ~p~celab - Of the $63.0 million requested, $24.5 is for Spacelab, first o7 the principal areas of effort under STS Operations Capability Development. The Spacelab is an orbital facility which will provide a pressurized module and unpressurized pallets, for use by experimenters to conduct scientific and applications experiments in earth orbit. It is an integral part of the Space Transportation System and is carried into space and returned to earth in the cargo bay of the Space Shuttle. Under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding with NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA) is responsible for the design, development and manufacture of the initial Spacelab flight unit. Ten nations of Europe have agreed to carry out the ESA agreement and to commit approximately $575 million to design and deliver one flight unit to 24 PAGENO="0031" 27 the U.S. NASA is responsible for all operations activities after delivery of the Spacelab from Europe and also for the development of selected items such as the tunnel conpecting Spacelab to the Shuttle Orbiter and the verification flight instrumentation. The first Spacelab flight is scheduled for 1.980. Since our last report in September 1976, ESA has continued to pro- gress in its development of the Spacelab. The most significant accomplishment was the successful completion of the preliminary design review in December 1976, which essentially established the technical baseline for the program and which will permit manufacturing and testing to proceed. Further, system layout for harnesses and piping, using the development fixture, was completed ahead of schedule. The hard mockup unit (MA 75-0304) was also completed and is now being evaluated. In addition, certain personnel changes occurred. Mr. M. Bignier was appointed ESA Spacelab Program Director in November 1976 and Mr. Burkhard Pfeiffer was appointed ESA Spacelab Project Director in January 1977. In the United States, NASA has continued to plan and prepare for the integration effort and ground operations support for the Spacelab missions. During the first quarter of 1977, a Spacelab integration contract will be awarded. This contract will include design, development and fabrication of most of the Spacelab hardware for which NASA is responsible. In FY 1978, NASA wil..l be deeply involved in the design and fabrication of various pieces of hardware and development of systems and procedures for handling and processing the Spacelab. FY 1978 funding will be used to support these activities and will also provide for incremental procurement of a flight hardware inventory from ESA as called for by the NASA/ESA Memorandum of Understanding. The Spaçelab* integration contractor will perform much of the hard- ware design, development and fabrication as well as the planning and analysis which is required for the safe and efficient operation of the Spacelab. The hardware includes the transfer tunnel, verification flight instrumentation, ground support equipment, a neutral buoyancy trainer and the design and outfitting of a software development facility. The transfer tunnel is a passageway connecting the Shuttle orbiter cabin to the Spacelab pressurized module where researchers or scientists can perform experiments in a "shirt-sleeve" environment. The first two Spacelab flights will be used to check-out all the systems and structures. For this purpose, funding in FY 1978 is required to continue the manufacturing of the verification flight instrumentation. This group of instruments will include measuring and monitoring devices to interface with on-board computers and recorders. They will measure the pressures, strain, vibration, electrical 25 PAGENO="0032" 28 PAGENO="0033" 29 characteristics, noise level to insure the safety, reliability and performance of the Spacelab. The ground support equipment which NASA will develop in FY 1978 is primarily transportation and facility-related. It includes those items which due to their size or other unique requirements are best provided by the U.S. rather than by ESA. This equipment includes workstands outfitting which will be used to integrate and check-out the various elements of the Spacelab, special handling equipment to rotate the Spacelab Engineering Model to a vertical position for early testing, and equipment to unload and transport the Spacelab when it is delivered to the Kennedy Space Center. The neutral bouyancy trainer, which is scheduled to be completed in FY 1978 is a full scale, low fidelity mockup of the Spacelab. It will be used in a water tank for simulating extra-vehicular activities and the transfer of crewmen and hardware to the Spacelab in zero gravity. The last major item of ground hardware which the integration con- tractor will be developing in FY 1978 is the equipment for the Software Development Facility. Funding will support system design and procurement of computers and peripheral hardware which will be used for maintenance, integration and verification checkout of the software delivered by ESA. In FY 1978, in addition to the development of hardware, the integration contractor will continue to develop procedures for the operation of Spacelab. This includes such areas as maintenance, logistics, configuration control, training requirements and integration procedures. The Spacelab to Orbiter interface is complex and critical. With the Spacelab being developed in Europe and the Shuttle in the United States, it is necessary to make extensive tests to assure the compat- ibility of these two items. Toward this end, in FY 1978, we will continue to fund a series of studies, analyses and fabrication of test fixtures representing this interface. Mechanical interface verification equipment will be constructed in the U.S. and provided to ESA for testing ESA developed hardware prior to delivery. Also, the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory is being modified to make certain that the avionics of the Spacelab and the Shuttle Orbiter will interplay correctly. STS Upper Stages - Our funding request for this effort is $13.5 million in FY 1978. The STS Upper Stages are required to deploy Shuttle-launched payloads to orbits not attainable by the Shuttle alone. Two upper stages are presently envisioned: The Interim Upper Stage (IUS) and the Spinning Solid Upper Stage (SSUS). The IUS will be used primarily for high energy lunar and planetary missions and the SSUS will be used forthe delivery of small, lightweight payloads into geosynchronous transfer orbit. 27 92-082 0 - 77 - PAGENO="0034" 30 Interim Qpper Stage (lus] - (MV 77-717), under development by the Department of Defense, will be a multi-stage, solid propellant, expendable vehicle designed to place up t~ 5000 pounds into geosynchronous orbit and be used primarily for high energy lunar and planetary missions. It will be operational in 1980. During the DDT&E phase, NASA is coordinating the incorporation of NASA- unique and non-DOD requirements with the DOD to insure that the IUS is operationally compatible with the STS. The validation phase of the IUS program, funded by the USAF, is underway. In September 1976, the DOD awarded the validation phase contract to the Boeing Aerospace company. An IUS Systems Require-~ ments Review is to be conducted early in 1977 followed by the Systems Design Review in April 1977. The full-scale development phase contract is scheduled to begin in FY 1978. The DOD and NASA continue working closely in technical and manage- ment efforts related to IUS development activities. Specifically, the NASA activities include analytical integration of the IUS system and its payloads into the Shuttle; STS/IUS flight operations and mission control planning andsupport equipment implementation; studies of integrating the IUS into the NASA's launch site systems! facilities and the STS ground processing flow as well as the initial procurement of long lead items for supporting equipment; IUS design support; the establishment of the final non-DOD IUS system specifications; and initial support of the IUS full-scale develop- ment phase for all NASA-unique IUS items. In FY 1978 NASA will continue to assist the DOD in assuring that the IUS will satisfy the national upper stage mission needs; to work with the DOD to ensure the effective integration of the IUS into the STS; and to fund the approved non-DOD IUS development items. ~pinnin~i Solid Upper Stag~es (S~Sj~I - (MV 76-3142)will provide for certain payloads a low cost stage and an effective transition to the Shuttle from current expendable Delta and Atlas Centaur vehicles. To the maximum extent possible, the interfaces to which the payloads now must design will remain unchanged. The SSUS is to be developed in two weight classes; the "Delta class" (SSUS-D) will be capable of injecting about 1200 pounds into a geosynchronous transfer orbit, while the "Atlas. Centaur class" (SSUS-A) will deliver about 2200 pounds into the same orbit. The SSUS system includes the stage, airborne support equipment (cradle, tilt table, and spin mechanisms), and ground support equipment for both the Delta class missions and the Atlas Centaur class missions to be delivered by the STS. Two Atlas Centaur class SSUS's and four Delta class SSUS's can be flown with their space- craft on a single Shuttle flight and stilLniaintain. separate spacecraft interfaces. 28 PAGENO="0035" 31 PAGENO="0036" 32 PAGENO="0037" 33 Currently two approaches are under consideration for acquisition of the two SSUS systems: (1) NASA development and (2) development by industry as a commercial venture. While our discussions with industry are proceeding well, should agreements not materialize, we are prepared for NASA development of the SSUS systems. NASA development plans for the SSLJS system include the necessary flight hardware, associated launch site preparations, STS integration and training. Low level starts of the SSUS-.A and SSUS-D will be initiated in FY 1977, to be followed in FY 1978 with full scale development Additional funding may be required to expand the effort should mission requirements indicate an early need or should the commercial development not progress satisfactorily. Availability of these funds will provide assurance for the develop- ment of the SSUS until commercial development is determined to be well underway. In that event, these funds will then be utilized for the procurement of SSUS vehicles and airborne support equipment for future STS missions. With this program, NASA will be assured of a fully operational SSUS-A and SSUS-D capability in 1980. Multi-Mission and Payload Support Equipment (MMPSE) - We are requesting $7.0 million in FY 1978 for Multi-Mission and Payload Support Equipment. Emphasis is being placed on developing equipment which can be provided more economically from a standard inventory, rather than by individual payload users. This reusable, long-life equipment will be used to integrate, check-out, transport and accommodate a wide range of payloads. Examples of such equipment are: (1) A Trace Gas Analyzer which, by monitoring the Spacelab *cabin atmosphere for toxic ingredients, will allow relaxation of the payload materials requirements and still provide a safe cabin atmosphere for the crew. (2) A Payload Specialist Station to provide command and display capability for a wide variety of the payloads for STS missions from 1980 to 1991. (3) Inters~te Payload Transportation Equipment to move individual experiments and payloads from the development sites to the launch site. (4) A flexible Multiplexer/ Demultiplexer (MDM), to be located in the Orbiter cargo bay, which can be programmed to accept varying payload data and combine it with operational data for transmittal to ground stations. (5) Cargo Integration and Test Equipment (CITE) to integrate payload elements at the launch site and to verify cargo/orbiter interfaces. Design requirements for the highway transporters recommended as the primary mode for shipment of payloads from the developer to the launch site have been, completed. The requirements will form the basis for procurement actionof the transport equipment to be initiated during the first half of this calendar year. The PaylOad Specialist Station equipment and flexible MDM design concepts are being defined and formally reviewed against user endorsed requirements. The resulting equipment performance specification will allow initiation of hardware procurement during calendar year 1977. 31 PAGENO="0038" 34 Funding in FY 1978 will provide for continued design and development of hardware for these equipmemts. FY 1978 funds also will be used for design and development of Cargo Integration and Test Equipment (CITE) and the Trace Gas Analyzer to support early operational flights' beginning in 1980. Mission Control Center (MCC) Upgrading (Level II) We are requesting 15.0 million for this activity. The Johnson Space Center Mission Control Center will be reconfigured to support STS flight schedules. It is being accomplished in two phases or levels. The first level of activity supports the orbital flight test program and is funded from the Shuttle development budget. The second level reconfiguration or upgrading, for which FY 1978 funds are requested, will provide additional hardware, equipment and software to configure the MCC with the capability to support two simultaneous orbiter missions, a ground simulation network, and MCC/launch site interface requirements. Initial funding is required in FY 1978 to meet the operational flight requirements in FY 1980. f~yload and Operations Support - In FY 1978 we are requesting $13.0 milTion for Paylbad and Operations Support. Funds will be used to develop a Payload Operations Control Center (P0CC) at the Johnson Space Center (JSC). The P0CC will operate in conjunction with the Mission Control Center and will provide for command and control of attached payloads. Computers, displays and communications links will be provided in time to support the first Spacelab mission. Effort is now underway to support payloads to be flown in the 1979/1980 timeperiod. This effort is focused primarily on feasibility analysis and integration planning of candidate payloads for Orbital Flight Test (OFT) and early operational flights. Alternate payload arrangements are being evaluated consistent with mission constraints and flight test objectives established by the Shuttle Program. NASA has released an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) soliciting, payload proposals for Orbital Flight Test flights. Responses are currently being evaluated for scientific merit and technical feasibility. In addition to those proposals, a number of other major payload elements are being considered as possible candidates for Orbital Flight Test. These include a Space TechnologyPayload and an Interim Upper Stage verification mission suggested by the DOD. Also included are a number of NASA proposed activities such as a Skylab revisit, a Solid Spinning Upper Stage qualification flight, and development of a Long Duration Exposure Facility. Interface and mission support requirements are being developed for these candidate payloads. Several commercially sponsored experiments are also being examined. Similar analyses are underway for several candidate payloads on early operational flights. These include three Spacelab flights, an 32 PAGENO="0039" 35 INTELSAT V in late 1980, another Long Duration Exposure Facility in 1981, retrieval of the Solar Maximum Satellite, and transition of several commercial payloads from Delta expendable launch vehicles to the SSUS-D with the Shuttle. Mission managers have been identified for the first three Spacelab flights to consolidate candidate experiments and Spacelab verification test objectives into an integrated plan for these missions. The Kennedy Space Center has been assigned the role of integrating all logistics for the STS operational phase. The Center is develop- ing an integrated logistics plan which will incorporate all logistics effor1~s being conducted for the operations phase by the development program offices (Shuttle, Spacelab, Upper Stages). Each program office also maintains its responsibility for logistics support of the development flightphase. In addition to funds being required to develop P0CC hardware and software, FY 1978 funds will be used to study operational concepts and requirements for the STS, to define OFT payload/Shuttle interface equipment, to design the hardware modifications necessary to adapt Spacelab engineering model pallets to OFT payloads and to initiate fabrication of this hardware. Planning and Program Integration - We are requesting $4.0 million for Planning and Program Integration. This effort concentrates on ensuring that NASA user requirements are being met in the design and development of the STS and on consolidating NASA's plans for using the STS. Carrying out this effort requires the involvement of both NASA staff and selected contractor organizations in a diverse range of activities which focus on two specific areas. In the first of these areas, payload analysis and mission planning, the primary effort in FY 1978 will continue to be the identification of missions to be flown by the STS. This work involves revision of the NASA payloadmodel, updating of engineering and technical descrip- tions of proposed STS payloads, development of an early STS mission plan and making recommendations for mission approval. The payload model will continue to be updated on a regular basis to reflect current payload plans. Particular attention is being focused on the 19804982 period in order to identify candidate payloads for the early STS missions. This documentation will be expanded to include new payloads recommended by science and applications users. In addition, all payloads of the NASA payload model will continue to be analyzed in order to group them into the most efficient cargoes for flight On the STS. Near-ten~ groupings will be subjected to detailed mission analyses in order to ensure compatibility of candidate payloads. These near-term groupings are generally comprised of those payloads currently under development and those being considered as new starts in the next fiscal year's budget. Recommendations for STS missions are being formulated based on a thorough evaluation of technical, programmatic and fiscal considerations. 33 PAGENO="0040" 36 To support this work, specific studies will be concerned with developing techniques for planning missions to minimize costs and complexities; with standardizing mission planning tools, and with defining mechanisms for accoemodating carry-on and piggy back payloads. In the second area, payload requirements and STS accommodation, the primary objective continues to be that of representing the payload desires to the designers and operators of the STS by ensuring that the requirements of payloads that are planned for flights on the STS are considered in the STS design and operations plans. The scope of the effort covers all NASA payl oads and the European Spacel ab payloads. To carry out this objective, the following activities will be continued in FY 1978: analysis of NASA and European payloads for their operational concepts and requirements as they relate to the STS design, operations and cargo integration; development of a single set of integrated requriements, documented and represented to the responsible elements of the STS; resolution of incompatibilities among payloads and the STS; analyses of proposed changes to the design and operations of the STS for their impact on payloads; analyses of the STS for its overall mission capability for payload support to understand the potential impact of new payload requirements on the STS; and development of the most cost effective ways for payloads to utilize the STS. Development, Test and Mission Operatiop~ - We are requesting $173.0 ñiTiiion in FY 1978 for Development, Test and Mission Operations (DTMO). DTMO efforts are organized into four categories: (1) Research and Test Operations which support a broad spectrum of technical, engineering, scientific, reliability and quality assurance, and safety operations; (2) Data Systems and Flight Operations which supports definition, design, implementation, and checkout of hardware and software modifications to the Johnson Space Center1s Mission Control Center and the real time computer complex, as well as operation and maintenance of the facilities during preparation for mission support; (3) Operations Support which provides contractor effort and maintain technical services at our Centers and their off-site operations; and (4) Launch Systems Operations which provides for the operation of the checkout and launch facilities, complexes and associated ground support equipment as well as the highly technical services required to support the test, checkout and launch of space vehicles and payloads at the Kennedy Space Center. DTMO funds will be used to provide for equipment, supplies, and support contractor personnel at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and the National Space Technology Laboratory (NSTL) to maintain the necessary capabilities to conduct space flight research and development. These capabilities are necessary to provide early project definition, including conceptual design, project specifications, and research and technology; to assure engineering support for in-depth technical examination of work performed by prime and major sub- .34 PAGENO="0041" 37 contractors on major programs such as the Space Shuttle; an~ to perform backup design, testing and analysis in high technology areas of design and development. While relying heavily on private, industry, particularly in the development and manufacture of major hardware systems as the Space Shuttle, NASA has developed a specialized in-house capability in research laboratories, test facilities, flight data management, crew training and launch facilities which supports development and flight programs. The core of our in-~house capability is Civil Service manpower, augmented as required by DTMO funded contractors. This management approach provides flexibility, utilizes industry expertise in selected areas, and maintains industrial involvement in NASA technologies. It is an economical and efficient method of operation. In Fiscal Year 1978, approximately forty (40) R&D contractors will expend about 5,000 man-years of support contractor effort to maintain progress in all Office of Space Flight programs. These range from Lockheed Electronics Corporation doing scientific engineering and technical services at the Johnson Space Center, to the Bendix Corporation/Ground Systems Operations Contractor (GSOC) doing operations and maintenance, engineering and related management functions associated with launch support systems at the Kennedy Space Center to the Bendix Corporation doing work in connection with Space Shuttle structural and dynamic ground testing at the Marshall Space Flight Center. The request includes support for the Slidell Computer Complex at Slidell, Louisiana, the Michoud Assembly Facility at New Orleans, Louisiana and the White Sands Test Facility at Las Cruces, New Mexico. FY 1978 is planned to be the peak budget year for DIMO. Future DTMO funding requirements will gradually decrease as the transition is made to STS operations. Advanced Programs The request for Advanced Programs in FY 1978 is $10.0 million. Focus of Advanced Programs activities has been on studies of future space programs and systems and supporting investigations of long lead time subsystems. These efforts have continuously provided a sound basis for new programs and systems such as Apollo, Skylab and the Space Shuttle. Specific areas which will continue to be under study in FY 1978 include the space platform and advanced orbital operations. The space station conceptual studies are proceeding on schedule. Parallel preliminary (Phase A) studies for a space station, capable of Supporting continued occupancy by a four to six man crew, awarded in April 1976 to McDonnell Douglas and to Gruman Aircraft Company, are scheduled to be completed July 1977. During FY 1978, pre-Phase B 35 PAGENO="0042" 38 studies will, be funded to further explore the most promising of the Phase A-defined concepts. In addition, the extended duration orbiter, the shuttle external tank option, and the use of Spacelab extensions, all based on eventual growth to a permanently manned space platform will be studied. Costs and schedules associated with each option as well as conceptual layouts will be developed. Various advanced subsystems and software areas supportive of a permanently manned space platform are also under active study. These include advanced systems planning and monitoring techniques to manage on-board consumables such as propellants, water and oxygen with substantially less manpower and energy consumption on a per mission basis than is required with current systems. Long duration, reliable thermal control will be accomplished because of our work on integrated heat pipe systems. These systems allow the elimination of pumps, valves, and leakage sources which in the past have had limited operating life. A deployable radiator to handle peak thermal loads without requiring oversized radiator systems as a part of the basic control system design will also be under *study in 1978. Other advanced subsystems under study or development in FY 1978 include a regenerative life support subsystem which will significantly reduce the logistics requirements for resupply of thousands of pounds of water and oxygen during extended missions. In addition, a light- weight iôdination system has been designed and tested which will chemically sterilize large quantities of electrical water automatically, with very low quantities of electrical power required. Concomitant with a space platform, a number of advanced orbital operations concepts are also being studied. These include tech- niques for erecting large structures required to accomplish a number of future missions involving space power generation, advanced cormunications and large aperture telescopes. Studies of using automated machinery to manufacture structural truss sections in orbit from material on reels, to join these trusses to form shapes, and how best to use the Shuttle to transport material and support this type of space operations are in progress and will continue in FY 1978. Three studies are in progress to define experiments and operational missions achievable in early Shuttle flights. The first is a revisit to Skylab by the Shuttle with the objective of reboosting it to a higher orbit. A second potential mission being studied is a means for inspecting orbiting satellites using available equipment (manned maneuvering units, television). The third study underway is that of a tethered satellite, a unique concept for extending Shuttle operational capabilities. It consists of,a subsatellite suspended by a cable from the Orbiter's cargo bay which could be "trolled" through a low-altitude, atmospheric earth orbit by the Orbiter to conduct extensive scientific exploration of the upper atmospheric region extending 80 to 120 kilometers from the Earth's surface. 36 PAGENO="0043" 39 Subsystem developments are underway which support advanced uses of the Shuttle and future Shuttle cost and performance improvements. These developments will continue in FY 1978. An example is an electromechanical flight control actuator concept whi~h would provide lightweight, more reliable actuators. Laboratory breadboard models have been completed and feasibility tests are~now underway. We have developed a prototype regenerative carbon dioxide and humidity control system that could permit Shuttle missions of 30 days and longer without adversely affecting its payload capability. Selected flight prototype components have been fabricated and a design has been completed for long duration future spacecraft application. EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES Our request for FY 1978 in Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELy) is $136.5 million to cover the proc~ement and launch of vehicles used by NASA for automated satellite missions. This expendable vehicle transportation system consists of the all solid motor Scout vehicle, the Delta, the Atlas Centaur, the Titan Centaur and the Atlas-F. Except for the Scout, all of these expendable launch vehicles will be replaced, beginning in 1980, by the Space Trans- portation System. The ELV Program supports all NASA automated launches and, on both a cooperative and on a reimbursable basis, supports other U.S. Government, international and commercial agencies and organizations. In support ofthese users in 1976, NASA successfully launched 16 missions. This is the second time in our ELV history that we accomplished a 100% success record. The first was in 1972 when we also launched 16 successful missions. During CY 1977, 23 launches are scheduled, of which six are NASA missions. They are the High Energy Astronomy Observatory (HEAO-A), the International Sun Earth Explorer (ISEE.-A/B), the International Ultra Violet Explorer (IUE), the Applications Earth Resources Satellite, Landsat-C, and two planetary Mariner Jupiter `Saturn Missions. In addition', 17 missions primarily communication satellites, are planned to be launched. NASA will be reimbursed for launch services performed in support of these missions. In 1978, a total of 22 launches is planned; 8 are NASA missions. The 8 NASA missions include the Heat Capacity Mapping Mission (HCMM), the International Sun Earth Explorer (ISEE-C), the Nimbus-G, two Pioneer/Venus Planetary Missions, a High Energy Astronomy Observatory (HEAO-B), a new Weather Satellite, TIROS-N and an Ocean Dynamics Satellite, SEASAT-A. Further, the~ remaining 14 missions planned during CV 1978 consist of NASA's continued launch support of various communications and scientific satellites for other U.S. Government and non-Government agencies on a reimbursable basis. 37 PAGENO="0044" 40 An average of three years is required to procure, deliver and launch our expendable launch vehicles. Our request of $136.5M for FY 1978 is based on lead times to properly support scheduled NASA missions. This request is $14.9M less than our FY 1977 request. It reflects the phase down of our ELV Program in transitioning to the Space Transportati on System. The funds requested in FY 1978 will be used for procurement of hardware consisting of solid motors, liquid engines, tanks, shrouds, interstage adaptors, guidance and computer hardware, spares, some long lead time hardware, and other related equipment to support two San Marco missions; the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment, the Magnetic Field Satellite; the International Sun Earth Explorer, ISEE-C; the Nimbus-G; the Solar Maximum Mission; the Infra Astronomy Explorer; two Dynamio Explorers; the HEAO-B and C missions; Pioneer A and B missions; and the Tiros-N and the Seasat-A mission. The procurements for the vehicle hardware has, in some instances, been initiated in prior fiscal years and continued funding will be required to complete these actions along with initiation of new procurement actions. In addition to the vehicle hardware, funds for launch operations and support are being requested to prepare and launch the vehicles being procured. NASA operates from launch sites located at the Eastern Test Range in Florida, the Western Test Range in California, the Wallops Flight Center in Virginia, and the San Marco Range off the East Coast of Africa near Kenya. The funds requested, along with the reimbursable funds received from the many non-.NASA vehicle users, will provide for the continuing operation of our launch vehicle capabilities during the STS transition period. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my discussion of FY 1978 funding for the Office of Space Flight. Let me summarize from this chart (MS 77-1591). We are requesting a total of $1,753.5 million of which $1,349.2 million is for the Space Shuttle. $267.8 million is for Space Flight Operations, with the chart showing funds for each element. Finally, we are requesting $136.5million for Expendable Launch Vehicles. We are well into the development of the Space Transportation System which will begin an era in space flight history that will be characterized by economical, routine spate transportation. The roll-out of the first space Shuttle Orbiter last September symbolized our progress and anticipation. We are on schedule and with the requested funding we will be able to continue our progress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. 38 PAGENO="0045" OFFICE OF SPACE FLIGHT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY OF FY 1978 BUDGET ESTIMATE (Millions of $) PROGRAM/PROJECT FY 1978 TOTAL $1,753.5 * SHUTTLE * $1,349.2 *SPACE FLIGHT OPERATIONS 267.8 * SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATIONS 17.8 * SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATIONS CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT 63.0 SPACELAB STS UPPER STAGES MULTI-MISSION AND PAYLOAD SUPPORT EQUIPMENT MISSION CONTROL CENTER LEVEL II PAYLOAD AND OPERATIONS SUPPORT (24.5) (13.5) (7.0) ( 5.0) (13.0) * PLANNING AND PROGRAM INTEGRATION 4.0 * DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND MISSION OPERATIONS * ADVANCED PROGRAMS 173.0 10.0 * EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES 136.5 NASA HO MS77-1591 (1) 1-27-77 PAGENO="0046" 42 Mr. YARDLEY. This slide (MS 76-2034) shows some of the major projects that the Office of Space Flight is involved in and, for the new meutoers, I would like to mention what they are. Starting at the upper right hand corner is the Space Shuttle, in this particular picture the orbiter is in orbit with some of the upper stages which will be used with the Shuttle for launching communication satellites and other payloads. Coming down the right, while we are designing, building, and testing the Shuttle we are responsible for maintaining a launch ca- pability for NASA. This illustrates our expendable launch vehicle program and there is a lot of activity in phasing from the expendable vehicles to the Shuttle. The next photo, coming around clockwise, shows the Shuttle liftoff. The next shows the Spacelab, and the bext shows a two-stage interim upper stage. The top left picture shows an artist's concept of the potential space industrialization base. Let us have the next slide, please. This chart (MS 77-1459) summarizes our overall budget request for fiscal year 1978 of $1.753 billion, just slightly over the $1.67 billion for fiscal year 1977. PAGENO="0047" 43 OFFICE OF SPACE FLIGHT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FY 1978 BUDGET ESTiMATE (MILLIONS OF $) PROGRAM/PROJECT FY 1977 FY 1978 * SPACE SHUTTLE * SPACE FLIGHT OPERATIONS * EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES $ 1,318.1 199.2 151.4 $ 1349.2 267.8 136.5 TOTAL $ 1,668.7 $ 1,753.5 NASA HQ MS771459 (1) 11977 The primary reason for this relatively modest increase is that we are requesting the initial production funding to provide for a national fleet of five orbiters, including the procurement of orbiters 3, 4, and 5 and the refurbishment of Orbiters 1 and 2. Also, we are increasing space flight operations activities, which we will discuss later. Next slide, please (MS 77-1456). PAGENO="0048" 44 OFFICE OF SPACE FLIGHT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FY 1978 BUDGET ESTIMATE (MILLIONS OF $) PROGRAM/PROJECT FY 1977 FY 1978 SPACE SHUTTLE * DDT&E * PRODUCTION $1,318.1 *-** $1,207.5 141.7 TOTAL $1,318.1 $1,349.2 NASA HQ MS77-1456 (1) 1-1977 I would like to begin discussing the individual programs with the Space Shuttle for which this chart summarizes the funding request. As you can see, the Shuttle development funding for fiscal year 1978 is considerably lower than in fiscal. year 1977. However, with the in- clusion of production money in fiscal year 1978 the total program funding is slightly higher. Now, just a real brief review of some of the activities that we have accomplished since our September h~aring with the subcommittee. (MS 77-1~94). PAGENO="0049" 45 SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM PROGRESS SINCE SEPTEMBER 1976 * ORBITER PROJECT * ORBITER NO. 1 ROLLOUT * DESIGN CERTIFICATION REVIEW FOR THE APPROACH AND LANDING PROGRAM COMPLETED * CARRIER AIRCRAFT COMPLETED-DELIVERED TO DFRC * MAIN ENGINE PROJECT * CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW (CDR) COMPLETED * FIRST THROTTLING TEST FROM MINIMUM TO RATED POWER LEVEL (RPL) ACCOMPLISHED *FINAL ASSEMBLY OF EXTERNAL TANK MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLE STARTED * SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER PROJECT * CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW (CDRJ COMPLETED * `~*CASE SEGMENTS FOR FIRST DEVELOPMENT MOTOR DELIVERED TO THIOKOL * *BOOST.ER ASSEMBLY CONTRACTOR SELECTED *`LAUNCH PROCESSING SYSTEM CDR ACCOMPLISHED NASA HO MS77-1294 1.24.77 As Congressman Winn pointed out, we had the first "rollout" of orbiter 101 inSeptember, and its second rollout last Monday when this orbiter was transported overland all the way from Palmdale to the Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, about 40 miles away. In addition, we held our design certification review for the approach and landing test (ALT) Program~ We delivered the Shuttle carrier aircraft-a modified Boeing 74'~-and when this chart was *made we had not yet delivered the orbiter, but that is complete now, too. The main engine project has made considerable progress this year. As you know, we have had some technical problems with our main engine. We had two major problems with the, high pressure fuel turbopump, which I will discuss in more detail later; but we believe we have those problems solved now and are in a position to continue testing and have the engine program catch up with the rest of the Shuttle development. We have also started assembly of the first external tank. All the tools are in place. That effort is going quite well. In the solid rocket booster we completed the critical design review (CDR) and selected a booster assembly contractor. We will be as- sembling and firing one of these solid rocket motors in the next 6 months. 92.082 0 - 77 . 4 PAGENO="0050" 46 MAIN PROPULSION TEST ORBITER TESTS AVIONICS TESTS SPACE SHUTTLE SYSTEMS TEST PROGRAM FIRST 60 S(C. - DELIVER A A- -~ A 3 MPIA A PRELIM. SYST TEST (NGI ENGINES C~T~CATION BED EXTERNAL TANK STATIC TEST ~ SOLID ROCKET 5. E BOOSTER TESTS MOTOR FIRINGS Now, fiscal year 1978 is a very heavy development test year. As you can see from this chart (MS76-1830) it cuts through all of the major tests we will be doing-flight tests, ground vibration, main propulsion, and so on. Most of the hardware for these tests are either complete or in the final stages of preparation, anSI our major emphasis will be on these important ground and flight test activities in 1978. Here, we have some of the activities that the orbiter will be under- going in 1978 (MS77-1109). The. ALT program is planned for com- pletion in fiscal year 1978. FLIGHT TESTS GROUND VIBRATION TESTS CVI) CERTIFICATION FOR FIRST FLIGH!...A~. MAIN ENGINE 1PREBURNER TESTS fl.s1s NASA HO MS16-1830(1I PAGENO="0051" 47 ~ `~ ~ ~ PTTh~:Approaoft and Iandtng tOt - fSs 1~ grns `~x ~ ` ~ ~, , > ,~ sMPTA static:tfrmntantWcoust C;~fltIfl9 ~ Preparation of Orbiter No I for MVGVT ~ Complete Orbiter No 2 Start production and long lead ~ procUrenuint, for Orbiter linodification H *AVIONICS 3~ 4 and $ `Hardware and software integration and performancs analysts to prbltat fhg t tests ~flA~rtt~rt~a NCH)cejw MODUtE J MPTA Main Prôpuisi n last Article We are scheduled to make the first captive flight with the Boeing 747 in late February. We will fly a progressive series of captive inert flights and then we will go into what we call the captive active mode where we actually power up the orbiter to check out the systems and functions. The final series of the ALT flights will be the manned free flight tests, where we release the orbiter and the crew flies it to land on the dry lake bed. Of course, while that is going on, all those other tests listed there are being done. PAGENO="0052" 48 This chart (MS77-1038) shows a profile of the ALT flights. You can see the takeoff and climb to about 25,000 feet. Then it makes about a 270 degree turn and then they separate. The orbiter makes a 180 degree turn and comes in to land on the dry lake bed. The flight time with the tail cone off is approximately 2 to 21/2 minutes and with the tail cone on is about 5 to 6 minutes. In manufacturing during fiscal year 1978 we will complete the sec- ond orbiter (No. 102). We will initiate the long lead procurement for the orbiter production phase and initiate fabrication on orbiters 103 and 104 and components for the modification of orbiter No. 101 for operations. PAGENO="0053" 49 The main engine (MS77-1107) was our major concern in 1976. Our woi4 x~ow is in the ground testing. We have two test stands at NSTL. We now have four engines for test there and although periodically they go back to the contractor for modification and refurbishing, they are almost continuously tested in those stands. In addition, toward the end of 1977, we will have delivered the main propulsion test article1 which combines an external tank, the main propulsion system, plumb~ ing, and all the components with three engines, to NSTL in Mississippi and will actually begin that testing in fiscal year 1978. We will con~ tinue to manufacture engines at a more or less constant rate to meet our development and production needs. PAGENO="0054" > 50 SSME DEVELOPMENT TEST SUMMARY This chart (MS 71-1319) shows a summary of where we stand on the major components of the engine and the testing that we have done. The components are listed across the bottom. We are trying to achieve 109 percent of thrust on all these components. Everything has been to 100 percent of thrust and most components have been to 109 percent. The main component that has not yet achieved that 109 percent level is the high pressure fuel turbopump. The 77-to-i nozzle, has also not been tested to 109 percent. This flight nozzle has only been to 100 per- cent. We are down somewhat because of the problems we have had during the main engine tests. We are actually on schedule at this time in terms of the number of tests. However, the tests have been shorter in duration because of some of the problems (MS 77-1728). We have determined, though, that we can test at a considerably faster rate than originally thought. The performance of the engine in terms of turn around time and the ability to reprogram our computer as well as our ability to interchange components has been far better than our past experience would indicate. COMB INJECT CHAM3 NASA HO MS77-13~9 1-14-77 FUEL PRESS PRESS PRESS PRESS POWER POWER PRE- OXID FUEL OXID FUEL HEAD HEAD BURNER B TURBO TURBO TURBO TURBO PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP PAGENO="0055" 51 MAIN ENGINE TEST RECOVERY PLAN (Accumulated Engine Test Time) ORIGINAL PLAN (est 1973) RECOVERY PLAN AS OF: seconds seconds DEC 1976 8,000 2,373 L~cJiu~!J JUNE1977 20,000 10,000 DEC 1977 28,000 38 ,000 DEC 1978 (Preliminary Flight 92 000 ~ 92 000 Certification) *CURRENT STATUS * Planned number of tests on schedule * Test duration less than planned *FUTURE PLAN * Test rate capability better than originally planned (`is 17-t1~ * Rapid recovery expected At this time we have about 2,400 seconds total running time and we had hoped to be at about 8,000. We hope to recover perhaps by mid 1978 but we feel sure to do so by December of 1978 which is our pre- liminary flight certification date. I want to repeat we, have not reduced the testing plan for certification of this engine. Just by way of putting this in perspective, we were talking to some ESA people today about their ARIANE launch vehicle. I asked them how many seconds they qualified their engines for and they said between 10,000 and 15,000 seconds which is considerably less than our planned 92,000 seconds. PAGENO="0056" 52 The external tank project has been going çn quite well as I said be- fore (MS 77-1110). All the tools are in place and we are building tanks. The major activity in 1978 is to complete major test articles for both the static test and the ground vibration test. The tank for the MPTA testing will be completed in 1977. We will also begin assembly of the flight test tanks and we will be doing the static and vibration tests also. PAGENO="0057" 53 In the solid rocket booster (MS 77-1111k) you see some pictures of the size of the booster. That tiny person standing in that lower pic- ture is. Dr. Malkin. We will be doing a lot of SRI3 development test- ing between now and the end of 1978. We areplanning to do our first development firings late this summer. We are also planning to con- duct four development tests and to begin the three qualification tests in 1978. In addition, we will be fabricating a lot of flight hardware and beginning the ~booster assembly checkout operations. PAGENO="0058" 54~ In the launch and landing project (MS77-1112) ,the efforts are going along quite well. As you can see in the pictures, some of the hardware is in place; the central data subsystem which is part of the launch processing system. The orbiter processing facility, which is a new building, is in the lower part of the picture. You can see the towaway leading off the runway. Our biggest task in 1978. will `be to complete the procurement of all the launch systems, check out the launch process- ing systems and the. installation and checkout of all this equipment in preparation for launch operations. PAGENO="0059" 55 SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM - FY 78 ACTIVITIES [PRODUCTION * LONG LEAD PROCUREMENT FOR ORBITERS 3, 4, AND 5 * Components, materials, subcontracting * MODIFICATION OF ORBITER NO. I * Procure components and subsystems * initiate hardware fabrication * FABRICATE PRIMARY STRUCTURES FOR ORBITER NO. 3 * SUBSYSTEMS FOR ORBITERS 4 AND 5 * LONG LEAD PROCUREMENT FOR PRODUCTION ENGINES NASA HO M577-1108 (3) 12-2276 Now, as I mentioned earlier the Shuttle production phase (MS77-. 1108) will be initiated in our fiscal year 1978 budget. The fiscal year 1978 production request includes long-lead procurement for Orbiters 103, 104, and 105; initial fabricatiOn efforts on Orbiter 103 and long- lead procurement and initial fabrication of components and sub- systems to modify Orbiter 101 to an orbital configuration. Orbiter 101 has been configured for the approach and landing tests. The main engines and a number of subsystems will have to be added for orbital flight. We plan to begin fabrication of the primary structure for Orbiter 103 and the procurement of subsystems for Orbiters 104 and 105 in fiscal year- 178. In addition, the fiscal year 1978 production efforts include funding for ground support items, and long-lead pro-, curement for main engine fabrication. PAGENO="0060" 56 SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM ORBITER PRODUCTION SCHEDULE 1-14-77 CV 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 ~ ~ 1976 Iii 1977 1978 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 ROLLOUT ALT FIRST MANNED ________________________________________ ~ ORBIT. ~. ~ OPERAflONAL FLIGHTS ORBITERS ; JLT. : 101 I l ~4 2ND QTR 1981 /~ETAIL FAB&ASSY p~iq ~ ~vi1 MOD IcLcI ALT PROGRAMJ I DEL. 102 TO KSCA(DDT&E) ! A DEL. 102 TO KSC 102 ,~`~DETAIL FAB. & ASSY TC/o OPNL FLTS j 4TH QTR 1982 I `-OPER, FLT. TEST ~MOD I ______________________________________________ DEL. 103 TO VAFB 103 ~Y~BRICATION, ASSY & C/O 1ST QTR 1982 L_3o MO._J _________________ I GAP 1 4~ DEL. 104 TO KSç 104 ~~~~BRICATION, ASSY & C/O 1ST QTR 1983 9MO. DEL. 105TOVAFB 105 ~ ASSY & C/o _j 1ST GTE 1984 9 MO. ~-RCONOMIC BUYS AND LONG LEAD HARDWARE ALTAPPROACH AND LANDING TEST GVTGROUND VIBRATION TEST C/ 0 CHECKOUT This chart (MS77-1318) shows the orbiter production schedule. The delivery of `Orbiter 102 is planned in late 1978 leading to the first manned orbital flight in mid-1979. After Orbiter 101 finishes ground vibration testing in late 1978, it will be modified for orbital flight and will be the second operational Orbiter delivered to KSC. Our present delivery date is the second quarter of 1981 and we do not like that. We are looking right now to see if there is some way that we can pull that forward by about 6 months because we do not like to have only one Orbiter at KSC when we begin operations in 1980. Preliminary indications are that we might be. able to move the delivery date forward into 1980 but we are not yet sure. Orbiter 103 will be the first Orbiter to be delivered to Vanden- berg and is scheduled for delivery in 1982. Orbiters 104 and 105 will be delivered at 1-year intervals thereafter. PAGENO="0061" 57 OFFICE OF SPACE FLIGHT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FY 1978 BUDGET ESTIMATE (MILLIONS OF $) PROGRAM/PROJECT FV 1977 FY 1978 SPACE FLIGHT OPERATIONS * SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATIONS * SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATIONS CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT SPACELAB STS UPPER STAGES MULTI-MISSION AND PAYLOAD SUPPORT EQUIPMENT MISSION CONTROL CENTER LEVEL II PAYLOAD AND OPERATIONS SUPPORT * PLANNING AND PROGRAM INTEGRATION * DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND MISSION OPERATIONS * ADVANCED PROGRAMS $ --- 16.8 (8.0) (1.8) (1.5) (....) (5.5) 3.5 166.9 12.0 $ 17.8 63.0 (24.5) (13.5) ( 7.0) ( 5.0) (13.0) 4.0 173.0 10.0 TOTAL $ 199.2 $ 267.8 NASA HO MS77-1458 (1) 1,9-77 Now, I would like to switch from the Shuttle to the line `item we call space flight operations (MS7'T-1458) which includes a number of items. The first, space transportation system operations, is a new item for which we are asking $17.8 million in fiscal year 1978. This includes initiation of long-lead-time hardware for the external tanks and solid rocket booster procurement for the operational phase, which will begin in 14~8O. Then we have a number of projects under operations capability de- velopment-Spacelab, upper stages, multimissiôn and payload sup- port equipment, mission control center upgrading-level II- and pay- load and operations support which I will talk about individually as we go along. PAGENO="0062" 58 SPACE FLIGHT OPERATIONS MAJOR PROGRESS SINCE SEPTEMBER, 1976 - SPACELAB PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW "B" COMPLETED - TECHNICAL PORTION OF SPACE STATION STUDIES COMPLETED - CHARGE POLICY FOR NON-U. S. GOVERNMENT USERS PUBLISHEO - SMALL USERS' PAYMENTS FOR "SPACE AVAILABLE" FLIGHTS RECEIVED - SSUS-D AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED - NASA/DOD MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SIGNED NASA HQ MS77-1455 (1) 1-19-77 I would like to mention some of the highlights that have taken place in the last 6 months in Space Flight Operations (MS77-1455). First, the spacelab preliminary design review has been completed. You may recall that when we talked to you last fall we were some- what concerned about not having completed the preliminary design review earlier. The Europeans put together a massive effort and did an outstanding job. Everybody was very pleased with the way the design review went and we think we are very close to having an ap- - propriate configuration. We have done most of the technical work on the space station phase A studies that have been under contract since last summer. Another accomplishment we are very happy about is that we have been able to coordinate a Shuttle user charge policy for non-U.S. Gov- ernment users. This policy has now been published in the Federal Register. We are now almost to the same point on the policy for U.S. Government users which should be signed within 2 weeks. We are also negotiating with the Department of Defense on a pricing agree- ment, Mr. Chairman. We have come up with a way to encourage users with self-contained, small payloads to utilize the Shuttle on a "space available" basis for a very reasonable price, and we have had excellent response to that part of the policy. In the upper stage area, we have been negotiating with several in- dustrial firms to build, with their own financing, upper stages for PAGENO="0063" the Shuttle, which we would then buy on a fixed price basis, as necessary. We have two upper stages planned and we have an agree- ment negotiated on one of these. We are close to agreement on the other. One of the very important milestones that we have been working on for at least 4 years is a memorandum of understanding with the DOD on Management and Operation of the Space Transportation System. We now have a memorandum signed by Secretary Clements and Dr. Fletcher. I think we are now on a solid footing. SH UTILE * KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PRICING POLICY * CONTRACTED ON A FIXED-PRICE BASIS * NO POST-FLIGHT CHARGES UNLESS SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT * AFTER FT 83 PRICE ADJUSTED ANNUALLY TO RECOVER TWELVE YEAR OPERATING COSTS * ALL REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENTS ESCALATED ACCORDING TO US. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, WAGES AND PRICES, PRIVATE SECTOR * LISTS STANDARD AND OPTIONAL SERVICES * COVERS DEDICATED AND SHARED FLIGHTS * COVERS EXCEPTIONAL AND SMALL SELF-CONTAINED PAYLOADS * COVERS SHORT TERM CALL-UPS, POSTPONEMENTS, CANCELLATIONS * COVERS REFLIGHT GUARANTEES * COVERS STANDBY PAYLOAD DISCOUNTS * COVERS FIXED PRICE, FLOATING LAUNCH DATE AND SCHEDULE GUARANTEE OPTIONS * COVERS ASSIGNING OF SPACE IN SHUTTLE BAY NASA HQ MO 77-1610 1/27/77 Just a couple of highlights on our pricing policy (MOTT-1610). It does involve fixed. prices. Once a person signs a contract, we do not change his price~ This is one of the most important areas to the user as we found in all of our studies. They had been concerned that after a flight it would take 2 years to collect all the costs arid to present the bill to the user. The users are all happy about the policy now, Mr. Chairman. The user charge policy is designed to recover all costs so th~tt there is no subsidy invioved. We have worked out a way that we can have shared flights and make maximnm use of the Shuttle. In order tO utilize potential empty space in the orbiter cargo bay, we charge a lower price to people who will let us fly their payloads on a standby basis. PAGENO="0064" 60 STS OPERATIONS * USER CHARGE POLICY PUBLISHED FOR NON-U.S. GOVERNMENT USERS - DOD REIMBURSEMENT BEING NEGOTIATED * POTENTIAL USERS BEING BRIEFED - COMSAT AND SMALL USER (SPACE AVAILABLE) CONTRACTS BEING NEGOTIATED * OFT AND LONG~RANGE MISSION PI~ANS BEING FORMULATED - TRANSITION FROM EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES UNDER STUDY * OFT PAYLOADS BEING INTEGRATED - CARGO MANIFESTS FOR EARLY MISSIONS BEING DEVELOPED * FLIGHT CREW SELECTION IN PROGRESS - FLIGHT PLANNING, INCLUDING CREW TRAINING, SIMULATION AND OTHER GROUND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES WILL BE INfl'IATED IN FY 78 * LONG-LEAD PROCUREMENT FOR FLIGHT HARDIVARE ITEMS AND COMPONENTS WILL BE INITIATED IN FY 78 NASA HQ MO 77-1611 1/27/77 Some of the things we have been doing in the STS operations are ~hown here (M077-1611). I mentioned the user charges policy and the briefing of potential users. We have been working quite a bit on our long-range plans and on transition policies. I might digress just a moment to tell you where we stand on the tran- sition `planning. It is a fairly complex subject and I will not go into too much detail but, in the DOD study we asked how we could consolidate launch vehicle's and cost savings. The only thing tha)t looked promising in that `area was for DOD to try to consolidate some of their oon.figura- tions, so they are thinking of doing that. Their transition policy basic- ally is to have backup vehicles for their critical flights, not all their flights, for 2 years `after Shuttle operations begin. They will use these backup vehicles as required. The DOD is, still developing the plan but there will be somewhere between 12 and 18 vehicles involved. With respect to NASA, our two majorlaundh vehicles, the Delta `and Atlas Centaur, present slightly different problems. In the case of the Atlas, the number of users is small. It turns out NASA does not use the Atlas Centaur in the transition period; the lats NASA Atlas Centaur launch is in 1979. We have worked with COMSAT on Intelsat V launches, and they have agreed to use the Atlas `Centaur for the first four and the Shuttle for the last three of their launches and design a spacecraft to work with either. The fifth Intel~at V flight, which will be the first one on the Shuttle, is scheduled for November 1980, 6 montbe `after the STS be- PAGENO="0065" 61 comes opera~tional. Since ~t is a backup flight, they are willing to take the risk. It does not look like we have a problem to buy hardware for the Atlas Centa~ur. In the case of the Delta we have many more usei~s, a steady stream of them, and we have worked out a way to cover all Delta users that are scheduled a~fter January 1981, by investing a modest amount of long- lead mOney. Now, if the Shuttle goes oja schedule and works in its first flight test, then we feel they should be comfortable with it. If it does not; we can convert them to Delta if there are any schedule slips. To handle the period between May of 1980 and January of 1981, we have decided to build two Delta vehicles which will ultimately be launched from Vandenberg in 1982, but will be available in early 1980, if we need them as backup for scheduled Shuttle launcheS. We would still ha've time to replace them before 1982, Mr. Chairman. We are also working heavily on integrating payloads, and developing cargo manifests. Flight crew selection is in progress. We have received ~ve&r 1,100 applications for both pilot and -mis~ion specialists, and over 130 are from females. The selection process will be completed ~n December of this year. SPACELAB PROGRAM MASTER SCHEDULE 110-77 PRELIM ROMTS REVIEW SUBSYS ROMTS REVIEW PRELIM DESIGN REVIEW A & B PRELIM OPS REQMTS REVIEW CRITICAL DESIGN & DUAL REVIEW HARD MOCKUP ENGRG MODEL FLIGHT UNIT TUNNEL VERIFICATION FLT INSTRUMENTATION O&C BLDG -~i~t .i___O_ V 1974 I - 1975 1976 1977 T~78 1979 - 1980 - Sit. F LIGHTS (j> 5~J ESA . . ESA y ESA PDRA~ YPDRR NASA ~GRD * ESA v ESA ESA ESA NASA NASA NASA [* START INTEGRATOr ~S.L MFG I DELIVER TO NASAV - ~~RECSk~ INTEG/ .TESO_V.~V* ~2/79 * * DELIVER TO NASA 6/79 * E.._.... IS INTEG ZTEST 8/79* GSE RECD~ ELIVER FIT UNIT L~ DESIGN I MID & TEST * ~ DESIGN~~ L..PESIGN I MOSS, FOB CONDOR & VERI ¶T~SPLj - ,. I CONFIG I * CONFIG II * * NASA VQ MS77-1484 Ill This shows the master schedule in the Space4ah pro~nam (MSI1- 1484). The schedule -has been realigned recently but it -still permits the Shu~ttle schedule to go on. We are scheduling Splacelab flights in 1980. You can see on the top there -are flights planned for about July and October and the European schedule is still satisfactory to meet those dates. 92-082 0 - 77 - 5 PAGENO="0066" 62 NASA FY 78 SPACELAB ACTIVITIES - START MANUFACTURE OF THE CREW TRANSFER TUNNEL - START MANUFACTURE OF VERIFICATION FLIGHT INSTRUMENTATION EQUIPMENT - COMPLETE FABRICATION OF MECHANICAL SHUTTLE INTERFACE VERIFICATION EQUIPMENT - START PREPARATION OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE SPACELAB PRIOR TO FLIGHT - INCREMENTAL PROCUREMENT OF FLIGHT HARDWARE FROM ESA - START DESIGN OF SPACELAB SIMULATOR NASA HO M577-1482 1) 1- 21-77 PAGENO="0067" unentation interface - `ment PAGENO="0068" 64 The Spinning Solid Upper Stages (SSUS) (MV76-3142) are a relatively new addition to the space transportation system, Mr. Chair- man. It became apparent that the 1135 capability to geosynchronous orbit was quite large compared to our current expendable launch ire- hicle capability. It is twice too big for the Centaur class payload and four times too big for the Delta class payloads. The users were not very interested in sharing multiple payloads on a single 1135 because they have to get mated with three other users and get ready to go to the same orbit at the same time. The SSUS can carry the same class of payloads; however, each user gets an individual upper stage which we can deploy to where he wants to go, when he wants to go. We can also make the interface of each stage almost identical to that of the upper stage. that he uses now. In fact, the contractor who has signed the development contract for the SSUS is also designing it as an upper stage which can be used on the expendable Delta vehicle, so that there will be true interchangeability between the Delta vehicle and the Shuttle. This will greatly facilitate the solution of potential transition problems since having a spacecraft design compatible with either the Shuttle or the Delta vehicle pemiits late selection~of the launch system. PAGENO="0069" * 65 * MULTIMISSION AND PAYLOAb SUPPORT EQUIPMENT - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF: * CARGO INTEGRATION AND TEST EQUIPMENT (CITE) * TRACE GAS ANALYZER * INTERSITE PAYLOAD TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT * PAYLOAD SPECIALIST STATION * FLEXIBLE MULTIPLEXER/DEMULTIPLEXER * MISSION CONTROL CENTER (MCC) * MODIFICATIONS FOR ORBITAL FLIGHT TEST (LEVEL I) ON SCHEDULE * MODIFICATIONS TO SUPPORT MULTIPLE FLIGHT CAPABILITY WILL BE INITIATED IN FY 78 NASA HO MO 77-1609 1/27/77 We are continuing with multimission payload support; equipment (M077-1609). A number of items are shown here. We are also beginning a new project in the fiscal year 1978 budget, Mission Control Center Level II modifications. Let me explain the story of mission control. It; has to be modified for the Shuttle. The level one modifications are those necessary to make orbital flight tests possible. It only has a capability to control one Shuttle flight at a time. It also. has a lot of R. & D. data capability. It is not coufigured to do rapid turn around flight planning and so on. The Level II modification's will add capabilities required for flight rates above 8 to 10 a year. We will be initiating these modifications in fiscal year 1978. * PAGENO="0070" 66 MCC COMMAND & CONTROL REQUIREMENTS LEVEL I (FLIGHT TEST) MCC OBJECTIVES * 1 ORBITER CAPABILITY * FLIGHT TEST MISSION COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND & CONTROL .. STDN/TDRSS INTERFACE LEVEL II (OPERATIONS) MCC OBJECTIVES * 2 ORBITER SUPPORT * 1 SPACELAB SUPPORT * 1 US SUPPORT * TDRSS INTERFACE * STDN INTERFACE * OPERATIONS MISSIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, COMMAND, CONTROL. SCHEDULING, CREW ACTIVITY PLANNING NASA HQ MS77-1643 (3) Thi$ chart (MS77-1643) shows a little more detail on the differ- ences between the two modifications and as you can see, Level H modifi- cation accommodate considerable more peak loads. * PAYLOAD AND OPERATIONS SUPPORT * PAYLOAD OPERATIONS CONTROL CENTER (P0CC) - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT WILL BE INITIATED IN FY 78 * ORBITAL FLIGHT TEST (OFT) SUPPORT - CONCEPT AND DESIGN STUDIES INITIATED IN FY77 TO INTEGRATE OFT PAYLOADS - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERFACE HARDWARE WILL BE INITIATED IN FY 78 * `OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT SUPPORT - PAYLOAD INTEGRATION CONCEPT AND MISSION PLANNING STUDIES INITIATED IN FY77 - WILL CONTINUE IN FY 78 * OFT PAYLOADS - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF HARUWVARE FOR CANDIDATE PAYLOADS WILL BE INITIATED IN FY 78 NASA HQ MO 77-1680 1/27/77 PAGENO="0071" 67 Now, this is payload and operations support (M077-1680). Nor- mally in the Office of Space Flight we provide just the transportation, but there are many cases where we found it more economical to pro- vide payload facilities which are normally provided by the user. For instance, it makes sense to provide a payload operations con- trol center for Spacelab in close proximity to the Shuttle mission con- trol center and to operate it, or at least do the housekeeping. During OFT, payload support will be provided in the MOO. The payload people will come in and actually work the consoles, during the OFT missions. Our payload people are going out with announce- ments for opportunity of many payloads to fly and there are substan- tial amounts of work required of us to integrate these payloads into useful aggregate payloads. In the operations management support area, there are studies of how we should set up our accounting systems, how we should man- age various operational concepts and so on. This is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars that we have to manage. Of course, we also have some OFT payloads that the Office of Space Flight itself is planning to develop. DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND MISSION OPERATIONS FY 1978 ACTIVITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS * SHUTTLE TEST ACTIVATION * LAUNCH FACILITIES RECONFIGURATION AND PREPARATION * MECHANICAL GROUND SYSTEMS/ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS * GROUND BASED DATA SYSTEMS AND SIMULATOR SUPPORT * MAINTENANCE OF TECHNICAL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT (LABORATORIES AND SHOPS) NASA HU MS77.1486 (1) 1.21 .77 Development, Test, and Mission Operations work that we will be doing in 1978 are shown in this chart (MS77-1486). A lot of this work goes to activating the Shuttle test support and the launchfacilities, doing the necessary modification to the Kennedy Space Center ground system and instrumentation, supporting the simulators, and related efforts. PAGENO="0072" DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND MISSION OPERATIONS OSF PROGRAM SUPPORT NASA HO MS 77-1599(1) 1/26/77 Now, this is always controversial so I would like to show you what has been happening to th~ Development Test, and Mission Opera- tions support in the Office of Space Flight (MS7I-1599) in the last 6 years. It drops from about 11,000 man-years down to around 5,000, Mr. Chairman. We did tell you last year we are going to cut it down. and we. are cutting it down even this year, even though my people tell me we cannot do that. 68 12-h 11- io-I- 9 s/c (MYE) 8 (THOUSANDS) 6 5- 0 73 DTMO MYE 11,444 74 ?~5 7~3 77 - 9535 6695 5742 5318 -. - 5048 PAGENO="0073" * Let me just say finally our advanced programs effort (MTfl-1408) ha's been going along well this year. As you know, we haire been study- ing the various space stations concepts, and various solar satellite power concepts, in addition to doing a lot of technology work in the areas listed in the chart. We wish we could do more in this area, in fact, we are sorry that we only have $10 million in the fiscal year 1978 budget, for this. PAGENO="0074" 70 OFFICE OF SPACE FLIGHT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FY 1978 BUDGET ESTIMATE (MILLIONS OF $) PROGRAM/PROJECT FY 1977 FY 1978 EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES (10.7) (90.7) (43.8) 6.2) (16.0) (55.9) (55.3) ( 9.3) * SCOUT * CENTAUR * DELTA * ATLAS-F TOTAL $ 151.4 $ 1365 NASA HO MS77-1457 (1) 1-19-77 The fact that we cut advanced programs from $13 to $12 million in fiscal year 1977 as part of the Shuttle reprograming action should not be interpreted as meaning that NASA or the Office of Space Flight does not believe that this effort is very important. It is a mat- - ter of priorities, and we did not reduce our advanced studies area. Now, on the expendable launch vehicles (MS77-1457) we have the four shown here, Scout, Centaur, Delta, and Atlas-F. The Scout does a specific small job and will remain with us for a long time. The Atlas- F is the vehicle we are using primarily for National Oceanic and - Atmospheric Administration weather satellites. We have had a very good year with our expendable launch vehicles. PAGENO="0075" 71 EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES LAUNCH ACTIVITY DURING CY 1976 IOÔ% RECORD - 16 LAUNCHES /16 SUCCESSES SCOUT LAUNCHED THREE SATELLITES: * EXPERIMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE - USAF * RELATIVITY PROBE - NASA * NAVY TRANSIT - NAVY DOD DELTA LAUNCHED NINE SATELLITES: * COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SATELLITE - NASA/CANADA * MARISAT-A COMSAT * RCA-A - RCA * NATO (Il-A - NATO * LAGEOS - NASA * MARISAT-B - COMSAT * PALAPA-A - INDONESIA * ITOS-H - NOAA * MARISAT-C - COMSAT * ATLAS LAUNCHED THREE SATELLITES: CENTAUR * INTELSAT IVA-B - INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS * COMSTAR-A - COMSAT * COMSTAR-B - COMSAT TITAN CENTAUR * HELlOS-B - NASA/WEST GERMANY * LAUNCHED SINCE SEPTEMBER 1976 NASA HO AD77-1324 (1) We had a 100-percent success record, 16 out of 16 launches, as shown on this slide (AD 77-1324). We had one launch this year, NATO III- B on January 27, and. that was successful too. PAGENO="0076" 72 EXPENDABLE VEHICLES 1977 LAUNCH SCHEDULE J F M A M J J A S 0 N D COMMUNICATIONS U.. S. DOMESTIC A U. S. MARITIME A INTERNATIONAL *A A A FOREIGN REGIONAL A A EXPERIMENTAL A A A WEATHER/METEOROLOGY A A A NAVIGATION A A EARTH RESOURCES/GEODESY A AN SCIENCE/PLANETARY AN .. AN TOTALLAUNCHES(23) 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 2 3 3 2 NASA(6) - - - I - - 2 1 1 1 - OTHER(17) I - 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 NASA HQAD76.1686 (1) * NATO III B successPully launched January 27, 1977 Our expendable launch vehicle schehdule' for 1977 in this chart; (AD 76-4686). We show a total of 23 launches, 17 for reimbursable customers and 6 for ourselves. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my pres- entation, and I would be happy to answer any questions from you or the other members Mr. FTJQUA. John, just briefly we have some new members on the subcommittee and I think it might be helpful if you could just give us an explanation. I see you have the models of the Shuttle as well as the 747 and you might briefly explain how the Shuttle works. Mr. YARnLEY. Be very happy to. This-is sort of the basic, standard Space Shuttle configuration as it sits on the pad. Mr. FUQTJA. You might also explain where it is being manufactured and by what contractor. Mr. YARDLEY. The major and the most expensive element of the Space Shuttle is `the Orbiter. The Orbiter is the key part of the sys- tem that carries all the payloads, and has all the "brains"-tlie elec- tronics. It has the sophisticated engines, and comes home and gets used over and over again. The orbiter basically has a 500-flight life, with about 100 flights betwen refurbishments. Now the Orbiter itself is made by Rockwell International/Space Division in California and they in turn have literally hundreds of subcontractors across the country. `The current negotiated value of the Orbiter development contract will he on the order of $3.1 billion. Mv recollection is that we have Shuttle contracts and subeontracts in 47 of the 50 States. ~nother significant element. of the Shuttle system is represented by the Orbiter's three liquid hydrogen-oxygen main engines. That PAGENO="0077" 73 development is done by Rockwell International/Rocketdyne Division at Canoga Park, Calif. Mr. FUQiJA. You might point out there are several major subcon- tractors on that, the tail, wings, and so on. Mr. YARDLI~Y. Yes. Fairchild in New York builds the vertical tail fin; Grumman in Long Island builds the wings; General Dynamics in San Diego builds the mic1-fusela~e; and McDonnell-Douglas in St. Louis builds the orbital maneuvering system propulsion pad. IBM makes the computers and Minneapolis4ioneywell the avionics. There are at least a dozen more major subcontractors. In addition to the Orbiter and its main engInes, there are twin solid rocket boosters on the configuration at liftoff. The Orbiter will reach a 100,000-foot altitude and will travel at about 4,000 feet per second at this point, about 2 minutes into flight, these boosters are jettisoned. Parachutes come out and they lower the boosters into the water. They are fished out and shipped back to the manufac- turer for reloading with solid propellant. The solid rocket boosters are also reusable. A major contractor on the SRB motor is Thiokol, Wasatch Division in Utah. We also have a number of major contrac- tors on the structures and the thrust vector control, and other systems. We did select a booster assembly contractor, the United Space Boosters subsidiary of United Technologies, Inc., to do the overall assembly and integration. The external tank is the only major expendable item in the system. It is a fuel tank, which carries liquid oxygen and hydrogen propel- lants; particular attention has been given to its design so that it will be relatively inexpensive to manufacture. You saw some pictures of giant tools. Those tools are all designed to make tanks on a production line because the operational cost will depend very much on what the tank costs. So, Mr. Chairman, that is given a lot of attention. The tanks are built by Martin-Marietta, at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans. At lift-off, the three main engines on the `Orbiter and the two solid rocket boosters light on the pad. The solid rocket boosters are jetti- soned about 2 minutes into the flight and the tank and Orbiter con- tinue upward. The tank supplies the propellants and the Orbiter supplies everything else. Just before we get into orbit we jettison `the tank. The reason we jettison the tank `before we get ito orbit is so that it will go into the ocean at a selected area where we will have no environmental problems. The Orbiter continues by itself into orbit and `opens its payload doors to discharge or deploy payloads. Some payloads remain in the Orbiter. For example, the Spacelab remains in the Orbiter's large cargo bay and operates a's a~ short-duration space station. The Orbiter, of course, returns the Spacelab to Earth for reuse in future missions. . Now, going to the Orbiter/747 carrier aircraft mated configuration, ~one of the test series we need to do in the development of this system is to see how it flies because it has to come back and land. Th'at has never been donebefore. We have what we call an approach and landing test series, the ALT~ and this is a configuration that we have chosen for the approach and landing tests. Incidentally, this will also be the configuration we will use `to transport the Orbiter around the country. PAGENO="0078" 74 The Orbiter is too big to move over the road except for short distances like from Palmdale to Edwards AFB. Even then, we had to rebuild some telephone lines and so on. This is' the way the Orbiter separates from the 747 carries aircraft: The Orbiter is tilted up so that when the 747 and the Orbiter are flying together, the Orbiter is really carrying more of the lift for its weight than tbe 747 is. The Orbiter "drop&' the 747. When I say that people `will say, "But `Is that literally true ?`~ It certaii~ly is. We are going to start flying this configuration on the 18th of February and we will spend' 9 to 12 months doing `all the other tests with this configuration to accomplish `the `Orbiter approach and landing test series. That is' it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, John. I thought it would `be interesting. What portion. John, if any, of the funds of the funds of the Space Transportation System are for the spinning upper stage rocket? Mr. YARDL~Y. In fiscal year 1978 we are requesting $13.5 million for both the IUS and the SSUS. Now, $5.5 million out of the $13.5 million or 41 percent of that `total is for `the S'STJS. T'hat is sufficient to d'o either of two things. `If we do not get a commercial developer on the `SSUS-A we can start the development ourselves with these funds. We already have a commercial `agreement on SSUS-D. We have a number of requirements that `are prstty firm and we are negotiating right now to do the SSUS-A development witho'ut us financing it, Contractors interested in developing the SSIJS want to have assurance that there are going to be enough of `th~'m used so they will not lose their shirt after investing. in a commercial development. It turns out that the `T'DRS'S decision has been made, and with the COMSAT Intelsat V commitment, we will need funds for ~procure- ment of `the SSUS-A for those applications. It looks like the $5.5 million will cover these needs in fiscal year 1978. Mr. FUQUA. Will this supplant the ITIS being developed by `t'he Air Force? Mr. YARDLEY. No; as a matter of fact, as long as you mention it, the problem with the IUS is that it is just no't `an efficiently sized vehicle for `the smaller payloads either from a transition point of view or a cost point of view. The facts of the matter `are that NASA does not have a lot of its own geosynchronous traffic. Our total geosynchronous and planetary traffic amounts to 18 ITJS flights and 25 SSUS flights. Use of the S'S'US does cut the overall number of ITJS flights. The number of ITJS flights anticipated in the 572 traffic module was 197. Now; that traffic model has been reduced to 560, 112 of them are still using the TUS. Mr. FUQnA. John, over the years we have had some very favorable economic forecasts for the Space Shuttle. Has there been anything in the last year that has materially altered the economics of the Space Shuttle? Mr. YARDLY. No; as a matter of fact, it looks better. We have, during the past year, gone through more detailed operational cost, planning analyses in conjunction with our user charge policy formulation. As a result, we think our costs are more solid `and are under the same gro'undrules as they have been in the past. PAGENO="0079" $ 75 Every' indication, every analysis we have made shows that it is still very favorable. For example, we took the t~raffic model we have been using and cut the NASA flights in half; then we tested that model against a two orbiter fleet, we found we would have to buy expendable vehicles to accommodate DOD and commercial users. When we compared that to a five-orbiter fleet where we are only flying half of the NASA traffic, Mr. Chairman, we found that we could `save between $~ and $6 billion by buying five orbiters instead of two, because we could accommodate the anticipated DOD and com- mer~ial traffic. The point is, there are going to be many users who are going to fly time Shuttle if they can `be. accommodated. A five-orbiter fleet is the minimum required. - Mr. F1JQUA. The,reimbursement policy has nOt been affected either? Mr. YARDLEY.. yes, I was going to mention that. I think the re- imbursement policy will have a substantial effect on the traffic. We are seeing all sorts of positive indications. This concept of small, self- contained payloads has received a tremendous amount of attention. We have people `donating money to universities to set up flights so that the students will -have experiments, ~nd there are many other positive indicators. They are sending us checks. We received' a down paymOnt on a Delta flight yesterday from the Satellite Business Corp. which has decided to use the Shuttle based primarily on our reimbursement policy and transition planning. Mr. FTJQUA. You have announced at an early date the reimbursement policy then, so people will know what to expect. Mr. YARDLEY. It is very important. A year ago there was uncertainty, and you know how anything new is. It tends to be viewed with `sus- picion and alarm. We found very quickly that the only way we were going to make the people believe us was to write it out, coordinate it, and make it official. Establishment .of this policy' represents a major accomplishment. Mr., FUQUA. John, one final question. We do not have any surprises, do we, in the development of the Shuttle that you foresee? I know we have had some problems with the engine. Mr. YARDLEY. We have a lot of tough testing ahead and there is always'the possibility of unanticipated problems. There are none that we know of now. We have been doing a great deal of soul ~searching on the hydraulic system, for exftmple, in the last ~l months; we are quite certain that we are in good shape for ALT, but we are only using the hydraulic system for 5 or 6 minutes in ALT and we are not quite confident yet for the orbital flight test phase. Mike, can you think of anything that particularly disturbs you? Dr. MALKIN. No, sir, I think you have covered the facts as I see them. Mr. FUQUA~ Mr. Winn? Mr. WINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was the committee's understanding that for space flight opera- tions in the space transportation systems operations category grew that D'TMO would decrease. however, DTMO grew from $167 mil- lion in 1977 to $173 million while the space transportation systems grew from approximately $19 million to $81 million and I wondered if PAGENO="0080" 76 you could give us-and you touched on it-if you could give us an explanation for how that happened. Mr. YARDL~Y. Well, I think you will find if you look at our last year's projection for 1978 that it hardly changed. What we said in general was that as we go out the next 5 years, as we enter into STS operations, we will reduce DTMO because most of the type of work that is being done in DTMO now we will put into STS operations and make it part of the user charge and bookkeep it in a different way. Our fiscal year 1978 DTMO requirements remain essentially the same as we projected in the fiscal year 1977 budget, including the one-time need at KSC to deconfigure the launch umbilical tower and to modify the crawler transporter. Mr. WINN. What is the 1978 request? Mr. Y~umi4iw. $173 million. Mr. WTNN. That is what you would have liked to have had last year. Mr. YARDL1i~T. Yes. * Mr. WINN. So it is really not a great difference. Mr. YARDLEY. No; there is a curve that shows our plan for DTMO over the next 5 years. Mr. WINN. The curve would probably cross itself, woulçl it not? Mr. YARDLEY. 1 do not know if you can see this or not but the yellow is the DTMO from fiscal year 1978 through fiscal year 1982 and it is pretty flat in the early years. The severe downward level does not start until 1980. Mr. WINN. Did you say 1980? Mr. YARDLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. WINN. Approximately $57 million is allocated for Shuttle- Spacelab payload development. What is the timeframe of these payloads? What is the timeframe work that these payloads will be utilized on the Shuttle flights? Mr. YARDLEY. That $57 million is not, of course, in m.y budget but I will try to answer your qi~estion. Those funds are primarily for payloads for the first three Spacelabs and also for initial work on subsequent payloads. Mr. WINN. The first three? Mr. YARDLEY. The first three. There will be some funding for pay- loads beyond the first three Spacelabs. The flight dates for the first three Spacelabs are about July 1980 for the first flight, October for the second flight, and the third flight will probably be ne~t March. Mr. WINN. They are not set yet? Mr. YARDLEY. No. We are still assessing it. The Spacelabs are a. little flexible and some of our commercial users are not quite so flexible so we really have not frozen all the schedules yet.. Mr. WINN. What I am trying to figure out is a major portion of the $57 million is scheduled for later operational flights. Mr. YARDLEY. No. Some of it is, but not the major portion. Mr. WINN. I know you said the first three. Mr~ YARDLEY. But I want to hasten to add that almost every Space- lab will be somewhat different in its configuration and each of those three is a different configuration, the first of a series. You have a developed payload for say Spacelab 1 and that might fly again on PAGENO="0081" 77 Spacelab 6 with modifications, so the equipment and the money are applicable over a much longer period of time. Mr. WINN. So it is spread out and you really cannot pinpoint what the actual, what the major portion is because you are going to be spreading it out. Mr. YARDLEY. What it will boil down to is you will probably book- keep it like all the money is used on the first one but when it reflies, the subsequent flights are cheaper, obviously. Mr. WINN. How is. it possible to hold the total cost for Shuttle at $5.2 billion of 1971 dollars if $30 million is reprograrned? Mr YARDLEY When we estimated the $5 2~ billion in 1971 dollars for the Shuttle D.D.T. & E., we included some provision for unantici- pated problems. The reprograming of $30 million into the fiscal year 1977 Shuttle plan reflects a rephasing of the funding requirement. It does not increase the total cost estimates for D.D.T. & E. What the $30 million reprograming indicates is that in fiscal year 1977 we have identified some areas that need some of the future year reserve earlier than we had planned but we still think the reserve we have left in future years, even after we apply the $30 million, is suffi- cient to cover those years. Of course, if we have a lot more trouble in the test programs than we had planned, it might not be enough, but right now it looks like it is. Mr. WINN. You refer to reserve. How much was' the reserve 9 Mr. YARDLEY. .1 would prefer to discuss that privately, if you want. I am not trying to avoid the question, however,, you can understand the implications. Mr. WINN. I will not let you do that. Mr. YARDLEY. We have a lot of contractors and they would be inter-. ested in how much the reserve is, too, I will be happy tp discuss it with you, if you want me `to. Mr. WINN. Is the reserve based on a percentage in anyway? Mr. YARDLEY.That is the way you usually express it., Mr. WINN. But other factors come into consideration also? Mr. YARDLEY. Yes. We made a lot of studies of this and we studied past programs. From our understanding and our definition of the Shuttle program at the time the development commitment was made, we established a reasonable reserve we felt was adequate for D.D.T. & E. I am sure everybody realizes as you proceed through a large-scale development program you have to balance the &verall system. You have to be able to adjust to meet `unforeseen technical problems when they occur. It is a question of being able to judge from the state of the art and the,~program you are doing, how much you. need to begin with. What we are sayin.g is that our original estimate seems to be reasonable. Dr. MALK~rN. And the distribution of the reserve would depend on what stage of the program you are in. You try to program it for where you expect the most trouble. Mr. WINN. I have a few more questions on that. That does bring u~p a few more questions but I will submit those in writing and maybe it might be easier for you to exphdn it to us in writing and I will yield back my time to some of ou.r newer members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Downey? Mr. DOWNEr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 92-082 0 - 77 - 6 PAGENO="0082" 78 Could you not work out a program where all members under 30 could go on a ride on the Space Shuttle? I would like to ask you Mr. Yardley about one aspect of your budget that I see decreases that disturbs me from fiscal 1977 on to fiscal 1978 and if you would I would like you to embellish upon what it is going to cost you and that is the advanced programs. I understand you are going from $12 million to ~$10 million and I would like to know the sacrifices you will have to make with those cuts. Mr. YARDLEY. We agree with you. We wish that were not happening. Essentially, we have. to cut our program 20 percent. `Now, the things we are doing are quite modest to start with. We had hoped to increase it because we feel the time is now to really begin to study in a consider- able depth the next major space step, the space industrialization con- cept; to identify those things which really need that kind of facility and when it ought to be done, and so on. I am sure you read OMB's rationale on the subject. What we are trying to do is tighten our belts and conduct some post-Phase A studies during fiscal year 1978 and try again in fiscal year 1979. Mr. DOWNEY. If you can give us this information, what was your estimate for 1978? What did 0MB reduce it from? Mr. YARDLEY. We had asked for $14 million in advanced programs, which is now $10 million; we also asked for $15 million to start Phase B studies on space industrialization which were deferred. Mr. DOWNEY. I am sorry, I am new to the committee but could you define space industralization? Mr. YARDLEY. What we are talking about is the possibility of a permanent facility in space that would be a base for industrial and other activities. It would be a low Earth orbit space base that could be used for many of the opportunities that we think are going to be opening up in space in the mid-1980's. We could have large structures for large antennas so that you could have all kinds of new communication possibilities and experimental satellite solar power possibilities, for example. You have to have some facility like that to conduct full-scale materials processing, biological processing and all the other possibilities that the Shuttle era will open up. We wanted the funds in fiscal year 1978 to start some serious study efforts to define exactly what these possibilities are: and whether they really would be worth doing. Those definition studies were de- ferred. Mr. DOWNEY. I am sorry tosee your cut there and I hope the com- mittee will take cognizance of that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FUQUA. Mr~ Gore? Mr. GoRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Yardley, for your testimony here this morning. I enjoyed the briefing you conducted for the new Members of the full committee not long ago and I look forward to working with you and the other folks at NASA. I have a couple of elementary questions. First, back to the first square. What is the flight life of the solid rocket booster? Mr. YARDLEY. We are rating them at 20 flights each. Actually~ we think some of the components can go further than that. We will not really know until we start gaining experience but basically we think PAGENO="0083" 79 it is about 20 flights, which means each flight only. pays for * one-twentieth of the new hardware and refurbishment cost. Mr. Goiu~. So you will need 50 of those solid rocket boosters per orbiter? Mr. YARDLEY. Yes, if you made all 500 flights per orbtier. Mr. GORE. What is the cost per unit of the external tank? Mr. YARDLEY. About $3.0 million in fiscal year 1975 dollars. Mr. GORE. So that is the major component of the cost Qf each lot? Mr. YARDLEY. That probably is the single biggest piece. You have the liquid and solid propellants thems~1ves which are fairly expensive. I guess that is another $1.7 million. There are also a number of other things such as refurbishments,, spares and replacement of wearouts *and consumables. Mr. GORE. In an effort to assist the chairman in developing a com- plete record I will ask this question. I think you touch on. it in your testimony on page 23. where you indicate you are considering an expendable launch vehicles Would this necessarily mean buying expendable launch hardware which might never be used? Mr. YARDLEY. At the present time there does not appear to be any need to do that for the Centaur program. In the Delta program, we are going to buy some long lead material to protect missions which are scheduled on the Shuttle from now to our first full up Shuttle orbital flight. If the Shuttle slips, or if there are problems with it, we will be in a posiiton to fly these missions on the Delta instead. The only thing that would be left over, so to speak, would be maybe $3 to $5 million worth of long lead parts. Mr. GORE. One final question, Mr. Chairman. I am concerned in general that the priorities at NASA have not given enough emphasis to the possibility of developing the solar powered satellite to capacity and the small, amount allocated to such things as weather research. If we dramatically step up the funding of the space solar satellite program, if the economics become feasible would the Space Shuttle program be an indespensible. element in the construction of these satellites? Mr. YARDLEY. The answer is yes; but there are two different~ pos- sible ways to go on that.. There is no question you would have to use the Space Shuttle for the next 15 years of development of those giant stations. To actually deploy those giant stations, I am talking about. something now that ia 50 square miles worth of solar collectors, but to actu~l'iy deploy those things with the Shuttle using Earth-based mate-, riels would not be economical. You just need a much larger vehicle. New, there is a way that Professor Gerard O'Neill has been investigat- ing qiute heavily, using lunar materials to build those stations. The energy required to get lunar materials out to the right spot is a lot less. If that were proved to be the most economical way to go then the Shuttle would be sufficient to support that operation from the earth. * Mr. GORE. Don't tell me you are considering strip mining the Moon. Mr. YARDLEY. There are no environmentalists up there. Mr. GORE. `No further questions. I Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Gore... John, what is the total estimated cost of the Orbiters 3, 4, and 5? PAGENO="0084" 80 Mr. YARDI~EY. The amoñnt projected in the budget run out esti- mate in fiscal year 1978 dollars is about $1.7 billion for the three of' them. Mr. FUQUA. How much? Mr. YARDLEY. $1.7 million in the dollars of the fiscal year 1978 budget. Mr. FUQtTA. That is billions of dollars? Mr. YARDLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. FUQUA. What would be programed in fiscal year 1979 for the three Orbiters in 1979? Mr. YARDLEY. The fiscal year 1979 funding requirements for those three orbiters are estimated at approximately $316 million in the dollars of the fiscal year 1978 budget. Mr. FUQUA. And what would be the cost for the refurbishment of one and two? Mr. YARDLEY. Our total estimate of that right now is approximately $329 million in the dollars of the fiscal year 1978 budget. Mr. FUQIYA. That is all in the $1.7 billion? Mr. YARDLEY. No, sir. Mr. FUQUA. In addition? Mr. YARDLEY. The $1.7 billion is the total estimate for Orbiters 103, 104 and 105 in the dollars of the fiscal year 1978 budget. The `$329 million is the total estimate in dollars of the fiscal year 1978 budget to refurni~h Orbiters 101 and 102. * Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Winn has another question. Mr. WINN. Do we have anything in the way of payloads that the gen~ral public is going to feel that it is improving our way of life., not just experiments, but something that would be easy to sell to the public that they are going to benefit by it? Mr. YARDLEY. Are you talking in the near term? Mr. WINN. Yes; the near term. Mr. YARDLEY. The most probable near-term activities would be con- verting some of the experimental products we have tested on ASTP, like some of the production facilities for pharmaceuticals. There is also a silicon ribbon project being developed forelectronic components and several other similar products. Most of that kind of processing is in the experimental stage and you are probably more familiar with it than I am because of Chuck Mathews' and Brad Johnston's presentations to you. The satellite solar power is the one that is the greatest interest to everybody~ `Of course, that is not exactly near term. Maybe I can ask John Disher if he has any light to shed on it. Mr. DIsHER. Yes. Advanced communications capabilities offer a potential of bringing wrist watch radio-telephones to a practical state, for instance. They offer enhanced communications and the potential for cutting down the travel of business people by allowing telephone conferences with three dimensional full size image projection as another example. You cannot talk about this in the 1982, 1983, 1984 periods but more probably in the later 1980's at the earliest, but the potential is certainly there. That is what we are looking for, to develop the potential hi that period. Mr. WINN. I was going to switch subjects, but if you have some- thing you want to add, please do so. PAGENO="0085" 81 Mr. DIsH1r~. I was going to say that in the materials processing areas, there are a number of pharmaceutical products medications with great potential benefit, though they are currently experimental investigations only. Mr. WINN. You are not going to show us how to get rid of the corn- mon cold, are you? Mr. DISHER. I have not heard that projected yet, Mr. Winn. Mr. WINN. Well, some of the earlier lists I saw they keep changing them all the time and I cannot keep up with them. They have not been updated. What percentage, and I will not ask you what they are but what percentage will be military payload? Mr. YARDLEY. Let me see. Of our present traffic model it is about 20 percent. Mr. WINN. You said 20 percent? Mr. YARDLEY. Around that. We have the numbers here. Mr. WINN. I think they are going to appear before us next week. It is 20 or 25 percent? That is pretty close. Mr. YARDLEY. It is approximately 20 percent. Mr. WINN. In background I am still trying to find something that is going to satisfy the American people when we tell them how much this is going to cost. Mr. YARDLEY. Well, there is a lot of ohgoing effort that will hope- fully expand, such as the weather satellites. Mr. WINN. I realize it is pretty hard to categorize these things. Are these carryover experiments from the first one to the second that are going to be updated as each one flies? Mr. YARDLEY. Probably will not be if you talk Spacelab, from the first Spacelab to the second, but they will leapfrog. Mr. WINN. Thank you very much. Mr. FUQUA. John, one question comes to my mind going back to my last question. With the Orbiters 3, 4, and 5, what does this do if you add their cost in 1979, 1980, and 1981 to the. total Shuttle cost program? After 1 and 2 start coming off the peak. where does. that leave our total commitment year by year for Shuttle development? Do you have that in a graph form? Mr. YARDLEY. I think we probably have a graph but not projectable that shows the total combined program cost of this. Here is the Shuttle development commitment, which is the $5.22 billion in 1971 dollars. This was an additional item that Was not in the $5.22 billion. Here ~s how the overall thing lopk~ and what it shows is that thetotal program including development and production will be lower in 1979 than it is in 1978 and it will continue to come down. Mr. FtTQUA. With 3,4, and ~? Mr. YARDLEY. Yes; timy are in here. Mr.. FUQUA. So then within the total analysis, the NASA budget we will have more funds to work with, at the $4 billion level or thereabouts for other programs such as space sciences and others? Mr. YARDLEY. Yes. The total Office of Space Flight budget ~heads downhill in 1979. Now, it is not a big drop in 1979, but it gets bigger as time goes on since the Shuttle development declines faster than the buildup of the production aud~ operations. Mr. FUQUA. Could you provide usthose~projections? PAGENO="0086" 8:2 Mr. YARDLEY. Sure. Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Winn? Mr. WINN. I cannot see that from here. What is the lest year at th~ bottom, the far right side of the chart you have? Mr. YARDLEY. This is 1982 out here. Mr. WINN. 1982? Mr. YARDLEY. Yes. Mr. WINN. And is 1977 on the left? Mr. YARDLEY. No; that is 1978. Mr. WINN. I see. Mr. FUQ1JA. You might want to give us those projected operational costs as well as the reimbursement costs. Mr. YARDLEY. All right, we can do that. Mr. FUQUA. If you have a draftsman that can put that together for us it need not be elaborate, but something that shows the projection. [The information follows:] OFFICE OF SPACE FLIGHT 1.6 1.2 BILLIONS OF $ .8 Mr. Gore, any further questions? Mr. GoRD. No; Mr. Ohairman. Mr. FUQUA. Thank you very much, John, for your testimony here today. This subcommittee will adjourn to meet again on Wednesday, Feb- ruary 9, in this same room. At that time we will have Dr. Noel Hinners, Associate Admin- istrator for Space Science, and we will also take up the Office of Space Technology and Office of Technology Utilization. We stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene on Wednesday, February 4,1977.] RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT RUNOUT OP THE FT 1978 BUDGET ESTIMRTE PAGENO="0087" FIELD HEARINGS PEIDAY, ~EB1~UARY 4, 1977 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS, Kennedy Space Center, Cape Caraveral, Fia. Mr. FUQUA. We are pleased to be here and look forward to the report you will give us today. STATEMENT OP MIKE ROSS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KENNEDY SPACE CENTER Mr. Ross. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Winn, members of the staff, we're happy to have all here at KSC. We have planned what we expect will be a productive day. We have handouts of all the viewgraphs we will be using. Mr. FUQUA. Without objection they will be made a part of the record. FIGURE 1 (83) PAGENO="0088" 84 Mr. Ross. Let me start by talking about the personnel and organiza- tional changes made since the last time you were here, and use this viewgraph (fig. 1) to introduce the members of the Kennedy Space Center policy staff who are with us this morning. First of all, Lee Scherer, as you know, is at the Dryden Flight Research Center today for the Orbiter approach and landing test flight readiness review. I talked with him last night and he sends his best regards-he is here in spirit. Mr. FUQUA. Good. Mr. Ross. (Figure 1.) At the staff level we have added a Biomedical Office, with Dr. Paul Buchanan, M.D., in charge. Paul transferred to KSC from the Johnson Space Center. The last time you saw this chart we had an ASTP Science and Technology Applications Office. The ASTP was deleted at the completion of the project, but we do have some minor science applications and technology programs, so the office has been retained. Phil Claybourne is in charge of this office, and he will join us later. Ed Parry is our chief counsel, Jim Rowe is the chief of our executive staff, and Chuck Hollinshead is our public affairs officer. We have merged safety, reliability, quality assurance, fire, and secu- rity into a single office, the safety, reliability, and quality asSurance and protective services office, since these are related functions, this is an efficient way to operate. Dr. Bob Gray is the manager of the Shuttle projects office. Walt Kapryan is director of vehicle operations, Ray Clark is direc- tor of design engineering, Pete Minderman is director of technical sup- port and Joe Malaga is director of administration and management operations. Joe transferred to KSC from NASA Headquarters in August 1975. LOCATION OF NASA MAJOR AND COMPONENT INSTALLATIONS LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER (LeRC) GODDARD SPACE CENTER (GSFC1 WALLOPS FLIGHT CENTER (WFC) HEADQUARTERS D.C. SPACE CENTER (KSC) NATIONAL SPACE TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES (NSTLi SLIDELL COMPUTER ASSEMBLY COMPLEX FACILITY (MSFcJ (MSFC) FIGuRE 2 PAGENO="0089" We have reoi 85 ~anizedto meet the requirements of the Shuttle pro- - tat we were previously organized to support the ~r example, we had a launch vehicle directorate, a Lte, et cetera. This move in fact, ific requirements for ~ [on sys- I want ~. 2) spac does refleci tern as we to show ol at the Drydei since KSC h~ operations d' 1 ~for Center. ity for th ~ch, and the first resentative ople t~ - rnaround, has the new ce which w~ `~enrer and Fiemu~ 3 PAGENO="0090" 86 the Marshall Space Center, working the interface between centers for the Orbiter, the external tank, and the solid rocket boosters. Since you are all familiar with this map (fig. 3) we'll go t~hrough it rapidly. We did want to show you the Canaveral National Seashore (fig. 4), which was brought into being with legislation in 1975. Mr. FUQTJA. Do you call it Canaveral or Holland ~ Mr. Ross. Canaveral National Seashore. The beach area is adminis- tered by the National Park Service, and the water area is adminis- ~ered by the Fis~h and Wildlife Service. FIGtRE 4 PAGENO="0091" 87 Mr. FUQUA. Where is the Holland Seashore? Mr CIJARK The name in the legislation was changed at the last minute, because they preferred not to use a man's name. Mr. PAimY. The Seashore Act doesprescribe that theVisitor center in the upper area is to be called the Spessard L. Holland Visitor Center. ~fr. WINN. Where is the range safety office lOcated? Mr. Ross. The raiige safety control officer, located in the range con- trol center on the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station will be used for the Shuttle program. It will continue to be operated by the Air Force. Mr. FtTQTTA. If we were to get into larger payloads such as space stations, and solar power stations and they were launched from here, where would be the most logical place? Do you have any room left? Mr. Ross. Yes; probably the initial space stations would be assem- bled in orbit, with subassembly modules launched by the Space Shut- tle, from comple~ 39. Mr. FtTQUA. We were talking about later. There may be a Nova-type vehicle around or something like that. Mr. Ross. For these or other heavy lift launch vehicles, the launch sites would be to the north of complex 39. Mr. FUQtTA~ Does that infringe on tfhe national seashore? Mr. CLAR1~. The interagency agreement between NASA and, the Department of the Interior provides that NASA can site any future space program facilities on KSC property within, the seashore as long as NASA takes the Interior Department's use under cOnsideration to insure compatibility wherever practicable. PIGURE 5 PAGENO="0092" 88 Mr. Ross. We do caution the Park Service not to put up permanent buildings-anything that they would have to take down again. ~~ny permanent buildings t!hey put up will go up in this section at the extreme northeast of KSC, in a 1,088-acre site that has been trans- ferred to the Park Service. The Visitor Information Center (fig. 5) has been very active this past year as in the several previous years. About 1.1 million people paid to take the bus tour and about 25 percent more visited the VIC which is free. Mr. Fiti~y. Is that up, Mike, or is that about the same Mr. Ross. It's down. Mr. MALAGA. It's down slightly, about 2.6 percent. Mr. Fi~r. How does it compare to Disney World ~ Mr. Ross. Our attendance so far this year is down about 17 percent from last year. Disney doesn't give out figures, but the other major attractions, such as Cypress Gardens, Silver Springs, St. Augustine, and others, are down between 25 and 40 percent. Now, oddly enough, the counts at the Florida highway tour stations show that the number of tourists coming into Florida are down only about 10 percent. Mr. FUQUA. What about places like Sea World or some of the others? Mr. Ross. Sea world is down, between 25 and 40 percent for the year. Mr. FUQUA. In the past, you have gotten figure~ from Disney World, I thought. Mr. Ross. We don't get~ official figures from them. FIGURE 6 PAGENO="0093" 89 In addition to the 1.1 million taking the tour and another 300,000 visiting here, we had about 600,000 visiting the bicentennial exposition on science and technology (fig. 6). Mr. Fiu~r. You've incorporated the Apollo 11 launch show in the bus tour, haven't you? Mr. Ross. We did for the Christmas season and we will again as soon as we get equipment, so the show can be completely automated. That's the firing room No. 3 show. We want to bring that down to the point where a single attendant can push a button and~ the entire show goes on and then at the end of the show it recycles. Otherwise we couldn't afford it as long as we keep the bus tour price at the level it is now. Mr. Fi~r. What about the advertising we did on "To see a launch, dial 800-423-2153," did that have any impact? Mr. Ross. Yes, a significant number of people come to KSC for the expendable launch vehiciG launches. For example, for the NATO launch last week, TWA sold 17 bus loads of admissions. The public buys tickets for a regular bus tour on the night of the launch and they are taken to the viewing site for that launch, and if there is a launch, they see it from a good vantage point. If there is not a launch, they don't. get a rain check. That has been very popular with the public. (Fig. 5) This building, on the right, Hall of History, is new. It was acquired as a part of the exposition. The new food service facility, cafoteria~ is in the lower left corner of this picture. Mr. FUQUA. You moved the cafeteria out ~of the other building? Mr. Ross. Space is now used for space applications exhibits. Here is a picture of the exposition (fig. 6). This was a very successful show with 600,000 visitors during the 101 days it was open. PAGENO="0094" 90 FIGuRE 8 FIGURE 9 PAGENO="0095" This display (fig. 7), a part of the bus tour, is in the flight crew training building. The Lunar module is the one Dave Scott was going to use. It was not equipped to handle a Lunar rover and by the time Dave was ready to fly, the Lunar rover was ready, so this module was set aside, and the next LM was used to go to the Moon. Mr. Ross. Then we show a display on the simulated lunar surface, the Apollo lunar surface, experiments that the astronauts are deploy- ing, which is still operational on the Moon. This is the Hall of History (fig. 8) and here are a couple of pictures o fthe exhibits and displays inside (figs. 9 and 10). This has been extremely popular. Mr. FREY. Did much of that equipment come from the exposition ~ Mr. Ross. Some, about 20 percent of the NASA exhibits used at the bicentennial exposition are now being used at the VIC, the re- maining are at other NASA centers. Mr. FREY. But these are artifacts. Mr. Ross. Yes, many are artifacts. These are the property of the Smithsonian Institute and are on a long-term loan to NASA. The ne~ttwo viewgraphs (figs. 11 and 12) show the extensive use of Apollo/Saturn facilities for the Shuttle program. The only major Fiøuas 10 PAGENO="0096" 92 FIGURE 11 PAGENO="0097" 93 facility in this industrial area we are not going to use is the antenna site. We found that's not needed so we closed it down; but we will use the operations and checkout building, the fluid test complex buildings and the Spacecraft assembly and encapsulation facility will play a major role in our payload checkout and we'll see that a little later. At complex 39, we'll use the VAB, both launch pads, the converter compressor facility, and the runway which you landed on this FIGuRE 12 92-082 0 - 77 - 7 PAGENO="0098" 94 morning. Launch pad A is being modified now for the Shuttle. We will use the cape industrial area (fig. 13) facilities which we have been using to check out the automated spacecraft which are presently launched with the expendable launch vehicles. We'll also use this hangar and the barge dock for receiving, cleaning and disassembly of the solid rocket boosters~ They will be towed back' to the mainland through the port locks to the cape and will be brought ashore here and disassembled, washed-down, and shipped back to the manufacturer for complete refurbishment and reloading of the solid propellant. FIGURE 13 PAGENO="0099" 95 KSC LAUNCH SCHEDULE CV 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 MANNED PROGRAMS SHUTTLE FCF PAL FMOF SHUTTLE SPACE LAB A INTERIM UPPER STAGE A SPIN-STABILIZED UPPER STAGE EXPENDABLE VEHICLES DELTA - ETA DELTA-WTR A A A AAA ATLAS/CENTAUR - ETA AAAA AAAA AAAA ATLAS-F-WTR AAA A A A A A A TITAN/CENTAUR - ETA AA FAL - FIRST ORBITER APPROACH & LANDING 6 LAUNCHED ASCHEDLJLED REVISION 1-28-77-1 FCF - FIRST CAPTIVE FLIGHT FMOF FIRST MANNED ORBITAL FLIGHT FIGU1~E 14 The next viewgraph (fig. 1) shows our schedule for Shuttle and expendable vehicle launches. The orbiter was towed to the Dryden Flight Research Center last Monday and we have some pictures of what we want to show you. Mr. WINN. We probably saw them on TV. Mr. Ross. Yes, that was good coverage. The first orbital flight is scheduled for March 1979, and the Shuttle will be operational in 1980, as shown. In the meantime we have a very active program with the expendable launch vehicles, with 18 scheduled this year, 20 next year. We launched one, NATO, last week. We don't show Scout launches, since we're not involved in those, so you see some differences between our totals and those reported elsewhere. Mr. FUQITA. That's mostly at Wallops isn't it? Mr. Ross. Yes; Wallops and the western test range. We do have a crew at the western test range to launch the Delta, vehicles. For this year, there will be 18 launches, 13 will be reimbursable to NASA and 5 are NASA launches. Mr. FUQUA. I see in your other chart that after 1980 you don't plan on any more expendable launches here. Mr. Ross. The schedule shows approved and funded flights only. The out years tend to fill up the page as you come within 3 years of the launch date. We expect a phase-in of Shuttle. usage, and there may be some more expendable launch vehicles than we show on this chart. This is only accurate for the coming 3 years. PAGENO="0100" 96 Mr. FUQUA. The point I was making is that you will I assume, be using the Shuttle after 1980? Mr. Ross. Yes; we will, as rapidly as possible. Mr. FUQUA. With that schedule going Out to 1984 at the western test range, does that mean they're not going to be ready? Mr. Ross. The operational date for the western test range is- Dr. GRAY. 1982 or 1983-it's further out. The expe.ndables are used until the Shuttle is available at Vandenberg. Mr. FUQUA. You show them as far as 1984. Dr. Gpxy. Well those are the Atlas-F class missions which would likely transition to Shuttle. Mr. Ross. These are here to show there is a mission and if the Shuttle is ready to launch that mission, then the Shuttle will be used. Mr. FREY. But the dropoff is going to be quick, Mike, so nobody's going to say with our mission profile that we are really using both anyway. Mr. Ross. ~Just as rapidly as we can use the Shuttle, we will stop using expendable launches because they are so much more expensive. Mr. FREY. Is there going to be a significant dropoff? EXPENDABLE VEHICLES LAUNCH SCHEDULE [~ThMIA1MRI~I A S 0 N D 27 ~ NATO III B 10 ~ PALAPA-B 15 Q HEAO-A 20 ~2% ESRO-GEOS 25 ~ GOES-B 9 INTELSAT IVA F 3 16L~ESA-OTS 1~ JAPAN-GMS 1d~ sIi~IoI 20 Q M.~S-A 30 `fi' MJS-B 31 E~ ESA-METEOSAT 29A LANDSAT-C (WTR) 6~O INTELSAT VA F-4 13 A ISEE-A/B 17~ JAPAN-CS 290 FLEET SAT COM-A 14I4~ IUE LAUNCH VEHICLES A DELTA 0 ATLAS/CENTAUR TITAN/CENTAUR ATLAS-F ~f~MIAlMtJI A ~12~J~ 12~ GOES-C (C/U) INTELSATIVAF~ 23~JAPAN-BSE 2 ® COMSTAR D-3 23L2~ WESTAR-C (d/U) 2O~ NATd Ill-C c~ SEASAT (WTR) 180 PIONEER/VENUS-A 25~ JAPAN-B)U isO HEAd-B 22~ ESA-MAROTS 0 TIROS-N (WTR) 23A ISEE-C I I 170 PIONEER/yE RCA C (C/ 7A, NIMBUS 280 INTELSA NOAd 9~ T 300 FL FIGURE 15 The NASA launches here-figure 15-include the Mariner-Jupiter- Saturn, MJS, and the International Sun-Earth Explorers. This is a joint mission with the European Space Agency. The United States 1977 1978 INSIDE L/V SYMBOL DESIGNATES REIMBURSABLE MISSION JANUARY 19, 1977 ~JUS-B S (WTR) IVAF-6 -A(WTR) ~LSAT-D EETSATCOM-B PAGENO="0101" 97 is building spacecrafts A and C and ESA people will furnish space- craft B and these will be launched as a pair and go into a highly elliptical orbitof 190,000 by 160 miles and once they are in orbit, they will be separated, and operated at a controlled distance from each other. PAGENO="0102" 98 Now a quick look at the expendable launch vehicle program- Figures 16 and 16A. This NATO vehicle `was launched last week, a successful launch, so our record so far- Mr. FUQUA. Is this a communications satellite? Mr. Ross. Yes, it is. We had 13 launches last year, and all were successful for a 100-percent record. We hope to do the same thing this year. Mr. FUQUA. Who built the payload for that? Mr. Ross. Ford Aerospace and Communications Corp. FIGURE 16-A PAGENO="0103" 90 Mr. Ross. This is Westar, a rej~resentative payload for a Delta- figure 17. This We:star is used for facsimile transmission of the Wall Street Journal. It's transmitted from a plant in Massachusetts and received by a station in Orlando, page by page, and then is printed by offset press. A very practical use, we get the Wall Street Journal in good time. i~'IGURE 17 PAGENO="0104" 100 FIGUtE 18 PAGENO="0105" 101 FIGURE :19 PAGENO="0106" 102 FIGuRE 20 PAGENO="0107" 103 FIGURE 21 PAGENO="0108" 104 Next, the Atlas-Centaur Complex-figures 18-19-this was a Corn- star launch. The spacecraft was built by Hughes, it is owned and op- erated by Comsat General and leased to A.T. & T. who in conjunction with GTE, operate communications capability with 14,000 telephone circuits that cover all 50 States and Puerto Rico. This is Intelsat 4- figure 20-which is representative of the payloads carried by Atlas- Centaur. Next, the Titan-Centaur launch pad-figures 21 and 22. We will have two launches from pad 41 this summer-the Mariners to Jupiter/ Saturn. This is the Viking spacecraft-figure 23. Here is the Orbiter-figure 24-~on the day of roliout at Palmdaie. The Orbiter was towed to the Dryden Flight Research Center last FlouRs 22 PAGENO="0109" 1.05 Monday-figure 25. Then it was placed in the mate/demate device which we see over here-figure 27-raised free of the transporter, the landing gear lowered and the Orbiter was lowered to the ground. Here it is being towed to the hangar for weight and balance test-~-figure 26. That test was completed yesterday, and the Orbiter will now go back into the mate/demate device to be lifted. This 747 will be towed di- rectly under it and the two will be mated* and taken to a hangar for mated ground vibration tests which will take place next week. One of the mods on the 747 are these mounts, forward and aft, for receiving the Orbiter. FIGURE 23 PAGENO="0110" 106 FIGURE 24 FIGURE 25 PAGENO="0111" 107 ]~iauiu~ 26 FIGUR1~ 27 PAGENO="0112" 108 Mr. FtTQUA. How does that lift work ~ Mr. Ross. Three hooks come down here powered by winches on the ground to pick up the Orbiter at the lift points. We'll see a model of this in the model room as soon as we're through here. You'll get a real good feel for how this whole device works, including these work platforms which can be lowered to provide access to of the Orbiter. Dr. GRAY. There are attach points on the side of the Orbiter. Mr. Ross. The Orbiter is about the size of a DC-9, or the height of a Delta [figures 28 and 29]. FIGURE 28 PAGENO="0113" 109 sTERS EEl) DELTA 2914 DELTA 3914 ATLAS TITAN SHUTTLE CENTAUR CENTAUR 3,900 lbs 5,720 lbs 10,300 lbs N/A EARTH ORBIT 660 lbs 1,025 lbs 1.980 lbs 7,250 lbs SYNCHRONOUS ORBIT FIGURE 29 FIGURE 30 92-082 0 - 77 - 8 PAGENO="0114" 110 KSC MAJOR SHUTTLE FACIUTIES + LANDING FACILITY- ~ ~11 PAYLOAD *1 ~ VEHICLE ASSEMBLY BUILDING SRB PROCESSING & STORAGE 5MB REFURBISHMENT & SUBASSEMBLY SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE SHOPS 1~ AT PER 5 01 MAINTENANCE FACILITY CE~TEft FIGuRE 31 FIGURE 32 PAGENO="0115" 111 Here is `the Shuttle mission profile [figure 30]. The first lat~nches will be at pad 39A [figure 31] and the most significant change at the launch pad is the addition of a payload changeout room [figure 32] so payloads can be installed while the Orbiter is at the launch pad. The Air Force plans to use that almost exclusively. NASA will use that for some payloads, and will install some payloads horizontally in the Orbiter processing facility. Also we took the umbilical tower off the mobile launcher and reinstalled about two-thirds of it right at the launch pad, in a permanent installation. Mr. FREY. Do you use the escape hatch chair for the launches like you `did on other launches? Mr. Ross. There are ejection seats for the pilot and copilot for those flights with only two people aboard. Dr. `GRAY. We have the ingress/egress arm which will be used simi- larly to its use on Apollo. Mr. CLARK. We only have the slide wires-we don't have the slide tubes down inside of the pad, we took those out. We only usethe slide wires as emergency egress. Mr. FREY. We're talking about getting in and out `of the cabin, you mean? If h~ goes for a ride, how is he going to get out? Mr. FUQUA. That was my question also. Mr. Ross. While the vehicle is on `the pad, the crew will egress from the Orbiter through the side hatch, cross the access arm and jump in one of five two-man slide-wire baskets to slide down to the groun'd and then proceed to a bunker. Essentially the same slide-wire system as we had for Apollo. We don't have the rocket-propelled launch escape system. Mr. FREY. How long would `that take-2 minutes? Mr. Ross. `That's `from the time they leave their seat and get to the ground. When you have to you can get out in a hurry. Dr. GRAY. Since their seats are on the upper deck, they have to leave them and go to the lower deck, open the hatch, through the hatch to the egress arm, across the arm to the tower and then down the slide wire to the ground. Mr. Ross. They can leave their seats and be outside the Orbiter in less than 30 seconds. For the recovery of the booster (fig. 33) we will use this hangar as the receiving facility after they're towed back to the mainland. The Orbiter processing facility (fig. 35) will be the first stop for the Orbiter after it has landed (fig. 34) and has been towed along the tow way into a bay where we have work stands (fig. 36) for complete access to the Orbiter for safing, deservicing, removal of the payload, refurbishment of the thermal protection system and any other systems on the Orbiter that need refurbishing, and for installation of a new payload if the payload is scheduled for horizontal installation. The Orbiter is then towed next door to the VAB (fig. 37) where in the meantime the solid rocket booster and external tank have been as- sembled. The Orbiter is attached to the tank, and the complete as- sembly is rolled out to the launch pad. PAGENO="0116" 112 FIGURE 33 PAGENO="0117" 113 FIGURE 34 PAGENO="0118" 114 FiGURE 35 FIGmu~ 36 PAGENO="0119" 115 VEHICLE ASSEMBLY BUILDING C OF F CONSTRUCTION FACILITY CONTRACTS FACILITY CONTRACT Al FACILITY CONTRACT A2 FACILITY CONTRACT B FACILITY CONTRACT D FACILITY CONTRACT FIauR~ 37 TWR ET PROC AL~ &STOR-\ FIGURE 38 PAGENO="0120" 116 High bay No. 3 and No. 4 (fig. 38) will be used for our so-called first flow. Assembly and checkout of the Shuttle, SEB processing and storage, and external tank processing and storage will take place here also. Portions of the SRB's that we refurbish will go to the low bay area. Mr. Fimy. Do you have any percentage figure that we could use or talk about because I think you have done a super job in using the existing facilities. I've never really seen an overall figure percentage in terms of either cost or investment in what we're using for the Shuttle. Mr. Ross. I'd say we're using approximatQly 95 percent or some- where between 95 and 100 percent, of the facilities we used on Apollo. The new facilities we've built have been only the Orbiter processing facility, and the runway. Mr. FREY. I don't think that you've really been given enough of a pat on the back for that. I think that that's super, really. The Govern- ment has gotten it's money's worth out of this. Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Frey. FIGURE 89 PAGENO="0121" 117 FIGURE 40 PAGENO="0122" 118 Then we will roll out (fig. 39), on the rec:onfigured mc~bile launch platform-reconfigured to provide exhaust paths both for the solid rockets and the three main engines in the Orbiter similar to the Apollo rollout (fig. 40). We use the same crawler-transporter (fig. 41) with no moçlifications from Apollo. The Crawlers by the way, were designated a ~ational Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark yesterday by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. And I think Ray Clark, in his talk, indicated that they are good for another 5,000 miles. Mr, CLARK. They're going to have to be good. Mr. Ross. Work on the Crawlers started in 1962 and we will be using them for at least 10 more years, into the 1980's and 1990's. FIGURE 41 ) PAGENO="0123" 119 This is the pad configuration (fig. 4~) as it will look with the pay- load ohangeout room and the Space Shuttle access tower, same ham- merhead crane- Mr. FUQUA. And that rolls away? FIGm~E 42 PAGENO="0124" 120 Mr. Ross. Yes; this swings aside on these tracks to the packed posi- tion. We can see this under construction over here (fig. 43) in fact we are using one of the mobile launchers to provide it support for the main beams at the bottom of the payload changeout room. This tower is complete. I wanted to bring up this picture (fig. 44) to show the simpler opera- tion we will have on Shuttle. You recall we had nine service arms; five of which swung aside only after the vehicle lifted % inch. They were very expensive to maintain and operate. For the Orbiter we'll have only two access arms, the one for crew access into forward cabin, `and one for a hydrogen vent line. - FIGURE 43 PAGENO="0125" 121 Mr. FUQtTA. Do you have a chart on the abort, in case there is an abort, the procedure? Mr. Ross. We don't have a chart in this morning's briefing, but the Orbiter will have the oapthility to return to the launch site and land on the runway in case of an off-pad abort. Mr. FUQUA. Suppose at lift-off there was a problem. Mr. Ross. If there is a problem, that says the crew should not go into orbit, they would return to the Shuttle runway, without going into orbit. If this should happen later on, there is also a mode that calls for a FIGURE 44 PAGENO="0126" 122 once around abort and return to launch site. Or they could land at Edward's, the secondary landing site. Mr. FtTQUA. Suppose that 1 minute after lift-off there is a problem. Fuel is not flowing properly, for example. Mr. Ross. Or the main engines don't work. Mr. FTJQUA. Yes; or two of them cut out or something like that. Mr. Ross. They continue until solid rocket booster burnout. Mr. FTJQTJA. They have to wait until the SRB's burnout? Mr. Ross. Yes. There is no capability to jettison a burning SRB. Mr. FUQUA. That would be dangerous, too, I guess. Dr. GRAY. It's not possible ~s a matter of `fact to separate mechani- cally. The only options you've got, as long as they have the ejection seats, you could use the ejection seats. Once they are taken out, and they are only flown for the first few missions, the only option you've got is to continue to SRB burnout at which time you can separate. Mr. FUQUA. That's 2 minutes? Dr. GRAY. Ye's; that's about 2 minutes. Then, if two of the three main engines are `still working, in other w'ords, the problem did not involve them, you can return to launch site or proceed to orbit `and return to a landing site from orbit. Mr. FUQUA. Can you jettison the big fuel tank? Dr. GRAY. The external tank? It `would `depend on which way you go. The big fuel tank would stay with you if you proceed to orbit, and the fuel tank would stay with you on a return to launch site. This is because - you'd have to power the engines to turn the Orbiter around and bring it back to the mainland. Yo'u would then drop the tank off the coast and the Orbiter would then coast to the KSC runway. Now if the problem was failure of more than `one `of the three `main engines, after th'e solids shut down, you would separate the Orbiter from the tank `and ditch it in the Atlantic Ocean, that would be the `only remaining alternative. [Material submitted for the record follows:] PAGENO="0127" SHUTTLE LAUNCH ABORT REVIEW PAGENO="0128" SCOPE OI~ RCVIIW INTflOL)UCTION AND OVERVIEW REIURU TO TtIE LAUNCH SITE AI3OItT ONCE AROUND/MIORT 1'O ORBIT PAGENO="0129" OVERALL BACKGROUND 0 o ADORT CAPABILITY PROViDES PROTECTION AGAINST FAILURES WHICH ARE BOTH CREDIBLE MD CRITICAL O INHERENt IN TUE SHUTTLE DESIGN, CREDthLE FAILURES DO NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF CRITICAL FUNCTION THIS IS ACCOMPLISHE.D IN THE SHUTTLE DESIGN BY: SELECTION OF COMPONENTS WITH GENERIC RELIABILITY * REDUNDANCY * SAFETY MARGINS PAGENO="0130" LOSS OF CRITICAL FUNCTION o uO PLANNED JWORT PROTECTION AGAINST THE FOLLOWING HIGHLY IMPROBABLE CRITICAL FAILURES RESULTING IN A LOSS OF CRITICAL FUNCTiON * ET RUPTURE/EXPLOSION * SRB BUk~TUROUGU * 0 MAJOR STRUCTURAL FAILURE .0 COMPLETE LOSS OF GUIDANCE AND/OR CONTROL 0 FAILURE TO IGNITE 1 SRB * LOSS OF THRUST FROM 1 SRB * SSM~OR SRE3 TVC H.ARDOVER * FAILURE TO SEPARATE ORBITER FRO~I ET * NOZZLE FAILURE o PREMATURE SRB SEPARATION 0 THESE FAILURCS ARE HIGHLY IMPROBABLE BECAUSE OF THE SHUTTLE DESIGN; GENERIC RELIABILITY, REDUNDANCY, SAFETY MARGINS PAGENO="0131" TYPES OF ABORT 4 o THERE ARE TWO CATIS~OR1LS OF ABORT CAPABILITY; iNTACT AND CONTiNGENCY o FIRST LET US CONSIDER THE INTACT TYPE, TIlE FOUNDATION OF TUE SHUTTLE ABORT CAPABiLITY I. INTACT DEFiNITION 0 SAFE RETU~t4 OF PERSONNEL, PAYLOAD, AND ORBITER TO RUNWAY DES It1N CRiTERIA ~ ~ ACTUAL Cb,~ABiLITY ~ ~ 0 PROTECTIOR AGAINST COlIPLETE OR PARTIAL LOSS OF THRUST FROM ONE ORBiTER flAIR ENGINE ~ o OR LOSS OF ThRUST FROM OUt ORBITAL ttAHEUVER!NG SYSTEM LUGIRE 0 PROVIDES TUE NICESSARY ABORT CAPABILITY FOR OTHER FAILUPF.S. EXNIPLES INCLUDE o LOSS OF 2 COIPLETE AVIONICS STRINGS 0 LOSS OF ONE HYDRAULIC AUXILIARY POWER UNIT o SONE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM FAILURES o LOSS OF ONE ORBITER MAIN ENGINE PLUS ONE ORBITAL MANEUVERiNG SYSTEM ENGINE PAGENO="0132" 5 ci TYPES OF INTACT AGORTS ORBITAL RA?;EUVERIHG sYsrE:t (~:IS) AIID REATJO~ CO~1TROL SYSTEM (RCS) BUIUZS (MO) 4 V2 HR STAGIUG EUTRY I ~cI~1~T ft~Kl~cT 90 MIN [i~K IMPACTj L~!~DIt~G 1 PAGENO="0133" ABORT MODE BOUNDARIES *800 700 HIGH LOW 600 PERFOR;IAIICE PERFO; ~~CE MISSION fISSION RETURN TO MECO LAUNCH SITE MECO (HILS) FKC1I. LIFT 400 ABORT ONCE (SEcs) AROUND (AOA) 300 0 ABORTTO 200 ORBIT (Rio) STAGING .0 PAGENO="0134" KEY EVENTS IN AN INTACT ABORT PRE-?~ECO OtIS/RCS SEQUEUCU4G FOR PERF0R~t4F~CE AND/OR C.G. CONTROL PAGENO="0135" 8 :* CONTINGENCY ABORT EVALUATION AREAS {~~TCflTI/\L TO BE EXPLO~I J CUNRENTLY CAPABILITY I [~uocS NOT EXIST TANK SOLID ROCKET SEPARATION BOOSTERS .IO~l NAL TRAJECTORY LANDIU~ SITE / I LOAD RELIEF BANKED TURN PAGENO="0136" .TITUDE, FT 400K 300K 200K ~O0K REPRESENTATIVE COUT IUGEt1CY ABORT (VALUATION AREAS (ALL (HOllIES OFF) 9 LOAD RELIEF REQUiRED L____ L0 \` ~ ;~ ~ ~ , \ ~" \ ~ %\ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ ~\ ~ ~ ~ PePt~4flP4 $ t~ w t a S~ :~e fl It n ~4 n ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ `>~, ~ > ~ ~` : ~ ~ ~` ` ,~ \ , ~ ~ z~ ~O~] ~ I ~ ~4;k I~ ~ I ;~te ~ ~ ~ /<~ ` TITA ~w17~ 1fl~1 2~72t~ ~flw ~fl? 23~fl*~ S I44~ `fl~ 1 ~!fl UI %j N ~ ~`~rMetok 4$4 I' P~ø3~ ~L4~ $;~8 ~ $atL ivni ~ iLfld ~tIflt ~ ` &M~. üti ~I!ith ` $4IN ~ ; > 4I~$: ~ `4&m ~ ~øS ~ ~ ~ 1W hr , ~ ~ ~ s~i; fl. ~ ~ , *Q `~ *U ~ A{fl ~ ~fl ~ II~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ :~44s 1$Iq ~ ta~ t~fl ~ ç~II 4:i'tF: t~ ,~ >\ I ~ ` \~t$i~ *4S ~ ~ ~ 4~? ~~1a4~ > ~ *. )*(S~ flft I$14'I ~ ~ 0. ~ ~v&«=# `i24$O'~ FIGURE 75 PAGENO="0170" 166 think might be interesting to you (figs. 78 and 79). The first thing of interest is the outside envelope of that total employment curve. You can see the buildup to the Apollo program in 1969, peaking out just under 26,000 and a very rapid buildup and even a more rapid decline once we landed on the Moon. There are two slight blips that you will see, one here in 1972, and in 1973 as we geared up again for the Skylab program; another decline and another slight buildup with ASTP; still another.decline as .we got ready for the site activation for the STS. Now another point, the civil service line you see down below, has FIGURE 79 PAGENO="0171" 167 stayed relatively constant. It built up to just under 3,000 during peak Apollo but this was a very conscious and deliberate decision that what we would do with civil service people is to have them responsible, technically and managerially for program control integration and in the final analysis the final decisions on mission success. We also must have a civil service staff for those functions which the Government cannot contract for. For example we can't contract for financial management, we can't contract for procurement, we can't contract personnel operations. Mr. WINN. I'm sorry I djdn't hear you. You can't contract for what kind of management? Mr. MALAGA. Financial management and personnel operations. What we did was to rely on industry to really do the detailed design, the fabrication, the construction., the development, the installation and the maintenance and operation of the facilities here. The Govern- ment had the `hard-core cadre and industry did the major part of the work. You can see what happened as the program grew and then declined, the outline pretty much demonstrates that. Another thing Mr. Ross mentioned, the timelines on Apollo and the Shuttle. We are talking about 3 months to process Apollo for launch go'in~ down to 160 hours to process Shuttle for launch. Now these are pl'annmg values but assuming that we do achieve 160 hour turnaround time for the Orbiter, then those values are essentially what we think we will see and that's just under 10,000 people. Included in this is a very, very rough estimate of tenants that we think, based on past experience, might approximate 1,200. I think with all the potential uses `of the Shuttle, that estimate of tenants is understated. I think that there will be a lot more people down here working on payloads, working on experiments, but for planning purposes and because we must provide base support to the on-site population, we have put in the figure `of 1,200 people. Mr. FUQUA. What makes you think that? Mr. MALAGA. This is just my personal opinion. I think that we are just beginning to really appreciate what the Shuttle is going to do and the uses we put it to and the number of people that `are going to be working `on it. Every day we are seeing moro `and more private enter- prise interest in supporting experiments, grants, the whole bit. Now, if you compare that value of 1,200 to the days when we were essentially doing expendable launch vehicle operations; building up for Apollo here, and again for ASTP, it's not very far from that. But we're talk- ing about 40 launches a year. And I think we will probably see a substantial increase in that value. I don't know who shares this view, but I personally feel that way. Mr. FUQUA. Well, we talk about 40 launches but I sure haven't seen them yet. And I am concerned about that. Mr. Ross. We have n~t talked at all about the mission model and what the payloads `are for this. Have you had a briefing on that yet? Mr. F1JQTJA. Not recently. Mr. FREY. I have a question, too, about the morale. A lot of people say the Civil Service comes through `this super~ They're doing my iob and that they have taken it away from me. This guy really doesn't know how to do it and I tell him how to do it `and h&s sitting there PAGENO="0172" 168 because he doesn't have anything else to do They're riding a good thing How's that problem ~ Mr FUQUA That's what you're supposed to straighten out Mr FREY YeS , that's why I'm looking for an answer Mr MALAGA Mr Frey, let me make two comments One, the civil service complement did not grow in proportion to the total growth nor did it come down in the same proportioti The big increase took place in industry and obviously when a program is matured, the biggest re duction has to take place there Second, it is my observation that people who don't have a piece of hardware to kick around and really wrap their arms around, get concerned about who's doing what to whom and I think that situation will clarify There is no real movement from a contractor operation to a civil service type operation, quite the con trary We're making a fundamental change here in current mdustry/ Government relationships What we're attempting to do with portions of the two contracts which are being completed right now-the CISS contract and the GSO contract-is to give the fundamental respon sibility for getting the job done to industry and having him, using his ingenuity, his imagination, tell us the best way to do it Now, it's not a large step but it's a step in that direction And I'm sure that you're aware of the pressures that we suffer to keep the civil service staff from growing And if I showed you the requirements line estimated by this gentleman who has to worry about launching and turning that Shuttle around and this gentleman who has to worry about getting the site ac tivated you would see the hard constraints we're working under Mr KAPRYAN I think that if you were to make a significant reduc tion in civil servants there would have to be a philosophical change in the way we do business Now, that doesn~t mean that it can't happen but having been involved in the manned space flight program since its inception, I've seen it evolve into a check and balance system where the contractors and the civil service engineers work together You've got two sets of eyes and brains that work problems, I personally feel that this system has contributed to a large degree to the success that we have had We can say "get the Civil Service the heck out of here" and you can just have a couple of administrators to sign the paychecks for the contractors You can do it, but that's not our philosophy Mr FREY I was really asking Kappy, too, because I've lived with this from the beginning too Just where are things in your opinion in terms of the morale For instance, today, how many jobs do we have g Mr MALAOA Civil Service ~ Mr Fi~r Both Mr Ross Altogether about 8,500 Mr MALAGA 8~500 or 8 600 people on ~ includin~~ t~rn~nt~ who would sort of suffer the kinds of emotions that you are talking about Mr FREY So roughly you are looking at, I assume that is the new fiscal year kind of thing, 1,500 jobs or so over the next 2 or 3 years Mr Ross There will be a significant change in the mix of people here The construction work force will phase down The flight hard- ware contractors will build up PAGENO="0173" 169 Mr. FREY. When you're looking at those numbers, they are mislead- ing because those numbers also include the construction things. Mr. Ross. You can say construction but this group will begin to phase down. Mr. MALAGA. But this includes the element contractors as well as the support contractors. And this mi~ begins to change but it does grow and peak as we get this place ready. It grows until we get the `site activated, get development testing under way and then when we finally get to a steady State operation with the 160-hour turn around time, at around 9,400 or 9,500 people. Mr. FREY. So we're going to have the stability here that we have lacked for years. Mr. MINDERMAN. We have passed the depth of the valley and we're starting up the curve. - Mr. MALAGA. We think we have passed them. Mr. MINDERMAN. Unless something happens to the budget, we don't know about. Mr. Ross. Now we think that one of the most important things to do is be quite open on what we see in the future, with the community peo- ple. And we've always done that but they don't always listen to you but they tend to listen through rose-colored glasses, to mix a metaphor. Mr. FREY. Either dark gray ones or rose-colored. Mr. Ross. Of course many of the complaints that we hear come from the employees of one cOntractor complaining that the contract is being recompeted, which we're required to do, or is being meshed with an- other contract or that we've consolidated the contract with the Air Force to provide joint services. Mr. FREY. Some of those problems are compounded because the Eastern Test Range is being treated one way and at the Western Test Range they've extended some of their contracts for 2 years without competition. Right? Mr. MALAGA. But, we've extended some here. Mr. FREY. When? Mr. Ross. Where we can justify it we have extended. For example the support contract operated by Bendix was extended as longS as the flight hardware contractors were here because the Bendix mission was so close to the launch contractor's mission, in some areas they were hardly distinguishable and it wasn't reasonable to consider bringing on an entirely new crew to run the launch or to do the job that Bendix had. Mr. FREY. It's the same problem with natural gas-you allocate what you don't have. In one case gas, in another case jobs. Mr. Ross. I expect that you would see some more complaints if we proposed to consolidate more contracts with the Air Force. We have several now and they are very cost effective to operate, particularly where support equipment is involved. Then both agencies don't have ~o have duplicate equipment. PAGENO="0174" FIGuRE 80 COMPARISON OF KSC MINORITY EMPLOYEES (PERMANENT) vs TOTAL KSC WORK FORCE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF % OF DATE EMPLOYEES MIN EMPLOYEES WORK FORCE 12-31-74 2300 83 3 6 12-31-76 2247 121 5 4 NET -53 +38 +1 8 (- DECREASE) (+ INCREASE) FIGITRR 81 170 PAGENO="0175" 171 Mr. MALAGA. Let me make one other point on the civil service com- ponent. The total component is dominated by scientific, technical and administrative professionals. (Figure 80.) You can see that our scien- tists and engineers comprise almost 54 percent, and professional a& ministrators almost 19 percent. That exceeds 70 percent and is roughly comparable to what you would see at Marshall, Johnson and Goddard, the development centers. We do have a few wage board people who worry about our airplanes that we operate down here. We do have a doctor who heads our medical activities and we do have some plant engineering and maintenance people who worry about the physical plant but who are non-AST engineers. One other poi~it. As you know NASA in general has been very concerned about improving the repre- sentation within its work force of minorities and females. There has been a lot, of work in the past few years. (Figure 81.) Although KSC is near the bottom end of the spectrum as to how many minorities we have, we also have been very busy. From December of 1974 to Decem- ber 1976 we have increased the percentage of minorities in the total work force from 3.6 percent to 5.4 percent. That's an increase of 45.8 percent. The significant thing is that it's the greatest increase, even though we perhaps had a greater distance to travel, of any NASA center and it is roughly three times what the agency has done in the same time period. So we are working this problem very actively. Mr. FtTQUA. But you've lost 53. Mr. MALAGA. We have lost 53 people in total but at the same time we've gained 38 minority employees. Mr. Ross. We've lost 53 employees but increased 38 minority employees. Mr. MALAGA. So even though the work force was coming down w~ were increasing the ratio. And it's getting very difficult. The com- petition is very keen. There are only so many minority people in the candidate pools. And you can't compomise quality. Mr. FTJQUA. What kinds of jobs are the~e? Mr. MALAGA. These are all professionals here. I'm sorry, these are professionals and clerical. Mr. Ross. What percentage of our professionals are minorities? It's smaller than the 5.4 percent. Most of our minority employees come from our co-op program which is very productive. Our biggest problem in hiring minorities is in the nonprofessional area, because we must hire from a register, and there is such a high unemployment rate in Brevard County that the register is filled. In fact, the register has been closed to new entrants for several months. So, there is much competition for jobs. Mr. MALAGA. We are meeting our objectives in hiring professional minorities and females. We have been falling short in the nonprofes- sional areas for exactly the reasons Mike just mentioned. But the biggest portion of those values is the professionals. Mr. Ross. This past year about 40 percent of our new professional * employees were minorities and women, and 23 percent of our non- professional new employees were minorities. PAGENO="0176" 172 Mr. MALAGA. You remember the organizational chart that Mr. Ross showed at the outset. I have taken here (figure 82) the major orga- nizations through which we acquire services from contractors. On the right hand side, we have management operations which I sort of worry about. It provides the classical base support type services which I'll explain in just a minute. If you add to that the medical piece which is the environmental and occupational medicine program, our safety and protective services, then you have completed the base sup- port kind of functions at KSC. We have technical support that Mr. Minderman worries about. It is probably one of the most difficult to understand because we have this great physical plant. We expend large amounts of money and use a large number of people doing exactly what it says here. But it is not very visible to people who don't come down and look at things that need modifying and refurbishing. Re- member we are building only two major new facilities for the Shuttle program. Everything else we're modifying, refurbishing and in the meantime doing necessary maintenance and operations in anticipation of the Shuttle operations. But I see little difference in technical sup- port or program support which is primarily funded by DTMO which for some reason does not leave a very good taste in some peoples' mouths but it's just as important as what we do in design engineering where we get all of our ground support equipment designed and pur- chased and facilities modified and the stage or element contractors that Mr. Kapryan worries about, to actually get things checked out and flying. FIGTJI~E 82 PAGENO="0177" 173 Mr. FUQUA. Who is United Space Boosters? Mr~ KAPRYAN. They won the booster assembly contract and are part of the United Technology Corp. (UTO).. FIGURE 83 Mr. MALAGA. Now this chart (figure 83) looks busy but what it really does is takes the organizations that I just mentioned and then describes the services. For example, management operations includes the supply and transportation functions, and documentation func- tions which are currently in the Boeing contract. The custodial func- tion, printing and reproduction, the mail function and library are all in the Directorate of Administration. This small piece represents the medical function. A good portion of the Boeing contract, labeled Support for the Dire~torate of Technical Support here, is the plant engineering and maintenance and that's what we are combining into the ground support operations contract which is being competed. It lines up organizationally and you also get some efficiencies by having a better utilization of skills. FEC, the current contractor in communi- cations and information systems is also being competed and we are well on the way with reviewing that. Bionetics takes care of calibra. tions. MSI (Management Services) takes care of chemical cleaning. Next in the circle, the space vehicle element stage contractors do the things that we mentioned earlier. I think that if you look at the con- tractors displayed this way and not to forget PRO, which does design engineering and drafting, and IBM on the LPS software, the heavy 92-082 0 - 77 - 12 PAGENO="0178" 174 involvement and wide variety of activities carried out by contractors is more important. You can better understand what's here locally and what's happening out on the site but a lot of work goes off base where we get design services, certain things fabricated, which are part of construction packages and also procure ground support equipment. So you will find a whole list of contractors throughout the activity. Mr. FUQUA. Are any of those minority contractors? Mr. MALAGA. Yes, sir, I'll show you that right now (fig. 84). Let me start with small business. In fiscal year 1976 we did about $20 mil- lion worth of business with small business enterprise in total. Over half of that was in Florida. That is somewhere around 12 or 13 per- cent of our total business, which is above the agency average for small business. The 8A set-asides for 1976 were 2.8' percent-that's also slightly above the agency average. In fact, we were the leading center up until last year. In our current fiscal year plans for 8A set- asides we are planning a level of activity comparable to what we did in 1976. Mr. Frn~y. In some areas are they picking you to death? Maybe you don't feel that way, but in some areas of the small business, are they picking different parts of contracts out and pulling them out and saying, OK, now that's small business and this is small business? FIGURE 84 PAGENO="0179" 175 Mr. MALAGA. We look very hard at the total procurement plans to find out what we can really put out for small business. * Mr. Ross. To answer your question, Mr. Frey, the SBA doesn't do that, we do. We propose breakouts from a large contract and then go to the SBA. Mr. MALAGA. We don't find the contractors. We find the items to procure, and then we go to SBA. Mr. Ross. There are some contracts we have proposed be let to mi- nority firms, but SBA was not able to locate a firm capable of doing the business. Some of the work we now contract to minority firms includes janitorial work, keypunch operations, and operation of our library. Mr. MALAGA. We're about to have the roads and grounds contract let to a minority firm. This will be a new contract. Mr. Ross. Many of the small facility jobs and the rehabilitation and modification contracts are let to minority owned firms. Restrip- ing and sealing the parking lots, roadways and as Mr. Malaga said, small roads and grounds contracts. The main problem we have is finding the firms qualified to do the work who are also qualified as minority-owned firms. FIGuRE 85 PAGENO="0180" 176 Mr.. MALAGA. I have called back the chart you saw earlier on the profile of total employment on site at KSC (fig. 78), to show how that matches the growth of Brevard County (fig. 85). Y~u see from the early 1960's to the 1970's that the population of Brevard `County doubled. And it continues to grow even though you can see a drop in total employment (fig. 86). Two-thirds of the people came off the rolls of KSC from 1967. I can't go retrospectively any further, be- cause we just can't get the data. We had just over 100,000 in the work force. You see back in those days that the combination of ETR and KSC comprised some 40 percent of that total local work force. This portion has since declined due to program adjustments to just under 20 percent and will stay substantially at this level even though we have this slight peak ahead of us. The work force has dipped from 1969 to 1970 and subsequently, primarily because these data were purged of those people coming from other counties, so that it is not quite comparable. But now what we are looking at from 1970 on is truly Brevard County. We grew in 1974. We had a slight decline indicated here in 1975 and 1976, yet the total population statistics show a continuing slight increase. FIGm~E 86 PAGENO="0181" 177 In terms of unemployment (fig. 87), as you know, things were pretty good as we built up for Apollo. The red line intheates the na- tional trend in unemployment. Read the percentages here. And Brev- ard was much, much below that because we had the intense buildup to get the site ready. Post Apollo saw the crossover and Brevard sud- denly exceeds by far the national average which actually in 1975 was over 14 percent. Looking `at this past year, which `began just under 14 percent, we've had some ups and downs as the tourist trade has changed. Now, as of December 31 we understand that we are some- thing like 10.9 percent unemployed. So that has come down consider- ably. That's our situation in terms of the local workforce. If there are no questions, that concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. FIGURE 87 PAGENO="0182" PAGENO="0183" FIELD HEARINGS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1977 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMIrrEE ON' SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,, STJBCOMMITPEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AIND APPLICATIONS, Michoud Assen~b7y Facility, New OrZea~ms, La. STATEMENT OP ROBERT C. LITTLEFIELD, MANAGER, MICKOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY Mr. LITrLEFIELD. Good morning, gentlemen, welcome to New Or- leans and the Michotid Assembly Facility. Mr. Chairman, I had pre- pared a short statement explaining the facility operation but in the interest of time I suggest that we skip most of it since much of the information is the same as my report to you last year. Chairman FUQUA. it will be placed in the record. Mr. LIrru~FIELD. I would, however, like to mLtke a few very brief comments with respect to our overall facility operation which I think is generally going rather well. We have cut out some frills, eliminated some functions-and learned that we can operate effectively in this plant with about 100 less people maintaining the facility, than we had toward the end of the Saturn program. It has also become very clear to me in the year I've been here that the greater utilization the Gov- ernment can make of this facility, the' better off we are on the space program. MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY MAJOR CONCERNS * FACILITY UTILIZATION * UTILITY COSTS FIGURE 1 (179) PAGENO="0184" 180 (Fig. 1.) At the present time, about 25 percent of our capacity is filled with tenants. These are the same organizations I mentioned last year and they, through reimbursements flowing from other Gov- ernment agencies to NASA, pay for approximately 25 percent of our costs. We still have around a 20-percent idle capacity. Actually it's presently about 15 percent, but Bell and the Navy, since they lost the large Surface Effects Ship contract here, are really going down in a hurry. So, I'm concerned about how we utilize the facility because I think it is very much to our advantage to fill it up as best we can. The other thing that continues to plague me i~ our soaring utilities costs- I believe this might have been mentioned in earlier testimony--as one of the examples of our rising costs~ (Fig. 2.) We have had and continue to have a very effective utilities conservation program here, but there is no question that as we build up to rate on the external tank, our power usage is going to grow corre- spondingly and the rates are going to go up too. We have reached the point to where utilities amount to about 31 percent of our total cost of operating the facility right now. So, that continues to bother us but we are continuing to try to keep these costs down. I really don't think I need say anything further right now and unless there are questions, I would like to introduce Mr. George Smith, vice president and director of Martin Marietta for the external tank program. MAF UTILITIES USAGE AND COST FIGu1~E 2 PAGENO="0185" 181 Congressman WINN. Bob, last year, I thought you were in the proc- ess of negotiating a special rate structure with the power and light company? Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I have talked to the New Orleans Public Service Inc. on a number of occasions. We are in the industrial category and we really do get an appreciable break. The thing that has concerned me recently rather than the rate, is that I was trying to convince them that we should be in a special category, insofar as natural gas curtail- ment was concerned. The rate situation that we have is as good as we can expect. I have been talking extensively with them for the last 2 weeks as to whether we can expect any natural gas interruptions. We have on board, 1 million gallons of fuel. We can convert our boilers to fuel oil and run this plant for a month-it will cost us a little more, but we can do it. So, I am not too worried about a short curtailment, but I get very confused input from them atout when it is going to happen, if at all. Their advice ranges from it might happen in a week to it may not hit us till next summer. Congressman WINN. I thought I remembered your comments on the utility costs from last year. [The prepared statement of Mr. Littlefield follows:] PAGENO="0186" 182 VISIT OP HOUSE SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS SUBCC~4ITTEE TO !4ICHOUD FEBRUARY 5, 1977 PAGENO="0187" 183 PRESENTATION BY ROBERT C. LITTLEFIELD, MANAGER, MAF TO HOUSE SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE FEBRUARY 5, 1977 Gentlemen, it is a pleasure to welcome you to New Orleans and to the Michoud Assembly Facility. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few brief remarks about the overall' facility operation before we begin the review of the External Tank program. (Figure 1) First, to orient you with respect to our location, Michoud is in the eastern part of the city of New Orleans approximately 15 miles from the central business district. The Slidell Computer Center is 24 miles northeast of Michoud in Slidell, La., and the National Space Technology Laboratories is approximately 44 miles away in the same direction in the State of Mississippi. Both the Michoud Assembly Facility and the Slidell Computer Center are part of the Marshall Space Flight Center and most of our shuttle propulsion testing for which MSFC is responsible will be accomplished at the National Space Technology Laboratories. There are 833 acres of land and slightly over 3.5 million sq. ft. under roof at MAF. One important aspect of our geographical location is that the Michoud Assembly Facility i's situated on the Mississippi Gulf Outlet. All External Tanks will be shipped from this site by barge as were the earlier Saturn stages. We hope to. show you our barges and port a little later if time permits. (Figure 2) Construction on Michoud began' In 1940 with the intent of producing liberty ships at the facility. The plant was essentially completed in September 1943 but the intended use was chav~ged from ship construction to the fabrication of wooden cargo airplanes. Two such aircraft were completed prior to the end of World War II. The facility was phased down and remained essentially inactive in a defense plant reserve status until the Korean war when Chrysler Corporation used part of the facility to assemble and test tank engines for the U. S. Army. NASA assumed ownership of the facility In late 1961 and the first stages of the Saturn lB and Saturn V vehicles were assembled at Michoud. The stages were used during the Apollo, Skylab and ASTP programs. In 1970 Michoud was baselined as the site for the assembly of the External Tank on the Shuttl.e program. In addition to the NASA program we have a number of tenant activities at Mlchoud whose presence here is based on formal agreements between NASA and other government agencies. An essential part of these agreements is that the tenants share in the costs of operating the facility. PAGENO="0188" 184 PAGENO="0189" MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY ___________________________ ________ HISTORY OF UTILIZATION ________ 1940 IL~ MARITIME COMMISSION ~r43 0 LSIERTY SHIPS WORLD WAR ff ~ ~L~JHSJ~tOANES 1945 RASSETS ADMIN 1991951 LLS ARMY WHAM ORO 0131 V TANK ENGINES/CHRYSLER }KOREAN WAR DECEMBER 1961 1~ISA TAKEOVER VI __ I i~ [III APOLLO p~p~j\ NASA PROGRAMS ~~w~LA.s.t PROG I __ _______ SHUTTLE `Ft ~IN1WY/5ECL/~ ~E~4GCULTURET OVERNMENT INTER AGENCY INVOLVEMEN U.S~ ARMYICORPS OF ENGRSI ~!I_ I ~CAA/D~A~T U S. ARM~/P~YSW1 1,50 1960 - - 1980 90011902 PAGENO="0190" 186 PAGENO="0191" 187 PAGENO="0192" 188 PAGENO="0193" 189 (FIgure 3) The purple area on this chart represents that space utilized by the Martin Marietta Corporation on the ET project. It is worth noting that on the ET project we added only one new building at MAF, the pneumatic test facility, Building 451. We hope to show you this on~the tour, time permitting. Mr. George E. Smith of Martin Marietta is going to review the El project in some detail in a moment so I will move on to the other operations here. When the total space requirements for the El project at Michoud were fully understood, it was apparent that our requirements utilized only approximately one-half of the total facility capability. At that time there were a few tenants already on board and we begap to attempt to attract other government operations to the facility since it was evident that greater utilization would be to NASA's advantage and would tend to offset the cost of overall facility operation.. This arrangement also results in a mutual benefit for these tenants. At this time tenants occupy approximately 25 percent of our total area and contribute approximately 25 percent of the funds required to operate the facility. Present tenant operations at Michoud include the Chrysler Corporation represented by the orange area in Building 103. (Figure 4) whose principal effort is supplying component parts on the M60 Al Tank program and~ pneumatic consoles for the Kennedy Space Center for ~the Shuttle program. The yellow area in Building 420 represents the space devoted to the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory(Figure 5) for performing impact acceleration and vibration tests on both primates and humans. They have requested additional space at Michoud for the installation of a motion simulator. The light green area principally in Building 350 is the Department of Agriculture who are our largest tenant. Their operations at Michoud (Figure 6) include the National Finance Center (Figure 7) and the New Orleans Computer Center. The blue area represents space presently occupied by the Bell Aerospace Corporation. (Figure 8) Their major current program is the JEFF-B Amphibious Assault Landing Craft. Bell and the Navy are in the process of a major retrenchment at Michoudas a result of the loss of the award of the large surface effects stiip contract. At the present time It appears that their operation at Michoud will shrink to a relatively small office requirement In Building 350 by late `spring of this year. Other organizations with operations at Michoud are the Defense Contract Administration Services, who perform quality assurance and 92-082 0 - 77 - 13 PAGENO="0194" 190 PAGENO="0195" 191 PAGENO="0196" I' 192 PAGENO="0197" MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY PERSONNEL STRENGTh AS OF 2-1-77 MARTIN MARIETTA AEROSPACE 1437 SUBCONTRACTORS 116 BOEING SERVICES INTERNATIONAL 208 SUBCONTRACTOR 21 NASA 36 SPACE DIV., ROCKWELL INT'L 1 DCAS 44 RED JANITORIAL 49 REGUARD 32 ROBINSON SUB-TOTAL 1977 TENANT AGENCIES: NAVY/BELL AEROSPACE (209) SUPSHIPS NRLNS (7) 216 ARMY/CHRYSLER CORP 173 NAVAL AEROSPACE MED. RESEARCH LAB. 73 U. S * DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 1032 20 CORPS OF ENGINEERS 50 DCAS 22 SUB-TOTAL 1586 TOTAL 3563 MAF 2-5-77 FIGURE NO. 9 PAGENO="0198" MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY MAJOR CONCERNS * FACILITY UTILIZATION * UTILITY COSTS MAF 2.5.77 FIGURE NO. 10 PAGENO="0199" MAF UTILITIES USAGE AND COST USAGE 2200 F, I, I, 5 2400 C) I, z 2000 w ~ -I ~ cJ~ 1800 ,0 1800 COST ________________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 141 CY 72 73 14 15 16 77 78 79 80 MAF 2-5-77 FIGURE NO. 11 PAGENO="0200" 196 contract administration for NASA and DOD in addition to having their area office at Michoud; the Defense Contract Audit Agency who perform contract audit functions for NASA and DOD; and the Corps of Engineers who conduct inspection' and contract administration on civil works projects, levees and flood control systems in southeast Louisiana. The grey area on the chart is unoccupied and represents over 15 percent of our total capacity. We are continuing to attempt to attract additional tenants to Michoud and at the same time are considering several retrenchment options which would close a number of the outlying buildings and concentrate our NASA effort in fewer buildings. (Figure 9) The present total personnel employed at MAF is 3,563. This is a drop of 216 from my report to you of last year. This reduction principally is a result of the phase down of Bell `S operation. I would like to point out that we presently have three 8a, (Red Janitorial, Reguard, and Robinson Printing) Minority Small Business, contracts at Michoud the value of which represents 28 percent of the total value of our facility operating contracts. (Figure 10) I would like to also point out what I feel are two of our major concerns with respect to the operation of the facility. The first point refers to our continuing effort to make maximum utilization of this site. As I previously mentioned it is definitely to NASA's advantage, and I believe to the advantage of other government agencies, to make maximum utilization of this facility. At MAF we are demonstrating that different government activities can work effectively together in a single government owned facility and by doing so can save overall government dollars while still meeting our commitments in the Space program. The second point is the continuing escalation in our utility costs. (Figure 11) At the present time utilities amount to 31 percent of our total operating cost. We have and will continue a very energetic and effective utility conservation program but are still faced with the prospect of ever increasing costs as we move into the production phase of the External Tank program. Overall, I believe the facility is being operated in a reasonably good cost effective manner. We have cut out some frills, eliminated some functions and found that we can do the work with about 100 less people than was the situation toward the end of the Saturn program. That completes my presentation, Mr. Chairman, and if there are no questions, I would like at this time to introduce Mr. George Smith, the Vice President and Director of the Martin Marietta Corporation for the External Tank program. PAGENO="0201" * 197 STATEMENT OP GEORG~ E. SMITH, VICE PRESIDENT AND PROjECT DIRECTOR, MARTIN MARIETTA CORP., MICHOUD OPERATIONS Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we're pleased to have you with us today. ~.VAYI ~vMIZrrA ~CongressionaiSubcornrnIttee Presentation J CHART NO. ___________ DATE 2-5-77 AGENDA SPEAKER _____________ PROJECT OVERVIEW G.SMITH * SCHEDULE OBJECTIVES ~ ISTA * MPTA * STA * MANPOWER * CONTRACT COST * PROCUREMENT * COMMITMENTS * GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION SMALL AND MINORITY BUSINESS * MAJOR ISSUES FACTORYTOUR G.SMITH/ J. McCOWN CHART 1 Our agenda today will be a review of our program with particular emphasis on this year's major objective-on time delivery of test hard- iyare (chart 1). Objectives of the interbank structural test article; the main propulsion test article, which is the article delivered to NSTL for propulsion testing; and the static test article, composed of a set of LOX and hydrogen tanks. These are three major objectives which we are well on our way to making and while I believe we'll have some problems getting there, we'll make them this year. The three items, to be delivered in 1977, are for initiation of verifi- cation testing to prove the capability of the flight test tanks. They are: The interbank structural test article. (ISTA) to be delivered in March to the Marshall Space Flight Center for proof of.. the flight strength of the structure. The main propulsion test article (MPTA) for delivery in August to the National Space Technology Laboratory (NSTL) for supply of the liquid fuel and oxygen to the Orbiter main engines and flight proof testing of the ET propulsion systems withthe Orbiter engines. PAGENO="0202" 108 - The static est ai~ti~ie (SPA) (a sot of oxyge~i a~nd hydrogen tanks) to be delivered in December to MSFO for proof of the flight strength of these tanks. Our manpower, our contract costs, procureiuent commitments-in- cluding their geographical distribution plus their small and minority business work content will be presented along with some major issues which are in front of us. But, most importantly, we are going to see the actual hardware that we've built and I think that will give you a good idea of our progress. PRGJICTDIRECTON. ~s~'°~ [1[~~~ Progra Pro~ct Design & Development MAF Facilities Tooling Structural Test Article AsIFTA) ~ T t Arti SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANK PROJECT ~GP*C -1 ~OGRAM CONTRA CT NAS8 30300 IP~N 37 7~ ~ I ~ ~ ENSIGN T~'SUPPOET& P0STFUGNTDNALOSIS ~ DESIGN soe&cio NTUeTuNK/t.Oo& LH2 ~ ~ 0/DOSED Structural Test Article lST~) TANK/ICTERTANK 1015 ~OOTANK $~R0CUREMNE~T~1~6LTTI0 DM525 ~ OMSEC ~ ~ (u/TA) Vibration Test ArtIcle Flight Tanks CHART 2 * Ohart 2 shows our basic schedule. The D.D.T. & E. activity is shown on this top level schedule and all of our project milestones in back of the dotted line that you see through fiscal year 1971' are coming along quite well. The major facility modifications, for example, are complete to the needs of the program, including the conwietion of the test cells in building 110, the tall vertical assembly building used for hydraulic test of the LOX tank and for the thermal protection system apphca- tion to the tanks. The one new facility, building 451, is also complete and we'll take a look at that. You'll see concrete silos in the vertical assembly building which are designed to minimize the energy require- ments needed in manufacture of the tank, for example, the application of the TPS. 2 PAGENO="0203" 199 The design and development of the tank continues on schedule, perturbated by changes that, to a large extent are changes that are normal to the maturing of the program. Examples of this are; range safety, icing on protuberances, and changes resulting from load and environment data refinement. We are in the process of introducing these changes into our program and minimizing the impact of these changes by doing them all together. Tooling, of course, needs to lead production and we are currently supporting the factory's needs for production with our major tools. Our tooling is performing well. We are, of course, in the initial use of that tooling and, as we speak of it, debugging the tooling with the first article manufacture. The inter- tank structural test article, the main propulsion test article, and the structural test article that I spoke of earlier are on plan. The ISTA has shown schedule improvement and we may deliver that 5 to 7 days earlier than our March 15 data. I would say that our most difficult problem as we see it now is the ice that has formed on the Ohio River coming down through the Tennessee and its impact on shipping the tank to Huntsville. 3 ~VA77N MAIX77~S MICHOUD OPERATIONS [çongressiona Subcommittee Presentation CHART NO. ___________ DATE 2-5-77 SPEAKER Smith ChART 3 PAGENO="0204" 200 This chart 3 gives you a pictorial representation of the major program elements. The last 6 months of 1976 has demanded that we have on-time delivery of the major structural components from our various vendors and we have had that. Timely certification of the tools, on-time delivery of these parts and production personnel locally hired were the keys to fabrication in 1976 of the subassemblies needed. We are pleased to have the results that we have. Our efforts of the last 3 years will be demonstrated this year, 1977- "the year of the external tank". This chart shows the facilities com- pleted in 1976 and we'll see them when we go out into the factory. They are all needed for various activities of proof tests and applica- tion of the TPS and tank vertical assembly. Operational readiness inspections in support of these early facilities are completed or on schedule. The first delivery I spoke of, the ISTA, consists of three sections. It includes an Intertank, a simulator used for the LOX tank and a simulator for the LH2 tank. The main propulsion test article, a com- plete tank, will be delivered to NSTL. The two structural articles are the STA hydrogen and LOX tanks, they are delivered to the static test facilities in Huntsville. ~ [~ongressional Subcommittee Presentation ISTA STATUS _________________________________ CHART 4 Chart No. 4 shows the major elements of ISTA. CHART NO. _____________ DATE _______________ SPEAKER Smith [LEGEND PROC. O/D MAP MAF ASSY COMP I PAGENO="0205" 201 Shown on this chart ~ is a photograph of the LIT2 test simulator ready for shipment. The instrumentation has been wrapped for pro~ tection as it is barge shipped to MSFO. The dark structure simulates the upper end of the LIT2 tank ai~d the low,er lighter structure is the steel loading ring. OHABT 5 PAGENO="0206" 202 This next chart 6 shows the LOX simulator. It simulates the bot-. torn end of the LO2 tank. The simulated structure is aluminum with an attached steel loading ring. Chart I is a photograph of the actual intertank which has been mated with the LH2 and L02 simulator prior to shipping. OIIART 6 PAGENO="0207" 203 CRART 7 CRAET 8 PAGENO="0208" 204 Ohart No. 8 shows the status of parts in procurement and assembly for the. MPTA. All of the major structural subassemblies (domes, ogives, rings, barrels) are welded, the forward and aft sections of the ogive and its attendant barrel section are welded in the major assembly fixture and the mechanical installation of the slosh baffle is about to start. When complete in the first part of March, the LOX tank will be hydrostatically tested in cell F of building 110. All of the supporting tooling and facilities for final assembly and test are complete and through an operational readiness inspection or are on schedule for downstream operations. ~The LH2 tank is through major weld to the point of internal instal- lations. This activity will take about 2 weeks at which time the forward dome will be welded to the open barrel and the unit transported to building 451 for proof test. As in the case of the LOX tank, the sup- porting test tools and facilities are in a ready status. The instrumentation, propulsion and electrical components required for completion of MPTA are in various stages of fabrication and development testing at the vendors' plants. Promise dates for delivery are consistent with the production oper- ations need. The following photographs taken recently reflect the hardware status. CHART 9 PAGENO="0209" 205 What you see in this photograph (chart 9) are the forward and aft ogives after major weld. On the tour you will see the welded ogive in the process of being welded to the adjoin4ng barrel. 92-082 0 - 77 - 14 PAGENO="0210" 206 CHART 11 CHART 12 PAGENO="0211" 207 This is the one new facility required here at MAF (chart 13). Our tour includes a visit to the facility, where inside you will see the load i'igs and support equipment used for a pressure test and a compression test on the hydrogen tank. This initial test will be for the special load conditions that we encounter at ~1STL, and in production a pressure/ compression test will be conducted on every ta~nk to prove the w~ided tank structural integrity. : from the back end of I chance ~UART 13 PAGENO="0212" 208 This is a subassembly fixture (chart 14), the barrel fixture that was designed in our Denver division, built in our Baltimore division and assembled here. It is probably one of the best tools that we have opera- ting at the present time. By that, I mean that it is the most proven for production. It is a multiple-use tool prochicing three barrels for each LIT2 tank. We have produced six barrels to date. Chairman FUQUA. What do they do in Baltimore? Mr. S1~trnT. On the ET, mostly tooling for us here. The fixture was built in Baltimore and assembled here with their help. The photo- gra]~h shows a completed barrel after formiiig and welding a barrel section on this tool. Reynold Aluminum machines the skin stringer panel for us from, plate rolled in their own mill. CEART 14 PAGENO="0213" 209 The photograph here is of the tool and one particular barrel sec- tion (chart 15), the most aft or the bottom one of the tank, that has heavy longerons and fittings welded into it that support the orbiter. This tool was designed and built here at MAF. Crnu~T 15 CHART 16 PAGENO="0214" 210 The chart 16 shows a sketch of the VAB. These cells are all well on plan for the installation of equipment needed to do the work that is required. The tooling required inside of the cells in the VAB is essentially complete. This area has been one of the tightest spans in our schedule and has required a joint occupancy for tool, installation with the local subcontractors as we complete construction. This photograph is our tool tryout dome in the LOX tank hydro- static cell (chart 17). We built a pathfinder dome that allowed us to weld gores to gores and panels to chords and progress to the point to where we had a completed dome for welding to barrels. This path~. finder dome was very useful in "debugging" our tools and is being used for a similar purpose in these cells. Congressman WINN. I gather you're right on schedule? Mr. SMITH. We're doing very well, really. I believe we're on schedule to NASA's need for MPTA and NSTL on the `27th of August. CHART 17 PAGENO="0215" 211 CHaT 18 PAGENO="0216" 212 The photograph shows the concept (chart 18), one of the concrete cells with a sliding door that comes up and encloses the tank for the spray application of the thermal protection system. As Bob Little- field noted, energy use must certainly be considered in the manufac- turing process. We have to carefully control the temperature of the skin of the tank in order to apply the TPS. We could heat up the whole building and maybe meet our needs, but when you contain it within this cell area, you reduce considerably the energy use in the manufacturing process. P.c4~r!Pi M~RtET~~4 OPERATIONS I Congressional Subcommittee Presentation ~j In December, the structural test article, consisting of the hydrogen tank, an intertank, and a LOX tank will be complete and delivered to MSFC (chart 19). This shows you the status of where we are in manufacture, and in particular, the procurement aspect of it. We have essentially all the components in varying degrees of procurement or in subassembly. The intertank, and that's the third intertank we're building, is not yet at MAF but is promised on time to support the STA `delivery this year. STA STATUS 1~ CHART 140. ____________ DATE 2-5-77 SPEAKER Smith CHART 19 PAGENO="0217" 213 Congressional Subcommittee Presentation CHART NO. ___________ DATE 2-5~71 -~ SPEAKER Smith This chart 20 represents the general picture at MAF as far as man- power is concerned. We are right at our pea~k of between 1,500 and 1,600 people. We were a little bit behind during 1975 and 1976 where we had some problems in acquiring skills in the area. As is typical in the aerospace industry, you don't find all the tooling capability in any one particular area. You have to bring them in from other places in the United States. What you see out here in this note area is the additional manpower which we will acid to be able to handle the changes that have been added, such as range safety, icing on protuber- ances, and so forth, as the system has matured. Chairman FUQUA. George, how many tanks are you committed for under this contract? Mr. SMITH. Well, when I said ISTA, STA, MPTA, and GVTA, these are essentially three tanks that are test tanks. Then we are com- mitted for six tanks which are flight tanks. The first flight tank, of course, is on schedule to meet the flight date in early 1979. CHART 20 PAGENO="0218" 214 Chairmali FTJQUA. When does the contract come up for renegotia- tion? This is to be rebid for production, isn't it? Mr. SMITH. Well, it may be, but we believe we are doing so well, it won't be- Chairman FUQUA. But there is an option- Mr. SMITH. Yes, there is an option. In November 1977, we will have from NASA, either a new contract or added to our current contract, about $5 to $10 million for long-lead procurement. There are the gores the chords, pane's, and so forth, that we need to place with our sub- contractors. In November of the following year, 1978, we should be given the go-ahead to produce the 54 tanks that are in increment II. Chairman FiIQUA. Now then, what will that do to your employment? Mr. SMITH. What that will do is in 1979, after fall off a little bit 1978 start a build up in employment in the early 1980 time period. In the mid4980'&-we would build up to about 2,500. Is that what you want to know? Congressman WINN. Yes, I think that's what we want to know- Mr. SMITH. So here we are now in 1977 with something like 1,500- we drop a little bit during 1978 and 1979 with that probably mostly in engineering manpower. Most of the buildup of 1,500 to 2,500 will be production people from the local area- Chairman FUQtTA. It would be somewhat stable then? Mr. SMITH. It should be through the 1980's at something like 2,500. If I sound like I'm hedging, it's because that is quite in the future and NASA has not settled on what the exact rate is required in the mis- sion model. Chairman FIJQTJA. I understand that, but I thought that Mr. Tonry would like to have some general idea of what can be expected with everything working well. Mr. SMITH. That's a good point and there's another point to be con- sidered. NASA has asked us where we could improve the weight o the tank. By that, I mean reduce it. We have offered a program to them where we can achieve 4,000 pounds of weight reduction. That would' keep the engineering force on a little longer and that's keyed to be able to go ahead with that long-lead procurement in November of this year. In other words, we would go back and do some additional engineering. So that would tend to flatten it out a little more and then go up to 2,500. Mr. HAWKINS. George, you might point out that the 2,500 people per year relates to the 60 per year in the current mission model. Chairman FUQUA. Is 60 flights per year what they are planning on now-that could vary too, though? Mr. MCCOWN. Congressman Tonry, that headcount is basically the people that work for Martin Marietta. We've got one group of sub- contractors which we will use through the D.D.T. & E. period plus others which would be required through the 1978, 1979, and 1980 time period for the construction of additions to the VAB and other TPS facilities we need to get to the 60 per year. That's probably an- other $12 million to $18 million worth of facilities construction re- quired. This work would require local ~nbcontractors. Mr. LITTLE~'IELD. You might also add that this represents only about one-half of the people here at this facility. There are abOut 3,600 people employed in total. . PAGENO="0219" 215 Congressman WINN. That doesn't include the subs? Mr. LITTLEFIELD. That does include the subs and all the tennants. Mr. SMITH. There's another fundamental point I think we should make and that as you see the factory tools, remember we are basically tooled for around 24 a year, except in the termal protection area in the VAB where we are tooled for 12 year role. Increment II could be satis- fled by that 24 expect in the VAB and we must consider the lead time for VAB facilities and for tools for increasing to 60 a year. ~ ~~~gressionaI Subcommittee Presentation J CHART HO. ___________ DATE 2-5-77 CONTRACT STATUS NAS8-30300 AS OF 1-30-17 SPEAKER Smith DOLLARS IN MILLIONS A. DEFINITIZED CONTRACT COST $213.8 B. AUTHORIZED CHANGES - NEGOTIATED THRU 13877 3.7 C. AUTHORIZED CHANGES - SUBMITTED THRU 9-1776 22.2 0. AUTHORIZED CHANGES - NOT SUBMITTED 41.9 TOTAL $281.6 Oa~T 21 A contract like this moves forward with changes that are added to it (chart 21). They are in specific stages. This $213.8 million is the definitized contract; there are $3.7 million in changes authorized and have, been negotiated; next are changes that NASA has authorized and we are implementing but are not negotiated into a final contract. You can see that of the $281 million, we've got roughly $60 million which is in the process of being negotiated and definitized. They have given us the go-ahead on those particular changes. They are the ones I've talked about: range safety, icing on protttberances, things of that nature which develop as the program is better understood. It's not un- natural for those to develop as the program is maturing. Congressman WINN. I was just going tq ask you, George. It seems unreasonably high-is it? PAGENO="0220" 216 Mr. SMITH. No; that's not high-not in our experience. Mr. MoCowN. The thing you've got to remember is that the range safety is a system that has been on the program almost since the early 1974~45 timeframe, but it was not in our original contract because NASA was still trying to settle the issue of what was needed on the system. It's just now coming on to use as a change. It's been in the system for some time but has not been directed on us. It was delayed in order to have funding until it was really needed for the first flight test. Mr. SMITH. As a matter of fact, I think that's good. To put a range safety system on a complex configuration such as this too early would probably have caused unnecessary redesign and costs. Mr. MCCOWAN. The other big part of icing on proturbances is one that in the original concept of the Shuttle, it was hoped that the Orbiter TPS would be forgiving enough that we would not have to worry about ice coming off the tank and hitting the Orbiter. Now, in working weight, system costs and getting the Orbiter TPS refined, the system is finding that ice coming off the tank can cause damage to the Orbiter TPS. It's a matter of putting that change on tank to preclude the ice from hitting the Orbiter, so they won't have to pay the refur- bishment costs on the Orbiter. So, in the total cost per flight trade-off, it is to the real advantage to the system to put the added requirement on the tank. It shows up as a change on us at this point since it was not part of the tank's original requirement.. Mr. SMITH. When you take that specific item of reducing the weight by 4,000 pounds, the tank is the logical place to save weight and in- crease payload compared to taxing the Orbiter or the solids. Remember that we deliver two static test articles to Huntsville late this year and MSFC will .be in the process of testing those next year. The weight savings program is keyed to when you get the actual results out of static test-then you can fine tune your structure in order to make the best weight savings and probably cost savings. The effectivity is not planned for any of these six development flight articles but is time.d for an early production article. Congressman WINN. I gather you're pleased with these changes. Mr. SMITH. Yes; in particular, I believe in the timing of them and that the tank is the best candidate to save the weight. In some respects we would like to have had them yesterday, but historically they are at about the right time in the program. PAGENO="0221" 217 ~ Congressional SubcommI~ee Presentation PROCUREMENT AND SUBCONTRACT COMMITMENTS CHART NO. ___________ DATE _______________ SPEAKER Smith This chart 22 gives you a picture of where we are in procurement. You see for all the procurement we need to let-our commitments. The percent expended to date on facilities and tooling, of course, since they are needed first, is high. The expenditures on procurement for the tanks is lower because it's staged over the fiscal years. The six flight articles don't materially impact us until next year when the need date is due for first article rnanufactured~ CHART 22 PAGENO="0222" 218 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR PROCUREMENT LA2 RARREL PANELS CLEVELAND. OH REYNOLDS METALS OH2 DISCONNECTS / GORE/DONI WELD TOOLS LEAR SIEGLER ~ ~ (OREGON ~ ~ DAHO wyOM~ ~ -- U\.1~ J_~4~J/\ PHI$ ,)~ 102 SLOSH ~. I ~ ~ SD VENT VALVES CALIF KANSAS KEN HYDRAULIC CONTROL PICO RIVERA. CA MISDO RI ROONTONN LOS AP4GELESCA WEOIOO TEXAS MISS ALA GEO IMSUVILLE TN HOLES OGIVE &~OR.~E GORFESRM,HO `LA CHART 28 This chart 23 shows a picture of the geographical distribution where we have placed our business. You find that a number of our suppliers are in California-that's where the needed aerospace capability is lo- cated. It does show as far as the prOgram as a whole is concerned that it involves the country as a whole and I think that's an' important consideration. PAGENO="0223" *?M~'V~W #N'4l1'r1~ 210 Congressional Subcommittee Presenthtio~i CHART'04O __________ DATE 2577 SPEAKER ~$mith TOTAL APPLICABLE AWARDED PERCENT 27,721 22,220 80% $74,152,971 $33,268,560 45.0% 55,530,172* 349* 5931,373* CHART 24 SMALL AND MINORITY BUSINESS STATUS ` As Of 12131176 SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENTS VALUE MINORITY BUSINESS VALUE OF OPPORTUNITIES TO BID - NUMBER OF AWARDS VALUE OF AWARDS * SBA/DCAS RATING "EXCELLENT" On this chart 24 we have shown our small `business activity and how much we have in the way of minority business. During the D.D.T. & E., subcontract procurement and you can see that we've got a substantial amount of bids awarded on dollars-more on items to small business. As a matter of fact, our major producer of the gores and the chords, Aircraft Hydroforming, Gardena, Calif. in Los Angeles, is a small business organization doing a. fine job. Mr. LrrPLEFIEU. George, can I make a point here? r was going to make it earlier-that there is a delta to that also out in the facility operations-that of all the dollars we spend here on facility con- tracts, 28 percent of them are to minority small business firms. PAGENO="0224" 220 Congressman WINN. Do you have any trouble finding qualified minority firms? Mr. LITTLErIELD. I have less than he does because mine are. more the maintenance type of operations but for the machining and technica' type of thing, it's tough. Someone told me once that there was one minority machine shop in the whole State of Louisiana. So, they're difficult to find. Mr. SMITH. That's an important consideration and data shown gives you some feel for that. We put special emphasis on evaluating the capability of minority business firms and have through this planned approach evaluated $51/2 million of potential opportunities for small minority businesses-essentially local. We then measured these op- portunities against capability. In this way, we minimized offering these businesses something they couldn't do with a resulting record of bid disappointment. Generally speaking, we've had a successful re- sponse with what we've identified and measured against capability~ before we send out bid request. We've placed $1 million out~ of that $5 million which is a pretty good percentage. MAFIN AVMRI~~~M MICA000 OPERATIONS ~CongresslonaI Subcommittee Presentation J CHART NO. ___________ DATE 2-5-77 MAJOR ISSUES SPEAKER Smith TECHNICAL * PENDING CHANGES IMPACT ON WEIGHT * RANGE SAFETY * THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM MANUFACTURING APPLICATION * LOADS AND ENVIRONMENTS PROGRAMMATIC * FISCAL FUNOING LIMITATIONS CHART 25 I mentioned some concerns and we have some: The pending impact of changes on weight, range safety, and implementation of the ther- mal protection system (chart 25). We have yet to experience TPS process implementation. We have done the development on individual PAGENO="0225" * . 221 domes, barrels, et cetera, but w.e have not yet put. it all together and that's the thing that's in. front of us for the next 6 months. And then we always have refinement in our loads and environments. You're re- fining the requirements of the actual trajectory and actual loads for first flight. As these things are refined, they do give us ~orne problems. When you match these changes with the fiscal funding projections, you have the key problem to managing the job from here on out. But I don't see that. we're going to have~ any major slip-ups in the pro- gram due to things like this-it just costs money, that's all. So far, my impression is that NASA has been able to pull that out of some of their reserves. They've been doing well as far as I can see. The program is tight and any change that we have from here on out is going to be tough, but I think we're well on Our way ~to meeting our objectives. I think our trip out into the shop will show that. If I haven't answered anything you have on your mind, I'd~ like to field any questions that you have now. Chairman FUQUA. Do you anticipate any other problems other than what you've stated and other than normal- Mr. SMITH. I don't really think that anything is unsolvable, but it's going to be damn tough. For example, I'm goitig' to strengthen my manufacturing supervision and split my manufacturing load in half work for the next 6 to 8 months by adding some talent from Denver division-a senior manufacturing manager to take over what we have learned and execute the welding and assembly Of the statiC test ar- ticles. This will then allow my current senior manufacturing man to concentrate on the thermal protection Cystem and final assembly of the MPTA. It's a normal thing that we do on a first article in most programs. Chairman FTJQUA. You don't anticipate any testing problems? Mr. SMITH. We've scheduled operational readiness inspection with NASA in all our facilities; we have test readiness reviewed each test article. Out of these we are currently making some changes in instru- mentation and test setup on the MPTA proof test. This will impact our schedule-2 weeks to a month-something like that, but it's all in the right direction for making sure that we have a good baseline for test- ing the MPTA. FOr observing the progress of the test, we are relocat- ing some of our remote television cameras to be able to see what may buckle, etc., ~during the test. T don't really anticipate any problems. I hope 1 don't come back and tell you that I have had sothe, but I don't think I will. Congressman WINN. George, I probably `should know, but what exactly `do you mean by loads environments? Are you talking about a technical environmentor what? Mr. SMITH. I'm talking about basically thermal or vibration en- vironments. For our design we have to use wind tunnel data initially. If you will look at the complete Shuttle model on the table I am sure you can understand that there will be aerodynamic shock and heating interference `between the elenients of the cluster-Orbiter tank and solid rockets as our design progresses, particularly for the inter- connecting hardware we refine' our wind-tunnel models and in turn get this revised load environment. As we refine the analysis of this data, we find that there are shocks `that come off the front of the tank that impinge on the tank ogive; shocks that come off of the Orbiter 92-082 0 - 77 - 15 PAGENO="0226" 222 fittings impinging on the tank; and we have local thermal hotspots at the attaching fittings and tank protuberances. I think the loads have essentially matured and we're going to get less in changes from other environments such as the data from testing at NSTL and the structural testing at Huntsville. My recollection is that Thikol in Utah, producing the solids, is going to go into their first complete firing test of the solids this year. What we have to be alert to in this situation is the vibro acoustic environments resulting from that test. We might get some changes. They will be awfully tough to handle but there are ways to get around them-we've gotten around them before. Congressman WINN. Are these extremely expensive adjustments or does it just depend on wihch ones develop as it goes? Chairman FUQUA. I don't want to indicate to you that NASA has a lot of reserve money-that wouldn't be good, would it? Mr. SMITH. So far, NASA has been able to fund these things. Mr. M000wN. Mainly these things are most painful when you change something and have to fight a schedule problem, but usually they are not that expensive. Mr. SMITH. They are not expensive to the extent NASA has not been able to find these out of some reserve-they have not required milestone program change. Mr. LITrLEFIELD. While there are costs involved in these changes the greater impact may be against the schedule. Congressman WINN. They drag the schedule and everybody's costs follow, is that it? Mr. MCCOWN. If you put it into perspective, while we are the biggest physical element of the program, we only represent 5 percent of the costs. Congressman WINN. My point was that if we're doing that all the way up and down the line, it could get away from us. Mr. SMITH. I do not believe that this is a problem that will get away from us and that the things we have been discussing impact the tank the most. Again looking at he model cluster, you can see why the tank takes the most punishment in this regard. When you look at the tank, the solids ride on that and we support the solids. We support the Orbiter-so in essence, the tank is the main structural link in the duster. As it relates to the 5 percent of the total cost in D.D.T. & E., we must remember that the tank represents the expendable portion of the Shuttle system. Therefore, while there are reusable Orbiters ana solids in this system there may be as many as 500 tanks involved. One for each flight. Mr. M000wN. In the 1908's we will be running 30 to 40 percent of the program. By then all these changes will have been incorporated and should have very little impact on the cost per flight. An expendable tank is by far the most economical for the Shuttle system. Mr. SMITH. If there is no more discussion at this time, we have arranged a short tou'r of the major points of activity in the factory. IThe prepared statement of Mr. Smith on the external tank project follows:] PAGENO="0227" MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY House Subcommittee February 5, 1977 Briefing Michoud Operations External Tank Project M.~1 ~77FJ M~$RIET7.~1 PAGENO="0228" CONGRESSIONAL SUBCO!V~1IT'~EE PRESENTATION S FEBRU4RY 1977 PAGENO="0229" MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: I AM PLEASED TO WELCOME YOU TO MICHOUD AND TO REVIEW WITH YOU OUR OBJECTIVES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ON THE BIT PROJECT. OUR AGENDA TODAY WILL CONSIST OF A BRIEF LOOK AT THE PROGRAM STATUS AS SHOWN ON THIS AGENDA, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE. THE TOOLS AND TEST ARTICLE HARDWARE THAT HAS EVOLVED THRU OUR DESIGN, TOOL AND FABRICATION EFFORTS OF THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. PAGENO="0230" MAR7YP# F44rnzTrA M 1CM OU 0 OP ~ RATIONS [ç~gressionai Subcommittee Presentation AGENDA CHART MO. ___________ DATE 2-5~77 SPEAKER ________________ PROJECT OVERVIEW 6. SMITH * SCHEDULE OBJECTIVES *ISTA * MPTA * STA * MANPOWER i CQNTRACT COST * PROCUREMENT * COMMITMENTS * GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION * SMALLANDMINORITYBUSINESS * MAJOR ISSUES FACTORY TOUR - G.SMITH/ J.McCOWN PAGENO="0231" PROJECT SCHEDULE THE DDT~E ACTIVITY ON E/T IS SHOWN ON OUR TOP LEVEL SCHEDULE. ALL OF OUR PROJECT MILESTONES HAVE BEEN ON OR AHEAD OF PLAN. THE MAJOR FACILITY MODIFICATIONS ARE COMPLETE TO PROGRAM NEED INCLUDING THE FINAL BUY-OFF OF THE VERTICAL TEST CELLS IN BLDG. 110 AND THE ONLY ALL NEW FACILITY, BLDG. 451 USED FOR PNEUMOSTATIC TEST OF THE LH2 TANK. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF TH~ TANK CONTINUES TO SCHEDULE PERTURBATED TO SOME EXTENT BY CHANGES SUCH AS RANGE SAFETY, ICING ON PROTUBERANCES AND LOADS. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MINIMIZING PROGRAM IMPACT OF THESE CHANGES BY PLANNING THEIR INCORPORATION ON AN INTEGRATED BASIS. TOOLING, OF COURSE, MUST LEAD THE HARDWARE PRODUCTION AND WE ARE CURRENTLY SUPPORTING THE FACTORY'S NEED DATES WITH OUR MAJOR TOOLS. THE INTERTANK STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE (ISTA), THE MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLE (MPTA) AND THE STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE (STA) ARE ESSENTIALLY ON PLAN. THE ISTA IS SHOWING CONSIDERABLE SCHEDULE IMPROVEMENT AND MAY DELIVER EARLY; HOWEVER, OUR FIRST ALL-UP TANK, MPTA, AND IT'S FIRST ARTICLE PROBLEM SOLVING IS WORKING TO AN EXTREMELY TIGHT OBJECTIVE. I WILL DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE UNITS IN MO1~E DETAIL LATER IN THIS PRESENTATION. PAGENO="0232" 0 100: SSMITH SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANK PROJECT PROGRAM 30~MSFCP0P702PtANCN022 CONTRACT NAS8-30300 ~ ~ MAFFMSPC - (PlAN 17-76) sn.ios os ov. 1-3077 CY-73 CY-74 CY.75 I CY-76 CY-77 CY.78 CY.79 CY-80 Ei n:~ ELI ~ 2 3 1 ~ tEl 34 1 3j~ ~EI ELI ~1~2 3 4 1 1 2 3 1 4 FMOF A&L ROLL. FCF CD FMOF POP SON P00 COO .PUf> - ~_____ - TFIRING - cI~ PUN START PAN STR~ PRIDE AT? PRO .STAS EQUIPR~L ~~_____________ - Delopment T~SUPPORT & POSTFUGHT ANALYSIS I ~ WEED FAC INTEEMEDIATE MECH ASSY AREA COMPLETE SIJBAISY CONSTRUCTION & dO ~S7 ACTIVATI~~I~ ~ ~ ~~~~DESIGN ~~AB&C1~ ~ Article 0~O 3-15 3.30 ULATORS ~ O/DMSFC Test Article 8/27 ASSEMBLY : ** 0/0 NStL METAl t~CUREMENT Article LH2tANK/INT~RTANK ~R1MEN~~_L±SSEMBLY ~ 1215 O/DMSPC I - 10-13 1 12-15. LO~~ANI( .~: ~ 0/0 MsPç ~. - - - I Test Article i~-o 4L3! 3-31 GVi-4~ ASSEMBLY 4}0/OMSPC - - - - I /BKSS 18-13; ~ ETII ~ 0/B MAI~ 21 i~ O/0MAP 4-10 S - ~ 8-11 ~ Eli ~ Old MAP 10101 2J3 41h12l314j112I3i4I11213i4~~ FY.fl ~.7$ PY-79 FY80 Pit PAGENO="0233" THE LAST 6 MONTHS OF 1976 DEMANDED ON TIME DELIVERY OF THE MAJOR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS FROM OUR VENDORS CONCURRENT WITH THE FINAL CERTIFICATION OF MAJOR WELD TOOLS AND PERSONNEL HERE AT MAF. WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THIS TASK. THE PROOF OF OUR EARLIER EFFORTS MUST HOWEVER BE DEMONSTRATED IN 1977, "THE YEAR OF THE BIT". THIS GRAPHIC SCHEDULE INDICATES THE NEED FOR THE ACTIVATION OF MAJOR TEST AND ASSEMBLY FACILITIES AND THE DELIVERY OF 3 MAJOR ITEMS OF HARDWARE WITHIN THE FORTHCOMING 11 MONTHS. THE NEXT FEW CHARTS WILL SHOW OUR PROGRESS TOWARDS THESE MILESTONES. PAGENO="0234" [congressional Subcommittee Presentation MICHOUD OPERATtONS ~NART NO. ____________ DATE 2-5~77 SPEAKER Smith 0 PAGENO="0235" INTERTANK STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE THE INTERTANK STRUCTURAL `TEST ARTICLE IS SCHEDULED TO DEPART MAF BY BARGE ON 3 MARCH FOR SHIPMENT TO MSFC. WE ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING FINAL ACCEPTANCE DOCUMENTATION AND WILL BE READY FOR DD-250 SIGN-OFF ON OR AHEAD' OF TIME. * THE VEHICLE IS IN A POSTURE FOR SOMEWHAT EARLIER DELIVERY (5-7 DAYS), HOWEVER, THE ON~DOCK DATE AT HUNTSVILLE MAY WELL BE CONTROLLED BY THE ICE CONDITIONS NOW P.REVALENT ON THE RIVER ROUTE. PAGENO="0236" M~4R77P~ AcAI yr~a MICHOUD OPERATIONS ~Congressionai Subcommittee Presentation 1STA STATUS ______________________ CHART 140. ____________ DATE - 2-541 SPEAKER Smith LEGEND PROC. OlD MAF MAFASSYCOMP PAGENO="0237" THE ISTA HYDROGEN SIMULATOR, SHOWN HERE READY FOR FINAL INSPECTION BY MARTIN AND DCAS QUALITY, IS CURRENTLY IN BLDG. 110 HAVING BEEN MATED WITH THE INTBRTANK. PAGENO="0238" 234 PAGENO="0239" THE LOX SIMULATOR HAS PROGRESSED FROM THIS ASSEMBLY POSITION IN BLDG.. 103 TO THE VAB WHERE. IT WILL BE FIT CHECKED WITH THE REMAINTNG 2 SECTIONS OF ISTA. PAGENO="0240" 236 A A PAGENO="0241" ISTA' S INTERTANK SHOWN HERE IN FINAL ASSEMBLY POSITION HAS NOW BEEN MATED WITH THE LH2 SIMULATOR ANDIS AWAITING THE AVAILABILITY OF THE LOX SIMULATOR. PRIOR TO FINAL BUY~OFF, DD*~25O~ AND PACK AND SHIP OPERATIONS. PAGENO="0242" 238 PAGENO="0243" MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLE THE FIRST DELIVERABLE ALL-UP TEST ARTICLE WILL BE UTILIZED AT NSTL FOR TEST AND EVALUATION OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINES. SCHEDULED FOR DELIVERY IN LATE AUGUST, WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE MAJOR WELD ACTIVITY ON BOTH THE LH2 AND LOX TANKS. THIS CHART DEPICTS THE STATUS AS OF TODAY, WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THIS HARDWARE ON OUR TOUR. ALL OF THE MAJOR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ARE WELDED, THE FORWARD AND AFT SECTIONS OF THE,OGIVE AMD ITS ATTENDANT BARREL SECTION ARE WELDED IN THE MAJOR ASSEMBLY FIXTURE AND THE MECHANICAL INSTALLATION OF THE SLOSH BAFFLE IS IN PROCESS. WHEN COMPLETE THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, THE LOX TANK WILL BE HYDROSTATICALLY TESTED IN CELL F OF BLDG. 110. ALL OF THE SUPPORTING TOOLING AND FACILITIES ARE COMPLETE THRU OPERATIONAL READINESS INSPECTION OR ARE ON SCHEDULE FOR DOWNSTREAM OPERATIONS. THE LH2 TANK IS THRU MAJOR WELD TO THE POINT OF INTERNAL INSTALLATIONS. THIS ACTIVITY WILL TAKE ABOUT 2 WEEKS AT WHICH TIME THE FORWARD DOME WILL BE WELDED AND THE UNIT TRANSPORTED TO BLDG. 451 FOR PROOF TEST. AS IN THE CASE OF THE LOX TANK THE SUPPORTING TOOLS AND FACILITIES WILL BE .IN A READY STATUS. THE INSTRUMENTATION, PROPULSION AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF MPTA ARE IN VARIOUS STAGES OF FABRICATION AND DEVELOPMENT TESTING AT THE VENDORS PLANTS. PROMISE DATES FOR DELIVERY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRODUCTION OPERATIONS NEED. THE FOLLOWING PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN RECENTLY REFLECT THE HARDWARE STATUS AS DESCRIBED HEREIN. PAGENO="0244" F#t~~FIF~' M~4RI&T7A OPERATiONS I Congressional Subcommittee Presentation MPTA STATUS. LLEGEND PROC 0/0 MAF ________ MAFASSYCOMP~ j cHART HO. ___________ DATE 2~5~77 SPEAKER Smith PAGENO="0245" LOX TANK MAJOR WELD FIXTURE THE FORWARD AND AFT OGIVE SECTIONS OF MPTA HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY WELDED. THE INTERNAL MANDREL SHOWN RETRACTED, AWAITS THE INSTALLATION OF THE LOX BARREL FOR FINAL FIT UP PRIOR TO WELD. ALL MAJOR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR FINAL ASSEMBLY. THIS MAJOR TOOL WAS DESIGNED AND SUB~ASSEMBLED AT THE VOUGHT CORP. PLANT IN DALLAS UNDER SUBCONTRACT TO MARTIN. THE FINAL ASSEMBLY AND CHECKOUT AT MICHOUD WAS PERFORMED BY VOUGHT PERSONNEL ASSISTED BY MARTIN TOOL ENGINEERS. PAGENO="0246" 242 PAGENO="0247" LOX FORWARD SLOSH BAFFLE THE FORWARD LOX SLOSH BAFFLE FABRICATED BY KAMAN IN BLOOMFIELD, GONN. IS ASSEMBLED HERE AT MAF AND IS SHOWN COMPLETE FOR MPTA ON ITS ROTATION FIXTURE. * * THIS UNIT IS THE NEXT MAJOR ASSEMBLY TO BE MECHANICALLY INSTALLED IN THE LOX TANK. * *. PAGENO="0248" 244 / PAGENO="0249" I.NTERTANK - MPTA * THE INTERTANK CONSISTS OF CONVENTIONAL SKIN AND STRINGER PANELS EXCEPT AT. THE INTERFACE OF THE SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER FITTINGS. THIS JUNCTION (2 PLACES) UTILIZES A HEAVY MACRINED PANEL AND AN SRB BEAM TO ASSIST DISTRIBUTION OF TH.E LOADS GENERATED BY SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS. BUILT AND MACHINED TO THE SUBASSEMBLY LEVEL BY AVCO AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, IT IS ASSEMBLED HERE BY MARTIN PERSONNEL. THE ASSEMBLY FIXTURE~ SHOWN WAS BUILT ON SITE AND HAS BEEN USED PREVIOUSLY TO FABRICATE THE INTERTANK FOR ISTA. PAGENO="0250" 246 PAGENO="0251" LH2 MAJOR WELD FIXTURE THE LH2 TANK CONSrSTS OF AN AFT DOME, AN AFT BARREL (CONTAINING 2 LONGERONS FOR SRB ATTACHMENT), 3 FORWARD BARRELS AND A FORWARD DOME ALL WELD OPERATIONS THRU THE THIRD FORWARD BARREL ARE COMPLETE AS SHOWN THE INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL COMPONENTS AND INSTRUMENTATION ARE IN PROCESS THE FINAL WELD OF THE FORWARD DOME IS SCHEDULED FOR LATE THIS MONTH AT WHICH TIME THE TANK WILL UNDERGO MPTA PROOF AND COMPRESSION TESTS IN BLDG. 451. PAGENO="0252" 248 PAGENO="0253" LH2 PROOF TEST FAC IL ITY BLDG. 451 THE ONLY NEW FACILITY BUILT AT MAP FOR EXTERNAL TANK IS BLDG. 451 LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE MAP PROPERTY, IT WILL BE USED TO PNEUMATICALLY TEST THE LH2 WITH SIMULTANEOUS LOAD APPL~ICATIONS NORMALLY INDUCED BY THE ORBITER AND THE SRB. THIS TEST WILL ASSURE THAT THE TANK IS SAFE AND ABLE TO WITHSTAND THE CYCLING EXPECTED FOR MPTA APPLICATIONS AND THE LOADS EXPERIENCED DURING LAUNCH AND FLIGHT. PAGENO="0254" 250 PAGENO="0255" FORWARD BARREL WELD FIXTURE THIS UNIT DESIGNED BY MARTIN AND BUILT. BY OUR BALTIMORE DIVIS1ON, TRIMS, * WELDS, FORMS AND X-RAYS THE EIGHT PANELS WHICH ARE CONMON TO ALL LH2 FORWARD BARRELS. .* * * PAGENO="0256" 252 PAGENO="0257" AFT BARREL WELD FIXTURE 0 THE FIXTURE PICTURED HERE PRODUCES BOTH THE AFT BARREL OF THE Lit2 TANK AND THE BARREL FOR THE LOX UNIT.. IT IS ONE OF SEVERAL MULTI~USE TOOLS DEVELOPED FOR USE ON E/T. WE HAVE COMPLETED TO DATE, 2 LH2 AFT BARRELS AND 1 LOX BARREL. C;' PAGENO="0258" 254 PAGENO="0259" VAB MAJOR TOOLING INSTALLATIONS BLDG. 110 (VAB) HOUSES THE 6 VERTICAL CELLS REQUIRED TO HYDROSTATICALLy TEST THE LOX TANK, CLEAN AND IRIDITE THE LOX AND LH2 TANKS, PROVIDE TPS APPLICATION AND OFFERS A FACILITY TO SPLICE THE COMPLETE VEHICLE. ALL CON~ STRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE TO PLAN WITH MINOR CRAB ITEMS NOW BEING WORKED OFF. THE MOST CRITICAL OF THESE VERTICAL CELLS ARE THE ONES DEVOTED TO THE SPRAY APPLICATION OF THE THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM (CPR-488). THE NEXT CHART WILL ILLUSTRATE THIS FURTHER. PAGENO="0260" EXTERNAL TANK VAB Major Tooling Installations BLDG 1~ CELL C L1421PS APPLICATION CELL B L02/INTERTANK TPS APPLICATiON CELL A STACK POSITiON CELL E 102 & LB2 * CLEANING POSITION CELLO LH2 AFT DOME TPS APPUCATION S~O4S PAGENO="0261" CELL `tF" - BLDG. 110 AT THE COMPLETION OF MAJOR WELD THE LOX TANK WILL BE HYDROSTATICALLY TESTED IN CELL "F". THIS INTERIOR VIEW SHOWS THE PATHFINDER DOME, BUILT TO CHECK OUT THE COMPONENT WELDING TOOLS, IN USE DURING THE CHECKOUT* OF THE VACUUM SYSTEM IN THE FACILITY. PAGENO="0262" 258 PAGENO="0263" CELL "B" ~ "C" TPS APPLICATION CELL B IS A MULTI-PURPOSE CELL USED TO SPLICE THE~INTERTANK AND THE LOX TANK INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR TPS APPLICATION. OPERATIONAL READINESS INSPECTIONS AND THE INITIAL OPERATION OF THE SYSTEMS WILL OCCUR IN MID MARCH. CELL C IS DEDICATED TO THE APPLICATION OF TPS FOR THE HYDROGEN TANK. WHILE WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCTED TPS SPRAY APPLICATIONS IN THE LABORATORY WITH SPECIMENS FROM 10 TO 33 FEET IN DIAMETER, WE HAVE NOT AS YET HADANY EXPERIENCE IN THE PRODUCTION MODE WITH A UNIT OF THIS SIZE. WHILE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENVELOPE FOR AN ACCEPTABLE TPS APPLICATION IS UNDER- STOOD AND THE FACILITY IS DESIGNED TO MEET THESE SPECIFICATIONS, WE EXPECT TO UNDERGO CONSIDERABLE FINE TUNING OF THE FACILITY TO GUARANTEE AN ACCEPTABLE PRODUCT. PRELIMINARY TESTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS HAVE GIVEN US CONFIDENCE THAT THIS IMPACT WILL BE MINIMAL. PAGENO="0264" 260 PAGENO="0265" STA THE SECOND MAJOR ARTICLE SCHEDULED FOR DELIVERY IN DECEMBER 1977 IS. THE STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE FOR MSFC. . ., AS CAN BE. SEEN FROM THIS CHART, ALL PROCUREMENT TO SUPPORT THE PRODUCTION.. BUILD IS ON DOCK WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE INTERTANK COMPONENTS WHICH ARE NOT SCHEDULED UNTIL LATE MARCH. . ~. . 85% OF THE UNITS REQUIRED TO START MAJOR WELD HAVE BEEN FABRICATED THRU THEIR RESPECTIVE WELD TOOLS AND AWAIT THE COMPLETION OF MPTA ON THE MAJOR WELD FIXTURES BEFORE FURTHER ACTIVITY CAN BEGIN. PAGENO="0266" Congressional Subcommittee Presentation MICHOUD OPERA liONS _________________________________________________________ STA STATUS CHART NO. ___________ DATE 2-5-77 SPEAKER Smith LEGEND PROC. 0/0 MAF _______ MAFASSYCOMPI" P-3-25 1624 PAGENO="0267" MANPOWER IN 1974 AND 1975, DUE TO FUNDING CONSTRAINTS AND THE IMPACT ON PLANNED WORK EFFORT AS WELL AS HIRING PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF TOP LEVEL WELDERS, TOOL MAKERS, ETC., AND HIGHER THAN EXPECTED ATTRITION, WE UNDERRAN OUR MANPOWER STAFFING PLAN. THIS SITUATION WAS REMEDIED IN 1976 WITH THE AID OF TDY PERSONNEL FROM BALTIMORE AND DENVER, HIRING FROM AREAS OUTSIDE NEW ORLEANS, THE USE OF TEMPORARY JOB SHOP TALENT AND A STABILIZATION OF OUR WORK FORCE. RECENT DESIGN CHANGES WILL IMPACT THIS STAFFING PLAN BY PREVENTING REDUCTIONS IN ENGINEERING, PRODUCTION OPERATIONS AND THE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES. BASED ON A QUICK LOOK EVALUATION OF THIS IMPACT COUPLED WITH THE PLANNED WORK SCOPE, WE EXPECT TO PEAK IN THE 3RD QUARTER OF CY 1977~ PAGENO="0268" iwanrin aiarner*n 1200 1000 800 600 400 Congressional Subcommittee Presentation ___________________ CHART NO. _____________ MICHOUD OPERATIONS DATE 2-5-fl SPEAKER Smith 1400 Lu 0 a. a C 2 493.4944499 200 PAGENO="0269" CONTRACT STATUS CURRENTLY (1~3O~77) THE EXTERNAL. TANK CONTRACT HAS A DEFINITIZED VALUE OF 213.8 MILLION DOLLARS. AN ADDITIONAL 3.7 MILLION DOLLARS OF CHANGES HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED BUT NOT DEFINITIZED WITH 22.2 MILLION AUTHORIZED, BUT NOT YET NEGOTIATED. AUTHORIZED CHANGES NOT SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN ROUGHLY ESTIMATED AT 41.9 MILLION. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT ADDITIONAL FY-77 FUNDING WILL BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW .TIMEL~Y RESPONSE TO CHANGES SUCH AS RANGE SAFETY, ICING ON PROTUBERANCES AND LOADS GENERATED AS A RESULT OF VIBRO-ACOUSTIC AND AIR LOAD DATA. PAGENO="0270" MICH000 OPERATIONS [gsot~ Subcommittee Presentation CONTRACT STATUS NAS8-30300 AS OF 1-30-77 CHART NO. ___________ DATE_ 2-5-77 spEAKER~Smith DOLLARS IN MILLIONS A. DEFINITIZED CONTRACT COST $213.8 B. AUTHORIZED CHANGES - NEGOTIATED THRU 1~3O~77 3.7 C. AUTHORIZED CHANGES - SUBMITTED THRU 9-17-76 22.2 0. AUTHORIZED CHANGES- NOT SUBMITTED 41.9 TOTAL $281.6 ~,?.4RI*77.4 PAGENO="0271" PROCUREMENT ~ SUBCONTRACT WE HAVE COMMITTED APPROXIMATELY 90% OF OUR PLANNED EXPENDITURES FOR THE PURCHASE OF TANK STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND PROPULSION COMPONENTS AS WELL AS TOOLING AND FACILITY SUBCONTRACT COSTS. THESE CONTRACTS ARE PRIMARILY FIXED PRICE AND INCLUDE ALL DDT~E REQUIREMENTS. FIXED PRICE OPTIONS FOR INCREMENTS II AND III ARE INCLUDED IN THESE CONTRACTS. PAGENO="0272" MICP4OUD OPERATIONS - PROCUREMENT AND Congressional Subcommittee Presentation SUBCONTRACT COMMI TMENTS j CHART NO. ___________ DATE 2-5-77 SPEAKER Smith CALENDAR YEARS 1973 1974 1975 1976 .1 1977 1978 1979 I 1980 PERCENT OF TOTAL I- C,) 0 C.) w > I- -J w 100 90 80 70 60 - 50 - 40 30 20 10 0 PROCUREMENT FACt LITIES TOOLING TOTAL 43 30 27 100 ACTUALS ~ - PERCENT COMMITTED TO DATE I PROCUREMENT 97 FACILITIES 75 TOOLING 84 PERCENT EXPENDED TO DATE PROCUREMENT 60 FACILITIES 71 TOOLING 82 3141112 3141112 314112 3 411 2J3 4J 11213 4111213 411 1213 FY-74 FY-75 FY-76 `T' ~FY-77 FY-78 FY-79 FY-80 PAGENO="0273" 0 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PLACE PROCUREMENTS IN 45 OF THE 48 STATES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. THE HIGH VOLUME DOLLAR AREAS INCLUDE CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, OHIO, ILLINOIS, TENNESSEE, ALABAMA AND WASHINGTON. THIS DISTRIBUTION IS EXPECTED SINCE THE PREPONDERANCE OF LARGE AEROSPACE TYPE FACILITIES ARE CONCENTRATED IN THESE AREAS. AS A PART OF OUR PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, WE HAVE ESTABLISHED RESIDENT TEAMS INCLUDING PROCUREMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALISTSAUGMENTED BY ENGINEERING AND PRODUCTION CONTROL SUPPORT AS REQUIRED. PAGENO="0274" GEOGRAPHICA1~ DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR PROCUREMENT GORVDOME WELD TOOLS WEING.SEATTLE. WA LH2 BARREL PANELS REYNOLDS I Mc~OOK. IL SRB FITTING FQRG1NGS ALCOA CLEVELAND. OH GH2 DISCONNECTS LEAR SIEGLER ELYRIA. OH L02 SLOSH BAFFLE A~EMBLY KAMAN. BLOOMFIELD. CP4 GARDENA.. HYDRAULIC CONTROL SYS (FAC) MAROTTA. BOONTON. N.J. UI2 & LO2 WELD TOOLS LTV DALLAS. TX PAGENO="0275" SMALL AND MINORITY BUSINESS WE ARE FORTUNATE IN HAVING HIGH QUALITY, COMPETITIVE, SCHEDULE CONSCIOUS, VENDORS UNDER CONTRACT FOR EXTERNAL TANK COMPONENTS AND SUBASSEMBLIES. 80% OF THE PROCUREMENT AWARDED, REPRESENTING 45% OF THE DOLLARS, HAVE GONE TO SMALL BUSINESS FIRMS. WE ENCOURAGE LOCAL MINORITY BUSINESS TO BE A PART OF OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS AND HAVE BEEN SINGULARLY SUCCESSFUL IN AWARDING ALMOST 1.0 MILLION DOLLARS IN THIS MARKET PLACE. PAGENO="0276" OPERA TfONS I Congressional Subcommittee Presentation SMALL AND MINORiTY BUSINESS STATUS * As Of 12131176 SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENTS VALUE MINORITY BUSINESS VALUE OF OPPORTUNITIES TO B1D -. NUMBER OF AWARDS VALUE OF AWARDS e SBA/DCAS RATING "EXCELLENT" CIIARTNO. ___________ DATE 2-5-77 SPEAKER Smith TOTAL APPLICABLE AWARDED PERCENT 27,721 22,220 80% $74,152,971 $33,268,565 45.0% $5,530,172* 349* $931,373* ~cAA7I~ M~RIMT7A PAGENO="0277" ISSUES THE PRIME FUNCTION OF DDT~E IS TO DESIGN AND DEVELOP A PRODUCT WHICH MEETS ITS ULTIMATE SPECIFICATIONS AS QUICKLY AND. INEXPENSIVELY AS POSSIBLE. MATURING OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS ACROSS THE MANY AGENCIES INVOLVED, THE SOLUTION OF DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS AND THE ATTENDANT CHANGES ARE INEVITABLE. WE ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN OUR SPEC. WEIGHT BUT ARE ALERT TO ANY CHANGES WHICH COULD IMPACT IT. THE ADDITION OF A RANGE SAFETY SYSTEM ON E/T COULD IMPACT COST AND SCHEDULE, THE SCALE UP FROM DEVELOPMENTAL EXPERIENCE TO PRODUCTION APPLICATION FOR TPS IS AN UNKNOWN FACTOR, AND OF' COURSE ANY MAJOR CHANGE IN LOADS COULD DIRECTLY IMPACT OUR STRUCTURAL DESIGN EFFECTING HARDWARE ALREADY BUILT OR STILL BEING PRODUCED BY OUR VENDORS. WE ARE IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION THRU OUR CUSTOMER AT MSFC, WITH ALL AGENCIES WHICH COULD EFFECT OUR PROGRAM AND ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE IMPACTS BY PLANNING WORKAROUNDS IN THE TECHNICAL, COST AND SCHEDULE AREAS. ` THE VERY TIGHT FISCAL FUNDING CONSTRAINTS DEMAND CONSTANT RE-EVALUATION OF THE WORKSCOPE AND ITS IMPACT ON SCHEDULE. AT TIMES, REQUIRED CHANGES FORCE A COMPLETE RE-LOOK AT THE PROGRAM TO ALLOW IN LINE INSTALLATION WITHOUT IMPACTING THE PROGRAM MILESTONES. OUR VERY TIGHT SCHEDULE ON MPTA DEMANDS CLOSE INSIGHT AND CONTROL OF FUNDING! SCHEDULE TRADE OFFS. PAGENO="0278" M IC H Cu o OPERATIONS ~ngressiona1 Subcom mittee Presentation MAJOR ISSUES DATE 2~5~71 SPEAKER mith TECHNIC~ * PENDING CHANGES IMPACT ON WEIGHT * RANGE SAFETY * THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM MANUFACTURING APPLICATION * LOADSAND ENVIRONMENTS PROGRAMMATIC * FiSCAL FUNDING LIMITATIONS MARF1P~ MARi~T74 PAGENO="0279" FIELD HEARINGS SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1977 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, * COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS, * Johnson Space Center, Hou8ton, Tex. STATEMENT OP DR. CHRISTOPHER C. KRAPT, JR., DIRECTOR, LYNDON B. JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, NASA, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMPSON, CHARLESWORTH, PILAND, JOHNSTON, AND RICE Dr. KRAFT. Welcome to Houston. We're glad you brought the sun- shine with you from Washington and all that warm weather. We have been making progress, and we're going to tell you a little bit about that. Can I have the first chart, please. NASA-S-77- 612 ACHIEVEMENTS FY 76/77 * ORBITER VEHICLE 101 ROLLED OUT SEPTEMBER 17, 1976 * MODIFICATION/UPGRADING OF FACILITIES FOR SHUTTLE!STS * ENGINEERING TEST FACILITIES ! AVIONICS LABORATORY * MISSION CONTROL CENTER * CREW TRAINING/SIMULATION COMPLEX * SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY * OBTAINED AND MODIFIED SHUfFLE CARRIER AIRCRAFT * OBTAINED SHU1TLETRAININGAIRCRAFT * INITIATEDNEWASTRONAUTSELECTION * MAJOR PROGRESS IN APPLICATIONS - LARGE AREA CROP INVENTORY EXPERIMENT * ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES * SATELLITE SOLAR POWER SYSTEM * SPACE INDUSTRiALIZATION Just with the time you are here, Bob Thompson is going to spend some time briefing you on the Shuttle. Then Mr. Charlesworth is going to taik about Shuttle payloads. (275) PAGENO="0280" 276 Mr. Pilia.nd is going to talk about what we call space/solar power studies, and I think you will be impressed and pleased with the prog- ress we have have been making there on what we think might be a reasonable approach to this thing over the next 10 years. We will talk a little bit about space and life sciences. We recently combined those two groups here in the science depart- ment. Then we will give you a rundown on what our latest work on large area crop inventory experiment has been in trying to find out where all the wheat in the worldis. Can I have the next chart, please. NASA-S-77-613 FUTURE ACTIVITIES * COMPLETE DEVELOPMENTITESTING OF SHU1TLE * MARCH 77 - FIRST CAPTIVE FLIGHT * JULY 71 APPROACH/LANDING TEST * MARCH 79-MANNED ORBITAL FLIGHT * MAY 80 - OPERATIONAL FLIGHT * COMPLETE UPGRADING!MODIFICATION IN PREPARATION FOR SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL ERA * FLIGHT PLANNING AND CONTROL * FLIGHT DATA MANAGEMENT * CREW TRAINING/SIMULATION * ON-BOARD CREW EQUI PMENT * CARGO/ORBITER COMPATIBILITY * RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON ADVANCE SPACE SYSTEMS * SPACE INDUSTRIALIZATION * SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS PAYLOADS FOR STS MISSION I am sure you are familiar with the fact that the orbiter was rolled out on the 17th of September and that we delivered it to Edwards Air Force B:ase week before last, and we were out there on the last 2 days of last week, Thursday and Friday, with the first flight readinesä re- view to put the orbiter on the back of the 747 and make the first captive inactive flight. As a matter of fact, if things are on schedule, we could put the orbiter on the back of the 747 this day. I didn't see anything out of that flight readiness review that would stop us from continuing, and I think we are all pleased with the schedule result. We've got a lot of tough problems ahead of us, but we're really pleased with the progress we are making. Bob Thompson will say some more about that in a minute. Locally, as far as our facilities are concerned in getting ready for that Space Transportation System, which we call Shuttle/STS, we have modified a number of our- test facilities, and they have been in work, such as the accoustics facilities that we have Efor testing the noise and vibration expected during launch, some facilities to measure the heat protection qualities of the thermal protection system of the Orbiter, and so forth. PAGENO="0281" 277 The Avionics Laboratory is in a configuration for the first approach- and-landing test, and we have been running in that facility now active- ly for almost a year. In the last 3 months we have had software packages that are being developed for the first manned drop flight at Edwards. The Mission Control Center has been modified and we are about to run our first simulation for the control center that will be used for the manned active part of the flights. Up until that time the facility out at the Flight Research Center will be used to control the carrier aircraft flights that we will be starting at the end of this month. The crew training and simulation complex: we've got the orbital aeroflight simulator Unfortunately,. you are not going to get ~i chance to see that, but the pilots have been using it for about the last 2 months to do training. We have had some minor problems with it, but generally speaking it works very well. The Visualization System that is used to stimulate the approach to Edwards Air Force Base has worked extremely well, a lot better than we thought it might, and we are well pleased with the activities there. In all of these things, the software, which is provided from re- quirements given to the software development laboratory where it starts its original development, and then gets handed to these other various facilities that require it, and eventually into the vehicle for integrated tests, has been, as we expected, one of the most difficult tasks that we have had to cope with, and over the last 4 months I believe we have made excellent progress in getting that computer program working. I would say that in all the things that we've got to do, software development continues to be one of the most complex and difficult things that we have, and it has taken a lot of effort on both the technical people's part and management people's part to keep that from being the tall pole in the tent and holding things up. So, we are pleased with the fact that we have been able to get the software into our facilities that needed it over the past 3 or 4 months. As you know, the Shuttle carrier aircraft was delivered to Ed- wards Air Force Base Flight Research Center in the middle of Janu- ary and has flown its flight test without the orbiter on its back, and is now ready to receive the orbiter and make the next step in the flight test. The Shuttle training aircraft, we have two of those which are modified Gulfstream II's, built and tested by Grumman Aerospace Co., have been delivered. We had a great deal of trouble with the aircraft in the last year trying to get it working well, get the structure worked out, an~d get the automatic control systems working properly,. and there were those of us that doubted at times we were going to make it. However, after we got the aircraft delivered,, it has turned out to be onO of the best pieces of hardware we have ever had. We have had very little trouble with it. We have been flying it out in White Sands duplicating and simulating the trajectories that the orbiter is going to fly in its first flights. All four of the pilots and the training pilots have now been trained in that vehicle and they have been flying it just like they do any other aircraft in other training. PAGENO="0282" 278 It has worked out extremely well. We are very pleased with how that has gone. Congressman FUQUA. Have you had any of those flights here? Dr. Ki~n~. No, sir. We base the airplane here and then fly it out~ to White Sands, take the people necessary to do that, which are very few, and make all the approach and landings at the White Sands Missile Range there. It's turned out to be an excellent place to operate because we are not interfering with any kind of traffic at all and it has just been. an outstanding place to operate. We are very pleased with it. I was going to say, if we have the orbiter simulated properly in the Shuttle training aircraft, it does not appear that the pilots are going to have any problems in making that flight test. It handles very well and they just don't have any trouble flying it. We have tried many different means of approaches, different kinds of energy management to approach the runways and so forth and it works out extremely well; the pilots are very, very pleased with both that and the orbital flight simulator that we are using. They think they are being well trained and are going to be up on the right curve and the right step to make the flight test. You `are familiar with the astronaut selection program that we ini- tiated this year. We presently have about 1,200 applicants. We sent out literally thousands of responses to people who wanted `applica- tions. We have received approximately 1,200, and we `have an astro- naut selection group that sort of works on these in hundreds, and we have been through the first 300 in great detail. We have a computer program that screens the applicants first, and then we review the applicants manually by the people on the board; that is, even though we have it under computer control, we do look at every one of the applicants to make sure we're not missing any qualified people. We `expect that at the end of June when there will be another grad- uating class, we will probably get a large number more. Then, we are prepared to close applications around the first of July and go to our detailed selection process; we will be able to do that in about 6 months to a year. We have made some suggestions, by the way, which have not been accepted yet. We think it might not be a bad idea to make selections on a continuing basis. We think it would help stimulate interest in our program and at the same time allow us to bring people on board in a reasonable way other than by taking in large numbers. So, it's possible that over the next few months you might get the suggestion that we do this sort of thing. In the large area of crop inventory experiment, which we call LACIE, we `have made some progress, and I won't go into the details because we're going to talk to you about that, and indeed the same thing is true on spacesolar power. We're going to give you a briefing on space solar power. The only thing that I would like to say ~5q we can continue to be very pleased with the results of our study in that from an economics point of view it appears to be competitive with other means of energy. We think it has promise. PAGENO="0283" 279 We wouldn't want to start into project and build the first space solar power satellite to go into geosynchronous orbit tomorrow. There are the right kinds of steps to be taken, and we're going to tell you a little bit about what those are in a few minutes. Of course, it really ties into Space Industrialization and manufac- turing in space. The two are sort of hand in hand with each other. We'll show you a little bit about what that means. We are on schedule. The first captive flight-it looks like we will be ready to do that in about a week and a half to 2 weeks. We have the first taxi test scheduled for, right now, for around the 15th of February, and we see no reason why we aren't going to make that. Between March and July, we will have made about four or five flights in this mode, and then we will activate the Orbiter about May and have all systems running, put the men in and do more captive tests with the active Orbiter and then be ready in July to make this test. We're not going to force ourselves to meet these schedules, but it appears that we will be ready, and we see no reason why we can't make it. The first manned orbital flight is still scheduled for 1979 and opera- tions in 1980. I don't want to kid you. I think we have had a great deal of struggle financially in maintaining the schedule as we were talking briefly before the meeting started; trying to keep the subcontractors deliver- ing the hardware we need and keep the in-house Rockwell manpower at such a level that~ we can use the hardware when it gets there has taken a great deal of management and hard work on both NASA' and the contractor's part. I can't praise the contractor and the civil service team too highly for the job they've done, and, as I said, it has been a difficult task for us but we have learned a great deal about financial management as well as technical management within the last 3 years. We have a number of things left to do between now and the first operations flight which is after the orbital flight test program con- sisting of six flights of the Orbiter. We are trying to get things into~ some kind of automated mode so that we can reduce the amount of manpower required, sort of modularize the kinds of things that we need to do in flight planning so that~ we can keep the cost per flight down and the numbers and resources of people required to do that job to a minimum, and we're making good progress there. We've got the Shuttle mission simulator in work and the other facilities necessary to do crew training. We are making good progress, but we have got to get a lot done after we get the crew `trained for the approach and landing test. On board crew equipment, as you would guess, is a major logistic problem. If you start flying the large number of flights that we have projected we're going to have to automate on-board equipment logis- tics so that we don't hold things up between each flight. We've got to learn how to operate; that is, how to get the integra- tion done among the kind of things that we're going to carry, and the avionics system and so forth. So, there are some minor modifications that will be made to our Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory. PAGENO="0284" 280 In R. & D. we are still active, active trying to convince people that this is what some of the programs at NASA ought to be. You'll hear some more about that, as I said. Then, we're also working on other kinds of payloads that could be carried in the Orbiter such as life sciences, a large number of experi- ments in the Space Laboratory, and other applications and programs for Earth resources and observations. You will hear more about that. That's about all I was going to say. I'm going to hand the baton to Mr. Thompson who's going to give you a detailed briefing of the Shuttle program. Thank you. Mr. THOMPSON. Good morning. I have about a 45 minute overview briefing here. To set my briefing in perspective, I'm the senior individual in the Government who spends full-time on the Shuttle, outside of Washing- ton. I plan to give you a good overview of the total program this morning. We will follow this up with lunch, and there will be time for de- tailed questions. I know that some of you follow the program with monthly status briefings, but I will begin with a broad overview. PAGENO="0285" 281 LA JAN 77 NASA-S-77-681 A SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM PHASES* * DES I GN, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION * PRODUCTION * OPERATIONS NASA-S-77-682 LA JAN77 * SPACE SHUTTLE SCOPE OF DDT&E PHASE * 10 YEARS * FLIGHT ACTIVITY * APPROACH AND LANDING TESTS * 6 ORBITAL DEVELOPMENT FLIGHTS * DEVELOPMENT HARDWARE * 2 ORBITERS PAGENO="0286" 282 SPACE SHUTTLE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT STATUS * FLIGHT CONFIGURATION FULLY DEFINED * DETAILED DESIGN WORK COMPLETED ON MOST ELEMENTS * ANALYTICAL DATA BASE HAS MATURED SIGNIFICANTLY * * FIRST INTEGRATED VEHICLE ANALYSIS CYCLE COMPLETED IN MAY 1916 * SECOND CYCLE SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETiON IN TIME TO SUPPORT SHUTTLE SYSTEMS CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW (CDR) IN AUGUST 1917 * DESIGN CHANGES RESULTING FROM DATA BASE MATURITY HAVE BEEN RELATIVELY MINOR * ETIORBITER AND ET/SRB INTERFACE LOAD REVISIONS * AUGUST 1916 * THERMAL DESIGN UNDER EVALUTION AT PRESENT * ANALYTICAL DATA BASE WILL BE UPDATED BY MAJOR INTEGRATED GROUND TEST RESULTS PRIOR TO ORBITAL DEVELOPMENT FLIGHTS LA2 NASA-S-77-542 JAN 77 PAGENO="0287" 283 I put this chart in primarily just to remind us of what our long term objective was here, and that was to build a general purpose space, transportation system that would give us a capability of routinely. flying to and from near Earth orbit, and doing it in a cost effective manner. The Space Shuttle is the keystone element of the `space transporta- tion system, and when it becomes operational, will fly this type of mis- sion profile. You can see the launch configuration, here. The vehicle configura- tion, 2 minutes into flight when we have used up the solid rocket boosters, and they are separated and parachuted in the ocean and re- covered, again, providing a cost effective approach. The external tank will continue on until just short of orbital inser- tion velocity where we separate the tank, the tank is the one element of this system that is expended each time. we fly. We boost the Orbiter on into near Earth orbital `operations, and then we can conduct a very broad'spectrum of space missions from this vehicle or carry boosters and satellites into this orbit for transfer into higher energy orbits. Once the mission is completed, we reenter the Orbiter, landing on a conventional runway in a conventional transport airplane fashion. We are designing for short turnarounds so that when this system becomes mature we can replace a large number of. expendable launch systems that we currently have in the national inventory. We talk about the program in three very broad phases: Design, de- velopment, test and evaluation phase; then, a productiOn phase; and, finally, the operations phase. Until we have achieved the operational maturity as depicted on the previous chart, we really haven't succeeded in what we set out to do in the Shuttle program. This is, of course, our end objective and the operations are conceived to be carried out at two launch bases, one at Cape Canaveral at the Kennedy Space Center and one at Van- denberg Air Force Base. We are scheduled to have a total of five Or- biters operating out of those two bases and flying on a routine basis to and from Earth orbit. Let me project back now. We are now in the midst of our D.D.T. & E. phase, and we're just beginning to move into the production phase of the program. So, I am going to talk primarily about these two phases today. The D.D.T. & E. phase is really a 10-year period of activity. If you go back and pick up the first couple of years in the program when we were trying to decide just what the Shuttle should be, that occurred through about 1970 to 1972. In 1972 we embarked on the detailed development of the vehicle of which we can see the models here today. In D.D.T. & E. we have two significant flight activities,: The approach and landing test that Chris has been talking about that are beginning to commence out at Edwards Air Force Base, where we decided to test very carefully the landing phase associated with these vehicles, since that was a unique new phase for us; and, starting in 1979 we have six orbital development flights outlined. In this particular phase of the program, as far as the orbiters are concerned, we end up with two pieces of development hardware: One PAGENO="0288" 284 Orbiter that we call 101 which we use for approach and landing tests, and that Orbiter must be refurbished before it's capable of orbital flight. It will have to be done in our production phase of the program: and, a second Orbiter which we call 102, where we can conduct our first orbital flights, but that Orbiter has some limitations because we have additional instrumentation, additional weight, things of that nature on board, and it must have some limited refurbishment later during the operational phase before it achieves its full operational capabilities. At this time, the D.D.T. & Lphase is estimated at $6.816 billion of th~l\~a~78~budget. seepiates to $5.22 billion in 1911 dollars. Commission FUQUA. Inflation has taken up $1 billion? Mr. THOMPSON. Pardon me? Congressman FUQTJA. Inflation has taken up $1 billion? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes; when we end up the run-out of the program. Our original projections were in 1971 dollars. Congressman FTJQTJA. 1971 dollars wasn't it? Mr. THOMPSON.YeS, 1971 dollars. Congressman FUQIJA. There is very little leeway there. Mr. THoMPsON. The system we now have come to understand is a vehicle that weighs about 4~/2 million pounds at lift-off. It's some 180 feet in~ overall height. It's clustered in this particular arrangement where we have all engines firing at lift-off. Basically, this configuration has matured and has remained quite stable for the last 2 or 3 years. The configuration is full defined. The detailed design work has been completed on all of the elements. Our analytical data base that we bring along with the development of any major system of this nature has matured significantly over the past year and a half. Our first integrated vehicle analysis, where we come through a complete cycle, starting from the time we fix the external mold lines of the vehicle, gives us enough detailed design data to understand the internal structure. You then must analyze the results of your wind tunnel program, math-model your structural characteristics, work through loads, the heating, characteristics of the flight control system, things of that nature. That analysis has been fully completed on one complete inte- grated set of OATA and we're in the process of going through a sec- ond update where we find our angularity settings, wind tunnel data and refined math-models of the structure. As the flight control system matures you upgrade the analysis based on that. As we get results from our early ground operations test we feed the results of those test back in. We get limited structural tests as components are developed, and feed that back in. We will finish a second major cycle here in time to support what we call a critical design review for the total system scheduled for August of this year. As we have gone through this refinement of design and analysis, our design changes resulting from this have been very small. So. we have been able to project what we needed on the vehicle in size and very few changes have come into the system. We have made some minor adjustments in interface load after we finished this cycle last May. We did catch all of our manufacturing in time that the load update could flow into the program without a major PAGENO="0289" 285 impact. We are currently tying to update some of our thermal anal- ysis. There will be some fine tuning as a result of that. Congressman F~IQTJA. Have you found any problems in that? Mr. THOMPSON. We're in the process of perhaps having to add a little bit more insulation in local areas for what we call protuberance heating. Such as places where we have a stand off holding a pipe out- side the tank, the local heating around that. We're just getting down to that level of detail. As we understand that, we have to go in and put a little bit more cork in certain areas as opposed to spraying on insulation. But it is that kind of fine tuning, nothing of any real significance. Congressman WINN. Bob, in your design changes there, are those original designs for installing payloads in the orbiter scheduled for vertical, loading? The first time I saw it, I thought it was going to be loaded horizontally. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, basically, since the early days of the pro- gram there were both capabilities. There was a body of opinion in the program that said we should only do it vertically, and there was a body of opinion that said we should only do it horizontally. We initially started with a strong thrust toward doing it `horizon- tally back in the orbital processing facility and to keep the payload in the orbiter all the way through the remainder of the cycle. How- ever, I personally felt that would be the wrong way to do it and a lot of other people did also. I think we will see most of the payload go into the vehicle late in its cycle on the pad. As you know, we can do it either way. Congressman WINN. Vertically. Mr. THOMPSON. Vertically. Dr. KRAFT. It comes down to a question of ~ise vs. cost and in the end you almost have to do it that way to keep the time required for a given orbiter down to some reasonable value. I think that's one of the major things that drove people to the vertical loa4ing. Mr. THOMPSON. Plus, it's a strong constraint on the vehicle to mix both disciplines too early. You like to leave the payload people over there doing their thing, and the vehicle people doing their thing as late as possible. But, although we have the capability of doing it both ways, I think vertical installation will prove to be the best line of approach. That has been the program plan for several years. That's a quick overall status. Let me talk a little bit about weight. 92-082 0 - 77 - 19 PAGENO="0290" 286 LA 2 NASA-S-77-685 JAN 77 SHUTTLE SYSTEM WEIGHT STATUS JANUARY 1977 (10F2) CURRENT MARGINS MISSION 1 MISSION 3A * LEVEL TI PERFORMANCE 3569 4728 (1) * LEVEL III WEIGHT * ORBITER -274 -274 * SSME (3) 240 240 * ET -1072 -1072(2) * SRB (2) 595 595 * PERSONNEL (GFE) 59 0 * TOTAL INJECTED MARGIN 3117 4217 NOTES: (1) MULTI PLE TARGETING INCLUDED PLUS 3 DAY/2 MAN MISSION (2) 4000 LB ET WEIGHT REDUCTION (BLOCK U TANK) NOT INCLUDED LA 2 NASA-S-77-686 JAN 77 SHUTTLE SYSTEM WEIGHT STATUS JANUARY 1977 (20F2) * PERFORMANCE / WEIGHT POTENTIAL CHAN~G~ NEGAtJV~ POSITL'L~ * INCREASED AERO-THERMAL CONSTRAINTS 400 * INCREASED LOADS 150 * RANGE SAFETY 440 * SSME NOZZLE INSULATION 370 * ELEMENT INERT MAXIMUM EXPECTED GROWTH 2400 * WTR - SRM TEMPERATURE CONDITIONING (70°F) 1170 * FWD-RCSBURNONAOA 600 * ETBLOCKILWEIGHT REDUCTION 4000 * WEIGHT MATURITY~ ESTIMAi~ CALCULAT~P UAL * ORBITER (103) 40.9 43.9 15.2 * SSME 1.0 30.0 69.0 * ET 11.0 89.0 0.0 * SRB 18.0 78.0 4.0 PAGENO="0291" .287 This is the current Shuttle system weight status. We carry two missions in our mission weight detailed analysis. Mission 1 is a 65,000-pound weight, where we launch due east out of the cape so a~s to get maximum benefit from the Earth's rotation. This is the type of mission that would perhaps be most applicable to long-term industrialization projects. This is a near polar mission launched from Vandenberg. The final inclination in this orbit i~ 104 degrees retrograde. So, it's a little bit more than polar as far as the ~ rotation. is concerned. At this point, when you analyze how much push the system has, as far as throw weight into orbit, we have about 35,000 pounds, for mis- sion 3A we currently have about 4,600 pounds excess for either of these missions. When we started in this program with a carefully sized vehicle to our base line mission, we tried to size the vehicle to be neither over- sized nor undersized. We could have been more conservative and made the vehicle con- siderably larger that would have given us bigger weight pads at this time, We went through and made our analysis on nominal expected per- formances, our best guess at weight, without carrying a lot of pad in our pocket, and this is where we stand today. This is pretty close to where we expected t be. So, we have about that much margin for what we. are targeting for on these missions. Now, these margins are computed based on the different elements meeting their target weight, although we see here that the tank and the Orbiter are both overweight some 1,000 pounds in the tank and 274 pounds in the Orbiter. The engine, the solid rocket booster and other things are still imider their target weight. But, they are, theoretically, supposed to come in on target. In other words, they are supposed to grow to their target weight, which means we have the system just about sized to where we had planned to have it at this time. We do have a block update that we're planning on the tank, and over here I projected some additional improvement. They about offset each other. I don't thjnk the different elements here, for example, are going to be able to make their target weights. The tank, as it initially comes in, the Orbiter, as it initially comes in, are going to be slightly over- weight as projected in this number. We have a few things that are still going to bring some weight into the program. We also have `some means `of getting some additional performance. So, I think'we a-re about where we expected to be weightwise. It's tight. I think we have sized the vehicle about where it should have been sized. Congressman FUQUA. Did not the Martin Marietta. people tell us that we were going to be `able to reduce 4,000 pounds? Mr. THOMPSON. . In the tank? That would play against this par- ticular number, here. Congressman FUQUA. Yes. PAGENO="0292" 288 Mr. THOMPSON. And then we have a block update of the tank where we think we can go in after some flights and take as much as 4,000 pounds out. We have a number of loads that come into the tank. When they rare fairly straightforward loath like the th~ust loads from the booster rocket on from the Orbiter, we have put a design margin on those loads of 40 percent. Congressman FUQUA. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Just like we do other loads that maybe are not as well designed. So, after a few flights, where we're sure of that loading condition, we can go in and cut down the gage of the metal in those areas and pick up about 4,000 pounds as we produce later tanks, and for a pro~ duction-run-like tank, it's fairly straightforward to do that. We don't think it will take a lot of engineering after we get our static test program. We think we can achieve this kind of weight reduction. Our weight maturity is coming along. We have three different categories of weight maturity. You might have to make an estimate, early, and then you can do some very fine detail once you get the detailed design. Then, of course, once you get the actual components, you can weigh them. You would ultimately like to have a 100 percent over in this column, but we're getting good maturity on our weight, and we don't expect to miss these weights very much. As a matter of fact, the first Orbiter, 101., we weighed it last week and we had missed the Orbiter weight about 125 pounds out of 145,000 pounds. The Orbiter weighed, I believe, 125 pounds less than we carried on our books, out of 145,000 pounds. LA NASA-S-77-687 JAN 77 SPACE SHUTTLE SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAM * ORBITER/SYSTEM INTEGRATION * CARRIER AIRCRAFT * SPACE SHU1TLE MAIN ENGINE * EXTERNAL TANK * SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER * MAJOR GROUND TESTS * TRAINING SIMULATORS * LAUNCH AND LANDING * FLIGHT TEST Now, let me go through each element of the program and give you a general feel forwherewe are today in the D.D.T. & E. Here are the principa~I elements of the program as we talk about them: The Orbiter; then, the systems integration activities, and the others. PAGENO="0293" CY SYSTEM 1973 1974 1975 1976 19J~7 1978 Ii SYSTEY SYSTEM PD FIRST CAPTIVE ~ APPROACH REQUIREMENTSA `Z~ FLIGHT I 3 7 AND LANDING FIRST MANNED SYSTEM CDRS-~8 TEST ORBITAL FLT. REVIEW ALT OFT 4*' MGV 11 ALT FMOF ORBITER MAIN PROPULSION ORBITER PREL. 5 TEST FIRING DES. REV.A ORBITAL FLT CRITICAL DES. REV~IEW~ 12~ ~~1O DESI.X AND DEVELOPMENT / QUALIFICATION AND GROUND TESTS~~~~.s...__ TEST ARTICLES MFG : ~ TESTS ~ ROLLOUT g AMPTA DEL. ORB #2 ORB #1 .*. : 6 8 ADELIVERY ORBITER MANUFACTURING MAIN ENGINE ~ PDR PRO-BURNER ISTB ALL UP THROTTLING 7 DEL DEL FIRST FLIGHT SET £ TEST £ A CDR9A'~ AMPTA SET 9A~NG. DEVELOPMENT & GROUND TESTS FLIGHT ENG. MFG. EXTERNAL TANK PBR DESIGN bELIVER DEL FIRST FLIGHT RE9~~A PDR~ CDR* MPTA~6 TANK A1O DES. DEVELOP & TESTING / FLIGHT TANK MFG SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER ,cDR 7 FIRST DEV 9 DEL. FIRST PDR* 12*: ~FIRING AFLIGHT SRBS ,,/ DES. DEV AND TESTING SRB MPG. LAUNCH AND LANDING 91 3 LPS PDR~ A LPS CDR LPS READYTh FRF~FMUF DEVELOPMENT 1 P/L OFT~ MPTA MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLE PDR rKttjiIINMKT ut~i~i~ REVIEW LPS = LAUNCH PROCESSING SYSTEM ISTB = INTEGRATED SYSTEMS TEST BEB CDR CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW FRF FLIGHT READINESS FIRING ALT = APPROACH AND LANDING TEST OFT = ORBITAL FLT TEST This is our basic development schedule. You probably see this sched- ule on a regular basis in Washington; it shows our internal planning milestones as compared to the external commitments to the Congress andOMB. I think a principle thing that you should see from this chart, as you look at it in a broad sense, is that we're pretty well through the desigu phase which I talked about. We're ready to move into this majorffight activity in ALT, and, then, J would character 1977 as an ALT activity. 1978 is going to be the major ground test activity, things like testing of our integrated propulsion system, ground vibration testing, the coin- plete system. So, there is major ground testing in late 1977, 1978 time period, and then starting toward the orbital flight in 1979. Each of the major elements are shown here. And some of that major activity is also illustrated on this breakout here. The first rollout has been talked about, and the landing tests are ready to commence. Then, after we complete these tests at the end of 1977, major testing of our propulsion test article, structural test article. Meanwhile, the second orbiter is being fabricated for delivery to the Cape in later 1978 in preparation for orbital flight in 1979. Now, those schedules are in your handout and you can look at the detail elements in more detail if you like. 289 NASA-S-77-791 SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE JA~177 `~ EXTERNAL COMMITTMENT ..._~ PAGENO="0294" 290 LA NASA-S-77-687 A JAN 77 ORBITER/SYSTEMS INTEGRATION * ORBITER 101 DELIVERED BY OVERLAND TRANSPORT TO DFRC 31 JAN 77 FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW FOR FIRST CAPTIVE FLIGHT AT DFRC PLANNED FOR *3-4FEB 77 * ORB ITER 102 MANUFACTUR ING AND ASSEMBLY PROCEED ING ON~ SCHEDULE * MID FUSELAGE SCHEDULED FOR DELIVERY FROM GENERAL DYNAMICS (SAN DIEGO) 11 FEB 17 * MAJOR TEST ARTICLES PROCEEDING SATISFACTORILY Cutting across, the orbiter/systems integration, Chris covered this. We did have orbiter 101 delivered to Edwards Air Force Base at the end of January, and Chris talked to them this morning and they have decided to wait and do the mating either tomorrow or Tuesday morning. We have the first taxi test scheduled on the 15th. We will make three different runs up the runway at speeds of, I believe, 75 knots, 120 knots, and roughly 135 knots. The tests are primarily to see how the oon. figuration behaves. We will look at the data, and if everything looks good, we hope to make the first flight on the 18th. PAGENO="0295" 291 A picture of the two sets of crews. We have two command pilots; a piFot to go along with each; two sets of crews se~ected to fly the program. They're shown here with the vehicle during rollout. PAGENO="0296" I `1 This is a photograph of the vehicle moving between Palmdale and Edwards The major test articles are proceeding satisfactorily 292 PAGENO="0297" 293 PAGENO="0298" 2~4 Here are some photographs of the 102 vehicle. This is the 102 crew compartment. This is the pressurized segment of 102. The forward fuselage lower aft assembly, whIch goes under this portion of the vehicile and the mid fuselage is built by Convair down in San Diego, for 102. This is shown in the photograph on your right. These components begin to arrive at Palmdale later on this month, and the assembly of the 102 vehicle will commence there later this year. PAGENO="0299" 2~5 NASA-S-77-712 B OVERVIEW - ORBITER SUBSYSTEMS CONFIGURATIONS (1 OF 5) MA 1-31.77 SUBSYSTEM ORBITER 101 APPROACH & LANDING TEST ORB hER 102 151 ORB ITEE~FLICHT REMARKS * AVIONICS * GUIDANCE NAVIGA- lION & CONTROL * COMM & TRACKING * DISPLAY & CONTROL * INSTRUMENTATION * DATA PROCESSING &_CONTROL * ELECT. POWER DIS- TRIBUTION AND CONTROL * COMPUTERS PARTIAL . OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT AUDIO SYST PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL MANIPULATOR ARM NOT INSTALLED PARTIAL OPERATIONAL BOTH 101 & 102 HAVE DEVELOPMENT fliGHT INSTRUMENTATI ON (DFI) PARTIAL OPERATIONAL PARTIAL OPERATIONAL 102 WIRING WILL BE `KITED TO MATCH PHASED PAYLOAD KITS (5) NO ORBITAL SOFTWARE (5) OPERATIONAL NASA-S-77-713B OVERVIEW - ORBITER SUBSYSTEMS CONFIGURATIONS (2 OF 5) SUBSYSTEM ORBITER 101 APPROACH & LANDING TEST ORBITER 102 1ST ORBITER FLIGHT REMARKS * ELECTRICAL * FUEL CELLS OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL * CRYO TANKS ~ NOT INSTALLED OPERATIONAL . 101 WILL USE SPECIAL "K" BOTTLES (GAS) * ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM PARTIAL NO SPACE RADIATORS OPERATIONAL * CREW STATION/EQUIP *PAYLOAD SPEC. STA. NOT INSTALLED PARTIAL DEFERRED INSTALLATION * MISSION SPEC. STA. NOT INSTALLED PAR1IAL DEFERRED INSTALLATION * FLIGHT CREW STA. * CREW PROVISIONS EJECTION SEATS EJECTION SEATS MA 1.31 .77 I put these charts in. I don't inthnd to go through them for the sake of time. I did want you to have them in yourbook. There is a point I'm trying to make here, and that is that the 101 vehicle does not have all of the subsystems that the 102 subsequently has to have in order to fly.I think you are aware of that. For example, in the avionics area, both in hardware and in software, we have primarily those systems on board required for the ALT phase of the program. PAGENO="0300" 296 For example, in our onboard computer programs, we don't have the navigation equations or all the guidance equations that are involved in that software. So, there is a significant set of activity still, to be carried out in these major subsystem areas between 101 and 102, and then the 101 vehicle has to go back to the factory and has to be upgraded significantly before it is capable of full orbital support. Dr. Kit~pT. One of the things that came up in our discussion last Thursday and Friday was the fact that 40,000 people showed up the day after the rollout, just to see the vehicle. Congressman WINN. 40,000? Dr. KRAPT. Yes, sir, and we're very concerned, when we start flying this thing, about how many people are going to show up at Edwards Air Force Base. They are not equipped to handle that kind of approach to their test facility out there, and if we end up with 100,000 people one of these days when we start flying we don't know what we're going to do with them. Mr. THOMPSON. We'll have trouble waving off and flying around or something like that if a camper gets on the runway while we're flying. PAGENO="0301" 297 This is a photograph taken of the 101 midfuselage, and you can see some of the systems that we have located in the payload bay for our development of flight instrumentation, for example. This will also be true of 102. For our first six flights, with orbiter 102, we've taken up a significant part of the payload capability of the vehicle to be able to carry development flight instrumentation. NASA-S-77-714 B 1-31-77 OVERVIEW - ORBITER SUBSYTEMS CONFIGURATIONS (3 OF 5) SUBSYSTEM ORBITER 101 APPROACH & LANDING ORBITER 102 1ST ORBITER FLIGHT REMARKS TEST * MECHANICAL SYSTEMS * LANDING/DECELERATION OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL * PAYLOAD ACCOM- NOT INSTALLED PARTIAL REMOTE MANIPULATOR MODATION SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED FOR THE 3 RD FLIGIff DOCKING MECHANI SM, DOCKING MODULE AND PAYLOAD RETENTION INSTALLATION WILL BE PHASED INTO 102 DURING PERIOD FOLLOWING INITIAL ORBITAL FLIGH~IS * HYDRAULICS PARTIAL OPERATIONAL * PITOTISTATIC/AOA TEMP. 101 ALSO HAS SPECIAL PROB OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL INST. BOOM PROBE * PROPULSION NON-FLIGHT OPERATIONAL NASA-S-77-715 B 1-31-77 OVERVIEW - ORBITER SUBSYTEMS CONFIGURATIONS (4OF5) ORBITER 101 * ORBITER 102 SUBSYSTEM APPROACH & LANDING 151 ORBITER FLIGHT REMARKS TEST * * FORWARDFUSELAGE SPECIALNOSEMIRING OPERATIONAL PROVISIONSONOV 101 STRUCTURE AND INST.BOOM * BOOM FOR AIR DATA SENSORS * RAM AIR VENT SCOOP REPLACES RT. WINDOW N/A 101 ONLY (E~1ERGENCY VENTING) * CREWMODULESTR(JCT ESCAPE SYSTEM ESCAPE SYSTEM 1O1&1O2ONLY * Mt D-FUSELAGE STRUCT. ~ * PAYLOAD DOOR * STRUCTURAL DOORS & OPERATIONAL HINGES PAGENO="0302" SUBSYSTEM * AFT FUSELAGE STRUCT * AIRLOCK * THERMAL PROTECTION & CONTROL * PURGE VENT& DRAIN ORBITER 101 APPROACH & LANDING TEST PART IAL NOT INSTALLED SIMULATED PARTIAL ORBITER 102 1ST ORBITER FLIGHT OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL REMARKS 101 WILLUT!LIZE FLIGHT TEST TAIL CONE 101 TPS IS SIMULATED MOLDLINE & TEXTURE! WEIGHT SAVINGS CON- SIDERATIONS 101 WIND SHIELD ANTI- FOGGING I won't go through this next set of charts. They are in your book to point out some of the differences in the subsystems on 101 as compared to the work still remaining prior to the flight of 102. 298 NASAS77716B MA 1-31-77 OVERVIEW ORBITER SUBSYSTEMS CONFIGURATIONS (5 OF 5) PAGENO="0303" 299 Some photographs of the various tes~t articles. We have pretty well completed our sled test article program at Holloman where we tested the ejection seats. As you know, we have actually put crew ejection seats in the 101 and 102 vehicles. We do not plan to have any ejection seats in the mature orbiter once we get into that phase of the program. We have pretty well completed the ejection seat test with this article. This is full-scale fuselage for 102 I showed another picture of earlier. Thisis the main propulsion test article. It is in the final fitout phase now and will be shipped to NSTL this summer. This is the orbiter portion of the propulsion test article. The tank and engines come from their home factories to NSTL and the final assembly is done there. we beii ~iase ogram later on this year in t~ tank, solid rocket booster, and PAGENO="0304" 300 PAGENO="0305" 301 The Shuttle carrier aircraft. This modification phase of the pro- gram is essentially completed, and this airplane, now, is at Edwards awaiting mating, a~ we discussed earlier. We have had some 30 hours of flight testing after the modifications were accomplished. We delivered the airplane on this date. We did install an escape chute in. the vehicle for the escape of the crew in the event of a major catastrophe, and it is ready for mated flight. Some of the modifications you can see here. The tip fins have been put on to gain back the directional stability that we loose by blocking the flow over the vertical tail with the orbiter mounted in this posi- tion. That is what these large vertical surfaces on the tip of the horizontal stabilizers are. We had to beef up the structure in these portions of the vehicle and add these external posts for carrying the orbiter. We do our flight tests with a forward post which gives us about a 6 degree incident angle. You can see it in the model, here, between the orbiter and the 747. When we ferry, we use a~shorter post and pull the angle of attack of the orbiter down relative to the 747. LA NASA-S-77-689 JAN 77 SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE (SSME) * GOOD PROGRESS ACROSS P1~OJECT DURING PAST YEAR * CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED IN SEPTEMBER 1976 * RATED POWER LEVEL OPERATION, MINIMUM POWER TO RATED POWER LEVEL THROTTLING CAPABILITY, AND EXTENDED OPERATION AT MINIMUM POWER LEVEL DEMONSTRATED DURING THE PAST SIX MONTHS * SIMULATED ALTITUDE ENGINE TESTING ON NSTL A-2 STAND YIELDING GOOD RESULTS * ALL ENGINE COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN TESTED TO FULL POWER LEVEL CONDITIONS EXCEPT: HIGH PRESSURE FUEL TURBOPUMP AND FLIGHT NOZZLE. * COMPONENT STABILITY (BOMBING) TESTS INDICATE EXCELLENT STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS * FOUR ENGINES DELIVERED TO DATE; MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLE ENGINES ON SCHEDULE FOR JULY 1977 DELIVERY * GOOD PROGRESS BEING ACHIEVED IN SOLVING PROJECT PROBLEM AREAS * HIGH PRESSURE FUEL TIJRBOPUMP TURBINE TIP SEAL CLEARANCES, TURBINE END COOLING SOLUTION VERIFICATION, AND ROTOR STABILITY VERIFICATION. * GENERAL TURBOPUMP PERFORMANCE * PLANNED TEST RATE BEING ACHIEVED BUT PLANNED DURATION (TEST MATURITY) LAGGING - CATCH BACK PLAN ESTABLISHED - HEAVY PROJECT EMPHASIS DURING NEXT TWO YEARS * NEAR-IN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES: * RATED POWER LEVEL OPERATION WITH DURATION * EXTENDED DURATION TESTING AT PROGRESSIVELY HIGH POWER LEVELS (MINIMUM OR RATED POWER LEVEL) * START TRANSIENT DEVELOPMENT TO RATED POWER THRUST LEVELS * HEAT EXCHANGER AND GIMBALLING DEVELOPMENT * FULL POWER LEVEL OPERATION * MPT ENGINE DELIVERY/MATURITY Moving cii to the Space Shuttle main engine. As you will recall, this is the part of the program that we embarked on earlier. We have been under way since 1972 with this program. I think we have made good pro~re*ss. The engine has been sort of high on the hit parade with problems the last 6 to 9 months. I think they have made, recently, some very good progress in fixing the turbine machinery difficulties that we were having. 92-082 0 - 77 - 20 PAGENO="0306" 302 We're making a lot of tests. We're not getting the duration that we had hoped to get on these tests, but I think we have learned an awfully lot about the engine cycle, and I am confident that the duration test- ing that we need in the near future will come about. Basically, good progress across the program. Our design has matured. We have three different power levels that we talk about on the engine. We have a minimum power level which is 50 percent of this thrust level here. We have rated power level which are at these par- ticular levels, and then a full power level which is 9 percent higher than this. On the performance numbers I showed you earlier, we actually used the full power level during launch to achieve that performance. So, when the system matures, we want to be able to operate the engine at the full power level. We have operated the engine quite satisfactorily up to our rated power level. PAGENO="0307" ~3O3 We have not achieved full power level on a couple of our major components, like our fuel turbopump or the nozzle. However, we hope to achieve that relatively soon here now.. We have made good progress in our altitude simulation testing over at NSTL stand A-2. Mr. TnoMPsoN. You will get this in more depth at Huntsville. All of our engine components have been tested to the full power level, the number shown over there, except for the high pressure fuel pump and nozzle, as I mentioned. The assembly looks like it's quite stable.. We haven't found any problems with our bomb test. This is a routine test where a smiaii amount of combustie material is cletona~ted in the combustion dhauiber. We delivered four full engines to date. I think we have made good progress on resolving the problems I mentioned. Here are our near term thjedtives. We want to achieve longer dur4a- tion testing at rated power level, get up to 100 percent power and stay there for longer duration to make sure we understand the duration issues as you achieve stabilized temperatures and presures throughout the vehicle. PAGENO="0308" 304 We want to do some extended duration testing at progressively higher power levels. The full power operation we have put down on our priority list. We do not have to have that initially, at this point. We want to be able in time, though, by the time we get into MPT testing to operate the engines at full power level. Oongressman WINN. When will that be? Mr. THoMPsoN. Well, we have our first test in Deoember of this year. The time we would need to operate that engine at full power level is probably mid-1978. So, roughly 11/2 years to work out those full power level tests. The external tank. Here's an artist's concept of the tank. It's roughly 155 feet long, 28 feet in diameter. The oxygen is located up in the forward part of the tank. Liquid hydrogen is in the aft part of the tank. Our initial tooling is complete. PAGENO="0309" 305 LA NASA-S-77-690 JAN 77 EXTERNAL TANK * El INITIAL TOOLING COMPLETE * COMPONENT QUALIFICATION IN PROCESS * MPTA WELDING 75% COMPLETE * SOME MANUFACTURING START-UP PROBLEMS WITH LARGE TOOLS * WEIGHT CONTINUES TO BE CRITICAL * SCHEDULE AND COST VERY TIGHT * ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATES AFFECTING FLIGHT HARDWARE We are making good component qualification. The welding for the main propulsion test article is some `i'5 percent complete. The first full tank that we manufactured goes to the main propulsion test use, and shortly behind this one we will have our struc- tural test article. We have had some loss in time in making some of our assembly welds. We had to redo one major weld, That is not unexpected in a large production tooling program of this nature. Weight continues to be critical. I-talked about that. Schedule and cost, I think you could say that cuts across the entire program. These environmental updates are these thermal issues that we dis- cussed earlier of trying to fully understand what degree of thermal protection we need. PAGENO="0310" 306 SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANK ANTI-VORTEX7 LH2 TANK-N INTERTANK-~ DOME GORE . MAJOR L02 TANK-1 FRAME A. : SLOSH- NOSE CAP BAFFLE AND TUMBLE MAJOR FRAME - BARREL PANELS SRB-BEAM DIAMETER 27.8 FT(8.5 m) LENGTH 154.4 FT (47.1 m) WEIGHT Kg) SYSTEM -INERT 74.0K LB (33.8K -LAUNCH 1638.7K LB (745.0 Kg) INCLUDES SOFI (SPRAY ON FOAM INSULATION) Here, again, this is not in my judgment a problem for the flow of the program. We can afford to put a little extra insulation on the tank as we fly it the first few times, and after that, if we have areas where we have put too much insulation we can always back off as we build the next tank. NASA-S-77-~5O04 LA2 - JAN 77 PAGENO="0311" 307 Here are some recent photographs of the- Congressman FUQUA. We saw that yesterday. PAGENO="0312" 308 Mr. THOMPSON. All right. Good. That's the baffle and some of the welding activities over there. NASA-S-77-691 LA SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER JAN 77 * CDR COMPLETED DECEMBER 1976 - EIGHT MONTHS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE * BAC CONTRACTOR UNITED SPACE BOOSTERS INCORPORATED (USBI) SELECTED - AUTHOR ITY TO PROCEED (ATP) DELEMBER 17, 1976 * FACILITY CHECKOUT PROCEEDING AT THIOKOL. FORWARD AND CENTER SEG- MENTS IN PROCESSING FOR DM-1 * FIRST FIRING, DEVELOPMENT MOTOR HDM-1) SCHEDULED FOR EARLY JUNE * AUXILIARY POWER UNIT (APU) VIBRATION ISOLATION TESTS COMPLETE * FIRST SET OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS (STA) IN FINAL FAB AT MDAC (DELIVERY TO MSFC THIRD QUARTER THIS YEAR) * FIRST TWO BOOSTER SEPARATION MOTORS (BSM) SUCCESSFULLY FIRED * NO MAJOR TECHNICAL PROBLEMS * TIGHT SCHEDULE FOR SEVERAL CRITICAL PROJECT MILESTONES THIS YEAR * DM4 FIRING * APU QUALIFICATION * STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE DELIVERY * COMPLETION OF INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS TEST Moving on to the solid rocket booster, we have completed our design activity, and we held our critical design review some 8 months ahead of schedule. We very recently brought on a booster assembly contractor. As you know, on this solid rocket booster we brought Thiokol on some time ago to build what we call the solid rocket motor which is the propel- lant, the case and the nozzle; but the structural elements that make the aft assembly structure, forward assembly structure, parachutes, and so forth, Marshall designed those elements inhouse and then they subcontracted subsequently to McDonnell Douglas to build those com- ponents, and now we have recently brought aboard a booster assembly contractor, United Space Boosters, Inc. They will take the solid rocket motor from Thiokol, those elements from McDonnell Douglas and will assemble the booster and tool a complete solid rocket booster configuration. The next major activity, or a major activity at Thiokol coming up is our development motor No. 1 firing which is scheduled for this summer, early June, and some testing in our auxiliary power unit. These boosters have a separate hydraulic system located in the aft end to provide hydraulic power to gimbal the nozzle. So, the tests on the subsystem development activity are beginning to be completed. The first set of structural elements from McDonnell Douglas will be delivered the third quarter of this year. At this time, I see no major technical problems in the booster. We're seeing a bit of cost growth, both at Thiokol and McDonnell Douglas compared to what our basic planning was in that area. We have seen these contractors spend somewhat more money than we had planned at this point in time. So, we're having to watch that area carefully. PAGENO="0313" 309 The structural test article will be tested at Marshall. It's scheduled for delivery later on this year. Some of the integrated electrical components come from various vendors around the country. Bendix is a major vendor of electronics systems. Some of the photographs of the solid rocket motor are shown over to the right. LA2 JAN 77 AND * DIAMETER CASE) 122FT (3.7ni) * LENGTH 149.1FT (45.4m) NASA-S-76-10149 E SPACE SHUTTLE SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER APPROXIMATE WEIGHTS AND THRUST 4 SEPARATION MOTORS IICONTROL WEIGHT (EACH) 22K LBS 97.9K N -GROSS 1292.3KLB 586.2KKg )THRUSTEACH)- -INERT 182.7K LB 82.9KKg * THRUST (SL( 2.7MLB 12.OMN SRB/ET ATTACH RING AND SWAY £ = 7.16:1 SEPARATION AVIONICS OPERATIONAL FLIGHT FWD SKIRT INSTRUMENTATION RECOVERY AVIONICS PAGENO="0314" 310 Congressman FUQTYA. What did you say the DM-1 firing was? Mr. THOMPSON. That's a development motor. In this program we have seven static firings of this large booster. The first four we call development firings and the last three are qualification firings. Congressman FUQIJA. That will be in June? Mr. THOMPSON. That will be in June. Congressman FUQTJA. Is that going to be on time? Mr. THOMPSON. It looks like it is going to be pretty well on time. We had planned to have it as early as March but our optimism caught up with us, in fact July was our original schedule. The program that is shown now, the milestone is shown in July. I think it might come off now in June. Congressman FUQUA. Are there problems that may delay it beyond that? Mr. THOMPSON. No problem that I can see right now. We're not going to have it as early as we thought we would. Congressman FUQTJA. Was there a problem that caused that? Mr. ThoMPsoN. Just that we~were not able to get the whole pipeline flowing at the rate that we thought we would, but the motor casings are now at Thiokol for that motor. They have been fabricated at Lad- dish; they have been heat treated and fine machined at Rohr. They are delivered at Thiokol. We're in the process of pouring propellant into those first fabricated cases at Thiokol. No, I don't see any reason why we should not make the June target date we now have for ourselves in that area. NASA-S-77-692 JAN77 SPACE SHUTTLE MAJOR GROUND TEST PROGRAM * GROUND VIBRATION TEST (GVI) * QUARTER SCALE - ROCKWE~L-DOWNEY * FULL SCALE MATED VERTICAL - M.SFC * MAIN PROPULSION TEST (MPT) - NSTL * ELECTRONIC SYSTEM TEST LABORATORY (ESTL) - JSC * SHUULE AVIONICS INTEGRATED LABORATORY (SAIL) - JSC * GROUND AND FLIGHT SEPARATION TESTS - ROCKWELL-DOWNEY, MSFC, KSC PAGENO="0315" 311 LA 2 NASA-S-77-693 JAN 77 MAJOR GROUND TEST PROGRAM (10F4) * 1/4~SCALE SHUITLE VIBRATION TESTING (QSGVT) * THE QSGVT PROGRAM IS WELL UNDERWAY. ONE EMPTY SRB MODEL HAS BEEN DELIVERED AND THE TESTS ON THIS INDIV I DUAL ELEMENT ARE COMPLETE. THE 1/4-SCALE EXTERNAL TANK HAS BEEN DELIVERED FOR TESTING AND THIS TESTING IS UNDERWAY AT THIS TIME. THE RESULTS O1~ BOTH OF THESE ELEMENT TESTS ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE RESULTS ANTICIPATED BY THEMATH MODEL. THE ORBITER 1/4-SCALE MODEL WILL BE DELIVERED FEBRUAI~Y 28~1977. THE TESTS ON THIS MODEL WILL START IN MARCH. THE QSGVT TESTS SHOULD BE COMPLETE DECEMBER 1971 * MATED VERTICAL GROUND V IBRATION TEST (MVGVT) * THE REFURBISHMENT AND PREPARATION OF THE EXISTING SATURN DYNAMIC FACILITY SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS IS PROGRESSING SATISFACTORILY. THERE WAS A 100% REDSTONE AIRFIELD AND ROADWAY DESIGN REVIEW IN JANUARY 1977 AND CONSTRUCTION WORK IS SCHEDULED TO START ON THESE CONSTRUCTION Ci.IANGES IN FEBRUARY 1977. THE SPECIF~C INVOLVEMENT OF ELEMENT CONTRACTORS DURING HANDLING, STACKING, AND OPERATIONS IS BEING FINALIZED. THE M/GVT TESTING IS NOW SCHEDULED TO START IN MAY 1978 AND TO BE COMPLETED NOVEMBER 1978 As I mentioned earlier, the major ground test activity is just ahead of us in the program. Some of that activity is what we call a ground vibration test. We have two major activities: One, a quarter scale structural replica model which will be tested at the Downey facility; and, a full scale mated verticaJ~vibration test which is scheduled at Marshall in late 1978. I will talk a little bit more about those. The main propulsion test at NSTL, I've talked about. The electronics system test laboratory work dome here at JSC were essentially to test the electronic charac~ teristics of the vehicle and ground stations or satellites. Our Shuttle avionics integrated laboratory test here at JS(J is a mu~jor activity in the program where we do a complete integrated test of the core avionics on the vehicle, the avionics having to do with guiding the vehicle and managing the systems on tbe vehicle, and we have t~ major ground and flight separation test activity at two or three locations around the program. PAGENO="0316" 312 A lot of the tail service mass and so forth are tested at Kennedy in a facility there. This will occupy major activity in the program start- ing later this year. Dr. KRAFT. I'm surprised you left off the structural tests at Lockheed. Mr. THOMPSON. That's right. I was ~rying to fit something into 45 minutes here. I mentioned earlier, we do have major static structural testing of the orbiter going on at Lockheed later this year. The tank and the SRB are tested at Marshall in static structural test programs over there. One of the concerns we had when we chose this particular vehicle configuration-it's different from the vehicles that we have flown into orbit in the past, in that we have a parallel stacking arrangement in- stead of being stacked in series, like in the Saturn vehicle-we have these large masses here with their thrust, the orbiter with it's thrust, all connected into this external tank. One of the significant technical concerns that we have, is under- standing the structural dynamics of this machine as it relates to the forces that are involved, the flight control system involved, and so forth. So, we felt very early that we had to pay close attention in this area and we laid out a very careful test program to try to understand the structural dynamics. One of the things we did was to build a quarter scale model what we call a structural replica. We try to build an orbiter structure one- fourth actual size and build it in such a way that its strength and its mass characteristics represent quite closely what the full scale vehicle will have. The same thing is true about the tank and the solid rocket booster. Then we se.t this vehicle up on the ground and try to set soft mounts under the vehicle so as best we can simulate the true condition that the vehicle will be in when it flies, and then you try to study and un- derstand the structural dynamics characteristics. So, you, then take those modes and frequencies and feed them back into your analysis and be sure that you have good stability as far as the structural dynamics in the machine. Congressman WINN. What have you found so far as being your main problems? Mr. THOMPSON. Well, so far we're just getting into the testing. We have completed the testing of the solid rocket booster alone and we found that our analysis matched very closely what our test results gave us, but that's not `surprising because it's a fairly simple struc- tural shape and it should do a good job. We could pat ourselves on the back and say, "It looks real good so far," but we haven't achieved that much because that wasn't the tough part of the program. The tough part will come when we actually hook it up in this more complex fashion and we'll see whether our analysis matches what we get in the tests in the more complex configuration, and we're still 4 or S months away from having that data. We are now testing the tank alone, and it's looking pretty good. PAGENO="0317" 313 PAGENO="0318" T~iat's a picture of the tank in the test rig ever there now, at Dow- ney, and this is the quarter scale orbiter as it's being assembled at this time. The orbiter is delivered to the test site I believe in February of this year. PAGENO="0319" 315 Now, after we complete our approach and landing. test with 101, it flows on down to the Marshall Space Flight Center and goes into this mated vertical ground vibration test stand which has been modified and pretty well completed there, and we put the 101 orbiter to- gether with a tank and two solid rocket boosters and then we simulate different loading conditions in that tank and in the boosters for dif- ferent flight times along the profile, and we shake that particular vehicle and see if the structure modes and frequencies we get there match what we have in the program at that time as updated by our quarter scale test. This test activity, will take place in 1978. That's what we call a mated vertical test. PAGENO="0320" 316 NASA-S-77-694 A LA 2 JAN 77 MAJOR GROUND TEST PROGRAM (2 OF 4) * MAIN PROPULSION TEST (MPT) * PHASE I (OFF STAND MODIFICATIONS) AND PHASE U (ON STAND MODIFICATIONS) WERE COMPLETED ON SCHEDULE AND NASA * HAS BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY OF THE NSTL MAIN PROPULSION TEST FACILITY * PHASE ill (GSE REFURB I SHMENT AND MODIFICATIONS) AND PHASE & (SUPPORT EQUIPMENT INSTALLATIONS) ARE PLANNED FOR COMPLETION IN MARCH 77 * MPT SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEWS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED * MAJOR MPT TEST REQUIREMENTS AND OPERATION DOCUMENTS ARE BASELINED OR IN FINAL REVIEW PAGENO="0321" MSFC-SA6] -379 DEC 75 317 Another major integrated test activity is the main propulsion test. We took one of the Saturn V stands at NSTL, the portion of the stand that we were going to do our testing in as shown here, and what we did, basically, is take a flight weight tank, and this is the tank that is being finally assembled at NSTL now. With that tank, we put the full-scale elements out of the aft, end of the orbiter that are involved with the main propulsion system-the foi~'ward section is just a structural framework to represent the load pad through here, and in this configuration, with the three engines we can exercise the full propulsion system, and that's what the main propulsion test pro- gram is to accomplish. NASA-S-75-7724 SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN PROPULSION TEST SETUP AT NSTL THRUST REACTION POINT (FWD SUPPORT ET/SRB) LOAD SUPPORT FRAME TANK - SIMULATED ORBITER MIDBODY (BOILER PLATE) ORBITER PROPULSION S- 1C/B-2 We have currently base-lined about 15 separate firing activities where we operate the main propulsion system in that main ground test stand. We're trying to understand things-like the dynamics of the propulsion system. One of the areas of some concern in a vehicle of this nature is a thing we call POGO, where you can get oscillations in the' propulsion system which will couple into the structure and give you a dynamic loading during flight that could conceivably be higher than you had designed `for if you didn't have it stabilized properly. 92-082 0 - 17 - 21 PAGENO="0322" 318 Congressman FUQUA How is your test so fai on the POGO effect ~ Mr THOMPSON Well, again, POGO is an ait~a that we had some early concern for We embarked on the best this country could do in POGO early in the program by pulling togethei all the experts that we felt were appropriate and we have run a continually maturing analytical model When we started, we weren't sure whether we wanted to put an accumulator in the propulsion system or not We subsequent ly decided that we wanted more analytical margin than we were get tmg So, we have added accumulators At this time we don't see anything in the POGO analysis world that worries us However, POGO is an extremely difficult thing to study analytically You get the best people you can to work on it You work it as hard as you can and you still get surprised during flights So, we're still waiting anxiously to get the results from our main propulsion tests We're doing some separate tests up at Denver where we're testing the 1 °e oxvo~ai line One of the principal concerns in this program was that we have to bring liqi~d oxygen (LOX) out of the tank up forward and bring it down in a 1~t inch line and then turn it and feed it into the aft end of the orbiter So, that's a long column of fairly heavy liquid In a lot of our previous vehicles we put oxygen in the aft end and hroii o~ht it through a short line, but the geometry of this vehicle is such that we had to put the LOX up here to get the center of gravity where it had to be We're very concerned about the long run of LOX and we're making some special tests on that line But at this time, when you look at all the different POGO modes, the analysis of those modes, we have good, good stable damping in all of the modes Congressman WINN You still seem to be concerned about the pro pulsion tests Do you feel that you're behind in that or just so many things that you don't know how to b%rgain for ~ Mr THOMPSON I may 1~e leaving the wrong impression with you I have personally been quite encouraged by the progress that we have made to date in the propulsion system We knew that the engine development was a tough deve~lopment when we took it on We have made, in my judgment, very good prog ress, but there is stall a lot of work ahead of us, and that is a critical area to us I have, frankly, been encouraged that we have come as far as we have in the time that we have had available to us I think the fact that we have this engine under computer control so that we can, actually, by going in and changing the software in the computer, we can change the characteristics of the valves that control the engine, things of that nature It has made it a very good engine to fix when you find problems I have been very encouraged to date, but I want to be cautious There is a lot of hard work ahead of us PAGENO="0323" 310 NASA-S-77-695 LA 2 JAN 77 MAJOR GROUND TEST PROGRAM (30F4) * ELECTRONIC SYSTEM TEST LAB (ESTL) * ALT SYSTEM VERIFICATION TEST OF RF COMMJN ICATIONS AND TRACKING LINKS HAS BEEN COMPLETED * LAB CURRENTLY UNDERGOING CONFIGURATION CHANGES TO SUPPORT OFT TESTING * AIR FORCE GROUND STATION AND RELAY SATELLITE EQU I PMENT REQU IRED FOR OFT VERIFICATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED * OFT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT TEST IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT 77 * SHUfFLE AVIONICS INTEGRATION LAB (SAIL) * APPROACH AND LANDING TEST (ALT) FACILITY AND TEST LAB CONFIGURA- TION HAS BEEN COMPLETED - ALT TEST READINESS REV IEW HELD DEC 76 - HARDWARE/SOFTWARE CERTIFICATION TESTING IN PROGRESS * CONVERSION FROM ALT TO ORBITAL FLIGHT TEST (OFT) CONFIGURATION IS SCHEDULED FOR NOV 77 - OFT HARDWARE/SOFTWARE CERTIFICATION TESTING IS SCHEDULED TO START MAY 78 NASA 5- 77- 20512 EEl JAN 77 ELECTRONIC SYSTEM TESTS PAGENO="0324" 320 Let me move on here. This slide shows some our electronic system test activity. We set up the transmitter, both our telemetry and radio length transmitters and test them through simulated, or actual ground site. We simulated relay antennas back to the ground site, and test our electronics. We do a lot of that work here in Houston in our laboratories. The. Shuttle avionics integration lab I have already touched on earlier. This i~ a major activity for the program. As far as getting the avionics for this vehicle well understood, let me spend just a couple of minutes on this. We have said this several times to you, but in choosing the basic oonfiguration of this vehicle, both during the launch phase and dunn the orbital phase, we depend on the avionics to essentially control an stabilize the machine. For example, the orbiter during entry, just to pick one phase, although the ascent phase is also a very difficult phase, the orbiter during entry for' a lot of the C:G positions that we have, and a lot of the flight range that `we're in, is basically unstable. Aero- dynamically the thing is unstable, but we create, or develop artificially through the avionics system, sensors' of the vehicle sense motion and move the controls accordingly to gain the stability you want. The entire flight of the system depends very heavily on having the avionics put together properly, and then the SAIL is a device where we very carefully simulated that avionics on the ground and want to exercise it and make sure it works properly before we turn it loose to fly the vehicle. PAGENO="0325" 321 LA 2 NASA-S-77-696 JAN 77 MAJOR GROUND TEST PROGRAM (4 OF 4) * INTEGRATED SEPARATION SYSTEMS * COMPONENT AND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT TESTING IS PROCEEDING ON SCHEDULE - SYSTEM LEVEL TESTING ON FLIGHT TO FLIGHT SEPARATION SYSTEMS * ARE SCHEDULED FOR MAY 77 * THE LAUNCH EQU I PMENT TEST FACI LITY (LETF) THAT WILL VERIFY FLIGHT TO GROUND SYSTEMS HAS BEEN COMPLETED * SITE ACTIVATION UNDERWAY WITH TEST PROGRAM SCHEDULED TO START BY MAY 77 * ORBITER TO CARRIER AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT AND QUALIFICATION TESTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED a time. Let me just* ;hip w we ma ~ is being done t~ Kennedy on tests are shown here. ( ur book. .~ degree. We're running ny. PAGENO="0326" 322 NASA-S-77-697 SPACE SHUTTLE ~ TRAINING SIMULATORS * APPROACH AND LANDING TESTS (ALT) * ORB hER AEROFLI GHT SIMULATOR (OAS) - IN OPERATION AND BEING USED FOR CREW TRAINING - TIE IN TO MCC COMPLETE AND READY FOR INTEGRATED FLI GHT CREW! FLIGHT CONTROLLER TRAINING * SHUTILETRAININGAIRCRAFT(STA) - BOTH AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN TAIL CONE ON FLIGHT TRAIN ING FOR ALT * FLIGHT CREWS - PREPARATIONS MADE FOR TAIL CONE OFF SIMS - PLANNED USE IS APPROXIMATELY 30 FLT HRS!WK * ORBITAL FLIGHT TEST (OFT) * SHU1TLE MISSION SIMULATOR (SMS) - CONTRACT WITH SINGER WELL UNDERWAY AND ON SCHEDULE FOR OFT TRAINING SUPPORT - COMPUTER COMPLEX ACCEPTED AND OPERATING WELL * SHU1TLE PROCEDURES SIM~JLATOR (SPS) - BEING UTILIZED FOR ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS OF ASCENT AND ENTRY FLIGHT CONTROL - PROCEDURES DEVELOPMENT HAS STARTED - GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION TRAIN ING TO BEGIN IN FY 78 PAGENO="0327" `323 The aeroflight simulator has been configured and put together to give us early tests of the landing phase. We can actually take over at about 35,000, 40,000 feet and fly a very exact cockpit simu]ation down to the ground with the aeroflight simulator. * RUNWAY ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE (MSBLS INSTALLATION IN-WORK) * ORBITER PROCESSING FACILITY STRUCTURE 80% COMPLETE * VEHICLE ASSEMBLY BUILDING MODIFICATION ON SCHEDULE * SRB REFURBISHMENT FACILITY DESIGN COMPLETE * MOBILE LAUNCHER MODIFICATIONS ON SCHEDULE - SOUND SUPPRESSION - ACCESS TOWER - PAYLOAD CHANGEOUT ROOM * HYPERGOL MAINTENANCE FACILITY NEAR COMPLETION * FIR ING ROOMS CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE * GSE STATUS - KSU * LAUNCH PROCESSING SYSTEM PROCEEDING SATISFACTORILY * GSE - APPROXIMATELY 20% CONTRACTS AWARDED * LAUNCH EQU I PMENT TEST FACILITY CONSTRUCTION NEAR ~OMPLETION * SUPPORTING FACILITIES AT DFRC ON SCHEDULE * FACILITIES AT KSC PROCEEDING SATISFACTORILY PAGENO="0328" 324 These are the Shuttle training aircraft that were mentioned earlier. They give us the training that we need for flight crews for ALT. This simulator later becomes a portion of what we call the Shuttle mission simulator. We add to this the additional capabilities to give us the full launch and entry and landing simulator which will be brought in the program later on. The Shuttle aircraft will, of course, remain in the program as a landing trainer. Just a word about the facilities at Dryden. These facilities, our hangar, our mate/demate stand, these things are all on line ready to support the program out there now. As I mentioned earlier, we hope to do our mating earlier this week and be re.ady to move on into our flight test. progiainoiit there starting on the 18th. PAGENO="0329" 325 I don't see any problems anywhere at DFRC facilities from a sup- port standpoint. PAGENO="0330" 326 The facilities at Kennedy-you're going to go over there from here. Congressman FUQUA We have been there Mr THOMPSON Oh, you have already been there Again, I see no major problem there as far as being prepared to support the orbiter ~when it arrives there in late 1978 and the other elements of the pro gram to arrive there at that time The modifications to add the run- way, the orbiter processing facility outside the VAB, the VAB mods and the pad mods, these I'm sure you were briefed on in some depth Flight test. Here is a recent photograph of the two as they sit today at Edwards. We actually have the orbiter in the mate/demate facility. PAGENO="0331" 327 LA NASA-S-77-699 A JAN 77 FLIGHT TEST * SUPPORTING FACILITIES ON SCHEDULE * CHECKED OUT INERT ORBITER/SHUTTLE CARRIER AIRCRAFT (SCA) FLI GHT TEST CONTROL FACILITY AT DFRC 15-16 JAN 77 * ORBITER DELIVERED VIA OVERLAND TRANSPORT FROM PALMDALE TO DFRC 31 JAN 77 * FIRST MATED INERT ORBITER FLIGHT SCHEDULED FOR 18FEB77 * FIRST FREE FLIGHT OF THE ORBITER STILL ON SCHEDULE FOR MID SUMMER 1977 * ORBITAL FLIGHT TEST MARCH 1979 PAGENO="0332" 328 We will lift the orbiter up and then roll the 747 underneath and then lower the orbiter into position, mounted as shown by the model on the desk. This activity is all on schedule. We have covered that. PAGENO="0333" 329 PAGENO="0334" 330 Some configurations as it will look in the first flight on the 18th. This particular separation flight is now scheduled for late summer, and the orbiter flight test as shown over there in March of 1979. NASA-S-77-700 A LA JAN 1977 SPACE SHUTTLE PRODUCTION PHASE PLANNING MILESTONES * ORBITER 101 UPGRADE 6/81 * ORBITER 103 DELIVERY 3/82 * ORB ITER 102 UPGRADE 12/82 * VANDENBERG LAUNCH SITE READINESS 12/82 * ORBITER 104 DELIVERY 3/83 * ORBITER 105 DELIVERY 3/84 The production phase. Now, that was all I planned to talk about as far as D.D.T. & E. However, I think of interest to you, the production phase of the program-here are our current production planning milestones. Orbiter 101, after it finishes activity as part of our mated vertical ground operation test in late 1978 is scheduled to go back to Palmdale for an upgrade for subsequent delivery to the Government in June of 1981 and orbital flight configuration. The funding for this entire ac- tivity is carried under what we call production. Orbiter 103, we are currently carrying in the program for delivery in March of 1982. Vandenberg is to be brought on line by the Air Force. They are cur- rently in the early systems design phase there. They have the Martin Co. on board as a contractor to do the detail work for Vandenberg. PAGENO="0335" 3'31 These dates are all in the context of being negotiated with you at this time and the funding for these things is being negotiated, and I think in fiscal year 1978 you will see for the first time significant funding required to bring on this production phase. We have made some minor commitments on some long lead hardware up to this point, but the significant production phase funding is in this year's budget. PAGENO="0336" ~32 LA4 NASA.S.77.10059 ~JAN 17 SPACE SHUTTLE DDT&E FUNDING The comment on funding, the D.D.T. & E. funding, the shade marked here is actual. This is the funding remaining to complete the D.D.T. & E. phase as I outlined it here before you today, as well as these two major flight tests. NASA.S.77.10051 SPACE SHUTtLE PROGRAM DIRECT INDUSTRY MANPOWER 50 000 ESTIMATE 40000 1 30000 20000 10000 0 ~! 1973 1974 1975 1976Jj~77J 1978 1979 1980 1981 PAGENO="0337" 333 The direct industry manpower associated with D.D.T. & E. is shown here. Congressman FUQUA. That's just based on 101 and 102? Mr. ThOMPSON. That's right. This is only on 101 and 102. If we actually begin to bring.some of the production work in to support the schedule that I showed you previously, then there will be manpower out in here, and funding out in here to support that work. The total of D.D.T. & E. spending to date. We have actually expended $31/2 billion to date, through December. We're roughly `50 percent of the way through on our D.D.T. & E. cost. NASA-S-76-1018 ~ LA 4 A & D BUDGET JANUARY 25. 1977 OBLIGATIONS IN MILLIONS FY 73 (3 MOS.) P~ND~JOR f~j f~ TRANS. !L1~ EL1~ ORBITER 174.6 363.1 634.8 867.3 216.3 874.1 826.6 SSME 90.7 82.3 95.3 140.8 37.9 178.4 225.5 SRB 0.7 8.6 21.1 65.7 20.4 95.8 83.6 ET 1.3 18.1 34.0 82.3 26.0 81.0 80.0 LAUNCH AND LANDING 0.6 2.9 12.3 49.9 20.4 88.8 133.5 TECHNOLOGY AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT 21.0 -0- .0- -0- -0- -0- 0. VEHICLE AND ENGINE DEFINITION 88.2 -0- -0- -0- -0- Q~ Q.. 377.1 475.0 797.5 1206.0 321.0 1318.1 1349.2 REFLECTS NOA REVISION And these are our budgets. These are actual up through here, and this is essentially the budget request for fiscal year 1978 which is be- fore you at this time. In this line right up here there are significant dollars for production, to start that production activity. I don't intend to go through these. Right now since I'm running out of time. 92-082 0 - 77 - 22 PAGENO="0338" 334 NASA-S-77-74 1 TOP PROBLEMS / ISSUES * HPFTP ROTOR WHIRL AND TURB INE END BEARING COOLING * HYDRAULIC SYSTEM INTEGRITY * AV ION ICS!SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT * AVAILABILITY OF FLIGHT SOFTWARE * SOFTWARE VALIDATION FOR FMOF * ORB ITER APU DEVELOPMENT STATUS * FY 17 COST * SYSTEM WEIGHT AND PERFORMANCE * SYSTEM ENGINEERING SCHEDULE * AERODYNAMIC SEALS AND THERMAL BARRIERS * THERMAL STRESSES * ENERGY AND HEAT REJECTION * TURNAROUND!MISSION KIT TIMELINES * ORBITER LANDING GEAR Here are the top problems and issues that we carry in the program. I think you are briefed monthly on these issues. The engine is shown here, some of our hydraulics work. Again, this is just a schedule concern to get it all done. I would be happy to discuss any of these issues if you would like to have some detail on it. I think, Chris, that we're going to have lunch at this time. Congressman WINN. Could I ask a question? Are you finding any- thing in the avionics part on what you told us about your findings here that's going to benefit general aviation or commercial aviation? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I think the things that we're doing in Shuttle along with some other research programs that are going on in the country, our military programs, some people are using what we call digital fly-by-wire techniques where you use electronics to fly. Congressman WINN. That's like those toys isn't it? Mr. THOMPSON. Well, the F-16, for example, a military development today, is an airplane that the fight control system controls very care- fully. There are no commercial airplanes, today, that fly that way, al- though, again, I think we're building a supersonic transport or a higher performing transport and you may well want to move into an avionics system on that. But the answer to your general question is, yes. I think that some of the subsystems that we use and some of the techniques that we use and flight control systems, I think they will be in commercial vehicles in the future. Dr. KIw~T. The Douglas airplane to follow the DC-b has this kind of proposal in it, where the stability and control of the vehicle will be primarily provided artifically which allows them to decrease the size PAGENO="0339" 335 of the vehicle aini therefore increase the amount of payload and in- crease efficiency. It is directly dependent on this kind of technology to provide the stability and control of the vehicle. Now, that's a new step for general aviation into basically unstable airplanes that are provided stability by artificial means, and that's going tohave to be worked up through the FAA and the CAB and all that sort of thing in certain cases, but that appears to be one of the next steps in commercial aviation. That, along with the other work which the DOD and NASA are doing, the materials, these composite materials could greatly decrease the weight of commercial aviation vehicles. Those are the two major steps that you will see in commercial avia- tion, I believe. Mr. THOMPSON. Again, it is hard, in 45 minutes, to give you maybe the depth that you would like about a program of this nature. I would be happy, as we serve you lunch, to explain any area that we have talked about this morning. Congressman WINN. You talked about the weight problems. Does that really bother you or do you just figure you can get by with it anyway? Mr. THOMPSON. We're about where we expected to be in weight. Some of the previous programs have been what I would say would be more conservative initially. You did your performance knalysis on what we call three sigma low, a statistical probability that you're sure you can achieve, and then you calculate your performance on that. What happens, when you build the real vehicle, it overperforms. Now, that's a nice comfortable thing because you can then let the weight grow, but had we done that in this program this machine would have been a 5'/2-million-pound machine instead of a 4~-million-pound machine. Congressman WINN. How do you calculate the variation in the types of payload that you are going to have? Mr. THOMPSON. Well, we have merely said, we will design a machine to where we can handle payloads up to 65,000 pounds. Now, a lotof our payloads will be less than 65,000 pounds. In fact, most of them will. All of our discussion about weight is around that maximum weight payload. Congressman WINN. It's my understanding-I don't know where 1 heard it-that payloads are coming in lighter than originally guessti- mated. Is that right? Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I'm not sure I can comment on that. A lot of the payloads for shuttle have not been built yet. As such they can actually be built under the umbrella of the performance capability of the machine. Congressman WINN. But there is a little bit more latitude. Dr. KRAPT. For instance, commercial communication satellites. I think they are going to* be able, as they make them compatible with the Shuttle, to build the satellites in a lot of different ways in the future than they did in the past. You may hear that they are lighter. I think that eventually they will be heavier because they can take advantage of the capacity of the Shuttle and make them more useful as a result. PAGENO="0340" 336 Mr. THoMPSoN. I'm very confident that we're not going to be em- barrassed by any under performance characteristics of the vehicle. People can always ask for more. "Would you like maybe to have a bigger payload bay?" But I think the Nation is going to be able to operate quite well within the physical size capabilities of this payload bay and the weight, what we call the throw-weight of this machine, I think it's going to be adequate for the time period we're talking about. Now, it is not necessarily completely adequate for the longer range work, like a large solar station. You would need a `different way of getting weight in orbit than just this orbiter for the full mature * operational station. For what we outlined in the 1980's for the Nation, I don't think I have any worry about weight or physical size. Congressman FUQUA.. You mentioned something about putting some more money in the solid rocket motors, if I understood you correctly. Mr. THOMPSON. What we are saying is, the contractors are spending higher than we had planned for them to spend, at this time.' Congressman FUQUA. Is it a level or total runout cost? Mr. THOMPSON. It's at current levels. Mr. THOMPSON. The contractor is maybe going a little bit too fast or putting too much manpower on it. So, we're seeing his spending curye above what we projected for him this year. It means that we've going to have to do some throttling back or move a little money over from somewhere else, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the total runout is greater. In our R. & D. contracting, we work off of completion form ~ontract work. We tell the contractor to show for work and give him the respon- sibility to do it, and when he starts putting people on and starts work- ing them, when you have a limited amount of money each year to pay him, you have to watch what he spends. Congressman WINN. Do you think, in design, the way it is figured, now, that you're basically on the right track? Mr. THOMPSON. I think for the objectives that we have, set for our- selves, the parameters of what we wanted to spend in the way of devel- opment costs, what we wanted to spend in cost per flight, what throw- weight and physical size we wanted, no, I'm quite comfortable with the configuration. You know, if we had chosen some other arrangement, we would have had a different class of problems. I' might not have been quite so con- cerned about the structural dynamics- Congressman WINN. I understand. Mr. THOMPSON [continuing]. But I would have been worried about something else. No, I think we made, basically, `a very sound choice. Looking over the shoulder, no one has spent `much time worrying about whether we should have built it differently. Congressman WINN. There were some changes early. Mr. THOMPSON. The changes early were fine tunings. There have been no real configuration changes since the original announcement, but we waited `and fixed the size of the boosters after we had gotten the size of the tanks pretty well worked out. PAGENO="0341" 337 There have been some fine tunings, but no basic changes. We picked the fact that we wanted three engines in the Orbiter, and cut loose on the development. [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed until 12:50 p.m. of the same day.] AFTERNOON SESSION Congressman FUQUA. Could you give us an idea of the minority participation in the program, male as well as nonmale, and what you are doing in the way of affirmative action programs. Dr. KRAFT. Let me give you a brief sum~nary of that, Congressman Fuqua, and we will supply you with sort of a rundown on what our results to date have been. Mr. Abbey, as a matter of fact is here. He is the chairman of our selection board. Let me tell you, we have had, I think as of last week, 1,117 actual applicants. It is our intent to select between 15 and 20 pilots for the Shuttle, and about 15 or 20 of what we call mission specialists who are not required to fly. In fact, `they are not required to have any flying training. To date, we see a large number of male applicants who do meet both types of qualifications, although in the mission specialist area we have many more people than we have pilots. The reason for that is that we have not yet received the applications from the armed services. We expect that we will have a large number of pilots quali- fying from all services. As far as females are concerned, we see a reasonable number of females that can meet our qualifications particularly as mission special- ists. We do not see very many who meet our criteria for pilot training, but there may be some who eventually apply who do meet our qualifications. So, we are reasonably comfortable that we are going to get a sufficient number of good qualified female applicants. In terms of minorities, as you know, it's somewhat difficult for us to determine the minorit~y qualification on our application because that information is not supplied. However, we can, by educational background. The universities that they came from get some insight into that. We are concerned, however, that from what we can tell, the number of minorities applying, at least up until this time, are not as great as we would like to have. We have set up a special program in the past to let these people know that we want their applications and to encourage them to apply. Further, we are redoubling our efforts in going to industry and minority groups that deal with engineering and scientific training. We are making efforts to get to the public the fact that we are especially interested in minority applicants. We have a whole list of things that we will submit to you as to what we are doing. We are hopeful that in the summer when we get close to the point where we will close the applications, that people who are waiting for their educatjon to finish in some in~tances would be further interested in the astronaut program, and, as I said, for the record, we will sort of summarize thwt for you. Mr. Charleswoith is our next speaker. PAGENO="0342" 338 Mr. CHARLESWORTIEE. I will spend a few minutes discussing the cur- rent status of Shuttle payloads. Basically at this time it is more or less a status of payload carriers. Payloads, I think, are yet to come but will come. Last year Dr. Lunney discussed with you the organization of the office that I represent now, and what he was intending to do. I will attempt to ~cover here today some of the things that I think we have accomplished since last year when Dr. Lunney talked to you. NASA-S-77-773 A SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM * THE TERM "SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM" INCLUDES ALL SHUTTLE ELEMENTS THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED TO FLY PAYLOADS. THESE ELEMENTS ARE: * ORBITER * UPPER STAGES - INTERIMUPPERSTAGE(IUS) - SPINNING SOLIDUPPER STAGE(SSUS) s SPACELAB PALLET * "SUPPORT SYSTEMS" HARDWARE REQUIRED TO INTERFACE FREE FLYING SPACECRAFT AND/OR UNIQUE EXPER I MENT PAYLOADS DIRECTLY INTO THE ORBITER PAYLOAD BAY FOR DEPLOYMENT AND/OR OPERATION ON-ORBIT PAGENO="0343" `339 The Space Transportation System, of course, includes not only the Shuttle that Bob talked about but all of the other elements of the sys- tern; the upper stages which will be developed and which I will speak to shortly; space lab, which I'm sure you are familiar with but which I will have some comments; and the "support systems" hardware re- quired to support these devices. This just shows pictorially the types of uses of the Shuttle, that is, with the Spacelab configuration; the free flying configuration where you deploy the payload; the two different types of spinning solid upper stages that will be developed; and, the upper stages that will be DOD developed. Congressman WINN. Excuse me. I see something I have never seen before. I don't understand what a spinning solid upper stage is. Mr. CHARL1~SWOETH. A spinning solid upper stage is a device to send the payload from the Shuttle delivered parking orbit up to a dif- ferent orbit. For example, geosynchronous, planetary. It gets its name from the fact that the primary guidance system, is the fact that you spin it on ~ spin table and release it so that it does not require a complicated guidance system. Mr. THOMPSON. That would be a upper stage that would support a class of payload that maybe didn't require something as exotic as the IllS that the Air Force is developing. It's for, intermediate size pay- load, something like today would fly on a Thor Delta or Atlas Agena. It may well take the Shuttle and a cheaper intermediate stage called the SSUS. PAGENO="0344" 340 A bigger payload would require the Shuttle and the ITJS, inner and upper stage. Congressman WINN. I understand. I just didn't remember ever seeing that word "spinning solid". Mr. CHARLESWORTH. This just shows pictorially the type missions~ you would require to use the upper stages for. The missions range from Earth orbit to planetary. PAGENO="0345" 341 NASA-S~77-775 A UPPER STAGES * MISSIONS RANGING FROM EARTH ORBIT TO PLANETARY * INTERIM UPPER STAGE (IUS) - DEVELOPMENT BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) - CONTRACT WITH BOEING BEGAN SEPTEMBER 1976 FIRST FLIGHT SCHEDULED 1980 - DOD PAYLOADS (TYPICAL) SPACE TEST PROGRAM DEFENSE SYSTEM COMMUN I CATION SATELLITE GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITE - NASA PAYLOADS(TYPICAL) JUPITER ORBITER PROBE MARS MOBILE LANDER (TENTATIVE) PAGENO="0346" 342 The interim upper stage, a more sophisticated upper stage is being developed `by the Department of Defense through a contract with Boeing. The first flight is scheduled for 1980. Some of the typical payloads that DOD will fly are: Something they call space test~ program, which is sort of a generic vehicle that they use for development work; defense system communication satel- lite; and, global positioning satellite. NASA is also looking at utilization of this stage for some of their missions. The ITJS has several coi~ stacking of the various sta~ is. ~3 basically amounts to the ig on what your application PAGENO="0347" 343 NASA-S-77~.777 UPPER STAGES (CONT) * SPINNING SOLID UPPER STAGE * TWO SIZES NEEDED TO REPLACE DELTA AND CENTAUR CLASS * EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES * "NO~COST" TO GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT BEING NEGOTIATED WITH INDUSTRY * FIRST FLIGHT SCHEDULED 1980 * PAYLOADS COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITES, BOTH U .S. AND FOREIGN, SUCH AS INTELSAT PAGENO="0348" * 344 The spinning solid upper stage we just completed talking about. We need two classes, one to replace the Atlas Centaur vehicle, and one to replace the Delta class. These are expendable launch vehicles. Agreements have been reached with industry to develop these stages under a "no-cost" to the Government `arrangement and under the agreement that the Government does not compete in a similar devel- opment. The first flight is scheduled in 1980. Some of the payloads that we fly are: The communications satel- lites, both United States and foreign; and flight ventures such as INTELSAT. NASA-S-77-778 SPACELAB * MISSIONS WILL SUPPORTAVARIETYOF SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS I~NVESTI GAllONS * DEVELOPMENT BY EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY * FLIGHT HARDWARE DELIVERED TO U .S. FOR FIRST FLIGHT IN 1980 (MODULE PLUS PALLETS) * PAYLOADS EUROPEAN - U .S. ANNOUNCEMENT OF FLI GHT OPPORTUNITY SELECTION PROCESS RESULTING IN PAYLOADS IN SCIENCES, LIFE SCIENCES, AND APPLICATIONS AREAS Spacelab, I think you are familiar with Spacelab, and there are any number of payloads which will eventually fly on Spacelab, con- taimng experiments `both from the United States ~nd European coun- tries, and hopefully with commercial endeavors. PAGENO="0349" 345 The center chart is just by way of interest. It shows the breakdown of the Spacelab program by nation and percentage. PAGENO="0350" 346 The spacecraft is modular in that you have a core segment or hthit- able environment, and the various pallets. Now, there is a configura- tion that can fly without the habitable environment, simply with the pallets themselves. PAGENO="0351" 347 This again shows you a pictorial of the Spacelab in place with the science device on the pallets. This shows a picture of the Sp'aceiab mockup `at Marshall. I understand that you are going to Marshall this afternoon. Congressman FUQUA. We will be there tomorrow. Mr. CHARLESWQRTH. You will very probably go through that tomorrow. Congressman FUQUA. Yes. Mr. CHARLSWORPH. Then that will be much better than pictures. Congressman WINN. What is that? Mr. CHARLESWORTH. It's a mockup of the Spacelab environment that is at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Congressman WINN. Is it actual size? Mr. CHAai~EswoRTn. I'm sure it would be. Congressman FUQUA. That is a mockup that they have had there before. PAGENO="0352" 348 Mr. CHARLESWORTH. Let me say oi~e or two' words about the Space- lab. We just recently, this Friday, completed a week's meeting at North American with the Europeans. It will be the last major get- together of the countries-to discuss the final items which are con- tained in the interface control document. This was started a year `or so ago. It turned out very well. I think we are in pretty good shape in terms of the definition of the interface, and we saw no major item's that affect the orbiter that we could determine. It all went very well. The meeting was very productive. Perhaps you have heard of descoping or rescoping `of Spacciab. At this point I don't think it is quite as bad as it first sounded to people. There was some discussion `of perhaps elimination of the igloo or the pallet-only mode. That really has not happened at this time. They are `still proceeding on that basis. There have been some minor changes since then but nothing real major. They have problems, but at this point in time it's not unusual. Congressman WINN. Are they excited about the Shuttle possibilities? Mr. CHARLESWORTH. Yes, very much so. PAGENO="0353" 349 NASA-S-77-779 SPECIAL PAYLOADS/FREE-FLYING SPACECRAFT S TYPICAL MISSIONS BEING PLANNED * LONG DURATION EXPOSURE FACILITY (LDEF) - EXPERIMENTS TO BE SELECTED BY ANNOUNCEMENT OF FLI GHT OPPORTUNITY PROCEDURE - FLIGHT IN 1980, RECOVERY 6-9 MONTHS LATER USES REMOTE MANI PULATOR FOR DEPLOYMENT/RETRIEVAL (SIMULATIONS BEING CONDUCTED AT JSC) * MULTI-MISSION SPACECRAFT* * ORB ITER/STELLAROBSERVATORY* * ORB hER/SOLAR PHYSICS OBSERVATORY* * ORBITER/HIGH-ENERGY ASTROPHYSICS OBSERVATORY~ * ORBITER/ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY LAB* * SOLAR POWER STATION CONSTRUCTION* *UNDER CONS I DERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT Special payloads on free-flying spacecraft, some of ~he typical mis- sions that we're planning you may or may note be aware of. The long duration exposure facility which we hope we will fly for the first time during the orbiter flight testing, the first six flights. We will select experiments very shortly with an announc~ment of flight opportunity for that device. Flight in 1980. Take it up and deploy it and recover it on a later flight. It will use the remote manipulator on the Shuttle. The multi-mission spacecraft you are probably familiar with. It is a concept developed by Goddard which will probably be used to launch or carry the next generation of Landsat devices. Some of the other ones are under study and various people are looking at. Congressman FUQUA. How is the remote manipulator program com- ing with the Canadians? Mr. CHARLESWORTH. I will have to refer that question to Bob. Mr. THoMPsoN. I think in general, good. I think the working rela- tionship between the two countries is real good. I think we're pretty confident that they will deliver that piece of mechanical equipment and the software information that we will need to make it work. 92-082 0 - `77 - 23 PAGENO="0354" ~35o * We still have some concerns that are beyond our work with the Canadians on retrieving payloads. We still have a lot of work to do in detailing exactly how to bring the orbiter alongside, how to station- keep with them so that we can capture them a little bit more effectively. We may ultimately find that we have to use some augmentation sys- tems other than just the remote manipulator system (RMS) like guiderails to bring the `payloads in and out, depending on how big they are. There are still some unknowns that we haven't worked out yet. As far as the manipulator system itself, I think it seems to be getting along and running quite well. Mr. CIIARLESWORTH. I might mention the long duration exposure facility. It's about 30 feet long and 14 feet in diameter. It's basically a carrier, and experiments will be contained in various racks on it. This is a device that will remain in orbit for some period of time. It's basically a passive device. Congressman FUQUA. Unmanned. Mr. CHARLESWORTH. Unmanned, yes, sir. PAGENO="0355" 351 This just shows an artist's view of the cockpit area of the Shuttle and looking through the window at the manipulator system. PAGENO="0356" 352 This is a picture of building 9, I believe, showing the manipulator system, and a device which you can place in the cargo bay. PAGENO="0357" 353 Amen lie aspects - - PAGENO="0358" 354 PAGENO="0359" 355 I have several of these, which are in your handout, but I think I am going to stop at this point. PAGENO="0360" 356 I assume you know that Bob has been very active in the future planning activities within NASA and the space programs. He locally has been in charge of all of the advance studies that we have been making relative to space solar power and other space sta- tion activity, and so forth, that might be involved in the future. Mr. PILAND. Thank you, Chris. As Chris indicated, I'm going to talk about solar power from space, and last year we talked about this same su~bject, about 1 year ago. So, what I would like ~to do is give you a progress report, and I would like to divide it into three parts: First, we quickly go over the concept with a couple of charts that we used last year. Second, I would like to give you the results of a study that we con- ducted since you were here last year on the subject, and Third, I would like to talk to you about what we are in the middle of right now. As an aside, before I start I would say that what I am going to talk about here encompasses at least two NASA program areas: One, the Office of Space Flight and its advanced studies having to do with manned flight, future manned flight. Second, the energy programs administered in NASA by the Office of Energy. Our work here at the center actually puts those two things together very tightly. PAGENO="0361" 357 First, let's look at the concept that we discussed la~t year and a number of people gave you presentations on. We're talking about collecting solar energy in space with very large collectors, transform- ing that solar energy into microwave energy, and then beaming that microwave energy to Earth where we collect it with a large collector called a rectenna, and then converting it back to conventional forms of power, and feed it into a power grid. The concept is relatively straightforward. Just to go over again, why are we interested in that concept- Why consider satellite solar power? First of all, the apparent advantages. Greater insolation. Because we're up above the Earth where we don't have day and night, in `a 22,000-mile orbit, we have access to 6 to 15 times as much sunlight as you would have here on the Earth over a 24-hour period. PAGENO="0362" 358 That's the first pius. Being able to look at the sun 24 hours a day, you don't have to worry about storing energy to get through the night. We require less land area on the ground than if you collected it all on the ground without going through the satellite. Even though it's still large, it's only a 5th to a 10th of the area that would be re- quired to get an equivalent amount of solar energy directly to Earth. The use of the microwave transmission means you have minimal day and night weather concerns. It operates through all forms of weather, day and night. Last of all, your receiver can be near the user. It doesn't have to cater to areas of the country which have high amounts of sunlight. So, there are the basics that say why you should consider it in the first place. The new requirements, obviously are the space transportation and operations required to place these large devices into orbit. And, then, the questions of microwave power transmission, which is something that has been demonstrated, but it's certainly something that h~sn't been used on a large scale before. That's the basic concept. Congressman FUQUA. How big an area-and I don't know enough about electricity-but, `how many people will 5,000 megawatts serve? Mr. PILAND. OK. For reference, the Houston area, served by the Houston Lighting and Power Co., runs about 1,500 megawatts right now. The local substation down at the corner is about 750 megawatts, and there are prc~bab1y about 10 of those distributed around the Houston area. `So, here you're talking about a very large device. Congressman FUQIJA. How many people are you talking about, now? Mr. PILAND. Two million people, 7,500 megawatts, and there are 2½ million people in the Houston area that that includes. Congressman FUQUA. Including industry? Mr. PILAND. Including industry, right. This is a large, a very very large collector here. PAGENO="0363" Reference: (a) 1970 Federal Power Survey, Volume 1 Federal Power Commission / , / / / (b) ERDA-48, Volume 1, June 1975 Energy Research and Development Administration! / / 359 NASA-S~77~781 PROJECTIONS OF U.S. ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND POSSIBLE SPS IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS 35.0 3500 . 30.0 3000 `~25.O 2500 ~ 20.0 .!!2000.~ g ~15.0 1500 ~ U) 1000 LI 500 5.0 0~ sPS scenario / 1975 1980 1990 2000 .J 2010 2020 2025 Year PAGENO="0364" 360 Before we started our study, in order to get some perspective of the type that you are talking about, we looked at some of the projec- tions of U.S. energy requirements. As you know, there are many such projections. This upper limit, here, is one that was made by the Federal Power Commission extended out from 1975 to 19~0. The dotted line is an extra- polation at the same rate of growth, 6 percent. Whether we will con- tinue to grow at 6 percent is something else again. ERDA has put out what they call a number of scenarios of electric power requirements ranging from a high, which involves a continued growth of about 4.4 percent to a low of 1.4 percent or practically no growth at all. This is very dependent upon a successful conserva- tion program. Now, we projected three implementation programs to introduce space solar power into the Nations' electrical economy. What would itdo? We said, with a very aggressive program, you would start pr6vid- ing power in 1992, and, as you can see here, you would be providing two-thirds of the country's power. A more moderate one would provide a third of this amount by the year 2025. That would be 112 of these very large units. That's what we were trying to get a feel for? What kind of numbers of devices would we need to put up to make a significant contribution. That might be too high, again, too large a quantity to project. So, you can drop back here. Obviously, you can project as many as you want. So, you are going to have a large number of satellites, but you are talking about 50 years from now and you are seeing what kind of numbers would be involved in making a significant contribution to the nation's energy economy. NASA-S~77~782 JSC IN-HOUSE SYSTEM STUDY * OBJECTIVES: * DEFINE AND/OR EVALUATE CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES * ASSESS SENSITIVITY OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS * ESTI MATE RANGE OF PROBABLE COSTS * COMPARE WITH ALTERNATE SYSTEM * FORM AND EDUCATE TEAM * DEVELOP BASE TO DEFINE CONTRACTUAL EFFORTS * TIME PERIOD: * SEPTEMBER 1975 - JULY 1976 PAGENO="0365" 361 We, had recently started our study when you were here last time. We wanted to look at, define and evaluate these various approaches of how do you do this project. Particularly, how do you build these things. We wanted to see how sensitive some of these various parameters in- volved were. What if you can't get solar cells as efficient as some people had pro- jected? What happens to you? How bad off are you ~ We wanted to get a range of probable costs. We had seen studies with a single cost. We wanted to try to bracket these costs. We wanted to compare with some `alternate systems. We wanted to form and educate our own team, and we w'ante4, to develop a base of knowledge to define some contractual efforts, the first of those which we now have underway with the Boeing Co. We did this work from September 1975 to July 1976. We `documented this,. and it was a fairly exhaustive study, but there is a lot we did not do; we tried to look at it `as broadly as we could. What I would like to do is touch on some of the conclusions of our study. SNow, I'm going to have two charts of these conclusions. I'm not going to go through them all but I'm going to pick a few and try to give you the impression of what we did. NASA.S.77.10224 PHOTOVOLTAIC REFERENCE CONFIGURATION * SILICON AT CONCENTRATION RATIO :2 * NOMINAL TRUSS CONFIGURATION WITH EFFICIENCY .060 * ORIENTATION PERPENDICULAR ORBIT PLANE 1km -i .56 km First of all, let's look at a configuration that we might term a base- line configuration. `This device is 10,000 megawatts. That's more than 7,500 megawatts that we talked about for Houston. Incidentally, the Houston area, for the year 2000, we projected a need for 20,000 megawatts. So, to furnish this total areas needs, you would need two of these devices. ` . The way this is configured, there is this large `array of solar cells, and then it has this antenna on either end, and this particular con- T "S- ANTENNA (2) 1 km DIAMETER PAGENO="0366" 362 cept points one of these antennas at one metropolitan area. and the other at another metropolitan area. So, we have some choice there. 4O~ 0 SOLAR ARRAY AREA (km2) One of our conclusions was that the mass of this 10 gigawatt sys- tem would be anywhere from 48 million to 132 million kilograms based on optimistic and conservative component estimates. Now, the reason I `bring up this weight question is because the cost of this thing is going to be critically dependent on weight and the size of it. So, I would like to talk just a minute about this question of the mass of this device and what we did here. SPS MASS RANGE 120 NASA.S77-10220 100 SPS MASS (1,000 MI) 80 REFERENCE CONFIGURATION 17= 60 ? TOTAL SYS EFFICIENCY 100 150 200 PAGENO="0367" 3f~3 First of all, the more efficient your system is the smaller it can be. The less efficient the bigger it's going* to have to be to get a certain amount of power. So, down here at the bottom, this is essentially the size. And here are some efficiencies: 8 percent; 6 percent; 4.2 percent. Now, at the 8 percent, the most optimistic efficiency of collecting and trans- mitting, we can get it pretty small, 100 square kilometers, relatively. With a relative inefficient system we go then to almost 200. Now, that's the range of optimistic and pessimistic numbers in this business right now. If you look at it the other way, this gives us a feeling for optimism and pessimism about what any piece of this thing is going to weigh. The solar cell, its efficiency says how big it has to be but then, how much is it going to weigh? It could be anywhere from here to here. So, taking that into account, we can draw an envelope, and say right now that that is our area of ignorance, that these things might weigh somewhere in here, this device right here, anywhere from this 48 down here to the 130 up here. Now, we have within here what we call a reference configuration which is not the most optimistic and not the most pessimistic, but at the 6 percent efficiency, it would weigh somewhere around 70,000 metric tons. Congressman FUQTJA. Would you say that's what we can see relative to today's technology? Mr. PIL.AND. Yes, I think you could say, with some advances in tech- nology you could get to that number. It would require some advances. This is clearly today's technology. This is technology that you would have to stretch for. So, that's our best judgement of at least the reference configuration. Now, one of the things that we are doing in this next year, we think we can compress this envelope with some more paper studies so that we can reduce our area of ignorance. I might mention, I guess that turns out to be the size of a large air- craft carrier. So, while it's big, it's but so big. One other thing that I might mention on this slide is this conclusion related to construction. We say that first of all that automated construc- tion techniques will be required. It will be complex, and a very crude estimate says a peak crew size might be 600 men in space required to construct an SPS in a year's time, 600 man-years, but to create such a large powerplant that isn't such a large number. PAGENO="0368" 364 NASA-S-77-784 A STUDY CONCLUSIONS (PARAPHRASED) 0 CONCEPT APPEARS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE TO DEPTH STUDIED. SYSTEM AND COMPONENT OPTIMIZATION TO BE DONE. ECONOMIC DESIRABILITY DEPENDENT UPON NUMEROUS FACTORS. POWER STATION O POWER OUTPUT OF SATELLITE TRANSMISSION 15 5 6W AND 1 KM DIAMETER BASED ON ASSUMED POWER DENSITY LIMITATIONS - IONOSPHERE AND STRUCTURE O MASS OF 10 6W SPS IS BETWEEN 48 x io6 AND 132 x io6 KG BASED ON OPTIMISTIC AND CONSERVATIVE COMPONENT ESTIMATES O SOLAR CELL ARRAYS ACCOUNT FOR ONE-HALF OR MORE OF COST AND WEIGHT OF SYSTEM. SINGLE MOST POWER DRIVER O STRUCTURE NOT A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF WEIGHT IF DESIGN LOADS LIMITED TO ORBITAL OPERATING CONDITIONS O AUTOMATED CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES REQUIRED AND COMPLEX. PEAK CREW SIZE OF 600 REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT ONE SPS IN YEAR O COST A9VANTAGES APPEAR TO RESULT FROM LEO CONSTRUCTION AND SELF-POWER TO GEO. NEGATIVES' OF TECHNIQUE NOT FULLY EVALUATED O EARTH AND SATELLITE ECLIPSES RESULT IN POWER OUTAGES UP TO 75 MINUTES PER ECLIPSE. LOAD ANALYSIS OF TOTAL SYSTEM REQUIRED There are numbers of others. This particular one here, cost ad- vantage as compared to building this thing in low orbit and then self-powering it up to higher orbit. That is a particular area that is now a specific subject of study with our contract effort. NASA-S-77-785 A STUDY CONCLUSIONS (coNT'D) TRANSPORTATION O CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS OF LARGE TWO-STAGE WINGED AND BALLISTIC LAUNCH VEHICLES DEVELOPED. RECOVERY AND REUSABILITY KEY ISSUES. HYDROCARBON FUEL PREFERRED IN FIRST STAGE. O MPD ARC JET THRUSTER APPEARS TO BE DESIRABLE CHOICE FRO; E~rCRH1 C~ AND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR ORBITAL TRANSFER AND ATTITUDE CONTROL * 0 HIGH LAUNCH RATES TO SUPPORT SIZABLE PROGRAM INDICATE THAT LAUNCH WINDOW AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS MAY BE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION OF LAUNCH LATITUDES NEAR EQUATOR O POSSIBLE IBANSPORThIION COSTS TO GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT ARE ESTIMATED TO LIE BETWEEN $iu AND $3UU PER KILOGRAM WITH TRANSFER OF CARGO MATERIAL TO LEO BEING MAJOR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COST ~C0NOMICS ~~ND ENVIRONMENT O ESTIMATED COST OF PRODUCING ELECTRICITY: - SOLAR POWER STATIONS AS DESCRIBED HEREIN RANGE FROM 30 TO 115 MILLS/KWHR * - CONVENTIONAL NUCLEAR AND FOSSIL PLANTS RANGE FROM 15 TO 30 MILLS/KWHR - ADVANCED GROUND BASED SYSTEMS RANGE FROM 28 io 120 MILLS/KWHR O THE USE OF SATELLITE POWER SYSTEMS IN LIEU OF NUCLEAR AND COAL WILL RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS O CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM DESIGNS COMPATIBLE WITH U.S, MICROWAVE STANDARDS FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE - O NATURAL RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR LARGE SCALE SOLAR POWER SATELLITE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION APPEAR ADEQUATE. PRODUCTION CAPACITY INCREASES REQUIRED IN A NUMBER OF AREAS. * 0 ENERGY PAYBACK PER STATION ESTIMATED TO BE LESS THAN ONE YEAF PAGENO="0369" 365 The next area is transportation. I only want to call your attention to one conclusion here. It says possible transportation costs are esti- mated to lie anywhere between $70 and $300 per kilogram for transfer of cargo material to geosynchronous orbit. Lower Earth orbit costs are however the major transportation driver. The biggest transportation cost is in getting this huge mass up to lower Earth orbit because you have to take so much ~xtra fuel and stuff to then carry yourself Upto higher orbit. Now, this $70 to $300 is the range we estimated, again, using the same technique, the $70 being on the optimistic side, the $300 being pessimistic. We are relatively confident that that might be achievable. NASA.S-76-10261 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF PAYLOAD DELIVERY COSTS TO GEO-STATIONARY ORBIT 1975 DOLLARS 100.000 1OQ 000 10.000 - 1Q000 1000W ~1JSC Isps 100 JRANGE 10 - - _________ 10 1960 1970 1980 1990 2Q00 2010 2020 1 - YEAR MARCH 23, 1976 Now, that relates to present costs, for Delta, Titan, and Centaur up at $20,000 or $30,000 a kilogram. The Shuttle with the 1135 and the Tug will start moving us down this line to under $10,000 a kilogram, and we're talking about moving down below a thousand dollars a kilogram by going to a totally re- usable system, where the booster plus the spacecraft is recovered and you use them over again. In economics and. envIronment, we estimate a cost, the cost to produce electricity would lie somewhere from 30 to 115 mills per kilowatt hour. As you can see, the spread there, 30 to 115, is not unlike, that spread of that weight of 40,000 tO 120,000 metric tons. 1! EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE FLEET 1000- 100 - - PROPL~.,~. COSTS 92-082 0 - 77 - 24 PAGENO="0370" 366~ Now that compares today to conventional nuclear and fossil plants ranging anywhere from 15 to 30 mills per kilowatt hour, and we didn't try to project what those costs would be in 1995. We don't feel capable of doing that. Dr. KL~rr. Isn't it true that some places in the United States are paying 50 mills per kilowatt hour right now? Mr. PILAND. We pay 30 here in Houston, and certain areas on the east coast are paying at least twice that much. I think there are only one or two areas that are paying less than this area. Seattle is relatively low because of their hydroelectric power, but the east coast might be paying anywhere-I don't know, 60 or 70. Congressman FUQUA. We're paying almost 18 mills fuel adjustment alone. Mr. PILAND. Yes, sir. Dr. Kn~r'r. I just wanted to put that in perspective with today's costs. Congressman FUQUA. Yes. John Yardley was using a figure before the committee the other day of 3~/2 cents per kilowatt hour. Mr. PILAND. I have looked at the numbers from Miami some time ago and I think Miami was 15 or 20 percent higher than the Houston area. - Congressman FUQUA. That's not even a good benchmark because they're primarily nuclear. Mr. PILAND. That's right. Congressman FtTQUA. If you get up where they're using bunker C then you're getting on up there. Mr. PILAND. In fact, the Miami curve, if I remember, even had a slight decrease re~entiy because-~- Congressman FUQUA. They've got a very economical system com- pared to the other parts, now. Mr. PILAND. The other advanced ground based system we saw ranging anywhere from 28 to 120, and, as you know~ there is a wide spread of these, and there's lots of assumptions in those like we have to make in here. But, that is the best perspective we could put on this thing at this time. The 30, we would have to achieve those low weights down in the lower corner of my envelope, but on the other hand we considered it as significant that even with the conservative numbers, it still went no higher than this, and this was one of the things that we wanted to find out. We don't know, frankly, what significance to attach to those num- bers as far as accuracy goes. What we were trying to find out, is it 0 to 100 or is it 1,000 or 10,000? Because with this 20-year projection- We have trouble with next year's budget sometimes. Congressman FUQTJA. You said you didn't have figures for prOjected cost of conventional fuels. Doesn't somebody-I'm sure somebody has done some studies on those. S Mr. PILAND. I said we didn't choose to make projections in that ~area. What we did was to take some of these, and I have seen wide ranges of numbers on that. PAGENO="0371" 367 Congressman FtTQUA. It would be interesting to see what the long- range projections are. Mr. PILAND. If you talk about fossil fuels, if there aren't but three barrels left, it is going to be pretty expensive. One last thing that I would like to mention has to do with this micro- wave business which we are all concerned with here. The conceptual systems design that we work is compatible with present U.S. microwave standards. And so, we started to look at, what does that mean? NASA-5-77-783 E U) C 0. .01 .003 .001 100 POWER DENSITY AT RECTENNA 23 mW/cm2 1 NORMAL OPERATION OF PHASE CONTROL SYSTEM 10° phase error 1 dB amplitude error 2°!. failure rate 1 km transmitter dia 10dB taper PARTiAL FAILURE OF PHASE CONTROL SYSTEM* .1 N 5 10 Rectenna radius, km PAGENO="0372" 368 I will try to explain this somewhat messy looking chart. The term you are concerned with is th~ power density. That's a measure of the intensity of the radiation here, and if you talk about the center of this collector on the ground, we're talking about some- thing like 23 milliwatts per square centimeter. There are technical reasons that led us to that number, but going on here, if you go out to the edge, the perimeter `of this device, you are down to approximately 1 milliwatt per square centimeter, and that says the present U.S. standard, which is either 5 or 10, is in this region in here. Congressman FUQUA. Is that like a microwave oven? Mr. PILAND. That's where those standards come from, the micro- wave oven. It was originally 10 and I understand that `they have either changed it or reduced it to 5 for at least some of the new units, I believe. And that's the only standard we have to work with. We can tailor this beam to a certain extent. There is one other question this calcuiation answered for us, and that. is, what if that beam supposedly wanders off `its target? Well, first of all, it's interlocked and it can't wander off in the nor- mal sense. What happens is, that beam defocuses. If it does that, then you are down here `to this kind of level, where our acceptable level is up here, 10, and you get down to an infinitesimal amount like double-O-three. Congressman FUQUA. What level or what does that do to the guy with a pacemaker? Mr. PILAND. Our e~timates so far indicate that it doesn't do aiiy- thing to a man with a pacemaker. Pacemakers, from the studies we have done so far, are subject primarily to pulse microwave radiation. Tfhat will give them a fit, but the studies that have been made on continuous microwave radia- tion indicate that particularly numbers like this would be of no effect. That's our first estimate in that area there. Now, as you can see, there are a fair number of conclusions we drew here.. The energy payback per station was estimated to be less than 1 year. In other words, how much energy do you have to put in to build the thing and when do you get it back? it's less than a year, and so forth. We have taken these conclusions and, as I mentioned, we have initi- ated a study with Boeing. They are continuing on this work. We hope to do several things, answer particular technical questions, and also to try to reduce that envelope of ignorance that I referred to here in the next year, but, so much for the study. What we are doing now is concentrating more on what we should be doing in the next 10 years? PAGENO="0373" 369 NASA-S-77-786 II- TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT PHASE ACTIVITIES TO BE FULLY DEFINED DURING REMAINDER OF PHASE 1(1976-1978) GROUND BASED DEVELOPMENT * MICROWAVE POWER TRANSMISSION/ RECEIVING TECHNIQUES * MICROWAVE GENERATOR DEVELOPMENT * EFFICIENT,LIGHTWEIGHT, LOW COST SPACE SOLAR CELLS * THERMAL CONVERSION SYSTEM, COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY * POWER PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION COMPONENTS * MATERIALS INVESTIGATION * ORBITAL TRANSFER THRUSTER TECHNOLOGY * ENVIRONMENT * BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS * IONOSPHERE IMPACTS * RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE SPACE EXPERIMENTS * STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS AND FABRICATION TECHNIQUES * ELECTRONIC/MECHANICAL COMPONENTS * ADVANCED SOLAR CELLS * MATERIALS * MICROWAVE GENERATORS * THERMAL CONVERTER COMPONENTS * HIGH VOLTAGE-PLASMA EFFECTS * ORBITAL TRANSFER THRUSTER FLIGHT EVALUATION * PROPELLANT TRANSFER * EMISSIONS-ATMOSPHERE COMPATIBILITY SPACE SUB-SCALE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION * CONSTRUCTION/ASSEMBLY OF LARGE SYSTEMS * LOGISTICS OF LARGE SCALE SPACE OPERATIONS * IN-SPACE PRODUCTIVITY AND ASSEMBLY COST * END-TO-END POWER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This is going to be before we think anybody is going to make a major decision to implement that full-scale device, as we said last year. So, what should you do? We have been working on that area, and in this study w~ have just started to identify the areas. First of all, there is going to be a lot of ground-based work, inde- pendent of space. Secondly, there are specific space experiments to be done, and I don't know if you noticed it, but down at the bottom of one of Cliff's lists, it had to do with construction experiments. And then, there are what we call Subscale System Development and Evaluation. This gets into, how do you construct and assemble, large assemblies, the logistics of large-scale space operations, productivity and assembly cost, and then the end-to-end operation of these de\rices here. And this now is where, looking at solar power, it starts getting mixed up with space stations. How do you use the Shuttle? All of those things start coming together. It's pretty difficult to sort it out. Right now we have developed what we call a concept or first start on what we think that ought to be. We don't know the answers but we will tell you where we are right now. PAGENO="0374" 370 NASA-S-77-787 SPACE SOLAR POWER - FLIGHT PROJECT * POWER FOR SPACE USE - PROVIDE A LARGE POWER SOURCE WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR VARIED USE * SPS TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT PROVIDE A TEST PLATFORM FOR VERIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND POWER CONVERSIONITRANSMISSION First of all, we're looking at a major flight project, and it has two aspects to it: First, power for space use. In other words, it would put a large power source in space for continuous space use. That power system you could look at as a first building block of something that became a permanent facility in later time, although you wouldn't necessarily start oult to do that. Now, the second part of this relates to doing Solar Power System Technology Advancement. In other words, use that device to provide a test platform for some of the first tests that we think we need to do to decide whether we can do the solar power bit. So, those are two aspects of it. PAGENO="0375" 371 Now what might this thing be? First of all, you are talking about a pretty large array. Let me put that in perspective for you. This array would produce 500 kilowatts. Skylab had 22 kilowatts. So, we are talking about something 10 or 15 times more of a power sys- tem than Spacelab, and far smaller than the big ones. Now, how big isit? It's 4,000 square meters. That's just about a fQot- ball field, and we have built a number of structures in this country that cover football fields. So, that's the size of this device. Over here is the transmitting antenna, or a part of one. And, here, what we call a space rectenna. Now, that's the thing that ordinarily would be on lfrie ground, but we choose to put it in space because we can work with it in closer distances, and reduce the size of this thing to more manageable sizes. PAGENO="0376" ~72 NASA-S-77-788 OPERATIONS - CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ORBITER 5 FOR CHECKOUT AND INITIAL TEST ACTIVATION Now, with this kind of device we would first of all develop these construction techniques, and I will s~how you how we do that in a minute. - Fabrication is involved here, assembly here, deployment here. Second, we would wind up with ourselves a large permanent power supply here in space. And, third, we would be able to do these technology tests, these microwave transmission tests needed for the SPS. We would use the Shuttle completely to do this with, and it would leave you wit~h a building block for a permanent facility later on if we decided to go that way, and in between time the capability of building other things. The question is, how do you build it, and how much of a construc- tion facility do you need to build it? - This is how the test would look. Let's go on from there. ORBITER 4 ORBITER 2 ORBITER 3 ORBITER 1 * FABRICATION PREPROCESSED HIGH- DENSITY MATERIAL LAUNCHED IN ORBITER LADDER SUBSTRUCTURE FABRICATED IN ORBIT * ASSEMBLY DOCKING SYSTEM * PARTIAL SUBSYSTEMS *ç~ADWEIGHl CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT-i 5000Kg * STRUCTURE-3100Kg SUBSYSTEMS400KV * ASSEMBLY * ASEMBLY * DEPLOYMENT ANTENNA SYSTEM SOLAR ARRAY * BUILT ON GROUND . RECTENNA SYSTEM BUILT ON GROUND TOTAL SUBSYSTEMS * PACKAGED IN SECTIONS IN ORBITER . ERECTED IN ORBIT * PAYLOAD WEIGHT (12.600Kg) * ASSEMBLED IN SPACE * PAYLOAD WEIGHT (3700Kg) CONSTRUCTION JIG-5500Kg * PAYLOAD WEIGHT . 5TRUCTURE-3200Kg SOLAR ARRAY-2500-4000Kg (3200Kg) *SUBSYSTEMS-500Kg - SUBSYSTEMS-i400Kg -ANTENNA SECTIONS-l200Kg - SHUTTLE DOCKING . ROTARY JOINT-300Kg MODULE-i700Kg -SHUTTLE DOCKING MODULE-i 700Kg PAGENO="0377" ~73 NASA476.1 1273 STRUCTURE FABRICATION SYSTEM CONCEPT FOR LADDER CONFIGURATION LONGITUDINALS BEAM IETEN11ON ROLLER `~-~-~Z~ /~ \ The first concept that we look at is to essentially build it out of the Shuttle. Take up on the first Shuttle flight a beam building machine and jig, here, and essentially make a lattice work of beams and then essentially play this back through this jig and lay your solar cells, and come in here and assemble these panels of this antenna, attach it, awl then with a completely separate orbiter deploy this rectenna system that has been built on the ground and folded up. So, that's one way. Now, we're not sure but maybe that is too much load to put on the Shuttle. So, there are other approaches that we are looking at. SLNLDER LONGITUDINAL MEMBER -~---~ PAGENO="0378" 374 But before I get to the others, this is some amplification on that. There is a thing called a beam builder in here, and, then, there is this jig assembly. You crank out the beams and you keep them in the jig and play them back and forth across here as you put on your solar cells. The beam builder machine, in case you haven't been exposed to those, looks something like this, where you take into space essentially reels of metal materials and through a process using techniques such as we use on the ground here, you can make these beams. We are fairly con- fident that you can. CONSTRUCTION EXPERiMENT MACHINE DESIGN CONCEPT BEAM BUILDER CAP w~a COOLING SECT BEAD FORMING SECT HEATING SECT (3) TRUSS SIDE~MEMBER REELS w FORMERS CAP MATL PAGENO="0379" NASA-S-77-789 375 SELECTED OCDA - DESIGN DEFINITION That's one sequence., though. Now, another approach, instead of doing it just with the Shuttle, would be to go up with the Shuttle and build yourself a big working platform with a beam and an extra solar array here, and, then, after you have built that, then use it to support your building of your actual solar array. NASA-S--77-790 SPACE CONSTR FAB/ASSY SCB SYSTEMS OPTIONS SHUTTLE.TENDED MASS IRM wfl PLATFORM (72 M X 32 M) * TR(ANGULAR DEPLOYABLE BEAMS NODAL JOINING SYSTEM 1' - 2 L!~6 STRONGBACK L'-8 SINGLE SHU1TLE LAUNCH PAGENO="0380" 376 As part of a third study, we're trying to see how much further you might need to go beyond the Shuttle alone to carry this out, and there are a number Of options here. This is very close to the first option but it does have an extra module here encompassing some of this. This device down here has several construction support modules that you might need. Between now and July we think we will be able to say what is the optimum way you would go about building this thing, and my guess is that it will lie somewhere in here. We will need somewhat more than the Shuttle alone, and by the same token, when you have built the solar array, when you come back, you will have left yourself a solar array in space, unmanned, and some other construction capability that you could proceed on to your next project with. `So, that's where we stand on the subject right now. We are con- tinuing these studies. We have major milestones here in July to finish these. We think that `by the end of this year we will have made consid- erable progress in completely defining `both the ground and space pro- gram that we feel need to proceed in order to answer the questions of whether you can really build this power system. Dr. KRAFT. Don, I am very pleased with this, of the progress that we have made in the last year with the small amount of effort tha:t we have `been able `to put on this thing to come up with a reasonable pro- grammatic approach to some of these answers, and I find it satisfy- ing that it is well within the scope of the kinds of things that we were planning to do in the early age with the Shuttle, and we look forward to the opportunity of expanding those studies and then `bringing that forth through the NASA channels. Congressman FTJQUA. How much money do you need in 1978 and 1979 to adequately carry forth the studies at a reasonable level? Dr. KRAFT. Do you want to answer that, Bob? Mr. PILAND. I'll try. Tbere are two budgets involved here. One is the solar power studies which are both in the NASA office of Energy and ERDA budgets, and we had a study program laid out there, combined NASA and ERDA which would have been $6 million in 1977 and approximately $8 million in 1978. First of all, the 1977 has been cut to $244 million recently, and the $8 million has been cut to $1 million, I think. I saw that program and participated in it. I thought it was a fairly reasonable program over that 2 years in working on that concept, and I think something on that order of six and eight is reasonably needed. In the other part of it, the Office of Space Flight Advanced Studies program, that has now gone to Congress. I think it is for $10 million total. Looking at just the imputs we have here of what is needed to be done, I think that needs to be nearer $20 million. Congressman FUQUA. That's in the- Mr. PILAND. Advanced studies. It actually started out at 32 and went to the 0MB as 29.8 and went from 0MB to the Congress as 10, and I use that number, not in the context of a new start, but in the PAGENO="0381" .377 context of additional study and technology works so that, if in the subsequent year, we need to start some of these things, we can do it. For example, a particular piece of that 10 million; we have a giude- line in one area to spend $1½ million, and what we are doing this week is trying to get a $5 million input, into that $1½ million guide- line. Congressman FUQUA. What are you projecting that you need in 1ike1979, 1980? Mr. PILAND. The 1979 budget as laid out in the present plan, for space industrialization, I think those numbers seem to me to be reasonably realistic to get a program started of the kind that we are talking about here. Congressman FUQUA. What is that? Mr. PILAND. It's on the order of 20 to 30 million in the new start in addition to the normal advanced program numbers. Congressman FUQUA. You are speaking of getting what you ask~c1 for. Mr. PILAND. That's right, which I assumed was 20 to 30 million, but there's two things there. In 1979 they have a new start item in there in addition to the advance studies. In 1978 there is only the advance studies item in there now, for 10 million. That, right now, is the critical thing, to provide the base for that next year, in my opinion. Congressman WINN. Your overall concept you talk about, have you looked into cutting back on that and furnishing only half of the total energy in Houston? Mr. PILAND. Those numbers don't affect our near-term budgets. Those curves that I showed you over there were really only to `give a feel for the scope. Congressman WINN. No, no; I'm just talking about this-you said what it would take to cover the Houston area. Let's say that we had other sources of energy,, so that you don't need such a big collector. Dr. Kii~. That's a good point. Our studies have shown that unless you build this station in that size capacity, that is, in the 5,000 to 10,000 megawatt size, that it is not economical to start decreasing the size of that power. In order to make the proper tradeoffs in getting it there, the cost of operation, and so forth, it has to be in the 5,000 to' 10,000 megawatt class. Congressman Wn~. I see. Mr. PILAND. But you could still share it. Let's take the condition where Houston needs 20,000 megawatts in the year 2000. Congressman WINN. Qan you beam some of it over to Baton Rouge? Mr. PIr~wD. What you do, is to loôate the collector at a place where it can furnish that rid plus another grid. So, out of the 5,000 that is commg down you might contribute 2,500 to Houston's 20,000 total, and you ship the other 2,500 to the adjacent grid. Congressman WINN. OK. Mr. PILAND. It can be split up. Dr. ALLEN. I think when you get out to this time period, inevitably `the Nation is going to have to have power from several sources. Congressman WINN. Oh, sure, no doubt about that. PAGENO="0382" 378 Dr. Ki~r~. What he was showing you there in that middle projec- tion was, by the year 2025, having approximately 110 to 120 of these stations. In that time period, that would* supply about one-quarter of the projected energy needs of the United States at that time, and you are right, you would just put that into the Nation's electrical energy grids and it would be used throughout the country. Now, there is no reason why that can't be done for the world, as well as the United States. Mr. PILAND. The reason we wanted to get a feel for those numbers is to determine the implications of a number of them. We could never see investing in the R. & D. just to build one of them. Congressman FUQTJA. What are you talking about the cost now of that 5,000-megawatt station? Boeing had some figures of $60 billion. Mr. PILAND. If you convert that 30 mills per kilowatt-hour up to a high of 115, if you convert that into the cost of a station, an average station during that time, it could be anywhere from a low of $15 billion to a high of something like $60 billion. Now, I would compare that with what I read in the newspaper this morning where Brazil is buying from Germany, four or eight reactors that happens to total up to the same 10,000 MW number, for $10 billion, as compared to this 15 to 60 that I was talking about. They have to add the fuel costs onto that 10, the sitting, and other costs, and that's more or less consistent with the numbers that we talked about. At the bottom of this, it's somewhat higher than today's cost of nuclear power. Congressman FUQUA. Of course, once we got to that juncture it wouldn't necessarily have to be Government funds. It could be private funds. Mr. PILAND. We have assumed that whoever wanted the power wo~uld buy the stations. Dr. Ki~urr. That's right. We see this in the D.D.T. & E. phase, and then turning this over to some operational capability. * Congressman FTJQUA. I guess it ,is similar to what we have been talking about in this synthetic fuels thing, of a loan guarantee or that type of thing. We will have to get it moving. Dr. Kiw~r. And then recovering the initial costs and the eventual operation of it. We could spend a lot of time on that subject. Frankly, we are pretty strong advocates of this activity, but we ought not to sell it to you too .hard, so~ we will let Mr. Johnston talk about life science activity. Mr. JoHNsToN. Since the last time that you were at the Center, we have had a reorganization of our science effort. I will tell you about that. Additionally, I will brief you on the status of our space medical studies, and touch on some technology utilization items. PAGENO="0383" 379 NASAs-77-10276 SPACE AND LIFE SCIENCES Two months ago we combined two of our major directorates, the life sciences and the science and applications into a single directorate. The idea was to try to effect some savings in resources and to have some like functions serviced by a common group, between both the physical and life sciences. We have five divisions. NASA~S-77~1O279 SCIENCE PAYLOADS DIVISION * DEFINE AND DEVELOP SCIENTIFIC AND APPLICATION PAYLOADS * CONDUCT RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS * OPERATE BALLOON BORNE PAYLOADS PROGRAM * MANAGE AND CONDUCT STUDIES OF SPACE SYSTEMS EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT * MANAGE AND CONDUCT SCIENCE PAYLOADS OPERAS TIONS AND SIMULATIONS BIOENGINEERING I I EARTH LUNAR AND SYSTEMS DIVISION OBSERVATIONS I I PLANETARY DIVISION SCIENCES DIVISION ~.JI SDI[ SEll SF11 SN * CONDUCTS SCIENCE CREW TRAINING PROGRAM PAGENO="0384" 380 NASA-S-77-10278 MEDICAL RESEARCH DIVISION * IMPLEMENT A BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR SUPPORT OF MANNED SPACEFLIGHT * SUPPORT THE ASTRONAUT SELECTION AND HEALTH CARE PROGRAM * PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR MANNED TESTS, FLIGHT, AND PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAINING * COLLECT, ANALYZE, AND DISSEMINATE BIOMEDICAL DATA * EVALUATE THE EFFECTS OF SPACEFLIGHT VEHICLES UPON THE EARTH ECOLOGY * STUDY THE ADVANTAGES OF BIO PROCESSING IN THE ENVIRONMENT OF SPACE Our Science Payload Division manages our environmental effort. That is, assessing the environmental effects of such things as the Shuttle on the environment. They have conducted programs making actual measurements during balloon flights and have carried out parametric studies to determine a baseline for the natural atmosphere. They are also preparing the environmental effect statement for the Shuttle itself. They provide support in our operations and in the science payload area and are very active in the space physics area, in developing pay- loads for the Shuttle program. PAGENO="0385" 381 We have a group of physicians and other life scientists who work in the medical research area. We have been following the space medical activity and really deter- mining the effects of space on man and how long he can fly. I will touch back on that in a moment. This group of people is also responsible for the occupational med- ical program here at the Center for both the JSC employees as well as being responsible for the health, care, and well-being of the flight crews and their families. We are currently in the process of setting up the medical sele~ction program in support of the new astronaut population. We also provide operational medical support in our mission control center as well as at both launch and recovery areas. 92-082 0- 77 - 25 PAGENO="0386" NASA$-77-10276 BIOENGINEERING SYSTEMS DIVISION * PROVIDE AND INTEGRATE LIFE SCIENCE EXPERIMENT HARDWARE INTO MANNED SPACE FLIGHT VEHICLES * CONDUCT SPACELAB SIMULATIONS S PROVIDE FOOD, WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS * APPLICATION OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY TO GROUND BASED HEALTH CARE PROBLEMS 32 In the biocngineering area, we have a group of people who work with the medical team and who are responsible for developing instrurnenta- tion, and spacecraft systems such as food and feeding systems. One major area t.hat we are currently working on, deals with a space- lab module we have built. We cu~rently are conducting a simulation involving life sciemices experiments from the A~'IES Research Center and from our life sciences team here at JSC. Additionally, this directorate is active in the applications area. I will touch on a couple of those programs toward the end of the briefings. PAGENO="0387" 383 * APPLICATIONSSYSTEMS VERIFICATION TESTS * EMPHASIS ON AGRICULTURE; RANGE, FORESTRY APPLICATIONS * LARGEAREAEXPERIMENTS-EGLACIE * CO-PARTICIPATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES * TRANSFER REMOTE SENSING TECHNOLOGY * EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATIONS * WORK WITH FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND COMMERCIAL USERS * EVALUATE APPLICATION OF REMOTE SENSING TECHNOLOGY * AUTOMATED INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS * SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY * DEVELOP ANALYSiS AND INTERPRETIVE TECHNIQUES * SPECIFY SENSOR DESIGN/REQLIREMENTS * DEFINE PARAMETERS TO BE MEASURED * DATASYSTEMS DESIGN * SUPPORT ONGOING TASKS/PROGRAMS NASAS-77-10277 EARTH OBSERVATIONS DIVISION * DEFINE ADVANCED OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS PAGENO="0388" 384 In the Earth observations area, Mr. Rice is going to give you a brief- ing on LACIE following me, but let me just say, this is a major seg- ment of this organization. We're primarily the lead center in the development of, teàhniques and actual remote sensing in support of the agricultural related pro- grams for NASA and user agencies. We also work in the forestry area, and have done some work in the local area on land utilization for t;he State of Texas. NASA-S-77-10281 LUNAR AND PLANETARY SCIENCES DIVISION * LUNAR AND PLANETARY SCIENCE INVESTIGATIONS * SAMPLE ANALYSIS * THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES * DATA ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS * MISSION EXPERIMENTS * RETURNED SAMPLE PROCESSING, STORAGE AND DIS- SEMINATION * LUNAR AND PLANETARY PROGRAM SUPPORT * SAMPLE PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATOR TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT * EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS * LEAD CENTER FOR AGENCY SCIENCE MANAGE- MENT * ADVANCED MISSIONS * INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT * SITE SELECTION * SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT OF PLANETARY EXPLORA- TION AND MISSION STRATEGIES PAGENO="0389" 385 NASA-S-77'10298 SPACE AND LIFE SCIENCES SUMMARY * OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE (OSS) * EARTH RESOURCES (ER) * OFFICE OF SPACE FLIGHT (OSF) * OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (R&PM) * TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION, OFFICE OF APPLICATIONS, OAST, ETC 14.5 OTHER 3.3 ER ,/~ ~ 1.2 40% ._~!_ (OTHER) 37.6 M FUNDS * CIVIL SERVICE (CS) * SUPPORT CONTRACTORS (SC) 264 609 873 In the Lunar and Planetary Sciences Division, we have a `very com- petent group of planetary geologists. They ~re continuir~g their exami- natiox~ of lunar samples and the operation of the curatorial facility for the lunar `materials. They participate in some of the advance missions work that you have heard something about today, and are responsible for carrying out planetary studies as a part of the lead center role for the agency in establishing the solid body geoscience requirements for future planetary missions. - PERSONNEL PAGENO="0390" NASA-S-77-10280 * PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY (P&A) 1.4 * LUNAR AND PLANETARY (OSS) 9.5 * APPLICATIONS (ER) 14.5 * OFFICE OF SPACE FLiGHT (OSF) .J.~L.. 26.5 M * CIVIL SERVICE (CS) 170 * SUPPORT CONTRACTORS (SC) 4~ 664 386 SPACE SCIENCE FUNDS PERSONNEL I don't want to spend a lot of time on resources but the total budget for this new directorate is about $37.6 million. You can see that about 46 percent is from OSS, 40 percent from the applications area and earth resources. PAGENO="0391" 387 In breaking down the funding sources between physical sciences and life sciences, you can see that the old science & applications directorate had a budget of $261/2 million; 54 percent of it was from Earth Re- sources and 35 percent from the Office of Space Sciences. There are about 170 civil servants, in that area and 494 support contractors. NASA~S~77-1O297 LIFE SCIENCES * LIFE SCIENCES SR&T (OSS) 5.9 * SHUTTLE SUPPORT (OSF) 2.2 * OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (R&PM) 1.2 * OTHER SUPPORT (OA, UT, OSAT) ..~. 11.1 M OTHER 7% * CIVIL SERVICE (CS) 94 * SUPPORT CONTRACT (SC) 209 In the life sciences area, the predominant part of the budget for the current year is from the Office of Life Sciences at $5.9 million.' We receive about $2.2 million in support of the Shuttle. We're de- veloping certain inffight equipment, like medical instrumentation and food systems; 2.2 of R. & P.M. moneys we receive is in support of our occupational medical program here at the `center. The balance of our funding comes from tech utilization, and "other OA" programs. The life sciences per*''sonnel numbers are-94 civil servants; 115 support contractors. That's `a real quick overview of the Directorate and its people. I would like now to shift for a moment and give you an update of where we stand in our space medicine studies. PERSONNEL PAGENO="0392" 388 I think primarily I will use this as a way of emphasizing that we here at the center are going to be trying to shift the use of our life sciences people from classical space medical studies and emphasize the applications of space for clinical research. This chart depicts the United States, major U.S. space flight pro- grams starting with Mercury through Skylab, and includes summary type data from the Soviet flights. Along this axis I have shown the major `body systems where we have had concerns and which we have studied both inifight or postflight. The green bars represent areas where we have no major observations of change. The red indicates the changes that have been observed. I would just like to walk through this with you for a moment and give a quick summary of where we are in this overall program. The cardiovascular area has been one area of major concern in all the manned space flight programs. I'm sure you have heard the con- cerns before. PAGENO="0393" 389 The problem. we have noted, starting `back in the Mercury program, is that immediately postflight we have observed that crews upon egressing from the spacecraft have had a feeling of faintness and light-headedness. In the Soviet program following their 22-day flight a crewman on egressing actually fainted. So, this was of great concern to us in Skylab where we're g~oing to be flying longer and longer missions. The problem that we have encountered here is quite similar in nature to situations that we all have experienced in standing too quickly such as after being in bed for a long period of time and getting up quickly you experience a feeling of faintness. What happens is that blood pools in the lower extreimeties, moves away from the head, which causes this fainting or light-headedness. The way we studied this in Skylab was through the use of a lower body negative pressure device.. This is a cylindrical shaped `container PAGENO="0394" 390 with a waist seal which allows us, in the vacuum of space, to create a negative pressure on the lower extremities. By doing this we can cause the legs and the lower part of the body to expand and pool blood, similar to that which we see when the men return to Earth. When we apply this stress we measure blood pressure with an auto- matic blood pi~essure cuff, heart rate, and also measure the girth of the lower extremities. We actually found in flight that t.his provocative test was a good predictor of the crews condition when they returned. This test was done every 4 or 5 days on all the crewmen throughout the three Skylab missions. The data from the last inflight test was found to be quite similar to `the first immediate postflight test. We also found in Skylab thwt if the crews exercise properly in flight, are well nourished, and get the proper amount of sleep-the three ingrediants to good health on Earth-that we were able to return our crewmen, even from our longest mission, in better shape than we (lid in some of our earlier shorter missions. PAGENO="0395" 391 The exercise tolerance area. We measured the crewmen's ability to maintain his exercise to1erance in Skylab with a bicycle ergometer. The crews were required to undergo stress testing at three exercise levels, while we monitored their minute volume, oxygen consumption, CO2 output, blood pressure, and electrocardiogram. We did not see any change in flight. We did note some decrease in exercise capacity immediately post- flight which has been observed after all of our fights. It is completely reversible in 2 to 3 days and is probably associated with the pooling of blood in the lower extremities that I mentioned earlier. In the fluid and electrolyte area we have been measuring pre- and postflight changes in blood chemistry and urine chemistry. In Skylab we also collected samples throughout the mission as well as in the pre- and postflight periods. We have not seen significant change in body chemistry except for a loss in red blood cell mass and plasma volume. As with the previous changes discussed, we don't fully understand the mechanisms that are involved here, and ivill propose studies that we expect to carry out in the Shuttle program to help answer these questions. The inflight motion sickness problem did not manifest itself until later in the U.S. program, actually starting with Apollo. We found in the early missions of Mercury and Gemini with the crewmen strapped to their seat, and unable to move around, that the crewmen did not report motion sickness-like symptoms. In Apollo, however, when the crewmen started to move around, we had our first reports in the U.S. program. The Soviets had reported problems like this throughout their flight program. In `Skylab we found that about half of our crewmen had a problem in the early phases of the missions, the first 3 to 5 days, where they either had a loss of appetite, motion sickness-like symptoms, and in some instances actually vomiting. I would say this is the major problem that the space physician is concerned with today, as far as the Shuttle and its effect on our manned space flight program. We have a group of researchers working in this general field in several locations in the United States. We are trying to develop countermeasures, such as improved medi- cations. Also, improved screening techniques. I think, in looking at this summary that I have just gone through that it is evident that we really do not have needs for carrying on the conventional studies in the past. What we are now trying to do is to develop a program with people in clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry in interesting them to try to exploit zero G and the other elements in the space environment for useful purposes here on Earth. PAGENO="0396" This chart just depicts a couple of approaches. Electrophoresis is a process which allows you to separate ceils. We did fly an ~experirnent in Skylab and on the Apollo-Soyuz mission which gives promise to a new separation tecimology where one G would not influence the resiilts. About 2 weeks ago I visited with a major pharmaceutical firm in Chicago. I met with their vice president of research and presented to him and his staff what zero G was really all about, how fluids behaved, and some of the things that they could look forward to, with the idea of interesting them in working with us in the bioproc.essing area. I found that `the meeting was very encouraging. We hope to develop an active program with them. 392 PAGENO="0397" 31~3 * MOBILE BIOLOGICAL ISOLATION SYSTEM (MBIS) * OBJECTIVE * PROVIDE A MOBILE STERILE ENVIRONMENTFOR PATIENTS PRESENTLY CON- FINED TO STERILE ISOLATION ROOMS. THESE PATIENTS MAY BE AFFLICTED / WITHAN IMMUNITY DEFICIENCY, UNDERGOING CHEMOTHERAPY OR RECOVER- / ING FROM ORGAN TRANSPLANT ADVANTAGES * USING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED FOR SPACE SUITS AND LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS, PREVIOUSLY ISOLATED PATIENTS MAY GET OUT OF THEIR CONFINED AREAS FOR UP TO 4-HOUR EXCURSION PERIODS * STATUS * SYSTEM HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND TESTED TO VERIFY DESIGN * TWO UNITS ARE BEING FABRICATED FOR DELIVERY TO TEXAS CR1 LDREN'S HOSPITAL IN HOUSTON AND CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES * NURSES AND A TEXAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL PATIENT'S PARENTS ARE BEING TRAINED TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE MBIS NASA-S-77-10080 PAGENO="0398" 394 I would like quickly now to touch on a couple of technical utiliza- tion items just to illustrate the different kinds of things that we are doing. About 2 years ago, the Baylor College of Medicine approached the center with a particular problem where they had a young boy who had been born with no immune responses. He is now 5 years old, and for his entire 5 years has lived in a plastic room. Baylor approached us with the idea, could you take from your spacesuit technology the information you obtained from your lunar quarantine program and build a garment which would allow this boy to move about and get out of the hospital. We have built such a garment. Perhaps you have seen photos or heard of it before. It looks like a little space suit. The real major part of this system is this little portable carrier which we really have built from existing parts. The base of this actually is from a lawn mower. We have an electric blower, which brings in ambient air through a microbiological filter to ventilate the suit. It exhausts through a valve on the. leg of the suit. This allows you to bring germ-free air in to ventilate this child while he is either walking around or being transported on this vehicle. We have tried to use a lot of the space age design technology in providing redundancy and alternate power sources. It can be plugged into a.c. 110 house current. It can operate from its own battery supply or it can be operated from an automobile battery. The unit itself has been built. We really have been very careful in the qualification of this unit because the implications of a failure in this system are almost as bad as a failure of a spacesuit. The system itself, as I say, has been qualified. We have trained the child's parents and the hospital people who work with the boy in the use of it. We hope that within a couple of weeks that this will be in use here in Houston. Now this one piece of technology is not just for this one particular boy. There are other people who have this same problem. We are working with a hospital in California, and it has applica- tions for people that are undergoing chemotherapy who may also have a period of remission of immune responses. Congressman FUQtTA. How about cystic fibrosis? Mr. JOHNSTON. I don't think it would apnly to that. I think if you are required to be isolated it certainly could be used. Any time you need to separate people from the ambient air it would certainly serve that function. Congressman FUQUA. They don't require that extensive care? Mr. JOHNSTON. Not that I know of. We work with the people at the National Institutes of Health, and I think the prime thing that they are interested in are for people who are undergoing exstensive chemotherapy. PAGENO="0399" 395 Another area that you probably have been briefed on previously is telecare. I won't spend a lot of time, but to just refresh your memory, the telecare unit is something that NASA funded in about 1972 or 1973. It incorporated a lot of the miniaturization of electrocardiographic sensors and blood pressure equipment into a small box with a transmit- ter which would allow you to transmit this information back to a con- trol center. We also designed into it a very light electric defibulator. Originally, the way we got into it, was trying to build this type of equipment for a long-term space station where this type of emergency equipment may be needed. The unit itself has been commercialized and we might just quickly review what the impact of this has been. PAGENO="0400" 396 NASA-S-77-10072 IMPACT OF TELECARE TECHNOLOGY * COMMERCIALIZATION OF NASA FUNDED TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL * 81 CITIES USING NASA SYSTEM * HOUSTON SYSTEM 32 AMBULANCE EQUI PPED WITH EXPANSION OF TOTAL OF 50. CHIEF OF HOUSTON MEDI CAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES 30% OF CARDIAC PATIENTS BEING SAVED THROUGH USE OF TELECARE SYSTEM * NASA HAS ASSI SlED A GROUP IN PERMIAN BASIN IN DEVELOPING A TOTAL SYSTEM FOR 18 COUNTY AREAS * TOTAL SYSTEM DESIGN * LOW COST COMMUNICATION SYSTEM * HOSPITAL CONTROL CENTER CONSOLE Currently, we have 81 cities using the NASA developed system. In Houston alone we have 32 units equipped. The emergency room at St. Luke's Hospital is their control center, and they will have a total of 50 of their ambulances equipped sometime later this year. I think one interesting comment that Chief Whitey Barton, head of this operation in Houston, has passed along to us is that he felt that in the first year of operation that they were saving 30 percent of the cardiac victims that would have lost their life without the use of this equipment. Congressman FUQUA [interposing]. There are a lot of other sys- tems. There must be a modification- Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir. Congressman FUQUA [continuing]. That are in almost all the rescue units now. Mr. JoHNSToN. When I say the NASA system, I think it has pri- marily been the one that has been sold, but Motorola has built a sys- tem and is in operation in Los Angeles. There are other systems. But I think in the early 1970's this type of equipment was not on the market. I think that we have really spearheaded the technology that has brought this system along plus a lot of other competitor systems. Congressman FUQUA. You have had a good play on the TV pro- gram "Emergency." Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. PAGENO="0401" `397 One other thing that I (might mention in conjunction with this, we have worked with a larger system in `the Permian Basin area, which is an 18 county' area out in west Texas, and have actually worked in the total system design, developed a low cost èommunication system for them, and designed the hospital control center console,. They have competed for an HEW contract or grant which they have won, and this system is now being built. This has been, I think, a fairly crucial area for us to work. NASA-.S-77..10075 * EARLY DETECTION OF LUNG CANCER * COOPERATIVE PROGRAM * NASA, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE * APPROACH * APPLY COMPUTER IMAGE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES USED IN EARTH RESOURCES PROGRAM TO DETECTION OF LUNG CANCER CELLS - SAMPLES ANALYZED BY CONVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES BEING EVALUATED BY COMPUTERIZED ANALYSIS - PHOTOS OF CELL BEING CONVERTED TO NUMBERS. COMPUTER TRAINED TO RECOGNIZE NUMBER PATTERNS WHICH DESCRIBE CANCER CELL DEVELOPMENT STAGES * IMPACT OF PROGRAM * EARLIER DETECTION OF LUNG CANCER -- FASTER, MORE ACCURATE ANALYSIS Another area of technology utilization I'm using just to show how some of the procedural or laboratory techniques are being applied into medicine. The people at Baylor have a grant from the National Cancer Institute. We are working with them in utilizing the computer image anal- ysis techniques that are employed in the Earth Resources area in detec- tion of lung cancerous cells. 92-082 0 - 77 - 26 PAGENO="0402" 398 Basically, this is what we are trying to do in this program. This is a photograph of a lung cancer cell-we are using an imaging tech- nique where the computer, as it scans a slide, assigns numerical num- bers to the nucleus and the shape of the cell. What we are hopeful that we can train the computer in pattern recognition such that we will have a much higher reliability in the detection of cancerous cells, and eliminate the human error, and ac- tually reduce the time. I think an important thing is that the people at Baylor feel that with the computer we can get a more sensitive technique so that in the detection of lung cancer they can actually develop the processing of the development of cancerous cells such that they can pick the cells out at a much earlier time. We have just completed the first year of a 3-year cooperative effort in this program with Baylor. PAGENO="0403" 399 NASA-S-77-10076 REMOTE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM STARPAHC * PROGRAM OBJECTIVES * TO DEVELOP AND DEMONSTRATE A NEW CONCEPT IN HEALTH CARE DELIVERY USING SPACE TECHNOLOGY AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING * GOALS * IMPROVE HEALTH CARE * DECREASE BURDEN ON PHYSICIANS * EVALUATE NEW EQUI PMENT AND TECHNIQUES IN CLINI CAL SITUATION * PARTICIPANTS * PAPAGO INDiAN TRI BE, HEW, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, NASA * STATUS * 24 OF 30-MONTH EVALUATION COMPLETED The last program, I think you probably have been previously briefed on is Starpahc. Starpahc is a remote health care delivery system which, in the simplist language is trying to get health care out into~ remote re- gions, and to have as the point of entry in this health care delivery system a physicians assistant to allow the physicians themselves to be relieved of this chore, and, also, to spread medical support to a much wider area. We set up a joint program with HEW, Indian Health Service, and the Papago Indian Tribe which is located outside Tucson, Ariz. The reservation itself is about the size of the State of Connecticut. PAGENO="0404" 400 8*8* 3. 7~. 2089h SYSTEM CONFIGURATION TUCSON COMPUTER CENTER DATA (4800 BAUD) Let me take a moment to tell you what the system is in order to refresh your memory. What we have is mobile health unit, which you see in the photo- graph. The interior of it is equipped with an examination room. It has certain capabilities for doing chemistries. The physician's assistant who operates this. .This is the TV camera which allows the image from a slide to be transmitted by RF link back to the Sells Hospital for consultation with a physician or other people. We have X-ray equipment. Likewise, we can transmit X-ray pictures. Patient data is contained in a data base and the nurse assistant or physician's assistant can call up the previous medical history on patients. So, it gives a tremendous data base for the medical people to work with. The control center itself is at Sells. This shows the sparceness of the area that the hospital is located in. The hospital is located here. In the confines of the hospital is a physician's console. At this console the physician, for example, can remotely control color TV cameras for a patient viewing microscope. There are just a lot of different operations that can be controlled remotely by the physician. PHOENIX REFERRAL CENTER (PRC) SLO-SCAN TV, VOICE & DATA MOBILE HEALTH UNIT (MHU) MICROWAVE \(2-WAY SHARED TV. PIUS 2-WAY VOICE & DATA) ~s.. VOICE & ......_._TELEPHONE. PRIMARY .._....TELEPHONE, BACKUP SELLS HOSPITAL (HSSCC) PAGENO="0405" 401 Now, the system itself has been in operation for about 24 months, and NASA's commitment is to do a 30-month evaluation period. NASA-S-77-10074 STARPAHC EVALUATION RESULTS * EXCELLENT ACCEPTANCE OF SYSTEM BY PAPAGO'S * FOLLcNV-UP APPOINTMENTS, DISPENSING OF MEDI CATION, ETC -- GREATLY IMPROVED * 19.4% INCREASE (+6,597) IN PATIENT VISITS FIRST YEAR (34,005 VS 4O,6(~) * MOBILE CLINIC AVERAGED 18 PATIENTS PER DAY (44 HIGH) AND FIXED CLINIC AVERAGED 22 PATIENTS PER DAY (49 HIGH) * TELECONSULTATIONS USED FOR 20%OF VISITS * COMPUTER DATA BASE USED FOR 90% OF VISITS * HEW/IHS COMMuTED TO CONTINUE PROGRAM AFTER COMPLETION OF NASA OPERATIONS This is where we are in evaluation. I think the most important thing, to save a lot of time, the Indians themselves have accepted the system. It has become a part of their culture. I think there have been improvements. I might add, the. HEW is conducting a medical evaluation. That is, what has the Starpaho pro- gram really done for the Papago health? This evaluation has not been completed, but here are some statistics on the kinds of things that they. have seen so far. Twenty percent of the visits are using the teleconsultations, which means that the physicians are called every fifth patient to talk about it. The computer data base is used 90 percent of the time, and we do have a commitment from HEW Indian Health Service to continue the operation when we end our commitment next summer. I think that that is the last of my slides. Are there any questions? [No response.] Mr. JOHNSTON. Thank you. Dr. Kitar'r. OK. Mr. Rice is going to talk to you about our progress in looking for wheat. Mr. RICE. I would like to~give~you an update on the LACIE project. Mr. Charlesworth gave a briefing last year on basically what the experiment is trying to accomplish and I think we have made some significant progress since that time. I will go through a couple of charts that you may have seen before to refresh your m~mory on the purpose of the experiment and then get into the results. PAGENO="0406" 402 NASA-S-76-1 1310 LACIE OBJECTIVES * DEMONSTRATE AN~ IMPORTANT APPLICATION OF REPETITIVE MULTISPECTRAL REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE * TEST THE CAPABILITY OF LANDSAT, TOGETHER WITH CLIMATOLOGICAL, METEOROLOGICAL, AND CONVENTIONAL DATA SOURCES, TO ESTIMATE THE PRODUCTION OF AN IMPORTANT WORLD CROP * VALIDATE TECHNOLOGY TO PROVIDE USEFUL ESTIMATES OF CROP PRODUCTION I want to emphasize that it is called an experiment as opposed to an operational capability, and it is aimed at demonstrating an applica- tion of satellite multispectral remote sensing from space, to test the capability of the satellite with weather and climate data, and histori- cal. data on agricultural practices in various regions, to estimate the production of a world crop, and then, to validate that technology and transfer that to the Department of Agriculture. NASA-S-77-718 `LACIE PERFORMANCE GOALS * ACCURACY * WITHIN 1IY%.OF "TRUE'1 PRODUCTION 9 YEARS OUT OF 10 AT HARVEST * ON A COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY BASiS * DETERMINE HOW ACCURATELY WE CAN MAKE EARLY ESTIMATE * TIMELINESS * DATA ANALYZED AND AVAILABLE FOR PRODUCTION ESTIMATES 14 DAYS AFTER AQUISITION BY LANDSAT PAGENO="0407" 4O~3 The performance goals, in terms of accuracy are to be within 10 percent of the "true" production, and the true is in quotation marks there because there is always some unreliability of estimating in any estimating system We use the best information that is available for the "true" production estimate Our goal is to do that 90 percent of the time, that is 9 years out of 10, and to do that on a country by country basis The idea being, the maximum benefit would not be in the `United States, but in the foreign areas where we do not have access And, then, to determine how ac curately we can make an earlier estimate than the harvest estimate, because the earlier in the season that we get a good estimate, the more useful it is And, then, ultimately, to have that data available within 14 days after the acquisition of the data by LANDSAT. PAGENO="0408" 404 NASA-S-7641314A WHY WHEAT? * MAJOR CROP IN THE WORLD MARKET * GROWN OVER LARGE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS S COMPATIBLE WITH SYNOPTIC AND RAPID RESPONSE CAPABILITIES OF SATELLITE REMOTE SENSING * CONSIDERED TO BE THE LEAST COMPLEX AND BEST UNDERSTOOD CROP IN TERMS OF REMOTE SENSING Now, we picked wheat because it is a major crop in the world mar- ket. It is grown over a very large area of the world, in different cli- matic conditions, and it does provide a good test of the synoptic and rapid response capabilities of the satellite. It is coiisidered to be fairly well understood in terms of the spectral characteristic of the wheat signature. It is a cooperative effort by three agencies: NASA; the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; and, the Depart- ment of Agriculture. NASA.S~76-1 1309 LARGE AREA CROP INVENTORY EXPERIMENT ~ROPINVENTORYm _ NASA NOAA USDA ~ASA~ DOAA~ EUSDA~ * ORBITAL * WEATHER * AGRICULTURAL OBSERVATION INFORMATION EXPERTISE * WHEAT ACREAGE * YIELD * PRODUCTION MEASUREMENT ESTIMATES CALCULATION AREA X YIELD = PRODUCTION PAGENO="0409" 405 Basically, we handle the acquisition of data and the estimation of acreage. NOAA provides weather information and climate information, and has developed yield models to provide yield estimates for various regions. These are combined, area and yield, by the Department of Agricul- ture using other ancillary information that they have to estimate the production. PAGENO="0410" 406 The data from the satellite, I know you have seen many times. This is basically a hundred by a hundred nautical miles, full frame image. We extract out of that a 5- by 6-mile segment to look at in more detail. PAGENO="0411" 407 The idea is to use a sampling approach. We find 6 million square miles of area in the wheat growing regions of interest in the LACIE countries. We sample only about 21/2. percent of that or 150,000 square miles, and that represents about 5,000 of theseS by 6~nautical mile segments. We are not doing all 5,000 at the current time but this is the design goal. Then, in each of these segments, we look at about 10 percent of the fields. So, on the order of 40 out of 400 fields, and train the computer on that 10 percent, then, through the estimation system in the computer, we estimate the amount of wheat in the segment and project that to. the full country level. PAGENO="0412" 408 This shows the LACIE segments in the United Stwtcs. The effort in the past 2 years has been concentrated on the U.S. Great Plains. We like to break that up into two parts: the five south~ em Great Plains States, where predominately the winter wheat is grown. Wheat is planted in the fall time frame and goes into dor- mancy the latter part of November or December and reemerges in the spring. The harvesting starts as early as late June or early July, in Texas, and progresses northward as the crop matures. The other region is called the spring wheat region, in North and South Dakota, Montan~a, and Minnesota. PAGENO="0413" NASA-S-77-719 KEY PROJECT EVENTS 409 LACIE SCHEDULE LEVEL 1 1976 I 1977 I 1978 I I I L HI -~ / ~ - LACIE PHASES I 1974-75 1 FUNDAMENTAL TECHNIQUES TESTED USING SELECTED WHEAT TRACTS IN THE UNITED STATES II 1 1975-76 J TECHNIQUES PROVEN EFFECTIVE FOR US. WHEAT ESTIMATES ARE BEING TESTED USING WHEAT TRACTS SELECTED FROM SEVERAL AREAS OF THE WORLD III 1976-77 WHEAT PRODUCTION ESTIMATION EMPLOYING TECHNIQUES DEVELOPED IN PHASE I AND II WILL BE TESTED ON A GLOBAL SCALE In terms of the overall schedule, this shows the launch of LAND- SAT II in January of 1975, with an estimated useful life of 2 years. That satellite is currently still working although there have been some anomalies in the tape recorder in the lasb couple of months, and we, of course, have looked at what we would do if we did encounter a tape recorder failure of the satellite, and we find that we can carry out a viable program obtaining~ data from the Pakistan station and the Fucino, Italy station. We get most of 1ILS..S.R. with those stations. We would get tapes from there. NASA-S-76-1 1316 PAGENO="0414" 410 We have completed the first phase, and the final report was issued in June. The phase II operations are essentially complete in that all of the Northern Hemisphere has been completed, and only some segments in the Southern Hemisphere remain. We will complete that final report in about July of this year. The three agencies made a decision to proceed with phase III in October, and we started that third phase which expands the scope to additional segments on the first of October. That is progressing along very well. PAGENO="0415" 411 PAGENO="0416" 412 In the first place we primarily looked at the. U.S. Great Plains in terms of the feasibility of estimating acreage and yield and then corn- bh~ing these to do a production estimate. In the second phase, we expanded the effort to include one full foreign country; namely Canada, and two, Oblasts in the Soviet Union. Those techniques are being expanded in the third phase to these areas. We will again do the U.S. Great Plains. We will do, not the full country of Canada, but probably only one province. We will do all of the Soviet Union and selected indicator regions in China and India, and we will take data on the Southern Hemisphere countries, although we currently do not plan to do much analysis on that. NASA-S-77-487 A LACIE RESULTS LACIE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY * THE LACIE WHEAT SURVEY OPERATIONS HAVE EXCEEDED DESIGN EXPECTATIONS * DATA VOLUME THRUPUT REQUIREMENTS MET OR EXCEEDED - PHASE I U.S. GREAT PLAINS REQUIREMENT OF 15-20 SEGMENTS/DAY SATISFIED - PHASE 11 EXPANDED REQUIREMENT OF 34 SEGMENT/DAY WAS EXCEEDED WITH PEAK OF 45/DAY * PROCESSING TIME GOAL OF 14 DAYS FROM ACQUISITION TO AGGREGATION COULD BE MET IF EXPERIMENT PROJECTED TO OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT NASA-S-77488 LACIE RESULTS LACIE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY (CONT) * ANALYST "CONTACT" TIME DECLINING, APPROXIMATELY 12 HOURS IN PHASE 1,6 HOURS IN PHASE 11-3 AOURS PROJECTED FOR PHASE ifi * ELECTRONIC SEGMENT PROCESSING TIME PER SEGMENT IN BATCH MODE REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF 5 TO 1 * ALL WHEAT PRODUCTION, ACREAGE, AND YIELD SURVEY MONTHLY REPORTS PRODUCED ON TIME. U.S. LACIE REPORTS ARE COMPLETE AND LOCKED UP PRIOR TO SRS OFFICIAL RELEASE PAGENO="0417" NASA-S-77-489 A 41~ ACCURACY OF SURVEY ESTIMATE U.S. GREAT PLAINS I would.like to spend the bulk of the'time talking about results. I would first like to talk about the system, the machinery, the data flow and those sort of things. We call this LACIE operations, and in terms of those operations, the machinery works very well, and we have exceeded the design expectations. In terms of segment throughput, in the phase I, we met the goal of 15 to 20 segments per day,. and in phase II, exceeded the goal of 34 segments per day, with a peak of 45. We are purrently operating on a one-shift basis, 5 days a week. So, it takes a little longer than 14 days from the date of acquisition to our getting a result, but we project that in a three-shift operation, that goal could be met. In terms of the time it takes for an analysist to look at one of these segments and do the training for the computer, that time has steadily decreased from about 12 hours to a projection of 8 hours in the third phase, and we have correspondingly reduced the electronic data processing time by' a factor of about 5 to 1. We have produced all the reports on time, and they are put into the mail prior to the SES official release in those months that they make a forecast. AREA YIELD rNVUU~ I JUN PHASEI U.S. GREAT PLAINS U.S. SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS -10.7 ± 5.7% -0.1 + 7.0% +4.2 ± 2.3% +4.1 + 2.6% -5.6 ± 5.9% +4.9 + 7.0% PHASES .IJS.~REAT PLAINS .US.SOUTHERN -13.5 ± 8.8% -6.8 ± 5.0% -I--tt - -0.8 -T2~3 ± 5.6% -7.2 ± 7.0% 92.082 0 - 77 - 27 PAGENO="0418" 414 NASA-S-77-289 PRODUCTION RESULTS TO DATE U.S. GREAT PLAINS PHASE I: MARGINALLY MET THE 90/90 CRITERIA PHASE II: MARGINALLY MISSED THE 90/90 CRITERIA USSR PHASE II: INDICATIONS ARE THAT 90/90 CRITERION IS SATISFIED AND THAT* EARLY SEASON ESTIMATES ARE SUFFICIENTLY ACCURATE CANADA PHASE II: SPRING WHEAT UNDERESTIMATED AS A RESULT OF ACREAGE UNDER ESTIMATION I would like to show you the accuracy results for phase I and phase II in terms of the entire TJ.S. Great Plains, all nine States, and then the five southern Great Plains States that I mentioned. In phase I, in area, we were under some 10 percent, a little over in yield, for a net underestimate of production of the order of 5 to 6 per- cent, with a coefficient of variation of only about 6 percent. So, we thought that was quite good. For the entire-for the southern Great Plains, a little better, on the order of 5 percent with a coefficient of variation of about 7 percent. In the second phase, we did not do quite as well. We were a little further under in acreage, a little bit over in yield, for a net underesti- mate of production of about 12 percent. However, in the southern Great Plains the 5 winter wheat States, we did a little better in both area, yield and production. PAGENO="0419" 415 NASA-S-77-720 RESULTS TO DATE S ACREAGE * WINTER WHEAT - PHASE I.E RESULTS IN U .5. AND U.S.S.R. INDICATE EARLY SEASON ESTIMATES ACCEPTABLY ACCURATE. SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS WINTER WHEAT ESTIMATES BASED ON LANDSAT DATA AQUIRED IN APRIL OR LATER WITHIN 6 PERCENT OF SRS HARVEST ESTIMATES - SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM ENCOUNTERED IN OKLAHOMA IN PHASE II, DUE TO EARLY SEASON DROUGHT CONDITIONS Now, to put that in some kind of perspective, we say, for the U.S. Great Plains, in phase I, we marginally met the 90/90 criteria, and in phase II we marginally missed it. In the Soviet Union, in phase II~ we have all indications that we did meet the 90/90 criteria, and more significant than that, is that our early season estimates were quite good. In Canada, we had a problem with spring wheat in phase II and we significantly underestimated. PAGENO="0420" 416 Let me just go into a couple of charts that break t.hat. down into acre- age, yield and production. In acreage, in the winter wheat regions of both the United States and the Soviet Union, our early season esti- mates are quite good. As a matter of fact, in April, we were within 6 percent of the SRS harvest estimates. We had a significant problem in Oklahoma in phase II, and I am sure you are well aware of the drought conditions that occurred in that area, Oklahoma, Colorado, and the Texas Panhandle. It was a bit con- fusing in that late April rains did cause a greening up, and they looked very similar to some other spring small grains. So, knowing that, I think we will be able to do better in phase III. NASA-S-77-72 1 RESULTS TO DATE S ACREAGE * SPRING WHEAT - RESULTS OF 2 YEARS IN U .5 . NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS AND 1 YEAR IN CANADA INDICATE A GREATER TENDENCY TO UNDERESTIMATE SPRING WHEAT ACREAGE THAN IS OBSERVED FOR WINTER WHEAT; TENDENCY IS NOT SEEN IN THE U .S.S .R. IN EITHER WINTER OR SPRING WHEAT REGIONS - LACIE ESTIMATE OF SPRING SMALL GRAINS ACREAGE IN NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS- RELIABILITY OF PROCEDURES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR SPECIAL DIFFERENTIATION OF SPRING WHEAT FROM SPRING SMALL GRI*I NS IS QUESTIONABLE * HISTORIC RATIOS OF WHEAT/SPRING SMALL GRAINS, USED TO CONVERT SMALL GRAIN ESTIMATES TO WHEAT ESTIMATES, WERE LESS THAN CURRENT YEAR RATIOS AND CREATED UNDERESTIMATES OF SPRING WHEAT ACREAGE * TENDENCY TO UNDERESTIMATE SPRING SMALL GRAINS IN THE U .S. AND CANADA. - INCREASED STRIP FALLOW PRACTICE IN NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS POTENTIAL SOURCE OF DIFFERENCE - BElIER ACCURACY IN U .S.S .R. MAY BE A RESULT OF MORE STABLE WHEAT TO SMALL GRAINS RATIOS AND LACK OF STRIP FALLOW PRACTICE In the spring wheat regions, the results of 2 years in the northern Great Plains in the United States and Canada indicate a greater tend- ency to underestimate the spring wheat than is observed for winter, and we don't see this tendency in the U.S.S.R. in either spring wheat or winter wheat. Basically what this says is, that in the spring wheat region, we have difficulty in distinguishing spring wheat from other small grains. They all are green and there aren't the spectral differences at this point in time that we need in order to make that differentiation. So, we have been relying on historical ratios of spring wheat to other small grains. Of course, as the economic conditions vary from year to year, these ratios do change, and we're looking at how we might do better in terms of using historical ratios, and also what it takes to identify spring wheat and separate that from the other grains in a direct way. We also encounter, in the northern Great Plains and in Canada, a change in practice to what they call strip fallow, in which they have long slender fields that may have a strip of wheat that is only a few PAGENO="0421" 417 yards wide adjacent to a fallow strip. To the LANDSAT Scanner, looking down from 570 miles up, it is not as strong a signature as we get in the other areas where we have a solid wheat field. We think that the better accuracy in the U.S.S.R. in the sprino~ wheat region is the result of more st~ble wheat to small grains ratiofl Apparently they have larger fie'ds and do not use the strip fallow technique. NASA-S-77-491 A RESULTS TO DATE * YIELD * US, CANADA AND USSR YIELD MODELS INDICATE SUFFICIENT ACCURACY IN NEAR NORMAL YEARS * IMPROVED YIELD MODELS REQUIRED - RESPONSIVE TO UNUSUAL WEATHER - NOT DEPENDENT ON HISTORIC DATA FOR OPERATION With regard to yield, the yield models have been working very well, as you saw on the accuracy charts. We want to put a qualifier on that, however, in that we have had fairly normal years the last 2 years in the. LACIE program, and we see indications in the drought regions where there is a. significant deviation from normal precipita- tion that we do not do very well locally in some areas. So, we see a need to improve those yield models to make them responsive to the unusual weather, and to make them less dependent on the historic data for their operation. NASA-S-77-722 LACIE DROUGHT STUDY RESULTS * CAN DELINEATE AREA EXTENT BY USE OF LAN DSAT FULL FRAME * CAN PROVIDE A FLAG TO THE OPERATIONS AS TO SEGMENTS AFFECTED * MAY BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A SUBJECTIVE RATING WHICH CORRELATES WELL WITH ABANDONED FIELDS PAGENO="0422" 418 I just want to show a couple of charts here relative to some drought studies that we did. We have not really exploited this information in the LACIE project although I think it is significant-I'm sure you are familiar with the situation in South Dakota currently, and the results that we have achieved here are that we can delineate drought areas from the LANDSAT full frame imagery, and as a result pro- vide a flag to our operations people to indicate which segments are in those drought regions. PAGENO="0423" 419 We think that there is a possibility that we can develop some kind of subjective rating that will allow us to make a correlation between that information and the abandoned fields. This is a very striking contrast, in central South Dakota, between the 7th of July, 1975, and the 10th of July of 1976,~showing fair amounts of-in this case, red, indicating the presence of green stuff on the ground, and the absence, in this image of that kind of signature. So, even this area is less red than on that image, and ~probably indicates poorer stands of wheat. It is not as bad as in this drought affected area. PAGENO="0424" 420 NASA-S-77-492 PROPOSED ACTIONS TO IMPROVE U.S. SPRING WHEAT ESTIMATES * EFFORTTO IMPROVE RATIO ESTIMATION. * APPROXIMATELY 200 SAMPLE ARE BEING ADDED TO THE GREAT PLAINS FOR PHASE ifi. * TEST OF IMPROVED CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR DISCRIMINATION OF WHEAT FROM SMALL GRAINS. We intend, as I mentioned, to improve our procedure for estimat- ing the wheat to small grains ratios. We are adding samples to the Great Plains to try to reduce some of the sampling errors that we see there, and we are testing an improved classification procedure for actually discriminating wheat from the small grain. We feel like that we can do a better job of that than we have been doing. I just wanted to comment here that the thematic Mapper will be on the LANDSAT-D, which is proposed as a new start for 1978. It will provide an increased sensitivity, approximately 10 times the information in the image than the current multispectral scanner. It will also provide higher resolution of 30 meters rather than the current 80 meters. So, in these areas where we are having difficulty differentiat- ing between the wheat and the other small grains, we feel that we can do a better job with LANDSAT-D, and also with the higher resolu- tion, it will give us an advantage in the strip fallow regions that we are having difficulty with at the current time. We must do well in those areas in order to do well in the foreign areas where we have many very small fields. I mentioned that the USDA is working on their operational sys- tem. I want to just show the current thinking, transition planning, for transferring this technology to the Department of Agriculture. PAGENO="0425" 4.1 NASA-S--77-499 LACIE TRANSITION PLANNING LACIE LACIETRANSITLON FY76 FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 PHASES PHASES TRANSYR 1 THAN YR2 TRANS YR3 TRANSYR 4 CROP YR7S-76 CROPYR76-77 CROPYR 77-78 CR01 YR78-79 CROPYR 79-80 CROPYR8O-81 QI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U.S.GP + 46 USSR(2 INDICATORS REG) CANADA(283I EXPSEG (LACIECOUNTRIES) U.S. GP USSR~ CANADA(PROVINCE) CHINA (REGI INDIA (REGI U.S. OP CANADA ARGENTINA CHINA U.S.GP INDIA' AUSTRALIA ARGENTINA' BRAZIL CHINA~ U.S. GP EXPSEGOUTSIDEGP AUSTRALIA BRAZIL' U.S. RESIDUALPROBLEMS FINAL DOCUMENTATION I ~ H ~ USSRISPRINGWHEAT REGIONANOWWIR) , USSR CHINA (PEG) USSR CHINA INDIA ARGENTINA 7 LACIE COUNTRIES * STABLERT&EPROGRAM * ESTIMATESFORFULLCOUNTRYEMPHASIZED `LAST YEARFORANALYSISOFCOUNTRYDESIGNATIONBYLACIE This shows in fiscal year 19'T7, the current. fiscal year, our phase III and basically what we are attempting. We would propose t continuing doing the U.S. Great Plains as the yardstick area for the transition period in order to have continuity. We use the SRS data there for comparison. Then, although the exact countries and the order of doing tl~ose may change somewhat, this is the general outline that shows the concept of transferring from where we are now in LACIE to the USDA Operational System in fiscal year 1981.. With these LACIE foreign countries. I believe that that is all that I had to present. Are there any questions? Congressman WIN-N. I have a couple. Congressman FTJQTJA. About the round fields? Congressman WINN. The round fields, I sure do. Maybe one reason that you were underestimating is that some of your earlier shots, pictures, were- showing fields in Nebraska as round, and I remember Charlie Mathews came before the committee one time and he was talking about LACIE and some of the programs of spot- ting the fields. He said, "What we have found is that the fields in Kansas and Ne- braska are mund on the corners." PAGENO="0426" 422 So, if you were judging what you are seeing in your pictures, and showing all farms as circles down therc- Mr. RICE. There is a slide which we have shown, which is Holt County, Nebr., which is an irrigated region, and in that case, they do have an irrigation device that moves around in a circle, and in fact that part of the field is round. Congressman WINN. They still use the corners. Maybe not as good, but you don't see any just round fields if you go out there. Mr. RICE. I understand. Congressman WINN. So, that might have been one place that you were off. My main question was, Do you øompare LACIE information with satellite pictures? Mr. RICE. No. We have a program we call a blindsite program- Congressman WINN. Blindsite? Mr. RIcE. Blindsite. In which we take aircraft imagery at medium to high altitude, 30,000 and sometimes 60,000 feet, in order to get t.he field deliniation, and we also have- Congressman WINN [interposing]. That is back to the old methed, though, isn't it? Mr. RICE. Right. From the ASCS (from the Agricultural Conservation Service) people on the ground, giving us ground truth for those regions. Now, that information is not used in the LACIE estimates. It is used in an accuracy `assessment effort separate from LACIE to see how well we are doing- Congressman WINN. In other words, dou'ble check yourself. Mr. RICE. Right. Dr. KRAFT. We want to thank you for coming. Congressman FUQUA. I want to thank all of your people, Chris, for taking your time on Sunday because I am sure there were other things that you would have preferred to do than be here today. I do want to thank all your people for a very fine briefing and letting us interrupt your day off to come and be with us. Thank you. Dr. K1w~T. We were pleased to do it. [Wherè~upon, at 2:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] PAGENO="0427" FIELD HEARINGS FRIDAY, PEBRUARY 7, 1977 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, C0&IMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ThCHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. STATEMENT OP DR. W. R. LUCAS, DIRECTOR, GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE PLIGHT CENTER Dr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the sub- committee, it is a pleasure to again have the opportunity to present to you an overview of the activities of the Marshall Space Flight Cen- ter. I have a prepared statement to submit for the record and, with your permission, I will summarize that statement this morning. Chairman FUQUA. Without obligation we will make all of the state- ments a part of the record. Dr. LUCAS. Thank you, sir. We have a reporter and the proceedings are also being recorded. Since the hearings held here last year we suc- cessfully launched the gravitational probe-A (GP-A) and the laser geodynamic satellite (Lageos) as planned. Our other efforts have also been quite successful during the past year. We have proceedeçl with activities involving major elements of the Shuttle `program' and other programs and projects, that we will describe today, and we have high confidence in successfully achieving the programmatic mile- stones that are established for the coming year, including the pro- gramed launch of the first high energy astronomy observatory (HEAO) now scheduled for April 15 of this year. Before we proceed with the overview, I want to introduce to you my Deputy Director, Mr. Richard G. Smith, and my Associate Direc- tor for Management, John Potato. I am also pleased to present to you Dr. Robert O'Dell, thy Associate Director for Science. Bob is a very distinguished young astronomer who came to us in 1972 from the University of Chicago, where he headed the astronomy program. He has served as the Associate Director for Astronomy of the Science and Engineering Directorate. Since your visit last year he has been appointed the Associate Director for Science for. the Center. We are very fortunate in having a man of his caliber. His primary interest is the Space Telescope. I will introd~uce other people as they present to you later today. All of these gentlemen are available to answer ques- tions that you may have concerning our programs. ~1nasmuch as all the committee members present are very familiar with our location, I will show and comment sparingly on those figures which describe the Center. (423) PAGENO="0428" 424 Figure 1 shows t~he location of the Marshall Center on about 1,840 acres in the center of Redstone Arsenal, for which we have a long- term use agreement with the Army. We are located in good proximity to the airport, the industrial park, the city's three universities, corn- prising about 8,000 students, and other facilities. FIGURE 1 PAGENO="0429" 425 I ~ *~ I ~ ~ /~ ~ a~ I ~ !=$t ~ ~ ~ Iji ~ I ~ , $~flas;ta~ I ~r ~ ~ ~, It ~ s rt ~ at'~ L~ ~ I i;it r~am:#sdr ~ ¼ I ~ ]~ ~~,;jnL i~ e~ A ~_ ~~aJ~nnsc¼~a& ~ ~ ~ ~4 Fiouitt 2 Figure 2 is an aerial view of the center showing administrative and engineering buildings, the various laboratories and the test area. and the Tennessee River in the background. . fletjnm 3 PAGENO="0430" 426 The next chart (fig. 3) shows the Michoud assembly facility, a very important element of the center, where the external tank is being developed and will be built by the Martin Co. The next chart (fig. 4) shows another important facility, the Slidell Computer Facility (SCC). It is located about 20 miles northeast of ~he Michoud assembly facility and occupies about 14 acres. SCC pro- vides computer services to activities at the Michoud assembly facility, to engine test activity at the national space technology laboratories (NSTL), and backup support to the Marshall Center located in Huntsville. Computer services are also provided to activities under the management of the Johnson Space Center, but located, at Slidell, and to other centers when capacity is available. Chairman FUQUA. How many people are working there at Slidell? Dr. LucAs. There are about 3'T5 people there, of which only about 10 civil servants are from the Marshall Space Flight Center. There are about 25 civil servants from the Johnson Space Center in the Earth resources program. The remainder are contractors who operate th~ faci1ity.~or support the Johnson Center in the resources program. The capital investment there is about $25 million. The total capital investment of the Marshall Space Flight Center, including Slidell and the Michoud assembly facility, is about $800 million. FIGURE 4 PAGENO="0431" 427 308-76 MSFC MAJOR CONTRACT AND RESIDENT OFFICE LOCATIONS We have, in addition to t!hese three primary centers, resident offices located around the country, as shown on figure 5, with one or more persons. We have people at Michoud and Slidell, as I have just men- tioned. Also there is a small complement of people at NSTL where engine testing is being performed. We have resident offices at JSC and KSC, and we also have resident offices where we have major contracts-at Rocketdyne, TRW, McDonnell Douglas, and at SAMSO for the interim upper stage. Our office at Thiokol is concerned with the production of the Solid Rocket Booster; at Ball Brothers* in Boulder with HEAO work and at Honeywell in Minneapolis with the engine controller. Also, we have HEAO activity and an office at American Science and Engineering in Cambridge, Mass., and we have people located in the Netherlands an~I in Germany in conjunction with the Spacelab program. FICURE 5 PAGENO="0432" 428 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER The organization of the center, as shown in figure 6, has not changed at all since your visit last year. I have introduced the people in the Director's office. Our staff offices and project offices are the same as you saw last year. We anticipate adding a Space Telescope project office. I will briefly describe how the various elements work together to get our job done. In program development, we have about 6 percent of our work force. These are the people who are responsible for feasibility studies, for preliminary design and program definition. They work on con- cepts and ideas and with other centers in the agency and with head- quarters in developing new programs. As soon as a program appears to be attractive for study and phase B, or the preliminary design is be- gun, we establish a task team in this directorate. The task team is a "preprogram" office, with a manager, a chief engineer, a chief scien- tist and a few persons to support them. As an illustration, since 1973 we have had such a task team for the Space Telescope, headed by Bill Keathley, whom you will hear later today. The task team will soon be expanded and become a primary project office for management of the Space Telescope project. * The Science and Engineering Directorate comprises about 60 per- cent of our total work force. In this directorate, we have eight dis- cipline-oriented engineering laboratories that are located across the center in their own unique facilities. They support our in-house pro- grams and they also support eath of the project offices through a chief engineer supplied from the directorate. / APPROVE('4~*~ ~ DATE; a Via~ I~1' FIGURE 6 PAGENO="0433" 429 * The administration and Program Support Directorate does just that, it supports all the programs. It is concerned with such support functions as procurement, financial management, personnel, facili- ties, logistics, et cetera. Jim Murphy is the Director of Program Development. Jim Kings- bury is Director of Science and Engineering and Jim Shepherd is Director of Administration and Program Support. With our center organized as it is, we believe we are prepared to go all the way from the idea or feasibility stage through to a com- pleted program including the assessment of flight data and the use of flight experience in forthcoming programs. 204-77 0 MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER FUNDING LEVELS BY APPROPRIATION Figure 7 shows the MSFC funding level for the last few years. Total funding in fiscal year 1977 is about $628 million, including R. & D., R. & P,M. and C of F appropriations. The fiscal year 1978 budget contains $730 million for the Marshall Center, most of which is in the R. & D. appropriation. Of the $730 million, about $575 mil- lion is in the R. & D. appropriation for programs such as space telescope and our Shuttle programs. The increase over fiscal year 1977 is due primarily to the maturing of hardware programs where more money is required and the initiation of space telescope development. The R. & P.M., which provides for salaries, travel, maintenance and operation of facilities and administrative and technical services, is slightly less in fiscal year 1978 than in fiscal year 1977. The planned level for fiscal year 1978 is $134.7 million. This is a decrease of about FV-72 FY43 FY-74 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET BOOKS * FY-78 BUDGET INFORMATION FIGuRE 7. 1/19/77 92-082 0 - 77 - 28 PAGENO="0434" 430 $3.8 million from fiscal year 1977 and that is due to a reduction in per- sonnel this year and a very tight situation in fund source 3 for opera- tion of the center. The C of F, or construction of facilities, portion is about $19 million for fiscal year 1978 and is primarily for modifying and preparing the facilities at the Michoud assembly facility for ex- ternal tank production. Chairman FUQUA. What specifically will that be for, the silos? Dr. LUCAS. The silos in the outside area where the insulation is applied and the final checkout of the external tanks is accomplished. That part is not yet finished. `Chairman FUQUA. You have no C of F here then at Marshall? Dr. LtroAs. We have no significant Shuttle program C of F work. Do we have any other, John? Mr. POTATE. There's about $2 million of rehab and mod type work here at the Center. Chairman FUQUA. What type of rehab? Mr. POTATE. Rehab and mod primarily in the energy area, Mr. Chair- man, where we are trying to conserve on our use of energy. For exam- ple, we are replacing some of our air-conditioning systems. It is the usual kind of rehab and mods required in the operation and mainte- nance of a large installation. Chairman FUQUA. Nothing major? Mr. POTATE. No major facility work. Dr. LUCAS. No new buildings, or major mods `of any that we have. As I will mention later in the energy conservation area, we have about seven buildings on which we are going to make modifications to take advantage of solar energy for conserving our energy resources. 311-77 a MSFC CIVIL SERVICE AND SUPPORT CONTRACTOR MANPOWER cP1O 2/177 FIGURE 8 PAGENO="0435" 431 The next chart, figure 8, shows manpower trends over the years. This goes back to the end of our first fiscal year as a part of NASA. The manpower is broken into civil service, institutional support con- tractors, engineering and technical support contractors and facility operations contractors. The facility operations contractors are off- site at MAF and Slidell. `The institutional support contract level shows a decline from about 1400 in fiscal year 1966 to about 700 in fiscal year 1978. The engineering and technical support contractors which, at the peak, constituted about 5,200 people will be phased out at the end of this fiscal year. The civil service workforce `at the end of fiscal year 1977 will be 3,910 as compared to 7,300 at the peak. The trend of program diversification is continuing. This includes projects within the NASA and support to other agencies, primarily the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and, to a very small extent, the Department of Interior. Last summer, Judge Waddy of the U.S. District Court of the Dis- trict of Columbia issued a decision on a case, AFGE vs. NASA, which has been pending since 1968, regarding the legality of certain support contracts at the Marshall Space Flight Center. This case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colu'nThia and, in the `meantime, the Center has planned how it will implement the Waddy decision if that becomes necessary. If it is necessary to implement the Waddy decision as received, it will have a very significant impact on' Marshall Space'Flight Center and NASA resources. The Marshall Space Flight Center's equal opportunity program has had some very encouraging results in fiscal year 1976. Progress has been made in all areas of the program, such as significant gains in the number and percentage of minority employees, increase in pro- motions, awards and training for minorities and women, the imple- mentation of a formal upward mobility program, and a feeder Co-op program, the addition of minorities and women to membership on our boards and committees ahd the ai~celeration of women's activi- ties and-increased emphasis on the recruitment of all minority groups. The number of minorities in our permanent work force has increased from 108 to 145, representing an increase of about 2.6 to 3.6 percent of our work force. The number of women in our work force has also in- creased from about 15.9 to 16.7 percent of our work force. Of that num- ber, about 127 of the 680 or so are professional women, or about 4.6 percent of our work force is constituted by professional women. As to energy conservation, through a rather concerted effort, the Center met its fiscal' year 1976 objective of reducing the total energy consumption by 5 percent `below the cOnsumption of 1975, bringing the total reduction in energy consumption to 27 percent below the, base year of 1973. The goal for fiscal year 1977 is a 1 percent reduc- tion. Although this is a small reduction, it will be hard to meet be- cause of the increasing activity in our test program that will begin in this year. As I mentioned previously, a plan has been developed for the uti- lization of solar energy at the Marshall Space Flight Center, and de- signs are underway for two solar energy installations, and designs are to be initiated on three others. Additionally, design is to begin on one project for solar energy utilization `at the Michoud assembly facility. These projects will be under construction in fiscal year 1977. Later PAGENO="0436" 432 in the morning, we will present some of the other things we are doing for ERDA in the area of the utilization of solar energy. Within the agency, MSFC has principal and supporting roles in the. broad area of Space Transportation Systems, including propul- sion systems, manned space vehicle development, space vehicle struc- tures and materials; in the space science and exploration area, in- cluding the development of automated spacecraft that we will de- scribe; and in the applications area, primarily in space processing and data management. As I have mentioned, we have a supporting role in the energy development area. 276-77 _________ MSFC PROGRAM/PROJECT ACTIVITY _________ CP201I27t17 OFFICEOF OFFICEOF OFFICEOF OFFICEOF OFFICEOF OFFICEOF SPACE FLIGHT SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AERONAUTICS ENERGY PLANNING& TECHNOLOGY ____________ ____________ APPROVED P0 H ~ .SPACESHUTILE.SKYL -SYSTEMANALYSIS AS DATAANAL -SPACECRAFT RED SHIFT OP-A) *SPACELAEPIL ~OR0PLTTEST #0 `SPACE PROCESSING *ASSESS II `SHUTTLE PAYLOADS MONITOR `SOLAR HEATING EQUIPMENT `INTEGRATED ASSIGNED PH H STUDY TASK TEAR OR PHASED) DSTSUPPERSTAGESSPACE `SPACE PLATFORM TELESCOPE 1ST) .SPAGSLAB PAYLOADS -ATMOSPHERIC `MINERAL EXTRACTION -AUTOMATED PHASE AOR PRE .LARGESPACE `PUBLIC SERVICE *SOLAR TERRESTRIAL `NUCLEAR WASTE FIGVRE 9 I have shown on figure 9, a matrix of the program in which we are involved, including those approved for implementation, those that aie assigned for study, and those proposed future programs on which -we are working here, with other centers and with headquarters. Across the top, the program offices in headquarters who have cognizance over the activity are shown. - The prime job that we are doing, of course, is for the Office of Space Flight. About 70 percent of our manpower and about 85 percent of our dollar resources are devoted to Office of Space Flight programs. The largest part of that is the Space Shuttle, which will be discussed later this morning. More than 50 percent of the Center activity is de- voted to the Space Shuttle. For the interim upper stage, the IUS, we are the NASA Center responsible for representing the interests of NASA to the Air Force, PAGENO="0437" 433 which is developing the IUS. The IUS will be used along with the Shuttle for a substantial number of the missions planned. MSFC is the lead center for the Spacelab. Jack Lee, our manager for that program, will describe our activity and progress on Spacelab. We are doing payload planning for the utilization of the space transportation system, not only for the Office of Space Flight, but for virtually all the other offices in headquarters. For the Office of Space Science, we are managing the HEAO, or High Energy Astronomy Observatory, which Fred Speer will discuss in later testimony. We have completed GP-A, as I mentioned earlier. The Spacelab payload mission management is a very important function, we be]ieve. NASA has decided to implement the early Spacelab missions by assigning the mission to the headquarters pro- gram office that has predominant interest in the mission. That office, in turn, makes a lead assignment to a center. The Marshall Space Flight Center has been assigned the lead role for management of Spacelab missions 1 and 2, which are under the Office of Space Sci- ence. The Center has also been assigned the role for mission manage- ment of the orbiter flight test, the OFT No. 6. Additionally, the Center has been assigned the management role, by the Office of Ap- plications, for Spacelab mission No. 3, which is the first operational mission. These assignments are requiring a substantial amount of effort. The payloads are being selected primarily through announcements of opportunity. The announcement of opportunity for Spacelab Mis- sion 1 was released in March of 1976, and the emphasis on that partic- ular mission was primarily atmospheric sciences. We received 172 ex- periment proposals for that flight, representing approximately 600 investigators from 32 States and three foreign countries. The European Space Agency, or ESA, went through a similar an- nouncement of opportunity and received about 100 proposals from the member countries of that consortium.. We expect within the next 2 weeks to select the payloads that will fly on Mission 1. The anouncement of opportunity for Mission 2 was released in Sep- tember of last year and we have received 216 proposals and are in the process of selecting the complement of experiments that will consti- tute that payload., Selection is planned for the early summer. The mis- sion No. 3 announcement of opportunity will be issued in the near future. The space telescope is the next assignment that I will mention. It is in the "assigned for study" category, but about 10 days ago we released the RFP for the space telescope optical telescope assembly and the spacecraft to which it will attach. These proposals will be received and evaluated, but a contract will not be signed prior to the approval of Congress for that program. What has been done to date has been in consonance with plans which your committee has authQr- ized. Another activity which offers great prospects for the future, in my judgment, is space processing, which will be discussed later today. ilus effort, I believe, is very important and will show a payoff from space to the average citizen that will be easily and clearly understood. Solar heating and cooling activities will be discussed in some length PAGENO="0438" 4(34 in subsequent testimony. We are devoting a significant part of our resources to that area. We are also doing studies on satellite power sys- tems, which we believe to have the long-range potential of making a very significant contribution in solving the energy problems of this country and perhaps the world. I will not have time to mention many of the projects and activities that we are working on at MSFC. They are discussed in my prepared statement that will be a part of the record. Others will be discussed later this morning. Many of the useful activities that we think need to be accomplished in space will ultimately require a space platform of some sort that will benefit `space commercialization-a place that in- dustry can utilize to accomplish the processes that can best be accom- plished in the unique environment of space. I should mention also that in addition to our role in ITJS, we are working with NASA headquar- ters on other upper `stages-specifically the Spinning Solid Upper Stage (SSUS)-which will be required for several of the missions. Preliminary discussions with industry are underway to explore the possibility of developing the SSUS as a commercial venture. If this should develop, the Marshall Space Flight Center will be responsible for providing the requirements and representing the interests of NASA in that area. C DEVELOPMENT 1~J ~ D OPERATIONAL ~3 LAUNCH ~ DATA REDUCTION AND REPORTS CP1O 1/27/77 1501-76 MSFC PROGRAM SCHEDULES PROGRAMS CV-74 CY-76 CV-76 CY77 CY78 CV-79 CV-80 CY-81 FY75 PY76 T FY77 FY78 PY.79 FY80 FY81 L 3f4 1121314 1121314 1121314 1121314 `I~I~I~ 1121314 1121314L1 Q~f SKYLAB ASTP SHUTTLE SSME ET SRB SAT & I MPT MVGVT SPACELAB IUS DATA REDUCTION & REPORTS-SEF/ORS PUNDED *`` ~~*~HARDWARS DISPOSAL ACTIV~ ST ISTB DEL : FIRINSy CDRy 5N08V PLTSETy ~ FOP4, , PDR~ CDR DEL MPTA~F~T TANIVI(SCI' T,fM2f FOF.T. C!,RV, ,,,, - SYSTEMS ANALYSIS TESTS INTESR,STION COMPL LH2 8ARSE CE T T § ~ WINS I INS ~ ~ I~ ~ ~j,,,,,,,,,JATP (A/Fl VALIDATION PHASE , ~ PULLSCALR DRY. (A/F) 0 A FEASIBILITY ~ LAUNCH & MISSION SUPPORT ~BDEFINITION V MAJOR MILESTONES FIGURE 10 PAGENO="0439" 485 1802-76 MSFC PROGRAM SCHEDULES CY-74 J CV-?! I CY-76 I CY-77 I CV-?! I CY-70 I CY-so J CY-Si . J FY-76 PY-78 T - FY-77 FY-?8 FV-70 FY-SO FY-8l H.4111213l4 1121314 1121314 1121314 1121314 1121314 1t2I314 HEAO A, SEC OP-A MISSIONS(1 22) ~LAGEOS . SPACELABMISSION3 SPACE PROCESSING APPLICATION ROCKET (SPAR) SPACELAB PAYLOADS OEP SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING (ERDA) AUTOMATED LONGWALL GP-A)RED$HIFT) * INSTDSI. LAUNCH * ESS2~' ~ ~ DULY 0fACELAEILATION DEL PLTHDW SMIOEIOUS ~ ~ ~-- 3 LAUNCIIESPEE YEAS - RPP DEL FIRST [ reEoNcONTRACTAWANDE RELEASE ~, 4 CENTEALDATASYSOPER DUPE V V VCOMPLETE HDWDELIVEEIES tiiii BEGIN HARDWARE OPERATIONALTESTS SHEARER (DEPT OP THE INTERIOR) VPROTOTYPF .- DEVELOPMENT ~Jj~ ~J ØA FEASIBILITY 00 DEPINITION ~ ~C DEVELOPMENT ~J 0 DOPERATIONAL * LAUNCH & MISSION SUPPORT V MAJOR MILESTONE ~ LAUNCH ~. DATA REDUCTION AND REPORTS * OA PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CP1O 1/27f77 FIGURE 11 I have incluclueci for record purposes -a schedule, figures 10 and 11, of the significant events of the various programs. It will serve as a quick reference, showing the -heavy concentration of activity in fiscal year 1977 -and fiscal year 1978. Time will not justify a' detailed dis- cussion of it now, but it provides a quick summary of where we stand in those -areas. . - I believe we are now ready to proceed to the more detailed dis- cussions of the programs by those people that appear on your pro- gram. I have tried to show that we have indeed become a major multi- discipline C-enter of the Agency and that, of course, has added to the complexity of our management problems, but it has also .add~d to the interest and the stimulation of all of us and we are happy to be in that posture. Mr. Chairman, if you have any questions at this time, we will be happy to entertain them. If not, I would like to present the next speaker. Representative WINN. Bill, I just wonder what's the carryover of HEAO in 1978. Dr. LUCAS. There are three HEAO missions. HEAO-A will be -launched in April of this year, HEAO-B about a ye-ar later-I think it is June of 1978-and the third and last of those missions in 1979. There are three missions about a year apart in their launches. Chairman FUQUA. Mr. Flippo? Representative FLIPPO. Dr. Lucas, could you compare your Spacelab effort, in terms of the budget, to the European effort at this time? PAGENO="0440" 436 Dr. LUCAS. Yes, I can, and we will have a detailed presentation on that a little bit later, but let me summarize by saying that the budget that we have is rather minimal compared to what the Europeans have. We do have a fair number of people who are working primarily to generate the requirements of our country to send to the Europeans to meet. We have a few people, about three or four from the Mar- shall Space Flight Oenter, and a like number from Johnson and KSC, who are in Europe working with the Europeans to be sure that the in- terests of NASA are well represented, but our investment is rather small compared to what the Europeans are making. If there are no other questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like to * present Bob Lindstrom, the Manager of the Shuttle projects office, who will present an overview of the Shuttle Projects Office responsi- bilities. [The prepared statement of Dr. Lucas follows:] PAGENO="0441" 437 STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD BY DR. W. R. LUCAS DIRECTOR, MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TO SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIEN(~E AND TECHNOLOGY U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, It is a pleasure to again have the opportunity to present an overview of activities at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Our accomplishments have been quite substantial during the past year as we proceeded with activities involving major elements of the Space Shuttle and other programs and projects. We have high confidence in success.. fully achieving the programmatic milestones established for the coming year as we progress with the development of Space Trans.. portation Systems and scientific payloads, including programmed launch of the first High ~nergy Astronomy Observatory (HEAO). Before we proceed with an overview of Center activities, I want to introduce my Deputy Director, Mr. Richard G. Smith and my As sociate Director (Management), Mr. John S. Potate, I am pleased also to introduce Dr. Robert O'Dell, my Associate Director for Science who has been appointed since your last visit. Dr. O'Dell, a very distinguished young astronomer, came to MSFC in 1972. At that time he headed the Astronomy program of the University of Chicago, and joined MSFC as the Associate Director for Astronomy in our Science and Engineering Directorate. We are most fortunate to have a scientist of his qualifications and prominence as our Associate Director for Science. These gentlemen, along with the other members of my staff whom I will present later, are available in addition ta myself, to answer any queStions you may have. LOCATION For the benefit of new members of the committee, the Marshall Center is located within the Redstone Arsenal, a military installa- tion, which covers over 38, 000 acres (Figure 1). The Arsenal PAGENO="0442" 438 PAGENO="0443" 439 2 is adjacent to Huntsville, Alabama, which has a pojulation of over 146, 000. North of the Arsenal is the Research Industrial Park where several of the Center1 s contractors are located. The University of Alabama, Huntsville campus, Oakwood College, and Alabama A&M University are located as indicated on the map, with a total enrollment of over 8, 000 students. To the west is the Madison County Jetport, and to the south is the Tennessee River. Operations of the Marshall Space Flight Center include the on- site activities at Huntsville, Alabama, and at two component installa- tions. The Center is located on 1,840 acres under a nonrevocable use permit from the U.S. Army (Figure 2). The capital'investment at Huntsville, including major test facilities and engineering labora- tories, is over $453 million. The Administrative complex, the laboratories, and the testing area are shown on the aerial photo. The Michoud Assembly Facility, where the External Tank for the Space Shuttle is being produced, is located 15 miles east of New Orleans (Figure 3). The Michoud Facility occupies 891 acres and provides 3,557,935 square feet of floor space, including the main assembly plant whichbas an area of 43 acres'under one roof. Other federal agencies are encouraged to use physical space and conduct activities at this site, in areas not required by MSFC, in order to assure best utilization of this national facility. The facility is located on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and has deepwater access via the Mississippi River. The capital investment of Michoud is $144 million. The Slidell Computer Complex (Figure 4), a facIlity located at Slidell, 20 miles northeast of the Michoud Assembly Facility, occupies 14 acres. This facility provides centralized computer services for Michoud Assembly Facility and the National Space Technology Laboratories; and computer support fo~ the Johnson Space Center,. Ames Research Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, associated contracto~s, other Government agencies, and MSFC. The Slidell capital ini~estment, including computers and facilities, is $25 million. The total capital investment of the Marshall Space Flight Center, its installations in Louisiana, and at contractor-held facilities at various locations is about $800 million. MSFC MAJOR CONTRACT AND RESIDENT OFFICE LOCATIONS Resident offices are maintained at several of the NASA Centers, at or adjacent to industrial sites throughout the United States, and in PAGENO="0444" 440 PAGENO="0445" 441 PAGENO="0446" 442 PAGENO="0447" 443 3 Europe for the Spacelab Program (Figure 5). The component installations of the Center, located at Slidell and at Michoud, in Louisiana, are indicated on this chart. The National Space Techno-. logy Laboratories, where the Space Shuttle Main Engine is being tested, is shown. The Center has personnel located at the Johnson Space Center and at the Kennedy Space Center, in support of the Space Shuttle, and at industrial sites in California, Utah, and Minnes~ta. Other resident sites are in support of the High Energy Astronomy Observatory Project, and the Interim Upper Stage Project in connection with the Air Force. ORGANIZATION The MSFC organization is the same as shown for the previous year (Figure 6). A change to the current organization to add the Space Telescope Project Office is pending formal approval. To give you an understanding of how this organization works, I would like, to briefly summarize the activities of the three direc-. torates, which comprise over 85 percent of our civil service personnel. The directorates are organized along functional lines, each with responsibility and emphasis in specialized areas. Program Development, with approximately six percent of the Center personnel, is responsible for generating plans for promising new programs, advanced studies, feasibility determinations and prelimi-. nary design, ~nd program definition. At the beginning of program definition, a small task team is established within the directorate. As the project evolves, additional personnel are assigned, and when the project reaches the design phase, a program/project office is established. For example, the Space Telescope Project has evolved through this process. A task team was established early in 1973, consisting of a manager, a deputy, a chief scientist, and a chief engineer. As the project continued through the definition and preliminary design phases, additional personnel were assigned as needed. With formal approval, a project office is being established. The expertise of the Center, particularly from within this direc.. torate, is utilized extensively by NASA as a focal point for the evolution of new programs. The Science and Engineering Directorate comprises approximately sixty percent of the personnel and constitutes the basic scientific PAGENO="0448" 444 z C C-) £ uJ C-, ± 0 LU C "I LU C a C t5 C I- 0 C.) 0 -I C C-, U. U, LA V PAGENO="0449" NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHt CENTER APPROvEQr~mff_tAt.lr' DAfl: S WS~ PAGENO="0450" 446 4 and engineering capability of the Center. This directorate encom- passes eight discipline-oriented laboratories deployed in unique scientific and engineering facilities located at MSFC. The direc- torate provides in-depth technical support to the program/project offices through a chief engineer assigned to each program/project. This directorate is responsible for the Center's research and techno- logy program. The Administration and Program Support Directorate consists of institutionally-oriented elements, staffed with approximately twenty percent of `the Center's employees. This directorate 10 responsible for such functions as personnel, facilities, procurement, financial management, logistics, supply, and computer serviceS. Thus, the managerial ax~d tecthnical expertise of the Center spans the disciplines required for the definition, design, and development of space vehicles, payloads and experiments from inception to flight operations and refurbishment, with program to program experience retention. MSFC FUNDING The FY~.78 NASA budget, as recommended to Congress, provides for an increase at MSFC (Figure 7). The proposed increase Is primarily in Research and Development funding, consistent with maturing hardware programs. The chart shows the variation in funding levels by appropriation over a period of seven years. Research and Development, by far the largest increment, provides for the combined MSFC/industry direct effort on NASA hardware programs ranging from supporting research and technology to program feasibility, definition, design, development, production, flight operations, and refurbishment. The proposed $~76. 8 miUion R&D program at MSFC for FY-78 reflects the addition of the Space Telescope project, and increases in the Space Shuttle and other ongoing programs. * Research and Program Management funding provides for the civil service staff necessary for research and technology activities, and to define, manage, and support development programs. R&PM also provides other essential functions such as travel, maintenance and operation of facilities, utilities, and technical and administrative support. The planned level for FY-78 is $134.7 miliion. This Is a decrease of $3.8 million from FY-77. The full year effect of the reduction in civil service personnel which is occurring in FY-77, PAGENO="0451" 447 - - a a a a a a a $~Iv,1oa ~o 8NOI~1W4 PAGENO="0452" 448 5 and the reduction in supporting services, comprise the majority of this decrease. Construction of Facilities funding provides for contractual services including the design, major reha1~ilitation, and modification of facilities; minor -construction; and the construction of new facilities. C of F funding is programmed at $18.6 rniUion for FY-78, primarily for modification of manufacturing and final assembly facilities for Space Shuttle External Tanks at the Michoud Assembly Facility. CIVIL SERVICE AND SUPPORT CONTRACTOR MANPOWEB~ This chart shows the trend of employment at MSFC since its incep-. tion and as forecasted through FY-~78 (Figure 8). Peak employment occurred in FY-66 during the height of the Apollo Program. The Technical Support Contractors, which reached a peak of employ- ment during FY-64, will be phased out by the end of FY-77. This phaseout is being completed as ongoing tasks and requirements are concluded. Currently, the Center has 4029 permanent civil service employees. The civil service employment ceiling has been reduced from 4113 at the end of FY-76 to 3910 at the end of FY-77. It is expected that this ceiling will be reached through the attrition process. Center management is closely watching the attrition rate in combination with the alignment of skiUs within the Center, in. order to ensure that the proper balance, including the retention of crittcal skills, is maintained. The peak civil service employment ceiling at the Center was 7327 in FY-65. The FY-77 level of support contractor effort is approximately 1500 man-years (on an average yearly basis) and is being reduced to a level of approximately 1100 man-years in FY-78. It is expected that this reduced level will be reached by the end of FY-77, and operations throughout FY-78 wiU be maintained at a stable level. The Institutional Support Contractors and Facility Operating Support Contractors show a peak in employment during FY-66. In the case of Facility Operating Contractors, the Center will end FY-77 with man-year equivalents at the same level as in FY-62. The Institu- tional Support Contractor equivalent wiU be approximately 100 man-years fewer than in FY-62. - Since FY-61, Center program and project assignments have become more diversified and the Center is also now su~orting other Agencies PAGENO="0453" 311-fl z 4 I- z a 4 3 a w MSFC CIVIL SERVICE AND SUPPORT CONTRACTOR MANPOWER FY77 & FY78 BASED ON FY73 BUDGET - CP1O 2/1/77 Figure 8 PAGENO="0454" 450 6 such as the Energy Research and Development Administration and the Department of Interior. This diversification into space propul sion/transportation systems, scientific instruments and experiments, and into support of other Agencies, increases the. interfaces and adds a degree of complexity to the interrelationships involved. Although current operations are being conducted at a level of approxi- mately 65% below peak employment and 34% below initial employment, the Center is continually seeking ways to utilize this reduced level of employment more efficiently. Last summer, Judge Waddy, of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a decision on a case (AFGE vs. NASA) which had been pending since 1968 regarding legality of certain support contracts at MSFC. That case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Washington. In the meantime, the Center has planned how it will implement the Waddy decision if that becomes necessary. If it is necessary to implement the Waddy decision as received, it would have a significant impact to MSFC and NASA resources. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROOW4 The Marshall Space Flight Center's equal opportunity program had some encouraging results during FY-76. Progress has 1~een made in aU areas of the program such as a significant gain in the number and percentage of minority employees; an increase in promotions, awards, and training for minorities and women; the implementation of a formal upward mobility program and a feeder co-op program; the addition of minorities and women to the membership of boards and committees; acceleration of women's activities and increased emphasis on recruitment of all minority groups. The number of minorities in the permanent workforce increased from 108 to 145, increasing the percentage from 2.6% to 3.6%. The number of women in the workforce increased from 654 to 680, or from 15.9% to 16. 7%. Minorities and women received 36.9% of the promotions made during FY-76. Five minorities and women, in the upward mobility program, STEP, completed their training and received promotions. There were ten women and eight minorities enrolled in the Feeder CO~.op Program. Sixteen minorities and women were added to the membership of MSFC boards and conunit~- tees. Events were held in observance of International Women's Year, and the Center participated in and supported activities of numerous minority groups and institutions in the surrounding communities. PAGENO="0455" 451 7 ENERGY CONSERVATION Through a concerted effort, the Center met its FY.76 objective of reducing total energy consumption by 5% below the consumption level of FY-75, bringing the total reduction in energy consumption to 27% below the base year.of FY-73. The goal for FY~77 is another reduction of 1%. The initiation of testing operations for the Space Shuttle is a limiting factor in establishing this FY.77 goal. A plan has been developed for utilization of solar energy at MSFC. Designs are underway for two solar energy installations, and are to be initiated on three others. Additionally, design is to begin on one project for solar energy utilization at Michoud Assembly Facility. All projects will be under construction in FY-77. As a part of the energy management planning, steam and electric meters have been installed in the larger facilities at MSFC. These will be used to measure energy consumption by individual buildings on the Center. Additionally, the design of the utilities control systems at MSFC and MAF have been completed. Procurement and installation of these systems will proceed during this fiscal year. MSFC PROGRAM/PROJECT ACTIVITY Within the Agency, the Center has principal and supporting roles in the broad areas of Space Transportation Systems (including propul- sion systems, manned space vehicle development, space vehicle structures and materials), Space Science and Exploration (including development of specialized automated spacecraft), and Applications (space processing and data management). The Center also has supporting roles in the areas of Energy, and Space Research and Technology. Principal programs and projects of the Center encom-~ pass a diversity of assignments in support of these roles ranging across the major program offices within NASA (Figtire 9). MSFC has made good progress in each assignment during the year. I want to briefly summarize the major programs and projects as follows. A more detailed treatment will be presented as time permits. Major assignments include: 1 * The Space Shuttle Main Engine, Solid Rocket Booster, External Tank, major testing, and associated systems engineering and integration, requiring over one-half of the direct manpower available to the Center. PAGENO="0456" 276-fl MSFC PROGRAM/PROJECT ACTIVI1Y OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF SPACE FLIGHT SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS cssn 1/27/77 OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF AERONAUTICS ENERGY PLANNING 6 AND SPACE PROGRAMS PROGRAM TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION APPROVED FOR IMPLEMENTATION (PROGRAM/PROJECT OFFICE OR PHASE CID) ~ `SPACE SHUTTLE -MAIN ENGINE -EXTERNAL TANK -SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER -SYSTEM ANALYSIS TEST & INTEGRA- TION ~ -MVGVT `INTERIM UPPER STAGE ,SPACELAB *STS PAYLOAD PLANNING `SKYLAB DATA ANAL `HIGH ENERGY ASONOMY OBSERVATORIES (HEAD) -SPACECRAFT A.B.A C -EXPERIMENTS A-X-RAY SURVEY S-k-RAY TELE- SCOPE C-COSMIC & GAMMA RAY SURVEY `GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT (OP-A) `SPACELAB F/L MISSION MANAGE- MENT `ORB FLTTSST #S `SPACE PROCESSING APPLICATIONS ROCKET EXPERIMENTS `ASSESS II `SPACELAS P!L MISSION MANAGE- MENT `SFACELAE P/L PRE- MISSION PLANNING ,DATAMANAGEMENT `SHUTTLE PAYtOADS -INDUCED ENVIRONMENT CONTAMINATION MONITOR `SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING -RESIDENTIAL! COMMERCIAL EOUIPMENT -COMMERCIAL DEMONSTRATION -NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION DATA MGT. `MINERAL PAYLOAD AND MISSION PLA1ENING . ASSIGNED FOR STUDY (TASK TEAM OR PHASE B) `STE UPPER STAGES `SPACE PLATFORM SPACE TELESCOPE (ST) `SPACELAB PAYLOADS -ATMOSPHERiC CLOUD PHYSICS LAS (ACPL) -SPACE PROCESSING EXTRACTION -AU~MATED LONOWALL SHEARER PROPOSED FUTURE PROGRAM/PROJECTS (PHASE A OR PRE- PHASE A) ~ `ORBITAL TRANSFER VEHICLES `LARGE SPACE STRUCTURES `SHUTTLE IMPROVEMENTE *SOLAR ELECTRIC PROPULSION *ORBITAL OPER CAPABILITY DEV. *SPACS MFG.MOOUL *HEAVY LIFTCAPA- BILITY LAUNCH VEH `PUBLIC SERVICE PLATFORM RELATIVITY EXPLORER (OP-B) SOLAR TERRESTRIAL OBSERVATORY `SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION - .SATELLITE POWER SYSTEM `NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT C;' Figure 9 PAGENO="0457" 453 8 2. Lead ~responsibility for project management and coordina- tion for the design, development, test, and evahxation of the NASA Interim Upper Stage (IUS) project. - The upper stages are propulsion vehicles, carried into low earth orbit in~the Shuttle Orbiter, and deployed from the orbiter to carry automated spacecraft to higher orbits than can be attained by the Shuttle. Examples include commercial spacecraft that must be placed into geosynchronous oa'bits and NASA planetary spacecraft to be placed into earthesoape trajectories. - The IUS is an essential part of the Space Transportation System. MS~C, as the NASA project management Center for the IUS, is responsible for the definition and control of NASA requirements. The NASA requirements must then be provided to the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO) for incorporation into the IUS development contract. MSFC is working very closely with the Air Force in this development project, for use by the Department of Defense and by NASA. - MSFC is also involved in the planning for Spinning Solid Upper Stages (SSUS). 3. Lead responsibility for the Spacelab Program, which has international involvement and serves as a precedent for future international space participation and undertakings. 4. The High Energy Astronomy Observatories, large auto- mated spacecraft designed to perform scientific investigation in high energy astronomy. The progress on this project has been good to date. The Center is proceeding toward launch of each of the three missions/observatories on schedule. 5. For Spacelab payloads, NASA has established a pattern of assigning responsibility for each mission to a Program Associate Administrator within NASA, who in turn assigns each mission to a Center. MSFC has been assigned Spacelab Mission/Payload manage- ment for missions as follows: Missions 1 and 2, and Orbital Flight Test 6 in support of the Office of Space Science; Missions 3 and the Airborne Science/Spacelab Experiment Systems Simulation (ASSESS JI) in support of the Office of Applications; Payload and Mission Planning, as a functional responsibility, in support of the NASA Planning and Program Integration Office. With these assignments ~`the Center has the responsibility of performing overall management and of assuring mission success for the first three Spacelab missions. PAGENO="0458" 454 9 The basic function of Spacelab mission management is to represent the payload user community in utilization of the Space Transportation System (STS), providing the critical interface between payload cargo requirements and operational capabilities and constraints of the STS. Being relieved of the need to resolve the complexities of payload to Spacelab interface problems, the user can then concentrate more fully on developing experiments. Candidate experiments may be proposed by U. S. government agencies, universities, industries, foreign governments, or individuals. To facilitate integration of payloads from the proposals available, grouping analyses are per- formed. These analyses will determine compatibility of the experi- ments with one another, with the STS, with ground and network supporting systems; and determine if development schedules are consistent with launch dates. - An Announcement of Opportunity for Spacelab Mission 1 was released on March 22, 1976 with primary emphasis on atmos- pheric sciences. Secondary emphasis is on earth observations, life science, astronomy, communications/navigation and space techno- logy. In response, NASA received 172 experiment proposals, which represented interest from approximately 600 investigators from 32 states and 3 foreign. countries. The European Space Agelicy (ESA) went through a similar announcement procedure and received about 100 proposals from their member countries. The result of these evaluations and the announcement of the selected experiments for this mission is scheduled for February 15, 1977. - An Announcement of Opportunity for Spacelab Mission 2 was released to the scientific community on September 3, 1976, with all proposals submitted by. December 3, 1976. A total of 216 proposals was received. Several options of possible payload complements will be analyzed over the next four months, leading to the selection of the final experiment complement on June 14, 1977. - The Spacelab Mission 3 payload is dedicated to applica- tion and science. The emphasis is on space processing applications. The objectivà of this mission is to conduct applications, science, and technology research in space, with major emphasis on biological space processing and on the cost effective use of the Space Trans- portation System (STS) capabilities. For Mission 3, which is the first "operational" Spacelab mission, the final payload complement and specific experiments will be derived by issuing a series of discipline Announcements of Opportunity and then selecting a comple- ment of experiments and scientific instruments or facilities that are compatible with the allocation of STS technical resources. PAGENO="0459" 455 10 These are important assignments for this Center and represent a logical extension of the role assigned to the Center and the experience gained during the Skylab Program. 6. The Center has released recently a Request for Proposal for the development of the Space Telescope; however, a contract will not be signed until after approval of the FY-78 budget. This will be an exciting new. mission for the Agency and a significant assignment and a demanding challenge to the scientific and managerial expertise to this Center. More details will be provided in subsequent testimony today. 7. Lead Center responsibility within NASA for exploring and developing the potential of space processing. The objective of this program is to make use of the unique aspects of the space environ.. ment, such as low gravity, in the processing of materials. 8. Solar Heating: and Cooling in support of the Energy Research and Development Administration. The goal of the national program for solar heating and cooling is to reduce the demand on conventional fuel supplied through stimulating of an industrial/commercial capa.. bility to produce and distribute solar heating and cooling systems. This Center, through agreement between NASA and ERDA, is assisting ERDA iii the development of solar heating and cooling systems and subsystems for residential and commercial application, in the management of commercial demonstration projects, and management of the data program in support of the national program. 9. A number of other challenging and diversified assignments in support of NASA Program Offices and other Agencies as shown on Figure 9. The individual status of most of these assignments will be presented to you by each of the program and project managers. Concurrent with the aggressive management of ongoing programs, the Center is vigorously engaged in the definition of programs which will further enhance space exploration and increase the outflow of space benefits. Considerable emphasis is being placed on identifica.. tion of areas where the space program can offer potential relief or solution to some of the current earth..based problems. Typical items under study are antennas for public service communica.. tions, commercial processing of valuable materials and pharma.. ceuticals with improved efficiency and vastly improved productivity, PAGENO="0460" 456 11 and space systems for converting solar energy to electrical energy. Recent studies of satellite power systems indicate the possibility of harnessing solar energy in space for conversion to economical electrical power on earth. Studies to date include two methods of conversion. One uses the direct, photovoltaic method based on solar ccli technology. Another method would use solar concentrators to heat a working fluid which would drive turbo-machinery and generate electricity. Common to these methods is the means for transferring the generated energy to earth. This would be done by converting electrical energy to microwaves and transmitting it to the ground. The Energy Research and Development Administration (~RDA) has overall responsibility in this area and NASA/MSFC has been asked to work closely with ERDA to determine program feasibility. Using this approach, critical decision points can be met and reliable information produced before the Government is committed to a large development program. Thus, MSFC is developing system require- ments and technology requirements. This complex undertaking includes key elements such as transportation system requirements, satellite systems (collectors, conversion, etc.), ground receiving systems (antenna, utilities interface), on-orbit fabrication and assembly, and launch and operational systems. Basic to all of these, from a production and utility point of view, is the need for a permanent facility in earth orbit. This would provide the means for developing the techniques and equipment needed for on-orbit fabrication and assembly of large structures, and studying improvements in transportation systems which we expect will be needed as the level of industrial actIvities increases with time. Current roles and missions of the Center include challenging assign- ments of a multi-program nature. Since its inception, the Marshall Space Flight Center has established a proven record of accomplish- ments. The Center is founded on a strong technical and managerial capability which is unique in many instances. Our approach to these assignments continues to be aggressive, with great emphasis on low cost development of hardware, efficiency of operations, and continued dedication to technical excellence. MSFC PROGRAM SCHEDULES These charts (Figures 10-11) show the projected schedules with key milestones for major assignments through 1981 and are included for the record. The FY-77 and FY-78 timeframe has been PAGENO="0461" 1501-76 MSFC PROGRAM SCHEDULES PROGRAMS CY-74 CY-75 CY76 CY-77 CY7B CY79 CV-80 J CVS1 Fy.75 FY-76 I cY-77 FY~78 FV-7$ FY-80 FY41 3[4 1121314 1121314 112131411213141121314112131411213141 Q~f SKYLAB SHUTTLE SSME El DATA REDUCTION B REPOR1S-OIIFFOSS FUNDED ~ ....&HAROWARE DISPOSAL ACTIVITY lET ISIS DEL w~* DEL FMOF ~ SRB SAT & I MVGVT SPACELAB IUS CDRV .~.FMOF FOP SYSTEMSANALYSISTEST& INTEGRATION ~OMP'L UI2 WGE~OCk TE~T~~ 5(10 V~?ILNG 1COMPL 5EE?f~Ry ~ PER ySRRv PORRO71 yPDRB~ORR I%i% ~L1~TFLTL~IT IOCIDOD)1 JI~~~9~JIATP(AIFLVALIDATIONPHASE STNASAp~j &j~II.LSCAL5 (A/F) [J ~ A FEASIBILITY LAUNCH & MISSION SUPPORT ~BDEFINITION V~ MAJORMILESTONES * C DEVELOPMENT ~ LAUNCH [:J ~D OPERATIONAL ~ DATA REDUCTION AND REPORTS CP1O 1/27/77 Figure 10 PAGENO="0462" MSFC PROGRAM SCHEDULES CY-74 FY-76 T FY-77 FV-73 FY-7$ FV-80 FY-81 I FV-75 ~[41I2I3I4 1121314 1121314 1121314 1121314 1121314 1I2I!J_~ 05$ SIC-A HEAO MISSION A~ B& C GP-A SPAI~ELAB MISSIONS(1 & 2) A ~LAGEOS ESSII SPACELABMISSION 3 SICCONTAWARD COR S/C-B E/C-C ~ OP-A (REOSHIFT) ~ INST DEL LAUNCH # 2 PADAPPROVAL #1 #2 #1~~ "~"~"" `::L~L~~~ ~ DELV S~~k~'R°~ DEL FLT HOW 3MIEEIONE ~ FAD IAI. V~ ~BE~INH~)F($~ ~q5L LEVEL IV INTE$V ~LAUNC LAUNCHEEPER YEAR ~CNROCKET (SPAR) SPACELASPAYLOADS 2~? SOLAR HEATING)AND AUTOMATED LONGWALI. SHEARER (DEPT OF ThE INTERIOR) ~-- RFP DEL FIRST FLT ~~`"~" ~BEGIN CENTRAL DATASYS DEVSJ. I r BEGIN CONTRACT AWARDS RELEASE CENTRAL DATASYS OPER REP'S y ~ 1 ~ COMPLETEHD~DEUVERIES BEGIN HARDWARE OPERATIONAL TESTS VPROTOTYPE L1~ DEVELOPMENT REC. IkP. MINE ~R F TESTS [~ *AFEASIBILITV LAUNCH & MISSION SUPPORT OA PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ~B DEFINITION 4,CDEVELOPMENT LAUNCH 0 OPERATIONAL ~, DATA REDUCTION V MAJOR MILESTONE AND REPORTS CP1O 1/V/i? Figure 11 PAGENO="0463" 459 12 highlighted to indicate the significant events occurring during this period. - Complete Space Shuttle Main Engine and Solid Rocket Booster critical design reviews. Initiate Space Shuttle Main Propulsion Tests and Mated Vertical Ground Vibration Testing. Deliver flight set of Space Shuttle Main Engines. Complete Spacelab preliminary design review and operations requirements review. Begin development of Spacelab payloads including the Atmospheric Cloud Physics Laboratory. Launch HEAO Missions A and B and accomplish critical design review of Mission C. - Complete definition and start development of Space Teles cope. * Launch three Space Processing Applications Rockets per year. Initiate Solar Heating and Cooling hardware tests in support of ERDA. SUMMARY I believe the diversity of assignments to the Center as reflected in current programs and projects is very indicative of the competence and maturity of the Center. MSFC has become one of NASA's primary multi-discipline Centers for the design and development of major space transportation systems, orbital systems, and scientific and applications payloads for space application. With the heavier involvement in payloads and experiments, and with initiation of the Space Shuttle era, the Center has an opportunity and a challenge to conduct its operations in a mode that is quite different from that experienced with expendable systems. For example, the capability to return a payload will provide an opportunity to analyze, to make adjustments, to compensate for deficiencies, and to refly the payload, experiment, or part that has malfunctioned or not PAGENO="0464" 460 13~ produced suitable results. Therefore, while continuing to ensure safety to man and mission critical systems, there is a greater opportunity to exercise trade-off s between cost and accptable risks of failure of a particular experiment or payload. The Center continues to pursue all avenues of cost savings and increased efficiency in engineering, management, and administrative areas. At the same time, we continue with a dedication to technical excellence. This concludes the Center overview. We will proceed directly to the next item on the agenda, unless you have questions you would like to ask at this point. Mr. Bob Lindstrom, Manager of the Shuttle Projects Office, will present the introductiOn to the Shuttle Projects presentations. PAGENO="0465" 461 STATEMENT OP ROBERT E. LINDSTROM, MANAGER, SPACE SHUT- TLE PROJECTS OFFICE, GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE PLIGHT CENTER Mr. LINDSTROM. Chairman Fuqua, Representative Winn, Repre- sentative Flippo, in presenting the Shuttle overview, I will first summarize our Shuttle activities at the Marshall Space Flight Center. After this, I will discuss what we are doing in systems engineering and overall Shuttle integration. I will conclude by reviewing the status of Shuttle facilities projects (figure 1). Following my briefing; the status of our three major projects will be covered as they have been in past visits. SHUTTLE PROJECTS OFFICE OVERVIEW * SUMMARY OF MSFC RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACTIVITIES * SHUTTLE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS, TEST AND INTEGRATION EFFORT BEING CONDUCTED BY MSFC * FACILITY FUNDING FIGURE 1 92-082 0 - 77 - 30 PAGENO="0466" 462 MSFC SHUTTLE RESPONSIBILITIES * SHUTTLE PROTECTS * SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE (SSME) MOST SIGNIFICANT TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT IN PROGRAM * EXTERNAL TANK (ET) UNIT WEIGHT AND COST EXTREMELY CRITICAL TO PROGRAM * SUCCESS * * SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER (SRB) * RECOVERY AND REUSABILITY MAKES SHUTTLE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE * SHUTTLE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS. TEST AND INTEGRATION * SYSTEM LEVEL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION * SYSTEM LEVEL TESTING DYNAMIC TESTING (MVGVT) - ORBITER STATIC TESTING - MAIN PROPULSION SYSTEM (MPT) * SYSTEM LEVEL PARTICIPATION - LEVEL I AND LEVEL II BOARDS, PANELS, AND DESIGN REVIEWS. Fiaui~ 2 FIGURE 3 PAGENO="0467" 463 Our activities and responsibilities as illustrated on figures 2 and 3, cover the solid rocket booster, external tank and Space Shuttle main engines, all of which you see on the model on the table. We are respon- sible for the design, development, and production of all three. As yqu will recall, three main engines are mounted on the Shuttle Orbiter. Overall Shuttle program system integration represents a major use of the Center management and technical expertise; therefore, I would like to present what we do at the Center in this area. First, let me describe our organization (figure 4). I am the manager of the Shuttle projects office, and we have a project manager, one for each of our major projects. We l~ave a program control and analysis office, which is our programmatic interface with JSC. The management integration Office interfaces with PJSC in the management systems areas, and major test office manages the two major systems tests: the main propulsion tests and the mated vertical ground vibration tests. Last, is an office growing in importance, the engineering management office that coordiates and directs our systems engineering activities; I want to cover this activity in more detail later. MSFC SHUTTLE ORGANIZATION As Dr. Lucas mentioned, we not only have resident offices at our prime contractors and Michoud assembly facility (MAF), but also at Kennedy Space Center and the National Space Technology Labora- tories (NSTL). Our office at MAF is invilved not only with Shuttle activities, but also is landlord for the other tenants at the facility. $A11-1940 FIGuRE 4 PAGENO="0468" 464 MSFC SHUTTLE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING EFFORT * ASSIGNMENTS REFLECT MSFC CAPABILITY AND EXPERIENCE * LAUNCH VEHICLES * STRUCTURES * PROPULSION SYSTEMS * ASCENT FLIGHT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION WORKING GROUP * LAUNCH VEHICLE PORTION OF FLIGHT * INTEGRATION OF AERODYNAMICS STRUCTURES, PROPULSION, PERFORMANCE AND CONTROL * PROPULSION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION GROUP * MAIN PROPULSION SYSTEMS * INTEGRATES MAIN ENGINE PROPELLANT, PRESSURIZATION, HYDRAULIC AND CONTROL SUBSYSTEMS * CO-CHAIR WITH JSC * WITH WORK REQUIRED TO CONDUCT MVGVT AND MPT, SHUTTLE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ISA MAJOR EFFORT AT MSFC FIGURE 5 I will spend a few moments on the overall systems engineering activity shown in figure 5. Our activities in this area reflect the expertise and experience MSFC has gained on previous programs; these being primarily in the fields of large launch vehicle structures and propulsion systems. .1 mentioned to you during your last visit that we have formed, with JSC, an ascent flight system integration group which has been integrating the various technical requirements for the ascent portion of flight. We also mentioned that a "chief engineer's office" for pro- pulsion systems had just been formed. It was named the propulsion systems group. We have since upgraded that group by forming, along with JSC, the propulsion system integration group. This group is cochaired with JSC, and it will have greater authority. It will re- view the many fac.ets of the main propulsion system including propel- lants, feed system, hydraulic and pressurization systems, control sys- tems and the interface with the main engine computer. PAGENO="0469" SAI1-1947 I 500~ 400 300 200 100 465 MSFC SYSTEMS ENGINEERING EFFORT FY75 FY76 lip FY77 FY78 I FY74 JFY8O Fiaiim~ 6 As I mentioned earlier, the Shuttle systems engineering is a major activity at Marshal Space Flight Center. In terms of manpower, we are using about 470 employees at the present time (figure 6). This figure will stay fairly constant as we enter the flight phase, a, time period when our manpower on the SSME, ET, and SRB will probably decrease. FIGURE 7 PAGENO="0470" 466 MAIN PROPULSION TEST PROGRAM (MPT) * M!1~PROGRA)L * STATIC FIRING OF THE INTEGRATED PROPULSION SYSTEM, MAIN ENGINES, EXTERNAL TANK, ASSOCIATED SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. FIRINGS CONDUCTED WiTH ENGINE GIMBALLING AND THROTTLING. * MSFC RESPONSIBILITY * MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTION * DEVELOPMENT OF TEST, FACILITY AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS * DIRECTION OF THE INTEGRATION CONTRACTOR (RI/SD) * CONTRACTORS * PRIMARY ROLE - ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL SPACE DIVISION * OTHER - MARTIN MARIETTA - ROCKETDYNE * PROGRAM INFORMATION * COST-$41.7M * SCHEDULE - FIRST STATIC FIRING IN DECEMBER ~77 AND THE FINAL IN QCTOBER `78 F1GU1UI 8 Now, I will discuss the main propulsion test project (figure 7 and 8). Marshall is responsible for this testing which will be done at NSTL. The testing will be the static firing of all three main engines drawing propellant from an external tank (ET). The test hardware includes the aft section of the orbiter with three SSME's, a simulated orbiter midfuselage, and a flight-type ET. JSC has assigned the project 1o MSFC to manage, and Rockwell International's Space Division is the primary contractor. The project cost will be approximately $42 mil- lion. Main propulsion testing will be a major activity in fiscal year 1978. The first firing is scheduled for December of this year. PAGENO="0471" 467 M~4N ?ROPUIdSQN TEST (MPT) * FACILITY CONSTRUCTION * BASIC CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED SEPTEMBER 1976 * RE-ACTIVATION AND MODIFICATION TO SUPPORT SYSTEMS ON SCHEDULE COMPLETE MARCH 1977 * TURN-OVER TO RI-SD - FEBRUARY 197? * TEST HARDWARE * MPTA ENGINES ON SCHEDULE * ORBITER AFT SECTION ON SCHEDULE * EXTERNAL TANK - EARLY PRODUCTION DELAYS - TEST PREPARATION SCHEDULE REARRANGED TO ACCEPT NEW DELIVERY DATE OF AUGUST 27~ 1977 * TEST OPERATIONS * FIRST CRYO TANKING TEST NOVEMBER 1977 * FIRST STATIC FIRING (15-30 SECONDS) DECEMBER 1977 * 12-16 TESTS PLANNED. REQUIREMENTS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW AND BEING SCRUBBED. FIGURE 9 The project is on schedule (figure 9). The basic construction con- tract was completed last September. We are now instrumenting and retrofitting the facility using NSTL area contractors. We plan to turn the facility over to Rockwell this month. Regarding the test hard- ware, the three main engines and the orbiter aft section are on sched- ule. We have had some early production problems with the external tank; however, we rearranged the test prepartion schedule to work around this problem. We plan to place the engines and orbiter on the stand first and proceed with software and overall test prepara- tions for about 2 months. The external tank will be placed in position in late August. We expect our first `tanking test in November 1917, with the first hot firing in December as scheduled. We have some 12 to 16 tests planned which will take about a year. We are continually reviewing requirements with the objective of reducing the number of tests. PAGENO="0472" 468 MAIN PROPULSION TEST ON-SITE NSTL CONTRACTOR MANPOWER I CY75 F CY76 CY77 CY7B I CY79 I cveo ICC BOO 16/1) INST TA - PLAN Y TIN BOO ~ I10131)C0148jET5STAT)C FIRIN050UPPORT FMOF ACTUAL ~ oRG IB/7I~ 1ST ~~~!M!~I LASTSFII2/15I 06800 I6/2SI~ STATIC FIRINGS 380 61 ODI8I27I~ _____________ 360 SSME 0DI7/1I~ / ~ (7/8l~ f 12/ 5) 340 (7/15)9~ 1 320 / 300 / ~_ 260 ~. 240 220 ~200 ~16o 160 280 1 ~140 120 ¼ ~ 100 80 5t 60 40 20 _____ I CV7S I CY76 I CY77 I CY78 ~ CY79 I CV8O FIGURE 10 To support the main Dropulsion test, we will have approximately 370 contractor personnel, principally from Rockwell International's Space Division, in residence at NSTL (figure 10). The manpower level will stay high for about 1 year and then droD down in early calendar year 1979. The facility will be kept in standby for 1 year as we go into the flight test phase. PAGENO="0473" 469 FIGURE 11 PAGENO="0474" 470 MATED VERTICAL GROUND VIBRATION TEST (MVGVT) * MVGVT PROGRAM * DETERMINE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF SHUTTLE VEHICLE FLIGHT CONFIGURATIONS * MSFC RESPONSIBILITY * MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTION * DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITY AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS * PROVIDING AND INSTALLING SPECIAL TEST EQUIPMENT * CONDUCT OF TEST OPERATIONS * CONTRACTORS * PRIMARY ROLE -. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL SPACE DIVISION * OTHER - MARTIN MARIETTA - THIOKOL - ROCKETDYNE * PROGRAM INFORMATION * COST-$11.7 * SCHEDULE. - TEST OPERATIONS WILL BEGIN IN MAY 1978 AND END IN NOVEMBER 1978 Fiouis~ 12 The mated vertical ground vibration test (MVGVT) program, the other major test program assigned to MSFC by JSC, will be conducted at MSFC (figures 11 and 12). The Enterprise (orbiter), the solid rocket boosters, and the external tank will be vertically assembled to test the dynamic behavior of the total system. Again, the primary contractor will be Rockwell International's Space Division. The cost of purchase and installation of special test equipment, not facilities modification, is $12 mjllion. Testing will start in May 1978 and will be completed in November 1978. PAGENO="0475" 471 MATED VERTICAL GROUND VIBRATION TEST (MVGVT) STATUS * FACILITY CONSTRUCTION * TEST STAND MODS APPROXIMATELY 75% COMPLETE * AIRFIELD MOD DESIGN 100% COMPLETE. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD MARCH 1977 * FACILITY ACTIVATION * SPECIAL TEST EQUIPMENT DESIGN APPROXIMATELY 60% COMPLETE * ORBITER TRANSPORTER ON-DOCK MSFC AUGUST 1977 * TEST HARDWARE * ORBITER OV-101 (ENTERPRISE) ON SCHEDULE * EXTERNAL TANK ON SCHEDULE * SRB/SRM ON SCHEDULE * TEST OPERATIONS * FIRST TEST (ORB1TER/ET) MAY 1978 * LIFT-OFF CONFIGURATION TEST SEPTEMBER 1978 * COMPLETE FINAL TEST (SRB BURNOUT - T+125) NOVEMBER 1978 FIGURE 18 FIGURE 14 PAGENO="0476" 472 The modifications of the MVGVT test stand are abaut 75 percent complete. The current status is shown in figure 13. I believe you saw that test stand during your last visit; figure 14 is a recent photograph of it. In this facility will be the first mating of the total Space Shuttle. We are working with KSC on assembly plans to assure that what is learned here is transferred to KSC. Some of the contractors to be used at KSC will gain experience on MVGVTf All three vehicle elements (orbiter, ET, SRB) ai~e one schedule. We will start our first test in May 1978. A contractor work force will gradually build up to about 300 (figure 15) ,with recruiting primarily from the local area labor market. Again, Rockwell International's Space Division will be the primary employer with some effort from Martin Marietta Corp. and Thiokol Corp. MAJOR TEST `MVGVT CONTRACTOR MANPOWER .~ . . ~75 * CY76 CY1U * CY7O SMTAS ODV OTEST ~OMPL ETOD~ SOB (LI ODVV000 I~O0 * .. . 300 I ~ FACC000T COMPy ORB ODV SITO ACTIVATIONV ~J\\ ~ CYTh~~* [ CV77 ~ CY78 ~ CY79 ~TOTA * NEW FACILITY $1,4 MIL FiovnE 15 SHU1TLE FACILITY PROGRAM ALL LOCATIONS- FY 71 - FY 78 PROJECTS MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING FACILITIES - $101.2 MIL UNDER AWAaTING START OF CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION $16,616 000 $3.949.000 $14,470,000 $22,530,000 AMOUNT TOTAL PROGRAM COMPLET~D~ MARCH 19Th $84,760,000 $36.560.000 $32,584,000 FEBRUARY 1976 $85,294,000 $48,429.000 $32,916,000 FEBRUARY 1977 $102,600,000* $65,600,000 FEBRUARY 7, 1977 PmtlnE 16 PAGENO="0477" 473 SHUTILE FAcILITY PROGRAM MICHOUD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FY VALUE COMPLETION STATUS FACILITY TITLE PROGRAM (6 MILLIONS) DATE COMPLETED MOD OF MFG. & FINAL ASSY. FAC. 73 416 JAN 76 MOD OF MFG. & FINAL ASSY. FAC. 74 696 DEC 76 11.11 UNDER CONSTRUCTION MOD OF MFG. & FINAL ASSY. FAC. 74 -VAB-CELLSB&C 3.03 FEB77 3.03 AWAITING MODOF MFG. & FINAL ASSY. FAC. 73 START OF -HOBIZONTAL INSTALLATION AREA .26 JUNE 77 CONSTRUCTION HANGER DOOR INSTALL. -SOUTH WALL DOOR .12 SEPT77 -VAB-CELL D 77 1.93 MAR 78 -ADDITION TO BUILDINGS 1G3AN 110 78 13.60 APR 80 -CHEMICAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY 78 2.60 DEC 78 -VAB MOD 78 1.13 SEPT 78 -HORIZONTAL INSTALLATION POSITIONS 78 .38 AUG 78 -TPS APPLICATION BOOTH 78 .90 SEPT76 20.92 TOTAL 35.06 FEBRUARY 7.1971 FIGURE 17 In closing my introduction, I will quickly cover the overall facilities. status (figures 16 and 17). The total shuttle facility program for MSFC is about $102 million, of which only $1.4 million is for new facilities. The remaining provides for modification to existing facilities. We have completed approximately $65 million of the $102 million, and we have under construction~~ approximately $14 million. Thus approximately $2~ million remains to be accomplished. The major facilities remaining to be. completed are those at Michoud pertaining to increasing the production rate capability for the external tank ($21 million of the $22 million). Since thiswas covered with you at Michoud, I will not go into further detail. This cornpl~tes my introduction, Mr. Chairman. Do you have any questions? I would like now to introduce Mr. Bob Thompson, our main engine proiect manager, who will briefly cover the status of his project. [The prepared statement c~f Mr. Lindstrom follows:] PAGENO="0478" 474 SMI~EMENT OF MR. ROBERT E. LINDSTROM MANAGER, SPACE SHUTTLE PROJECTS OFFICE MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER FOR 1~HE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES This introduces the Shuttle Projects portion of the Marshall Space Flight Center presentation to the House Subcommittee on Space Sci- ence and Applications. This provides a brief overview of Marshall's responsibilities on the Shuttle Program, a discussion of the MSFC Shuttle organization, and a review of the Center's systems efforts, major test activities and facilities funding (Figure 1). More detailed information on each of the MSFC Shuttle Projects will be presented by the respective Project Managers. Marshall's Space Shuttle assignments fall into two general categories (Figures 2 and 3). The first category is design, development, and test of three major Shuttle hardware elements: Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), External Tank (ET), and Solid Rocket Booster (SRB). The second category is support of Shuttle systems engineering activ- ities, including major system level testing (ground vibration testing of the complete Shuttle vehicle and static firing tests of the main propulsion system), system level analysis, and participation in Pro-. gram Director and Program Manager Boards, Panels, and Design Reviews. Shuttle Projects Office Manager is responsible. to Center Director for total Shuttle activity of the Center (Figure 4). In turn, three Project Managers (SSME, ET, SRB) are responsible to the Shuttle Projects Manager. Each Project Manager is supported by a Chief Er~gineer within the Center's Science and Engineering Directorate * Staff and Systems Engineering responsibilities are delegated and aligned for effióient interfacing. with Program Office counterparts * These include Engineering Management, Program Control and Analysis, and Manage- ment Integration. Major test activities, which include the Mated Vertical Ground Vibration Test (MVGVT) Project and the Main Propulsion Test (MPT) Project, are managed by the Major Test Management Office. PAGENO="0479" 475 2 The Center's primary assignments in systems engineering reflect its experience and expertise gained on related assignments on large launch vehicle structures, control and. propulsion systems (Figure 5)0 At the last meeting with the Subcommittee in February 1976, announce- ment was made that the Center's support to JSC in the area of systems analysis has been augmented by the establishment of two groups: the Ascent Flight Systems Integration Working Group and the MSFC Propul- sion Systems Group. The former group is involved with Level II defini- t.ton of integrated flight vehicle design requirements, system design solutions, and design, verification, and flight tests through DDT&E. Since the visit last February, this group has made substantial contri- butions to the total systems engineering effort. The Marshall Shuttle Propulsion Systems Group serves as a technical propulsion staff within the Shuttle Program to provide continuous tech- nical assessment of issues involving the Shuttle propulsion system. Working interfaces have been established, particularly with JSC and Rockwell International's Space Division. Significant analysis has been implemented, and many technical issues have been considered and vigorously attacked. In addition, JSC recently established a "super panel" to provide main propulsion system integration and technical direction. The panel is being co-chaired by Marshall Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Center. The systems engineering work, coupled with the management of the two major tests discussed below constitutes a major effort of the Center, utilizing approximately 480 direct charge personnel (Figure 6). The Main Propulsion Test Program (MPT).. will be con~Iucted at the~ National Space TechnologyLaboratories (NSTL), Bay St * Louis, Mis - sissippi, using a modified test stand formerly used for static testing of the Saturn V first stages (Figures 7 and 8)0 The program will use an integrated test article including a. flight-type ET, a simulated~ Orbiter mid-fuselage, and an aft flight-weight fuselage with three SSME's. The tests will be conducted to obtain data and verification on the Shuttle Main Propulsion System during operation. During firings, the engines will be both gimballed and throttled to give as close as possible flight conditions. Marshall's responsibilities include over- all management of facility and support equipment development, and direction of the test integration contractor, Rockwell International/ Space Division. The other two major Shuttle contractors invOlved PAGENO="0480" 476 3 are the External Tank contractor, Martin Marietta, and the Main Engine contractor, Rocketdyne. The expected coSt for MPT Is $41 .7M, and the first static firing is scheduled for December 1977 with the last one in October 1978. The Main Propulsion Test (MPT) has incorporated one change; i.e., in order to accommodate the Orbiter Vibro-Acoustics Test eaort, the MPT test sta~t has been changed to December 1977 from October 1977 ~ig'ure~9). This wiLl ~perrnit `theeVibro-Aooustic tests to be performed with the MPT, negating the need for a separate test progran%. Other efforts achieved during the past year include completion of modifica'- ~tion of the S-IC Test Stand for MPT, start of support equipment instal- lation, and completion of the MPT Systems Critical Design Review. *~Mllestones for FY~ 1977 Include completing support equipment instal- lation and achieving operational readiness in June 1977. Overall, construction, special test equipment, ground support equipment, and planning are on schedule. While the program is expected to be com- pleted as presently scheduled and funded, there are concerns involving schedules for test articles, Shuttle Avionics Test Set and software. The build-up of contractor manpower at the National Space Technology Laboratories is progressing satisfactorily. The numbers will peak late, this year with start of static firings, drop off rapidly upon completion of the firings, and stay at a relatively low level during the "standby" period, which will last until the end of the second test flight (Figure 10). The Mated Vertical Ground Vibration Test Program (MVGVT) will be conducted at the Marshall Space Flight Center using the Vibration Test Facility originally constructed for the Saturn V vibration tests (Figures 11 and 12). The stand is being modified for Shuttle use. The objective of the test program Is to determine the dynamic behavior of the Shuttle vehicle in various flight configurations (vehicle liftoff, SRB burnout, after SRB separation, ET about 2/3 depleted, and ET depleted). The test hardware wifi consist of the Orbiter 101, an ET, and two SRB's * Marshall Is responsible for the `management and direction of the program including developing the facility and support equipment requirements, providing and installing special test equip- ment, and conducting test operations. The primary contractor support- ing the Center in this effort is the Shuttle integration contractor, Rock- well International's Space Division. Other contractors include Martin Marietta, External Tank; Thiokol, Solid Rocket Motor; and Rocketdyne, Main Engine. The overall cost is expected to be $11. 7M, and test operations should begin in May 1978 as presently scheduled and be completed in November 1978. PAGENO="0481" 477 4 In the Mated Vertical Ground Vibration Test (MVGVT), one major change has been made; i.e., the sequence has been revised with the boost configuration (Orbiter and ET only) being tested first, instead of the liftoff configuration (entire vehicle) (Figure 13). This will provide more time for delivery of the inert SRMs, Modification of the former Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand is on schedule, and design has been completed on the airfield modifications so the Orbiter can be unloaded from the 747 Carrier Aircraft. Early in FY 1978, airfield modification will be completed, as will modification of the test stand. The MVGVT Systems critical Design Review will be conducted in July 1977, Overall, the MVGVT preparations are progressing well; all basic requirements have been identified; program documentation is being prepared; and the program is expected to be completed on time and within the present cost estimate. Contractor manpower is being brought onboard very smoothly and essentially as planned, Maximum manpower level is expected to be reached during the fourth quarter of FY78 when test operations are scheduled to peak. This period will be followed by a rapid decrease in manpower until the MVGVT program ends in early FY 1979 (Figure 14). The facility program continues to support Space Shuttle Program Require- ments (Figures 15, 16, and 17). Facilities will be completed within schedule and budgetary constraints * In the past twelve months, $17,170,000 of construction has been completed and $1,555,000 has been placed under construction. Facility modifications supporting the SSME are completed and test operations are underway, These facilities are being utilized to test components at Santa Susana, California and engine development test- ing at National Space Technology Laboratories, Modifications to the manufacturing facilities at Thiokol Corporation's Wasatch Division in Utah, began in September 1975 * This effort consisted of eight separate tasks as defined in the Design, Develop- ment, Test and Engineering Phase of the Solid Rocket Motor Contract. All tasks have been completed with the exception of one $10,000 task which will be completed in May 1977. The Michoud Assembly Facility In New Orleans, Louisiana is being modified to support External Tank manufacturing. The majority of the FY73 and FY74 tasks have been completed or are under construction. The FY77 project for $1 .93M is under design. The FY78 project tasks provide for an increase in the External Tank production rate over that 92-082 0 - 77 - 31 PAGENO="0482" 478 5 provided in the prior years projects. Additional modifications will be required in later years to permit the efficient production of 60 External Tanks per year. The National Space Technology Laboratories (NSTL), construction on the Orbiter Propulsion Systems Test Facility is complete with the exception of modifications now required for Vibro-Acoustic Testing. These modifications will be complete in October 1977. At MSFC, progress is on schedule for the former Saturn V facilities being modified to structurally test the, External Tank and the Solid Rocket Booster and to dynamically test the Mated Space Shuttle vehicle. PAGENO="0483" SHUTTLE PROJECTS OFFICE OVERVIEW * SUMMARY OF MSFC RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACTIVITIES * SHUTTLE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS, TEST AND INTEGRATION EFFORT BEING CONDUCTED BY MSFC * FACILITY FUNDING Figure 1 PAGENO="0484" MSFC SHUTTLE RESPONSIBILITIES * SHUTTLE PROTECTS * SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE (SSME) - MOST SIGNIFICANT TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT IN PROGRAM * E)CJ~ERNAL TANK (ET) - UNIT WEIGHT AND COST EXTREMELY CRITICAL TO PROGRAM SUCCESS * SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER (SRB) - RECOVERY AND REUSABILITY MAKES SHUTTLE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE * SHUTTLE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS. TEST AND INTEGRATION * SYSTEM LEVEL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION * SYSTEM LEVEL TESTING - DYNAMIC TESTING (MVGVT) - ORBITER STATIC TESTING - MAIN PROPULSION SYSTEM (MPT) * SYSTEM LEVEL PARTICIPATION - LEVEL I AND LEVEL II BOARDS, PANELS, AND DESIGN REVIEWS. Figure ~ PAGENO="0485" 481 PAGENO="0486" MSFC SHUTFLE ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INTEGRATION CONTROL & A. FLYNN ANALYSIS OFFICE *MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION 0 FUNDING B MANPOWER SYSTEMS INTERFACE WITH JSC *PROGRAMMATIC INTERFACE WITH JSC SA11-1940 ENGINEERING MAJOR TEST MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT ~H~FORO * SYSTEMS ENGINEERING *SYSTEMS INTERFACE WITH JSC *MAIN PROPULSION TEST PROJECT *MATED VEHICLE GROUND VIBRATION TEST PROJEçT (ZES±EMAIN (~NAL~~) (~CocKET~$TER ENGINE PROJECT OFFICE PROJECT OFFICE PROJECT OFFICE j N~GHDY PAGENO="0487" MSFC SHUTTLE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING EFFORT * ASSIGNMENTS REFLECT MSFC CAPABILITY AND EXP~RIENCE * LAUNCH VEHICLES * STRUCTURES * PROPULSION SYSTEMS * ASCENT FLIGHT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION WORKING GROUP * LAUNCH VEHICLE PORTION OF FLIGHT * INTEGRATION OF AERODYNAMICS STRUCTURES, PROPULSION, PERFORMANCE AND CONTROL * PROPULSION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION GROUP * MAIN PROPULSION SYSTEMS * INTEGRATES MAIN ENGINE PROPELLANT, PRESSURIZATION, HYDRAULIC AND CONTROL SUBSYSTEMS * CO-CHAIR WITH JSC * WITH WORK REQUIRED TO CONDUCT MVGVT AND MPT, SHUTTLE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IS A MAJOR EFFORT AT MSFC ~igure 5 PAGENO="0488" MSFC SYSTEMS ENGINEERING EFFORT SA11-1947 500* 400 300 2 `I- *0 w 200 100~ FY75 FY76 1WI FY77 FY78 1 FY74 FY80 F1gure~ PAGENO="0489" 485 PAGENO="0490" MAIN PROPULSION TEST PROGRAM (MPT) * MPT PROGRAM * STATIC FIRING OF THE INTEGRATED PROPULSION SYSTEM, MAIN ENGINES, EXTERNAL TANK, ASSOCIATED SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. FIRINGS CONDUCTED WIT H ENGINE GIMBALLING AND THROTTLING. * MSFC RESPONSIB~1TY * MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTION * DEVELOPMENT OF TEST, FACILITY AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS * DIRECTION OF THE INTEGRATION CONTRACTOR (RI/SD) * )NTRACTORS * PRIMARY ROLE - ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL SPACE DIVISION * OTHER - MARTIN MARIETTA - ROCKETDYNE * PROGRAM INFORMATION * COST-$41.7M * SCHEDULE - FIRST STATIC FIRING IN DECEMBER `77 AND THE FINAL IN OCTOBER `78 Figure 8, PAGENO="0491" MAIN PRQ~!ISION TEST (Mn) STATUS * FACILITY CONSTRUCTION * BASIC CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED SEPTEMBER 1976 * RE-ACTIVATION AND MODIFICATION TO SUPPORT SYSTEMS ON SCHEDULE - COMPLETE MARCH 1977 * TURN-OVER TO RI-SD - FEBRUARY 1977 * TEST HARDWARE * MFIA ENGINES ON SCHEDULE * ORBITER AFT SECTION ON SCHEDULE * EXTERNAL TANK - EARLY PRODUCTION DELAYS - TEST PREPARATION SCHEDULE REARRANGED TO ACCEPT NEW DELIVERY DATE OF AUGUST 27, 1977 * TEST OPERATIONS * FIRST CRYO TANKING TEST NOVEMBER 1977 * FIRST STATIC FIRING (15-30 SECONDS) DECEMBER 1977 * 12-16 TESTS PLANNED. REQUIREMENTS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW AND BEING SCRUBBED. Figure 9. PAGENO="0492" MAIN PROPULSION TEST ON-SITE NSTL CONTRACTOR MANPOWER I CY75 J CV76 J CV77 f CY78 ~179 CV8O T~j BOO (6/1) INST TA - - PLAN T/S BOO (10131)COMPLETE STATIC FIRINGS SUPPORT FMOF ACTUAL ORD (6/7)~ 1ST SF (12/15) LAST SF (12/15) ORB 00 (6I25)~ STATIC FIRINGS ET OD (8/27)~ STANDBY 360 SSME 00 (7/1)~ ~` ~ ______________ (7/Ø)~ / (12/15) 340 (1/15)C1 320 / 300 / 280 240 8 220 200~ 180 160 140 260 120 100 80 Ui 60 40 20 0 )L I ~ CY76 I CY77 I CV78 I CY79 CY8O Figure 10 PAGENO="0493" 489 PAGENO="0494" MATED VERTICAL GROUND VIBRATION TEST (MVGVT) * MVGVT PROGRAM * DETERMINE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF SHUTTLE VEHICLE FLIGHT CONFIGURATIONS * MSFC RESPONSIBILITY * MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTION * DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITY AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS * PROVIDING AND INSTALLING SPECIAL TEST EQUIPMENT * CONDUCT OF TEST OPERATIONS * CONTRACTORS * PRIMARY ROLE - ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL SPACE DIVISION * OTHER - MARTIN MARIETTA - THIOKOL - ROCKETDYNE * PROGRAM INFORMATION * COST - $11.7 * SCHEDULE - TEST OPERATIONS WILL BEGIN IN MAY 1978 AND END IN NOVEMBER 1978 Figure 12 PAGENO="0495" MATED VERTICAL GROUND VIBRATION TEST (MVGvT) STATUS * FACILITY CONSTRUCTION * TEST STAND MODS APPROXIMATELY 75% COMPLETE * AIRFIELD MOD DESIGN 100% COMPLETE. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD MARCH 1977 * FACILITY ACTIVATION * SPECIAL TEST EQUIPMENT DESIGN APPROXIMATELY 60% COMPLETE * ORBITER TRANSPORTER ON-DOCK MSFC AUGUST 1977 * TEST HARDWARE * ORBITER OV-101 (ENTERPRISE) ON SCHEDULE * EXTERNAL TANK ON SCHEDULE * SRB/SRM ON SCHEDULE * TEST OPERATIONS * FIRST TEST (ORBITER/ET) MAY 1978 * LIFT-OFF CONFIGURATION TEST SEPTEMBER 1978 * COMPLETE FINAL TEST (SRB BURNOUT - T+125) NOVEMBER 1978 PAGENO="0496" MAJOR TEST ~MVGVT CONTRACTOR MANPOWER CV 75 CY 76 CV (~ CV 78 cY 79 SMTAS OD~7 ~TEST COMPL ETOD~ SRB IL) ODVVSRB (E) OD FACCONSTCOMPVORBODV - SITE ACTIVATIONV CV?5 CV76 CY77 - CV78 CV79 ~/TOTA PAGENO="0497" 493 92-082 0 - 77 - 32 PAGENO="0498" SHUTrLE FACILITY PROGRAM ALL LOCATIONS- FY 71 - FY 78 PROJECTS AMOUNT. UNDER AWAITING STARTOF TOTAL PROGRAM COMPLETED cONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION MARCH 1975 $84,760,000 $36~56O,000 $32,584,000 $15,616j)0O FEBRUARY 1976 $85,294,000 $48,429,000 $32,916,000 $3,949,000 FEBRUARY 1977 $102,600,000* $65,600,000 $14,470,000 $22,530,000 FEBRUARY 7, 1977 * NEW FACILITY $1.4 MIL MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING FACILITIES - $101.2 MIL Figure 16 1 PAGENO="0499" SHUITLE FACILITY PROGRAM MICHOUD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FY VALUE COMPLETION STATUS FACILITY TITLE PROGRAM ($ MILLIONS) DATE COMPLETED MOD OF MFG. & FINAL ASSY. FAC. 73 4.16 JAN 76 MOD Of MFG. & FINAL ASSY. FAC. 74 6.95 DEC 76 11.11 UNDER CONSTRUCTION MOD OF MFG. & FINAL ASSY. FAC. 74 -VAB-CELLS B & C 3.03 FEB 77 3.03 AWAITING MOD OF MFG. & FINAL ASSY. FAC. 73 STARTOF -HORIZONTAL INSTALLATIONAREA .26 JUNE77 CONSTRUCTION HANGER DOOR INSTALL. -SOUTH WALL DOOR .12 SEPT 77 -VAB-CELL D * 77 1.93 MAR 78 -ADDITION TO BUILDINGS U~3AN 110 78 13.60 APR80 -CHEMICAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY 78 2.60 DEC78 -VABMOD 78 1.13 SEPT78 -HORIZONTAL INSTALLATION POSITIONS 78 .38 AUG 78 -TPS APPLICATiON BOOTH 78 .90 SEPT 78 20.92 TOTAL 35.06 FEBRUARY7,19fl ~g~ei7 PAGENO="0500" 496 STATEMENT OP JAMES R. THOMPSON, 1R., MANAGER, SPACE SHUT- TLE MAIN ENGINE, GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE PLIGHT CENTER Mr. THoMPsoN. Thank you, Bob. Gentlemen, figure 1 is the agenda that I will follow. I will give a brief overview of the project; an up- date of some of the accomplishments since the last testimony a year ago; a general technical status report; a schedule status report; a few comments regarding cost and contract status; and then the major concerns that we have remaining in the development program. AGENDA * PROJECT OVERVIEW * B ECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS * TECNICAL STATUS/SCHEDULE * COST/CONTRAC.T STATUS * MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS FIGuRE 1 PAGENO="0501" 497 First I will make a few comments abouts the engine characteristics to refresh your memory (fig. 2). The engine develops, at vacuum con- ditions, 470,000 lbs. of thrust. This is termed the rated thrust condi- tion. The engine has the capability to operate approximately 9' percent higher than the rated thrust condition. The major feature of this en- gine, compared to prior engines, is that it develops almost 3,000' p.s.i chamber pressure at rated thrust. This gives very high performance- about 455' seconds of specific impulse which would compare to the J-2 Engine speciflé impulse of approximately 430 `seconds. The other major feature of this engine is that it is reusable and capable of ac- cumulating 71/2 hours oE operational life spread over 55 starts. FIGURE 2 PAGENO="0502" 498 5 IT~~ ~ 5'. I ._ILUTSUE= ~.6k~i L~T I~'(~ - ~ T5 THRUST CHAMBER a ASI TEST COCA 4A&4B - - TURBOPUMP TEST SUN COCA TASTE S~ -~ ENGINE TRSTING-NSTL ~I 5~ * MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLES MPTA PLIGHT ENGINES 1211 SPACE SHUTTLE PEOGEAM 1.5-76-2-153 ~ SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE 12 31 76) I ~ PROJECT SCHEDULE ~ :L~p_t ~tLt~L ML~1 ~F!4!~T~ cflcLL1~T+ ~~±t ~ jJ1 ~ 1 ~ LI I.~44L .1 ~PCOMP1LETE'77:T Td~ Td EPL~. - ~ -t--1-1 i-41 ~ -I-' I I I ~ : - - [ cON$TRJ FIRST T~WP MPI *~TUEN S?RS?TEIt TIU~FPI~ - 2&L .~L if .{4~fl~ ~ ~ ~ J :i: - j~f~1 EATIONLIE1 1~ ~ [ - ~~j_ U4TUEJESL 1~ Iss~u TI~~~ON ~ 1kI~N'T~ - ~ j . - ~ oSEI~VE 77 !L1GH NOZZL S ~11X1T - T N TI. ST~ FIRSTSETOF3 ~ 1U2 El CO STE TcifJ 1 ~ OPERATIONALSFLIONT MONEY_as I I~O~PLETE SUPPORT ACTIVITY - I ------ J - I FIGtRF~ 3 The project schedule status is shown on figure 3. In September Of this past year, we successfully completed the critical design review. As Bob Lindstrom mentioned earlier, we are currently on schedule to pro- vide the three engines to the Main Propulsion Test Article (MPTA) ground test program in July of this year. The first of these engines has * been completed and is currently at National Space Technology La- boratories (NSTL) in Mississippi for initial development testing. We are also on schedule to complete the first flight engine set by the end of the third quarter in 1978. We have just recently completed a major milestone in the project requiring that the engine operate and demon- strate throttling capability from 50 percent of rated thrust condi- tions to 100 percent of rated thrust conditions. We have another mile- stone which requires operation of the engine at 100 percent of the rated thrust condition for a duration, during a single firing, of 60 seconds. We anticipate completing this milestone this month. During the last. month, the engine accumulated 51 seconds of 100 percent thrust level operation. The longest duration to date at this thrust level during a single test has been 21 seconds. - PAGENO="0503" 499 SSME PROJECT OVERVIEW * GOOD PROGRESS ACROSS PROJECT DURING PAST YEAR, PARTICULARLY DURING LAST SIX MONTHS. * CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED ON SCHEDULE IN SEPTEMBER 1976. * SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS IN COMPONENT AND ENGINE DEVELOPMENT TESTING. * ENGINE OPERATION AT RATED POWER LEVEL. * THROTTLING CAPABILITY, 50% TO 100% RATED POWER LEVELS DEMONSTRATED. * 650 SECOND 50% POWER LEVEL ENGINE FIRINJ FOR EXTENDED DURATION EVALUATION. * 405 SECOND 50% POWER LEVEL ENGINE FIRING WITH FLIGHT NOZZLE, HEAT EXCHANGER, ENGINE MOUNTED CONTROLLER, AND ALTITUDE SIMULATION. * OPERATION OS' HIGH PRESSURE OXIDIZER PUMP AT FULL POWER LEVEL LEAVES ONLY FLIGHT NOZZLE AND HIGH PRESSURE FUEL TURROPUMP WITHOUT FULL POWER LEVEL DEMONSTRATION. * COMPONENT STABILITY (BOMBING) TESTING OF MAIN COMBUSTION CHAMBER AND PREBURNER INDICATES EXCELLENT STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS. * ENGINE START AND TRANSITION TO MAINSTAGE OPERATION REPEATABLE AND WELL WITHIN REQUIREMENTS. * PLANNED TEST RATE BEING ACHIEVED BUT PLANNED DURATION (TEST MATURITY) LAGGING - CATCH BACK PLAN ESTABLISHED - HEAVY PROJECT EMPHASIS DURING NEXT TWO YEARS. ~ FOUR ENGINES DELIVERED TO DATE. MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLE ENGINES ON SCHEDULE FOR JULY 1977 DELIVERY. * ALL SSME FACILITIES COMPLETE AND IN OPERATION. * OVERALL PROJECT SCHEDULE TIGHT, BUT ACHIEVABLE, F'IGUBE 4 Progress over the last year I~as been very good, particularly during the last 6 months. We have now operated all of the components on the engine up to rated thrust conditions (figure 4). Subsequent charts show that most components have operated at the full power level thrust condition, the two' exceptions being the high pressure fuel turbo- pump and the flight cOnfiguration nozzle. I mentioned earJier that the critical design review was successfully completed last September. Let me now summarize some of the more significant achievements in the component and development test prógraiñ accomplished during the past year. Engine 0003 is currently accumulating test duration at rated thrust conditions in the A-i test position at NSTL. * PAGENO="0504" 500 Figure 5 is a picture taken during our first firing at the rated thrust level. Below the nozzle the mach diamond is clearly visible. During the last quarter, this engine also accumulated ~35O seconds of operation `during a single firing at 50 percent of the rated thrust level. A nominal Shuttle mission would require engine operation of approximately 500 seconds. We are currently testing at two positions at the NSTL facilities. . FIGuRE 5 PAGENO="0505" 501 Figure 6 is a picture ô~ Eiigine 0002 installed in the A-2 altitude test position. We have very recently operated this engine in excess of 400 seconds during a single firing at 50 percent of rated thrust conditions. There are two major configuration differences in Engine 0002 as com- pared to Engine 0003. The flight configuration nozzle with an area ratio of `T7 :1 is installed on Engine 0002 and we are currently operat- ing this engine with an engine-mounted controller, as opposed to a FIGURE 6 PAGENO="0506" 502 rack-mounted contro1li~r utilized with Engine 0003. Both engines now have a functional beat exchanger located in the engine power head that is used to pressurize the oxidizer tank during the Shuttle missions. SA51 -3529' ~ ENGINE AND COMPONENT OPERATING LEVELS AChIEVED SINCE FEB 1916 110 ~ _______ _ "UI IIIIdlIdØd dødsdlIlIIi, FIGURE 7 The next chart (figure 7) show's the thrust level exposure of all the major components on the engine, in terms of conditions tested to date, including the engine as a system. The double cross hatched area repre- sents the progress of development compared to a year ago when I pre- sented project status to you. The only two components that have~ not been operated sit conditions equivalent to full power level.thrust are the high pressure fuel turbopump and the flight configuration nozzle. Both oxidizer turbopumps have been operated at full power thrust conditions, as well as the low pressure fule turbopump. At the Rocket- dyne Santa Susana test site, we have been subjecting the combustion devices to a stability bombing program and to date that program has progressed very well. With induced overpressures of approximately 100 percent, all of the combustion unit configurations have damped to the steady state level within 4 milliseconds. This compares to a specifi- cation requirement of approximately 40 milliseconds. PAGENO="0507" 5O~3 R&D ENGINE TESTS tfl ~- - , Z4~- At A NIH - - / - - - U- , - -- - - --- I ~- * 4 I j~ ~ I I ~ H--- I - MIN NWMCONTNOLL IT U I f HAtS Al k1t NMUSICIHNDS P*OtC1INcIJNI*.ATIHEHNSNMMJNATICNATUC~ ~4~SIcONSS FIGURE 8 ACCUMULATED ENGINE RUN DURATION FIGuRE 9 PAGENO="0508" 504 The engine system test program at NSTL has progressed quite well in terms of ability to conduct the number of tests planned. The next chart (figure 8) illustrates test rate plotted versus plan. To date, we have conducted approximately 150 tests on the two engine positions at NSTL. The major problem at this time is the accumulation of the necessary test duration during a firing which, to some degree, is a re- flection of engine maturity. We had forecast that by early 1~77 we would have accumulated approximately 10,000 seconds of engine oper- ation. Aetuals today are approximately 3,000 seconds and, the fore- casted recovery plan can be seen from the next chart (figure 9). We are currently estimating that we will accumulate approximately 100,- 000 seconds of engine operation by the first manned flight in March of 1979. FIGURE 10 PAGENO="0509" 505 We have now completed four development engines. Figure 10 is a picture of Engine 0004 which was recently completed and will become the first MPTA engine after initial development tests. This engine has been delivered to NSTL and we anticipate initiating engine testing late this month. All existing engines are now being up- dated to accommodate the controller mounted on the engine and will further be updated to include the flight configuration nozzle. CURRE~4T WEIGHT STATUS CEI VALUE DESIGN GOAL 1; ft~#ft'flffffj~ftI1~ff[~iT _______ I ~ _________________ I ~ __________ 7 ~IMIIII~ ~ 19W YEAR CURRENT ENGINE WEIGHT~~S9.& POUNI~ PREDICTED ENGINE WEIGHT AT FFC: <6486 POUNDS FIGURE 11 Weight history versus time is shown in figure ii. The control limit we are trying to stay within is depicted on the chart. We are currently within our weight budget and forecasting that we will be very close to the specification requirement at the engine final flight certification. All major components on the engine have now been weighed. PAGENO="0510" 506 CRITICAL HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE STATUS COMPLETE AS COMPLETE AS CURRENTLY MAJOR HARDWARE ITEMS OFFER. l9~_ OF FEB. 7, 1977 IN WORK FUEL PREBURNER CHAMBER ASSEMBLIES 9 14 10 OXIDIZER PREBURNER CHAMBER ASSEMBLIES 9 15 7 MAIN COMBUSTION CHAMBERS 3 4 12 MAIN INJECTORS 4 7 11 NOZZLES 3 4 12 HOT GAS MANIFOLDS 6 8 6 POWERHEADS 4 8 0 LOW PRESSURE OXIDIZER TURBOPUMPS 4 6 8 LOW PRESSURE FUEL TURBOPUMPS 4 5 9 HIGH PRESSURE OXIDIZER TURBOPUMPS 4 5 18 HIGH PRESSURE FUEL TURBOPUMPS 4 5 20 CONTROLLER ASSEMBLIES 3 6 4 SOFTWARE TEST CONFIGURATIONS 2 4 2 ENGINES 2 4 12 FIGURE 12 Next, I will comment about our status in terms of the quantity of development hardware in the program (figure 12). I møntioned earlier that we have now completed four R. & D. engines. I hare tabulated on this chart all of the major components on the engine, the number of units that were completed at this time last year, where we stand to date in terms of actual completions, and the number of unfts that are cut- rently in work. In addition to current actual completions, two equiv- alent engir~es will `be added within the next 30 to 60 days. Regarding the engine controllers, there are several on hand that are currently being used in the test program. We are currently working on the soft- ware for the flight engines and, to date, have had very satisfactory results with development software. We have had no problems at NSTL during engine testing with either the controller hardware or the controller software. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS * TECHNICAL: * HIGH PRESSURE FUEL TURBOPUMP * TURBINE BLADE AND TIP' SEAL DURABILITY * TURBINE END COOLING SOLUTION VERIFICATION * ROTOR STABILITY VERIFICATION * GENERAL TURBOPUMP PERFORMANCE * TEST MATURITY ACHIEVEMENT * PROGRAMMATIC: * PROJECT COSTS VERY TIGHT. SCHEDULE ACHIEVEMENT IS DOWN SEVERAL WEEKS OVER 6-MONTH PERIOD. FIGURE 13 PAGENO="0511" 507 I will comment briefly on our more significant problems and where we are currently focusing our attention (fig. 13). During the last 6 to 8 months, a large number of our engine test problems have been attributable to the high pressure fuel turbopump (fig. 14). Two of the more `significant ones we now feel we have a good understanding of, and I'll describe design changes which we have incorporated. One problem involves dynamic instability in the rotor assembly of this pump. This instability was manifested in high vibration levels mon- itoreci on the turbopump housing. The problem we feel has been re- solved and we are currently in the process of verifying the design change. Our solution, basically, was to provide structural stiffness to the bearing support system of the pump on the turbine end. We have now operated this turbopump successfully at speeds in excess of 37,000 r.p.m. For reference, the speed requirement for full power thrust level operation is 37,700 r.p.m. With the design changes incorporated, we have encountered no significant vibration levels, to `date, up to 37,000 r.p.m. During the last 3 or 4 months, we have concentrated quite heavily on `assuring that we are providing the proper coolii~g to the turbine end, and particularly, the bearing assembly of this turbo- pump. Minor design changes appear to have corrected some of the earlier problepis. During disassembly inspections of the last five turbo- pump units tested, we have seen no evidence of any overheating or inadequate cooling of the turbopump turbine end~ The five units dis- assembled `had all been tested to speeds in excess of 35,000 r.p.m. We are currently focusing on extending the blade life and tip seals in the FIGURE 14 PAGENO="0512" 508 turbine. Quite recently we have had very encouraging results with the type of tip seal material we are now using, and we believe we are on the way toward improving durability of the seals. With respect to gen- eral turbopump performance, we believe at this time that the perform- ance of low pressure pumps will be adequate with the design changes we are incorporating~ Both high pressure turbopumps are currently below specification requirements by several percent; however, we be- lieve that future modifications to these pumps will provide the re- quired performance. During the next few months, we will be giving considerable attention to improving the engine maturity for the MPTA ground test program. In conclusion, as with all projects, our `schedules are tight but we feel they are achievable. The funding available i's under tight control and we now have good understanding of funding requirements after having built four complete engines and with numerous components in work. I believe that the type of development problems in front of us will be typical of our prior engine programs at this phase of develop- ment? Mr. Chairman, are there any questions? `Chairman FUQTJA. Didn't you have some problems at one time, where, to keep the engine cool, you had to throttle back to the thrust level? Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have covered the high pressure fuel turbo- pump turbine and overheating problem we encountered at the higher thrust level; however, with that exception, we have encountered no significant cooling problems on the engine as a function of thrust level. Throughout the entire throttle range tested to date, the control system appears to be working quite well, ha's been very stable, and `we have seen no evidence of any diugging or instabilities in the combustion devices which may lead to cooling problems. Our problems have primarily~ been focused on the high-pressure fuel turbopump. particularly the rotor stability problem that I mentioned and providing proper cool- ing to the turbine end. Current emphasis is on improving endurance of the turbine tip seals which are quite important to Our high-pres- sure fuel turbopump efficiency and performance. Representative WINN. What are the bombings during a firing that ~oureferto? Mr. THOMPSON. What we do is actually locate small bombs in the injector face that, when detonated, provide a very rapid overpressure. In the design, we have provided baffles and acoustic cavities as stability aids in the event that combustion instability is trie~gered. We use the bombing as a technique of evaluating the stability margin in the design. During a normal test program, you may encounter no in- stability and never know the design margin. We use this bombing technique to induce the overpressure and assure that the stability aids that we have incorporated will provide rapid damping, if instabilities occur. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. I would now like to introduce Jim Odom, the manager of the exter- nal tank project. ` ` [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] PAGENO="0513" 509 STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES R. THOMPSON, JR. MANAGER, SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE PROJECT MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Project responsibilities, contractors involved, and program data on the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) are shown in Figure 1. The SSME' is a high performance, reusable rocket engine burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, which will provide thrust to place the Shuttle Orbiter into earth orbit (Figure 2). Design and development of the SSME is a sigpificant advancement in rocket engine technology, and the development continues at a high level of activity, pointed toward certification for the first orbital flight of the Space Shuttle in the 2nd quarter of 1979. The Critical De- sign Review (CDR)~, a major development milestone, was com- pleted on schedule in September 1976. Testing at both the com- ponent and engine level is on a multi-shift basis at Rockwell's Santa Susana Test Labs in California and at the National Space Technology Labs (NSTL) in Mississippi. Fabrication has begun on engines for the Main Propulsion Test Article (MPTA), which will test three engines in a cluster at NSTL beginning in December 1977. Three development engines have now been tested at NSTL for a total of 144 tests and 2824 seconds of operating time. In addition, a fourth engine was delivered to NSTL for test during January 1977. During the past recent months engine testing has successfully progressed to higher thrust levels. No significant project related management and organizational changes have occurred at the prime contractor's plant during the last year. Mr. Dominick J. Sanchini, SSME Program Manager for the past 21 months, has continued to demonstrate outstanding leadership in guiding the project. Motivation throughout the Rocketdyne workforce continues at a high level. 92-082 0 - 77 - 33 PAGENO="0514" SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE MSFC RES1~ONSIBILITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE (SSME), A HIGH PERFORMANCE, REUSABLE, THROTTLEABLE ENGINE FOR THE ORBITER. THE 470K THRUST ENGINE BURNS LIQUID HYDROGEN/LIQUID OXYGEN, WITH AN EXPECTED LIFE OF 7.5 HOURS AND 55 STARTS. PRIME CONTRACTOR - ROCKETDYNE DIVISION, ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP., CA. MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS MINNEAPOLIS HONEYWELL, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. - CONTROLLER HYDRAULICS RESEARCH, VALENCIA, cALIFORNIA - ENGINE VALVE CONTROL SYSTEM PROGRAM INFORMATION DDT&E COST - $1062. 6i1 (POP 76-2) COST PER FLIGHT (COMMITMENT IN `71 DOLLARS) - $ . 230M CONTRACT - COST PLUS AWARD FEE PERIOD A - (APRIL 1972 THRU SEPTEMBER 1976) INCLUDES DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF MAJOR COMPONENTS AND ENGINE SYSTEM LEADING TO THE CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW (SE1~TEMBER 1976). PERIOD B - (SEPTEMBER 1976 THRU JULY 1980.) * COMPLETION OF DEVELOPMENT THROUGH FINAL FLIGHT CERTIFICATION. * MANUFACTURE, TEST AND DELIVER 7 PRODUCTION ENGINES AND GSE. Figure 1 PAGENO="0515" 511 PAGENO="0516" 512 2 The project has progressed significantly in manufacturing where a minimum of four units have been completed on all major components and a substantial number of components are currently in work. The project Design Verification Program is well underway with test activity from the subsystem level to the major components. Gen- eral progress at both major subcontractors, Hydraulic Research and Honeywell, continues to be encouraging. Delivery dates gen- erally support project needs, and technical problems which hav~ been identified through testing at the subcontractors' plants are well understood and the necessary changes are in work. PROJECT OVERVIEW Development testing has generally yielded good results. All ele- ments of the engine have now been demonstrated satisfactorily at full power level (109% of rated power level), except for the high pressure fuel turbopuznp (HPFTP) and the flight configuration nozzle which have been tested to 100% rated power level (RPL). Testing of the engine system at 100% RPL was achieved in January at NSTL and project emphasis is now being directed at increasing testing duration at this power level, Of importance, development testing of two critical operating requirements - engine start and transition to mainstage and stable combustion - has yielded excel- lent results and indicates that these requirements are well in hand. In past engine programs, meeting these two requirements has been a problem and has caused cost and schedule difficulties. At Santa Susana the project is now actively testing the low and high pressure LOX turbopumps and the low pressure fuel turbopumps to evaluate increased performance pump modifications. Preburner stability testing will be completed this quarter. B einitiation of high pressure fuel turbopump testing should occur this quarter following completion of engine system level verification of the high pressure fuel turbopump turbine end cooling modification and the subsynchronous shaft vibration (whirl) modifications. At NSTL the 144 system tests conducted thus far have demonstrated that the engine can start and operate over a wide range of inlet conditions and can meet the established requirements. Further, the recently * completed minimum power level (MPL) to 100% rated power level throttle tests have demonstrated that performance reqt*irements to throttle the engine can be achieved. Near term project develop- ment and testing priorities at NSTL include: Rated power level operation with duration; extended duration at progressively higher PAGENO="0517" 513 3 power levels; engine gimballing verification; and full power level operation. Engine tests with the flight nozzle and engine mounted controller on the A-Z stand at NSTL have indicated that the stand diffuser, which provides altitude simulation, meets all require- ments. Additionally, operation of the heat exchanger, which is located in the engine oxidizer preburner and provides pressurant to the external tank LOX compartment and the P000 accumulator, has yielded good results. Engine 0002 is currently installed in the A-2test position at NSTL (Figure 3) and Engine 0003 is installed in A- 1 test position (Figure 4). Engine 0004, which was delivered to NSTL in January, will be installed, in the A-i test position this quarter. Fabrication of component test articles adequately support need dates for test units at Santa Susana. Fabrication of the Main Pro- pulsion Test Article (MPTA) engine components is progressing satisfactorily and is proceeding on schedule with deliveries to the MPTA Program planned for July 1977. Fabrication of the first flight engines has been initiated. The Critical Design Review com- pleted in September 1976 surfaced no unknown design deficiencies and indicated that the basic design with planned modifications would satisfy all project requirements. RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND TECHNICAL STATUS Testing of the fuel and oxldizer preburners at Santa Susana Coca 4A position and the thrust chamber assembly has progressed to a phase where the facilities will now be used to support any problems originating, from en~gine system testing at NSTL. The main combus- tion chamber and the majority of the planned preburner stability testing (utilizing small bombs to create chamber over pressure) has been completed with excellent damping characteristics being demonstrated over the complete range of operating pressures. Damp times were less than 5 milliseconds vs. the specification of 35 milliseconds. Coca 4B tests with the 77. 5:1 flight nozzle (Fig- ure 5) indicated that sideloads which presented a problem on the J-2 engine were well below structural design levels and system control levels. Testing of turbopump systems on Santa Susana Coca lA and Coca lB test positions is now focused on evaluation of modifications to the pumps to meet engine balance requirements. Both of the oxidizer pumps (low and high pressure) and the low pressure fuel turbopump PAGENO="0518" 514 PAGENO="0519" 515 PAGENO="0520" 516 PAGENO="0521" 517 4 have been tested to full power level conditions. Testing of the high pressure fuel turbopump on the Coca lB position has been constrained by the required allocation o~ available pumps to the engines at NSTL for solution of three problems: subsynchronous shaft vibration (whirl), turbine overheating, and turbine blade and tip seal durability. Last summer the chief concern of the HPFTP was the dynamic phenomenon called subsynchronous "whirl" which leads to undesirable fuel pump vibrations. Relatively small changes, such as stiffened bearing mounts, smooth interstage seals, increased bearing preload, stiff rotor, and improved balancing techniques, were tried and gave promise of resolving the problem. The stability threshold level has been raised from 18000 rpm to 36800 rpm (highest speed tested to date). Further testing to con- firm the adequacy of the fixes at higher power levels and for ex- tended duration has been restricted by a separate problem; i. e., overheating of the bearings at the turbine end of the HPFTP. This overheating manifests itself mainly by failure of the bearing due to insufficient flow and pressure of hydrogen coolant through the interior passages. Because this problem is less serious at minimum power level (50% of RPL), durations up to 650 seconds were achieved at that level. However, ov e rheatthg inc reas es with power level to the extent that only a few seconds operation has been possible at 100% of RPL, the highest level reached to date on a complete engine. (A nominal mission requires about 480 seconds operation.) With the help of special instrumentation, this problem has been localized; and candidate solutions are now being tested. A recent test with a relatively simple modification achieved 100% thrust with no overheating. In addition, a pump which provides higher pressure coolant flow to increase the cooling margin has been tested. Thus, there is considerable confidence that the over- heating problem has been solved and only additional tests are re- quired to totally verify the rnodifications. There is also confidence that the steps already taken to el[minate subsynchronous whirl will be demonstrated concurrently. With these fixes in hand, the earlier milestOnes requiring 60 seconds at RPL and MPL to RPL throttling under simulated altitude conditions should be completed quickly, and the remainder of the development program will pro- ceed to provide additional performance data and the necessary maturity demonstration. Other contingency fixes, which are in various stages of design or test, are being maintained for quick PAGENO="0522" 518 5. use if required. These include an inboard bearing. turbopump' (already tested), reduced bearing dead band, hydrostatic interstage seals and the use of roller bearings. Durability of HPFTP turbine blade and tip seals has been affected by the temperature transients encountered during start and shut- down of the engine. While the durability aspect has not been a power level constraint1 it is a life consideration and a number of potential solutions are being pursued. These solutions such as blade coatings and tip seal material changes together with con- tinuing reduction in the temperature transient spikes are structured to provide increasing durability. Significant progress has been achieved during the past year on the controller hardware and software. To date the PP-3 controller located on Engine 0002 and the rack mounted controller BT- 1 have successfully supported 144 engine tests without problems. There has been a significant reduction in the manufacturing problems ex- perienced earlier in the program, and development of the controller hardware and software is proceeding on schedule. Additionally, engine system simulation testing in the MSFC simulation lab utilizing PP-2 controller and ~ngine 0004 software is active, and both nominal and off nominal tests are being conducted. A major project emphasis during the next two years will be to ex- pedite systems testing at NSTL toward achieving the desired test maturity status prior to the first manned orbital fligI~t (FMOF). Based on experience with other engines, approximately 450-500 tests accumulating between 80, 000 and 100, 000 seconds of operation would be necessary to detect and eliminate any significant defi- ciencies and to provide certification for the first, manned orbital flight (FMOF). The rate of progress against this plan shows that while the planned number of tests and many development goals have been achieved, test maturity is lagging. Test rate capability has proven better than had been postulated in laying o~it the engine development schedule so that rapid recovery toward achievement of these test objectives should occur. The planned rate of test duration should occur by late 1977 and, be exceeded during 1978 with recovery to the total accumulated duration prior to FMOF. PAGENO="0523" 519 6 COST/CONTRACT STATUS Proj ect costs are well defined and consistent with total Shuttle Program budgeting. Period A contract runout costs through the Critical Des~jn Review in September 1976 were on plan at approxi- mately $360M. At this time negotiations are being completed with Rocketdyne on a 46-month Period B contract which covers con- tinuation of development through final flight certification and the fabrication and delivery of seven production engines. Cost visi- bility and cost control at Rocketdyne continue to improve. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS Project focus on general turbopump performance including verifi- cation of the high pressure fuel turbopump turbine end cooling and shaft vibration solutions will continue during the next three to six months. Improvements will continue throughout the year toward increasing HPFTP turbine blade and tip seal durability to the re- quired level. Extending test durationsat the highpower levels will be a major project emphasis throughout 1977 and 1978 toward -achieving the required test maturity status arid assessing engine component life performance. Good progress has been made in manu~ facturing operations; however, continuing improvement in this area will be required particularly in the general weld development for the more complex components. Design verification testing has re- mained on plan but project emphasis will continue to be required in this area during the heavy verification activity scheduled to occur in 1977 and 1978. Progress at Honeywell on the controller and con- troller software continues to be encouraging, and controller hardware and software support to the engine test program has been excellent during the past year. General prOject schedules are tight, but achievable, and focused on achieving an acceptable level of engine maturity prior to the first Main Propulsion Test Article firing in December 1977. The FY-77 budget and the projected budget avail- ability for the remainder of the development program are tight, but the work required is well understood and achievable within the planned funding. PAGENO="0524" 520 STATEMENT OP JAMES B. ODOM, MANAGER, EXTERNAL TANK PROJECT, GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE PLIGHT CENTER Mr. OI)oM. Thank you, J. R.; Mr. Chairman, Representatives Winn and Flippo, I will give you an overview of the external tank project, not to be. repeititive of what you saw in your visit at ~fichoud but to give you my assessment of the project-where it is, what problems we have experienced, and the ones that we see coming up. AGENDA * PROJECT OVERVIEW * RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS * CY.1977 PLANS * SUMMARY FIGURE 1 I would like to do it in the order shown in figure 1: A quick over- view, then a discussion of some of the recent accomplishments-what I foresee happening in 1917 of significance and then summarizing for you at the end. IriGRU 2 PAGENO="0525" 521 As you are aware, the external tank (ET) illustrated in figure 2, provides two basic functions: It provides the propellant container and the feed system `between this container and the engines, and it also pro- vides the structural backbone for the entire vehicle. It accepts the solid rocket booster thrust loads at the forward end and the Orbiter thrust loads at the aft end. The Lox tank is located in the front and the inter- tank section ties the Lox tank to the hydrogen tank which is located at the aft end of the ET. The major systems that make up the ET are the structural system, the. pressurization and feed system, and the thermal protection system (TPS) that provides protection for the propellant and the conditioning for the propeilants. It also provides ice protection to prevent ice from forming on the ET and impacting the Orbiter. One system, that we discussed during your visit last year, that we are in the process of adding is this ice protection. We are also adding the range safety, or destruct, system. C OF F PROJECT ACTIVATION PROJECT WELDING SUBASSEMBLY - PHASE I WELDING SUBASSEMBLY - PHASE II WELDING SUBASSEMBLY - PHASE III PNEUMATIC TEST FACILITY WALL MODIFICATIONS AND DOOR CRANE REMOVAL CRANE REWORK, MODIFICATION AND ERECTION CRANE TRUSS MODIFICATIONS LHZ/LOZ TANK WELD ~hIouIuS 3 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE SCHEDULED COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COF F PROJECT ACTIVATION (CONTINUED) PROJECT MECHANICAL SUBASSEMBLY HORIZONTAL INSTALLATION MAJOR COMPONENT CLEANING VAB - PHASE I VAB - PHASE II VAB -. PHASE UI TANK FARM - PHASE I ACCEPTANCE TEST MINOR PLANT REARRANGEMENTS TPS FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE ` SCHEDULED COMPLETION rEBRUARY COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLS~TE COMPLETION MAY FIGURE Ba PAGENO="0526" 522 Those are in the mill now and are being inciorporated into the design, currently. As Bob Lindstrom indicated earlier, most of the initial fa- cility projects, listed in figures 3 and 3a, ~s you noticed while at Miclioud, are complete. We still have to complete one small modifica- tion to one of the large doors, and the last facility thodification (phase III) to the vertical assembly building (where we will spray on the in- sulation), which will be. completed this month. Most of the C. of F. work is already done; all that remains is cleaning up the actions from the vendors, so basically all of the initial facility projects are complete. These are the projects that will take us up to the 24 tanks per year rate. ACCOMPLISHMENTS *CY1976 * ASSEMBLY OF ALL (FIVE) EXTERNAL TANK GROUND TEST ARTICLES BEGAN AT MAF. * INTERTANK STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE IN JULY * LHZ TANK STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE IN JUNE * LO2 TANK STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE IN OCTOBER * MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLE IN MARCH * GROUND VIBRATION TEST ARTICLE IN DECEMBER * ALL MAJOR WELD FIXTURES INSTALLED AT MAF. * CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE FOR THE LU2 TANK STRUCTURAL TEST FACILITY AT MSFC. FIGURE 4 F'x~u&~ 5 PAGENO="0527" 523 Now, I would like to talk a few minutes about some of the past year's accomplishments which are shown in figures 4 and 10. We did start the intertank assembly in July of last year, and figure 5 is a picture of that assembly. It is the first article that will come to Marshall for structural testing. This is the article that accepts the roughly 2 mil- lion pounds load from the SRB. We started that one in July of last year and we will be delivering it to Marshall the first week in March of this year; that is an imminenb shipment. The next one that we started in June of last year was the assembly of the liquid hydrogen (LII,) tank. The structural test article is made up of three articles: The intertank, the LII, tank, and the LOX. tank. I will show, a little later on, how they are to be tested h.ere at the center. The first barrel of the hydrogen tank for the structural test article is shown in figure 6 and it is now coming aion~ really quite well. This followed the main propulsion test (MPT) article which gave us some problems in the early start-up. I will talk about the MPT in a few moments. The next article that we started last year, in the October time frame, was the LOX tank. FIGURE 6 PAGENO="0528" 524 Figure 7 is a picture of the barrel section for the LOX tank that will be going into that test article. In your visit at Michoud, you saw more of these articles that are already in the build cycle. The next article, which is the first t~tal tank we deliver, is the main propulsion test article which will go to the national space technology lab (N1STL) as Bob Lindstrom stated earlier. FIGirnE 7 PAGENO="0529" 525 This photo, figure 8, is basically as you saw it at Michoud on Sat- urday. The next operation will be to put the bulkhead on the end of this one. This is the LOX tank. We will be starting the tack weld for the next barrel today. This i~ the article We have had some trouble with in the large tooling and some of the start-up problems that I will dis- cuss later. FIGuRE 8 92-082 0 - 77 - 34 PAGENO="0530" 526 The next article that goes into the ground test program is the ground vibration test article (GVTA) as shown in figure 9. It will come to MSFC with the Enterprise and SRB's an~ will undergo ground vibration testing. This ET then will be refurbished and flown as a part of increment II. This one is also, obviously, a flight weight tank. In the external tank program, we did not build any test tank, or let's say any battleship-type tank, as you may recall. All of the tanks that we are building are on the same tools used to build the flight articles, and we are proving out both the design and the building tech- niques as we go through the ground test program. All of the major weld, fixtures, as you saw, are installed at Michoud for the initial build cycle for the D.D.T. & E. Also, the construction is complete for the LH2 structural test facility here at the center, and I will show you a picture of that in just a few minutes. FIGuRE 9 PAGENO="0531" 527 EXTERNAL TANK DELIVERY AND TEST SCHEDULE CV 1976 CV 1977 CV 1978 CV 1979 CV 1980 2 3 4 3 4 1 21 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 O/D FC TEST EPOR * &~ : rr~ INTEfrAN I I i 7L ~ ISPI I TE PC GRO SIR CTU ALT RI LH2 RI. 102 ONT STA NK NK STA IICL RU RU TICL TURA TURA TES TES ART ART LE LE i * * * A * I j 0/DP V&0 ~` j ,. lOP ~ `± 1o13~ MAP J V~ PC C ~L PROP O/D ~ TE TE ~ ART NDV TREI 5 ~F j CLE IRA I )D1 E Ft ~ . ~T PTIC SC OPER 110 ALF GHT RIP `~ LES OIDKSC ~ ~`...." .& I I I . , Q~K~ Va~~ T 23 ±- L 2 3 4 1 2 34 1 2F3L FV1980 FV1977 FV1978 FV1979 * CY 1977 FIGTJEE 10 FLANNEl) ACTIVITIES * COMPLETE ASSEMBLY OF THE INTERTANIç AND DELIVER TO MSFC FOIt STRUCTURAL TESTING. COMPLETE TEST PRO~7RAM. * COMPLETE ASSEMBLY OF THE MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLE AND DELIVER TO NSTL FOR MAIN PROPIJLSIOH TESTING. * COMPLETE ASSEMBLY OF THE LO~ AND LHZ TANKS AND DELIVER TO MSFC FOR STRUCTURAL TESTING. * COMPLETE MODIFICATIONS TO THE VERTICAL ASSEMBLYBUILDII4G AT MAF. * START ASSEMBLY OF THE FIRST TWO FLIGHT TANKS AT MAF. FIGuRE 11 PAGENO="0532" 528 Some of the planned activities for calendar year 1977 are listed in fIgures 10 and 11. During the year, we will complete the intertank assembly and, as I mentioned, it will be delivered here to the center. The article will be tested here at the Marshall Space Flight Center as illustrated in figure 12. The flight weight intertank and the simu- lators that simulate the loads coming in from the LOX and hycl,ro- gen tanks, respectively, are shown. Large steel structures (load rings) were built by Martin and will be delivered to the center the first week in March along with the intertank. FIGURE 12 PAGENO="0533" 529 SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN PROPULSION TEST SETUP AT NSTL THRUST REACTION POINT (FwD SUPPORT ET/SRB) FIGURE 13 Figure 13 is a picture Of the main propulsion test article at NSTL; this is the tank that we will be delivering, as Bob Lindstrom indicated, in August of this year. It is the first tank that will have virtually all of the flight systems. It obviously will not have the range safety sys- tem but it will have all of the functioning systems, so far `as supportin the propulsion test. The propulsion testing will be accomplished wit this article, and that will be the first time that we will have built and assembled an entire t&nk and loaded it with cryogens. LOAD SUPPORT FRAME -EXTERNAL TANK - SIMULATED ORBITER MIDBODY (BOl LERPLATE) L CLUSTER PAGENO="0534" 5ao Figure 14 is an illustration of the LOX tank structural test article and the way it will be tested here at the Marshall Center. This facility is one that we used for testing in the Saturn program, and the only thing we had to add was the ancillary access and load equip- ment to input the loads, into the article, that are peculiar to the Shuttle. The large load reacting member at the top, as well as the base of the building, will be used as they were for the Saturn program. The same is true for the testing of the LH2 tank for which we are using the old Saturn S-IC static test stand. FIGURE 14 PAGENO="0535" 531 As you will notice in figure 15, we are using the same load ring that took the loads from the S-IC, we hang the tank from the upper end and put the orbiter loads in down at the bottom. This way, we are able to use the existing facility; it is the only one in the country that has the capability for accepting an article of that size-as well as hav- ing the cryogen capability and the safety aspects associated with using hydrogen for tests of this type. In just a few minutes you will see an actual picture showing where we are in the modification of that fa- cility. We are completing the modification to the vertical assembly building at Michoud, which is the one that had the major modifica- tions to it. FIGURE 15 PAGENO="0536" ~32 Cells B and C, as pictured in figure 16, are the ones you saw that we are now in the process of equipping. The facility work is virtually complete. We are now putting in the thermal protection system ap- plication equipment and checking it out. The bank is brought in on a crane over the top; it goes in horizontal, is dropped down, the door is raised, and then the lid comes down and closes for the spray operation. IN..HOUSE ACTIVITIES * STRUCTURAL TEST PREPARATION * THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT TESTING * ENVIRONMENTAL * PERFORMANCE O MATERIAL TESTING Fxouuz 16 F~twE1~ iT PAGENO="0537" 533 Now, I will discuss a little more about the in-house activity shown in figures 17 and 10. The entire structural test program for the tank is conducted here at the center; and the reason it is done here is be~ cause of the unique Marshall facilities which will accommodate this size testing. Figure 18 is a picture of the intertank test facility at the center. Virtually all of the white structure that you see here has been added to accommodate the peculiar loading conditions that the Shuttle requires. FIGURE 18 PAGENO="0538" 534 The S-IC test facility, as it has been modified for testing of the LH, tank, is shown in figure 19. You can see that practically all of the superstructure and the concrete pillars, that we used for testing the S-IC can be used without modifications for testing the LH2. tank. The flame bucket was underneath; all we have done is move it back out of the way. We added some of the steel you can see between the con- crete pillars for the structural testing of the hydrogen tank. We are very fortunate to have this facility because there is not, as indicated previously, any other in the country that can accommodate those di- ameters with the load, as well as providing safe condition for handling the cryogens. Here at the center, we are also doing the development testing for the TPS for Martin. At Michoud, we only have some limited LN2 test capability. We do not have LOX or LII, capability down there; and rather than add it for only that development pro- gram, we are conducting these tests at the center in support of Martin; and that includes both the environmental testing and the perform- ance testing of the insulation. We also do the same type work for the LOX and hydrogen testing of materials and metals for Martin. FIGURE 19 PAGENO="0539" ~35 SUMMARY * MMC TOOLING FOR DDT&E VIRTUALLY COMPLETE * COMPONENT QUALIFICATION IN PROCESS * SCHEDULE IS TIGHT * ENCOUNTERING SOME MANUFACTURING START- UP PROBLEMS * WEIGHT IS CRITICAL (WEIGHT REDUCTION PROGRAM IN WORK) * KEY AREAS * STRUCTURAL AND THERMAL LOADS * THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM * VIBROACOUSTIC LOADS UPDATES FIGuRE 20 So, as summarized in figure 90, the Martin tooling for the D.D.T. & E. is virtually complete; it is all in place now. The only thing that is still in process of being installed is the TPS application tooling. The component qualification is in process also. This year, we will be quite heavily involved in the component qualification of the propulsion system components. Last year, we were heavily involved in the delivery and the development of the structural components at the vendors. As you recall, in February of last year, we were having some problems at vendors in the forming of some of the major structural components. Much of that now is behind us and we are now getting very good hardware. If there is any one area that has been a pleasant surprise to me, it has been in the capability and the quality of the hard- ware that we have been getting from our vendors. In earlier programs, much of the problems we ran into were getting vendors to really understand the requirements, the designs, and how to build and form large hardware. The schedule is obviously tight. Right now, we are about 9 weeks behind where I would like to be at this point on t~he MPT tank. I think there is certainly an opportunity to make that up between now and August. As I indicated, we have encountered some manufacturing startup problems, especially in the large tools. These are to be ex- pected; some of them are taking us a little longer to solve than we would like. But I thinkthe Martin people are understanding the prob- lem now; certainly better since the December timeframe. We are beginning now to see good progress in that area. The weight is critical. The tank is now approximately 700 pounds over the level II control weight. We have identified already, at the request of the program manager, areas of the tank where we might take out as much as 4,000 pounds for a later block change. We have identified that list now and we will be starting that design after we ¶have completed the struc- tural test program so that we know exactly where the load paths are; how the metal is being worked; and how the members are being utilized PAGENO="0540" ~36 from a structural standpoint. After we understand that, and get flight experience, we will know exactly where to reduce weight. That plan is being worked and could be implemented somewhere in t~he tank No~. 30 timeframe. A key area that is still quite active relates to the structural and thermal loads update. As we have finished the latter part of the wind tunnel test program, we have learned of additional loads-that is, both structural loads and thermal loads-from that program. We are in the process of accommodating those in the metal as well as in the thermal protection system. Also, in the last win~d tunnel program, we found increases in the vibroacoustic levels; some rather significant increases in particular zones of the tank. We went back to the vendors last week, looking at each piece of hardware to see which one of these we really have to redesign. There will be a fairly large percentage of the external hardware that will be affected, such as feedlines, pressurization lines, and recirculation lines, eth cetera. These are really the only significant changes that we see that are giving us any concern. That completes my overview of the project. Are there any questions? Representative WINN. Without getting into too much technical information, how do you reduce the weight in your weight reduction program? - Mr. ODOM. OK. We are looking at such things~- Representative WINN. Structurals? Mr. ODoM. Right. Most of it is in the structure. Some of it however, is in the feedlines. Right now, our feedlines are 17-inch lines of thin formed aluminum. For some of those, for example, we could use a thin shell and wrap composite materials on the outside; however, we tried to avoid going into composites because of the cost. In the last 5 years there has been a lot more development in that area, and we think that probably by the 1979-80 timeframe composites may be to the point where they will be more economical and more practical. Those are the types of things that we are considering. Also, as we see the actual loads from flight and from the structural test program, we may fin~d areas, even in the basic design, where we can remove metal or cut tolerances down. As you can imagine, on a tank this large, if you remove just a couple of thousandths over that much area, then you have removed significant weight. Another area is in the TPS. To date, we have made the entire TPS on the intertank a smooth surface. We can shave the TPS out between the stringers, for example. It would require another manufacturing operation but there are a~bout 500 pounds of weight that we can take out. Representative WINN. What about newer and lighter materials? Mr. Onoi~r. The composites appear the most promising, to date. Chairman FUQUA. But you will not be able to determine this until after you Ihave had a chance to test it here? Mr. ODOM. That is right. We think that we are better off going ahead and finishing the structural test program; then we will really know where the tank is over, strength and where it is marginal. A much better judgment can be made at that point of w~here to take weight out. Representative WINN. Do you have any doubt that you can do it? Mr. OnoM. No. I think that we can do it. Representative WINN. But it is going to be tight. Mr. ODOM. That is right. George Hardy, manager of the SRB project, is next. Dr. LTTOAS. Thank you, Jim. [The prepared statement of Mr. Odom follows :1 PAGENO="0541" 537 STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES B. ODOM MANAGER, EXTERNAL TANK PROJECT MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U. S. HOUSE OF RE~RESENTATIVES This is a general overview of the External Tank portion of the Space Shuttle. The External Tank (Figure 1) contains all the systems and com- ponents necessary to provide fuel (liquid hydrogen) and oxidizer (liquid oxygen) for the Orbiter's Main Engines and serves as the structural backbone for the Shuttle vehicle. The tank must be environmentally secure to accomplish this function and structur- ally able to accommodate the variety of loads imposed on it by the. Orbiter and Solid Rocket Boosters. Martin Marietta is the prime contractor for the tank. In design and development, the basic detailed engineering has pro- gressed to the point where the total design effort is approximately three-quarters complete. Ninety-five percent of the Main Pro- pulsion Test Article (first complete tank) design is complete. Construction of Facilities projects (Figure 2) at MAF are pro- ceeding as Scheduled toward completion in the third quarter of FY 1977. Rehabilitation of old equipment and acquisition of new replacement equipment is on schedule. Major weld fixtures for the domes, barrels, and ogives are complete along with all first article welds. The tank assembly major weld fixtures are also complete with first article welds in process. Fabrication of the Thermal Protection System (TPS) tooling is complete and instal- lation in the Vertical Assembly Building is in process. PAGENO="0542" 538 2 All hardware for the ground test programs are now in various stages of assembly at MAF (Figures 3-8). As might be expected, start-up manufacturing problems have been encountered in the areas of forming, alignment, welding, and tooling optimization. The number of problems encountered is not considered abnormal for a development program of this type. Prompt resolution of these problems has been achieved by the combined efforts of MSFC and MMC Design, Quality, and Manufacturing Engineering. Fund- ing constraints and changes in requirements (loads), coupled with these start-up problems have necessitated realignment of the' sched- ule (Figure 9). Delivery of the first flight article to KSC has not been impacted by this realignment. In major procurements, the major problems related to vendor form- ing of large structural components have been, resolved and hardware deliveries are supporting need dates. Emphasis is now shifting to- ward resolving problems in the propulsion component area. The quality of the vendors associated with the External Tank is consid- erably better at this point than on previous programs. During CY 1977, the following major activities are planned (Figure 10): a. Completion of assembly and delivery to MSFC of the inter- tank structural test article. Once at MSFC, the test article will be installed in the test facility and the structural test program com- pleted during the latter part of the year (Figure 11). b. Completion of assembly of the main propulsion test article at MAF and deliver to NSTL for systems test (Figure 12). c. Completion of assembly of the L02 and LH~ tank structural test articles and deliver to MSFC for structural testing (Figures 13 and 14). d. Completion of modifications to the Vertical Assembly Build- ing at MAP (Figure 1 5.). , e. Initiation of fabrication of the first two flight articles (ET-. 1 and ET-2). PAGENO="0543" 539 3 The MSFC In-house activities (Figure 16) in support of the Ex- ternal Tank include design modification to existing facilities and planning for the structural test program and associated test fix- turing (Figures 4, 17, and 18). MSFC facilities from the Saturn Program are being used for structural testing. These facilities. possess the capacity and required cryogenic services for testing the large External Tank structures with only nominal modifica- tions. Major efforts have been applied to studies, design, analy- ses, and testing of the TPS leading to establishing the acceptability of TPS for the External Tank environments. Efforts are now trans- ferring from process development to verification testing. In summary (Figure 19), the External Tank is progressing satis- factorily towards meeting program commitments. The prime con- tractor is performing satisfactorily, the schedule is tight, and weight is critical. A weight reduction program is in work to imple.. ment a block change after~the structural test program is completed and flight experience is available. Areas that will require careful management attention are those engineering changes generated by environmental loads finalization, TPS development and application, and final assembly start-up problems. PAGENO="0544" 540 PAGENO="0545" C OF F PROJECT ACTIVATION 0 PROJECT WELDING SUBASSEMBLY - PHASE I WELDING SUBASSEMBLY - PHASE II WELDING SUBASSEMBLY - PHASE III PNEUMATIC TEST FACILITY WALL MODIFICATIONS AND DO9R CRANE REMOVAL CRANE REWORK, MODIFICATION AND ERECTION CRANE TRUSS MODIFICATIONS LH2/LO~ TANK WELD CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE SCHEDULED COMPLETION MAY COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE Figure 2 PAGENO="0546" C OF F PROJECT ACTIVATION (CONTINUED) PROJECT MECHANICAL SUBASSEMBLY HORIZONTAL INSTALLATION MAJOR COMPONENT CLEANING VAB - PHASE I VAB - PHASE II VAB - PHASE III TANK FARM - PHASE I ACCEPTANCE TEST MINOR PLANT REARRANGEMENTS TPS FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE SCHEDULED COMPLETION FEBRUARY COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE Figure Za PAGENO="0547" ACCOMPLISHMENTS * CY 1976 * ASSEMBLY OF ALL (FIVE) EXTERNAL TANK GROUND TEST ARTICLES BEGAN AT MAP. * INTERTANK STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE IN JULY * LEt2 TANK STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE IN JUNE * L02 TANK STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLE IN OCTOBER , MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLE IN MARCH * GROUND VIBRATION TEST ARTICLE IN DECEMBER * ALL MAJOR WELD FIXTURES INSTALLED AT MAF. * CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE FOR THE LH2 TANK STRUCTURAL TEST FACILITY AT MSFC. Figure 3 PAGENO="0548" 544 PAGENO="0549" 545 PAGENO="0550" 546 PAGENO="0551" 547 PAGENO="0552" 548 PAGENO="0553" EXTERNAL TANK DELIVERY AND TEST SCHEDULE ASS~ ~tC/O CY1976 CV1977: 1 CV1978 J CY1979 CY19~J 1I2~3~4J1 2[ -~-n--~- I SE~L )&TEST ii * v.& ~ EPOR INT~ ~TAN STR I 11 ~ ~/DM~C a~ ~SSY rtTh TE~ ~LE ~LE - - MAIl CTU r REF IrT CLE IRA1 ox ALl RT LH2 RT. L02 OUT KEC ST .~ ~NK UK STA PRO O/D I TICL rRU *RL~ TICL . U LSII FC A55V~ r - TE GRO IURA ~URA `5 TES TES -Qi AR1 ID V V DDT E FL, ART ART KEC OPER TIOl AL F LES ~RTI IGHT LI .!_4T FY 1976 12341234 1 2[3412 341 FY 1977 FY 1978 FY1979 FY 1980 Figure 9 PAGENO="0554" PLANNED ACTIVITIES * CY 1977 * COMPLETE ASSEMBLY OF THE INTERTANK AND DELIVER TO MSFC FOR STRUCTURAL TESTING. COMPLETE TEST PROGRAM. * COMPLETE ASSEMBLY OF THE MAIN PROPULSION TEST ARTICLE AND DELIVER TO NSTL FOR MAIN PROPULSION TESTING. * COMPLETE ASSEMBLY OF THE LO~ AND LH~ TANKS AND DELIVER TO MSFC FOR STRUCTURAL TESTING. * COMPLETE MODIFICATIONS TO THE VERTICAL ASSEMBLY BUILDING AT MAF. * START ASSEMBLY OF THE FIRST TWO FLIGHT TANKS AT MAF. Figure 10 PAGENO="0555" 551 PAGENO="0556" THRUST REACTION POINT- (FWD SUPPORT ET/SRB) * SPACE SHU1TLE MAIN PROPULSION TEST SETUP AT NSTL * LOAD SUPPORT - FRAME v__EXTERNAL TANK ,- SIMULATED ~ ORBITER ~ MIDBODY (BOILERPLATE) -AFT FUSELAGE (FLIGHTWEIGHT) C;' C;' SSME CLUSTER ORBITER PROPULSION SYSTEM TEST STAND S-1C/B-2 ~ 17 PAGENO="0557" 553 PAGENO="0558" 554 PAGENO="0559" 555 PAGENO="0560" IN-HOUSE AC TIVITIE~ * STRUCTURAL TEST PREPARATION * THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT TESTING * ENVIRONMENTAL * PERFORMANCE * MATERIAL TESTING Figure 16 PAGENO="0561" 557 12-082 0 - 77 - 36 PAGENO="0562" 558 PAGENO="0563" SUMMARY * MMC TOOLING FOR DDT&E VIRTUALLY COMPLETE * COMPONENT QUALIFICATION IN PROCESS * SCHEDULE IS TIGHT - * ENCOUNTERING SOME MANUFACTURING START- UP PROBLEMS S WEIGHT IS CRITICAL (WEIGHT REDUCTION PROGRAM IN WORK) * KEY AREAS * STRUCTURAL AND THERMAL LOADS * THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM * VIBROACOUSTIC LOADS UPDATES Figure 19 PAGENO="0564" 560 STATEMENT OP GEORGE B. HARDY, MANAGER, SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER PROIECT, GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE PLIGHT CENTER Mr. HAnnY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to brief you this morning on the solid rocket booster (SRB) of the Space Shuttle. SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER AGENDA * SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER DESCRIPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION * PROJECT OVERVIEW/STATUS * CALENDAR YEAR 1977 ACTIVITIES FIGURE 1 As shown on figure 1, I will describe briefly the booster and the method Of implementation of this project, some of the significant events of the past year, and those scheduled for this current year. As a reminder, the booster is approximately 150 feet in length and slightly greater than 12 feet in diameter. As you will recall, the booster burns in parallel with the Orbiter main engines from launch for 2 mjnutes during which time the propeliants of the booster burn out. The booster is separated from the rest of the Shuttle, with impulse from some small rocket motors located both forward and aft, at an altitude of approxi- mately 140,000 feet. It then coasts to an apogee of approximately 200,000 feet and starts free fall back to the ocean. At approximately 10,000 feet parachute deployment starts to slow the descent and achieve an acceptable water impact velocity. Then the booster is towe:d back to land to be refurbished and reused. Herein lies the primary new fea-' ture of the solid rocket booster: Recovery and refui~bishment. PAGENO="0565" 561~ The booster consists principally of structural elements: The solid rocket motor (SRM), nose assembly, forward skirt and aft skirt, as shown on figure 2. These elements, other than the motor, are designed in-house `at the Marshall Space Flight Center and are fabricated for us under contract with McDonnell Douglas at Huntington Beach. The electrical and instrumentation components are in the forward skirt, parachutes are in the nose assembly, and the thrust vector control (PVC) system components are in the aft skirt. `Design and integra- tion i~ done in-house at Marshall, and the subsystems are procured on a couple of dozen contracts with contractors and vendors throughout the United States. The primary propulsion element of the booster is the selid rocket motor. It, is being developed under contract with Thiokol at their Wasatch Division in Brigham City, Utah. The motor will be delivered to the launch site in four segments, which are called casting segments. I will discuss these in more detail later. Chairman FtTQUA. Before you switch off of that, where are the para- chutes stowed Mr. HARIY. The parachutes are stowed in the nose assembly, the pilot and drogue chute at the forward end and the three main chutes are stowed in the nose frustum. ` Representative FLIPro. Could I ask if you are using any new man- agement techniques in putting this entire assembly and/or program together? FIGURE 2 PAGENO="0566" 562 `UNITED SPACE BOOSTERS. INC. WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER PROJECT * PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION FIGURE 3 Mr. HARDY. Yes; we are and I will discuss that right now. The im- plementation of the booster project is somewhat different from the other Shuttle projects and I would like to discuss that. We are doing the booster design and integration here at the Marshall Center (figure 3). This is what is frequently referred to as a phased procurement approach, in that the design and integration is done inhouse, then we go out on contract for the major components and subassembly. This function which is normally performed by a prime contractor is being done which is normally performed by a prime contractor is being done inhouse here at the Marshall Center. There are some three to four dozen individual contractors and vendors with contracts that range from $20 million to $25 million down to $200,000 or smaller. The solid rocket motor is under contract with Thiokol, and the motor is respon- sive to the design and integration specifications that arts developed here at the Marshall Space Flight Center. The detail design and de- velopment of the motor is done by Thiokol. The parts that come in from Thiokol and these vendors will be de- livered to a booster assembly contractor (BAC). The BAC is our latest and last member of the booster team. This coiitract was awarded to United Space Boosters, Inc. in December 1976. It is a newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. The company PAGENO="0567" 563 will be headquârtéred in Huntsville in GOvernment facilities and will be performing work in Huntsville and at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The booster components and hardware elements will be de- livered from the individual vendors and from Thiokol to the launch site where the BAC will assemble these into the flight configuration, check them out and prepare them for launch. The difference, in essence, is that rather than having one single prime contractor who does design, integration and procurement of all of the individual elements and the assembly in preparation for the launch, the design and rnte- gration is being done at Marshall throughout the design, development, test and evaluation (D.D.T. & E.) phase of the program. We then go directly to what would be a prime contract's subcontracts to procure the hardware. Again, ThiOkol is doing the design and development of the motor. Finally, the BAC will do the assembly of the compo- nents and subassemblies into the flight configuration. That is a difference. Chairman FUQUA. You say at Kennedy and here? Mr. HARDY. All of the assembly work and the launch preparation work will be done at Kei~inedy. The work that the BAC will be doing here in this current calendar and the next calendar year ~s primarily in support of the ground test program to be conducted at the MarshalL Space Flight Center. Representative FLIPPO. This may not be relevant, but does your analysis section make any determination as to the efficiency of new management techniques that you are using? Mr. HARDY. No; except for normal program evaluation. Representative FLIP1'o. Wben you ~omplete the project, will you be able to compare this management technique with those that are used for other programs and make some evaluation of it? Mr. HARDY. I think so and I think it is very relevant to evaluate this in terms of other techniques. I think one has to be careful in doing this because generally there are a~unique set of circumstances which dictate a particular management technique, but in the context of the neces- sity of those unique circumstances, such an analysis could be made and it would be worthwhile to do so. Generally, in terms of lessons learned, both technical and management, we do that on every program. Dr. LucAs. George, you might want to mention the peculiar timing situation that led us to take this approach. It will lend itself to the evaluation. Mr. HARDY. Yes, it sure will. The booster, like other elements of the Shuttle, but perl~aps even more so, is highly sensitive to the overall Shuttle integration. For instance, the booster takes the entire weighted load of the ~Shuttle on the launch pad; all of the weight and all of the loads on the launch pad pass through the booster aft skirt. We are very sensitive to load changes and kad condition changes. Also, the booster, as a primary boost propulsive agent on the Shuttle, will contribute to the control through the TVC system and is subject to the detail design and in- tegration of the overall Shuttle. This means that a great amount of work needed to be done before the detail designs and configaration of the booster hardware elements here could be done. By doing this job in-house and in very close coordination with JSC and Rockwell, we were able to get a higher degree ~f definition on the hardware elements PAGENO="0568" 564 before it went out on contract. At the same time, we were able to avoid the cost assoeiate4 with a prime contract's management and engineer- ing team during this time frame. Representative FLIPPO. You are on a very tight cost situation, you are on a very tight time situation. There are many other problems that we face that could use your expertise in management here. SRB PROJECT OVERVIEW SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMI~NTS * CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW (CDR) COMPLETED DECEMBER 1976 - EIGHT MONTHS EARLY * BOOSTER ASSEMBLY CONTRACTOR (BAC) SELECTED - DECEMBER 1976 * DECELERATOR CONTRACTOR (MARTIN MARIETTA, DENVER AND PIONEER PARACHUTE, MANCHESTER, CT) SELECTED - JULY 1976 - MAIN PARACHUTE FABRICATION BEGAN FOR DROP TEST AT DRYDEN FLIGHT RESEARCH CENTER * STRUCTURES - FINAL ASSEMBLY OF AFT SKIRT BEGAN - NOVEMBER 19.76. * LAUNCH PROCESSING SYSTEM INSTALLED - NOVEMBER 1976 * FIRST CASE SEGMENT DELIVERED - SEPTEMBER 1976 - MBO MILESTONE * FIRST COMPLETE CASE DELIVERED EARLY - NOVEMBER 1976 * PROTOTYPE BEARING TEST COMPLETED - DECEMBER 1976 * DEVELOPMENT MOTOR #1 - NOZZLE FABRICATION STARTED - DECEMBER 1976 FIGURE 5 SRB PROJECT MASTER SCHEDULE FIGURE 4 PAGENO="0569" 565 FIGURE 6 Mr. HARDY. Thank you. Next I will discuss significant accomplish- ments this past year (fig. 4 and 5). We did complete our critical design review (CDR) in December 1976. That represented an improvement in schedule by. approximately. 8 months over the original plan. We decided to accelerate this primarily because we saw the program devel- oping in such. a way that ground test hardware would be fabricated late last yeai~ and early this year. Therefore, we felt in important to get that 0DB behind us before we started fabrication of this ground test hardware. The BAC, who was selected in December 1976, is cur- rently onboard and beginning to staff up. He will have a peak man- power of approximately 300 people. The majority of these people will~ be located at KSC. With the exception of a very small cadre of man- agement personnel, all of the people will be local hire in the Marshall~ Space Flight Center area and at KSC. Our decelerator parachute contract, was awarded in July 1976, to Martin Marietta in Denver teaming with Pioneer Parachute in Man- chester, Conn. The main parachute ~fabHcation is in process. Figure 6 is a picture of the canop~r for one of the main paraëhutes. The canopy is approximately 1~O feet in diameter. This is a proto- type chute that will be used in the drop test program which will be conducted at the National Parachute Test Range in conjunction with Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) which is supporting this activity. The drop test program will commence about the middle~ of this year. PAGENO="0570" 566 Final assembly of the aft skirt (fig. 7) is in process now at McDon- nell Douglas, Huntington Beach, Calif. As I mentioned earlier, the detail design for this hardware was done at the Marshall Space Flight Center. McDonnell Douglas is the fabrication contractor. This aft skirt will be coming to the Marshall Space Flight Center~for the structural test program which will be conducted here utilizing exist- ing facilities with some modification. The booster flight loads and reentry loads will be applied and evaluated against the structure. The aft skirt is approximately `71/a feet high; it weighs approximately 12,000 pounds. FIGURE 7 PAGENO="0571" 567 Figure 8 shows the launch processing system (LPS) which i~ the automatic checkout equipment that is being used by KSC for check- ing out all of the Shuttle elements as well as the integrated vehicle. A set of this equipment was shipped to the Marshall Space Flight Center approximately mid 1976. It has been installed in a facility here and will be used to check out the electrical and instrumentation (E. & I.) system. It will allow us to verify the compatibility of the LPS system and to develop, ahead of time before we get to the cape, checkout procedures for flight hardware. FIGURE 8 PAGENO="0572" 568 With regard to the SRM, the first case segment (Fig. 9) was deliv- ered to Thiokol in September 1976. This is a steel segment with a one- half inch wall thickness. This is one of the cylindrical segments that make up a casting segment. It is 146 inches in diameter and approxi- mately 166 inches in length. This segment is forged at Ladish in Cudah, Wis. It is shipped to Bohr in San Diego, Calif., where it is machined and then shipped to Thiokol/Wasatch. At Thiokol it is mated with other segments to form a casting segment. FIGUEE 9 PAGENO="0573" 569 The casting segment shown in figure 10 is being prepared for casting propellants. At Thiokol, insulation and lining is applied and cured and then the segment is placed in a casting pit. Dr. LUCAS. You might explain further what you are talking about with respect to casting pits. Chairman FUQUA. What is the thickness of that wall? Mr. HARDY. It is, in that particular section, approximately one-half inch. The propellant is cast in each of two* cylindrical segments, the foi- ward segment. and the aft segment. Each casting segment is placed in a pit and the center core mandrel is placed in the segment. The propellant is mixed. in 600 gallon mixers. It takes approximately 50 FIGuRE 10 PAGENO="0574" 570 mixes to cast one of these individual segments. Then the propellant is cured, finished and that segment is ready to be shipped to KSC or to the test site. Figure 11 is a picture of a desolate looking place in Utah. What you see are casting pits. There are six pits on each of these two lines. The cover is removed and then the casting segment is placed into the pit, the mandrel is put in the segment and then the casting houses travel over each of the casting pits. Progress is being made oii the fabrication of the first nozzle at Thiokol. This nozzle will be used on the first motor which is sched- uled to be fired in mid-1977. PAGENO="0575" 571 At Thiokol, we have progressed very well in development and fabri- cation of the flexible bearing (fig. 12). This bearing mates between the nozzle on the aft segment and the motor case allowing the nozzle to be gimballed for vehicle control. It is a series of metai and elastomer shims that fit together in a cone shape, This is laid up, vulcanized and cured and then each one goes into a test fixture. We had some initial difficulty-I think we discussed it with you on your last visit-in fabricating these units, primarily due to the processing of the elas- tomer. We have solved those problems, fabricated four of these proto- type units and successfully tested them. The unit which will be ~ised on the first motor development firing is in fabrication at this time. PAGENO="0576" 572 FIGURE 1.3 Figure 13 `shows a tape wrapping of `the carbon cloth on to a man- drel. It is cured under heat and pressure and then the final part is machined to the final configuration. Chairman FTJQUA. Are they going to fire that at Brigham City? Mr~ HARDY. Yes; they will fire that atWasatch, SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER CALENDAR-YEAR 1977 ACTIVLTIES * FIRST SRM DEVELOPMENT FIRING - JUNE 1977 * STRUCTURAL TEST ARTICLES FROM McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION AND THIOKOL CORPORATION * PARACHUTE DROP TESTS START AT DRYDEN FLIGHT RESEARCH CENTER * ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS VERIFICATION TESTS COMPLETED AT MSFC FIGURE 14 PAGENO="0577" 57~3 Some of the significant events coming up are shown on figure 14. Our first development firing of a full-scale motor is scheduled at Thiokol in June 1977. This is a very major event in the program. It will be from this firing that we confirm our grain configuration and the performance parameters of the motor itself. This will be done at the facilities at Wasatch. The structural test articles that I mentioned are in fabrication at McDonnell Douglas and scheduled to be delivered to the Marshall Space Flight `Center the third quarter of 1977 for struc- tural test. The parachute drop tests are scheduled to start in mid-1977. The electrical system verification test is in process now and will be completed by the end of this year. Upon completion of that test, the equipment will be shipped `back to KSC to be used by the BAO to check out the flight hardware. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. If there are any ques- tions, I will be happy to address them. Chairman FtTQUA. Thank you very much. Mr. HARDY. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hardy follows:] 92-082 0 - 77 - 37 PAGENO="0578" 574 STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE B. HARDY MANAGER, SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER PROJECT MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES This summarizes the recent accomplishments and status of the Solid Rocket Booster. Key events scheduled for 1977 are also discussed. The Solid Rocket Booster consists of the Solid Rocket Motor, which is the Propulsion Subsystem, the Structural elements, the Thrust Vector Control Subsystem to provide vehicle control, the Booster Separation Motors to provide separation of the Solid Rocket Booster upon propellant exhaustion and the Decelerator (Parachute) Subsystem which allows the Solid Rocket Boosters to be recovered and reused. MSFC is responsible for the booster integration and the design of all booster elements except the Solid Rocket Motor. Thiokol Corporation in Brigham City, U~ is re- sponsible for the design and development of the Solid Rocket Motor. The Solid Rocket Booster proceeded to an advanced stage of design and development during calendar year 1976. The Critical Design Review (CDR) was advanced eight months from the pre- viously scheduled date of July 1977 and was successfully com- pleted in December 1976 (see Figure 1). The acceleration of the Critical Design Review was accomplished to insure its comple- tion consistent with the start of fabrication of major ground test hardware items. The final contractor for the Solid Rocket Booster was selec- ted in December 1976. United Space Boosters, Inc. (USBI), a wholly owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation, was awarded a contract to assemble the Solid Rocket Boosters and prepare them for launch at KSC. USBI will support the ground test program at MSFC during 1977 and will start assembly of the first flight boosters at KSC in 1978. PAGENO="0579" 575 2 The Recovery Subsystem Contractor (Parachute) was awarded in mid-1976. Martin Marietta in Denver, CO is the prime contractor. They have teamed with Pioneer Parachute Co., Manchester, CT, who will fabricate the parachutes. Prototype parachutes are currently being fabricated to support the drop test program in mid-1977. Tooling was completed at McDonnell Douglas in Huntington Beach, CA, and fabrication was initiated on the first set of major structural hardware elements. These first articles will be de- livered to MSFC in 1977 for use in the static structural test of the Solid Rocket Booster. The test will verify the design with respect. to flight and re-entry loads. The first motor case segment was delivered to Thiokol in September 1976 (see Figure 1). The first complete motor case consisting of 11 segments was delivered in November 1976, one month early. The case is currently being insulated and loading of the first casting segment is scheduled for mid-February 1977. Testing of the nozzle flexible bearing was completed and fabri- cation of the nozzle for the first development firing has begun. The first development motor firing is scheduled for June 1977. This will be a major milestone in the Solid Rocket Motor de- velopment program and all activities leading to that key event are proceeding satisfactorily. PAGENO="0580" SRB PROJECT MASTER SCHEDULE * CV 197.4 CV 1975 CV 1976 1 CV 1977 CV 1978 r CV 1979 PROGRAM MILESTONES SUBSYSTEM & COMPONENT PROCUREMENTS * JFMAMJJASOND . ~ * ~ SRU CASE JIMAMJJASOWD * IRA~ ~ACT APT 4 JFMA*JJASONDIJFMAMJJASOWDJI*A*JJASOEEDIJ.I*AIJJASOND DEL OF 5T~ II FiNAL tOADS oc~ DEL FUOF - I~FRR 2ND 3RO4T44 510 TO T( REPORT COMPL ~ P40W KSC FUOR MOE MOFMO 1-e 0 1~ * 0 PROJ COP 11401 LRRT -. COMPL * ALE MILE STONRS SHOWN ARE CELEFA?OR ] CONTRACTOR ATP DATES BAC* 4. Ii MOMA ~jTR 65W . COMPONENT DESIGN! DEVELOPMENT! QUALIFICATION BASELINE REVIEW DESIGN- POE ~ TO LADI DEL ST BItER SURSCALE I 0EV TRS! REC TVC COUP COUPE PIPEJ COUP COUPE COUPE WEARING; ~RtTA I PFO!O COUP TEST ~ CDR DROPS COUPE E S OLIAL VSR CDRyV.~..C0lp~..._~~ . 7 COUP 0EV 7 V t~ OUAL I * AA-COMPL PHASE I COMPL ~COMPL I S I (OMP OUAL BEARIN~OTOT~\ OMP RSU QUAL COMPL CASE NEAT PROTO EC - SCREENING - S ,/` E A TREAT TESTS TEST 1 W DEL COUPE ESU 0EV FIRINGS MSFC TEST MGVT 0/0 FIRST EIVT TEST 140W AFT 2 2 00 MSFC SKIRT LOADED EMPTY Cy 00 LPSOOV 0-OT . MSFC ~ 55 4 4_Il M~C TVC 440W O'DTC START T~VC `P4OZZL I1ONFTR TEST COUPE 3RD 1ST SRU (OUPL STA r4t4 ~i I INTRO 9SRU OUAE COUPE ETA WRCOVRRV START I 1ST SEW IELRC TEST FIRING FIRING ILT LOADS LOADS TIST INTRGVT FIRING o'Q y ~ y ~ TEST HY ELEC IT RU START f ~ COMPL 4 ~COMPL SRM OUAL TEST S1A$ TVC ~ VC SYS VI TEST STE TEST VIE TEST EEC COUP QUAL COUPE GROUNDTEST HARDWARE DELIVERIES SUBSYSTEM/SYSTEM MAJOR GROUND TEST - FMOF HDW. DEL. ASSEMBLY & C/O . - : F COUPE I COUP COUPE I INSTE C/O SEM 0/0 START 1ST 1ST ISSY v v v ~ 1ST 0 PUOF OPNS COUPE COUP ~ SRU 0/0 INSTL 2ND COUPL KSC 2ND I I . . 2ND Figure 1 PAGENO="0581" 577 STATEMENT OP THOMAS ~T. LEE, MANAGEIt SPACELAB PROG1~AM Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman and committee members, I have provided a detailed statement for the record, and with your permission, I will summarize the high points and discuss some of the more significant program areas. I will do this by an introdutcion, a review of our activi- ties since we last met, and a discussion of what we plan for the future. This first chart (figure 1) is one you have seen before. It indicates graphically the different configurations of the Spacelab. It shows some of the versatility of the Spacelab in providing a habitable module, a module plus pallet (pallets are used only for those experiments which require full exposure to space), and a pallet-only configuration. A model of the Spacelab inside of the orbiter bay is before you. Chairman FUQUA. Looks like it has a CB radio. FIGURE 1 PAGENO="0582" 578 MODULAR SPACELAB FIGURE 2 MSFC-77-NA 2925-7 Mr. L~. The pieces of the Space1lah and who is responsible for them are shown on figure 2. The airlock and tunnel adapter will be provided by JSC as part of the orbiter. The tunnel, which fits against the tum- nel adapter, will be provided by Marshall Space Flight Center through the integration contract. We also provide an optical window and adapter. The window is a design utilized in the Skylab program. The area of figure 2 not bearing a graphic pattern represents the hard- ware that ESA is responsible for. What is not shown on figure 2, be- cause it is difficult to depict, is the verification instrumentation which NASA is responsible for. We will actually instrument the first two Spacelabs to verify their performance in orbit. There will be instru- mentation on all parts of the flight vehicles. EAIRLOCK WINDOW & ADAPTER\ VIEWPORT~~ \~ ~ETS TUNNEL ADAPTER L CORE SEGMENT L EXPERIMENT SEGMENT PALLET ONLY D~ MSFC PAGENO="0583" 579 ESA RESPONSI BILITIES *DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT TESTING OF SPACELAB *PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY TO NASAOF * ONE ENG I NEER I NG MO DEL * ONE FLIGHT UNIT AND INITIAL SPARES * TWO SETS OF GSE * LIM11ED ENGINEERING POST DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR FLIGHTS 1&2 * PRODUCTION OF NASA PROCURED SPACELAB HARDWARE FIGuRE 3 Excerpts from the memorandum of understanding agreed to be- tween Dr. Fletcher and Dr. Hocker in 1973 are shown on figure 3. The European Space Agency (ESA) is responsible for the design, develop-. ment, and testing of the Spacelab, the production and delivery of one engineering model, one flight unit and initial spares, and two sets of ground support equipment. Because of the need for in-flight vertification, they have agreed to provide post development support from their support from their prime contractor. They have also agreed to produce whatever Spacelab hardware NASA requires to complete the Shuttle/Spacelab mission model. The follow-on production hardware would be procured from ESA by NASA. . PAGENO="0584" 580 NASA RESPONSIBILITIES OVERALL PROGRAM PLANNiNG & MANAGEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION: *SPACEIAB HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT *ESTABLISH PROGRAM GUIDELINES * ESTABLISH SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS * *DEFINE ANDMAINTAIN ORBITER INTERFACES * REVIEW/APPROVE CRITICAL INTERFACES *DEVELOP& FURNISH TUNNEL, SELECTEDGSE *SYSTEMS INTEGRATION * MONITOR ESA TECHNICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC PROGRESS *TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO ESA * FOLLOW-ON PROCUREMENT *OPERATIONS The NASA portion of that same memorandum of understanding, again summarized on figure 4, is separated into responsibilities as- sociated with hardware development, follow-on procairement and operations. The hardware development area is in fact a joint coopera- tive program between the United States and the Europeans, and more particularly between NASA and ESA. Together we establish the overall program guidelines; we establish the detail requirements for Spacelab; and since it fits into the Orbiter, we develop and main- tain those Orbiter interfaces along with other critical interfaces. These other critical interfaces are those between the Spac.elab as a carrier and the experiments, and Spacelab to facilities when it is used in in this country. We have some selected hardware to be de- veloped by NASA. Examples are the tunnel and some ground sup- port equipment. When we put the Spacelab into the Space Shuttle, it becomes a portion of the STS or Space Transportation System; therefore, NASA has to~ be responsible for the total system opera- tion. We do in fact monitor the technical and progmmatic prog- ress of ESA, and we provide technical assistance to them. In the follow-on procurement, we are responsible for purchasing any Space- labs from the Europeans which we require to meet our mission model, and we are totally responsible for the operation of the Spacelab once it is in this country. PAGENO="0585" 581 MSFC LEAD CENTER RESPONSIBILITIES * PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND DIRECT PROGRAM TASKS * ESTABLISH DESIGN REQUIREMENTS * PROGRAM/SYSTEMS ENGINEERING & INTEGRATION * DEFINE&MAINTAIN INTERFACES * DEVELOP SELECTED FLIGHT & GROUND HARDWARE * SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT * OPERATIONS CONCEPTS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT * FOLLOW-ON PROCUREMENT * DESIGN VERIFICATION * NASA MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO ESA * * SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS TESTANDANALYSIS * QUALITY, RELIABILITY. SAFETY * AVIONICS.SUBSYSTEM * STRUCTURES& MECHANICS SUBSYSTEM * ENVIRONMENTAL AND LIFE SUPPORTSUBSYSTEM * GSE * MASS PROPERTIES PREPARATION ANP ASSESSMENT * DOCUMENTATION AND CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT As shown on figure 5, the Marshall Space Flight Center, as lead center, is responsible for all things that were on the previous figure. We have expanded slightly th~e description of effort in monitoring and techniéal assistance to ESA. In every area of design and develop- ment, we have responsibility and have in fact contributed assistance to ESA in the development program. PAGENO="0586" 582 ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHI PS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NASA HO. ______________ EM HO SPACELAB PROG. PROGRAM REQMTS SPACELAB OFFICE DOCUMENT-LEVEL I PROGRAM OFFICE I I JOINT USER'S `-( REQUIREMENTS GROUP (JURG) USER I MSFC ~1 I SYSTEM ~] I ESTEC COMMUN- KSC JSC SPAcELABI.~ REQUIREMENTS H SPACELAB OFFICE ] LEVEL II OFFICE L''"I __ ~ESA PHASE C/D cONTRACTOR (ERNO) Organizationally (figure 6) there is an established office at NASA Headquarters headed by Doug Lord. His counterpart in ESA Head- quarters, in Paris, is Michel Bignier. They control the program level I requirements through a jointly controlled program requirements document. Since early in the program st.rong inputs from the joint United States and European user groups have contributed signifi- cantly to the development of the overall design requirements. The next level down is where the Marshall Space Flight Center comes into play as the lead center. Here the program office acts as the focal point for the user cOmmunity and JSC and KSC inputs. We also become the NASA focal point for the level II systems requirements document which is jointly controlled between my office here and t.he ESA Spacelab Project Office at ESTEC, which is located in Noordwijk, Holland. The ESA prime contractor is ERNO, a division of VFW/Fokker, and is located in Bremen, Germany. Chairman FUQUA. You report then to Doug Lord. Mr. LEE. Programmatically, yes. - Chairman FUQtA. Then KSC and JSC report through you. Mr. LEE. We pull together all the United States requirements; we formulate the POP inputs; we control the program. Chairman FUQUA. What is ESTEC doing? Mr. LEE. They are the project office for managing their prime con- tractor for the development of the Spacelab. *Chairman FtTQUA. For ERNO? PAGENO="0587" 583 Mr. Li~. Yes; they are like some of our Shuttle offices where we have the project managers directing contractors, such as `SSME, ET, et cetera. Dr. LUCAS. Would it be appropriate to say that ESTEC is to ESA as a NASA center is to our headquarters? Mr. LEE. Yes, and their project office happens to be located at their development center. Chairman FUQUA. I was there this fall but I missed it. I didn't realize they were involve.d in Spacelab at ESTEC. Mr. LEE. Yes, they have two centers that are a part of ESA. They have their headquarters in Paris; they have their development center at ESTEC, and their total expertise from a development standpoint is located there, plus a number of projects. They have an operations center located at Darmstadt, Germany. As a comparison, you can say they are a smaller Marshall Space Flight Center. They have tech- nical expertise but do not have the same depth of technical capability. SPACELAB MILESTONE SCHEDULE CY.71 CY.72 CY.fl CY.74 CY7S CY.76 CY.77 - CY~78 cY.75 IL & PHASE A STUDY -.~-~---.--------- U.S. PHASES STUDY ~ESA PHASE A STUDY I ESAPHASE B STUDY I ISEPI~EUROPEAN PHASE C/D DECISION (MAR)7PHASE CID RFP RELEASE I (APR)~PROPOSAL COMPLETION I (JUN)~C0NTRACTAWARD TO ERNO DELIVERY SCHEDULE CONTAINED (JUN)VCONTRACTOR (ERNOI PRESENTATION IN FY77 STATEMENT TOTHE I `1JUL1~EEA/ERNO VISITTO U. & SUBCOMMITTEE I PRIl'~ SRR ~ESA/ERNOSIGN PRIME CONTRACT I vi v ~ ~ ESAPHASE c/D L.~ nESIGN ~ ~BRICATION I. . UEL ENGINEERING..LS .~I~I~HT MODEL DEL~-L'~ OPTIONS A PDR ~ DR COON I SCHEDULE ~ V `~7 I I ~, DEL. CONF. 1j~____~CONF. 2. ENGINEERING ~ MODEL MOD. & 2 FALLS ~PLIGHT ~ UNIT DEL. I PALLETS CDR CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW SCHEDULE 2A/S3 DR CDQR 1DB INTERMEDIATE DESIGN REVIEW PDR PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW £ - `~ V SRR SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS REVIEW OFT~ LOFT PRR PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS REVIEW CDQA CRITICAL DESIGN & QUALIFICATION REVIEW PRO~SED 1 PALLET 2 PALLETS ENt~ODEL DYFU FxGmuI~ 7 `This is the schedule (figure 7) I showed .you in February of last year. In calendar year 1971, we determined that there needed to be an expansion in the orbiter bay of a habitable module with a capability to fly experimentation. We started a phase A study on what we termed then as `~Sortie Can." In the 1972 time period, it looked as if this would be a good cooperative program. The Europeans started a phase A effort PAGENO="0588" 584 at the same time we started into phase B. The reason we did this in parallel is because at that time ESA had not decided that they wanted the jth. We told them at that time that we could continue our phase B study because it was necessary to have such a piece of hardware in the Space Transportation System and that once they agreed to take on the job we would drop our study. This was all in-house effort at the Marshall Space Flight Center. In September of 1973, they did commit themselves to this program. We dropped our phase B study, and figure 7 shows the schedule leading up to the preliminary requirements review which was held in Novem- ber of 1974. ~. subsystem requirements review was held in the middle of 1975. When I presented to you last, we showed this same schedule where we had obviously missed our preliminary design review, and we indicated a possible slip in that, plus a slip in the critical design review. Since that time, the Europeans adjusted to this option 5 sched- ule which resulted in a two-part preliminary design review. We suc- cessfully completed that design review in December of 1976, and as a result of what was found, ESA proposed a ne~v schedule adjustment, schedule 2A/S3, which provides for the first flight unit to be delivered about the first of August 1979, as opposed to May of 1979. This is an acceptable schedule primarily because, up until this time, the Euro- peans have been planning t~heir schedule against the words of the memorandum of understanding. When we considered the need date for the Shuttle launches and the time when we needed to process the Spacelab, we found that this schedule adjustment could be accepted. The major difference is in the delivery of the engineering model which is approximately 10 months later than originally planned, but this is also acceptable to NASA. PAGENO="0589" 585 SELECTED SPACELAB AC11VITIES -1976 *HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES *CO-CONTRACTORS PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEWS *SPACELAB PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW (PDR-A. PDR-B) * ESA/NASA REQUIREMENTS REDUCTION REVIEW * EXPERIMENT RESOURCES REQUI REMENT ACCOMMODATION * AVIONICS ACTIVITIES/STUDIES * SPACELAB/ORBITER AND FACILITY lCD'S * GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT * SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY * CREW TRANSFER TUNNEL * INSTRUMENT POINTING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT * RESIDENT ADVISORY GROUP AT ESA *INTEGRATION AND OPERATIONS PLANNING *EXPERIMENT INTEGRATION PLANNING * PAYLOADS ACCOMMODATIONS HANDBOOK * DESIGN REFERENCE MISSIONS *PROGRAM LOGISTICS * PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS REQMTS. REVIEW-GROUND * SIMULATION ACTIVITIES 0 DELIVERABLE END ITEMS LIST *SPACELAB PALLET UTILIZATION IN ORBITER TESTING *FOLLOW-ON PROCUREMENT *SPACELAB INTEGRATION CONTRACT FXGtRE 8 PAGENO="0590" 586 Figure 8 shows some selected program activities for 1976, and I won't discuss all of these. We had very successful cocontractor sub- system preliminary design reviews. This was a new activity for us in NASA, but it worked very well in preparing us for an overall sys- tems preliminary design review. We plan to continue that effort where we are involved in the reviews with those same cocontractors on the subsystems level for the critical design reviews. One of the more in- teresting and `beneficial activities has been in the area of develop- ment and formulation or finalization of the Spacelab-to-Orbiter in- terface definition. This is necessary so that we are both working to the same set of requirements. Another thing that happened in 1976, which I think is important, is that in the September time period we were asked to and did provide technical expertise for location in Eu- rope. As Dr. Lucas pointed out earlier, there are about 10 people, with varied expertise involved, who come from this center, from JSC, and from KSC. They serve two purposes. One is to help the Euro- peans in their program; the other is to provide very needed informa- tion on details on the Spacelab program for the operations era. We will continue this rotation of people in Europe until the Spacelab is delivered, because it is not possible to immediately start operating a vehicle unless we are fully knowledgeable of the design. In integration and operations planning activities for 1976, one of the significant things which happened was that we provided some five design reference misions to ESA and ERNO for ERNO, the prime contractor, to review against their design. They came out very favorably. In other words, what they are designing could very well acommoclate the design reference missions that we provided to them. As I may have pointed out before, we get engineering model pallets in the 1978 time period, and `we have found that we can utilize those engineering model pallets for the Orbiter flight test (OFT) flights. In the OFT program we will actually put the pallets in the Or~biter bay and put experiments on them. In follow-on procurement, we have received some sensitivity analysis from the Europeans for costs as well as schedules of how they would like for us to involve ourselves in follow-on procurement. We are in the process of assessing that now. In June of 1976 we issued an RFP for the Spacelab integration con- tract; in August we received proposals. The Source Evaluation Board is in the process of evaluating those proposals now. PAGENO="0591" 587 MSFC SPACELAB BUDGET STRUCTURE FY-78N0A $ IN THOUSANDS * SPACELAB DEVELOPMENT $7,600 * CREW TRANSFER TUNNEL * VERIFICATION FLIGHT INSTRUMENTATION (VFI) * DEMULTIPLEXER * SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY (SDF) * MECHANICAL SHUTTLE INTERFACE VERIFICATION EQUIPMENT (MSIVE) * STUDIES/PROGRAM SUPPORT * NEUTRAL BUOYANCY TRAINER * GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT * FOLLOW-ON PROCUREMENT $2,200 * FLIGHT HARDWARE * SPARES * SYSTEMS INTEGRATION $3,100 * INTEGRATION CONTRACT (LESS HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT) TOTAL $12,900 FIGURE 9 Our funding picture for fiscal year 1978 is shown on figure 9. We have a total plan of $12.9 mililon which is broken up in $7.6 million for those items of Spacelab development, $2.2 million for follow-on procurement, and $3.1 million for the integration contract. While a number of the development items will be under the integration con- tract, some will be obtained from other sources. Therefore, for tea- sons of clarity, no hardware items on this chart are included in the integration contract funding. Chairman FUQTJA. When do you plan on follow-on procurement? Mr. LEE. The memorandum of understanding states that 2 years prior to launch we will commit to a follow-on procurement with ESA. Chairman FUQTJA. Is that a down payment? Mr. ~ There are certain things like long lead items. They obvi- ously want us to put up more than we are negotiating with them right now. We are trying to work a phased procurement where we only put up that money which is necessary for those long lead items which are well identified and then pay our money as we go. PAGENO="0592" 588 PROJECTED ACTIVITIES * SELECT INTEGRATiON CONTRACTOR * INITIATE NASA HARDWARE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT * BEGIN FABRICATION OF THE FLIGHT UNIT `.SUBSYSTEM CO~CONTRACTORS CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEWS *CONDIJCT OPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS' REVIEWS. * CONTINUE FOLLOW-ON PROCUREMENT'EFFORT FIGuRE 10 Our project activities' are shown on figure 10. In this quarter, we plan to select a contractor. There are two competing contractors, the McDonnell Douglas Corp. and the Boeing Co., and both have selected supporting contractors. We will, as a part of that contract, initiate some hardware design and development `for GSE, and the tunnel. Fabrication of some parts of the fight unit by the Europeans will begin'; some of their structural items wlil be started this year. Sub- systems reviews with the cocontractors will continue in the critical design areas. We will conduct an operations review-which is a com- parison of what the Europeans are designing in the hardware to how we will operate-to in&ire that our facility requirements and proce- dures are compatible; and we will continue our follow-on procure- ment activities. Do you have any questions? Chairman FUQTJA. When I was there at ERNO, Doug Lord and Bill Schneider were there for a review, and they were having some prob- lems. I understand they were having some structural problems. Have these been resolved? Mr. Li~. Tes, sir. We found the details of this in our preliminary design review which was held in December. Actually we were learn- ing this during all of the last half of last year. We utilized the pre- liminary design review as a point for understanding and agreeing. This had to do~ with two areas. One was the loads input from the ~Shuttle Orbiter, which obviously dictates a part of the structural design; and they located some areas of potential fracture mechanics problems. Those have been a lot less significant, now that we have looked into them, than originaliy thought to be. Once you hear about fracture mechanics, unless you understand it and understand where the problem is, it is quite frightening. We have gone through this with the Europeans, and we have gone through it with the prime contrac- tor and Aeritalia, who is building that structure. They have stopped PAGENO="0593" 589 production of any test hardware or flight hardware that might need to be changed, and we are progressing in a manner which we now feel is acceptable. Chairman FUQUA. This is not a technical question, but there have been rumors that Italy may pull out. Is there any validity to that? Mr. LEE. Both England and Italy have had financial problems for some time. There have been adjustments in all of ESA's budget areas because of the money coming in on a yearly basis. All other programs were reduced in funding this year, as I un4erstand it, except for Space- ]ab. They have maintained that budget. The specific question related to Italy: There is some concern on the part of Italy because of the over- all financial situation there, and it is my understanding that the Ital- ians feel they have not been getting their fair share back into the coun- try. Since they put up 18 percent, they want to get approximately 18 percent back in development work. The geographical distribution is not quite in Italy's favor now. I don't know exactly the magnitude of it, but I have heard just recently, more than once, that they are most concerned about that fact, and they have made this known to the Direc- tor General, Roy Gibson. He has also made it known to the Program Manager at. ERNO. I can't say whether they would pull out or not, but they do have financial situations where they could have a bt~sis for it. Chairman FUQUA. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Lee follows:] 92-082 0 77 - 38 PAGENO="0594" 590 STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS J. LEE MANAGER, SPACELAB PROGRAM MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Introduction In the next decade, non-astronaut scientists, engineers and technicians will be able to personally conduct experimentation and testing in outer space. This unique opportunity will be offered by a reusable space borne laboratory called Spacelab. In addition to affording the experi- menter the opportunity to fly with his experiment, Spacelab will reduce his equipment development cost by providing an earth like atmospheric environment, a less restrictive carrying capability and the return of his equipment to earth, if desired, for reuse. The Spacelab flight vehicle consists of two basic elements: the habit- able pressurized compartments (modules) and the unpressurized equipment mounting platforms (pallets). Modules and pallets can be flown separately or in various combinations. The module measures 4.2m in diameter and is composed of one or two identical pressurized cylindrical shells of approx- imately 2.7m length, enclosed by end cones. The basic module contains a core of subsystem equipment and provides for several cubic meters of rack- installed experiment equipment. The experiment module segment is entirely dedicated to experiment installation. Pallets may be located aft of the pressurized module for telescopes, antennae and other instruments which need direct exposure to space or which require wide viewing angles. The pallet is composed of one to five identical pallet segments approximately 3m long. Figure 1 illustrates a two-segment pressurized module with two pallet elements. Spacelab, which is being developed as a key element of the Space Trans- portation System, is an international cooperative program between NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA). Carried in the Orbiter Bay (Figure 2), it provides manned laboratory modules (with shirt-sleeve environment) and/or unpressurized instrument pallets suitable for conducting research and applications activities on Shuttle Sortie Missions. NASA is respon- sible for overall program planning and management for implementation (Figure 3), and ESA is responsible for design and development of the module and pallets with their associated support equipment (Figure 4). PAGENO="0595" MODULAR SPACELAB - `-TUNNEL ADAPTER OEM £3 ~JsC CORE SEGMENT WINDOW & ADAPTER\ VIEWPORT~-t\ rAl AIRLOCK7 A~ EXPERIMENT SEGMENT PALLET ONLY' FIGURE 1 MSFC-77-NA 2925-7 PAGENO="0596" 592 PAGENO="0597" NASA RESPONSI BILITIES OVERALL PROGRAM PLANNING & MANAGEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION: *SPACELAB HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT . * ESTABLISH PROGRAM GUI DELI NES * ESTABLISH SYSTEM REQUI REMENTS * DEFINE AND MAINTMN ORBITER INTERFACES * REV IEW!APPROVE CRITICAL INTERFACES * DEVELOP & FURNISH TUNNEL, SELECTED GSE *SYSTEMS INTEGRATION * MONITOR ESA TECHNICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC PROGRESS *TECHNICALASS1STANCETÔESA . S FOLLOW~ON PRÔCUREMENT * OPERATIONS. FIGURE 3 PAGENO="0598" ESA RESPONSI BIUTIES * DES IGN AND DEVELOPMENT TESTING OF SPACELAB * PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY TO NASA OF * ONE ENGINEERING MODEL * ONE FLIGHT UNIT AND iNITIAL SPARES * TWO SETS OF GSE * LIMITED ENG1NEERI NG POST DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR FLIGHTS 1&2 *PRODIJCTION OF NASA PROCURED SPACELAB HARDWARE FIGURE 4 PAGENO="0599" 595 2 MSFC, as the lead NASA Center for Spacelab, is responsible for two major areas of activity; (1) Program Management and Direct Piogram Tasks consisting of all funetions related to the management of U. S. activities, including establishment of design requirements, overall program/systems engineering and integration, definition and mainte- nance of interfaces, development of selected flight and ground hard- ware, and planning and development of operational concepts including overall integration and operational software; and (2) technical and programmatic monitoring of, and assistance to the ESA design and development activities (Figure 5). The organizational interfaces and responsibility relationships are shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows that work was, begun on Spacelab (then known as Sortie Can) in 1971 when MSFC undertook a Phase A study. A significant mile- stone occurred in June 1974 with the award of the prime contract to ERNO, located in Bremen, West Germany. During November 1974, ESA, with NASA's participation, completed the Preliminary Requirements Review; and in June 1975, the Subsystems Requirements Review was com- pleted. The design requirements established by these reviews provided the definitive baseline for design and development' of the Spacelab. During subsequent co-contractor Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR) it became apparent that subsystem design would not be sufficiently mature to support an overall PDR iii late 1975. In early 1976, ESA proposed the Option 5 Schedule (see Figure 7), which essentially divided deliverable hardware into two configurations for both the Engineering Model and the Flight Unit, `and provided for a two- part overall PDR. Configuratton 1 for the Engineering Model and the Flight Unit contained the module and two pallets while Configuration 2 for both contained three pallets and an igloo. Uhder the proposed Option 5 Schedule, the hardware delivery dates .we~e adjusted so that Configuration' 2 hardware for the' Engineering Model' and the Flight Unit would be delayed by approxthately 6 months and 2 months, respectively. The Critical Design Review was redesignated as the Intermediate Design Review and deferred by approximately 3 months. The Critical Design and Qualification Review was scheduled for August 1978. Since this schedule was within all NASA scheduling constraints, it was acceptable. PDR-A was successfully conducted in June 1976 to provide an early end- to-end assessment of the Spacelab design and to identify major design changes based on incompatibility with requirements so that the impact of PDR..B could be minimized. PDR-B, then, was successfully conducted in November 1976 to confirm the compatibility of the Spacelab system design with technical requirements, approve the adequacy of the design approach and authorize ERNO to proceed with the manufacture of the Engineering Model. Through program review and evaluation, including PDR-A and PDR-B, the ESA Option 5 Schedule has evolved into the current Schedule 2A/S3, also shown on Figure 7. The principal effect of the Schedule 2A/S3 is to delay the delivery of the Engineering Model Configuration 1 by about PAGENO="0600" 596 MSFC LEAD CENTER RESPONSIBILITIES * PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND DIRECT PROGRAM TASKS * ESTABLiSH DESIGN REQUIREMENTS * PROGRAM/SYSTEMS ENGINEERING & INTEGRATION * DEFINE & MAINTAIN INTERFACES * DEVELOP SELECTED FLIGHT & GROUND HARDWARE* * SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT * OPERATIONS CONCEPTS PLANNING & DEVELOPMEI~&T * FOLLOW-0N PROCUREMENT * DESIGN VERIFICATION * NASAMONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO ESA * SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS TEST AND ANALYSIS * QUALITY. RELIABILITY. SAFETY * AVIONICS SUBSYSTEM * STRUCTURES & MECHANICS SUBSYSTEM * ENVIRONMENTAL AND LIFE SUPPORT SUBSYSTEM * GSE * MASS PROPERTIES PREPARATION AND ASSESSMENT * DOCUMENTATION AND CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT PAGENO="0601" ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS FIGURE 6 PAGENO="0602" SPACELAB MILESTONE SCHEDULE CY.71 CY*72 J CY.73( CV 74 U.S.PHASEASTUDV i J CV*75 CY.75 CV.77 CY.78 CY.79 U. S. PHASE B STUDY 11~~E~ ESA PHASE A STUDY ~ ESAPHASE B STUDY (MAR)~PHASE cm RFP RELEASE ~ (SEP)VEUROPEAN PHASE C/C DECISION (APR)~PROPOSAL COMPLETION (JUNI~CONTRACTAWARD TO ERNO DELIVERY SCHEDULE CONTAINED ~UN)V~TRA~OR (ERNO) PRESENTATION IN FY77 STATEMENT TOTHE (JUL)~ESA/ERNO VISIT TO U. S. I SUBCOMMITIEE BRA ~ESA/ERNOSIGN PRIME CONTRACT 7 7 ESAPHASE C/C [~ DESIGN ~ FABRICATIOI 1DEL ".r~ FLIGHT ENGINEERING4~ MODEL ~ * 1 1. MODEL [ DEL~-~. .~ . . . * CDR CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW IDR INTERMEDIATE DESIGN REVIEW PDR PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW SRR SYSTEMS REQUiREMENTS REVIEW PRR PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS REVIEW CDOR CRITICAL DESIGN & OUALIFI~ATION REVIEW OPTIONS APDRB1 : IDR SCHEDULE ~ VI `~ DEL. CONF. 1 A........ACONF. 2 ENGINEERING ~ MODEL MOD. B 2PALLE FLIGHT ~ NIT DEL. 3 PA LETS IDA CDOR SCHEDULE 2A/S3 * ~ PROI )SED . - -- I OFT~ LOFT 1 PALLET 2 PALLETS ENI~ODEL V DEL.FU FIGURE 7 PAGENO="0603" 599 3, 10 months, delay the Intermediate Design Review approximately 3 months, and delay the Critical Design and Qualification Review by about 5 months. NASA has assessed Schedule 2A/S3 and has concluded that presdnt Spacelab launch dates can be met within the schedule. Review of 1976 Progress The activities completed in 1976 had a very important bearing on the continuing development of Spacelab. As already noted above, the PDR was successfully completed authorizing the prime contractor to proceed with manufacture of the Engineering Model. Other activities in 1976 are shown on Figure 8 and are discussed below. A Requirements Reduction Review was conducted jointly by ESA and NASA in the second quarter of 1976 to identify any program requirements which could be "scrubbed" to reduce cost without significantly reducing Spacelab payload accommodations and without significant transfer of cost from one agency to the other. The review covered 105 potential cost reduction items, which netted an estimated 7 million dollars in savings from the reductions which were accepted. The review also included an assessment of the Joint Spacelab User Requirements, as defined by the Joint User Requirements Group, against current Spacelab design. In general, the assessment confirmed that the Spacelab design meets the user requirements. The results of the assessment were provided to NASA management and the User Community. The basic Spacelab design was based on the Spacelab and its experiments being dormant after installation into the Spacelab and during the ascent into orbit, becoming active once in orbit. However, experiment planning began to indicate in 1975 that some limited experiment equipment activity would be required during the prelaunch phase and the ascent and descent operations. The experiment requirements also indicated that access to the interior of Spacelab would be necessary for experiment servicing during the prelaunch and the immediate post launch ground activity associated with the Shuttle. These requirements led to the formation of a joint ESA/NASA "Resources Working Group" to study and recommend methods for meeting the requirements. with minimum design impact upon the Spacelab, Shuttle, and Ground Systems. This working group con- cluded its work with recommendations on ways to make electrical power, equipment cooling, and experiment access available for support of experiment activity during the ground operations and ascent and descent. The required NASA and ESA changes associated with Spacelab access were initiated during 1976 and ESA is currently conducting studies on pro- viding the power and cooling requirements. As the Spacelab design progressed, it was apparent that certain areas within the Avionics subsystems and components required additional review and analysis by ESA and NASA. The following areas represent major items which were satisfactorily resolved in the past year: PAGENO="0604" 600 4 a. As the interface of the Orbiter and Spacelab began to be well defined, it became apparent that the basic Spacelab activation and oper- ations could be treated as an extension of the Orbiter~System with an attendant saving in crew training and crew time required in orbit for operation and subsystem housekeeping functions. Such an arrangement would allow more crew time to be devoted to scientific activity. Analy- sis of this approach by MSFC and JSC led to the conclusion that no hard- ware design changes are required to implement this operational change. NASA decided to implement this change in late 1976. b. The Spacelab requirements accepted by ESA specified on-board data recording of three types of data; digital, analog, and video. The scientific requirement for analog and video data is much lower than for digital data; therefore, ESA chose not to implement the analog and video recording capability. Instead, accommodations for installing experiment~ provided recorders were designed into the Spacelab. ESA and NASA also conducted extensive study and discussion as to the location of the digi- tal recorder. ESA had proposed installation in the Orbiter, while NASA favored installation within the Spacelab. The decision was made during the PDR-B to install the digital recorder within the Spacelab. c. The various high-rate data experiments proposed for Spacelab dictated the inClusion of a high-rate data handling capability in the Spacelab de~ign. To implement this requirement, a Multiplexer/Demulti- plexer System was selected. Numerous meetings and extensive discussions were conducted during 1976 in developing joint design requirements for the System. Joint development responsibilities are shared by ESA (Multi- plexer) and NASA (Demultiplexer). Efforts which were begun in 1975 to bring Spacelab/Orbiter interfaces under joint control through Interface Control Documents (lCD's) were continued in 1976. The three discipline-oriented working groups that developed the lCD's (Structural/Mechanical, Environmental Control Sup- port System, and Avionics) have continued the activity necessary to generate and maintain the lCD's, which were baselin~d through appropri- ate Program Requirements Control Board action in early 1976. During May 1976, all three working groups met at the European Space Research and Technology Center in the Netherlands to work on unresolved items and planned changes, and in October 1976, a working group meeting was held at JSC to resolve open issues related to the Avionics lCD prior to the Spacelab PDR-B. During the first week of February, an overall Orbiter! Spacelab lCD meeting is scheduled at Rockwell International to get final resolution on all outstanding changes, and all parties involved with the Orbiter/Spacelab interfaces will be represented including management representatives from each with authority to resolve any technical issues. Also during the past year, Spacelab Ground Support Equipment (GSE) to facility lCD's have been developed and agreements have been reached by NASA and ESA for the operations and checkout areas at KSC. lCD's for the Orbiter Processing Facility and Launch Pad ore presently in preparation. PAGENO="0605" 601 5 That part of the' ESA-developed Spacelab Ground Support Equipment (GSE) identified as Electrical Support Equipment has progressed beyond the co-contractor Critical Design Review and is presently in the manufac- turing process. Several items of the mechanical support equipment have also reached the co-contractor critical design status,and other items are in the requirements definition stage. Some equipment requirements planned to be met by use of other STS program hardware are nearing design completion, e.g., the payload .cannister. The GSE to be developed by NSFC, such as the tunnel integration GSE, has been defined and inclu- ded for development in the Spacelab Integration Contract. During 1976 the Software Coordination Group was restructured to provide better support in the software area. MSFC has continued to inonitor/ assist in the ESA systems software definition and development efforts and has provided development guidelines and software requirements to ESA. Activities which will lead to the capability of accepting the ESA delivered software and the integration of user provided software have been continued. The main thrust of this effort in 1977 will be toward finalizing the plans and activities necessary to ensure that the software systems perform properly and can be integrated smoothly with the other Spacelab systems. The Crew Transfer Tunnel (Figure 1) is a significant flight hardware element that is a NASA responsibility. Initial planning called for the Tunnel to be procured as a single contract item. With the advent of the Spacelab Integration Contract, and the requirement for tunnel hardware delayed due to the operational baseline changes (mentioned in the 1976 statement) it has been decided to include the Tunnel as an element of the Integration Contract discussed elsewhere in this statement. ESA selected Dornier as phase C/D contractor for the Instrument Pointing System (IPS) and issued a preliminary authority to proceed in March 1976. At this time, preparations are underway to support a PDR scheduled to begin on February 5, 1977. The assignment of some 10 NASA technical and management specialists in Europe was also a noteworthy event which occurred in the third quarter of the past year. The purpose of the assignment was for the specialists to work with the ESA team to establish the background for NASA's ulti- mate operationof the Spacelab, to provide further visibility into the program for NASA, and to provide advice to ESA. Experiment integration planning is continuing at MSFC to insure that the experiments for the first two flights are selected, developed, and integrated within the Spacelab Program and verification constraints. The Spacelab Program Office has initiated two new documents, a Level I document called Spacelab First Flight Constraints, and a Level II docu- ment called Spacelab First Flight Guidelines. These documents will enable the payload developers to develop experiments and payloads that PAGENO="0606" 602 6 are compatiblewith the Verification Flight Test objectives and capabi- lities of the Spacelab. During 1976 the Level I document for the Spacelab first and second missions, and the Level II document for the first Space- lab flight, were both jointly approved and signed by ESA and NASA. The Levelli document for the second Spacelab flight was extensively reviewed during the last half of 1976, and will be approved in early 1977. Working with MSFC, ESA has produced a Spacelab Payload Accommodation Handbook (SPAH). This handbook defines the payload accommodations and on-board resources that Spacelab will allocate to individual experiments and total experiment/payloads. The document has had a thorough review by the user communities of both Europe and the U. S. during all design reviews including PDR-B. MSFC has completed an analysis to define the interface information that needs to be incorporated into the SPAR. The SPAH will be used as a one-sided, controlled interface, to allow exper- iment/payload designers to obtain Spacelab committed data. This approach should reduce documentation and costs of integrating experiments and payloads into Spacelab. The SPAR will be placed under formal ESA/NASA control by March 1977. Upon ESA/ERNO request, five Design Reference Missions (DRM's) were coin- piled by NASA using~payloads/experiments from the "Shuttle System Payload Data Descriptions." These payloads included stellar astronomy, solar physics, space physics, life sciences, and space processing. The purpose of the DRM's is to provide typical payload requirements to exercise the capabilities of the total Shuttle/Spacelab system. During 1976, ESA/ERNO completed their analysis of the DRM's and documented the results in a technical note entitled "Payload Accommodation Studies of Design Reference Missiens." The results of these studies indicated that in general, the Spacelab design was compatible with the reference payloads. ESA and NASA meetings. from late 1975 to mid 1976 resulted in the joint definition of logistics requirements that must be developed concurrently with equipment design and development to permit cost effective logistics support (maintenance, spares, training, operations and maintenance docu- mentation, etc.) during operations. The logistics requiremertts were presented to the ESA Director General and NASA Administrator during their meeting in September 1976, Following this meeting, ESA committed to increase their development logistics effort to bnhance the long term operational logistics support system. NASA will continue to participate with ESA in reviewing logistics requirements to identify acceptable logistics cost reductions or avoidances. The Spacelab Preliminary Operations Requirements Review for Ground Processing (PORR-GROUND) was conducted in July 1976. This review addressed program requirements associated with all levels of Spacelab integration. Items covered included ground processing flows, facility requirements, logistics requirements, and GSE requirements. ESA, NASA Headquarters, JSC, LaRC, ARC, GSFC, KSC and MSFC participated in this review. The documentation containing the ground operations requirements has been baselined as a result of the PORR-GROUND. PAGENO="0607" 603 7 A neutral buoyancy simulation utilizing presure-suited subjects with backpacks was conducted on a crew transfer tunnel mockup. The objec- tive of this simulation was to evaluate volume, accessibility, hand- rail/fixture location, and ability to move objects through the tunnel in the pressure suited mode. The simulation demonstrated that the current design concept is adequate. A zero gravity simulation was conducted in the KC 135 aircraft utilizing a transfer tunnel mockup. The subjects were tested both with and without pressure suits. The simulation objective was to establish methods of crew movement, transfer times, and the capa- bility to move various sized objects through the tunnel. The results correlated very well with the neutral buoyancy tests. Initial efforts have been started to define a detailed Deliverable End Items List. This will be a joint ESA/NASA approved list contain- ing all ESA to NASA and NASA to ESA deliverable items of hardware and software covered by the Memorandum of Understanding. Several draft lists have been exchanged and it is planned that joint Level II approval of the list will be obtained during 1977. A decision was made by NASA in 1976 to fly Spacelab pallets in the Orbiter Flight Test (OFT) program. This will require three Spacelab Engineering Model (EM) pallets. The present OFT schedule requires Spacelab EM pallets on OFT flights 2, 3, & 6. The Centers responsible for the selection and integration of the experiments are JSC, GSFC, and MSFC, respectively. All ~spects of the "Follow-On Procurement" have been discussed between NASA and ESA in the past year. ESA has completed an initial cost sensitivity study addressing various quantities and schedules of hardware delivery, and NASA has defined the complement of hardware which will initially be ordered from ESA. In the next six months, efforts in this area will be directed principally to developing in depth definition and' requirements, refining previous estimates, and normalizing the various positions of the respective agenoies. MSFC released a request `for proposals for a Spacelab Integration Contract on June 1, 1976. This contract will include the design, development, and fabrication of most of the Spacelab hardware for which NASA is responsible. The Crew Transfer Tunnel, which will connect the Spacelab Module to the Shuttle Orbiter, is a major item. It also provides for selected tasks'in Systems Engineering, Integration, Software and Logistics necessary to support Spacelab development and establish operational capability. Proposals from two contractors were submitted on August 17 and source evaluation proceedings were begun. An award is expected in the ~iear future. MSFC Space lab Budget MSFC budgetary requirements for spacelab fall into three basic categories: Spacelab Development, Follow-On Procurement, and System~ Integration (Figure 9). PAGENO="0608" SELECTED SPACELAB ACTIVITIES ~4916 *HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES *CO-CONTRACTORS PRELIMIN#~IRY DESIGN REVIEWS *SPACELAB PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW (PDR-A, PDR-B) * ESA/NASA REQUIREMENTS RE~TION REVIEW I EXPERIMENT RESOURCES RE~*1I*EMENT ACCOMMODATION *AVIONIc~S ACTIVITIESJSTUDIES * SPACELAB/ORBITER AND FACILITY lCD'S .GROUNI) SUPPORT EQUIPMENT *SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTA~TIY1TY. * CREW TRANSFER TUNNEL * INSTRUMENT POINTING SYSTEMPEVELOPMENT * RESIDENT ADVISORY GROUP AT ESA *INTEGRATION AND OPERATIONS PLANNING *EXPERIMENT INTEGRATION PLANNING *PAYLOADS ACCOMMODATIONS HANDBOOK *DESIGN REFERENCE MISSIONS *PROGRAM LOGISTICS * PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS REOMTS. REVIEW-GROUND *SIMULATION ACTIVITIES *DELIVERABLE END ITEMS LiST *SPACELAB PALLET UTILIZATION IN ORBITER TESTING *FOLLOW-ON PROCUREMENT *SPACELAB INTEGRATION CONTRACT FIGURE 8 PAGENO="0609" MSFC SPACELAB BUDGET STRUCTURE 0 FY-78N0A $ IN THOUSANDS * SPACELAB DEVELOPMENT $7,600 * CREW TRANSFER TUNNEL * VERIFICATION FLIGHT INSTRUMENTATION (VFI) * DEMULTIPLEXER * SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY (SDF) * MECHANICAL SHUTTLE INTERFACE VERIFICATION EQUIPMENT (MSIVE) * STUDIES/PROGRAM SUPPORT * NEUTRAL BUOYANCY TRAINER * GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT * FOLLOW-ON PROCUREMENT $2,200 * FLIGHT HARDWARE . SPARES * SYSTEMS INTEGRATION $3,100 * INTEGRATION CONTRACT (LESS HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT) TOTAL $12,900 FIGURE 9 PAGENO="0610" PROJECTED ACTiVITIES * SELECT INTEGRATION CONTRACTOR * INiTIATE NASA HARDWARE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT * BEGIN FABRICATION OF THE FLIGHT UNIT * SUBSYSTEM CO-C~NTRACtORS cRITICAL DESIGN REVIEWS *CONDUCT OPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS REVIEWS * CONTINUE FOLLOW-ON PROC~REMENT EFFORT FIGURE 10. PAGENO="0611" 607 8 The Development category involves the design, development, test, eval- uation and production of selected hardware items for which NASA is responsible under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding and Government-to-Government Agreement, as well as Verification Flight Instrumentation (VFI) required to conduct verification flight tests on Spacelab Missions one and two. Principal items included are the Crew Transfer Tunnel, VFI, Software Development Facility, and Studies! Program Support. The Follow-On Procurement category coütains those items of hardware to be purchased from ESA. Within the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and ESA, NASA is obligated to procure from ESA all flight hardware required to meet its National STS Traffic Model, provided ESA can make such hardware available at a reasonable cost, within specifica- tions, and within scheduled requirements. The Memorandum of Understanding further provides that NASA should place an initial order of at least one Spacelab two years prior to delivery of the ESA flight unit. Current *NASA budget estimates include funds for initial procurement of one Space- lab. This unit together with the unit and associated equipment to be supplied free by the Europeans will support 10-12 flights per year. NASA considers initial capability development of 10-12 flights per year to be a reasonable level at the present stage of the Spacelab Program. The Systems Integration category is limited to funding for that portion of the Spacelab Integration Contract which provides for selected tasks in Systems Engineering, Integration, Software, and Logistics necessary tp support Spacelab development and establish operational capability. As noted under 1976 Progress Review, most of the NASA furnished hard- ware contained within the development category will also be acquired through the Integration Contract. Funding requested by MSFC in the Space Flight Operations FY-1978 Budget for the above Spacelab categories supports continued progress on program activities already underway (or approved for initiation under FY-77 appropriations) at a minimum level that is consistent with the Spacelab development schedule. Program Projections The view of the Spacelab Program in the next year is one of continuing challenge and opportunity. Immediately, the Integration Contractor must be brought into the main stream, particularly on NASA hardware development, with minimum delay in reaching full productivity. Moni- toring and assistance to ESA will continue at a substantial level as manufacture of the Engineering Model progresses and manufacture of the Flight Unit begins. For instance, MSFC personnel will be participating in the critical design reviews for each Spacelab subsystem (with each respective co-contractor) beginning this month. These reviews will cover all aspects of the detailed design of each subsystem prior to drawing release for production of the flight unit. They will be spread over a nine month period and will culminate in the Spacelab Intermediate Design Review for the overall system in early 1978. PAGENO="0612" 608 9 ~FC will be heavily involved in operational capability requirements! planning definition and development during 1977. Major activities are: the Spacelab Operations Implementation Plans for Ground and Flight Operations will be developed and baselined; the Spacelab Operations Requirements Review for Ground Processing will be conducted to evaluate the Ground Operations activity; the Preliminary Operations Requirements Review for Flight Operations will be conducted to evaluate and baseline Flight Operations requirements; and, Crew Station Reviews will be con- ducted at ERNO to evaluate human factors, safety, and operational capa- bilities of the Spacelab design. The Center will also be engaged in developing in-depth definition and requirements, in refining estimates, and in formalizing NPASA/ESA posi- tions for the Follow-On Procurement. PAGENO="0613" 609 STATEMENT OP DR. P. A. SPEER, MANAGER, SPACE SCIENCE PROJECTS OPPICE, GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE PLIGHT CENTER Dr. SPEER. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, we have prepared a formal statement for the record, and with your permission I would like to summarize briefly the highlights and progress of the program since last year. The EIEAO (high energy astronomy observatory) program in its present form was approved in June 1974, and this year we approach a very crucial period of time in that we launch our first observatory about 2 months from now. PURPOSES OF THE HIGH ENERGY ASTRONOMY OBSERVATORY PROGRAM * TO DETERMINE HOW VAST E~'IERGIES ARE PRODUCED IN SPACE * TOGAIN INFORMAFIONCIN THEORIGINOEMATTER AND THE FORMATION OF IHE UNIVERSE * TO DETERMINE HOW ELEMENTS ARE SYNTHESIZED IN GALACTIC AND EXTRAGALACTIC PROCESSES * TO EXPLORE HYPER-RANGES OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES (TEMPERATURES, PRESSURES, DENSITIES, ENERGIES, GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AND MAGNETIC FIELDS) FIGURE 1 Before I go into more detail on the status, I would like to reiterate the basic purposes of the high energy astronomy observatory program. The four specific items of interest listed on figure 1 include: The enchancement of understanding of how vast energies are produced in space; the very fundamental question of how matter is originated in space; and the formation of the universe as a whole. We are very interested in how the elements are synthesized in space, and this applies for near-galactic environment as well as extragalactic proc- esses. We are very, interested in observing matter in very unusual states that cannot be simulated on Earth, and are unattainable on Earth. This applies to extremely high temperatures, pressures, and densities. These are, in brief, the purposes of the astronomical research on the three observatories. PAGENO="0614" 610 This (figure 2) is an artist's concept of the three observatories that are to be launched. The first one will be launched this year, with the other two to follow at about 1-year intervals each. The spacecraft are developed by TRW. in the Los Angeles area and have in common the spacecraft equipment module in each of these three observatories. The experiments that constitute the business end of each observatory are contracted separately and are designed, manufactured, and developed by various institutions, universities, and contractors, in some cases. The overall length of these observatories is approximately 20 feet- it differs slightly in each case. The observatories will be launched on an Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) into a low-Earth altitude orbit. We have selected the altitude in such a way that we have enough orbital lifetime but will not have inter- ference from the radiation belts around Earth. The detectors and sen- sors in the observatories are sensitive to the radiation belts. FIGuRE 2 PAGENO="0615" ~~3isap~ 611 lents r expe ly rotate, end over end, in )osing i surfaces to the celestial t will con plete an entire survey of the sky. the energy for the 6-month lifetime are clearly shown. PAGENO="0616" 612 HEAO PROJECT EMPHASIS * I MPLEMENT LOW COST PROGRAM PROTOFLIGHT CONCEPT - MINIMUM TEST HARDWARE SHORT DESIGN LIFETIMES (REDUCED REDUNDANCY) OFF-THE-SHELF SPACECRAFT COMPONENT DESIGN * ENFORCE COMMONALITY OF OBSERVATORY HARDWARE COMMON SPACECRAFT DESIGN - COMMON EXPERIMENT INTERFACES SINGLE SET OF GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT * ESTABLISH DESIGN MARGINS WEIGHT AND POWER MARGINS TO AVOID COSTLY DESIGNS AND REDUCE TESTING FIGuRE 4 Some basic concepts that we have tried to implement in this program are shown on figure 4. We have tried a very low cost approach to get maximum science return for each dollar spent, and have, for the first time on this scale, implemented what we call a protoflight concept. This simply means that we are flying and testing the same hardware. In many previous programs, a separate piece of hardware was built and tested prior to launching the flight hardware. We have combined this into one. We have also reduced the design lifetimes to the shortest acceptable time in order to reduce redundancy of certain critical components, such as tape recorders and star trackers. We believe that the design lifetime of 6 months for the first and the last of the three missions and 12 months for the second mission will give a fair chance to be able to meet those requirements and perhaps exceed them. We have used quite a large number of off-the-shelf spacecraft designs. We benefited from other programs-both from NASA and the Defense Department. The next item refers to commonality. As I already mentioned, the spacecraft is essentially common for all three missions. There is only a small difference in the second mission, which is a pointed telescope type mission and requires a few additions in the attitude control sys- tem. We established, early in the program, common interfaces to the experiments to make the job for the integrator easier and less expen- sive. We have decided to live with a single set of ground support equip- ment which does put a constraint on the launch sequence but an accept- able one, and represents a very cost-effective approach. Also, we have PAGENO="0617" 613 insisted from the begi~ming on comfortable design margins in both power and weight in order to avoid costly redesigns to save power and to save weight. Chairman FTJQTJA. The desigh life is only 6 months? Dr. SPEER. The design life for the first and third mission is 6 months each. We have set aside 12 months between launch events. We are also carrying in the observatory enough consumables, that is propellants and gas for the detectors, to permit a longer life-up to 12 months- if that is indicated by the success of the mission and by the quality of the data that we will be receiving at that time. HAO1-342. HA22 HEAO MASTER SCHEDULE FEBRUARY 1977 (BASELINE AUGUST 1973) MISSION A MISSION B FY74 FY CY73 CY74 ~ 1f2j3 l~ 75 T FY CY75 1 2 3 4 76 liFt CY76 i~ 2 f3 ~ FY77 CY77 1 2T3~f4 FY78 CY78 iJ2 13J4 FY79 Y80 CY79 CY8O 1 2 3[4 .~2 L~ . ?ST$k OBSERVATORY 09K 0 S LAUNCH MWSO CONTRACT (S/A) FOB C B `~ ~- AL ~O~AC~ P ~ STAR CONST B POB ~ X.RAY UCTION * A C~1~,E FACILITY ~`~./`~JTELE ~~PE ~IP LAUNCH v OPE ETE v MISSION C P A YLOAD ROVAL EXP O)NTR ~ EXP FOR ~ OBS EXP FOR COB V OBS EXP COB DEL ~ B LAUNCH M V OF ION 7 NOTE: OBSERVATORY DELIVERY TO KSC IS LAUNCH MINUS S WEEKS FIGTJRE 5 Next I will discuss our master schedule (fig. 5). This schedule was established in August 1973. Some of the triangles are blacked in; this is the indication that these milestones have been accomplished. Wher- ever we did it on our previously established plan, we filled in the tri- angles; where there are slight delays, we show this by a diamond that is filled in at the time that this particular milestone was accom- plished. Apart from minor deviations we have a good schedule per- formance on A. The three launch dates which are approximately 1 year apart and the length of the mission periods are shown. Chairman FUQIJA. April 15? Dr. SPEER. April 15 this year for the HEAO-A; June 1978 and July 1979 for missions B and C. The mission period is shown, and there is some flexibility left if we are required to extend a mission. PAGENO="0618" 614 CURRENT STATUS OBSERVA1ORY * HEAO-A THERMAL VACUUM TEST COMPLETED DECEMBER 23, 1976 - HARDWARE TESTING ON SCHEDULE - SCHEDULE FOR SHIPMENT TO KSC MARCH 8, 1977 O HEAO-B SYSTEMS CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 1977 - SUBSYSTEM REVIEWS COMPLETED EXPERIMENTS O HEAO-A DELIVERY COMPLETED MAY 4, 1976 O HEAO-B EXPERIMENT INTEGRATION AND TEST IN PROGRESS SCHEDULE SUPPORTING DELIVERY TO MSFC IN THE SPRING - COST GROWTH EXPERIENCED WITH TELESCOPE * OVERALL SYSTEM MORE COMPLEX THAN ANTICIPATED * MANAGEMENT PRO8LEMS AT AS&E * HEAO-C CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEWS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED IN MARCH - DEVELOPMENT TESTING BEING CONDUCTED FIGURE 6 CURRENT STATUS (CONTINUED) LAUNCH VEHICLE * ATLAS -CENTAUR VEHICLE DELIVERED TO KSC FOR HEAO-A * KSC/AFETR FACILITY MODIFICATIONS ON SCHEDULE MISSION OPERATIONS * HEAO-A GROUND SUPPORT SYSTEM REQU I REMENTS BEING iMPLEMENTED * MISS ION CONTROL PROCEDURES AND SOFIWARE REQUI REMENTS PREPARATION ON SCHEDULE X-RAY TELESCOPE TEST AND CALl BRAT ION FACI LITY * FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED * EQU I PMENT AND SYSTEMS CHECKOUT COMPLETED * DEMONSTRATION TEST WITH SMALL ROCKET PAYLOAD PLANNED FOR MARCH FIGURE 7 PAGENO="0619" 615 (Figures 6 and 7) On HEAO-A we have now completed our en- vironmental testing for the entire observatory, including the experi- ments, and are in the process of preparing this observatory for ship- ment to the cape in early March. The IIEAO-B observatory is essen- tially manufactured, as far as spacecraft structures are concerned. It is supporting the schedule for integration and is awaiting the experi- ment to join it in August of this year. The HEAO-A experiments are now an integral part of the observa- tory and have almost lost their individual identity. They were com- pleted on time and are supporting our launch on April 15. During the HEAO-B experiment development, we did encounter some sched- ule problems, as can be seen on the schedule chart, and some cost growth because* the complexity of the job was not fully appreciated when we started this very ambitious program. It was by far the most complex and difficult of the three experiment complements on HEAO. We had to take some special steps to understand the remaining effort and to keep the cost under control. We have increased our assistance to the contractor. The contractor in this case is American Science and Engineering (A.S. & E.) in Boston. We have established a resident office to provide almost instantaneous communications, and the con- tractor has improved and tightened his own management. We believe that we have the problems that occurred during the summer of last year thoroughly under control and understand the remaining effort to launch this second mission on schedule as we plan to do on H.EAO-A. HEAO-C, the third mission, carries three experiments; one of which is a foreign experiment developed by a French/Danish group of ex- perimenters. All activities are on schedule, and the designs are essen- tially complete. We are conducting the critical design reviews. Representative FLIPP0. What is the anticipated launch date for B? Dr. SPEER. June 1978. The launch vehicle, Atlas-Centaur, as men- tioned before, is ready for Mission A. It has been erected on the pad at KSC and is awaiting the observatory for mating. All facilities at the cape and at the Air Force Eastern Test Range are supporting the launch. Operational preparations at the Goddard Space Flight Cen- ter are proceeding on schedule. We are using a control center that has been used and is still being used on another mission, the OAO- orbiting astronomical observatory-mission, and we are ready with the facilities for the support of HEAO-A. The flight control team is complete and is in training now. The flight director is a civil service employee of this center, and he is supported by a team of TRW flight controllers and is also going to be supported by a representative from each experiment. We are moving rapidly to the last preparations for launch. Chairman FtTQtTA. Do the same facilities support all of the ITEAO project-at Goddard? Dr. SPEER. Yes ; that's correct. The same support control center will support all the missions, and again due to the sequencing-12 or 13 months apart-one control center will be adequate. PAGENO="0620" 616 The X-ray telescope calibration facility is shown on figure 8. This is an aerial view of the unique facility that has been built at Marshall Space Flight Center to enable us to calibrate the telescope that is now being integrated and completed at A.S. & E. in Boston. It will first be shipped to Marshall in the April-May timeframe and will be placed into a vacuum chamber. The characteristic long guide tube, a stainless steel tube, and the X-raysource are visible. X-rays will be sent through this long tube and appear at the X-ray optics at the right end and simulate almost perfectly the situation which would exist in space when viewing distant stars. This facility will simulate the environ- ment of the telescope almost exactly in terms of vacuum, tempera- tures, and X-ray illumination, and we will be able to understand the characteristics and limitations of the X-ray telescope. Dr. LucAs. Would you indicate the length, Fred. Dr. SPEER. The length of the guide tube is a 1,000 feet and in con- sonance with the design requirements. Chairman FUQTJA. Is that a runway? Dr. SPEER. No. This is a road; parked cars are visible. Dr. LUCAS. That's the broad road that we used for taking the Sa- turn V to building 4755-the same road that we'll use to take the orbiter there; it's used for parking when not being used for wide loads. Fiaum~ 8 PAGENO="0621" - 617 Dr. SPEER. In order to get our test crew trained and to minimize the risks that would apply to the flight telescope, we are planning to per- form a dress rehearsal with a small rocket payload that is a good model of one of the experiments carried in the X-ray telescope. We will do that about a month or so before the final calibration of the X-ray telescope. In summary, we are making good progress on the HEAO program; we are preparing for the first launch 2 months from now; and all hardware development and integration activities support the plan; and we are within cost. Chairman FUQTJA. Thank you-particularly for the last statement. [The prepared statement of Dr. Speer follows:] PAGENO="0622" 618 PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. F. A. SPEER MANAGER, SPACE SCIENCE PROJECTS OFFICE MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER ON THE HIGH ENERGY ASTRONOMY OBSERVATORY PROGRAM FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A detailed description of the objectives of the High Energy Astronomy Observatory (HEAO) (see Figure 1) Program has been included in previous statements to the Committee. Since these objectives have not changed in the past year, the emphasis of this statement is on the status and recent progress of the program. To briefly reiterate, the basic objective of HEAO is to gain new fundamental scientific knowledge about the universe by conducting astronomy investigations in the high energy spectrum (see Figure 2). Specifically, the intent is to learn more about the generation of high energies which are orders of magnitude greater than can be pro- duced on earth; the formation of elements evolved from nuclear reactions and physical processes (nucleosynthesis); the state of matter and physical processes that might have existed at the beginning of time, or the origin of the universe; and stellar bodies such as pulsars, quasars, and black holes, with extreme densities, force, temperatures, and magnetic fields, many times greater than produced within the solar system. Data sent back from the HEAO observatories, after reduction and analysis by the many investigators from the scientific corn- munlty supporting the HEAC Program, will enhance man's knowledge in many other important scientific fields in addition. to astronomy. PAGENO="0623" 619 New findings about stars and their life cycles will provide ideas for nuclear energy research, will influence the basic concept of the universe, will provide a broader base to understand the outer space environment ~f the solar system and pave the way for major new applications of these new ideas. In an effort to minimize program cost, special emphasis has been placed on: (a) use of existing hardware designs developed for other programs (for example, designs for components and assemblies are being used from Pioneer, Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO), Geo.. dynamic £xperimental Ocean Satellite (GEOS), Fleet Satellite Communications, and other s); (b) minimum lifetime requirements consistent with scientific objectives; (c) highest practical degree of commonality of observatory hardware for the three missions; (d) minimum test hardware using the protoflight concept; and (e) use of existing contractor management structures rather than imposition of costly changes in methods of management and reporting. HEAO observatories (see Figure 3) will be launched in 1977, 1978, and 1979, using the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle. All three missions will be launched from the Kennedy Space Center. HEAO-A is a low incliz~iation (22. 75°) survey mission of the entire c~lestial sphere which is expected to map approximately 1, 500 new ~C-ray and gamma ray sources. Mission B will utilize a two-foot diameter X-ray tel~scope to acquire detailed characteristics of selected X-ray sources. HEAO-C will again be a scanning mission with emphasis on higher energ~r regions and cosmic particles. The orbital inclination is 44. 90~ Figure 4 iliustrates the schedule status of the HEAO Program. Completed milestones are shown as solid black triangles with planned milestones as open triangles. As shown, HEAO-A experiments have been delivered. The HEAO-A observatory is in the final test and verification phase prior to acceptance review and delivery to the KSC for launch in April. The Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle, AC45, arrived at KSC in late January and is erected at the launch complex. The mission operations will be conducted by the Project utilizing facilities and data systems at the Goddard Space Flight Center. MSFC will direct the operations with flight control personnel of the observatory contractor (TRW), Principal Investigators, and the GSFC operations organizations. HEAO-A and C missions are currently scheduled for 2 PAGENO="0624" 620 six months mission duration and HEAO-B for twelve months duration. After reducing and analyzing the experiment data collected during each mission, the Principal Investigators will publish results of their scientific findings for the general public. The HEAO-B X-ray telescope system and instruments manufactur- ing is nearly completed. Delivery of the experiment to MSFC for test and calibration of the telescope in the new X-Ray Telescope Test and Calibration Facility is scheduled for late spring. Upon completion of calibration, it will be shipped to the observatory contractor for inte- gration into the observatory subsystems d~iring 1977, with the system review scheduled for February 1977. Delivery of the integrated observatory to KSC for mating with the launch vehicle and launch readiness will take place in the second half of c~alendar year 1978. The X-Ray Telescope Test and Calibration Facility mentioned above is a good example of how cost savings ~an be achieved in acquiring such a facility. While th~iii~truth~ented facility is valued at $7. 5 million, actual cost will be approxinié.tely $3. 9 million (FY 1974 dollars) since much of the equipment~wis obtained from excess government property from complet~d_pr6grams. The facility will be available for other programs. `- Contracts and agreements for the ~lesign and development of the HEAO-C experiments have been finalized and activities are on schedule for launch of Mission C during the second half of calendar year 1979. Testing of the experiment development units is well underway and the experiment critical design reviews are scheduled to be completed in March. One of the three experiments is being designed, developed, and manufactured by a group of French and Danish scientists. Project costs for FY 1978 are expected to be $22. 5 million, exclud- ing launch veMcle and tracking and data support center operations. In summary, the HEAO Program activities continue to be progress- ing on schedule. No problems are known or anticipated at this time that will prevent achieving the scheduled launch dates. 3 PAGENO="0625" 621 92-082 0 - 77 - 40 PAGENO="0626" HAOI.052 HEAO HIGH ENERGY SPECTRAL COVERAGE MISSION-A A-i FRIEDMAN (NRL) A-2 BOLDTIGARMIRE (GSFC/CIT) A-3 GURSKV/BRADT (SAO/MIT) A-4 J PETERSON/LEWIN (UCSD/MIT) MISSION-B ] TELESCOPE INSTRUMENTS GIACCONI. CLARK. GURSKY. BOLDT(SAO. MIT. SAO. GSFC) I MONITOR PROPORTIONAL COUNTER MISSION-C I C-i JACOBSON (JPI) r,1~fl?...... ~ KOCH/PETERS (FRANCE/DENMARK) ISRAEL, WADDINGTON, STONE (WASH. U_/U. MINN/CIT) L C-3 ENERGY- ELECTRON 102 ic~3 i~4 i~5 ~ i~7 i~8 u~9 1i~iO i~11 1Ô12 11013 1~14 i~i5 GAMMA-RAY .,~ cOSMIc-RAY 30 50 75 100 125 130 NIJCLEAR I CHARGE I ~ IRON (26) "Z" j `HYDROGEN (1) LAWRENCIUM (103) 2/19/75 _____________________________________________________ Figure 2 PAGENO="0627" HIGH ENERGY ASTRONOMY OBSERVATORY HEAO PAYLOADS; LAUNCH BY ATLAS-CENTAUR S MISSION A X-RAYAND GAMMA RAYSCANNINGMISSIONWrrH (LAUNCH 1977) SURVEY INSTRUMENTS TO MAP THE SKY FOR X- AND GAMMA RAY SOURCES * MISSION B X-RAY POiNTING MISSION WiTH HIGH RESOLUTION (LAUNCH 1978) TELESCOPE TO ACCURATELY LOCATE AND ACQUiRE DETAILED RADIATION DATA FROM SOURCES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME 1 MISSION C GAMMA RAYAND COSMIC RAY SCANNING MISSIONS. (LAUNCH 1979) TO MAP AND STUDY RADIATiON IN HIGHER ENERGY REG IONS' PAGENO="0628" HAO1-342a STATUSAS OF: I HEAO MASTER SCHEDULE FEBRUARY 1977 (BASELINE AUGUST 1973) FY74 J FY75 FY76 jTP~ FY77 FY78 FY79 I ~ CY73 CY74 CY75 CY76 CY77 CY78 CY79 CY8O PAY APPR MISSION A MISSION B MISSION ~ E.E4 1121314 1I21i1j~ 11213fi 1I2I3]I~ 11213J! 1121314 `~ AD EX VAL Co L__~. EXP FOR RIMENT 4 r'__ EXP COR EXP DEL 1gI~ I END OF LAUNCH MISSIC ~ V MISSION END OF ~ I OF LAUNCH MI RON V 7 OBSERVATORY CONTRACT (S/A) CBS C FOR C I R XP EXP APPRO ` PAYLO - P A - AL CONTRACTS P D EXPERIMENT ~L~TZ~ COMPLETE STAR FA cONST ~ PLOAD MOVAL ~ a FOR ~ ~ X-RAY ILITY UCTION EXP CONTR -__~~1~ R* : ~ COMPLETE X-RAY FACIUTY T EXP FOR CDR 085 DEL~ ~ ~ TELE LIVER CALIB LESCOPE COMP MSFC 085 EXP FOR CDR V ~T LAUNCH v OPE ATION ITE CBS EXP CDR DEL V~7 NOTE: OBSERVATORY DELIVERY TO KSC IS LAUNCH MINUS F igure~ 4 5 WEEKS PAGENO="0629" 625 STATEMENT OP WILLIAM C. KEATHLEY, MANAGER, SPACE TELE- SCOPE PROEECT, GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE PLIGHT* CENTER Dr. LUCAS. I would like to present Bill Keathley, manager of the Space Telescope (ST) Task Team. He will become manager of the ST Project Office when it is established. Mr. KEATHLEY. Thank you, Dr. Lucas. I am pleased to be given the opportunity to discuss the status of the Space Telescope project. But before I do, I'd like to introduce a couple of the key people: Bob O'Dell, whom you met earlier this morning, is our project scientist, and Jean Oliver is our chief engineer. FIouI~E 1 The first chart (figure 1) is an artist's concept of the Space Tele- scope in orbit, an4 I'll leave it there for your reference throughout the presentation. PAGENO="0630" 626 SPACE TELESCOPE, SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES 0 DISCOVER NEW OBJECTS FORMED EARLY IN THE LIFE OF.THE UNIVERSE. o DETERMINE LARGESCALE STRUCTuRE AND EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE. o EXPLAIN THE ENERGY PROCESSES OCCURRING IN QUASARS AND ACTIVE GALAXIES. o ESTABLISH AN OPTICAL TELESCOPE CAPABILITY THAT WILL BE UNIQUE THROUGHOUTTHE LIFETIME OF THE OBSERVATORY. FIGuRE 2 The scientific objectives of the Space Telescope are many, but can be boiled down to four primary objectives, shown in figure 2: First, we expect to ~discover new objects in space. The Telescope has the capability, assuming one theoretical model of the universe, to see to about 95 percent of the extent of the universe. Therefore, we can see new objeèts that are not capable of being seen from the ground with our present observatories. Representative FLIPP0. Excuse me. Could I ask you how long the Telescope will be in orbit? Mr. KEATHLEY. We now plan for a 15-year program. The Shuttle gives us the capability to go up and repair it in orbit so we can extend the normal time. I will cover that in more detail later on. Second, we expect to determine more of the large scale structure and evolution of the universe. Third, we will be able to accumulate data to explain some currently unexplained energy processes which we see in quasars and galaxies. Again, this is something that cannot be done from the ground. To really achieve those three objectives, one must~have a capability, an observatory capability, that is unique compared to the current ground-based observatories. We feel that the Space Telescope will fill that need. PAGENO="0631" 627 In the previous presentation, Dr. Speer reviewed the HEAO pro- gram. That is an X-ray telescope. The Space Telescope works in the far ultraviolet and infrared wavelengths, from about 1,200 A in the far ultraviolet to the infrared. So, it will operate in a different por- tion of spectrum from HEAO. SPACE TELESCOPE KEY FEATURES O DESIGN CHARACTERI sii Cs 2.4 Meter Ritchey-Chretlen Telescope 05x Optical Wavefront Quality on Axis at 63281 - .007 Arc Seconds Image Stability - Provisions for 5 ScIentific Instruments O OPERATIONAL CHARACTER I STI CS - Launched, Recovered and Serviced Using Shuttle - Long-Life Observatory with Nominal 2-1/2 yr. Servicing Intervals - Wideband Telemetry for Science Data Transmission - Near Real Time Ground Interaction Using TDRSS - Orbit 270 N. Mi. Altitude 28. 8°l nclination FIGURE 3 The first of the key features of the Space Telescope, shown in fig- ure 3, is the 2.4-rn Ritchey Chretien telescope. The 2.4-rn refers to the diameter of the primary mirror which I will show in more detail. The size of the mirror gives the needed collecting area. The 0.05 wave, or 1/20th wave, optical systems capability gives resolution capability. And 0.05 wave at 6,300 A is about as good as can be done in polishing optics. The term we use is near-diffraction limited. That is about as good as one can do. With the capability of seeing further out, and with smaller objects, we require a very, very stable telescope. We will hold th~ Space Tele- scope to .007 arc seconds in pointing stability. That's not all that unusual. The OAO spacecraft achieved .003 arc seconds at times for short periods of time. The Space Telescope has to operate for about 10 hours at that stability. So, we are doing better than has been done be- fore, but we think, based on OAO experience, plus some other work we have done here, that we can implement that capability. The inherent nature of the observatory requires that we be able to replace the instruments periodically, to change the manner in which PAGENO="0632" 628 the. instruments are used, and change the instrument type its~lf. The Shuttle, again, gives the capability to take one instrument out and put another one in. This, therefore, provides the same kind of observatory operation as at Kitt Peak or Mount Wilson, or other groundbased observatories. Operational characteristics include launch, recovery, and service by the Shuttle. Service in this particular case means that we will be able to go to it and repair it or repla~e instruments, as I said before. We are planning a long-life observatory and I just mentioned the plan for 15 years of use. There is no reason that 15 years is a stopping point, ob- viously. We believe that the Telescope should last at least that long. We plan to visit the Space Telescope about every 21/2 years. There is nothing firm about that. It is just our estimate of how often we might have to go up to replace a battery, a rate gyro, or those types of things to keep the Telescope operating. We will have wideband telemetry capability. We are considering about a million bits of data per second, relayed by way of the Tracking Data Relay Satellite, which will be available at this time. Therefore, we can get a lot of data, a lot of scientific data-more than we have in the past-into the hands of the scientists. Also we will have real time, or almost real time, interaction with the spacecraft, which has not been available in previous programs with ground stations. We expect to be able to address, in real time, the spacecraft about 80 percent of the day. This is a significant improvement over past experience. As far as the orbit is concerned, we are planning a 270 nautical mile orbit at 28.8° inclination, and those are standard parameters. ~.O&~$ZAT.O$. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENIER STCONRGURATION ~ ~23_77 . SEPT 1976 -- INTERFACE ~ MAX. SPEC. WEIGHT - 23000 LB ~,1 . QSSM DOTA Osi OVERALL LENGTH ~ 43 PT FIGURE 4 PAGENO="0633" 629 The configuration of the Telescope, in cross section, is shown on figure 4. The central section is the equipment section. Outlined in the pink color is the spacecraft with the support module. The equipment section houses all the electrical power, the data management systems, and the services which are used by the scientific instruments shown in brown. The Telescope is in grey. Once the aperture door is open, the light enters the aperture, strikes the large primary mirror (this is the 2.4m mirror I referred to earlier), reflects to the secondary mirror, and then is imaged at the focal plane at the entrance to the scientific instruments. The instruments then take that image and convert it into the various spectral ranges, or images to produce the scientific data. These data are relayed back to the service module and down to the ground. All of the data collected are photoelectric. The overall length of the Telescope is 43 ft, the diameter is 14 ft, and it will weigh about 23,000 ibs, which is well within the Shuttle capability of 32,000 pounds. So, we are not weight critical. During the definition period, conducted over the last three years, several areas have emerged as key technical drivers to the program. Therefore, we took some of our definition funds and proceeded to verify, with hardware or computers, that we could meet these requirements. SPACE TELESCOPE KEY OTA & SSM TECHNOLOGY AREAS WORKED DURING PHASE B TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATED AREA GOAL . PERFORMANCE PRIMARY MIRROR ~ 150 - x /60 A /60 @ 1. 8M MIRROR ALIGNMENT +2~ m DESPACE + 1.2~4 m (BAC) FINE GUIDANCE SENSOR 0.003 ARC SEC ~0.002 ARC SEC ST POINTING CONTROL 0. 005 ARC SEC 0. 0022 ARC SEC * 0. 0025 ARC SEC ~ ON ORB IT MAINTENANCE FULL SCALE NEUTRAL BUOYANCY DEMONSTRATION * COMPUTER SIMULATION ** HARDWARE SIMULATION FIGURE 5 PAGENO="0634" 630 As shown in figureS, in each and every instance, we met and exceeded all requirements. As far as polishing the primary mirror is con- cerned-which is very critical to the performance of the Telescope- we took a 1.8m flexible mirror blank, similar to the one we are going to be using but not quite as large, and polished it to 1/60th of a wave. The requirement is 1/50th of a wave. So we met and exceeded that capabil- ity. It is very critical that the secondary and primary mirrors be spaced very accurately and held very carefully. We have a two microm- eter despace tolerance. In other words, once we are observing we have to hold the spacing between mirrors to within two micrometers-a very stringent requirement. The structure that separates those two mirrors, therefore, becomes critical. So we built that structure, tested it, and found we can meet and exceed the requirement. This was done by Boeing Aircraft Co. in Seattle. For the fine guidance sensor we needed a type of precision star tracker that has not yet been built. So, we built breadboards of two different versions of fine guidance sensors, tested them, and demon- strated that we can meet the requirement with either version of the sensor. All of the rate gyros, the sensing units, the control units of the pointing control system were tested on a very stable mount by Martin-Marietta in Denver. This demonstrated that we have the ca- pability to perform that system function. A key aspect of any observa- tory dictates repair and instrument replacement in place. We had a lot of experience on the Skylab program replacing these kinds of modules in orbit, but `we will be working with larger modules than in the Skylab. `Therefore, we implemented a full-scale neutral buoy- ancy simulation to verify that we could, in fact, do that. We success- fully demonstrated that capability. Therefore, there are no major show-stoppers identified in this proj- ect. We have the analysis, the design, the experience, and now hard- ware demonstrations that show that we can meet those critical per- formance requirements. Chairman FTJQUA. By show-stoppers, do you mean technology show- stoppers? Mr. KEATHLEY. That is correct. As far as the ESA participation is concerned, we have not yet com- pleted these negotiations. We are in the final stages right now. But, as shown in figure 6, the currently planned ESA participation includes the following: the faint object camera-ESA has identified a desire to build one of four axial instruments, located in the axial compart- ment (figure `T). In addition to that, they phin to supply a solar array, which are the two "wings," and the development mechanisms. These arrays are part of the spacecraft. In addition they plan to supply the hardware spares for refurbishing the solar array, or replacing the solar array, and the faint object camera. They also plan to support our ground activities after they deliver the hardware, such as integration and launch activities, and to provide staffing for the Operations Control Center and the Science Operations. `The Con- trol Center will `be located at Goddard Space Flight Center. PAGENO="0635" 631 SPACE TELESCOPE PLANNED ESA PARTICIPATION Faint Object Camera, Spares and Associated Equipment Solar Array, Spares and Associated Equipment FOC and SA Refurbishment Support to Post~Delivery Ground Activities Space Telescope Operations Control Center and. Science Operations Staffing FIGURE 6 SPACE TELESCOPE MAJOR CONFIGURATION ELEMENTS LGAS APERTURE DOOR SOLAR PANEL . LGAI DSSM HGA * DOTA Osi Fioui~s~ 7 PAGENO="0636" 632 SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM MAJOR MILESTONES o Completed Definition Contracts for Optical Telescope Assembly (OTA) May 197~ and Instruments (Itek and Perkin-Elmer) o Completed Definition Contracts for Support Systems Module (SSM) Mar. 1976 (Boeing, Lockheed & Martin) o Completed Definition of Science Operations Options Nov. 1976 o Demonstrated Performance In Key Technology Areas FY 76 (Mirrors, Mirror Alignment, Fine Guidance, Pointing Control) o ContInuing Advanced Technology Effort (Detectors, Straylight) FY77 o Released Requests for Proposals for Telescope and Spacecraft Jan. 28, 1977 Development o Release Announcement of Opportunity for Scientific Instruments Feb. 1977 o Negotiate NASA/ESA Project Plan Feb. 1977 o Initiate Development Phase Oct. 1977 (FY 78) o Launch Fourth Quarter 1983 FumBE 8 Major milestones, most of which have been completed, are shown in figure 8. We have completed definition contracts for the support module, the Telescope, and scientific instruments. The Telescope in- strument effort involved two companies-Itek of Lexington, Mass., and Perkin-Elmer of Norwalk, Conn. The support module definition was performed by Boeing of Seattle, Lockheed of Sunnyvale, and Martin-Marietta of Denver. We formulated three potential options for handling the scientific operations. We then asked the National Acad- emy of Sciences for their comments. They have returned those com- ments, which were most constructive. We have demonstrated performance in key technology areas which I have discussed earlier. We are continuing some advance technology work in straylight suppression and detectors. The straylight is almost completed and involves the addition of a subroutine to an analytical model that we have. The detectors, which are the collectors for all the scientific data, require some additional work. We have released the request for proposals for the telescope and spacecraft, as Dr. Lucas indicated this morning. We did this on January 28. We plan to release the announcement of opportunity in the U.S. for the scientific instruments in February. ESA will release their announcement of opportunity at some later date. PAGENO="0637" 633 We are in the process of completing our negotiations with ESA on the project plan which described their participation in the project. We have scheduled discussions later this month and hope to be able to complete negotiations in March. We will, contingent upon the approval of Congress of course, initiate the development phase in October of this year. The launch would oc- cur in the fourth quarter of 1983. Again I repeat what Dr. Lucas said this morning: we have gone' as far as we can go. As you know, with the approval of Congress in last year's bill, we have released the request for proposals. We can- not initiate the development phase without subsequent authorizations and appropriations this year. 2467-76 MARSHAU SPACE FLIGHT CE!-TER SPACE TEl ESCOPE PLAI~1I Ii~G SCHEDULE DATA IS KEA1ALEY ,, r~J F~J F~J F~J F~~I F~J F~J ~4 CY77 ~:. CYR~ 1J~J4 j~4 C 9 RE..) PROCUREMENT-S~7E71TIFICINSTRUMEN 0IIAL~ACCEPTE5T t C REP A CR lI~7) ~ WARE) v . APP v ASSEMBLY - ` V .n ~ t . S , * ASSE5~5~ VERIFICATION PP AWA ~ S ~ IS. .CS~ t~ - * : DEL MODULE p AWA ~::z:~ ~ ~cwt~. ` ~ DEL . VERIFIC.TION DELIVERY OPERATIONS - DEL - LAUNCh ORB I - - CONTROL CENTER - FIGURE VIII-1 FIGURE 9 I won't spend a lot of time discussing the schedule (figure 9) other than to point out again that these two RFP milestones have been com- pleted and the announcement of opportunity should go out this month. The schedule is a comfortable schedule. It does allow for some problems to avoid one element of the project affecting other elements. The launch is scheduled for 1983. That concludes my presentation. In summary I would again call your attention to the fact that we have been in the definition phase for some 3 years now. I have been involved in a lot of projects over the past 20 years, but I honestly have not seen one as well defined as PAGENO="0638" 634. this. We have identified all the key technical areas; we have verified our ability to meet those requirements; we have outstanding support from the National Academy of Sciences and our scientific community in this country, and also, I might add, overseas. ESA has agreed-at least we have a handshake right now-to spend 80 million accounting units in support of the project. We are anxiously awaiting the sub- sequent Congressional approval, authorization, and appropriation, so that we may proceed with development. Chairman FTJQUA. Appropriations side, not our side. You think you've done all the defining you can? Mr. KEATHLEY. Yes. Chairman FTJQUA. What does the runout cost look like now? Mr. KEATHLEY. For the development phase which includes 1 month after launch, the estimate is $435 to $470 million in fiscal year 1978 budget dollars. Chairman FUQUA. In fiscal year 1978 dollars? Mr. KEATHLEY. Yes, in fiscal year 1978 dollars. I will be glad to answer any other questions. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Keathley follows:] PAGENO="0639" 635 * STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. KEATHLEy MANAGER, SPACE TELESCOPE PROJECT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT * MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGy HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Man's concept of the universe has drastically changed in the past century. Improved observational and instrumentation techniques and analytical tools provided the opportunities for evolving this clearer understanding of the universe. With each significant im- provement in observation capability, deeper insights into the com- position, evolution, and processes of the universe have been made possible. Indeed astronomy as a science has yielded outstanding contributions to the understanding of physical processes and formu- lation of physical laws, e. g., gravity, that affect all aspects of our lives. Much has been learned, but much remains to be understood, including the extent and geometry of the universe, the past history and the future of the universe, and the many diverse and violent physical processes which occur in various stars, galaxies, and other celestial objects. The 200-Inch aperture Hale Telescope at Palomar Mountain, California, can recognize individual galaxies several billion light years away. However, like all Earthbound devices, the Hale Telescope has limited resolution because of the blurring effect which the Earth' a atmosphere causes due to its turbulence and light scattering. The wavelength region observable from the Earth's surface is limited by the atmosphere to the visihle part of the spectrum. Unlike ground-based telescopes~ the 2.4-meter Space Telesëope (ST) will possess and can effectively utilize an optical quality of èuch precision that its resolving power is limited only by the diffraction limit of the optics. The ST will be taken into Earth orbit by. the Space Shuttle, and from there, unhindered by atmospheric distortion and absorption, it can see objects with a reso- lution about 7 times better than that obtainable even with the largest telescopes on Earth and over a wavelength region which reaches far PAGENO="0640" 636 PAGENO="0641" 637 into the ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) portions of the spectrum. Objects at 7 billIon light years, for example, can be seen with the ST with as much detail as objects at 1 billion light years can be seen with the best Earthbound telescopes. Like ground-based telescopes, the ST will be designed as a general- purpose instrument, capable of utilizing a wide variety of scientific instruments at its focal plane. This multi-purpose characteristic will allow the ST to be effectively used a~s a national facility, capable of supporting the astronomical needs of an international user com- munity and hence making contributions to man' s basic needs. By using the Space Shuttle to provide scientific instrument upgrading and subsystems maintenance, the useful and effective operational lifetime of ST will be extended to a decade or more. NASA has for the past several years been evolving the technological and operational capabilities which are needed to place such a tele- scope into Earth orbit and to utilize it effectively. These technology advancements have occurred as a natural result of other orbiting astronomical satellite programs such as Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO), Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO), and Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM), as well as through supporting research and technology activities. Based on need and state Of technology, ST is the next logical step in astronomy. Therefore, the primary objective of the Space Telescope Project is to develop and operate a large, high resolution space telescope system which will be unique in its usefulness to the international science community and significantly extend man' a knowledge of the universe through observation and study of celestial objects and events. The Space Telescope will be a long-life observatory launched, serviced, and recovered using the Space Shuttle. Initiation of Space Telescope Program development is planned for FY 78 with launch in CY 1983. Major elements of the Space Telescope are the Support Systems Module (SSM), Optical Telescope Assembly (OTA), and Scientific Instruments (SI). Attached is an artist's concept of the Space Telescope in flight with its aperture door open and the solar arrays and high gain antennas extended. Since last year' s statement, ST Phase B definition activities have been completed. Definition contracts for the SSM were completed in March, 1976, and were performed by Boeing Aerospace Company of 92-082 0 - 77 - 41 PAGENO="0642" 638 Kent, Washington, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company of Sunnyvale, California, and Martin Marietta Corporation of Denver, Colorado. Definition contracts for the OTA and SI were completed in May 1976, and were performed by Itek Corporation of Lexington, Massachusetts, and Perkin-Elmer Corporation of Norwalk, Ccrinecticut. Technology efforts in key areas of mirror fabrication, mirror align- ment, fine guidance, and pointing control have resulted in demonstrated performance exceeding ST performance goals, giving added assurance to develop readiness. Technology effort is continuing on detectors and straylight suppression in preparation for the development phase. MSFC is currently working with the Europeans in development of a NASA/ESA Project Plan to describe their participation in the Space Telescope Program. It is currently expected that ESA will provide one scientific instrument, the Faint Object Camera, the solar array for the SSM and will support mission operations and science operatiofls activities. Definitions of options for managing ST science operations and data analysis during the operations phase have been completed and evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences. In preparation for the FY 78 ST Program Start, Requests for Proposals for the OTA and the SSM were released on January 28, 1977. Award of OTA and SSM contracts is scheduled for October, 1977. The contract for the OTA will include the design, development, fabrication, assembly and verification of the OTA and support of ST integration and development operations through one month of orbital verification. The SSM contract will include the SSM; integration of the OTA and SI's with the SSM; verification of the total ST; systems engineering and analysis for the overall ST; and support to NASA for planning and implementing ground and flight operations support. Announcements of Opportunity for the Scientific Instruments are to be released in February 1977, with tentative selection of Principal Investi- gators and their co-investigators to be made in October, 1977. Final selection will be made following preliminary design of the Scientific Instruments. MSFC is the lead project management center for the Space Telescope Project. GSFC is assigned the subsystem responsibility for the Scientific Instruments and the responsibility for Mission Operations planning. JSC is responsible for Shuttle Operations and KSC is responsible for launch operations. PAGENO="0643" 639 STATEMENT OP EUGENE C. McKANNAN, MANAGER, SPACE PROC- ESSING APPLICATIONS TASK TEAM, GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER Dr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Gene MlcKannan, who is the coordinator of our activities in space processing, which we are doing under the auspices of the Office of Applications. Mr. MCKANNAN. Thank you Dr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, Represent- ative Winn, and Representative Flippo, I will discuss the Marshall Space Flight Center's leading role in the space processing applications program. The objective of the program is to process materials in space in ways that cannot readily be done on Earth. We would not propose to do it in space unless we could obtain benefits over those possible on Earth. These benefits depend upon the weightlessness in space. Where materials processing is limited by gravity, we can often show improvements by doing it in the low gravity of the space environment. The program started with Apollo 14 in which we had a few demon- stration experiments. We followed that with more serious experiments on Skylab where superior single crystals were made for microcircuit research in the electronics industry. We also showed that metal cast- ing could be controlled more precisely in space. RECOGNIZEDNEE]DSFOR PRODUCTS FROM SEPARATED LIVE CELLS SPACE MILLIONS OF HOSPITAL PRODUCED DISEASE PATIENT DAYS/YEAR THERAPEUTIC THROMBOEMBOLISM 3.9 UROKINASE ANEMIA 1.5 ERYTHROPOIETIN BURNS 1.3 GROWTH HORMONE DIABETES 5.2 HUMAN INSULIN EMPHYSEMA 1.4 ANTITRYPSIN MALIGNANCy 18.6 . TRANSFER FACTOR VIRAL INI'ECTION 2.8 INTERFRRON HEMOPHILIA 0.2 FACTOR VIII DATA FROM A. D. LITTLE DERIVED FROM VITAL HEALTH STATISTICS FIGuRE 1 We showed you some Apollo-Soyuz test project-ASTP--equip- ment last year, but we did not have the results at that time. Figure 1 shows some implications of those results. We took kidney cells up to see if we could improve the yield of the enzyme, urokinase. We did this experiment for a group of scientists including those at Abbott Labora- tories, a pharmaceutical manufacturer in Chicago. Live human kidney cells representing a whole kidney were carried into space and separated. by a very precise technique which I will explain in a moment. The separated cells were frozen to keep them alive and brought back to PAGENO="0644" 640 Abbott Laboratories, where they were cultured and analyzed. One of the colonies made the enzyme, urokinase, at least six tinies more effi- ciently than any kidney cells on Earth. Urokinase is an enzyme which dissolves blood clots, and there is nothing on the market that can do that today. There are over 50,000 patients spending almost 4 million hospital patient-days per year trying to overcome the effects of blood clots. A thromboembolism. is a blood clot which lodges in the heart, lung, or brain. The chart shows the vital statistics; it does not touch on the agony which people suffer lying in bed paralyzed with a stroke at home. Urokinase is available in Japan, although it is made by an entirely different process. Because urokinase is produced by the kidney in minute quantities, it can be produced by the concentration and puri- fication of urine. However, it takes over 500 gallons of urine to make one dose of urokinase and costs in the neighborhood of $1,500. The Federal Drug Administration will not allow that process to be used in this country. It is awaiting the process of cell culture and separation from kidney cells. We believe that can be done more efficiently in space. After Abbott Laboratories completed the analysis, a consultant to the pharmaceutical industry, A. D. Little in Boston, provided a list of other products which can he derived from a culture of human cells. They believe it may be possible to make these products in space. Erythropoietin also comes from kidney cells and it was concentrated from cells separated in space on the ASTP experiment. It is needed for treatment of anemia, because erythropoietin induces the bone mar- row to produce red blood cells. Another experiment proposal is to culture live pituitary cells to make the growth hormone which would be used in speeding up the regrowth of tissues in burn therapy. Yet an- other is making human insulin from pancreatic cells for diabetes patients who are allergic to the animal insulin which they get today. A large number of patient hospital days could be saved if these prod- ucts were available today. Of course, the most significant disease is malignancy, or cancer. The transfer factor could be significant in treat- ing malignancies but it is not available in any useful quantity today. Chairman FUQTJA. What dO you mean by transfer factor? M. MOKANNAN. It is an enzyme that comes from blood, an antigen. which tells the cell whether to grow or not. Representative WINN. But do I understand that they only did the first one in ASTP? Mr. MOKANNAN. Yes; the only separation we have done in space is kidney cells for urokinase, the rest of the products listed are only sug- gestions. We believe that since we could separate kidney cells we should be able to separate these others. It is a matter of being able to separate live cells and to culture them, PAGENO="0645" 641 STATiC SYSTEM ELECTROPHORESIS COLUMN ELECTROLYTE FLOW ELECTROLyrE I would like to show you the process in figure 2. ASTP static elec- trophoresis was done in a tube about one-half inch in diameter and about 6 inches long which has electrodes on the end. This is electro- phoresis separation. In electrophoresis, the cells are separated by the different velocities with which they move along the tube in the electric field. Because of the different surface charges on the cells, their veloci- ties are different. They were frozen in their separated state and brought back to Earth. UMITATI0;4s ON EARTH OVERCOME BY LOW GRAVITY IN SPACE `` Fioui~s 2 SEDIMENTATION CONVECTION TIMENOLTAGE MI~SAG~: tU) SCI~AflATION, NO NUW I(1ODL~CT FIGuRE 3 PAGENO="0646" 642 Next, I will show why this can be done in space and not on Earth. One limitation to doing it on Earth is sedimentation or settling as shown in figure 3. Cells are essentially heavy particles and they fall to the bottom of the container before separation is complete. In the same manner, thermal convection affects the cells. Warm cells tend to rise and cold cells tend to fall. This causes circulation currents which mix the cells while they are desired in separate layers. The bottom line is meant to show that the speed of the process can't be accelerated by ap- plying a high voltage. One must work very gently with the human cells. These same points are important whether working in the vertical or horizontal position. Sedimentation and convection mix up whatever is attempted in this area on Earth. They are the things we avoid by doing it in weightlessness or low gravity in space. Chairman FUQUA. The principle is the same that has been explained before about studies in atmospheric conditions such as fog or smog that the particles will remain separated and not cling together. Mr. MCKANNAN. Yes; in clouds the same physics applies. In fact, the same physics applies in the field of metallurgy and control of cast- ings, which I would like to show you in the next few moments. With the potential for social and economic progress ahead, we are going to take advantage of every flight opportunity we can to fly elec- t.rophoresis separation and cell culture experiments. My next subject will be metallurgy because there was also a very exciting experiment in metallurgy done on ASTP which shows great promise for the future. Since we showed earlier that we could precisely control castings in space, metallurgists suggested that we could make permanent magnets much better in space than on Earth. A permanent magnet is a metal with the fibers somewhat alined. We sent up man- ganese bismuth which was solidified, or cast, in space. It had 50 percent greater magnetic strength than the very best laboratory produced man- ganese bismuth made on Earth. The implications of this are very important. Permanent magnets have many applications, and one is in drive motors for electric vehicles, Figure 4 shows cross sections of two motors. Field coil motors have commutators and brushes. The brushes cause drag friction and the field coil requires energy. Permanent magnet motors can be lighter and there are no brushes. They are small com- pared to field coil motors of the same horsepower. We believe that this kind of magnet will speed the application of permanent magnet motors. The Energy Research and Development Administration fore- casts that in the 1990's millions of electric vehicles will be used. By using these permanent magnet motors over the others, it is estimated that 180 billion kWh of electricity would be saved. That compares to the electric power used throughout the Southeastern States of the United States-that is, several large nuclear powerplants. It is amazing that a seemingly small materials improvement that goes into a product like a motor can make such a tremendous savings. PAGENO="0647" 643 MAGNETS/BENEFITS OF SPACE PRODUCED MAGNETS HIGH STRENGTH PERMANENT MAGNETS BASED ÔN.APOLLO-SOYUZ EXPERIMENT ON MANGANESE BISMUTH EUTECTIC - USED IN D. C. PERMANENT MAGNET MOTORS REPLACING COMMUTATOR /FIELD COIL MOTORS IN ELECTRIC CARS AND INDUSTRIAL VEHICLES - WILL SAVE 180 BILLION KWH ELECTRICITY PER YEAR IN 1995 OVER CONVENTIONAL MOTORS Another application for unidirectional solidification is turbine blades for aircraft jet engines. Today, they `are directionally solidified here on Earth. But the directional solidification still leads to "chopped", or short, fibers. There is a need to attain continuous fibers. We believe continuous fibers can be attained in space based on the experiments run on ASTP. This is based on theory because we have not made a tur- bine blade in space yet. As shown in figure 5, we could either make the blade last longer at the same `temperature of operation or we could significantly increase the `temperature of the operation of the engine to save fuel. In fact, economists have pointed out that about `/2 billion gallons of jet fuel per year in the 1990's would be saved by going to these improved types of blades. That fuel saved would be in the commercial aircraft indus- try alone, ncit including military aircraft or ground turbines which are used in remote electi~jc generation plants. The use of the blades in those areas also would increase the fuel savings. Why do we think we can do this? We can show you why with a 30- second movie, so you can see for yourself why we think we can improve castings in space. On the left half of the screen, you will see a mold on Earth which is cooled on the sides. As the material freezes on the cold surface and crystallizes, the crystals break off, circulate through con- vection and finally fall to the bottom due to sedimentation. This re- sults in the growth of short, or "chopped," fibers. On the right, you will see the same thing done in space but there the crystals will stay in place, resulting in the growth of continuous fibers. There is no gravi- tational force breaking them off. They just stay there and grow in a well alined way. CONVENTIONAL DESIGN NEW INSIDE-OUT DESIGN FIGuRE 4 PAGENO="0648" FIGURJ~ 5 The space processing program involves three parts. The first part, ground-based research, includes economic studies. The second is the current flight program, utilizing the space processing applications rocket, a, ballistic missile, to give `about 5 minutes of weightlessness. It is the only way we can provide flight opportunities to scientists until the shuttle flies. We flew three of them in the last 13 months with 20 experiments aboard, and we have 12 more planned before the Space Shuttle is operational. The rocket payload is about 16 inches in diame- ter `and about 10-feet long. The rockets themselves are supplied by Goddard Space Flight Center and fired at White Sands Missile Range. The payload is parachuted back to the desert at White Sands so experi- menters can retrieve their samples. The third part of our program is involved in getting ready for Space Shuttle with larger and much more energetic experiments. Figure 6 is an artist's concept of equipment that we will be putting into the Spacelab part of the Shuttle program. An announcement of opportu- nity is currently going out to industry to solicit experiments to go on `the shuttle. We are in an early research phase at this time, but as we identify the materials that have applications, we are trying to `move them to process development and to commercial manufacturing in space `as rapidly as we can. 644 PAGENO="0649" 645 2247-76 SPACE PROCESSING APPLICATIONS SPACELAB PAYLG~ D (BIOLOGICAL PROCESSING AND FLUID SYSTEMS) In summary, we believe the future holds social benefits and a new phase for the pharmaceutical industry which will save many lives because of the new materials. In addition to that, we can point to' the technological leadership that can help the material's industry in `the TTnited States. E~on'o'mic grrn~th will be based on the new products. The balance of trade will be improved because people overseas will want the high technology products. We can save jobs for Americans. In the electronics industry many jobs are going overseas in order to use cheap labor for labor intensive operations. Crystal growing, for instance, can be done in space and `will need Americans in the high technology jobs to prepare the material for space and to `work with it on return. Gentlemen, thank you very `much. If you have any questions at this time, I will try to `answer them. Chairman FUQUA. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. McK.annan follows:] FIGURE 6 PAGENO="0650" 646 STATEMENT OF MR. EUGENE C. MCKANNAN MANAGER, SPACE PROCESSING APPLICATIONS TASK TEAM MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OFTHE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES This statement describes Marshall Space Flight Center's role in the Space Processing Applications Program. It incorporates Space Material's Science, as some people refer to the current research stage, and spans the spectrum to Commercial Space Manufacturing, which~is being planned. The objective of the Space Processing Applications Program is to make.use of the unique aspects of Space, such as low gravity, to benefit materials over that possible on Earth. Reduced gravity in space eliminates sedimentation or settling of heavier particles and bouyancy of lighter particles, in addition to reducing thermal convective mixing, which occur in fluids on Earth. Space Process- ing can provide precise control of fluid processes such as casting and crystal growth by reducing mixing. Marshall Space Flight Center i~s the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) leading center for exploring the potentialities of Space Processing. The program started with five science demonstrations on Apollo 14, 16 and 17 in convection of fluids, solidification of metals and electrophoresis separation of biological materials, which led to 14 experiments on Skylab where growth of superior crystals was first accomplished. Eleven experiments on Apollo -Soyuz re suited in corroboration of the perfection, homogeneity and large size of crystals for electronic applications. However, the most dramatic new achievement on that flight was the separation of live kidney cells into fractions by electrophoresis to isolate those cells which specialize in making the enzyme, urokinase, for medical science. PAGENO="0651" 647 2 The Space Electrophoresis Experiment was built by Marshall Space Flight Center for a group of medical scientists. It was designed to test the hardware and develop the technology of electrophoretic separation in low gravity. Electrophoresis Is the separation of particles or cells by an electric field in a fluid due to the varying surface `charge on the particles. In the experiment, live human kidney cells were separated into well-defined fractions, and this was considered to be a dramatic breakthrough. Live kidney cells were transported into space, electrophoretically separated, returned to Abbott Laboratories, a pharmaceutical `manufacturer in Chicago, where they were cultured and analyzed. At least two fractions of cells produced the enz~rme, urokinase, at a much greater rate than that of mixed kidney cells in the ground control specimens. The enzyme, urokinase, is needed to dissolve blood clots and is being developed from mixed kidney cells on' Earth by Abbott Laboratories. Analysis for other important products separated in space indicated other fractions produced erythropoietin and human granlocyte factor at a greater rate than the control specimens. Erythropoietin is a protein which stimulates bone marrow to make red blood cells, and human granulocyte factor stimulates production of white cells. This experiment not only proved that the hardware and supporting techno- logy worked; it demonstrated that kidney cells would be differentiated into biological functions by a physical' method when convection and sedimentation were eliminated, in space. This successful detuonstration of the use a space separation techni- que to obtain pure fractions of live cells is being investigated with aggressiveness to determine its applications to the field of medicine. Improved versions of live cell electrophoresis instrumentation are being built and every possible flight opportunity will be used. One consultant has studied the economic and social benefits of live cell separations and culture in space and listed some of the therapeutic products which might be produced. They range from the urokinase and erythropoietin obtained from kidney cells already mentioned to growth hormone from pituitary cells, useful in speeding regrowth of tissue In burn therapy. They include human insulin from pancreatic cells for diabetes patients who are allergic to the currently available animal insulin to Factor VIII in blood cells which is the coagulant sorely needed by 20, 000 hemophlllacs (bleeders) in this country. PAGENO="0652" 648 Among the many 8cientific payloads which provided new process data, the Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a casting experi- ment. It showed that more uniform castings can be produced in the quiet conditions in space compared to the greund, where they experience extreme turbulence due to convection. It employed the freezing of a solution of ammonium chloride to simulate solidifica- tion of a metal. Previous ground studies along this line were done by M. Flemings, aleading expert on casting at Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology. With back lighting, it is possible to take pic- tures through the transparent mold to observe the formation of dendrites as they freeze. The pictures taken on the ground show the stirring due to convection currents. The pictures taken in space show the quiescent conditions and the aligned, predictable freezing front, even at this rapid solidification rate. These pictures pro- vide dramatic evidence of the quiescent conditions in space com- pared to ground solidification. Measurements indicated that in space there was regular arm spacing of dendrites (all of which were attached to the solidification front) and no remelt of crystals. On the ground, there was a large variation in dendrite arm spacing, remelting, and microsegregation. These results support the con- clusion that precisely controlled solidification of castings and crystal growth can be accomplished in space much more readily than on the ground because of reduced convection. This experiment was a leader in dramatizing the possibilities of casting eutectics with unidirectional properties such as~high strength magnets which may lead to permanent magnet motors in electric cars and to stronger turbine blades in the engines of jet aircraft. These two applications alone could save billions of dollars per year for energy re4uirements in the 1990's. The Space Processing Applications Program at Marshall Space Flight Center can be implemented in three major areas: Supporting research and technology or the ground-based laboratory effort which has to pr~cede flight experimentation, the Space Processing Applications Rocket (SPAR) Project which provides continued flight experiment opportunities for scientists until the Shuttle becomes available, and the Shuttle /Spacelab Payloads Program which is in the planning state. The supporting research effort involves coordination with scientists from universities, industry, and other government agencies such as the National Bureau of Standards and other NASA centers, wherever PAGENO="0653" 649 the necessary expertise exists. Basic theory and comparative experiments are worked. out on the ground. Six committees of scientists representing the disciplines of fluid mechanics, surface physics, metallurgy, electronic materials, glasses and ceramics, and biological materials meet regularly to plan and review the research done and orient the work toward optimum use of flight opportunities. This program reaches out to a wide variety of com- mercial interests. \ With the completion- of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, it became necessary to proceed using the SPAR, a sounding rocket, until the Space Shuttle becomes operational in 1981. This unmanned mode uses suborbital rockets to provide approximately five minutes of low -gravity time during the coasting phase of flight. Each scienti- fic payload is recovered approximately 50 miles downrange. A parachute recovery system provides a soft landing. Each payload carries up to 10 materials science experiments. Three flights have been made from the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, carrying a total of 20 experiments; 12 more flights are planned. The Marshall Space Flight Center provides the scientific payloads, and the Goddard Space Flight Center provides the rocket systems. The SPAR Project provides the only flight opportunities to perfect apparatus a~id test theory until the Shuttle flys. The Shuttle/Spacelab Payload activity involves the establishment of future experiment apparatus requirements by scientists selected competitively, and the development of specifications, layouts, designs and operating procedures. The payload studies are closely tied to the research program. An Announcement of Opportunity is going out from NASA Headquarters this month for definitions of * experiments in Space Materials Science. The selected investigators will review the specifications for the apparatus to be procured in a contract to be negotiated later this year. The plan is to obtain maximum use of resources by sharing flight apparatus among many Investigators and using existing and reusable hardware as much as possible. First priority will go to processing of biological mate- rials by electrophoresis separation and cell culture to obtain pure products from the cells. Second priority will go to solidification of electronic and magnetic materials. PAGENO="0654" 650 The schedule for the Shuttle/Spacelab experiments project is on target. There has always been an excellent response to Space `Processing flight opportunities in the past, with many more good ideas proposed than could be accommodated. That situation should continue. The specifications for flight apparatus are prepared and the request for proposals will be ready to go to industry as soon as the actual flight experiments are known. The planned budget indicates how resources are allocated. The ground based, supporting research and technology project includes support of scientific committees and a wide variety of seed techno- logy tasks. The SPAR sounding rocket project includes the cost of scientific experiments and flight apparatus in an integrated payload and the rockets. The Shuttle Payloads Project includes studies for payload apparatus, integration, power, heat rejection and the costs of scientific flight experiments. This budget plan indicates a strong scientific effort in pioneering research to identify the advan- tages of Space Processing. It does not yet move ahead into a demonstration project for processing, although it is believed that it will be necessary for NASA to fund such a demonstration to attract industrial funding. Space industrialization is a logical next step. Manufacturing pro- ducts in space can provide a new stimulus to the economy; space can now be exploited to help solve national problems such as energy and health. Using our space technology in conjunction with the creative ingenuity of private industry will bring to bear the full potential of our nation's talents to take advantage of space. Prolonged weightlessness has been shown to produce unparalleled effects in materials. An opportunity is now available for a new dimension in American industrialization. The U. S. can retain technological leadership, stimulate economic growth, improve the balance of trade and prevent potential maz~ket domination by foreign competition in materials with the help of Space Processing Applica- tions. PAGENO="0655" 651 STATEMENT OP JOHN M. PRICE, DEPUTY MANAGER, SOLAR HEATS ING AND COOLING PROJECT OYFICE, GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE PLIGHT CENTER Dr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, we would like to turn now to the solar heating and cooling activity we are doing for ERDA and this is John Price who is our manager for that activity. Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Dr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have prepared a statement I would like to submit for the record and with your permission I will use a few illustrations to aid discussion of solar heating and cooling. Chairman FUQUA. Proceed. Mr. PRICE. Thank you. The solar heating and cooling program under the overall responsibility of the Energy Research and Development Administration is authorized by legislation entitled the Solar Heating and Cooling Act of 1974. SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING NATIONAL PLAN OVERALL GOAL * TO STIMULATE THE CREATION OF A VIABLE I NDLJSTRIAL AND COMMERC IAL CAPABILITY * TO PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS. THE Wi DESPREAD * APPLICATION OF THESE SYSTEMS CAN REDUCE THE DEMAND ON PRESENT FUEL SUPPLiES. FIGuRI~ 1 As described by figure 1, this provided the stimulus for the creation of an industrial and commercial capability in this country to produce and distribute solar heating and cooling systems for a wide variety of applications and geographic locations. By such a widespread ap- plication of these systems, a reduction of demand on fossil fuels can be realized. PAGENO="0656" 652 NATIONAL PROGRAM STRATEGY OFUNDAMENTAI. STRATEGY IS TO DEMONSTRATE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING *SOLAR HEATING BY END OF FY77 *SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING BY END OF FY79. o IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGY S MONITOR PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF SYSTEMS. *DOCUMENT PROCESSES OF DESIGN, INTEGRATION, FINANCING, OBTAINING OF PERMITS, CONSTRUCTION, MARKETING AND CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE. *PROVIDEA BASIS FOR RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN EXISTING PROCEDURES AND LEGISLATION. *DISSEMINATE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WIDELY. FIaui~E 2 As outlined by figure 2, the strategy developed for this program was to demonstrate residential and commercial heating systems by the end of fiscal year 1977 and combined heating and cooling systems by the end of fiscal year 1979. Further, to put the program into effect, the performance and operation of these systems would be monitored and a quite intensive effort undetraken to document the processes of the design and the integration of the equipment into the buildings; to establish the interface with the financial community such as the insur- ance agencies and lending agencies; to attain building permits for compliance of equipment with particular building codes throughout the country; to establish construction engineering and construction interfaces; and to gain the marketing and consumer acceptance of this equipment. By doing this it would also allow a look at the possibility of changes that might be recommended or needed to procedures and/or legislation, particularly as affects the financial community, planning agencies, or the building codes. Since this is a very public-oriented program the result of this program would be disseminated to and, hopefully, widely used by the public, industry, and Government agencies. PAGENO="0657" 653 Most of us are somewhat familiar with conventional heating and cooling equipment, but I'd like to use this illustration, figure 3, to point out Some of the features of solar heating and cooling devices. The prime area for collecting energy is the solar collectors shown here in the form of panels. A storage device is needed to store the thermal energy, and then the somewhat more conventional equipment to dis- burse the heating or the cooling in the house or building. This case uses the heat-actuated air-conditioner equipment, and the more conven- tional fans, ductwork, and pumps. This depicts a liquid system; that is, the energy transport medium is a liquid. Other variations use air as the system transport medium and are somewhat similar as far as the function of the hardware is concerned. Fzom~E 3 92-082 0 - 77 - 42 PAGENO="0658" 654 MSFC ROLE IN SUPPORT OF ERDA * DEVELOPMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEMONSTRATION *MANAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF SOLAR HEATING & COOLING SYSTEMS AND SUBSYSTEMS LEADING TO MARKETABLE PRODUCTS * COMMERCIAL DEMONSTRATION *SUPPORT THE COMMERCIAL DEMONSTRATION SITE SELECTION PROCESS * MANAGE SELECTED SITES o DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION * DEVELOP AND PROVIDE DATA ACQUISITION EQUIPMENT TO SUPPORT NATIONAL DATA PROGRAM * COLLECT. PROCESS AND EVALUATE TECHNICAL DATA FROM ALL INSTRUMENTED SITES. FIeu1~E 4 There are several agencies participating in this program with ERDA such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, GSA, DOD, and NASA, through an Interagency Agreement with ERDA. Marshall was asked to participate in the program in three pri- mary areas. I will describe these using figure 4. The development program in support of demonstration provides for Marshall to man- age the development and testing of solar heating and cooling systems and subsystems to bring these to a marketable state. The second area is Commercial Demonstration. This program was structured to. be- gin an early interface with the public and to gain early public expo- sure of solar heating and cooling equipment in the field. An annual cycle of selection of projects for demonstration is accomplished through Program Opportunity Notices. Marshall's activity and involvement support the selection process of these projects and then provide management of the projects resulting from that selection activity. The third area, supporting both of these, is the data collection and evaluation role where equipment will be developed and provided for the acquisition of the data from MSFC- developed systems in the field. It will also support the national data program and agencies involved in it. Through this effort we will col- lect the data, process it, evaluate the technical data from all these in- strumented sites and document performance and characteristics of all the equipment as we have it placed in the field. PAGENO="0659" 655 CURRENT STATUS * DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 030 FIRMS (35 CONTRACTS) ENGAGED IN DEVELOPING SYSTEMS AND SUBSYSTEMS. *DELIVERIES RECEIVED FROM II COMPANI~S * MAJOR MSFC TEST FACILITIES - 2 OF 3 OPERATIONAL ALL OPERATIONAL FEB. 1971. *TESTING BEGUN ON DELIVERED SYSTEMS & SUBSYSTEMS *OPERATIONAL TEST SITE SELECTIONS UNDERWAY *GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS SELECTED FOR 67 SYSTEMS *SPECIFIC BUILDINGS SELECTION BEGUN (7 SELECTED) Fiouss 5 To cover the current status, I will discuss each of these three areas in more detail. Figure 5 shows the development program where we are heavily involved with industry. We have about 30 firms engaged, at this time, in development of systems and subsystems. From that activity we will have 67 systems we can place in the field. Chairman FUQUA. What tYpe of systems* are you talking about? Different type collectors? Mr. PRICE. No, that is the complete system, it includes all the equip- ment necessary to heat and/or heat and cool a building or provide hot water, or combinations thereof. Mr. SMITH. John, I think we are getting a wide variety of collectors and other equipment to feed into this. Mr. PRICE. Yes; and this activity is underway. We have received de- liveries from 11 companies engaged in the prOgram, primarily col- lectors and controls for one complete system. It might be of interest to the committee to see the geographic location of these companies as depicted on figure 6. There is quite a heavy activity in the Northeast, stretching across the South to the Far West. Chairman FTJQUA. How are they selected? Did you send out an ad- vertisement in the "Commerce Business Daily ?" Mr. PRICE. Yes; we released five, requests for proposals with wide distribution. We mailed about 2,000 copies of the five RFP's. This was also advertised through the "Commerce Business Daily" an- nouncement. These were all selected through a competitive process; through nor- mal Government procurement processes. PAGENO="0660" 656 SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING PROGRAM LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTORS PRD4E CONTRACTOR MARKETARLESUBSYS - SUU$VS-AODEDDEV. S SYS.. ADDED 0EV. 0 ITS. INTEGRATION A DESIGN & 0EV. 0 6 FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7 PAGENO="0661" 657 The major test facilities we have are shown on figure 7. In the lower left is our solar house, which has been operational since early 1974 for testing and evaluating residential solar heating and cooling systems. In the upper left is the solar simulator which went into operation in October of this year. This simulator allows us to test collector panels, with disregard to weather, in a controlled environment. Our systems capability where we can test total systems is shown in the upper right. We have the capability for multiple system testing and we can do off- season testing with use of simulators. We can do air-conditioning test- ing in the winter and heating in the summer. We can evaluate some 10-12 systems per year through testing, depending on the complexity and size of the system. Regarding the operational test of the 67 systems I mentioned earlier, we plan to put these in a wide variety of geo- graphic and climatic conditions around the country and the lower right photo-depicts one of the types and sizes we would have in the program. The operational test sites are part of the development program and are shown here in figure 8. The operational test sites are shown as dots and are spread throughout a wide range of geographic and climatic regions. Particular buildings have been selected for seven of these. We plan to have 10 more selected in the next couple of weeks. Representative WINN. May I interrupt ~ Over here you showed a slide of the Home Builder's Association. You didn't use that chart. COMMERCIAL DEMONSTRATION AND OPERATIONAL TEST SITES LEGEND: o OPERATIONAL TEST SITES (61) V CVCLI 1 (~OMMERCIAL DEl/ON rO,TION SITES (32) FIGuRE 8 VIRGIN (SLANGY PAGENO="0662" 658 OFFICE BUILDING * HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION HUNTSVILLE * ALABAMA Mr. PRICE. No; I didn't but I should have. Please return the chart on screen three (figure 9). Representative WINN. The reason I asked that is because, being a former homebuilder, I'm interested in whether they work in conjunc- tion with you; are they furnishing some of their technological know- how along with some of your techniques? Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir. This is the first system being delivered for the development program. It is an air-type system and is being located in Huntsville. We are working with the Home Builders Association who did the design of the building to accept the solar system. These systems are often in public places and in many cases are open for view- ing. This is an integral roof-type collector, that is, the collectors serve as part of the roof itself. The. architectural style has been designed quite well for this building. Representative WINN. What is the basic system you are using there? Mr. PRICE. In this system air is used as the energy transport medium which flows through the collector, picking up the heat. The energy is stored, in this case, in a rock bed. The rock bed seems to be one of the most economical and efficient systems for storing the heat for hot air systems. There is no liquid in this system. Representative WINN. George Brown in California has one in his office that is very similar. Mr. PRICE. It looks very promising for office areas and small build- ings such as this.