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(Superseded by ILR. 4088)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.
<
Lii
0
z
0
0
C.)
2
Cl)
0
C.)
PAGENO="0797"
793
PAGENO="0798"
794
therefore distant, quasars than there should be if
quasars were formed at the same rate in the distant past
as they were more recently. Thus it seems that quasars
were more common in the past than they are today. This
suggests that quasars. are associated with the earliest
processes in the condensation of matter following the Big
Bang. Space Telescope will be able to study quasars. in
inaccessibl-e parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and
even more importantly, it will reveal whether quasars are
actually surrounded by a conventional galaxy like our own
galaxy of stars.
There is evidence already that explosions, perhaps "mini"
versions of a quasar, do occur in the nuclei of massive,
but otherwise ordinary, galaxies (Chart SA77-l359; Chart
SA77-l357). Often the evidence for the explosion is largely
hidden in a region of the electromagnetic spectrum that
is inaccessible from the Earth's surface. For example,
certain active galaxies emit the largest axn~ount of -
radiation in the infrared part of the spectrum. As part
of our Explorer series of satellites, we are planning to
launch IBAS (Infrared Astronomy Satellite), which will map
the sky in the infrared and wifl both better characterize
known infrared galaxies, and discover many more of these
objects. IRAS is a cooperative program with the Netherlands
and with the United Kingdom. In the X-ray part of the
spectrum, high energy processes, such as those observed
in exploding galaxies, reveal themselves directly. In
April 1977, we will launch the High Energy Astronomy
Observatory-A (HEAO-A), which will contain the largest
X~ray detectors ever flown, and a year later HEAO-B will be
launched, containing an X-ray telescope. These are
expected to increase vastly our knowledge concerning
- exploding galaxies.
Our own galaxy is a relatively massive galaxy, and it is
interesting to ask whether explosions have ~oc~urred in its
center in the past, and whether future giant explosions
can be expected. There is actually some evidence that
explosions may have occurred in the past in our galaxy.
Hydrogen gas is observed moving rapidly out from the direction
of the center of the galaxy. However, we f.ace.a special
difficulty in studying the nucleus of our own galaxy, as
there are vast clouds of gas and dust partially blocking
our view- toward the center of our galaxy. By looking out-
ward perpendicular to the plane of our galaxy, we can see
directly into the nuclei of neighboring galaxies, without
the blockage by gas and dust clouds. For example, an
important observation was made by OAO-2. This OAO was
used mostly for studying ultraviolet radiation from stars
in our own galaxy, but it was also pointed toward the
PAGENO="0799"
795
PAGENO="0800"
796
PAGENO="0801"
797
center of the Andromeda galaxy. To everyone's surprise
ultraviolet radiation was observed. This was unexpected
because the analysis from the ground of visible light
and of radio~waves had given no indication that any stars
or other objects were present there, that were hot enough
to emit ultraviolet rays. In the last few months, a far
ultraviolet photograph of the nucleus of Andromeda has
been obtained, from a Sounding Rocket, which confirms the
OAO-.2 discovery and shows that the unexpected ultraviolet
source is not star-like, but is much larger. When a far
ultraviolet camera of some kind is flown on the Space
Shuttle, we may now confidently expect much higher quality
information on the nucleus of our neighboring galaxy.
Ultraviolet radiation from our own galactic center would
not reach us, as it would be absorbed by the gas and dust
of our own galaxy, but infrared radiation penetrates
comparatively easily through the gas and dust. NASA's
Kuiper Airborne Observatory has recently enabled astronomers
to observe our galactic nucleus with unprecedented spatial
resolution, positional accuracy, and spectral coverage.
The galactic center is surrounded by a ring of molecular
clouds, and the airborne observations studied a number of
far infrared sources within that ring associated with
intense star formation. These infrared observations
afforded the best opportunity, thus far, to distinguish
the far infrared source associated with the true dynamical
center of the galaxy from those surrounding sources--some of
which have comparable infrared luminosities.
Quasars and exploding galaxies provide us with information
on the formation of galaxies. But there are larger
structures in the universe than galaxies, namely clusters
of galaxies, and we have recently obtained exciting new
information concerning these large groups of galaxies.
Our own galaxy is a member of a small cluster of galaxies
(Chart SA77-l194) but much larger clusters of galaxies can
be observed. It has been known for some years that very
large clusters of galaxies are strong X-ray sources, but
opinion has been divided as tb the source of the X-rays.
A group at the Goddard Space Flight Center has now made
an observation from the Orbiting Solar Observatory-8 (OSO..8)
satellite which unequivocally establishes that the X-rays
are coming from hot gas between the galaxies of the cluster,
a region of space that had, until quite recently, been
regarded as an essentially perfect vacuum. The amount of
gas involved is of the same order as the amount of matter in
the galaxies themselves. The temperature of the gas is
about 80 million degrees. Furthermore, the Goddard discovery
was specifically of iron-line X-ray emission from the gas.
We have mentioned that only hydrogen, helium, and deuterium
were manufactured in the Big Bang, so the presence of an
92-082 0 - 77 - 51
PAGENO="0802"
798
PAGENO="0803"
799
iron component in the gas in the clusters of galaxies
shows that the gas is material that ha~ been processed
in the interior of stars, or elsewhere. The HEAO X-ray
satellites will provide large quantities of information
on the X-ray emission from clusters of galaxies, aiding
our understanding of what is going on there.
The stage in our discussion is now set for the crucial,
and as-yet-unanswered question, where and when were the
heavy elements formed? We know that nuclear cooking
goes on in the interior of stars. The energy source
for the Sun is the conversion of hydrogen into helium
by way of nuclear reactions. In recent years an attempt
has been made to detect neutrino eirrission from the interior
of the Sun, with the startling result that the neutrinos
are not observed. Our knowledge of stellar energy
sources appears to be sound. One possible explanation is
that the nuclear sources in the solar interior turn on
and of f in some cycle. If so, this will affect the nuclear
cooking process. The effects on the solar visible-light
luminosity are not well known, but it is conceivable that
we have here a contribution to the origin of the periodic
ice ages. This is speculation, but it is clearly a subject
of great interest and potential importance. The point
is, that the Sun as an object, and stars as other examples
of "nuclear cookers," are important subjects for our
intensive study, so that we can understand our environment,
our origin, and what may be our fate.
We have observed the Sun, in the scientific senSe of the
word, for only a few hundred years, and intensively for
only a few decades, The lifetime of the Sun is believed
to be of the order of ten billion years, so a search
for evolutionary trends in the Sun is quite hopeless. In
order to study stellar evolution from an observational
standpoint, we adopt a two-pronged attack: exceptionally
intensive study of the Sun as the closest example of a
star, one which can be studied in far more detail than
any other star, plus less intensive but still penetrating
study of large numbers of much younger and much older stars
in our galaxy and in neighboring galaxies, By comparing
the Sun with these other stars, we gain a better understanding
of stellar evolution in general, and of the condition of our
Sun in particular.
In the course of work done so far, we have gained a moderate
degree of insight into the history of a typical star.
Ground-.based optical astronomy has been responsible for most
of this work, with radio astronomy and space astronomy
PAGENO="0804"
800
playing a strongly increasing role in the last decade.
From the mid-sixties to the present, sounding rockets
have provided essential new information on the hottest
stars, which radiate predominantly in the far ultra-
violet part of the spectrum. These very hot stars are
extremely luminous, and as a result they use up their
supply of hydrogen fuel in a short period of time,
astronomically speaking. From this we deduce that the hot
stars we see, in order to still be around, must be young~-
typically ten to one hundred million years old, compared
with the five billion year age of our own Sun. Therefore,
star formation must have been occurring very recently,
and in fact presumably is occurring at present, in our
galaxy. There are certain regions in our galaxy where
we believe star formation is now occurring (Chart SA77-l200)
because of the presence of large numbers of hot (and
therefore young) stars, and also because of the presence
of the giant clouds of interstellar gas and dust from
which these stars are presumably forming. Space astronomy
will provide unique insights into the star formation
process~ This is because the regions of
actual current star formation are deeply shrouded in the
very cloud of gas and dust from which the stars are
formed, and as a result the visible outer surface of the
region of star formation is at a temperature so low that
only infrared radiation is emitted (Chart SA 77-1361).
Some extremely valuable work on this is being done from the
ground, under our supporting research programs. The
Earth's atmosphere transmits some infrared radiation, and
a few likely proto-stars have been identified. The launch
of IRAS in 1981 will provide a wealth of new data in this
area. In a typical leap-frog type of effort, supporting
research funding will then continue using the IRAS data to
select exceptionally important objects for more intensive
study from balloons and from the Space Shuttle. The
Shuttle Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) is being
studied as a major mode of infrared research from space.
Because of its cryogenic cooling and its pointing ability,
SIRTF could provide the capability of spectroscopy of
objects a thousand times fainter than can now be observed.
I have pointed out that hot luminous young stars, which
radiate overwhelmingly in the far ultraviolet, have been
studied since the mid-sixties using sounding rockets.
This rocket program continues as an important supplement
to the satellites which have been launched to tackle the
subject more extensively. The OAO-2 satellite garnered
low-resolution spectroscopic data for a large number of
PAGENO="0805"
801
PAGENO="0806"
802
PAGENO="0807"
803
stars, and also provided unique information on the
nature of the interstellar dust, which acts to absorb
starlight. The final OAO, Copernicus, has proved to
be a huge success, providing high resolution spectroscopy
on bright stars and also mapping the distribution of
molecular hydrogen in our galaxy. A unique feature of
the Copernicus scientific program has been the massive
involvement of guest investigators. Scientists, from
all parts of the country, including many younger scientists,
have obtained observing time on Copernicus and have used
it with great ingenuity, strongly supplementing the work
of the original science team. Thus, the scientific payoff
of our investment has been very substantially increased.
We intend to place much greater emphasis on guest observer
programs in the future than we have in the past. In
particular, in 1977 we will launch the International
Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) as part of our continuing
Explorer Program. IUE will be in synchronous orbit, and
will operate very much like a ground-based observatory.
Guest observers will arrive at GSFC; they then will specify
the coordinates of their star of interest, and the telescope
in space will swing around toward it. The data will be
read out, and the observer is ready to begin analysis.
IUE will complement Copernicus, which continues to operate
(with, in fact, enhanced capability), in a very satisfying
way. Copernicus contains a scanning spectrometer, which
covers two important spectral wavelength regions with very
high resolution. One of these spectral regions will not
be accessible *to IUE or even to Space Telescope, so it is
critical to keep Copernicus operating as long as possible.
IUE will cover an important spectral region which is not
covered by Copernicus at all, and will also cover the second
spectral region that is already covered by Copernicus,
but with lower resolution. Nonetheless, this is not
duplication, because Copernicus scans slowly, and as a
±esult, it is inefficient for Copernicus to search at
random for lines in the spectrum of the star--you must
know what you are looking for. IUE, on the other hand,
will, using more advanced technology (SEC vidicon), record
all wavelengths simultaneously. Unexpected spectral lines
disco~ered with IUE may then be studied at high resolution
with Copernicus. IUE is expected to provide preliminary
information, on a host of stars, that will be exceptionally
useful in directing the attention of Space Telescope to
interesting problems, when Space Telescope becomes available.
I have outlined how we have constructed a coherent, staged
program of ultraviolet and optical investigation of hot
stars. These telescopes, above all Space Telescope, will
extend our understanding of star formation.in a striking
manner. The studie? will by no means be confined to the
hot, ultravjolet emitting stars: cooler, more slowly
PAGENO="0808"
804
evolving stars, which on the average are much older and
thus more like the Sun are also rich sources of information
on stellar evolution in general, and heavy element
formation in particular.
The hot stars, having a comparatively short lifetime,
provide us with examples of dying stars. The manner of
their death is of interest, as are the remains. When a
hot star uses up its available hydrogen, it begins to burn
helium. A very rapid complex series of evolutionary
changes occurs which modifies the star, for a time, into
a huge (as large as the orbit of the Earth) cool, red star
(Chart 5A77-1l99): the hidden inner part remains hot and
blue, and in fact contracts and gets hotter still. When
the helium fuel is exhausted, heavier elements may be
formed: this is the only way we know to make the carbon,
nitrogen, and oxygen of which our bodies are composed. But
these heavy elements are formed deep in the interior of the
evolving star, and if they are eventually to become available
for the formation of new planetary systems, they must
get out of the star.
Depending on the mass of our evolving star, several things
may happen. For lower mass stars, the `last days" are
comparatively quiet--the huge red, cool outer atmosphere
slowly blows off, revealing to our view the extremely hot
inner-core part of the star (Chart SA77-ll92). The star,
with its expanding envelope, is called a planetary nebula
because~.of its superficial resemblance to a planet when
viewed through a telescope. Recently, we have used sounding
rockets to obtain the first information on the ultraviolet
emission of the central stars of planetary nebulae. These
hot cores of dyingstars are at so high a temperature that
they emit the great majority of their light in the far
ultraviolet, and thus ultraviolet studies are essential
in understanding their nature. The sounding rocket data
are fragmentary, but again they have shown the way--
instruments similar to these used on sounding rocket will
very likely be flown on Spacelab, and will begin to reveal the
details. The full exploitation of the potential for new
knowledge contained in this work will only occur when
Space Telescope is trained on these stars. In a real
sense, Space Telescope will allow us to look "inside a star."
High-mass hot stars do not die in this quiet manner. Instead,
they explode as a so-called supernova. One of the many
brilliant legacies to mankind of China's civilization is
the recording, in the Year 1054, of the position of the
bright new star which shone for a few months of that year
in what we call the constellation of Taurus. When, much
later, telescopes were pointed toward this position, a
nebula was found. It was named the Crab (Chart SA77-l361),
PAGENO="0809"
805
PAGENO="0810"
806
PAGENO="0811"
807
PAGENO="0812"
808
and Professor G. Burbidge has suggested that perhaps
half of everything we know about astrophysics has been -
learned by studying the Crab nebula.
- It was only slowly that the Crab revealed its remarkable
character. It was discovered to be a strong source of
radio waves, and then to be a strong source of cosmic X-rays.
Clearly, something remarkable was going on here. Then in
1968, pulsars were discovered, and it was quickly found
that the Crab contains a unique pulsar--the fastest pulsing
source discovered to this day, and the only one that pulses
in visible light and in X-rays, in addition to the radio
wave pulsing common to all pulsars (Chart SA77-l361). A
pulsar, we are quite confident, is a rotating neutron
star, which is formed from the collapsed core of an ordinary
star. In a neutron star, the intense gravitational force
has pushed the electrons into the protons, lea~ing only
neutrons. The electrons are responsible for the observable
structure of matter as we normally perceive it--when they
are gone, we are dealing with matter in a form that is
totally alien to human experience. In particular, the
density of a neutron star is inconceivably higher. than that
of "normal" matter.
Thus, in the center of the Crab nebula we have found a star
that is about as massive as the Sun, yet which is no
larger than the City of Washington, and turns on and off
completely thirty times per second. A neutron star such
as this one in the Crab, and the other pulsars that have
been observed, is'one possible end point for stellar
evolution.
It may well be that in the course of a supernova explosion,
at least part of the heavy elements that have been manu-
factured in the deep interiors of the hotter stars are
blown out into the interstellar medium where they are then
available for formation of new stars, stars with planetary
systems (Charts SA77-l358, SA77-ll96)
Other even more massive hot stars may not form a neutron
star when they form a supernova. Instead, they may
completely explode with no core left behind, which would
certainly enrich the interstellar medium with heavy elements,
or they may explode in such a way that their core collapses
even more completely than the collapse which creates a
neutron star. This more complete collapse is, of course,
a so-called black hole (Chart SA77-ll97). On previous
occasions, I have explained to you that our high energy
astronomy program has led to the identification of the
celestial X-ray source Cygnus X-l as a likely candidate
for being a black hole. One of the most important tasks
of thefiEAO observatories is the testing of this idea
PAGENO="0813"
809
PAGENO="0814"
810
PAGENO="0815"
811
PAGENO="0816"
812
by studying the time structure of the X-ray emission
from this object. For a non-periodic X-ray source such
as Cygnus X-l, only a hugh collecting area such as that
carried on ~HEAO-A can do the job. -
In my discussion of ultraviolet astronomy, I emphasized
the orderly development that has occurred in the field.
Sounding rockets obtain the initial science results and
continue to be used to develop the technology; inter-
mediate sized spacecraft provide .a broad perspective on the
scientific value of the field, and then finally a permanent
observatory, in the case of ultraviolet astronomy the
Space Telescope, is proposed. Other branches of astronomy
are currently at different stages of this orderly development.
The HEAO satellites will play the same role in X-ray
astronomy that the OAO's have played in ultraviolet astronomy.
For energies still higher than X-rays, the subject is still
in a rather primitive state--gamma-ray astronomy is in
its infancy. The Small Astronomy Satellite SAS-S, has
produced the first really satisfying glimpse of the gamma-
ray sky, and it is already clear that unique information
will be obtained by the study of this spectral band.
HEAO-C will contain gamma-ray detectors, and we have tenta-
tively decided that the follow-on program in High Energy
Astrophysics should initially concentrate on this area.
HEAO-C also contains detectors for cosmic rays, and I
would now like to fit cosmic rays into the general picture
I have been describing.
Unlike every other branch of astronomy, cosmic ray astronomy
does not deal with electromagnetic radiation. X-rays,
gamma-rays, .radio waves, visible light, and microwaves are
all examples of electromagnetic radiation, differing only
in their color. Cosmic rays, on the other hand, are actual
particles of matter, moving extremely close to the velocity
of light. They are composed of hydrogen, helium, and
heavy element nuclei, and their origin is obscure. How
could matter be accelerated up to such enormous velocities?
Part of the answer, at least, may lie in the supernova,
and in the neutron stars that are their remnant. The
supernova explosion intself is extremely violent, and
could generate relatively low energy cosmic rays. The
neutron star, in the course of its rotation, sweeps up
particles with its magnetic field and accelerates, them.
Many of these ideas will be tested during the HEAO-C
mission. .
The cosmic rays contain heavy nuclei, and we have seen
that heavy nuclei, cooked in the interior of stars, may
escape through supernova explosions to enrich the interstellar
medium. The interstellar medium itself is clearly an
PAGENO="0817"
813
important subject of study. The Space Telescope will
have a big impact here, because it will allow much more
detailed study of interstellar matter, in other galaxies
(Chart SA76-4290). Just as we learn about the Sun by
studying other stars, so we learn & great deal about our
own galaxy by studying other galaxies.
I have outlined in~ a compact way what we know about the
generation of the elements of which we in this room are
composed. Let me continue my discussion of the Physics
and Astronomy Program by pointing out evidence that indicates
that this story which I have sketched may be fundamentally
wrong, and that a mystery may exist near the beginning of
the universe that can be tackled only by using Space
Telescope.
The evidence consists of the existence and nature of
so~-called globular clusters of stars. Our galaxy is a
rotation disk containing about 100 billion stars, but
is surrounded by a spherical assembly of spherical clusters
of. stars called globular star clusters (Chart SA77-1360).
Many of these star clusters are made up of stars cOntaining
almost no heavy elements--they appear to be made of almost
purely primordial, uncooked material: just the hydrogen,
deuterium, and helium manufactured in the Big Bang. We
have firm evidence that the globular clusters are extremely
old, and in fact predate the formation of the galactic disk.
In cont~ast; the stars of our galactic disk all seem to
contain about the same amount of the heavier elements as
does the Sun. There is little or no evidence for pro~
gressive enric~unent of the material from which stars are
formed.
It is unquestionably true that heavy elements are formed in
the interior of stars, but the fact that succeeding
generations of stars do not seem to be progressively
enriched in heavy elements suggests that the heavy elements
generally do not succeed in getting out in supernova
explosions. Yrthey did, a systematic enrichment of the
heavy-element content of stars with time would be observed.
If the heavy elements we observe in interstellar spaceS
and in this room did not escape from the interior of stars,
where did they come from? The answer may lie in the
quasars, or in still earlier events in the history of'the
universe. Heavy elements cannot be manufactured in the
massive Big Bang that began the universe, but they could
be manufactured in smaller, slower, "bangs" that may be
the quasars. The only source that we know of, that could
account for the incredible energy of the quasars is
gravitational energy; a gravitational collapse. This is
perhaps what is occurring at the heart of a quasar:
92-082 0 - 77 - 52
PAGENO="0818"
814
PAGENO="0819"
815
PAGENO="0820"
816
formation of a gigantic supernova-type object, with
massive processing of hydrogen and helium into heavier -
elements, and ejection of these heavy~elements into
space. This is purely speculation, and ~ describe it
only because I want to emphasize that the Space Tele-
scope is not just going to refine our picture of a well
understood universe, but rather will potentially
revolutionize our understanding of the generation of the
very matter of which your bodies are composed. I
started by suggesting that the atoms of your body probably
at one time were in the deep interior of a star; now I
am suggesting that it is possible that you yourself at
one time were expelled from the interior of a quasar.
If this picture turns out to be correct, it means that
general relativity must become better understood, for that
describes the geometry of space in the region of a
collapsing object, and it also characterizes gr~vitation, the
source of the incredible energy of the quasars. In order
to pursue this goal, we have launched Gravity Probe-A
(Chart SA76-41'83), which has shown to much higher precision
than was previously possible, that Einstein's version' of
General Relativity correctly characterized the weak gravi-
tational field of the Earth. We really want to understand
the strpng gravitational field of black holes arid quasars,
but sending a probe there is, of course, out of th~ question.
We are s.tuck with the weak gravitational fields of the
solar system, if we insist on performing active experiments,
which are far and away the best kind. We can overcome
our handicap of only having weak gravitational fields
available, by developing exquisitely sensitive detecting
devices. The gravitational field is weak, but if our
detectors are sufficiently sensitive they can measure
the detailed structur? of the field. A principal detector
in the case of general relativity is a clock, and Gravity
Probe-A carried an e~ctremely accurate hydrogen maser clock.
This piôture which I have painted of our Astrophysics,
Program reveals that it is a program of basic fundamental
scientific research. We should not, however, lose sight
of the fact that basic research is the forerunner of
practical applicatiOn. `Throughout man's history, astronomy
has been the precursor of technology; science has been
the origin of applications. Because astronomy is so
basic, the connection with later applications is usually
not direct. Rather, astronomical studies have laid the
whole broad scientific/technical basis for our modern
civilization. The development of mathematics is intimately
tied in with efforts to understand planetary motions. The
development of physics began with gravitation, and astronomy
PAGENO="0821"
817
PAGENO="0822"
818
was at the heart of that discovery. Mathematics and
physics together are at the core of the whole of our
technology. Chemistry has also benefited from astronomy:
the element lielium was discovered through astronomy.
Because astronomy is so basic, it is impossible to predict
what benefits will flow from future astronomical discoveries.
There is no doubt, however, that astronomy will maintain
its role as a fundamental driver of our technological
civilization. This is because the objects currently
being discovered in space, which I have described to you
are so fantastic in their character. We may be seeing
totally new aspects of nature, and eventually we will turn
these aspects to our advantage: we always do! There was
a time not much more than a century ago, I remind you,
when "electricity" involved no applications and no technology.
Electricity was completely useless. It was "just" pure
research. It would be irr~esponsible of me to suggest
that there is any conceivable way for man to tap the vast
energies associated with black holes. I mean instead
that as our understanding of the underlying nature of the
universe grows, we will find new ways to cope with our
growing need for energy, and astronomical research will have
played its underlying role. Nuclear energy came from
laboratory physics research, not from astronomy. But if you
look into the background, you find an early realization,
from astronomy and geology, that some new unexpected
energy source must exist. In potentially the same way,
astronomy ha~s,TFEreCeflt years, fundamentally modified
our perception of gravitation. Unitl a relatively few
years ago, gravitation was discounted as an energy source
in astrophysics just because it is intrinsically the
weakest of the forces of nature. But now astronomy has
revealed that in fact, because of unappreciated circum-
stances, perhaps most of the energy released in the universe
is gravitational energy! This will not fill any gas tanks,
but believe me, the time will come when it will have its
effect.. I can't predict when or how, but the track record
is clear: science leads to technology.
This concludes my rationale for the aggressive Astrophysics
research program which we are conducting. I turn now to a
more specific discussion of some of our programs.
SPACE TELESCOPE
Space Telescope (ST) is the basic tool needed to continue
our progress in optical and ultraviolet astronomy. Unlike
previous missions, ST will be open ended, with partial
refurbishment possible from the Space Shuttle, and complete
refurbishment possible by returning ST temporarily to the
Earth's surface by Shuttle. Like most ground-based
PAGENO="0823"
819
telescopes, ST. has been 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 ST to be used effectively as a
national facility. The ST has the strong backing of the
scientific community, and was given the highest priority,
by the Spac,e Science Board, of the National Academy of
Sciences, over all other space astronomy projects. It
was reviewed and recommended by the Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Astronomy.
NASA has for the past several years been developing he
technological and operational capabilities which are needed
to place such a telescope into Earth orbit and to utilize
it effectively. These technology advances have occurred
as a natural result of other orbiting astronomical
satellite programs such as Orbiting Astronomical Observa-
tory (OAO), Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO), and Apollo
Telescope Mount (ATM), as well as through supporting
research and technology activities. -
Space Telescope has undergone an extensive evolution since
its inception. Some early studies considered free-flyer
satellites of 1.5 meters aperture with limited lifetime,
while others considered a 3-meter system which was man-tended.
With the advent of the Space Shuttle as the primary
transportation system for the remainder of this century,
the concepts and designs for the Space Telescope quickly
converged. It was clear that the space observatory should
be operated from the ground, but that man in orbit was
required for the key functions of launch, maintenance,
repair, and recovery. The selection of an appropriate
aperture started with the 3.0 meter concept pi~oposed by
the National Academy of Sciences, but was modified after
- the definition studies were initiated. During the Fiscal
Year 1975 Congressional hearings, NASA was requested to.
look at lower-cost options, and to investigate the
possibilities of international particip'ation. Trade-off
studies were performed and a decision was made in May
1975 to reduce the aperture to 2.4 meters diameter.
A significant achievement in planning for the ST project
was the completion in March 1976, of the formal Phase B
definition studies. Two optical firms, ITEK and Perkin-
Elmer, and three aerospace firms, Boeing Aerbspace Company,
Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc., and Martin-
Marietta Corporation with their associated subcontractors
completed studies of the Optical Telescope Assembly (OTA),
the *Support Systems Module (SSM) and candidate Scientific
Instruments (SI). Trade-off studies were made to define
low cost options which would still permit the minimum
PAGENO="0824"
820
scientific requirements to be met. The final reports,
made available to NASA in May 1976, describe a 2.4
meter diameter telescope (Chart SA77-l464A ) which
both NASA and the astronomical community agree will
provide the Nation with an astronomical facility in space
that cannot be equaled, or even approached, by ground-
based observatories. During this definition period,
some seven candidate instruments which are consistent w~ith
the primary objectives of the Space Telescope have been
defined. The selected instruments will be arranged at
the focal plane of the telescope as shown in Chart (SA77-l503).
Detector development activity is currently underway to ensure
that detectors capable of providing the required data
are available for incorporation into the focal plane
instrumentation proposals. Also, we are completing a
number of technology tasks in preparation for the development
phase in areas such as fine guidance, stray light suppression,
precision optics, and dimensionally stable structures,
which were undertaken to minimize the technical and cost
risks. Meanwhile, the Phase B definition contractors
have kept their key personnel active on ST to maintain
a readiness to respond to a request for proposals.
Through the studies outlined above, the ST has reached an
advanced state of design. On January 28, 1977, we released
requests for proposals covering the optical telescope
assembly and the support systems module and we plan to make
contractor selections the summer. Contingent upon Congres-
sional approval and funding for the project, we will award
contracts at the beginning of FY 1978. Also we plan to
release the Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to the scien-
tific community in~ February 1977 to solicit proposals for
the scientific instruments to be flown-on the first flight.
ST will differ from all automated satellites produced to
date in that it is designed to permit in-orbit mainte-
nance and replacement of instruments by a space-suited
astronaut (Chart SA77-1501) and to be retrievable by
the Space Shuttle for return to Earth for refurbishment
and subsequent re-launch. Therefore, after launch in the
last quarter of 1983, ST will serve as an astronomical
observatory in space for more than a decade, taking on
many aspects associated with ground-based observatories.
Interest by the European Space Agency (ESA) in the Space
Telescope Project has led to a proposal from that Agency
to participate in the project by furnishing both flight
hardware and operational personnel. Such ESA contri-
butions will be in return for proportional guaranteed
PAGENO="0825"
821
PAGENO="0826"
822
PAGENO="0827"
823
PAGENO="0828"
824
observing time on the Telescope for European scientists.
Many of the world's most brilliant astronomers are
Europeans, so this observing time will be~used very
well. The wording of a Memorandum of Understanding
between NASA and ESA is being negotiated covering ESA
participation through initial contributions of one of
the science instruments, the Faint Object Camera; the
solar array which will provide power for the Telescope;
and a number of personnel who will be involved in the
science operations of the Telescope. The ESA Science
Planning Council, on October 5, 1976, unanimously
approved ESA participation in the Project.
The Space Telescope Project includes the design, develop-
ment, production, integration, launch, orbital verif i-
cation, and preparation for mis.sion operations of an
automated astronomical observatory.
EXPLORERS
While Calendar Year 1976 did not include an Explorer
launch, previously launched Explorer missions continued
to be extremely productive (Chart SA77-1542 ). In the
Astrophysics area, SAS-C launched in May 1975, Radio
Astronomy Explorer-B (RAE-B) launched in June 1973, and
Ariel-5 (a cooperative program with the United Kingdom)
launched in October 1974, have worked well and continue
to yield extremely valuable scientific data. In particu-
lar, SAS-C and Ariel-5 have maintained a major effort
in investigations~of explosive celestial X-ray sources
that have been names "bursters." /
In support of Solar Terrestrial Science, the Interplanetary
Monitoring Platforms-H & J (IMP-H & J) launched in 1972
and 1973, and Atmospheric Explorers-C and E (AE-C and E)
launched in 1973 and 1975, and Hawkeye I launched in -
June 1974, continue to produce. data on the Earth's
magnetosphere, thermosphere and auroral zones.
Work is progressing well on the following Explorer missions
(Chart SA77-1543 ): the International Ultra-
violet Explorer (IUE) (a joint project supported by NASA,
UK, and ESA), the International Sun-Earth Explorers (ISEE)
(a joint NASA, ESA project), and San Marco-D (a joint
NASA, Italian, West German Project).
IUE is scheduled for launch by a Delta vehicle in late
1977. This satellite will significantly extend the
work in UV spectroscopy started with the OAO's. In
particular, high resolution spectra will be obtained of a
large number of objects in the important wavelength range
1400-3000 ~. The sensitivity of IUE is greater in this
wavelength range, thus allowing observations of fainter
PAGENO="0829"
825
PAGENO="0830"
826
PAGENO="0831"
827
objects. The flight spacecraft is now completely ir~te-
grated with the exception of the flight Inertial Reference
Assembly Gyro Package and the flight scientific
instrument. The total Attitude Control System perfor-
mance has been demonstrated using a qualification gyro
unit. The combination of the flight spacecraft and the
engineering model scientific instrument has demonstrated
a 1.0 arc second stability for 30 minutes, which is well
within specification. Difficulties experienced in the
development of the spectrographic camera system have
resulted in late delivery of these cameras by the UK and
have as a result delayed the delivery of the flight
scientific instrument. One of four flight cameras has
been delivered. This camera and the qualification unit
camera have been integrated and used to successfully
demonstrate telescope and spectrographic performance
and scientific software processing. Electrical integration
of the flight scientific instrument with the flight
snacecraft commenced late in January 1977. Final
integration will be accomplished by the end of March, and
the environmental test program completed by mid-1977.
Launch is scheduled in the Fall of 1977.
The ISEE program consists of three spacecraft, ISEE-A & C,
provided by NASA, and ISEE-B, provided by ESA. ISEE-A & B
will be Delta-launched together in October 1977 into a
highly elliptical Earth orbit separated by a controlled
distance, while ISEE-C will be launched less than a year
later into a heliocentric orbit stationed near a
Lagrangian Point of the Earth and the Sun. Work continues
on the integration of the A & B experiments, which
are designed~ to advance our knowledge of the magnetosphere,
interplanetary space, and the interactions between them.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. and
1tal~r was recently signed, establishing the San Marco-D
Program. The program consists of two spacecraft, both
provided by Italy, to be launched by two Scout vehicles,
provided by the U.S., with scientific instrumentation
provided by the U.S., Italy, and West Germany. The San
Marco-D Program is designed to continue the cooperative
investigation into the dynamics and characteristics of
the Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere.
Final arrangements are in progress to support the initiation
of the execution phase activities of the Infrared Astronomy
Satellite (IRAS) in FY 1977. IRAS is a cooperative program
with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom designed to
provide an orbiting international IR telescope facility.
The U.S. will provide the telescope and science detectors,
the Netherlands will provide the spacecraft, and the
United Kingdom will provide tracking station support. The
request for proposal (RFP) for the telescope was released
PAGENO="0832"
828
in December 1976. Contract award for development and
fabrication is planned for mid-1977.
We are in the process of restructuring the Electrodynamics
Explorer (EE) study in order to reduce the projected cost.
The restructured mission will now be referred to as the
Dynamics Explorer Program and should be ready to proceed
into the execution phase in the last half of FY 1977.
In support of our future Explorer Program, definition
Studies are being conducted for a number of missions based
on proposals received in response to a 1974 Announcement
of Opportunity. These potential missions will be
prthritized in early 1977, and preliminary design studies
of a selected few will be initiated later in 1977.
HIGH ENERGY ASTRONOMY OBSERVATORIES (HEAO's)
(Chart SG 75-15387) Activities in the HEAO Program in Fiscal
Year 1976 centered on preparation of flight hardware -for
HEAO-A. Also preliminary design of HEAO-B experiments
and spacecraft were reviewed, and detailed design initiated.
Flight hardware contracts for HEAO-C were awarded in
October 1976, and a Memorandum of Understanding with'
the French Government was concluded for the provisio~i of
a cosmic ray experiment on HEAO-C.
The HEAO-A mission, which will be launched from the
Eastern Test Range in April 1977 (Chart SA 77-1560
has as its primary objective a complete survey of the
celestial sphere in X-rays. Four experiments are to
be carried on HEAO-A (Chart SA 77-1548 ), The
coordinated data return from these experiments will enable
scientists to develop a detailed map of the sky in X-rays
and to plot the location of sources to within ten arc
seconds. This location precision will allow Space
Telescope to view these objects. The spacecraft, which is
being built for NASA under contract with TRW, Inc.,
carries all supporting subsystems to enable data retrieval
by the experiments. These subsystems include power,
telemetry, and stabilization. A minimum cost system
was desired. This has been accomplished in the case of
the spacecraft by using previously qualified and flight
tested subsystems (Chart SG 74-3135 ). Examples
of this policy include use of the OSO tape recorder,
Pioneer reaction control jets, previously developed
antennas, and OAO batteries. In fact, approximately
80 percent of the HEAO subsystem design is based on
designs which previously existed. -
Delivery of the experiments started on April 15, 1976,
and was completed by the first week in May. This schedule
PAGENO="0833"
0
IRIEAC
HIGH ENERGY
ASTRONOMY OBSERVATORY
HEAO-C
1919
HEAO-B
1978
HEAO-A
1917
NASA HQ SG75-15387 (1)
12-18-74
PAGENO="0834"
830
PAGENO="0835"
831
PAGENO="0836"
A-4
HARD X-RAY AND
LOW ENERGY GAMMA
RAY EXPERIMENT
(PETERSON/LEWIN)
HEAO-A EXPERIMENTS
A-2
COSMIC X-RAY
(BOLDT/GARMIRE)
STAR TRACKERS
A-i
A-3
SCANNING
MODULATION
COLLIMATOR
(GURSKY/BRADT)
NASA HO 5A771548 (1)
1-25-77
PAGENO="0837"
833
for delivery had been established almost three years
prior to the April date, and was suöcessfully met.
InIegration of the experiments into the experiment
module began shortly after delivery and was completed
by June 1976, at which time the experiment module was
mated to the spacecraft module. A series of pre-environ~
mental checkouts which have demonstrated the electrical
integrityof the. system were successfully completed.
In Octàber, environment checkout began when the observatory
was subjected to acoustic testing. This was followed
by shock and vibration tests. Only minor anomalies
*were discovered and they have been corrected. The
observatory has successfully completed thermal vacuum
testing.
One significant anomaly has occurred during subsequent
testing. The failure of a capacitor in one of the two
flight transponders resulted in a failure investigation
which has determined that the possibility exists that
ether capacitors of this type may have an incipient
failure mode which could occur with thermal cycling. As
a result, all capacitors of this type are being replaced
in the HEAO-A flight transponders, and a test program is
underway to determine the probability of such a failure
occurring. The schedule for this rework is extremely
tight and every effort is being made to support the
existing schedule. Subsequent effort will center around
final installation of flight thermal blankets and correction
of any deficiencies in either the spacecraft or the
experiments that might be found in thermal vacuum testing.
Shipment to the Eastern Test Range will occur at the
beginning of March 1977. The observatory will then be
mated to an Atlas Centaur launch vehicle. Checkout of the
world~wide Spacef light Tracking and Data Network (STDN)
Ground Network will occur during this time period, so by
the beginning of April 1977 all systems should be ready
for launch about April 15, 1977.
In Fiscal Year 1976, the i~EAO-B mission began detailed design
and flight hardware fabrication. Major technical problems with
the experiment developed (?~rnerican Science and Engineering
(AS&E)), which caused some delay in the acc~mplisIiment
of previously scheduled eventS. However, by April 1976,
a new baseline schedule had been agreed upon between the
NASA and AS&E. ThiS schedule maintains a June 1978 launch.
The critical design review for the HEAO-~B experiment was held
in April 1976, and the critical design review for the
spacecraft will be completed in March 1977. Delivery of
major hardware items to AS&E has begun, including the
optical bench, the solid state spectrometer (prepared
by the Goddard Space Flight Center), and the focal plane
crystal spectrometer prepared by the Massachusetts
PAGENO="0838"
834
Institute of Technology. The complement of HEAO-B
experiments (Chart SA 77-1450 ) was integrated into
the focal plane. transport assembly and the optical bench
beginning in December 1976.
The grazing incidence X-ray telescope which consists of
an eight element nested array has been prepared by the
Perkin-Elmer Corporation' for delivery to AS&E. These
elements have been ground, polished, coated, and assembled,
prior to final assembly and installation in the optical
bench (Chart SA 77-1561 ). Integration' of all elements
of the HEAO-B telescope is being accomplished at AS&E.
Integration began in December 1976, and will be completed
April 1977 (at which time the payload will move to the
Marshall Space Flight Center for test and calibration).
Test and calibration will occur at Marshall in a facility
which was built especially for this purpose. This facility
consists of an X-ray source chamber 1,000 feet away from
a thern~a1 vacuUm chamber which will contain the entire
experiment. Between the chambers is a, thousand feet of
stainless steel pipe which will be evacuated prior to
test. The purpose of the very long tube is to allow
X-rays from the source to travel down the tube in approxi-
mately parallel lines, thus simulating radiation from
a nearly infir4te distance; that is, simulating a true
celestial X-ray source.
Calibration is due to be completed during July 1977, with
shipment of the unit to TRW on August 1, 1977, for
observatory integration and final checkout. Launch of
HEAO-B is scheduled for June 1978.
The third BEAO (HEAO-C) will carry a complement of three
experiments designed to measure medium-energy gamma rays
and particulate matter of the cosmic-ray flux. One of
the cosmic ray experiments is being produced by the
French Government, in association with the Danish Research
Institute of Science. The entire experiment complement
is shown in Chart SA 77-1451 . Preliminary design
reviews for these experiments have been completed and the
experiments are now being designed in final form. This
design will' be completed during FY l977~ and production
of major hardware elements will begin at that time.
SUBORBITAL FLIGR~ `
The SoundIng Rocket, Balloon and Aircraft Programs continue
to provide a broad-based support for all scientific
discipline areas.
PAGENO="0839"
HEAOB EXPERIMENTS
BROAD I
NASA HQ 5A77*1450 (1)
119.77
PAGENO="0840"
836
PAGENO="0841"
HAOI-2$o
HEAO-C EXPERIMENTS
HIGH SPECTRAL RESOLUTION
GAMMA RAY SPECTROMETER
(JACOBSON)
ISOTOPIC COMPOSITION OF PRIMARY
COSMIC RAY EXPERIMENT
(KOCH/PETERS)
NASA HO 5A77-1451 (1)
1-19-77
PAGENO="0842"
838
During 1976, approximately 60 rockets-wete flown from eight
different locations in the United States (Wallops Flight
Center, White Sands Missile Range, Poker Flat Research
Range, Alaska and Kauai Range, Hawaii), Canada (Fort
Churchill), Sweden, Norway and Greenland. These rockets
supported about 50 research teams from universities, private
industry, foreign governments, NASA field centers, and
U. S. Government agencies. Included in this number are 26
sounding rockets launched in January 1976, from the Wallops
Flight Center in Support of- the NASA/DOD Winter D-Region
Campaign. This campaign was a coordinated program to study
winter days of "normal" and "anomalous" electron densities
in the ionospheric D region.
Sounding rockets were utilized to obtain the only spatially
resolved ultraviolet observations of Comet West. The
Comet West Program demonstrated the quick response and
flexibility of the NASA sounding rocket effort wherein a
project was initiated and three vehicles with instruments
were prepared and launched in a six week time frame. -
A recoverable Aerobee rocket (Chart SA 77-1449 ) was
flown twice in 1976, proving the feasibility of a reüsable
vehicle system. Present estimates are that this unique
approach to rocketry will save approximately $50,000 per
flight when current Aerobeès in storage are flown on
reusable missions. At this time, there are 34 Aerobee
vehicles in the NASA inventory, so inventory should
provide more than 100 flights in the reusable mode.
The 1977 schedule includes seven rockets to be launched
from Australia to make ultraviolet and X-ray observations
- of a portion of the sky which cannot be observed from
the Northern hemisphere.
In 1976, approximately 31 balloons were flQwn to support
approximately 20 research organizations participating
in the NASA university balloon program. Approximately 30
additional balloons were flown to support upper atmospheric
and center research programs. The value of balloon-borne
experimentation has been demonstrated by important
scientific discoveries including the detection and measure-
ment of infrared sources not observed by other means
and the precision measurement of very rare, ultra-heavy
cosmic rays. The cost of supporting this activity has
been impacted severely by inflation during the past
several years during which the number of launches in the
university program decreased from a previous level of 60
launches per year to only about 30 launches per year.
The ~`Y 1977 and 1978 funding level of $1.5 million will
recoup some o~ the lost launches and support
PAGENO="0843"
839
PAGENO="0844"
840
a university balloon program of approximately 50 launches
including approximat~ly ten balloon flights for upper
atmospheric research.
The Kuiper Airborne ç~bservatory (C-14l) with a 91-centi-
meter (36-inch) infrared telescope, is now fully opera-
tional. This airborne platform, operating near 15 kilo-
meters (50,000 ft), provides a cloud-free site for
geophysics experiments and astronomical observations over
any region of Earth. )In the past year, the principal
scientific accomplis14T~entS have been studies of star
formation using infra~ed photmeters, planetary atmosphere
spectroscopy with hig~i spectral resolution interferometers
and emission spectrosk~opy in the interstellar region.
In 1977, the Observatory will fly approximately 80 missions
including a mission to the southern hemisphere to observe
the planet Uranus occulting a faint star, in order to
obtain information on the atmosphere of that planet.
(The occultation can not be observed in the northern
hemisphere).
The Lear Jet (NASA/705 has flown approximately 150
scientific missions in 1976, in support of infrared
astronomy, the thunderitorm abatement program and upper
atmospheric research. The upper atmospheric research
consisted of measurements of the spatial and temporal
variations of concentrations of nitrous oxide and halo-
carbons~ These measurements are imporiant in determining
the role of these compounds in regulating stratospheric
ozone. These measurements are performed by gas chromoto-
graphy and air,. sampling techniques. In 1977, the Lear
Jet with a 30-centimeter (16 inch) telescope will
support approximately eight research groups conducting
infrared observatiori~s and research in related
scientific ~i~iplines such as uppt3r atmospheric
research a~h~magnetody4amiCs. It is planned that the
Lear Jet will fly apprc~ximately 150 missions in 1977.
This concludes my remàr~ks on Astrophysics.
PAGENO="0845"
841
SOLAR TERRESTRIAL PROGRAMS
Continuing now with the second portion of Physics and
Astronomy, I will review the Solar Terrestrial Programs
and the study of the Sun Earth relationship and its
impact on life as we understand it.
Certainly one of the contributing factors to man's evolu-
tion on Earth has been the benign nature of our nearest
star, the Sun. The fact that this star has provided us
with a relatively constant source of heat and light
through recorded history is a matter of remarkable good
fortune. Our fellow astronomers tell us that many stars
exhibit rneasureable fluctuations in their `output, and
that the basic physical characteristics of such large,
hot, gaseous, bodies make them highly `susceptible to a
wide variety of different variations and turbulent effects.
Since the fourth century B.C., records are found of the
occasional observation of dark blemishes on the surface
of the Sun. Continuous observations of these "sunspots"
commenced in about 1610, soon after the invention of the
telescope. These studies showed that the Sun has an
eleven-year cycle, in which spots grow' in number
during a five or six year period, and then decrease in
number. During one recorded period, 1645 to 1715, the
number of spots was so low, that, in effect, the solar
"cycle" disappeared. (Chart ST 77-1.315 ) This period
of exceptionally low activity which is generally known as
the Maunder Minimum, is now taking on a new significance
in the study of the. relationship between the Sun and the
Earth's climate.
The effect of s.unspots on the total output of solar radia-
tion is small. Even at times of, peak activity the spots
cover less than one percent of the solar surface, and efforts
to measure activity-associated variations in total solar
output (the "solar constant") have so far failed to reveal
any changes. There are, however, statistical indicators
that su9gest that the terrestrial climate probably responds
in some way to the Sun's activity cycle. An extreme
example of this likely interaction is a mini-ice age
which occurred on Earth during the Maunder Minimum.
Theoretical climate models also display an extreme sensi-
tivity to rather small changes (1-2%) in the solar constant.
A number of basic questions have to be answered before
solar-terrestrial relations can be understood. First, the
solar parameters affecting the Earth's weather and climate
must be identified and the physical linking mechanisms
PAGENO="0846"
842
PAGENO="0847"
843
discovered. Second, the processes governing the solar
cycle and the resulting variations in the solar radiation,
wind and particle emissions must also be understood.
Third, it is important to determine the cause of the
Maunder Minimum, to determine whether such an anomalous
condition is likely to recur in the foreseeable future,
and to assess the impact that such an occurrence might
have on the terrestrial environment.
As will be illustrated later, the Earth's environment is
a complete system. Its separate components cannot be
studied in isolation because they interact with each
other as well as with the Sun's various emissions. The
couplings between the magnetosphere, the atmosphere, and
the ionosphere represent another area of basic research.
The NASA Solar Terrestrial Program is directed toward the
investigation of all of these major problem areas. In
solar physics, the program deals primarily with the form,
structure and evolution of selected solar features and
their variability as a function of time in the solar cycle.
Variations in total solar radioactive output as a function
of cycle are also studied. The Space Plasma Physics Program
includes measurements of solar wind structure as a function
of time and activity level, and properties of interplanetary
magnetic fields as well as studies of the structure, dynamics,
and coupling of the magnetosphere, ionosphere, and upper
atmosphere. In the near future, the International Sun-Earth
Explorer Satellites previously mentioned will provide data
for studies of the solar wind-magnotosphere interface while
the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere will
be investigated with the Dynamics Explorer Program.
The form and variability of the Earth's magnetosphere is
governed by the streaming solar wind. Where this wind is
held off by the Earth's magnetic field, a tear-drop-shaped
cavity called the magnetosphere is formed in space. Jupiter
has a magnetosphere more massive than Earth's; Saturn has
one, not yet explored; and a small magnetosphere has been
found around Mercury. Magnetospheres thus appear to be
quite common in nature and exhibit plasma properties we
have only recently been able to study. Quite unexpectedly,
by spacecraft of the IMP and Pioneer series, to be inter-~
mittent sources ot particles with large energies. These
particles may originate in the solsr wind, but the mechanisms
that produce the energies are not understood. These observa-
tions hold out the hope that studies near Earth can shed
light on the origin of the cosmic rays which reach us from
PAGENO="0848"
844
the far corners of space and give us information about
the distant universe. Magnetospheres also emit radio
waves, and Jupiter is an especially intense source, with
systematic fluctuations related to the position of its
moons. In some respects the radio emissions from Jupiter
resemble those from distant objects called pulsars, and
theorists are currently engaged in interpreting the signals
received from pulsars by analogy with the processes observed
in the magnetospheres of Jupiter and of Earth.
The aurora has been observed for a long time, and its
connection with the activity of the Sun was established
empirically. However, the problem that has puzzled the
theorists, is to explain how the particles that produce
the aurora have gained their energies, since the energy
needed to produce an aurora is greater than that possesse°d
by the particles in the solar wind. Recent observations,
notably from IMP-8, have suggested the existence of
regions in the Earth's magnetotail, at distances between
20 and 45 Earth radii away from the Sun, where particles
are accelerated in the vicinity of. the merging of the
interplanetary magnetic field with the outer portions of
the Earth's magnetic field. (Chart ST771495
The implication is of a turbulent magnetospheric tail,
rather like the wake of a fast-moving ship. Energy from
the solar wind and solar magnetic field seems to be stored
in the tail and released intermittently to produce bursts
of energ~etic particles that travel down the Earth's magnetic
field to produce the aurora. There is another theory for
the acceleration of auroral particles that locates the
accelerating region in the neutral sheet of the lines of
force and can occur as a result of the-interplanetary
magnetic field pulling back lines of force inside the Earth's
magnetosphere. (Chart ST77-1496 ) In this case, the
explosive adcelerating region is in the middle of the mag-
netospheric tail rather than the edge. A third theory
ascribes the acceleration to electric fields near 1,000 miles
altitude on auroral field lines. Further work is needed to
determine which of these mechanisms is correct, or whether
each can occur under particular conditions.
The stream of particles that gives rise to the aurora
constitutes a million-ampere electric current, and the
implications of this current are just beginning to emerge.
The importance of understanding this phenomenon is that the
auroral particles put significant amounts of energy into
the polar atmosphere'. This energy has been determined,
using Atmosphere Explorer (AE) C and E, to be comparable
to energy deposition from solar ultraviolet radiations at
PAGENO="0849"
845
92-082 o - 77 - 54
PAGENO="0850"
846
PAGENO="0851"
847
thermospheric heights (near 100 miles altitude) in the
auroral zone. This energy input is believed to generate
large scale atmospheric gravity waves, (which are similar
to waves on the ocean), that become a significant driver
for the circulation of the whole atmosphere, and thus
make their influence felt even in middle and low latitudes.
In addition, currents are induced into long conductors;
for example, induced currents of 100 amperes have been
measured in the Trans~Alaska -pipeline during periods of
mild auroral activity, with bursts of higher currents
during more intense auroral displays. These are the
currents which have caused faults on power lines and
disruptions of cable communications during periods of
exceptionally heavy geomagnetic activity, and it is clear
that an understanding of this phenomenon is of great
practical interest.
The example given of events in the distant magneto-tail
accelerating particles which produce an aurora, add energy
to the atmosphere, and induce currents in conductors close
to the Earth, is important in illustrating that the Earth's
environment is a complete system. The ultimate source of
the magnetosphere disturbances, the ionosphere, the ozone
layer and the energy which- produced and maintains life on
Earth is, however, the Sun.
The ultraviolet, extreme ultraviolet, and X~~ray emissions
from the Sun are potentially important in the context of
solar~-terrestrial~research, since it is this region of the
solar spectrum which, while insignificant in terms of
fractional contribution to the solar constant, is primarily
responsible for the formation of the Earth's ionosphere
and ozone layer. Since the ultraviolet region of the radi-~
ation spectrum can only be observed from space, and since
- it is primarily emitted from the hot outer layers of- the
solar atmosphere (chromosphere, transition region, and
corona) which are also invisible from the ground (except
during rare eclipses), and are the source of the solar wind
and the location of most flare and transient events, it is
on this region of -the spectrum that most of the efforts of.
the solar space program are concentrated.
Instruments flown on the early Orbiting Solar Observatory
(OSO) Satellites provided informatIon on the gross distri~
bution and variability of these short wavelength emissions
as a function of solar feature and time. More sophisticated
telescopes on the Skylab Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM),
revealed the detailed structure of the hot outer solar
PAGENO="0852"
848
atmosphere and of a variety of "active" features (e.g.,
active regions, coronal holes and bright points) and
enabled their form, evolution and dynamics to be studied
throughout the nine-month duration of the Skylab mission.
(Chart ST76-4670 ) Although these investigations
could not provide direct insight into the long-term changes
that take place in the character and distribution of these
"active" features as a function of time in the solar
cycle, the ATM results led to the discovery of a number
of ground-based spectroscopic "tracers" which could allow
such changes to be studied.
The OSO and ATM coronal hole studies have been particularly
important in the context of solar-terrestrial relations.
*To date, these observations, coupled with solar wind
measurements from the Mariner, IMP, Vela and Pioneer space-
craft, and with a significant theoretical effort coordinated
through the Skylab Coronal Hole Workshop, have led to a
considerably improved understanding of the physics of solar
wind generation, the structure of magnetic sector boundaries
and the possible variations of both as a function of time
in the solar cycle. (Chart ST76 4384
Most reôently, Pioneer 11 measurements of the extended
solar magnetic fields and associated sector structure have
been made at solar latitudes never before explored by any
spacecraft (16 degrees above the solar equator). These
new observations have confirmed the theory that, at this
time in the solar cycle, the northern and southern magnetic
fields of the Sun are separated by a warped sheet of elec-
tric current which appears to move up and down relative
to the Earth's orbital plane as the Sun rotates.
(Chart. ST77- 1313
This simplified view of the large scale solar magnetic
field structure at solar minimum is confirmed by the two
soft X-ray imaging solar sounding rocket flights which
occurred during the past year. Further investigations of
the variation of the structure of the extended solar
magnetic field, sector structure and the solar wind will
be conducted by the Out of Ecliptic Mission (OOE).
The establishment of connections between different types
of solar features, for example active regions and solar
magnetic sector boundaries, is an important element in
the solar terrestrial puzzle. The passage of interplane-
tary magnetic sector boundaries past the Earth has been
shown to correlate with changes in the Earth's northern
hemisphere storm patterns. Since it is unlikely that the
PAGENO="0853"
849
PAGENO="0854"
850
PAGENO="0855"
851
PAGENO="0856"
852
bour~daries themselves can affect terrestrial weather,
studies are underway, using the ATM and OSO date, to
determine the relationship between sector boundaries
and other solar features.
Flare disturbances are also .known to affect the Earth's
upper atmosphere. These effects will be further explored
during the forthcoming maximum in solar activity (1979-81),
when the combined efforts of the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM)
and the International Sun-Earth Explorer (ISEE) satellites
should lead to a determination of the relationship between
activity, flares, transients, solar wind disturbances and
geomagnetic effects. *
The past year (1976) saw the occurence of the minimum of
the past solar activity cycle and the commencement of a
new solar cycle. During this year, three sour~ding rockets
were flown to study the structure and radiative output of
this "minimum" sun. The first rocket carried a payload
equipped with five different types of solar constant
monitors, and provided an accurate measurement of the total
solar radiative output at minimum. (Chart ST77 - 1312
The second rocket carried a soft X-ray telescope to study
the structure of the "miA~mum corona". It was found that
the corona at this time is di'fferent from the corona during
more active periods. An exceedingly large number of X-ray
bright 2oints were observed, holes were seen at both poles,
and all the coronal structures observed appeared to close
at low altitudes. If this is the normal condition of the
corona at solar minimum, it explains the absence of high
velocity streafns at this time in the cycle.
The third solar minimum rocket carried an extreme ultra-
violet instrument designed to study the temperature, density,
and structure of the chromosphere, transition region and
low corona during "minimum" condition. This payload showed
that the corona is cooler at minimum than at other times in
the cycle.
Periodic ref lights of these and similar payloads throughout
the coming years of increasing solar activity should contri-
bute significantly to our knowledge of the variability in
the Sun's structure and output during the cycle. Such
flights will also contribute to our understanding of the
physical mechanisms producing the cycle - the second major
problem to be addressed by the NASA Solar Physics Program.
Even before the early observations of sunspots led to the
discovery of the solar cycle, they revealed that the Sun
PAGENO="0857"
853
PAGENO="0858"
854
was rotating. Furthermore, the period of one complete
rotation of the Sun was found to vary~ from about 27 days,
at the solar equator, to about 31 days at its poles. The
effect of this "differential rotation" is central to the
- explanation of the solar cycle.
With the reported discovery of possible large-scale, long-
term (hours) oscillations of the outer solar atmosphere,
a new solar cycle theory has begun to emerge. A recent
version proposes that rigidly rotating internal oscilla-
tions "beat" against each other to produce the observed
periodicities in solar activity and produce the variations
in the number of sunspots emerging durinq maxima which have
been recorded during the past 400 years. This model al~o
accounts for the Maunder Minimum.
Although such a model is remarkably successful \in predicting
the observed periodicities and rotation rates, it makes no
attempt to deal with the question of the generation and
dispersal of solar magnetic fields. For this aspect of
solar activity an intimate knowledge of the properties of
the solar atmosphere is required.
It has recently been shown. that the shorter term oscillations
(300 second) of the outer solar atmosphere play an important
role. The fact that the temporal and spatial properties of
these oscillations can be used as a probe of the convection
zone has only recently been realized. Working with data
gathered at the Sacramento Peak Observatory, and i~iith funds
provided by the NASA Solar Physics Supporting Reseatch and
Technology (SR&T) Program,. scientists have been able to
organize the compli~ated mass of observed short-period
oscillations into groups whose properties provide a measure
of the depth of the convection zone and of its temperature
structure. (Chart ST77 - 1314 )
Preliminary studies indicate that the convection zone may
actually be twice as thIck as usually assumed (i.e., four-
tenths of a solar radius). Studies of complementary motions
in the northern and sourthern hemispheres of the Sun, con-
ducted during Skylab, and continued in the current solar
(SR&T) ground-based observing program, also point to the
possible existence of a deeper convection zone.
The convection and circulation model also predicts varia-
tions in the solar "constant" ahd hence provides a second
incentive for measuring this parameter.
PAGENO="0859"
855
PAGENO="0860"
856
The Out-Of-Ecliptic-MiSSiOii
The increased efforts to explain the solar dynamo and to
understand solar convection and circulation will go far
toward providing an explanation for the solar cycle and
its manifestations (including the Maunder Minimum).
Theories can, however, only be tested by observation,
and our capacity to observe the Sun, its magnetic field
configurations, and the properties of solar wind is
severely constrained by measurements from earth and from
spacecraft situated in, or near, the ecliptic plane.
The proposed Out-of-Ecliptic Mission (OOE) provides a
means to overcome this serious limitation.
For a number of years, scientists have been interested
in conducting observations of the Sun's emissions and
atmosphere at high heliocentric latitudes. Obtaining
these measurements requires enormous amounts of energy
in order to directly orbit a spacecraft to inclinations
greater than 700 to the ecliptic plane; however, the
recent successful Jupiter encounters of Pioneer 10 and 11
demonstrated the feasibility of using the Jupiter gravita-
tional forces to provide the energy necessary to inject
spacecraft into a high inclination polar orbit of the Sun.
Since 1975, U.S. and European scientists and engineers
have been investigating the feasibility of such a mission.
The results of these investigationê have resulted in a
preliminary determination of feasibility and identification
of general areas of science which could be advanced by an
OOE mission. (Chart ST77 - 11
It is planned that the OOE Mission will be jointly sponsored
by NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA). Each of the
two organizations would develop and finance its assigned
part, of the mission.
During FY 1978, we will be studying in detail the scientific
requirements, defining specifications for the spacecraft.
systems and developing detailed cost and schedule estimates.
As currently configured, OOE will consist of two small
satellites which willmeasure the solar wind, magnetic
field and cosmic ,rayè, and oarry a smáll~ coronagraph and
possibly a niagnetograph out to Jupiter, and thence, using
Jupiter's gravity, out of the ecliptic plane and over the~
north and south poles of the Sun. The time chosen for this
mission (1983-87) will correspond to the minimum period in
the next solar cycle and be relatively unperturb~d by active
disturbances (e.g., flares). The present theories of the
sun-wind interface and its evolution as a function of solar
cycle can thus be tested.
PAGENO="0861"
857
PAGENO="0862"
858
Solar Maximum Mission (SMM)
The Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) program was initiated in
FY 1977 to conduct specific problem-oriented solar flare
and activity related research during the next period of
maximum solar activity, projected to occur at the end of.
this decade. The major scientific objectives~Of 5MM are
to investigate solar flares and related phenomena over a
broad spectral range with high time, spectral and spatial
resolution and to study the solar-terrestrial impacts of
such events.
A secondary objective of the mission is to study the long-
term variability in the solar constant in order to further
explore mechanisms of Sun-Earth interactions. A small
solar monitoring package is included on the *spacecraft for
this purpose.
The spacecraft (Chart SG75 - 15400 ) will be launched
in late 197.9 near the peak of the forthcoming maximum in
solar activity and will carry a payload of seven instru-
ments specifically selected to study the major short
wavelength and coronal manifestations of flares. Comple-
rnentary ground-based observation of the flares' radio and
optical emissions is planned to be made as part of an SMM
guest investigator program and coordinated in-site measure-
ments of the flare particle emissions will be obtained by
the IntQrnational Sun Earth Explorer-C satellite.
The International Sun-Earth Explorer (ISEE) project deserves
mention again within the Solar-Terrestrial Physics Program
because most of the payload is devoted to Solar-Terrestrial
research. Specifically, this 3-spacecraft mission addresses
the interaction between the solar wind and the magnetosphere.
Two spacecraft,. one (ISEE-A) provided by the U.S. and the
other (ISEE-B) pr~vided by ESA, will be placed close together
in elliptical equatorial orbits in order to spend as much
time as possible near the magnetosphere. Two spacec~raft
are required in order to distinguish between spatial and
temporal changes in the plasmas encountered. `rhey will be
launched in 1977; a third spacecraft, (ISEE-C), provided
by the U.S., will be launched in 1978 into the solar wind
to provide data on the changes in the energy input to the
magnetosphere from solar parti~1es, while ISEE-A and B are
measuring the response of the system.
PAGENO="0863"
859
PAGENO="0864"
860
Orbiting Solar Observatory (050)
The 050 program was initiated In the early 1960's to obtain
new knowledge of the Sun, the Earth's atmosphere, and sun-
activated terrestrial phenomena over a broad range of the
electromagnetic spectrum not detectable by ground-based
observatories. The OSOs have obtained scientific informa-
tion on long-term changes on the Sun, with periods on the
order of 11 and 22 years, the period of the solar activity
cycle. They have also provided the ability to detect, in
a matter of seconds, month-to~month variations and changes
in solar structure, including such unpredictable activities
as solar flares.
050-8, the last satellite in the OSO series, was launched
successfully on 21 June 1975. The observatory, including
the spacecraft and experiments, functioned as designed in
its first year ~of operation. To date, the two solar UV
spectrometers, which are carried in the sail of the space-
craft, have detected a number of different oscillatory modes in
(Chart ST76 - 4377 ) different solar featu~es in their
continuing investigation of solar energy tranèport mechanisms.
The wheel mounted X-ray spectrometers and polarimeter~s are
obtaining excellent observations of the old cycle and new
cycle active regions as they emerge on the Sun and of the
few flares occuring at this time. Some exciting new high
energy astrophysical studies of stellar and cosmic source
spectra, and particularly of variable sources, are also being
conducted by the 050-8 wheel experiments. Among the results
so far reported, are the discovery of ion line emission in
clusters of galaxies, showing that the intèrgalacti& gas in
clusters cannot be condensed primordial material, but must
be the remnants of younger stellar objects; the measurement
of X-ray polarization from the Creek Nebula and its associ-
ated pulsar, Cyy X-2 and, possibly from the black hole Cyy X-l;
and the first measurements of high energy X-ray spectra from
a number of sources including the peculiar radio galaxy
Cen A. Both the polarization and the high energy spectral
measurements will help scientists determine the mechanisms
by which the X-rays are generated.
Shuttle/$~ace1ab Payloads
With the advent of the Space Transportation System (STS)
era, a new technique of performing space research will be
added to~ NASA' s existing inventory. The STS, its Orbiter
and Spacelab, will complement the existing expendable launch
vehicles and free-flying spacecraft by providing the additional
~apabi1ities of regularly returning instruments to Earth
PAGENO="0865"
861
92-082 0 - 77 - 55
PAGENO="0866"
862
for refurbishment and ref light, and direct human inter-
action and operation of instruments in flight. When
studying stochastic, transient, and unknown phenomenon
such as solar flares and magnetic storms on the Sun and
the auroral borealis in the Earth's atmosphere and magneto-
sphere, the capability to interact with the instrument
in real-time and to refurbish and recalibrate the instrument
for ref ligh-t will greatly increase not only the cost-
effectiveness of conducting research from space but also
the rate of scientific understanding and discovery. Until
the STS becomes an operational system, there will be a
short phase of test and demonstration flights. Although
the primary purposes of these early flights is to demonstrate
the STS system, there are available, weight, power, data
and resources to conduct meaningful investigations. OSS
will utilize this capability to conduct science investiga-
tions and to develop techniques of operating in the STS era.
The OSS has the responsibility for payload activities for
Orbital Flight Test (OFT) Flights 4 & 6 and Spacelab flights
1 and 2. These activities, in addition to productive and
meaningful science, will result in the development of pro-
cedures and processes for mission planning, experiment!
instrument design, and payload integration, test, and opera-
tion. The underlying theme of these early flights will be
the test of concepts to produce cost-effective means of
conducting space experiments through the utilization of the
STS.
Experiment selection for all four flights will be made in
FY 1977 and the experiment definition phase will be initiated.
Instrument fabrication is scheduled to start in FY 1978 and
the integration and test of these instruments into the
Spacelab elements will commence in FY 1979. An integration
contract will be place in FY 1977 to perform the analytical
integration of experiments and prepare requirements for and
perform the physical integration of exp~erin~ents' hardware
and software into a compatible payload.
OFT's 4 and 6 are two of six scheduled OFT5 that are to
provide early demonstration and verification of the Space
Shuttle's performance characteristics. These flights will
also be used to perform science, applications, and technol-
ogy investigations. Center management responsibility has
been assigned to the Goddard Space Flight Center for OFT-4
and to Marshall Space Flight Center for OFT-6. Experiment
proposals for these flights were solicited in the first
quarter of FY 1977 by an Announcement of Opportunity and
are now being evaluated. The experiments selected for the
final payloads will be announced in April 1977. OFT-4 and
OFT-6 are scheduled for flight in 1980.
PAGENO="0867"
863
The first Spacelab Mission is a joint NASA and ESA (Euro-
pean Space Agency) project. OSS has overall payload manage-
ment responsibility with each agency providing experiments
and conducting operations in a cooperative manner. Approx-
imately 175 proposals from U.S. and foreign investigators
were received by NASA and approximately 100 were received
by ESA inresponse to their respective Announcements of
Opportunity. Following a scientific and technical evalua-
tión, a tentative selection of the NASA/ESA payload was
made in the first quarter of FY 1977. Final approval of
the NASA/ESA payload is planned for the second quarter of
-FY 1977.
Approximately one hundred and fifty proposals were received
in response to the Announcement of Opportunity for Spacelab
2. Following a series of scientific and technical assess-
ments a final complement of experiments will be selected
in the third quarter of FY 1977. After selection of the
flight payload, contracts will be placed with the selected
Investigators to develop experiment hardware, conduct
integration and flight operations and reduce and analyze,
their date.
In addition to the activities associated with OFTs 4 and 6 and
Spacelabs 1 and 2, the longer range, follow-on phase of Spacelab
activity will be initiated during FY 1978. In particular,~
the design and development of experiments and associated
instruments/facilities in astronomy, high energy astrophysics,
solar physics, atmospheric and magnetospheric physics areas
will be started. This initial effort is directed primarily
toward the development of instruments which will be reused
for repeated scientific investigations, with a realization
of an overall long-term cost savings. In this initial
effort, iri~estigator..class instruments such as those flown
on the sounding rocket and balloon prøgrams will be upgraded
for Shuttle flight. In addition, an evolutionary approach
will begin toward the development of facility-~class instru-
ments, such as solar telescopes (1 l/4~-meter optical, EUV,
SUV, X-ray) LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Large Area
Moderate Resolutiqn X~Ray Array (LAMAR) and Spacelab
UV-Optical Telescope. Such instruments can be modified
by changing sensors or filters, or making changes in the
focal planes and can be reflown on a continuing basis. The
funds requested for these developments lead to four dedicated
Spacelab flights per year by 1982. These flights will, of
course, be made Pinto the t~per -atmosphere, the subject of
of the final-. portion of the Physics and Astronomy Program
testimony.
PAGENO="0868"
864
UPPER ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
The study of the upper atmosphere has gained considerable
significance in the past several years and has become a
very important part of our science program. This activity
has a broad interest, and I am pleased to report on our
progress during the past year and to delineate our future
plans.
Last June the U.pper Atmospheric Research Office (UARO)
published a Program Plan describing a long-term science
program designed to develop an organized, solid body of
knowledge on the physics, chemistry, and transport processes
occuringin the Earth's upper atmosphere. To ensure broad
participation in the program formulation, the Plan was
reviewed by representatives of the scientific and techni~
cal communities, the Stratospheric Research Advisory Commit-
tee (SRAC) and ether Federal agencies, including those in
the reg\ilatory arena. This Plan reflects our conviction
of the need for a long-.range science program to address
future concerns about the impact of man's activities on
the upper atmosphere.
In the near term, the UARO has focused its program on
assessing the impact on stratospheric ozone resulting from
three man-made perturbations: Shuttle exhaust products,
chlorofluoromethane (CFM) releases, and aircraft effluents.
The need for rapid assessment of these potential threats
has required that program resources be devoted largely to
specific research tasks which could provide immediate infor-
mation on these issues. As the assessment activities pro-
ceed toward completion, the~FY 1978 program provides an
increased opportunity to improve our general understanding
of the upper atmosphere. Attention can be given to areas
of deficiency which have been highlighted during the aSsess-
ment process and to the broader range of questions related
to a fundamental understanding of the upper atmosphere.
Emphasis is placed upon increasing our level of confidence
in the validity and accuracy of the earlier assessments and
providing the knowledge required to rationally address such
potential future threats to the upper atmosphere as nitrogen
fertilizers and other chemicals. A variety Of theoretical
models, atmospheric sensors, and laboratory systems are
available and in the development process, and the thrust
of the UARO program is to apply them to its long-term science
goals.
The SRAC, composed of atmospheric sciences experts from the
United States and abroad, has advised NASA during the UARO
program formulation and continues to review and provide
advice on the direction of the program. SRAC is currently
PAGENO="0869"
865
developing a stratospheric research measurement strategy
to aid in focusing.our measurement program on current sci-
entific issues as well as long-term goals. In addition,
a "Dear colleague" letter has recently been distributed to
the scientific community calling attention to opportunities
for participation in the UARO program.
Now, I would like to report on some specific items of program
content and progress and discuss implications for the future
program.
Assessments -
Approximately three years ago, it was recognized that the
the hydrogen chloride (HC1) concentrations in Shuttle exhausts
could have a depleting effect on stratospheric ozone. NASA
instituted an assessment program, involving both theoretical
studies and measurements, which culminated in the Space
Shuttle EnvironmGntal Workshop on Stratospheric Effects held
at Johnson Space Center in March 1976. Both university and
government `scientists participated in the workshop which
resulted in a prediction of a 0.2% `ozone depletion (uncertain
within a range of 0.07 to 0.3%) for a 60 launch per year
Shuttle system using the baseline propellant. This ~,eple-
tion in contrast to that caused by CFX'ls would be rapidly
reversed once MCi injection is ceased. The SRAC Subcommittee
on Space Shuttle Effects concurred with the assessment, and
the results are precented in a recently published final
report. The report' is expected to be incorporated into a
revised Environmental Impact Statement by the Office of Space
Flight, and updates to the assessment will be performed as
needed. NASA'S assessment is consistent with results con-
tained in the recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
report on CFMs which predicted a Shuttle-related ozone
depletion of 0.15%.
NASA has a commitment to provide an assessment of the effect
of CFM releases on stratospheric ozone by September 1977.
The NAS report on CFM5 concluded that continued releases
of the CFMs F-il and F-12 would result `in an eventual ozone
depletion of approximately 7%, but that there is a tenfold
range of uncertainty (2-20%). The NAS report also concluded
that this range of uncertainty can be reduced materially
over the next few years through research on theoretical
models, measurements of key stratospheric species, and
laboratory reaction rate studies. NASA concurs with these
conclusions and is addressing. the recommended research areas
within the UARO program. The SRAC reviewed the NAS, report
PAGENO="0870"
866
ata September l976.meeting and concluded that the NASA
program is consistent with the substance and recommenda-
tions of the report. Through a subcommittee, SRAC is con-
ducting a more detailed study of the report and wilL present
specific recommendations for the NASA program.-
With the NAS report as a primary basis, the regulatory
agencies -- Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Con-S
sumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the-Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) -- have initiated regulatory
proceedings with a target of late 1977 for final regulations
on selected CFM uses. The NASA assessment effort is directed
primarily toward reducing the uncertainties addressed in
the NAS report and establishing more definitive scientific
bases. The NASA report is expected to have significant
impact on proposed initial regulations, predominantly for
aerosol CFM uses, and on the extent of subsequent regula-
tions required for broader ranges of CFMuses. Since the
NASA report is intended for use by the regulatory agencies,
the assessment activity is being coordinated with FDA, CPSC,
and EPA.
The NAS report and the research it represents serve as a
starting point for the NASA CFM assessment, which is being
coordinated by the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).
There are three important milestones in the NASA assessment:
(1) preparation of some 29. position papers summarizing our
knowledge of stratospheric chemistry and physics concurrent
with ozone depletion calcul&tions by several-theoretical
groups (Chart SU77 1235 ), (2) a January 1977 strato-
spheric workshop to examine these papers and theoretical
predictions, and (3) the.September 1977 final, report. The.
workshop will be valuable, both to NASA and to-the regulatory
agencies, in summarizing and updating stratospheric
knowledge. In contrast to the NAS report, the NASA assess-
ment involves numerous modeling groups in an inter-model
comparison and a study of th~ results from these different
models. The calculations involved in this intercomparison
will utilize a set of CFM release scenarios provided by
EPA. (Chart SU77 - 1236 ) This illustrates the complex-
ity of the phenomena which must be included in the models
providing these prediction calculations. Typically, the
models must include: from 50 to 100 chemical reactions
involving some tens of species, some-description of vertical
transport processes, and boundary conditions and source
strengths for numerous species. Chemistry of related
families of species must be considered in addition to the
prime family (which would be the Cl family for CFM considera-
tions). In addition, subtle interactions such as feedbacks
PAGENO="0871"
CFM ASSESSMENT: POSITION PAPERS AND AUTHORS
LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS
HALOGEN REACTION RATES - WATSON (JPL)
NO~ REACTION RATES- HAMPSON, GARVIN (NBS)
HO~ REACTION RATES- MARGITAN (MICHIGAN)
PHOTOLYSIS RATES AND QUANTUM YIELDS - MOLINA
(U. CAL- IRVINE)
OZONE MEASUREMENTS AND TRENDS
OZONE MEASUREMENTS FROM SATELLITES - GILLE
(NCAR)
GROUND BASED TOTAL OZONE MEASUREMENTS -
.KOMHYR (NOAA)
OZONE PROFILE MEASUREMENTS - KRUEGER (GSFC/
COLO. STATE)
OZONE TREND ANALYSIS - ANGEL (NOAA)
MINOR SPECIES AND AEROSOL MEASUREMENTS
HALOCARBONS - LAZRUS (NCAR)
N20, CH4, H2, etc. - SCHMELTEKOPF (NOAA)
C1O~ MEASUREMENTS - ANDERSON (MICHIGAN)
NOX MEASUREMENTS -RIDLEY (YORK U.)
HO~ MEASUREMENTS - HEAPS (GSFC)
O/O~ RATIO - MOORE (UTAH STATE)
AEROSOLS - ROSEN (U. WYOMING)
WINDS AND DYNAMICS - GOOD (AFGL)
ONE DIMENSIONAL MODEL CALCULATIONS
TRANSPORT COEFFICIENTS - J. CHANG (LAW.LIV)
PHOTODISSOCIATION RATE CALCULATIONS -
LUTHER (LAW.LIV.)
DIURNAL EFFECTS - LIU (MICHIGAN)
ONE DIMENSIONAL MODEL CALCULATIONS (CONTINUED)
RADIATIVE-CONVECTIVE FEEDBACKS - RAMANATHAN (NCAR)
TROPOSPHERIC AND STRATOSPHERIC SINKS (CFMs) - CHOU
(U.CAL- IRVINE)
COMPARISON OF THEORY AND MEASUREMENT (C1O~) -
CICERONE (MICHIGAN)
COMPARISON OF THEORY AND MEASUREMENT (NOr) -
KURZEJA (NCAR)
COMPARISON OF THEORY AND MEASUREMENT (HO~) -
TURCO (R & D ASSOCIATES)
MULTI-DIMENSIONAL MODEL CALCULATIONS
PRESENT STATUS OF 2-D MODELS - WIDHOF (AEROSPACE)
PRESENT STATUS OF 3-D MODELS - CUNNOLD (MIT)
PARAMETERIZATION OF TRANSPORT PROCESSES - LILLY (NCAR)
RADIATION, CHEMISTRY, AND DYNAMICS - MAHLMAN (GFDL)
OBSERVATIONAL NEEDS - ZUREK (JPL)
MODEL INTERCOMPARISON
J. CHANG (LAW.LIV.)
CICERONE (MICHIGAN)
WOFSY (HARVARD)
MEAKIN (DUPONT)
D. CHANG (ERT INC.)
STOLARSKI (GSFC)
WHITTEN (ARC)
CALLIS (LARC)
MACAFEE (NCAR)
BRASSEUR (BELGIUM)
NASA HO SU77-1235 (1)
1-4-77
PAGENO="0872"
ATMOSPHERiC PROCESSES: CFM.OZONE ISSUE
-
NA$A HO a177.1231 ~1)
1.477
PAGENO="0873"
869
between chemistry and radiative processes must be included.
In~ our model intercômparison, assessment of the validity
of the model predictions ~nd model accuracy and. sensItivity
to the inputs I have mentioned will be emphasized. The
workshop results, including revised position papers and
model comparison conclusions, will form the basis of the
final report.
Another significant event in the CFN assessment was the
recent International Conference on the Stratosphere and
Related Problems held at Logan, Utah. The Logan conference
`was one of NASA's major efforts in coordination of strato-
spheric activities on an international level with partici-
pants from ten nations attending. The conference served
to highlight the most recent scientific findings related
to stratospheric perturbations.
Interchange between the scientific community and Federal
policymakers was promoted in sessions on the dynamics of
decisionxnaking in the regulatory process. A conference
summary report is presently being prepared and will be
available early in 1977.
The NASA assessment of the effects of aircraft operations
on stratospheric ozone is being coordinated through Ames
Research Center and is complementary to the High-Altitude
Pollution Program (HAPP) of the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion (FAA). This assessment is scheduled to take maximum
advantage of CFM assessment activities. Subsequent to the
January 1977 CFM workshop, modeling studies emphasizing
various aircraft traffic models will be completed and a
final report pr~paréd by the latter part of 1977. FAA will
be provided with the assessment results, while NASA plans
to use the results in its future aircraft engine development
work.
Science Program
At present, reliance on theory and the use of numerical
simulation models -provide the most reasonable approach to
understanding the Earth's atmosphere and the effects of
man's activities on that atmosphere. Even if it were possible
to define the atmosphere by measuring everything, every-
where, the measurements would not increase our understanding
without a framework relating the data to our concepts of
the atmosphere. The theoretical studies portion of our
science program emphasizes the development of numerical
models of the atmosphere to provide this framework and
enable the application of our increasing knowledge of specific
PAGENO="0874"
870
atmospheric processes to an overall understanding of the -
atmosphere. Continuing development of one-, two- and
three-dimensional atmospheric models and submodels is being
supported both in the university community and at NASA
- field centers. Significant progress in model development
is evidenced by more realistic treatment of such things
as radiative-chemical coupling and diurnal variations.
Models are currently being applied in our assessments to
the specific problems of predicting the effects of man's
activities on stratospheric ozone. Other aspects of
atmospheric change such as climatic effects are also being
addressed.
The validity of numerical modeling is directly related to
our knowledge of the ambient atmosphere and of the atmo-
spheric processes that control the phenomena being modeled.
For example, assessment of the effect of pollutants on
stratospheric ozone depends upon knowledge of the present
concentrations of the pollutants and related species and
on an understanding of the chemical processes which deter-
mine the stratospheric ozone budget. The field measurement
and laboratory studies portions of our science program are
focused primarily on acquiring the knowledge required for
improving and validating numerical models. The SRAC
measurement strategy, mentioned earlier, provides five
major goals for these activities: (1) improvement and
validation of photochemical concepts, (2) observation of
ozone profile and total column changes, (3) determination
of the mean distributions of long-lived species and solar
ultraviolet radiation variations, (4) determination of the
locations and strengths of sources and sinks for strato-
spheric substances, and (5) determination of the accuracy
of radiative transfer calculations.
The first measurements of Cl and ClO in the stratosphere
were an important program milestone and provided validation
of the concept of ozone destruction in the stratosphere
through the chlorine cycle. Balloon flights of the resonance
fluorescence package of Dr. Anderson from the University of
Michigan have provided two altitude profiles of these two
species from simultaneous measurements. (Chart SU77 - 1232
The measured ClO concentrations are about a factor of three
higher than predicted by present models and indicate that
minor revisions of the models or of our present concept
of the processes controlling total upper atmospheric chlorine
may be necessary. The ratio of Cl to ClO is less sensitive
to systematic errors, and the measured ratios are in good
agreement with predicted values. Dr. Anderson is preparing
PAGENO="0875"
871
PAGENO="0876"
872
a multi-species system for simultaneous measurements of
03(P), H, do, and NO to test the coupling among the
stratospheric chlorine, nitrogen, and hydrogen chemistries.
Two additional daytime cl-dO measurement flights are
planned to test the measurement precision and look for
seasonal variations. Two night flights are scheduled to
investigate the hypothesis that C1O might be tied up as
chlorine nitrate (C1NO3) at night. Measurements with the
JPL microwave limb sounder have established upper limits
for dO concentrations which appear consistent with
Anderson' s results.
Another important highlight has been the identification
through theoretical and laboratory studies of C1NO3 as a
molecule with a potentially important effect on strato-
spheric ozone depletion, acting as a sink for stratospheric
chlorine. The rate of formation of C1NO3 has been measured
by Dr. DeMore of JPL and found to be consistent with pre-
dicted~rates. The chemistry studies of Dr. Molina of the
University of California, Irvine, have provided a rate
constant for the important 0 + C1NO3 reaction and have
established ultraviolet cross-sections for ClNO3 which
provide a basis for stratospheric destruction rate calcula-
tions. These results and other data from our science
program are continually being used to update theoretical
models which predict stratospheric perturbation impacts.
The greatest need identified in the NAS report is for
verification of stratospheric ozone chemistry through a
carefully planned trace constituent measurement program
which gives attention to measurement correlations, space
and time distributions, andattainable accuracies. Advances
in sensor technology are now allowing increased emphasis
on simultaneous measurements of related species to address
these requirements.
We are continuing to support several multi-species measure-
ment programs along with development of multi-instrument
platforms. These include the Anderson work which has already
been discussed, the filter sampling program of Dr. Lazrus
at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR),
the aircraft-based Global Air Sampling Program (GASP)
measurements using the CV-990, U-2, and Learjet research
aircraft of Ames Research Center and of Washington State
University, and partial support of the STRATCOM balloon
program which is also supported by the Department of Defense,
the Department of Transportation, the Energy Research and
Development Administration, the National Science Foundation,
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
PAGENO="0877"
873
The aircraft and balloon filter sampling program of
Dr. Lazrus of NCAR has provided results for Rd1 Na+, and
HF. Both latitudinal and seasonal variabiliti~s of HC1
have been investigated. (Chart SU77 - 1237 ) The
HC1 values at 37 km, are uncertain, but two flights to that
altitude have shown higher concentrations than at 32 km.
Observations of HC1 with the JPL high-.speed interferometer
are in general agreement wish the filter results. A
hemispheric inventory of Na was obtained to assess the
contribution of sea salt to stratospheric chlorine.
Results indicate that not more than 5% of the chlorine
can be attributed to this source. Another aspect of the
chlorine cycle has been investigated through an inventory
of chlorine collected on neutral filters below 21 km, and
results indicate that not more than 12% of the chlorine
leaves the stratosphere as aerosol. Measurements of HF,
a likely end product in'the .CFM-'ozone chain, have been
made and are in reasonable agreement with one-dimensional
model predictions. A hemispheric flux of HF out of the
stratosphere is being determined to more accurately assess
the percentage of stratospheric chlorine resulting from
CFM photodissociation. A related laboratory study of
Dr. Molina indicates that a reaction between HF and excited
oxygen atoms does occur at significant rates. Since this
is the only postulated stratospheric reaction of HF, the
result is important in determining the possible repositories
of fluorine in the stratosphere and the amount of fluorine
derived from CFMs.
The aircraft-based GASP system provides baseline measure~
ments, on and off established air routes, of constituents
such as the CFMs, ozone, water vapor, dO, NO, N20, and
aerosols. GASP has reached a total of five operational
sampling systems: four on commercial 747 airliners and
one -on the NASA CV-990 aircraft. (Chart SU77 - 1233
Emphasis is now being placed on involvement of the scien~-
tific community in the analysis and utilization of GASP
data.
Aircraft-based measurements of the temporal and spatial
variations of trace species are continuing. Five of the
eight stratospheric U-2 experiments (Chart SU77 1234
can now be flown simultaneously. Recent NO results have
shown strong seasonal variations and increased high lati-
tude concentrations. Halocarbon and N20 profiles have been
obtained from coordinated flights of the U-2 cryo- and whole
air sampler with the Learjet package of Dr. Rasmussen of
Washington State University. A recently completed CV-990
latitudinal survey mission over the Pacific Ocean included
PAGENO="0878"
4L~~ JULY1975~r/
JULY 1916~ #~~; ~
OCT1976
SLiM 1976
v OCP)
A CI
* do
ALTITUDE PROFILES OF STRATOSPHERIC TRACE CONSTITUENTS
(RESONANCE FLUORESCENCE MEASUREMENTS)
FEB 1975
*
50r
45-
4O~~
35-
3°
25-
20
15
JULY 1976
I I Iii
I I I If I
10' 10' 10'
I III I I I
10$
10'
10~
~0NCENTRATION (cM.3)
NASA HQ SU77*1237 (1)
14.77
PAGENO="0879"
STRATOSPHERIC HCI SEASONAL VARIATION
40 (32° 54' LATITUDE; 1976)
~A -R
35
ALTITUDE
(KM)a
15 _~.. SPRING
* -~--- SUMMER
10 - ---~-- WiNTER
5
~ I I I I I I~J
02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
HC1 (10 *` gm/en AIR) NASA HQSU77.12381)
PAGENO="0880"
STRATOSPHERIC .HC1 LATITUDINAL VARIATION
4. (SPRING 1976)
35
25. :7:;:>.
: ~~:>
o 1~-_V2?ILATmJDE
10 ~.3rs4'NLATmJoc
--.4.-- I4'3VL*TINJ~
S
I I I -1 1 1 ~
02 04 0.6 0.0 1.0 12 1.4 1.6
HC1 (10 .~ni~n All) HQSU17.123S~1)
PAGENO="0881"
877
92~O82 0 - 77 - 56
PAGENO="0882"
878
PAGENO="0883"
879
experiments from NASA, NOAA, and university and foreign
investigators in addition to the GASP sampling system. A
preliminary science report on this mission is in pre-
paration and will present highlights of GASP data, CFM
and N20 measurements, and results of cooperative experi-
ments with Australian and New Zealand scientists. and with
the U-2.
NASA organized the Flalocarbon Analysis and Measurement
Techniques Workshop at Boulder, Colorado, in March 1976.
Co-sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)
and NSF, and supported by NOAA, this international workshop
brought together researchers involved in measurements of
CFM5, N20, and carbon tetrachloride (Cd4). Interlaboratory
analyses of uniform air samples resulted in estimated
measurement uncertainties of *30-40% for the. CFMs F-li
and F-l2, ±10% for N20, and ±200-500% for CC1A. NASA and~
NBS have now initiated a program to develop standard gas
calibration samples for distribution among involved measure-
ment groups, both in the United' States and abroad.
Several investigations are underway involving interpreta-
tion and analysis of ozone data. Backscattered Ultraviolet
(BUV) data from Nimbus 4 and AE-E are continuing to -be
processed. NASA is cooperating with the Upper Air Branch
of NOAA in the analysis of this da.ta. Reduced ozone con-
centrations have been derived from BUV data taken subsequent
to an August 1972 polar cap absorption (PCA) event. This
is in agreement with theoretical predictions that the
elevated nitric oxide concentrations associated with PCA
events would result in catalytic depletion of ozone.
Presently work is underway involving (SFC, NOAA, and the
Free University of Berlin to develop from BUV data a
climatological atlas. of the stratosphere including, ozone
and temperature fields and derived transport properties.
Work underway at NOAA using GASP data has confirmed correla-
tions of cyclonic and anticyclonic win4 patterns with low
and high concentrations of tropospheric ozôni. The State
University of New York is using GASP data in studying
ozone climatology and its relation to wind motions.
Dr. London of the University of Colorado is analyzing
global ozone data from ground stations, balloon-borne ozo-
nesondes, and the OGO-IV satellite. This research is aimed
at determining the causes of both long- and short-term ozone
variations.
Coordinating Activities
NASA is actively coordinating its activities with other
Federal agencies. Through the Interdepartmental Committee
PAGENO="0884"
880
for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS), NASA has a lead role in
the development of new instruments and measuring systems.
As part of this role, NASA chairs the Subcommittee on
Instrumentation and Measuring Systems (SIMS) which is com-
posed of representatives from NASA, NSF, NOAA, EPA, the
Energy Research and Development Administration, the Depart-
ment of Defense, and the Department of Transportation. SIMS
is presently preparing a report to ICAS on the status, needs,
and plans in the area of instrumentation required for
addressing the CFM-ozone issue. SIMS also serves to coordi~-
nate the various Federal agencies involved in stratospheric
measurements and instrumentation. Interagency cooperation
in the general area of stratospheric perturbations related
to human activities is fostered through the Federal Inter-
agency Task Force on Inadvertent Modification of the
Stratosphere (IMOS) * NASA also has specific cooperative
efforts with other Federal agencies on an individual basis.
NASA and FAA have signed a bilateral Memorandum of Under-
standing providing for coordination of research efforts and
for the publication of an Upper Atmospheric Programs Bulletin.
This bulletin is distributed to over 1500 interested indi-
viduals in the scientific and technical community.
NASA had a significant role in formulating the Tripartite
Agreement on Ozone Monitoring which was signed on May 5,
1976, by France, Great Britain, and the United States. The
agreement followed the recommendation by the Secretary of
Transportation in his Concorde decision and is designed
to foster cooperative efforts to achieve a better under-
standing of the effects of human activities on the strato-
sphere. NASA, DOT, EPA, DOD, and NOAA have formed an
interagency agreement in support of the Tripartite Agreement.
International cooperation is also being fostered through
coordinated efforts with foreign investigators and through
foreign membership on the SRAC. Coordination between NASA
and the French Centre Nationale d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES)
led to the inclusion of the Girard grille spectrometer in
the experiment package for the recent CV-990 latitude survey
mission. Cooperative~efforts are also being pursued with
the Canadian Stratoprobe balloon series which is conducting
multi-species measurements of the nitrogen family.
The continuing basic science effort in upper atmospheric
research is yielding results in fulfillment of NASA's goals
of providing assessment of specific impacts on stratospheric
ozone and of providing the capability for evaluating future
potential stratospheric perturbations. Developments in
sensor technology which allow coordinated multi-species
measurements and progress in theoretiôal model develQpment
and laboratory studies give me confidence that we are proceed-
ing along a sound path toward fundamental understanding of
the upper atmosphere.
PAGENO="0885"
881
This concludes my review of the Physics and Astronomy
Programs.
LUNAR AND PLANETARY PROGRAMS
My next comments will cover the Lunar and Planetary Programs
in which our most outstanding accomplishments during the
past year were the successful landings of Vikings 1 and 2
on Mars. Much has been written and said about the success
of this mission and I will review it later in my statement.
The two orbiters and landers performed beautifully, and
responded precisely to the commands sent from Earth. The
Viking experience made man feel almost as if he could reach
out and touch objects in a hostile land over 200 million
miles away. Our knowledge of Mars has been enormously
expanded by the accomplishments of the Viking mission, and
we plan to continue our study through one complete Martian
year, i.e., until the end of September 1978. Money is
included in our budget for FY 1977 to conduct this Viking
extended mission.
In addition to Viking we have made considerable progress
throughout our Lunar and Planetary Programs. The spacecraft
are performing well (including Pioneer 10 over one billion
miles away and Pioneer 11 on its way to Saturn). The two
Helios spacecraft launched in December 1974 and January
1976 are continuing to transmit valuable data on the
electromagnetic fields and energetic particles found near
the Sun. The project is a joint undertaking between the
United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. Results
from this project have increased our knowledge of the solar
wind, and as I mentioned in~my testimony on our Solar-
Terrestrial Programs, understanding the nature of the solar
wind will help us ultimately to understand the way solar
activity affects the Earth's climate.
We are moving ahead on schedule with our Mariner launches
to Jupiter and Saturn set for next summer, and our Pioneer
launches to Venus in 1978, and I am pleased to report that
these projects are all proceeding within their allotted
budgets.
We have entered, almost without knowing it, an age of explora-~
tion and discovery unparalleled since the Renaissance, when
in just 30 years European man moved across the western ocean
to bring the entire globe within his ken. Today our new
worlds are the Moon, the planets, and other bodies which
make up the solar system. Twenty years ago the planets
were hardly perceived, as worlds at all, and textbook
PAGENO="0886"
882
descriptions of them at that time seem today to be remark-
ably naive. Rotation periods of Mercury. and Venus, primary
chemical constituents of the atmospheres, and surfaces of
almost any planetary body were unknown. As late as the
mid-l950's, it was possible to characterize Venus as a wet,
verdant world teeming with life, and to speculate on intel-
ligent Martians constructing a vast network of irrigation
canals, without contradicting what was known at the time.
Many scientists argued then that the great lunar craters
were due to volcanism, and almost no one had anticipated
the discovery of craters and volcanoes on Mars.
Before the space age, the smallest feature readily detectable
on the surface of Mars was several hundred kilometers across.
Today the Viking orbiter cameras are routinely achieving
resolutions of a few tens of meters, and the Viking landers
have photographed two extremely small areas of the planet
with a resolution of a few millimeters. Thus, in a little
more than a decade, the size of the smallest Martian features
we can see and study has decreased ten million fold. This
revolution in photographic capability, the increase in our
understanding of our environment, typify the remarkable
discoveries of the space science program that have measurably
changed our view of the world. . -
Exploration of the solar system is mankind's grandest adven-
ture of the last third of the 20th Century, and the pre-
eminence of the United States in this enterprise should be
a source of pride to.us all. Dr. Carl Sagan recently wrote
in Scientific American: "Centuries hence, when current social
and political problems may seem as remote as the problems
of the Thirty Year's War are to us, our age may be remembered
chiefly for one fact: It was the time when the inhabitants
of the Earth first made contact with the vast cosmos in
which their small planet is imbedded." The Earth is but one
of 15 or so large planetary bodies in our solar system. Yet
it is unique in that it is our home, an~d the home of all
known life in the solar system. Our partidular location
on the fragile surface of this smallish world distorts our
vision of Earth's -- and man's ~- place in the universe.
We explore the solar system in order to understand our own
planet and comprehend its relationships to its cosmic
environment. We seek to learn about its past and to predict
its future by understanding the past and future of the
whole system of which it is a part. This study is in its
infancy, yet in less than two decades our knowledge of the
solar system has been profoundly and excitingly altered.
And one of the insights already obtained is a greater appre-
ciation for the uniqueness and value of our own planet.
PAGENO="0887"
883
The fundamental goals of NASA's lunar and planetary program
have been succinctly stated by the Space Science Board of
the National Academy of Sciences:
1. To understand the origin, evolution, ~nd current
state of the solar system;
2. To understand the past and present processes
that affect the Earth's and man's environment,
by comparative study of solar system bodies;
3. To understand the relation of the chemical
history of the solar system to the origin and
evolution of life, here and possibly elsewhere.
The essence of our lunar and planetary activities to achieve
these goals is exploration. This exploration is both physi-
cal and intellectual we send space vehicles to other
planets because we seek to characterize their present condi-
tions and to understand their evolution. Such a goal calls
for a broadly-based and comprehensive approach. Planning,
developing, and successfully implementing a rationally
planned sequence of lunar and planetary space missions is
the hallmark of this endeavor. Ground-based, aircraft, and
balloon observations, as well as theoretical studies and
laboratory research, are critical components of this program.
Post-flight analyses of lunar samples and data returned from
planetary missions provides the fundamental infusion of new
knowledge into our social system, and forms the basis for
an even more rewarding future program.
The lunar and planetary program is providing knowledge for
understanding our solar system, including most importantly
our Earth. Knowledge is the most powerful tool for use in
solving man's major planetological problems. Man's funda-
mental desire to explore and understand is being satisfied.
National preeminence and pride reached a very high point
with the success of Viking.
We have recently been reaping the rewards of the past. Two
major missions (Pioneer Venus and Mariner Jupiter/Saturn)
are nearing their~operation phase. We now seek a national
commitment to new, imaginative, scientifically productive
exploration missions. This is necessary to satisfy the
goals of lunar and planetary exploration and to maintain
the national capability to continue our leadership role
in this field. Usually about a decade elapses between the
time a potential flight mission is conceived and the time
that the actual mission is launched and data obtained. For
example, Viking was a new start in 1968. All the exciting
PAGENO="0888"
884
discover~es that are now being made are the fruition of
concepts that were generated many years ego. In order to
continue our pr.ogram of systematic exploration, it is
vital to initiate new missions.
This year we are asking for one new *start in lunar and
planetary programs: The Jupiter Orbiter Probe (JOP) rn~Lssion.
I will discuss this mission in detail after summarizing the
status of our present understanding of planetary science.
Terrestrial Planets
The terrestrial planets, (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars)
and the Moon, have many properties in common, such assirnilar
sizes and rocky crusts. In all cases, *the surfaces of these
planets have been modified by both external and internal
processes, some of which are familiar to terrestrial geol-
ogists~ Since the surfaces are the parts of the planets
most accessible to direct bbservation, we seek to apply
geological methods to understand these processes and their
relationship to the bulk properties of the bodies.
Ultimately, we hope to be able to reconstruct the chemical
and physical conditions in the dust cloud that enveloped
the Sun at the time these planets formed, and to trace
their subsequent individual paths of development. In
particular, we wish to know how the Earth came to be the
hospitable, blue and green abode of life that we know,
while some of our neighbors in space evolved from initial
conditions not too different from those of our own planet
into very alien and biologically inhospitable worlds.
Planetary geophysics is concerned largely with understanding
bulk properties and relating these to observable surface
conditions. Chemical determinations of material in the
interiors obviously cannot be made directly; nevertheless,
inferences are possible from measurements of gross physical
properties. Geology, in turn, studies the process that
molds the surfaces of planets. Rock types, their distribu-
tion, and their composition, must be known in order to
ascertain their mode of formation and subsequent changes.
The geology of planetary surfaces bears directly on the
origin of life. When lifeforms are present on a planet,
such factors as the mode of rock formation, the physical
conditions of deposition, and the relative age take on
new significance. Not only do these factors reflect past
conditions and events, but understanding them will help to
reveal the evolutionary path of life on the planet and the
conditions under which life thrived.
PAGENO="0889"
885
We have accumulated large quantities of information about
individual planets and satellites during., the past decade,
but we must not lose sight of the relationship between all
these individual discoveries and the whole picture. The
basic questions in planetary science usually involve more
than one planetary body: why does Venus have a massive
atmosphere while the atmosphere of Mars is so thin? Why
is there so much water on Earth? Why are the crusts of the
Moon and probably Mars rigid and that of the Earth mobile?
Why do planetary objects show variations in bulk composi-
tion, from Mercury to the outermost planets?
There are many competing models that have been developed
to answer such questions, but at present, most of them
have shortcomings that ultimately derive from their having
been formulated to explain a few observations, out of
context of the whole picture. Clearly, answers to funda-
mental questions will be obtained only when the questions
are properly posed in the context of the total solar
system.
One of the most important results of this broader planetary
perspective will be an improved understanding of the early
history of the Earth. Features of the Earth's surface are
subject to relatively rapid destruction and modification,
largely as a result of the erosive action of water, but
also as the result of tectonic and volcanic~activity. We
now know that the early surface history of both the Moon
and Mercury has been preserved, partly because they have
been relatively inactive internally through much of their
later existence; moreover, since neither has an atmosphere
or free water, erosion has been gradual. Mars appears to
be intermediate between Mercury and the Moon and Earth with
- an ancient surface that nevertheless has been modified by
both internal activity and erosion. The only way to arrive
at an understanding of the Earth's early history may be
by analogy with what is learned of the~e more primitive
planetary surfaces. .
we have already learned a great deal of the first billion
years of planetary history. Results of studies of lunar
samples have contributed the most detailed knowledge, for
they have provided information that cannot be obtained by
remote sensing techniques. The lunar samples have shown
that surface . rocks of the Moon formed some 4 * 6 billion
years ago as products.of an original differentiation of the
planet that~took place as a result of very early melting
- of the upper two hundred or so kilometers o~ the accreted
material. Since the solar system is about 4.7 billion years
PAGENO="0890"
886
old, this limits the time available for accretion to less
than 100 million years, a very brief period in the time
scale of the age of the solar system. Thus the very early
melting and differentiation of planetary bodies has been
established. The Earth must also have had a sjmilar history,
together with considerable early outgassing which gave rise
to the atmosphere we have.
Evlden~e obtained from the seismometers left on the Moon
by the Apollo astronauts indicates that the Moon may have
a small molten core. This result, although not yet con-
firmed, is consistent with all other lunar characteristics
yet determined. We can reasonably infer that all the
terrestrial bodies -- Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Earth,
and Mars may have developed molten cores early in their
evolution, with significant consequences for their subse-
quent thermal evolution.
Why then did the Earth turn out to be so different from
these other bodies? One major factor is simply its size.
Por example, the radioactive heat sources that caused the
Moon to be flooded in many places by basaltic lavas became
depleted long ago, and the Moon has been essentially dead
since then. Because of the Earth's greater size and greater
content of radioactive materials,, it has..continued to evolve
and is even today dynamicand active. Volcanoes and earthr
quakes demonstrate this, as well as the mo~rement of the
crustal plates which the Lunar Laser Ranging Program and
other programs in the Office of Applications are now studying.
We know as a result of the space program that the early
stages of the Moon, Mars, Mercury, and Venus were charac-
terized by intense bombardment from infalling debris, and
we infer that this must also have happened to the Earth.
Evidence gained from lunar studies indicates that the heavy
declining bombardment lasted about a billion years.
Geologists are `now recognizing more and more ancient impact
features in old areas of the Earth such as the Canadian
Shield. Important mineral and petroleum deposits are asso-
ciated with some of these features: for example, the nickel
and cobalt deposits at Sudbury, Ontario, and petroleum
deposits within impact scars found in the Williston'Basin
in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota.
These are `but afew of the examples `I could cite to'denion-~
strate how the study of' the geology and geophysics of the
inner plahets has contributed to `our knowledge of the Earth.
PAGENO="0891"
887
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, and Mars are not the only
terrestrial-planet-sized bodies in the splar system. At
least five satellites of similar size exist: the four
Galilean satellites o~ Jupiter (10, Europa, Ganymede, and
Callisto) and Titan, the largest satellite of Saturn. But
although they. are similar in size to the planet Mercury.,
these giant satellites are fundamentally different in com-
position and history. They formed at distances from the
Sun that were cool enough for ices of water, ammonia, and
perhaps methane to condense and aggregate along with rocket
materials. Today, their interiors are thought. to contain
both liquid and solid water, and their surfaces may have.
been molded `by processes unfamiliar.to us. One satellite,.
Titan, has an atmosphere comparable in density to that of
the Earth, and another, 10, has been greatly modified by
heat and high-energy radiation from nearby Jupiter; both
are unique and fascinating worlds, perhaps ultimately of
more interest than some of the planets themselves. Atten-
tion has been directed to extensive research on the satel-
lites only in the past few years; the first detailed.recon-
naissance by spacecraft will not take place until the MJS
spacecraft fly through ,the ~7ovian system in 1979.
Studies of smaller bodies are basic for understanding the
origin of the solar system. Since only small bodies have
a prospect for preserving the record of the primitive materials
out of which the solar system formed about 4½ billion years
ago, much of what we know about such conditions is derived
from the laboratory study of fragments of these bodies --
the meteorites. From analyses of the sort developed for
the Apollo lunar samples, .i~ has been possible recently
to begin to define the temperature, pressure, and chemical
composition of the proto-solar. nebula. . A particularly
intriguing recent discovery is that the basic isotopic
abundances of some elements differ in a way that must
represent different origins for their materials in different
stellar explosions before our solar system had ever begun
to form. Thus, these studies are pressing back the front.iers
of our knowledge to times even before the birth of the Sun.
Along with increased interest in the meteorites and in what
they can tell us about the origin of the solar system has
come new studies of the asteroids, from which many of the
meteorites have most probably come. Another probe of poten-
tially great value for' the ancient past .of the planetary
system is provided by the comets., These aggregates of ice
and dust might be a sample of the original solar nebula,
preserved in the deep freeze of interstellar space for
billions of years before plunging close to the Sun, to
PAGENO="0892"
888
release their great tails of evaporating gas and dust.
As I have already mentioned, it is known. that organic
molecules are continuously being formed in interstellar
space, and it is possible that comets can contrIbute
knowledge on the mechanisms of prebiotic cosmochemistry.
A high priority for future exploration is being given to
space flights to one or more comets.
Giant Planets
I have been discussing' the smaller bodies in the solar
system, but from the perspective of an outside observer,
the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune --
dominate the, planetary system. Most of the mass and angular
momentum of the system are to be found in these immense,
rapidly rotating spheres. Jupiter is something like' a star
that failed, and even today it draws upon internal heat
sources to radiate about twice as muoh energy as it receives
from the Sun. The outer two planets, Uranus and Neptune,
form a distinct subgroup with different chemical composition,
depleted in' hydrogen and helium relative to. their larger
cousins. Pioneers 10 and 11 provided the first in situ
view of the Jovian system, and Pioneer 11 is now enroute
to Saturn. A muah more detailed look at both planet-s and
their satellites will be provided by the MJS missions, and
one of the MJS spacecraft may be targeted to fly from
Saturn' on to Uranus for an arrival in the mid-1980' s.
The planets are not isolated, but\all float within a sea
of charged particles (plasma) flo~~~ing outward from the
Sun. If a planet. has its own magn~tic field, the inter-
action with this "solar wind" is `e~cceedingly complex. In
my testimony on. our Solar-Terrestrail Programs, I discussed
in detail the' NASA projects that are exploring the Earth~~~
ionosphere and magnetosphere. A good example of how we plan-
to achieve a better understanding of the Earth's environ-
ment by studying other planets is our ~xploration of the
magnetosphere and radiation environment of Jupiter.
The magnetosphere of Jupiter is one of the major physical
phenomena of the solar system. Its existence has been
known for about twenty years from ground-based observatiohs,
but not until the flybys of Pioneer 10 and 11 could we `study
it directly. Additional in situ observations are planned
during flybys of the MJS `spacecraft in 1979, using upgraded
instruments whose design has profited by the Pioneer 10/li
observations. `
In addition to the basic planetological significance of the
magnetospheres of Earth and Jupiter, they provide accessible
examples of plasma physical systems on a huge scale. Hence,
PAGENO="0893"
889
their study has broad astrophysical significance in under-
standing pulsars and the quite pervasive phenomenon of the
acceleration of charged particles elsewhere in ~the universe,
~s well as helping us to understand radio propagation and
solar-induced noise storms in the Earth's ionosphere.
Atmospheres
bn~ of the most fruitful areas of solar system research,
and one with many applications to Earth, is the study of
planetary atmospheres. Seven of the nine planets and
several large satellites have substantial atmospheres. The
exceptions among the planets are Pluto, which is probably
too cold, and Mercury, which is too small and too hot.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about these dozen or so
atmospheres is their diversity of both quantity and composi-
tion. Here on Earth we find nitrogen and oxygen, with a
percent or two'of water vapor and argon, and a few hundred
parts per million of carbon dioxide; the pressure at the
surface is 14.7 psi, by definition, one atmosphere. There
is also an enormous ocean, with a pressure at the bottom
equivalent to nearly 300 atmospheres. The surface atmospheric
pressure on Mars is less than one one-hundredth of an atnio-
sphere, and the surface conditions on Mars would be regarded
on Earth as characteristic of the stratosphere. Mars'~atmo-
sphere is predominantly carbon dioxide, with two or three
percent each of argon and nitrogen, and much smaller quanti-
ties of oxygen and water vapor. Trace constituents of xenon
and krypton have also been discovered. Dust storms are common
and occasionally they cover the whole planet. Clouds of
both water ice and frozen carbon dioxide are frequently seen..
This detailed knowledge of the,Mars atmosphere was derived
from the recent Viking observations.
Venus' atmosphere also consists.primarjly of carbon dioxide,
perhaps ,accompar~ied (as on Mars) by. small amounts of argon
and nitrogen, but on Venus the surface pressure is.~about 90
atmospheres and the temperature (480°C) approaches red heat:
lead and tin are molten at these temperatures. Dense clouds
of concentrated. sulfuric acid cover the whole planet. These
clouds are high above the surface, with bottoms at approxi-
mately 40 kilometers altitude and tops at 65 kilometers. A
major objective of Pioneer Venus is study of the atmosphere
of Venus.
The giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune,
have extremely deep atmospheres composed of light.gases:
mainly hydrogen with about 10 percent helium and traces
of ammonia and methane. If there is a solid surface on
PAGENO="0894"
890
Jupiter, it is probably found at a great depth in the
atmosphere where the pressure is around a million atmo-
spheres. The clouds that are visually obvious on Jupiter
are believed to consist of frozen ammonia underlain by
another layer of ice or water also containing dissolved
ammonia. At much greater depths there may be clouds of
condensed metals or compounds that on Earth are solid'
The proposed Jupiter Orbiter Probe mission includes the
study of the Jovian atmosphere as one of its major objec-
tives.
Titan is yet different: we observe a few percent of
methane gas, and infer that the rest of the atmosphere con-
sists of a transparent gas, perhaps nitrogen. The surface
pressure on Titan may be a few tenths of an atmosphere, or
possibly greater if what we see as the "surface" is really
a cloud deck, as some measurements suggest. Titan's strato-
sphere~ and those of Jupiter and Saturn, contains a moder-
ately dark "smog" which we suspect to be produced by the
action of sunlight on methane.
10's atmosphere is perhaps the strangest of all those in
the solar system. For one thing, it trails out behind the
satellite, extending about halfway around 10's orbit to
a distance of about a million kilometers. The density of
this elongated atmosphere is very low, only a few atoms
per cubic centimeter; it is known to include hydrogen,
sodium, potassium, and sulfur.
Exploration of this astonishing variety of objects is of
great importance and has a major impact on our ideas of
the origin of the solar system and the evolution of the
Earth and planets. The atmospheres of the Jovian planets
are probably primordial, that is, they may represent only
slightly modified samples of the original solar nebula.
The satellites ~nd the terrestrial planets seem to repre-
sent only the condensable portions of the nebular material:
metal and rock, supplemented in the outer solar system by
ices of water, ammonia, and methane. The atmospheres (and
the Earth's oceans) were later degassed from the interiors
as they heated up; the gases therefore represent samples
of the interiors of these bodies.
The original composition of an atmosphere can be modified
by chemical processes and by the escape of the lighter gases.
On Earth, there is an enormous additional complication, the
effect of life. Most of the free oxygen now is produced
from carbon dioxide by plants. But oxygen can also be
PAGENO="0895"
891
released from water vapor, with subsequent escape of the
hydrogen. This process is occurring today; was it more
important in"the Earth's early history? To what extent could
it have contributed to the desiccation of Venus and Mars?
These questions are of great importance in planetary science.
Escape from the atmosphere is profoundly affected by the
temperature of its outermost layer, the exosphere, which
extends outward from an altitude of about 250 km. Study
of the Earth's upper atmosphere, which began in earnest
with the space age, had suggested that the most important
energy source is far-ultraviolet solar radiation; the heat
is a byproduct of the formation of the ionosphere. Ther'~
has, however, been increasing uneasiness about the complete-
ness of this description. The atmosphere is full of waves
and turbulent motions which at the surface we call weather.
The energy of these motions ought to be dissipated into
heat at the low densities of the upper atmosphere. At the
same time, these motions should aid in the downward conduc-
tion of heat. The balance of these heating and cooling
effects is suspected to be a delicate one, and apparently
for the Earth they come close to cancelling each other out.
The Viking measurements of Mars' atmosphere force us to
think that the cooling effect dominates there, and the
same may be true for Venus. Strangely enough, however,
just the opposite seems to occur on Jupiter, whose exosphere
is much hotter than expected. There is hope that study of
these various examples may give the key to understanding
this aspect of our terrestrial environment.
~gplications to Earth
The main goal of planetary exploration is knowledge, knowl-
edge which can be applied to problems that confront man in
the -understanding and utilization of Earth. As in the exam-
~le of the stratosphere just discussed, the effect is often
not direct, but rather comes through stimulation of thought
processes. All too often, we find our ideas stalled or
channeled into a non-productive direction, and further
progress can only be .made with the help of a fresh viewpoint.
Such a viewpoint is obtained by measurements obtained under
the vastly different conditions found on another planet,
where we find different processes at work, or unfamiliar
combinations of familiar ones.
By looking around us, we can find several examples of the
effect of pollution. We are concerned about small effects
of man's activities on the Earth's ozone layer; -on Mars the
PAGENO="0896"
892
o~zone layer ia observed to be almost totally destroy~d by-
the effects of tiny quantities of water vapor. Qzox~e is
also undetectable on Venus, where the reason is.des~ruc-
tion by chlorine "po~lution," an effect closely analogous
to that of spray-can prope],lants at home. With such
examples we can test and refine our predictions tor the
Earth's ozone. The sulfuric acid clouds of Vent~s also have
their analogs on Earth, in our stratosphere and in smelter
plumes. Presumably, the difference is due to the forma-
tion and precipitation of rain, which washes our atmosphere
clean.
We can also ask why the Earth and Venus are so different.
Is Venus an-extremeexample of wha pollution can do to a
planet,or was it -ortginal.ly endowed with adifferent comple-
ment of. gases? --Earth actually has about the same amount
of carbon dioxide as Venus, but instead of being in the
atmosphere it is buried as limestone of the skeletal remains
of animal life, the result of being dissolved in water.
The key thing seems to be the dryness of Venus. Perhaps
it- was formed that way, but perhaps not; Venus gets more
solar radiation than Earth, and its oceans may have been
totally evaporated into the atmosphere, while the steam
could have been converted to oxygen and escaping hydrogen.
Such ideas are entirely plausible, and warn us that the whole
state of a planet can be extremely sensitive to small changes
(in this case, in the amount of solar heat). We can learn
much abQut our atmosphere from the study of the atmosphere
of Venus.
Prediction of weather and climate on Earth is also related
to planetary sEience. We know that climate on Earth has
varied greatly in the past (witness the great ice ages, and
smaller, but still economically highly significant variations
within recorded history), and we suspect that some of the
causes may include variations in dust or carbon dioxide con-
centrations in the atmosphere. However, the behavior of
the Earth's atmosphere, particularly its coupling to the
land and oceans and the polar ice caps, is an. exceedingly
complicated problem.. We badly need to hone our understanding
on varied and perhaps more tractable problems. For such
purposes, the atmospheres of other planets may provide
natural laboratories for observation. Venus offers a massive
atmosphere and slow rotation; Jupiter a massive atmosphere
and rapid rotation; Mars a thin atmosphere, rapid rotation,
and large topographic relief. There is great prospect for
increasing our ability to understand and predict our own
atmosphere by developing and testing our tools on these
other planets.
PAGENO="0897"
893
Mars provides a specific example. Since Mariner 9 arrived
at the planet in the midst of a great~ global dust storm,
we obtained considerable information concerning the nature
of this storm from instruments aboard the spacecraft.
The extremely dusty air Was a strong absorber of sunlight
which caused the atmosphere to heat, producing an isothermal
behavior (temperature remained essentially constant as alti~-
tude increased), rather than the adiabatic (temperature
decreases as altitude increases) behavior of a transparent
atmosphere. Large quantities of dust were detected at alti-
tudes of 15 kilometers, and in some localized storms, as
high as 45 kilometers. Later, as the dust storm subsided,
atmospheric temperature profiles decreased with altitude,
as expected. The heating effect of the dust particles in
the atmosphere influence the circulation pattern of the
atmosphere on a global basis and created a weather pattern
considerably different from what we experienced later in
the mission when the storm had run its course.
Our ultimate goal is to understand the origin and evolu-
tion of individual planets and of the solar system. We
see relationships of one planet to another, but at this
early stage of our understanding much of the big picture
still eludes us. By pursuing this goal we hope to gain
deeper insight into our own planet and to contribute to
maintaining the fragile viability of our en~4ronment to
enhance the quality of life of future generai~$ons.
The strategy for accomplishing the goals and objectives of
the lunar and planetary program has been derived over the
years since NASA was created. It has three major character-
istics:
1. Continu4~: Flight missions are the heart of the lunar
and planetary program; however, ground-based observa-
tions (planetary astronomy), supporting research and
technology (SR&T) prior to the missions, and data
analysis and synthesis (DA&S) following the missions
are critical components of the integrated program.
Planetary astronomy provides survey information that
produces the foundation upon which exploratory missions
are soundly based. With modern instrumentation, valua-
ble information about planetary bodies can be obtained.
This information adds to our scientific .kr~iowledge, is
used for science planning, and establishes environmental
characteristics for spacecraft and mission design. S~&T
leads to the conceptualization and design of methods
and instruments for flight missions and ground-based
92-082 0 - 77 - 57
PAGENO="0898"
894
observations; this activity is often carried out for
a number of years before detailed planning of the
flight ~rnissions can prudently begin. -
Finally, post-mission data analysis and synthesis is
the stage in which the real advancement in knowledge
is consolidated, and the comparative study of major
planetary problems is conducted.
2. Balance: The flight missions concentrate on the
explórition of many different objects in different parts
of the solar system.. The need for balance stems from
the requirements for comparative study of different
planetary bodies in order to characterize and under-
stand any one of them (including our own Earth).
Another aspect of balanced flight missions is that
each mission is multidisciplinary. For example,
although one of the primary objectives of Viking was
to search for life on Mars, the four Viking spacecraft
carried a wide variety of experiments and instruments
which investigated many aspects of Mars and its satel-
lites that were not directly related to the life
detection experiments, including seismology, meteorol-
ogy, -atmospheric composition, and many other investi-
gations.
3. Staged progression: Flight missions are undertaken
in a rational anUorderly progression, which can be
summarized into three categories: reconnaissance,
exploration, and intensive study. The Space Science
Board of the National Academy of Sciences described
these succinctly: "Reconnaissance tells us quali-
tatively what the planet is like, and provides enough
information about the character of the planet and its
environment to allow us to proceed to the stage of
exploration of the planet. Exploration seeks the
systematic discovery and understanding of the processes,
history, and evolution of the planet on a global
scale. In the final step, that of intensive study,
sharply formulated specific problems of high importance
are pursued in depth. The sequence of investigations
should follow this order." -
(Chart SL77 - 1141) In general, reconnaissance is carried
out by flyby spacecraft; these are followed by orbiters,
atmospheric probes, landers, and sample return for
exploration-and intensive study.
PAGENO="0899"
895
PAGENO="0900"
896
To date we have completed the reconnaissance of the
inner planets. The exploration of the inner planets
has commenced with the Viking landings on Mars and
the approved Pioneer Venus mission, which involves
an orbiter and multiple atmospheric entry probes
to be launched in 1978. Considerable attention is
being given to the development of the next Mars
mission to continue and to expand the exploration
of this planet. Reconnaissance of the outer planets
began with ground-based observations and the flybys
of Jupiter by Pioneers 10 and 11, in the early 1970's.
These identified the radiation environment of
Jupiter and supported the design of instruments and
missions for the Mariner Jupiter/Saturn missions that
will be launched this year, We are proposing this
year a new start in the Jupiter Orbiter/Probe (JOP)
mission, which will mark the first state of detailed
exploration o~ the giant planets and their satellite
systems, The JOP orbiter will explore the magneto-
sphere in detail and make observations of the planet
- and satellites; the probe will provide our first
direct measurements of the atmosphere of. a giant.
planet and establish `the "ground truth" needed to
interpret astronomical and remote sensing of the
planet.
For the- comets, asteroids, and the other outer planets,
advanced studies are now being made to determine how
to undertake exploratory missions to these bodies.
Primary attention is being given to the early planning
for a comet mission which we expect to propose in the
near futur&.
(Chart SL77- 1317 ) Solar system objects are listed
across the bottom ~f the chart roughly in ..order of
increasing difficulty .in reaching ~them. In our balanced
program, knowledge is, extended by filling in gaps and
corners in such a way as to color this kind of chart
uniformly from the lower left.. corner outward.
PAGENO="0901"
897
PAGENO="0902"
898
~Outer Planets Missions
Introduction -
-The outer planets, Jupiter and beyond, are major components
of our solar system. Pioneers 10 and 11 were mankind's
first efforts toward exploration of the outer planets.
Pioneers 10 and 11 have served as pathfinders through the
asteroid belt and the hazardous radiation environment of
Jupiter. Preliminary reconnaissance data of Jupiter, its
environment, and some of its satellites, were obtained.
These data are of fundamental importance in the design of
more sophisticated and comprehensive subsequent missions.
Pioneer 11 has been retargeted for an encounter with Saturn
to do similar initial reconnaissance. Pioneer 10 will be
the first spacecraft to escape the solar system.
The Mariner Jupiter/Saturn missions will continue the
explorati~n of Jupiter and Saturn utilizing the environmental
data provided by Pioneer for spacecraft and mission design.
More detailed reconnaissance data will be acquired while
flying by both planetary systems. An option exists for
continuation to Uranus by one spacecraft.
As I .have mentioned, we are requesting a new outer planets
mission., Jupiter Orbiter/Probe (JOP). JOP logically follows
the Pioneer 10 and 11 and Mariner Jupiter/Saturn missions.
A comprehensive study of Jupiter, its satellites, and
environment will b~ made by a Jupiter orbiter and a probe
which will make direct measurements in the atmosphere of
Jupiter. This will constitute the first orbiter and probe
to be used in the exploratipn of the outer planets.
In this part of my testimony I will review briefly what
has been learned from Pioneers 10 and 11, and discuss the
status and scientific goals of the MJS missions; finally,
I will describe the proposed JOP mission and the impact
this mission will have on our knowledge of the solar system.
Pioneers 10 and 11
The first reconnaissance of the outer planets was achieved
by the Pioneer 10 and 11 flybys of Jupiter. Launched in
1972 and 1973, these spacecraft probed the intense Jovian
radiation environment, and confirmed by infrared measure-
ment the existence of an important internal source of heat
for Jupiter. The gravitational and magnetic data obtained
at encounter constrained possible models of the interior
structure of Jupiter, and unexpectedly revealed a region
of low-energy dense plasma surrounding the planet. Photo-
graphs of Jupiter taken by the Pioneers showed small `spots'
PAGENO="0903"
899
in the atmosphere similar to the famous Great. Red Spot
(Chart SL77-1053) and these discoveries led to general
acceptance of the theory that these spots are large cyclonic
disturbances similar to hurricanes on Earth.
The Pioneers also discovered an atmosphere on 10 and a
large basin-like feature on Ganymede, two of the satellites
of Jupiter.
Following Jupiter encounter, Pioneer 10 swung past the giant
planet onto an untargeted trajectory out of the solar system,
and is currently measuring properties of the interplanetary
medium at increasing distances from the Sun. Pioneer 11 was
aimed so that encounter would direct the spacecraft onto a
trajectory to Saturn; this trajectory is taking the space-
craft out of the ecliptic plane. This first venture into
the uncharted region away from the solar equatorial plane
has revealed that the Sun has a large-scale dipole magnetic
field that is oppositely directed in the northern and
southern hemispheres.
Mariner Jupiter/Saturn
The reconnaissance of the outer planets and their satellites
will continue with two Mariner Jupiter/Saturn (MJS) space-
craft scheduled for launch in August and September of this
year. Both spacecraft will first fly past Jupiter and obtain
information on its atmosphere and magnetosphere, and make
observations of the satellites. Using the gravity assist
from Jupiter, the first spacecraft will go on to Saturn to
study the planet, its rings, and its satellites (Chart SL 77-666).
If this first spacecraft -succeeds, then the second MJS space-
craft will be retargeted at Saturn so that the gravitational
swingby will direct the spacecraft on to Uranus.
The MJS spacecraft will undertake a variety of investigations
of the outer planets and their satellites using the sophis-
ticated instrumentation provided for this mission. A major
topic of investigation is the properties of the planetary
satellites and the rings of Saturn. The satellite systems
of Jupiter and Saturn are analogous in many ways to miniature
solar systems; the planets were initially hot and radiating
energy (like the Sun) due to the release of gravitational
energy. The material -orbiting the planets gradually coalesced
into the satellites and ring Systems, whose composition was
strongly influenced by the effect of planetary heat on the
condensation of gases into particles that could accrete
together. The rings of Saturn are of particular interest
in this regard; apparently tidal forces and collisions
prevented formation of satellites in this region. Under-
standing the rings of Saturn and the asteroids is vital to
PAGENO="0904"
900
PAGENO="0905"
901
PAGENO="0906"
902
our ability to estimate how material was redistributed by
gravitational interactions and collisions at,the time of
formation of the planets. The satelliteè are also of great
planetological interest, for similar reasons. In my
discussion of the Jupiter Orbiter Probe mission I will
further* discuss satellite science.
MJS will provide our first tantalizing glimpse into
geological processes that operate on the satellites of
the outer planets.
The trajectories of the two spacecraft have been optimized
for coverage of as many of the numerous satellites as possible,
as well as for observations of the planets themselves. The
first MJS spacecraft will give us our first close-up views
of the inner Jovian satellites (Amaithea, 10, Europa, Ganymede,
and Callisto); the second MJS will provide a different view
of all of these except lo. At Saturn both spacecraft will
pass close to Tethys, Mimas, Enceladus, Dione, and Rhea, and
the first MJS will make a close encounter with Titan. Titan
is the largest satellite in the solar System, and it is known
to have an atmosphere comparable i.n density to that of the
Earth.
A second major thrust of MJS investigation is atmospheric
and planetary science. Gravitational and magnetic field
data will provide important clues to the internal structure
and dynamics of the outer planets. Some instruments will
measure and map the heat distribution of the planets, and
determine whether internal sources of heat are important, as
for Jupiter. Other remote sensing experiments will allow
a detailed study of the atmosphere, including dynamics,
thermal and density structure, and composition. The compo-
sition of the outer planets iS of particular importance
for understanding the early history and composition of the
solar system.
Plasmas, energetic particles, and planetary -magnetospheres
are the third major area of MJS science. A radio astronomy
experiment ~iill locate the sources of energetic radio bursts
emitted by the planets, and determine how these bursts are
modulated by satellite interactions with the planetary
magnetospheres. Measurements of plasma, as well as of high-
energy cosmic rays from the Sun and the galaxy, will
contribute to our understanding of the interplanetary and
planetary environments. A planet of particular interest in
this regard is Uranus. Uranus has the unique feature of an
axis of rotation nearly in the plane of its orbit around the
Sun; its satellites' orbits are similarly inclined. This
contrasts with the approximately perpendicular orientation
in the rest of the solar iystem. The resulting solar wind
PAGENO="0907"
903
interaction and atmospheric dynamics will be greatly different
from those at other planets. If the Uranus flyby option is
exercised, the second MJS spacecraft will encounter Uranus
approximately nine years from now.
Now a few words on the status of the MJS missions. Assembly
and testing of the spacecraft are well under way at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. The spacecraft are scheduled to be
shipped to Kennedy Space Center in April and May respectively
for preparations for launch in August and September this
year. We are meeting, and expect to continue to meet,all
major milestones in our MJS development schedule, and we
are staying within the budget established five years ago.
Jupiter Orbiter/Probe
The next logical step in our exploration of the outer planets
is an orbiter and probe mission to Jupiter. This Jupiter
Orbiter/Probe (JOP) mission is a new start request this
year. I will now discuss our plans for this exciting and
important new mission.
The Jovian atmosphere is of intense interest to atmospheric
scientists, as I have already mentioned. Its physical
properties and composition, which are not well understood,
are of basic importance to understanding the processes by
which the planets formed out of the primordial solar nebula.
The primary constitutents of the Jovian atmosphere are known
to be hydrogen and helium; an accurate measurement of the
ratio of these elements will provide basic information about
the composition of the early solar nebula. Another composi-
tional question~ is the cause of the color of the Great Red
Spot. Components known or thought to be present in the
Jovian atmosphere are ammonia, methane, phosphine, carbon
monoxide, and molecules produced in the upper atmosphere
by solar ultraviolet radiation. A complex vertical sequence
of clouds consisting of ammonia, ammonium hydrosulfide, and
water is also thought to be present. The entry probe carried
by JOP will directly measure the composition, density,
pressure, temperature, and energy flux as a function of depth
in the Jovian atmosphere. Light scattering by clouds will
be detected, and Jovian storms and lightning caused by
electrostatic charging of droplets and ice particles may be
observable by the probe instruments.
We know that gigantic hurricanes in the Jovian atmosphere
(such as the Great Red Spot) lastmuch. longer than those on
Earth, but we do not yet understand the dynamics of these
storms, nor how the atrnQsphere transports heat radially and
PAGENO="0908"
904
and latitudinally away from the Jovian~ interior. Continual
photographic coverage from orbit is essential to understanding
these phenomena, in the same way that meteorological satellites
-are needed to understand the time variations in the Earth's
atmosphere.
Studies of the Jovian satellites are also a major objective
of the JOP mission. The Jovian system is in many ways an
analog of the Sun and planetary system. The heat radiated.
by the primordial Jupiter would have prevented th~e condensa-
tion of volatiles in orbits close to the planet, and a
decrease in satellite density with increasing orbital
distance is observed. However, the denser satellites
reflect sunlight brightly and are thought to be covered by
ice, whereas the less dense satellites are darker in color
and appear to have rocky surfaces. This paradox is not
understood at present, but JOP data will go a long way toward
improving our understanding of how these satellites formed
and what they are like.
The Galilean satellites, with their partially ice-covered
surfaces, are an entirely new class of planetary objects as
far as photogeologic investigation is concerned. We can
expect to see evidence of processes unique to low tempera-
tures and ice materials (e.g., ice-water volcanoes)7 we hooe
to be able to study in a completely new context geological
processes familiar on the Earth and the terrestrial planets.
A third major thrust of JO? science is an investigation of
the Jovian magnetosphere. This vast region of pla~na
surrounding Jupiter is dominated by the strong magnetic
field of the planet, and the tremendous centrifugal forces
generated by the ten-hour rotation of a region estimated to
be at least a million kilometers in diameter. If the Jovian
magnetosphere were visible to the eye, it would appear from
Earth to be several times larger than the full Moon! We
expect that understanding Jupiter's magnetic field may help
to elucidate not only the magnetic field of the Earth, but
also the nature of pulsars, and similar electromagnetic
phenomena observed elsewhere in the galaxy.
Dynamic processes similar to the geomagnetic storms we
have on Earth are also expected to occur on Jupiter, with
time scales of the order of several weeiçs. The Orbiter
spacecraft will be placed in a highly elliptical orbit that
will pass through the Jovian magnetotail, a region where
particles may be accelerated to energies of hundreds of
millions of volts. It is not kn~,wn how plasma escapes the
Jovian magnetosphere, and the longitudinal coverage possible
PAGENO="0909"
905
with t~ie JO? mission should resolve this basIc issue.
Other important science questions yet unresolved are how
10 triggers the intense bursts of radio emission that we
observe on Earth, the extent to which magnetospheric motion
is driven by atmospheric winds above the polar regiOns,
and the extent to which the Jovian ionosphere enforces
rotation thoughont the vast magnetosphere.
The JO? mission will be launched ~in December 1981 by the
Shuttle/Interim Upper Stage (IUS) (Chart SL77 - 1052 ).
This will be the first planetary mission to use the Space
Transportation System. Approximately one thousand days
after launch, as the spacecraft nears Jupiter, the probe
will be released from the spacecraft. Sixty days later
the probe will enter the planet's atmosphere, and make
measurements for about half an hour while doscendir~gto
a depth where the ptessure is equal to about ten to tv~enty
Earth atmospheres. Finally, the probe will b~ crushed in
the lower atmosphere after it has transmitted its data
back to the orbiter spacecraft and thence to the Earth.
The orbiter engine will then be fired and the spacecraft
will be captured by Jupiter to become an artificial.
satellite of the planet. (Chart SL77 - 1051
After orbit capture the spacecraft will repeatedly encounter
the satellites Ganymede and Callisto, and gravitational
assists from these encounters will swing the orbiter into
the magnetic tail of Jupiter, a region that is inaccessible
to flyby spacecraft. (Chart St 77 - 1057 ) /
A new spacecraft design will b~ us~d for this mission. In
the past, we have had two basic families of spaCecraft:
those that were spin-stabilized (the Pioneers) and those
that were three-axis stabilized platforms (the Mariners
and Vikings). The spinners maintained constant attitude
by virtue of their spin, like a gyroscope. The rotation
of the spacecraft enabled them easily to measure the
angular distribution of energetic particles during .~ach
revolution of the spacecraft The stabilized platfoz~ns
maintained a constant attitude in space~by.se~ising the
position of the Sun and another star, and firing attitude
control engines to keep from drifting away from them.
These platforms are required to provide the necessary
stability and pointing accuracy for remote sensing instru-
ments.
Technological advances have made it possible to advantageously
combine both features into a single spacecraft. The JO?
spacecraft (Chart SL 77 - 1056 ) consists of two parts,
PAGENO="0910"
906
PAGENO="0911"
907
PAGENO="0912"
908
PAGENO="0913"
909
92-082 0 - 77 - 58
PAGENO="0914"
910
a spinning section and a "de-spun platform." The de-spun
platform will carry the radio antenna an~ the remote sensing
instruments; the spinning section will carry the probe (which
is spin-stabilized), the particles and fields e~cperiit~ents,
and will be mated to the spinning Interim Upper Stage launch
vehicle (Chart SL 77 - 1054 ).
We anticipate that this basic spacecraft design will be
applicable to all future missions that combine remote sens-
ing with particles and fields instruments. The atmospheric
probe used for JOP will also be suitable for use on any of
the other outer planets (and on Titan). This remarkable
degree of commonality will result in considerable cost
savings in future missions.
We believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
Federal Republic of Germany will provide the orbit capture
propulsion system for JOP. DiscussionS with the West
German government have been goir~g on for the past year, and
a draft Memorandum of Understanding is currently being pre-
pared. If this international cooperation becomes a reality,
there will be a simple and clean interface between the
retro propulsion system and the rest of the spacecraft.
Two major aerospace companies are conducting the concep-
tual design of the atmospheric entry probe (McDonnell Douglas
and Hughes Aircraft). When this program is approved by the
Congress, one of these competitors will be selected to
develop and fabricate the probe.
This extremely rewarding mission has been enthusiastically
supported by every science advisory group that has examined
it. The 1981/82 Jupiter launch window provides the best
- launch opportunity in a seven-year period, and the avàila-
bility of the Shuttle/IUS will provide an adequate weight
margin that will allow us to return a maximum of science
data, at a reasonable cost. We are the~efore urging the
Congress to approve the Jupiter Orbiter/Präbe mission as
the next logical and appropriate~ step in our exploration
of the outer solar system.
Terrestrial Planets Missio~
Introduction
The inner solar system is the most accessible for both
flight missions and for astronomical observations, and it
provides examples of planetary objects most like the Earth.
With the Mariner 10 mission to Venus and Mercury in 1973/74,
we completed the reconnaissance of the terrestrial planets,
and we are now moving into a period of detailed exploration,
PAGENO="0915"
JUPITER ORBITER
WITH PROBE
(EXPLODED VIEW)
tdAM Ha ~.771~4 (1)
I2.t5~7s
PAGENO="0916"
912
drawing upon the knowledge gained from earlier flight
missions.
ki~
In 1976 the first suc~cessful landing on the surface of
Mars was accomplished. This remarkable technological feat
was not the objective of this mission. It was simply
a necessary requirement to do the science that was next
in the chain of logical exploration. The scientific ques-
tions that were asked were direct, simple, and understand-
able to all, scientists and others. The answers were in
most cases also direct and understandable and for this
*reason Viking was acclaimed a public success and yielded
national pride exceeded only by the Apollo program.
What we asked about Mars was: What is the surface like;
what is the atmosphere like; what is its chemistry; and
most intriguing, is there life on Mars? In every one of
these areas, we have changed the ideas of mankind. Scien~
tists had conjectured for years that the surface is solid,
dusty, rocky, soft, smooth, etc. Now we know at least
at our landing sites, which probably represent a large
fraction of the surface (Chart St 77 - 1252 ). There
are two dominant materials, fine material the size of sand
that is very cohesive, and rocks from the size of a fist
to the size of a football (Chart St 77 - 1256 ). The
surface is generally red, and it appears to be due to the
oxidation rusting of the sui~face material
(Chart St 77 - 1254 ). Based on the chemical analysis
we know that the composition is of a highly silaceous clay
that is also rich in iron and very desiccated. This type
of material is well-known among terrestrial geologists.
Herein lies our first major discovery, perhaps simple, but
extremely important. Mars is similar to the Earth to ftrst
approximations. Now from the high altitude photography
(we have taken 10,000 photos) we have found a planet
extremely heterogeneous -- volcanic, mountainous, covered
by craters, large fractures, and extraordinary evidence
indicating a past history of water flow (Chart SL77 - 1251
-- catastrophic rivers, not contemporary, but certainly
dominating the surface (Chart SL77 - 1257 ). Now the
question we have is why is the surface so varied on the
grand scale and so homogeneous on the local scale. Some
scientists believe that the overall large scale features
represent a long history of Mars that has accumulated over
perhaps billions of years, while the small local ~scene
represents events occurring now -- during this epoch. This
is, of course, extremely interesting from the grand
planetological point of view, but also feeds back to ideas
PAGENO="0917"
913
PAGENO="0918"
914
PAGENO="0919"
915
PAGENO="0920"
916
PAGENO="0921"
917
1/ :~;av;
~: :~.
PAGENO="0922"
918
of our terrestrial land masses. Surprisingly, we have not
put together the understanding of the history of the Earth.
To find a sister planet is to be able to study the same
dynamic forces that have shaped our own world.
Th.e biological question has been a focal point. From the
beginning, special emphasis was given to obtaining as much
informatiofl as possible toward answering the question,
"Has Mars gone through the phase of its chemical evolution
that has led to the existence of indigenous life?" This
profound area of inquiry has led to enormous scientific
and public interest. Other than the understanding of the
formation of the universe, no other single question in the
entire domain of theoretical science has kindled more
interest. We recognized its importance and at every turn
of the Viking mission, where practicable, made decisions
in favor of the biological question.
There were three approaches, the unusual imaging, the direct
biological test for microorganisms, and th~ search for
organic molecules of which all terrestrial life is made.
We have extremely clear images of all areas around both
landers, and there are no indications whatsoever that
might be interpreted as due to life. Now, it must be
remembered that we can only see objects down to the size
of a golf ball, and we have only covered an area the size
of a football field (with both landers). To whatever
extent this tiny sample represents the planet, we hav~ not
seen anything suspicious. We have watched from our fixed
point for several months now and have seen nothing go by.
Of course, there is intense frustration at not being able
to peek even over the horizon 500 yards away.
Of the direct physiological tests, we are now of the v3ew
that we cannot conclude that we have either detected or
disproven the existence of life. This seemingly innocent
statement is not trite and must be exprained. The biologists,
indeed, have a great deal of response from their experi-
ments. But the response is not of the kind that is typical
of Earth soil either with life or without life. The
response is a new kind never before seen. In some cases,
this appears to mimic a biological response, i.e., organic
compounds in Earth foods are consumed, carbon is assimilated
into the sample. On the other hand, the results resemble
highly oxidizing chemistry similar to the kind when bleach
is added to get out a spot.
The biologists are now working in terrestrial labs and have
planned some additional experiments for the Viking spacecraft,
PAGENO="0923"
919
which are still very much alive, and they hope to under-
stand their results by summer.
The chemical search has given us the most surprising result
of all. Prior to Viking the scientists had said that this
problem of searching for organic molecules related to life
would be plagued by organic molecules that would be on the
surface from othe~ sources, e.g., carbonaceous meteorites
that are known to bombard the surface continuously, and
organics that are formed from the Sun's radiation acting
on the Martian atmosphere.
The sophisticated instrument that we sent was designed to
to try to distinguish between the biologically_formed type
and any other type. It was an analysis largely discriminatory
in nature. Because of the unknown quantities involved, we
set very high goals for its sensitivity as well. The results
were striking. We found no organic material at all at
either site.' None -~ and we have concrete proof that the
instruments performed flawlessly. At least for the sample
taken at these two sites, we know that there is no organic
material ( and we are in a range of sensitivity of one part
in a billion). The experiment is Orisp and appears to be
telling us something. Of course, these are just surface
samples. Perhaps a meter down it may be different. But
the absence of organics is a very startling answer to
planetologica]. chemists.
With all this the biologists, recognizing the importance'
of their pronouncement to the question of life, have made
this carefully worded statement that "we have evidence but
no conclusive proof either way." It is extremely important'
that the message is not misconstrued to mean that we think
there is no life on Mars. S
In order to assure that Viking was not only a biological
mission, and also to broaden our base of knowledge of Mars,
experiments were performed dealing with the atmosphere and
the surface of the planet.
We have discovered the main constituents of the atmosphere,
as well as trace constituents. Two of theSe, nitrogen and
argon, have been of major scientific interest.
One of the distinguishing features of the Earth is its
major nitrogenous atmosphere, This element is one of the
critical elements that are the cornerstones of all life on
Earth (carbon, hydrogen, and Oxygen being the others), and
is also paramount in the Earth's formation, its outgassjng,
PAGENO="0924"
920
and its contemporary heat balance. Prior to Viking, we had
only conjeàtured about nitrogen. We 1~new~ that it was not a
major constituent, but its presence or absence is essential
knowledge to begin understanding the history of the planet.
We now know that currently 1-2% of the Mars atmosphere is
made of nitrogen. Following this one step further, we have
a~o measured the isotopes of nitrogen. N14 is lighter than
N and, of course, floats higher in the atmosphere. Since
it is higher in the atmosphere, it is more exposed to loss
by the Sun's radiation. And this has been going on for a
long time. Over time, it has resulted in a change in the
ratios of light to heavy. By this simple observation of
the ratio of light to heavy, we have begun to understand the
history of the Mars atmosphere. It appears now that Mars
has gone through some kind of a change and maybe more than
once. The original atmosphere seems to have been much larger
than what is left, ten to a hundred time aS mu~h. The
reason this is important is because we have been confused
about seeing the massive flow channels which appear to have
been made by the great catastrophic floods. With today's
atmosphere there is simply not enough pressure to allow for
the liquid water. But now it all makes sense. The pressure
at the time of the flooding must have been much higher than
now. This simple idea of a Mars much different than today
is a lesson that must be continually kept in mind. The sci-
entific goal is not to amass facts; it is to understand.
The systhesis of the knowledge is as important as the know-
ledge itself, and the value of the interdisciplinary nature
of Viking has reasserted itself.
Argon, of which there is 2-3%, a seemingly uninteresting
element, also has its impact on our thinking. Argon also
has isotopes which we measured and use in the same way that
we did with nitrogen. The difference is that nitrogen reacts
with the surface and so the reconstruction is somewhat -
complicated by some unknown reactions. In the case of argon,
this is not so. Argon is a noble gas and unreactive. It
makes a perfect chemical clock against which to compare all
of the other events.
Other trace substances, krypton and xenon,only recently
discovered by some extraordinary concentration technique,
have also been used to untangle the events. In the Earth's
atmosphere xenon is deficient compared to the primordial
gases in meteorites; and this is exactly, what we are finding
on Mars. Why this is s~irprising is that Mars is between
the Earth and the asteroid belt, and planetologists had
expected it to be more like the meteorites than like us.
PAGENO="0925"
921
One ethereal atmospheric component, water, deserves some
special comments. The original detection of water in the
Mars atmosphere and in the Mars frozen surface set off
numerous models of how water behaves both spatially, that
is, longitudinally, as well as with height in the atmosphere
and with respect to the seasons. As on Earth, water is
always changing its forms, freezing during part of the day,
evaporating, moving with the winds, and reappearing in
another region. The water and its governing meteorology
require more than a few measurements to understand. We
have begun the methodical measurement of the meteorology.
At both landers the meteorological stations have operated
from the time of landing and will continue to completion
of mission operations. From both orbiters, the temperature
and water vapor concentrations are measured in collaboration
so as to gain an overall view of Martian weather.
In discussing Viking results, an area that has produced
unexpected scientific controversy has been the geology.
Viking has had numerous experiments dealing with Mars
geology. We have had a first glimpse of its chemical ele-
ments; we have this extensive view of its surface both from
a great distance and from on the surface. We have seen what
-appears to have been a major seismic event. We have poked
around among the rocks, nudging and turning thinqs over,
and have learned a good deal about the surface. We have
even measured the magnetic quality of the surface. Also,
with all of this we have begun a fairly substantial effort
of mapping the surface, its thermal characteristics from
orbit, and the atmospheric water above those areas. What
we are finding, probably not surprisingly, is that we are
dealing with a very cotnpli~ated planet. We find areas
highly dominated by cratering. The volcanism discovered
by Mariner has been found to be very extensive. The canyon
land.s show great areas of alluvial slumpinq. Some other
areas show features that appear to have resulted from
glacial activity. The polar regions are particularly fascin-
ating, not only because of the variety, but also because
of the dramatic changes that have begun as the season
changes (Chart SL77 1250 ).. To date, no unified con-
cept concerning an overall geological history has been
established', but of course, we have just begun. As is
always true of science, if it is important, it will pose
more questions than it answers.
PAGENO="0926"
922
PAGENO="0927"
923
Helios
The Belios program, devoted to the study of interplanetary
space, launched two spacecraft in December 1974 and January
1976, which are now in heliocentric orbits that reach a
perihelion distance of 0.3 astronomical units every six
months. As a result of the He].jos observations, we now
know that strong s~olar wind streams having a wave structure
are associated with large coronal holes that usually occur
at high latitudes on the Sun. We have also found that the
higher-energy particles from the Sun take energy from the
lower-energy plasma waves in the solar wind streams. Better
understanding of the nature of solar wind will help us
ultimately to understand the way solar activity affects
the Earth's climate. This was discussed in detail in my
testimony on our Solar~-Terrestrial Programs.
Pioneer Venus
Venus was the target of our first.flight mission, Mariner 2
in 1962, and has since been studied by the Mariner 5 and
Mariner 10 flybys as well as by a series of SOviet Venera
entry probes and landers. The next step in óur studyof
this planet will be provided by the Pioneer Venus mission.
This project was initiatedin PY 1975 in response to strong
advocscy by the scientific community.
The objectives of Pioneer Venus are tO increase our scienti-
fic knowledge of our nearest planetary neighbor~ Venus, and
to obtain information that. may have direct application to
atmospheric problems on Earth'. The project will carry out
a detailed cha'racterization pf the composition, structure,
and dynamics of Venus' atmosphere, at various `specific
locations with multiple probes and on a planetary scale
with an orbiter. The atmosphere of Venus will be investiga-
ted not only to increase scientific knowledqe of that planet,
but from the point of view of a laboratory. in which some
of the factors that determine the Earth'scoinplex environ-
ment can be isolated and, examined.
It is of growing importance to obtain the data on~enus'
atmosphere that Pioneer Venu's'wjfl suPp~.y. We cannot with
any confidence predict the ~onseguences of atmospheric
pollution on a global scale, and our knowledqe of the
factors whioh influence terrestrial cli*ate"js `still rudi~
mentary. Phi's chart illustrates how meteorological infor~.
mation From Venus, in combination with similar data already
obtained from Mars, can help in understanding the meteorology
of our own planet (Chart SL 73 - 3223 ).
PAGENO="0928"
924
PAGENO="0929"
925
The Pioneer Venus Program consists of two sizacecraft con-
taining thirty scientific instruments. Oi-ie spacecraft,
the multiprobe, will carry four probes which will enter and
- descend into the Ven~us atmosphere making scientific measure-
merits down to the sur~ace. In addition, the multiprobe
spacecraft bus will transmit information about the upper
atmosphere of Venus before it is destroyed on entry. The
second spacecraft, the orbiter, will enter into a 24-hour
elliptical orbit around the planet. At its point of closest
app~Oach, it will be within 150 kilometers of the surface.
The orbiter mission will be launched in late May or early
June 1978. The orbiter will reach Venus in December 1978,
and will operate in Venus orbit for at least one Venus
year. During this interval the orbiter will examine the
the structure of the upper atmosphere arid ionosphere, and
will obtain a gravitational map of the planet and the first
detailed topographic data. It will carry twelve scientjfic
instruments, which include a magnetometer~ mass spectrometer,
ultraviolet sensor, energetic particle measuring device,
infrared radiometer, imaging equipment, and radar altimeter.
The magnetometer, for example, will determine whether Venus
has a correcting molten core that generates a magnetic
field as happened at the Earth.
More detailed definitiøn of the clouds and the lower atmos-
phere can only be accomplished with the four direct-measuring
probes. While one large probe containing sophisticated
instruments to measure atmospheric constituents, cloud
composition, energy deposition, winds, and dynamical circu-
lation descends through the atmosphere, three small probes
will enter the atmosphere at widely separated points to
obtain simultaneous information on a planetary scale
(Chart SL 77 - 671 ).
Pioneer Venus obs\rvations will provide a major improvement
in our knowledge of the møst Earth-like planet in the solar
system. This chart illustrates how the orbiter, probes and
probe-carrying spacecraft complement each other in obtaining
a complete picture of Venus' atmosphere (Chart SL74 3202
A special low-cost design approach has been developed for
the Pioneer Venus system. A standardized, spin-stabilized
spacecraft bus is being developed which can easily convert
into a probe carrier or an orbiter.
Spacecraft qualification testing is now nearing completion
and integration testing of the science instruments is in
process. Assembly of the flight spacecraft has been started.
Some schedule adjustments have been necessary; however, the
schedule fully supports the launch period described earlier.
92-082 0 - 77 - 59
PAGENO="0930"
926
PAGENO="0931"
927
PAGENO="0932"
928
The Pioneer Venus project is within budget, with no sacri-
fices in the scientific objectives of the mission.
Mars Follow-On Mission. Definition -
I will now discuss the FY 1978 study activity we are
requesting in the inner planets area: mission definition
activities that will capitalize on the success of Viking
and lead to a logical next mission to Mars, probably in
1984.
The Viking results raised a number of extremely intriguing
questions. For example, all the basic ingredients necessary
for life to exist on the planet are present ~- carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen, water, and a source of energy -- yet the
biology experiment results cannot be unambiguously interpreted
as indicative of life being present at the Vikinq landing
sites. We do not understand why this should be so. Whatever
the ultimate resolution of the question of the existence
of life on Mars today, Viking has clearly shown that we are
dealing on Mars with a surface chemistry very different from
any encountered on Earth, although perhaps close to that
experienced here in the early history of our planet. Viking
-has also dramatically indicated the presence of a great deal
of water on Mars in the past, water that was sufficient to
scour erosional features more dramatic than any on Earth.
The evidence for major climatic changes on Mars, possibly
cyclic in nature, is particularly significant in terms of
attempts to understand similar variations on the Earth.
Viking orbiter surveys have emphasized the great diversity
of terrain and geologic history on Mars, raising many vital
questions that should be studied on a subsequent mission.
As indicated by the overall strategy I described above, we
will ultimately want a Mars sample return to Earth. Only
in a terrestrial or Earth-orbiting laboratory can we make
age determinations, study isotope geochemistry and petrology,
and perform a wide variety of biological experiments. Such
a mission will probably not be feasible until at least a
decade from now, but to make such a mission possible in the
distant future, and in particular to be able to make a wise
selection of samples to be returned, we must carry out further
investigation of Mars' heterogeneous surface environments
and also seek to obtain data on the interiQr composition
and structure of the planet. It is also important to note
that many investigations can only be carried out by remote
sensing or in situ. So we propose an approach that will
ultimately realize the advantages of remote sensing,. in situ
measurements, and analysis of samples in Earth laboratories.
We thus believe the next Mars exploration endeavor should
have the following characteristics:
PAGENO="0933"
929
1. A global geochemical, mineralogical and geo~
physical survey of the planet should be done.
This can be accomplished by a low-~altitude polar
orbiter. The result of such a survey is not only
of great scientific merit and usefulness in better
understanding Mars as a terrestrial planet, but
will contribute directly to the site selection
aspects of an eventual Mars Sample Return mission.
2. Instruments must be developed to address directly
the chemistry/biology ambiguity issue raised by
the Viking lander instruments, and also to determine
the inorganic soil chemistry on the planet. These
instruments can be carried by a rbver.
3. A rover should be developed that can operate in
an autonomous manner. The rover would be able to
go over the horizon to distances of hundreds of
kilometers and explore the local diversity of
the planet. The rover would be capable of carry-.
ing the full complement of advanced instruments
mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and its
development would be in direct support of an
eventual Mars Sample Return mission, since such
a rover would provide the capability to collect
sample material over a wide range of geoloqical
locales.
4. There are some areas on Mars that are not accessible
to a rover because of the difficult terrain. For
these areas techniques should be developed to implant
automated instruments.
These instruments should include seismometers, heat
flow meters, and in situ inorganic analysis instru-
ments. Distribution of a network of such instru-
ments could be made through penetrators, a type
of hard lander that can be deployed from an orbiter
of the type discussed in paragraph 1, above.
The accomplishmen~ of these development.objectives will
provide us with capability to soundly define the next mission
to Mars.
The follow-on endeavor we are proposing in FY 1978 will result
in the definition of the system concept for a mission to Mars
in 1984, which would be an FY 1979 new start proposal. The
development of the vital orbiter and lander science instru-
ments, as well as the technological advances necessary for
their deployment, require us to request FY 1978 funding at
this time.
PAGENO="0934"
930
Program Review
Our continuing ~lunar and planetary science programs provide
new data from ground-based observations (planetary astronomy),
research necessary to develop flight programs (Supporting
Research and Technology), activities that bring results of
flight missions to fruition (Lunar Sample Studies, and Data
Analysis and Synthesis), various supporting activities
required to carry our flight missions and reduce the data
obtained, and finally, advanced studies that define and pre-
pare for future exploration.
Planetary Astronomy
The Planetary Astronomy program is an essential component
of the total program of lunar and planetary exploration.
Observations carried out from the vicinity of the Earth
provide basic data for planning planetary flight programs,
furnishing us with all our knowledge of a given solar system
body prior to flight missions. This information is used tp
decide which bodies are scientifically most important to
explore, and to determine which instruments to carry on the
initial spacecraft missions. Prior to and during a space-
craft encounter with a planetary body, astronomical observa-
tions of that body are made so that a correlation can be
made between the data from spacecraft observations and those
from ground-based observations. This correlation permits
us to interpret prior and later astronomical observations
in terms of local conditions on or near the encountered body.
A continuing program of astronomical observation after the
spacecraft encounter allows scientists to study time-varying
phenomena once the cause ofthe observed phenomena has been
determined. The knowledge gained from the planetary astro-
nomy program thus complements the various planetary missions
in a number of ways.
In spite of the length of time that the Moon, planets, and
other solar system bodies have been observed from Earth, the
rate at which new information is being obtained from Earth-
based observations is increasing rather than decreasing.
The use of larger telescopes and radio antennas, more power-
ful radar systems, highly specialized "state-of-the-art"
auxiliary equipment such as interferometers and image tubes,
and the involvement of scientists with backgrounds in many
highly specialized but related fields has produced several
recent, scientific breakthroughs.
In 1976, the NASA-funded high-power S-band radar system at
Arecibo Observatory of the National Astronomy and Ionosphere
Center became operational. The total system, which used the
PAGENO="0935"
931
NSF~~furided resurfaced antenna, became the most powerful
radar research facility in the world. In the first year
of operation, a large fraction of the surface of Venus has
been mapped with a surface. resolution of about 20 kilometers.
This was our best glimpse so far of the surface of Venus,
which cannot be observed visually since it is covered by
a dense unbroken layer of clouds. An example of the Arecibo
Venus radar maps is Shown. here (Chart $L 77 - 1253 ).
These maps show evidence of craters, contrary to the general
expectation that topographic features should have been
largely erased by the effects of high surface temperature.
Radar returns have also been obtained from the rings of
Saturn. Individual rings were resolved, and the material
reflecting the radar signal coincided with the optically
distinguishable rings. This result has invalidated the
recent argument that there may be a significant amount of
particulate material outside the optically visible rings.
Since the Mariner Jupiter Saturn spacecraft will pass through
the ring plane when they encounter Saturn, ~this confirmation
is important.
The Arecibo radar was also used to Support the selection
of safe landing sites for the Viking mission. -
Another example of a significant breakthrough in this program
is the recent detection of evidence that frozen methane may
exist on the surface of Pluto. This result was obtained
with the combined use of the four-meter telescOpe at the
Kitt Peak National Observatory and newly*developed infrared
detectors. If this result is verified, the planet is much
smaller than previously thought, and celestial mechanics
interactions between Pluto and other planets (as well as
with outer planets spacecraft) will have to be recalculated.
In still another area, the observations of occultations
of stars by planets has taken on new emphasis with modern
high-speed photoelectric instrumentation, Use of this
technique is giving us invaluable information on the dia-
meters and atmospheric properties of planets.
This technique of probing a planet's atmosphere by observing
a stellar occultation will be used on March 10, 1977, to
study Uranus. This occultation, *which can be seen only
from the region of the Indian Ocean, will be observed by
American astronomers using specially designed photometers
at several telescopes in the area.
The use of new instrumentation for planetary astronomy is
also supported in this program. As an example, two-dimensional
electronic detector arrays have been undergoing development
PAGENO="0936"
932
PAGENO="0937"
933
during the past several years for use in spacecraft, and
are now being tested for making planetary observations at
ground-based telescopes. An image of Uranus (Chart SL 77
1174 ) was obtained recently at the University of
Arizona using a charge-coupled detector (*CCD) attached to
a telescope. ~The image appears to show faint markings.
U these markings are verified, some of the present theories
of the atmosphere of Uranus which predict it to be feature-
less will have to be modified. In this and other cases,
use of these detectors will result in very significant
improvements in optical and infrared imaging of the planets
and other bodies.
Observations at infrared wavelengths have produced a wealth
of new information on the composition of planetary bodies
and the molecular c~onstituents in their atmospheres. The
ability to gather new infrared data will be significantly
increased when~the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF)
on Mauna Kea, Nawaii, becomes~perational in 1979. This
facility will fill the cutrefff need for a large-aperture
infrared telescope located~ at a very high, dry site, above
as much of the atmospheric water vapor as possible (as you
know, there are strong infrared absorption lines due to
water vapor). While the existing 36-inch NASA airborne
infrared telescope can fly above most of the atmosphere
and almost all of the atmospheric water vapor, this telescppe
is limited in its use by mirror size, stability, and the
number of possible observing hours. The 3-~meter telescope
of the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility will have nine times
the energy-gathering capability of the airborne telescope.
It will be very stable and will be usable whenever weather
conditions permit. Both telescope facilities are unique.
Since they are designed to make different types of observa-
tions, they complement rather than duplicate each other.
Construction of the IRTF is proceeding On schedule, and
should be complete on January 1, 1979.
Su~pporting Research and Technology
The Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T) program is a
key element in the sequence of efforts involved in planning
and carrying out planetary exploration, Research supported
by this program sponsors studies that formulate science
objectives for future missions and identify key problems
to be addressed. It also supports advanced studies to
develop instrumentation that will be required to make appro-
priate measurements from various types of spacecraft missions.
Additionally, it sponsors supporting studies that are neces-
sary to interpret and/or complement spacecraft measurements.
PAGENO="0938"
934
PAGENO="0939"
935
Supporting Research and Technology is carried out in
several disciplines: Cometary Science, Planetary Atmo-
spheres, Planetary Geology, and Lunar Science.
Cometary Science -
Because of the fundamental importance of Comets in helping
to unravel the mysteries of the origin and early evolution
of the solar system, the lunar and planetary program is
supporting a wide variety of research and instrument develop-
ment in cometary science.
Most of the planetary objects have undergone considerable
evolution and alteration since their formation about 4.6
billion years ago. Much of the information relating to
their accumulation, initial environment, and initial composi-
tion has been irretrievably lost. However, comets appear
to contain information about that initial period of formation
of the solar system.
Observations of comets from Earth-orbiting observatories
and rockets have supplied majpr new results. These include
verification of an enormous cloud of hydrogen surrounding
the comet when it is near the Sun, a greater amount of carbon
than had been realized before, the detection of sulfur-bearing
molecules, and the observation of neutral carbon monoxide.
The molecular composition of the nucleus is unknown, and
will remain so until a flyby or rendezvous mission can be
undertaken. Three stable molecules (water, hydrogen cyanide,
and methyl cyanide). have been detected in comets, all by
radio astronomy.
Remote-based optical observations cannot provide confirma-
tion of the presence of the comet nucleus which is too small
to be seen directly, or of many of the important details of
size, composition, and structure. Neither can they yield
measurements of the way the solar wind interacts with the
comet's extensive atmosphere to create the ion tail. Signi-
ficant advances in cometary science require a rendezvous
with a comet by a suitably instrumented spacecraft. A flight
mission to the celebrated Halley Comet on its return in 1985
is being studied.
In order to undertake such missions, we must develop the
instruments needed to measure characteristics of the nucleus,
coma, and tail of the comet. Of particular importance are
neutral and ion mass spectrometers. These devices will
measure the intrinsic molecular composition. Imaging devices
PAGENO="0940"
936
to measure size, color, and brightness of the nucleus are
needed to furnish essential data about the nucleus. Sensi-
tive instruments that can determine the size and composition
of cometary dust particles are not available; however,
prototypes are flying on the Helios spacecraft. Some modi-
fications of plasma instruments that detect high-enerqy ions
and electrons may also be required.
I want to mention three other areas of cometary SR&T programs - -
cometary observations, theoretical analyses, and laboratory
research. These have two objectives: first, they prepare
for comet flight missions by providing better concepts of
the nature of the components of the comets; this allows for
detailed planning and instrument development. Second, the
increased knowledge of comets is directly applicable to the
study of the origin of the solar system, as I have already
described.
One of the primary means of studying comets is spectroscopy.
Support of ground-based spectroscopic observations, optical
and radio measurements, and ultraviolet observations, by
rockets and Earth-orbiting satellites are ongoing activities.
The integration of these observations is tied to theoretical
investigations of nuclear models. Theoretical analyses of
the vaporization and dissociation processes are also carried
out as part of the cometary research program. Most recently,
it has been postulated that ion-molecule reactions may play
a major role; this idea is now being studied intensively.
Theoretical interpretation of the variety of observations
required a more detailed knowledge of many physical and
chemical processes than is presently available. Laboratory
experiments on the vaporization of icy mixtures, molecular
photochemistry, chemical kinetics, and cliiemical effects of
cosn~ic ray irradiation are another import~ant program element.
Planetary Atmospheres /
I have talked at length already about our reasons for carry-
ing out atmospheric research. The Planetary. Atmospheres
SR&T program is one mechanism by which we hope to increase
our knowl~dge and. understanding of planetary atmospheres, and
to develop and maintain a strong capability for direct experi-
mental investigations of the atmospheres of planets and
their satellites. *Activities under this program are grouped
into three areas:
1. Theoretical and modeling studies draw together
known facts and ideas, and attempt to further ur~
understanding of the underlying physical and chemi-
cal processes at work, and identify important areas
PAGENO="0941"
937
for laboratory and space flight experimentation.
2. Laboratory studies are concerned with deterrnining
the physical and chemical properties of atmospheric
substances. Laboratory investigations of the
infrared spectra of sulfuric aàid aerosols, hydro-
chloric acid, and hydrochloric acid, permitted
positive identification of these substances in
the atmosphere of Venus. On the bas-is of this
evidence, it was possible to select the instrument
payload for Pioneer Venus that is appropriate for
the actual conditions that will be encountered.
More recent investigations in support of flight
objectives include studies of the infrared reflec-
tance of ammonia ice (an important constituent of
the outer planets' satellites as I discussed
earlier); study of the effect of small amounts of
sodium in solid ammonia (his is relevant to the
recent discovery of 10's sodium aircilow cloud);
studies of the electrostatic properties of dust
clouds, which is important for understanding the
long-lived global dust storms on Mars; and studies
of the reaction rates of minor components in the
atmospheres of Mars, Venus, and J~piter.
3. ~`light instrument development is the third major
area of effort supported by this program. Instru-
ments are now under development which are intended
to meet the scientific goals of future missions
to the outer planets. Emphasis is being plaçe4
on sensitivity to trace components as well as to
major atmospheric constituents; an important further
operational requirement is the ability to perform
analyses under the difficult conditions of high-
speed entry and passage through the atmosphere. -
As our knowledge of any given planet increases, it
becomes possible to develop highly specialized
instruments to answer specific questions of major
importance. -An example of such ,tnstrumentatión is
the Mars Atmospheric Water Detector Experiment
flown on Viking. ThI~ instrument had to be designed
for expected water vapor conditions at Mars, and
these had to be determined by measurements on
previous flights.
In FY 1978, emphasis will be p~a~ed on analysis of
Viking results. The role of rr1~nor constituents
and aerosols in determining atmospheric and surface
PAGENO="0942"
938
properties and temperatures on Mars will be -
explored in terrestrial laboratories and with
theoretical models, with emphasis on study of
the effects of planetary size and rotation rate,
solar heating, moisture content, and other vari-
ables. Instrument development will be concentrated
on a highly versatile and sensitive mass soectro-
meter for atmospheric entry, and in the area of
sensitive and programmable optical spectrometers
for atmospheric investigations from planetary
orbiters or flyby spacecraft.
Planetary Geolc~gy
This program involves a wide variety of research studies
and instrument development. I will describe the major
program elements briefly, and give some examples of the
types of work involved and some of the recent accomplishments.
Studies are being conducted in the areas of volcanism, wind
erosion and deposition, impact cratering, fluvial geomorphol~
ogy, and tectonism. Results from field studies of desert
regions in Peru and the southwestern United States, as well
as wind tunnel experiments conducted under Martian atmospheric
conditions, are leading to better understanding of the
boundary layer conditions that play a major role in shaping
the topography of arid regions on Earth as well as on Mars.
The effects of particle size, wind velocity and. turbulence,
and seasonal conditions upon surface features are being
determined.
Volcanism on Hawaii and Mount Etna in Italy is being studied
to aid in the interpretation of Mariner 9 and Viking photo-
graphs of Mars, and the Mariner 10 photographs of Mercury.
Expertise in the area of terrestrial fluvial geomorphology
is being applied to the problem of determining the amount
and periodicity of running water necessary to form the dendri-
tic stream channels found on Mars. Calculations have been
made of the amount of water that would have had to be released
frOm a possible permafrost. layer source beneath the surface
of the planet. As I have described above, characterization
of the water on Mars is vital to exobiologists as well to
atmospheric scientists.
A Mars geological mapping program based on the Mariner 9
photography has been completed, and a Mercury geological
mapping programwill be completed this year. Geological
PAGENO="0943"
939
mapping is a procedure that protrays rock types, their ace
relationship to each other, and their relative geometric
position. ~Stich maps are scientific products ahd are
distinct from topographic or terrain maps. They are needed
to understand a planet's history and to compare its history
to that of another planet. They can also be used to locate
landing sites that optimize scientific returns for future
missions, and to aid in determination of science mission
payloads.
The geological mapping program will produce thirty geologic
quadrangle maps of Mars and fifteen of Mercury, at a scale
of one to five million. The program involves thirty-five
scientists- from the U.S. Geological Survey and from universi-
ties throughout the country, as well as several European
collaborators. Thirty topographic maps of Mars at a scale
of one to five million have been published and are now
available, and eleven geological maps of Mars have been
produced to date or are in press.
The planetary geology instrument development activities
include instruments for penetrators, landers, and orbiting
spacecraft. While primary effort is being devoted to Mars,
instruments for use at all terrestrial planets and the
satellites of the outer planets are being studied.
Surface and subsurface water measurements are important
in understanding a variety of planetary phenomena. Two
different types of total water instruments are being devel-
oped. These will quantitatively measure the water content
of a soil sample, both the loosely bound water that is
available for biological activity, and the tightly bound
water that is important in low~temperature mineralogy.
Lunar Science Supporting Research and Technology
This program continues to support advanced instrument devel-
opment, ground-based observations, meteorite studies, theore-
tical studies, and basic research that broaden our knowledge
of the Moon and early solar system. In particular, a major
portion of the effort is devoted to tasks required to inter-
pret information obtained by analysis of samples returned
to the Earth by the Apollo and Luna missions.
A noteworthy example demonstrates the widespread applica-
bility of information being obtained initially in support
of strictly lunar problems. The lunar surface is conspic-.
uously characterized by the presence of cratersof all sizes
and ages. Many of the giant lunar basins and very large
PAGENO="0944"
940
craters formed very early in lunar history, at a time
earlier than that when any known Earth rock had formed.
The rain of material that was in great part responsible for
the formation of the Moon continued in a diminishing way
for a billion years or so beyond the time when a solid
lunar crust was formed. The question raised is how this
intensive cratering activity has redistributed materials
across the face of the Moon, and how significantly it
has affected the Moon's internal evolution. These issues
are important for understanding how the Moon, the planets,
and our own Earth were formed.
The cratering record is best preserved on the Moon and
Mercury, less well on Mars, to an unknown degree on Venus,
and least perfectly on the active Earth. From a study of
the lunar record and from what we can glimpse on the Earth,
we hope to assess the role of this process in determining
subsequent planetary evolution. To this end, laboratory
research is supported using high-speed guns and explosive
devices to study the physical processes that occur when an
impact crater is formed, and to understand the extent to
which various natural materials a're modified and melted
by the shock waves that pass through them following the
impact. Additional international collaborative studies
of several large impact craters on the Earth (tens of miles
in diameter) are being undertaken to interpret how we can
apply results of the physical studies to the natural cases.
Our goal. is ±0 find how much melted rock is produced on
impact; how the melt is mobilized; what the chemical and
crystallization history of the melt is; and to what extent
the rocks around and beneath the crater are modified.
Other studies of equal significance are supported which we
can only briefly mention. Laboratory studies of trace
element partitioning in basalts are being conducted to
provide input for the basaltic volcanisms project of the
Data Analysis and Synthesis program. Measurements of the
electrical, optical, thermal, and other physical properties
of lunar and planetary analog materials necessary to inter-
pretation of lander, spacecraft, and telescope observations
are supported.
An additional important aspect of the Lunar program is the
study of meteorites. Although these objects are not of
lunar origin, the laboratory techniques used are very
similar to those used for lunar sample research,and it is
common for a given scientist to work on both types of extra-
terrestrial materials.
PAGENO="0945"
941
Meteorites are important to the understanding of the origin
and early history of,the solar system. This significance
was emphasized when early studies of lunar samples showed
that, contrary to prevailing concepts, the Moon is not a
primitive body, but has evolved substantially beyond the
stage of simple accumulation of protoplanetary materials.
Intensive, study of meteorites is thus required to look
farther back into the origin of the Moon and planets.
That program has begun in earnest, and already some astonish-.
ing discoveries have been reported. For example, one class
of meteorites has been found to be very similar to the well-
studied lunar breccias. These meteorites are clearly
fragments from a planetary body which, like the Moon, was
sufficiently large to have had a volcanic history, a gravity
field, and a history of impact cratering of sufficient
duration to create a surface soil layer that contained
grains with records of early galactic cosmic ray and solar
particle bombardment. In other words, existence of a proto-
planetary source for some meteorites is now reasonably well
established. On the other hand, another class of meteorites
appears to represent a collection of fragments of primitive
solar system debris. Studies of these objects are now under-
way, and we hope that the result will be to help unravel
the history of the solar nebula.
Lunar Sample Analysis
This program supports research on the mineral composition,
chemistry, physical properties, ages, and other characteris-
tics of the 843 pounds of rocks and soil returned from the
Moon. These studies continue to provide otherwise ünobtain-
able information about the nature of the Moon and the histories
of the terrestrial planets. These studies `are also beginning
to provide unique information about the past behavior of the
Sun, and its effects on the Earth's weather and climate.
More than 100 domestic and foreign Principal Investigators
and their colleagues (several hundred scientists in all)
are now studying lunar samples. Much of this research uses
the highest level of available technology. The Lunar Sample
research effort continues to be an important source of new
instrument development, and many techniques originally
designed for lunar samples are now being applied to measure
more accurately the chemical composition, ages, and histories
of meteorites and terrestrial rocks.
The lunar samples have already provided much unique informa-
tion abbut the Moon as was discussed earlier in my summary
of our present state of knowledge. The Moon is also telling
92-0820-77-60 /
PAGENO="0946"
942
us about the Sun, however. Samples of the "lunar soil"
preserve a unique record of the past history of the Sun
and the rest-of the solar system. The lunar soil, which
forms a layer a few tens of meters thick, has been formed
slowly by the continuous impacts of meteorites. Samples
of lunar soil also contain traces of the solar and cosmic
radiations that have struck the airless Moon for more than
three billion years. Early results indicate that the
brightness of the Sun has been nearly constant during the
past few million years, but there are some exciting indica-
tions of possible large variations in solar-flare activity
during the past 2,000 years. These studies, which actually
use the Moon as a "sensor" to study the Sun, will make
important contributions to understanding the history of the
nuclear reactions that operate in other stars, ani the
nature of past and future climatic changes on the Earth.
Future studies of lunar samples have two major goals: to
attack specific problems involving both the Moon ancL the
other terrestrial planets, and to use lunar samples to
explore the past history of the Sun and the solar system.
Lunar and planetary problems include the possibility of
young volcanic lavas on the Moon, the chemical nature of
-the still. unidentified gases associated with lunar volcanic
eruptions, and the origin of the puzzling magnetism still
preserved in lunar rocks. This last problem has been espe-
cially difficult, because the magnetic minerals in lunar
rocks are not the same as in terrestrial rocks, and new
analytical techniques have been needed. Scientists are
now developing improved methods of study, and we look for
significant progress in the near future.
Another effort is underway to examine the past history of
the solar system by making careful interdisciplinary studies
of unusual lunar rocks (breccias) and the deep cores of lunar
toil. Some of these samples contain more than a billion
years of lunar history, and the studies now beginning will
provide the first direct information about such problems
as the distribution of Weteorites in space and time, the
behavior of the Sun in The past, and the nature and history
of the cosmic rays that originate beyond our solar system.
Studies of the Russian Luna-16 and Luna-20 samples will
continue, thus providing information about the Moon from
areas not visited by the Apollo Program. Recently an agree-
ment was reached with the Academy of Sciences of the USSR
to include in this sample exchange program several samples
of the lunar soil cores obtained by Luna-24 in August 1976
from Mare Crisium.
PAGENO="0947"
943
In addition to supporting lunar research, the Lunar Sample
Program also supports educational and public display acti-
vities which-~are intended to make lunar samples and lunar
science results available to the public. The staff of the
Lunar Sample Curatorial Facility has developed new techniques
to provide both visibility and protection for lunar sample
display. They have helped develop an extensive program of
distribution of the sample displays and educational kits
that use only a few percent of the lunar sample material,
thus leaving the rest of the collection available for
scientific research. Two impressive long-term lunar samole
displays opened at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington,
D.C., in the summer of l~76, a "Hall of Lunar Geology" at
the National Museum of Natural History, and an "Apollo to
the Moon" exhibit at the new National Air and Space Museum.
The NASM also displays a "touchstone," a piece of lunar lava
that can be touched by visitors. This is one of the most
popular exhibits in the NASM. In addition, large numbers
of lunar samples are made avaialbie for temporary displays
in the United States and in foreign countries.
The Curatorial Facility has also made it possible for
educators to obtain lunar material on loan for study pur-
poses. Several Lunar Sample Thin ~Section Kits are availa-
ble on loan to colleges and universities. Each kit contains
slices of lunar rocks that have been cut and polished thin
enough for study under the microscope by students in geology
and space science courses. These kits have been very popular;
loans were made to about 80 institutions in the United States
during the past year, generating much enthusiasm on the part
of both teachers and students. This program is now being
extended to include foreign educational institutions, and
the Curatorial Facility is now developing a similar but
simpler kit that will be suitable for study by high school
and junior high school students.
NASA has just published "What's Z~ew on the Moon," a 24-page
Education Publication (EP-l3l) that summarizes for the
general reader the discoveries made about the Moon as a
result of the Apollo Program and the study of Moon rocks.
NASA plans a wide distribution of this publication, and it
will also be a~'vailable through the U.S. Government Printinq
Office.
Data Analysis and Synthesis
As exploration of the solar system has matured, the need
for an integrated and continuing program of data, analysis
PAGENO="0948"
944
has become more and more obvious. As more data accumulate
from more planets, we can no longer properly interpret those
data by funding a few investigators to pursue their studies
for only one or two years beyond the active mission phase.
The Lunar and Planetary Programs Office has responded to
this need by establishing the Data Analysis and Synthesis
program, patterned after the highly successful Lunar
Synthesis program that is still integrating the varied
results obtained by the many lunar investigations~ that
have been pursued for the past seven years.
The Data Analysis and Synthesis program is now in its
infancy, but results are already encouraging. Many research
efforts are under way, but I will cite two examples only,
to illustratethe nature and state of development of the
program.
A study has recently been initiated to investigate the
processes by which the early solar system formed. This
requires combining information from avarietv of fields,
such as models of the early solar nebula, experimental data
on how early solar system objects may have coalesced or
fragmented as they collided, calculations of the conseciuent
evolution of object sizes and velocities, and theories of
how Jupiter scattered these objects gravitationally through-
out the solar system. The results of this study can then
be compared to available data such as the cratering history
of the inner planets, the rings of Saturn, and the present
population of asteroids to check and improve the theory.
Ey such syntheses the early history of the solar system and
the composition of the planets, including the Earth, may be
explained.
The second example is an effort just inItiated -- the basaltic
volcanism study. It has been recognized from studies of
the Earth, from studies of returned lunar samples, and from
remote sensing of the inner planets and asteroids, that
basaltic volcanism has been a process of fundamental impor-
tance in the evolution of all the terrestrial planets. The
basic question is how this process operates on planets with
such different properties as the Earth, Moon, Mars, an~ Venus.
No individual scientist or small group of scientists could
hope to address these problems with the breadth and depth
necessary to examine all aspects of such a question. There-
fore, a consortium of about 60 scientists of varied back-
grounds was organized in which teams of half a dozen or so
experts agree to address specific aspects of the problem
that lie within their collective area of expertise. This
PAGENO="0949"
945
program is in its earliest stages at the present time, and
progress can be measured only in terms of organizational
achievements.
The gathering of scientific information, whether from the
study of returned lunar samples or from the analysis of
telemetered data, requires a number of supporting activi~-
ties. They. are necessary elements of the total program.
Two such activities are the Lunar Science Operations and
Flight Support Programs.
Lunar Science Operations
The Lunar Science Operations program was established to
support the large efforts that produced basic data inputs
into the science program: these were: (1) curation and
distribution of lunar samples for scientific research;.
(2) operations and data collection from the Apollo Lunar
Surface Experiment Packages (ALSEP's) on the lunar surface;
and, (3) performance of Lunar Laser Ranging from Earth-
based observatories to passive retro-reflectors placed at
known points on the lunar surface. All three of these efforts
have supplied basic inputs to the science programs. The ALSEP
operations are currently planned to be terminated at-the end
of FY 1977. Continued support of sample curation and laser
ranging activities is essential for progress in key areas
of lunar, terrestrial, and planetary science.
The Lunar Sample Curatorial Facility at the Johnson Space
Center continues to be an essential part of post-Apollo
lunar science. In addition to protecting the priceless
lunar sample collection from damage and contamination, the
Facility supports the active science program at universities
and NASA which I have explained.
Two steps were initiated in 1976 to provide long-term security
for the lunar sample collection. First, about 15 percent
of the collection was transferred to a newPj-constructecl
Remote Storage Facility at Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio,
Texas. Second, FY 1977 Construction of Facility funds were
requested for a secure, long-lived operational addition to
the Curatorial Facility itself. This project was authorized
by Congress for $2.2 million, but without additional funds;
therefore, in vie~~ of the urgent need for this addition,
other NASA funds were reprogrammed to construct it. We plan
to have the new addition fully operational next year.
The Lunar Laser Ranging Program uses lunar ranging measure-
ments to study the elements of the lunar orbit, lunar libra-
tions, motion of the rotational pole of the Earth, and
PAGENO="0950"
946
movement of the Earth's lithospheric plates. Range data
is~ now being acquired at the McDonald observatory at Fort
Davis, Texas, and at Haleakala Observatory on Maui, Hawaii.
Future measurements will also be made from a transportable
laser ranging station now under construction, and, in a
cooperative program with Australian scientists from an
observatory near Canberra, Australia. Some of the impor-
tant accomplishments of this program are: the most precise
measurement yet made of. variations in the Earth's rotation
rate; the most accurate measurement yet made of the product
of the gravitational constant and the mass of the Earth (this
is a fundamental geodetic parameter); accurate measurements
of the lunar moment of inertia differences (these place impor-
tant constraints on the distribution of mass in the interior
of the Moon, and hence on theories of lunar formation an~
evolution); determination of the orbit of the Moon to an
accuracy of about 25 meters over a six-year period; measure~
ments of physical librations of the Moon accurate to two
meters over a six-year period; and measurements that olace
severe limitations on possible alternatives to Einstein's
theory of general relativity.
Flight Support
The telemetry from operational planetary spacecraft, and
the tracking information for these spacecraft are relayed
via the Deep Space Network tracking stations to arid from
the Mission Control and Computing Center at the Jet Propul-
sion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. This is the con-
trol and communications lifeline for these spacecraft,
where the raw telemetry.information is translated into
usable data. These data are sent to various engineering
and science teams throughout the Mission Support Areas,
where they are analyzed to assess the condition and health
of the spacecraft and to interpret the science results.
Tracking data are similarly calibrated and supplied to
spacecraft navigation teams.
After the telemetry and tracking information has been ana-
lyzed, command sequences are generated and transmitted to
the spacecraft. Science instruments are turned on or off;
midcourse maneuvers are commanded to correct the trajectory
as necessary; and commands are issued to various spacecraft
subsystems to keep them operating in the desired mode.
The Mission Control and Computing Center has been constantly
upgraded during its use for support of lunar and planetary
programs. When the Mariner 2 spacecraft was launched to
Venus in 1962, its maximum telemetry rate was 8-1/3 bits per
PAGENO="0951"
947
second. When the two Mariner Jupiter/Saturn (MJS77) space-
craft are launched in 1977, they will have a maximum tele-
metry rate of 115,000 bits per second. By the year 1995
it is expected that telemetry rates of up to 1 billion
bits per second will be achieved.
During FY 1978, operational support will continue to be
provided for Pioneers 6 through 11, Helios A and B, and
Vikings 1 and 2. Support will be provided for the launch
of the Mariner Jupiter/Saturn missions during August!
September 1977 and for flight operations after launch.
Test and training for the Pioneer Venus missions will
continue, with launch and flight operations support start-
ing in May/June 1978 for the Orbiter Mission and in August
1978 for the Multi-probe Mission. Planninq and development
of support requirements for future lunar and planetary
missions will also continue during this period.
Advanced Studies and Advanced Technical Development
The final area I will discuss in Lunar and Planetary Programs
is a vital one, without which we could not maintain our
program of exploration.
These two programs are jointly responsible for preparing
for future flight missions. They complement each other in
providing definitions of a program of scientifically logi-
cal and cost-effective planetary exploration, and the
technical readiness and detailed planning on which realistic
schedules and cost estimates are based.
New lunar and planetary pro~rams are born and nurtured
through these activities. Together with the scientific
community with which they interact, Advanced Studies and
Advanced Technical Development (ATD) activities provide the
basis for detailed planning of planetary fliqht rnissions~
This chart shows how the general procedure of long-range
and short-range planning takes place (Chart SL 76 - 251 ).
Through Advanced Studies, promising missions are identified
and defined. Interaction with the scientific community,
through science working groups and symposia, produces a
set of scientific objectives for each of these missions,
a scientific assessment of relative mission priorities, and
guidance on how to achieve scientific optimization of each
mission. This input is then studied in the context of the
natural and the fiscal constraints on the missions, and of
the technological capability to carry them out.
PAGENO="0952"
FORMULATION OF PLANETARY PROGRAM
J~ON
JSTRL~EGY
MISSION
YEAR
xix
T
xx
-~
I
xx
- NEAR TERM PLAN
MISSION YEAR
x
X
x
NASA HQ SL76-251 (1)
R~. 1-12-77
SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES
* GEOLOGY
* ATMOSPHERES
* FIELDS & PARTICLES
* BIOLOGY
MISSION EXPERIENCE
MISSION MODEL
CONSTRAINTS
*
*
*
NATURAL
TECHNICAL
FISCAL
ELEMENTS
*
*
*
*
FLYBYS
ORBITERS
LANDERS
PROBES
PAGENO="0953"
949
Finally, a mission strategy is formulated, and a tactical
sequence of activities called the "Mission Model" is formu-
lated, The Mission Model takes into account the realities
of technology availability and the bounds fo realistic
fiscal projections.
The Mission Model is needed to ensure that mission planninq
and sequencing are carefully coordinated. In addition, the
near-term portion of the Mission Model is selected for inten-
sive study and development. This subset of missions is
subject to modifications that reflect the results of accom-
plished missions, technology advances, and budgetary fluc-
tuations.
The Advanced Technical Development (ATD) program has the
responsibility to assure that NASA will be ready technologi-
cally to carry out the missions in the Mission Model on
schedule and within ficcal constraints. ATD has the
responsibility to focus technologies developed by the
Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology toward specific
future projects. Project-peculiar requirements on general
technological developments must be identified and satis-
fied so that projects can be planned on the basis of
established technology. Close contact is maintained with
the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology to assure
that the more general technological developments stay useful
to the needs of the planetary programs.
In general, ATD activities focus on system-level advanced
development, and include detailed system design studies
(called Phase B studies) to make sure that all aspects of
preparation for projects are considered properly. Included
in Phase B activities is the detailed project implementation
planning which is required for realistic schedules and cost
estimates.
In FY 1978, the Advanced Studies program will continue analysis
and study of missions planned for launch toward the end of
the next decade, and make more detailed and more specific
studies of nearer-term potential missions. In the long-term
category are studies of Mars Surface Sample Return (MSSR)
mission concepts, Mercury Orbiter missions, concepts for
asteroid missions, and study of a mission consisting of a
Saturn Orbiter and a Titan Lander. In the near term are
studies of a Venus Orbital Imaging Radar (VOIR) mission,
and evaluation of Viking follow-on mission options. For
the intermediate term, studies will be conducted for Saturn
and Uranus probe missions.
PAGENO="0954"
950
In FY 1978 the ATD program will study the next near-term
major -thrusts. In FY 1977, ATD and the Office of Aeronau-
tics and Space Technology jointly conducted technology
development of a new space transportation technique, solar
sailing. This technique uses the pressure of the solar wind
to propel a spacecraft on missions that require high-energy
propulsion systems. The major ATD effort in FY 1978 will
be(preparatiOn for the first mission to use this technique,
which is presently planned to be Halley Comet rendezvous.
Another major FY 1978 emphasis in ATD will be technological
preparation for the VOIR mission. This and the Halley Comet
-rendezvous are presently in our schedule as FY 1979 new
start candidates. -
PAGENO="0955"
951
LIFE SCIENCES
The review of our Physics and Astronomy and Lunar and
- Planetary programs has presented science activities
primarily concerned with unmanned automated spacecraft.
As we look toward the near future, though, we are finding
that man actually working in space will become rather
commonplace. This new thrust of activity will require
a better understanding than we now have of man's ability
to operate in a space environment.
Currently we must resolve two important facets of the
Shuttle era. Non-astronaut passengers will be aboard
Shuttle flights by 1980. These men and women will not
be expected to meet the rigorous medical selection
standards for the Shuttle crews. We must ~staI?lish a
baseline minimum physical qualification that will allow
normally healthy people to qualify medically as passengers.
Yet we must insure areasonably low probability of Shuttle
medical abort. We do not want an inf light coronary--or
even a kidney stone--if it àan be avoided. Claustrophobia
or the inability to accommodate equilibrium disruptions
are other examples of our concern.
Of all the findings derived from previous manned space
flight, the most consistent problem impacting operations
in the first few days is equilibrium disturbance, sometimes
associated with gastric upset due to the lack of gravity.
This condition, which we choose to call Space Motion
Sickness, is a very real near-term problem that has not
been resolved and could seriously impede mission progress
for a considerable portion of a flight.
Another problem we face is the present lack of instruments
and techniques for detecting latent or incubating diseases
that could become apparent and critical during a flight.
Our prelaunch discovery of exposure of a non-immune
astronaut to ~ubella brought this potential problem to
light. We do not anticipate any prolonged preflight
isolation of passengers, making the problem that much
more a reality.
We still are conducting ground-based research on other
medical anomalies exposed by earlier flights. Although
the Skylab demonstrated man can be effective in space
for three months, the data cannot be extrapolated to
nine or more months. No program presently exists for
flights of these durations, however, we must continue the
search for basic resolution of several problems that may
be limiting factors th the utilization of humans in space.
PAGENO="0956"
952
American and Soviet space flights have demonstrated the
ability of highly trained, carefully selected, and well-
conditioned individuals to withstand the effects of
weightlessness and other environmental stresses associated
with space flight. However, among the more important
flight-related physiological changes experienced and
observed are (Chart SB77-l323): alterations in cardio-
vascular function producing decreased cardiovascular
tolerance to postural stress both inf light and post-flight,
occasional heart rate irregularities, decreased post-
flight exercise tolerance, decreased vascular volume
involving both red cell mass and plasma volume, fluid
and electrolyte alterations consistent with a contracted
extracellular fluid volume, early orbital "space motion
sickness," loss of body mass, and decrease in bone density.
Although significa~it physiological changes have occurred
in both short and longer duration flights, such changes
have always returned to pre-f light values and have not pre-
cluded mans nearly full and productive participation. in
a variety of space flight missions with the~rnultiple
stresses that have been encountered to date.
Moreover, more frequent flights are programmed for Shuttle,
exposing more individuals from a broader population range
to these stresses. This, on the one hand, will require
periodic medical evaluations of candidates for selection
of scientists to crew positions, and on the other hand,
regular surveillance of permanent crew members (astronauts)
in an ongoing flight medicine relationship.
The main technical objectives which will be addressed
during the pre-Shuttle era will consist of:
1. Delineation of anticipated flight stresses for
Shuttle flights of 7-30 days' duration and methods
(new tools and procedures) for predicting indivi-
dual responses to them. This inherently involves
detection of latent, subclinical, m'inimal, or overt
disease states which, upon exposur.e to the space
environment may represent a hazard to the individual
or to the mission.
2. Determination of physiolociicaI limits for non~
astronaut individuals capable of withstanding Shuttle
space flight stresses and of performing the required
tasks for accomplishing mission goals.
3. Identification of effective counter measures
that prevent or counteract the undesirable responses
to the weightless environment.
PAGENO="0957"
PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES RELATED TO SPACE FLIGHTS
* CARDIOVASCULAR
* I TOLERANCE TO POSTURAL STRESS
* CARDIAC ARRHYTHMIAS
* I EXERCISE TOLERANCE
* DECREASED VASCULAR VOLUME
* I RED CELL MASS
* I PLASMA VOLUME
* SPACE MOTION SICKNESS
* LOSS OF BODY MASS
* LOSS OF CALCIUM CONTENT IN BONES
NASA HO 1S77*1323 (1)
1-12.77
PAGENO="0958"
954
The following areas of medical concern will be reassessed
and evaluated in the context of the cürreñt knowledge
arid understanding of disease mechanisms:
Detection of Latent Ischemic (Coronary) Heart Disease (IHD).
(Chart SB77-ll69). Since this disease is responsible for
more sickness and mortality in U.S. males between the age~
of 35 and 50 (the prime of careers for astronauts and
scientists) than any other single disease entity, the
ability to select candidates free of heart disease would
be of inestimable value not only to NASA but to the
public health care delivery as well. Unfortunately,
despite enormous research efforts in the field, no
definitive methods of high specificity and sensitivity
employable as a mass screening technique exist.
To date, two of the most widely used clinical screening
procedures for assessing the presence and severity of this
disease are electrocardiography and the exercise stress
test. It is hoped that additional capabilities for the
early detection of the presence of this disease by means
of non-invasive radioisotope techniques and correlation
with accepted risk factors (i.e., obesity, smoking, blood
cholesterol levels, etc.) will be developed.
Cardiovascular Tolerance for Shuttle Entry.
An inability to maintain a vertical position comfortably
has occurred almost universally post-flight in both U.S.
and Soviet spacecrews. It has, however, not proved
operationally significant in former spacecraft where
entry g-loading has been +Gx (transverse).. Shuttle is
so designed to cause sustained +l.5Gz (vertical) entry
forces upon the crew who must function effectively in
final control and landing of the vehicle. Payload
specialists will ride in a similar orientation (Chart
SB77-1l70).
During FY 1978, investigations of the "Lower Body Negative
Pressure (LBNP) Population Response" (a technique a~lready
utilized during the Skylab space flight to determine arid
document the cardiovascular responses and its correlation
with the age and different levels of fitness in a larger
and more inclusive population than previously studied.
By studying the protective effects, if any, of LBNP upon
the cardiovascular system in bed rest as an analog to
weightlessness, its value as a measure to prevent decondi-
tioning will be evaluated.
PAGENO="0959"
DEATH RATES FOR CARDIOVASCULAR
DISEASES (AND MAJOR COMPONENTS) AND
NON CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES
RATE PER 100,000 U.S. 1970 -1975
POPULATION
Aflfl 400
: ~ ~ :
280 - -136% - 280
240- ___ -240
- -~---- - -~- -
CORONARY
200 - Veac sescefise cascs~a, Heart'~ Steoke Other Cardse- HEART DISEASE 200
Diseases Diseases Disease Diseases _13 2%
1970 364.3 350.0 228.1 66.3 55.6
160 1971 355.5 344.4 225.1 65.2 54.1 - 160
1972 358.1 343.7 223.9 65.0 54.8
1973 356.3 336.6 218.9 63.7 54.0 STROKE
1974 346.1 320.1 207.7 59.9 52.5 o
120 - 1975 339.9 302.4 198.1 54.7 49.6 ~ -u'.~''o - 120
1976 I
I OTHER
80 - %Change -6.7 -13.6 -132 -17.5 -10.8 / CARDIOVASCULAR 80
- - ~ DISEASES 108%
40 I - - ~~40
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
RATE AGE-ADJUSTED TO U.S. POPULATION, 1940 NASA HQS6/T1169U
PAGENO="0960"
REENTRY PROFILES (CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS)
APOLLO
ORBiTER
Gx
12-29-76
PAGENO="0961"
957
Animal and human ground-based and flight experiments
will lead to understanding of the changes produced by
space flight. Finally, information obtained on the
effects of space flight on cardiovascular disease will
affect the type and size of the population flying in space.
The program thrust is to provide solutions to the problem
of cardiovascular deconditioning produced by weightlessness.
The specific objectives are to: 1) determine the funda-
mental cardiovascular changes associated with space flight;
2) develop safety monitoring criteria and techniques,
emphasizing preflight detection and evaluation of latent
disease state; and 3) provide protection for susceptible
individuals by preventing or counteracting adverse effects.
OBJECTIVE 1. Fundamental Cardiovascular Changes
Associated with Space Flight Deconditioning.
Previous work in this area indicates multiple causes for
the observed adjustments. We now need to determine the
proportional contributions from central (cardiac),
peripheral vascular, and regulatory components.
Development of advanced analytical and instrumentation
techniques is an integral part of this program element.
Our approach utilizes animal and human studies of the
changes in tolerance to vertical positions (orthostatic)
with deconditioning after ground-based simulations or
space flight. The procedures include identification of
circulatory alterations in animals conditioned with exercise
and then deconditioned by cage confinement. The standard
comparison will be response to lower body negative pressure
(LBNP) before and after deconditioning. In F~ 1978,
primates will be studied under a similar protocol before
and after chair restraint.
Bed rest simulation of space flight-induced cardiovascular
deconditioning is a fundamental model for analysis of the
adaptive mechanisms producing loss of orthostatic tolerance.
Essential observations to be made during FY 1978 are the
changes through time of peripheral vascular compliance1
f low distribution, and the effects of orthostatic
stresses on these variables, in bed-rested humans.
OBJECTIVE 2. Safety Monitoring: Tolerance Limits.
Previous work showed that monitoring of blood flow to
the head during +Gz centrifugatjon provides a more
reproducible and reliable end-point than other criteria.
Indices for heart response during dynamic stresses are
still inadequate, essentially limited to electrocardiography,
heart rate, and cuff blood pressure, with no reliable
92-082 0 - 77 . 61
PAGENO="0962"
958
direct measurement of function such as dimensions or
contraction pattern, or a flow distribution to areas
other than the head. More specific quantitative information
is needed to permit development of indices of reentry
+G~ tolerance by predicting deconditioning susceptibility.
During FY 1977 and 1978 studies of functional reserves
in animals and humans using LBNP and centrifugation
stresses will provide this information.
In an expanded passenger population, such criteria
become much more significant, and the capability to detect
latent disease and evaluate the impact on space flight
*responses is essential. -
OBJECTIVE 3. Protection: Prevention, Countermeasures.
The implications of the loss of the heart's ability to
respond to increased demand levels are not documented,
particularly if disease is present. However, results
from acceleration studies after bed rest protection will
be needed to assess what may occur during reentry even
in normal young adults. Therefore, the plans are to:
1) apply oscillating inertial forces (time-dependent
acceleration) to produce stimulation of vascular, skeletal
and muscle systems and to modify flow and volume distri-
bution for prevention of deconditioning effects. This
is a continuing effort through FY 1978. 2) develop and
test prototype garments for control of lower body external
pressure in FY 1978. 3) evaluate the range of proposed
pressures and forces with a mathematical model of the
circulatory responses to G gradients.
~ace Motion Sickness"
A peculiar form of gastric disturbance, expressed variously
in a broad clinical spectrum from malaise and vague
stomach awareness to full-blown nausea and vomiting,
apparently occurs at a fairly high rate in the early
period following orbital insertion (Chart SB77-ll68).
The change mechani5ms are quite unclear, but aggravation by
motion of the head indicates some vestibular element.
As yet, however, no acceptable correlations of motion
sickness in l-g and space motion sickness, allowing
preflight determination -of susceptibility have evolved.
The factor of headward fluid shifts, as a result of
weightlessness, intuitively provides another hypothesis
to be evaluated. Whatever the cause, the problem has
the potential to affect passengers on short space flights.
PAGENO="0963"
INCIDENCE OF SPACE MOTION SICKNESS
IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHT PROGRAMS
USA
NUMBER INCIDENCE
PROGRAM OF OF MOTION
CREWMEN SICKNESS
MECURY 6 0
USSR
NUMBER INCIDENCE
PROGRAM OF OF MOTION
CREWMEN SICKNESS
VOSTOK 7 1
GEMINI
APOLLO
SKYLAB
ASTP
20*
33*
9
3
0
11**
5
0
VOSKHOD
SOYUZ
ASTP
5
36#
2
3
19##
2
* INCLUDES 4 CREWMEN WHO FLEW TWICE DURING PROGRAM
** INCLUDES I CREWMAN WHO EXPERIENCED SYMPTOMS ON EACH
OF TWO FLIGHTS
# INCLUDES 6 CREWMEN WHO FLEW TWICE DURING PROGRAM
##9 WITH MAJOR SYMPTOMS; 10 ADDITIONAL WITH MINOR SYMPTOMS
PAGENO="0964"
960
Utmost attention must be given to this area of investigation
in order to develop a battery of ground-based tests to
help identify susceptible individuals and develop means
for efficient prevention. -
In view of the vestibular problems and their potential
impact on passengers and crew for a substantial portion
(3 out of 7 days) of Shuttle missions, continuing research
emphasis will be given to the careful investigation of
those neurosensory and related physiological mechanisms
believed to be associated with the O-g motion sickness
syndrome. The component research problems associated
with this syndrome have been assigned to four major
categories:
1. Physiology - available information is inadequate
to explain the causes or underlying mechanisms of the
space motion sickness syndrome.
2. Prognostic Indices - techniques fo.r reliably
identifying individuals who are susceptible to space
motion sickness are completely lacking. In this regard,
it is noteworthy that none of the preflight test data
obtained on the Skylab astronauts correlated in any
fashion with the actual occurrence of inf light symptoms.
3. Prevention - techniques for effectively preventing
the occurrence of . this syndrome in O-g are lacking.
For example, although very limited in scope, attempts
to precondition the Skylab crewmen by rotating chair
and/or aerobatic exposures were not visibly useful.
4. Countermeasures - techniques for effectively treating
inf light symptoms are in need of improvement. The
use of 4nti~motion sickness drugs by crewmen with~
symptoms had limited therapeutic value. Also
little definitive information is available concerning
processes that could accelerate adaptation to
weightlessness.
The overall problem. of `space motion sickness-is extremely
complex and in many ways bound to a very sp.ecific stimulus
condition, i.e., weightless space flight. Past and
current research conducted by other institutions does
not necessarily apply to the problem of space motion sickness
and sensory adaptation to O-g. New and unique' approaches
continue to be pursued in the effort to obtain directly
relevant information.
Our investigational approach entails a systematic and
comprehensive program of research into the different out-
puts of the vestibular-spinal pathways, into brain
functions involving perception of motion and spatial
orientation, into vestibular interactions and studies of
PAGENO="0965"
961
factors involved in motion sickness susceptibility.
We are also working on stidies involving other neurological
functions relating to the space motion sickness problem
such as auditory, neuromuscular, biochemical and
electrophysiological (EEG) relationships. In addition,
orientation, sensorimotor coordination, postural control.
and locomotion are being investigated. Detailed evalua-
tions of sensory and physiological adaptation processes
and pharmaceutical. agents are key elements in this problem
oriented research. Hui~an studies utilize a variety of
behavioral and advanced noninvasive biorecording techniques,
while several small animal species are being evaluated
by means of invasive electrode recording techniques to
obtain basic information on sensori-neural activity.
Anatomical and histological procedures are included in
the animal studies where they appear advisable.
The FY 1978 program will continue to carry out research
concerned with identifying the cause(s) or underlying
mechanisms of this syndrome through studies of the inner
ear, vestibular relationships with vomiting inducement,
fluid and electrolyte shifts, and mapping of brainstem
visual response pathways. The effort to develop techniques
to identify individuals who are susceptible to this syndrome
will include such Studies as determinations of rates of
acquisition and decay of motion sickness symptoms with
and without benefit of drugs, and the definition of
susceptibility parameters.
Prevent±ve techniques will continue to be pursued through
further investigations of biofeedback and other training
techniques, and further pharmaceutical approaches will
continue to be~ explored for their efficacy in controlling
the symptoms of space motion sickness during flight.
In summary, the research program is organized and directed
to delineate the causes of the space motion Sickness syndrome
and to develop effective measures for its prediction,
prevention, and treatment.
Bone and Muscle Alterations
The recent Skylab flights demonstrated that 84 days in
space causes substantive changes in bone and muscles.
In the Apollo flights there was a diminished girth of the
lower limbs along with muscle mass loss; in the Skylab
flights there was a loss of strength in the flexor and
extensor muscles of the arms and legs, and a teduced
Achilles tendon reflex time for several days following
return to a normal gravity environment. Urinary nitrogen
and phosphates were elevated in the in-flight Samples.
PAGENO="0966"
962
The findings indicate that there is a loss of bone mineral
and muscle during space flight despite physical exercise
regimes which are extremely vigorous. Typically weight-
bearing bones appear to be affected, whereas other.
portions of the skeletal system seem stable. The changes
reported to date have been of no particular clinical
concern; however, the time history of the responses
as determined from- available data indicate that musculo-
skeletal function could be significantly impaired during
prolonged space flight (greater than 9 months). The
disuse type of muscular atrophy could give rise to weakness
and performance decrements upon return to gravitational
environments. Extensive losses of bone mineral can lead
to calcium displacement, kidney stones, and disease induced
fracture of bones.
Empirical findings in human test programs have shown that
dietary supplements and exercise do little tQ reverse the
changes due to weightlessness. Consequently, the alterations
are not readily reversible and could impact seriously long
- duration (greater than 9 months) manned flight. Additional
criteria for the evaluation of the essential functions
of the skeletal system are therefore necessary and include
a more complete evaulation of skeletal parameters and
characterization of bone in terms of composition, elastic
parameters and rigidity, metabolic turnover and related
activities. It is necessary to determine whether muscle
loss is caused by a degraded capacity for protein synthesis
or by oEherfactOrS. The determination of the time history
of bone muscle alterations in a weightless environment is
a critical future requirement to determine whether the losses
stabilize in-flight or whether the losses continue unabated.
It is important to assess whether the in-flight alterations
in man appear to create a significant hazard in-flight
or for re-entry and recovery situations, and to deter-
mine the duration of post-flight reversal and recovery.
Fluid and ElectrOlyt~
The information gained from exposure of man to weightless
flight for periods approaching 3 months has shown that
fluid and electrolyte metabolism has been altered in all
crewmen studied. It is apparent that the changes experienced
are multiphasic and are caused not only by the weightless
environment but alsp by conditions related to the
preparation for flight, the activity during flight and
the recovery procedures. Specifically~ we observed body
fluid compartment shifts, which are complicated by losses,
in electrolytes (sodium, potassium, calcium, phosphorus,
magnesium and chloride) occurring at a slowed rate over
mission duration which further influence fluid distribution.
PAGENO="0967"
963
Hormonal responses were observed as the body attempted
to counteract these changes.
Also, these changes are apparent very early in flight
and appear to continue during the entire flight exposure.
The biomedical consequences of these changes have been
well documented; however, the mechanisms by which these
changes occur have not been defined. Thus, nervous and
physical control within the total system, as pertains
principally to the regulation of fluid and electrolyte
balance, needs investigation.
The ~roblems identified by Skylab and amplified by ASTP
may be assigned to the following categories:
a. Balance mechanisms that control loss of water
via the urine and others that regulate the intake
of fluid by drinking require clarification for a
zero-gravity environment.
b. An agreed simulation technique (e.g., bed rest
and/or water immersion) adequate to study and corre-
late ground-based research with flight data has not
been defined.
c. The effects of various hormonal responses on fluid
and electrolyte metabolism and renal function in zero
gravity are not totally known.
d. Fluid compartments shifts and physical changes,
which effect the overall fluid and electrolyte
metabolism and renal function, and their relationship
to cardiovascular deconditioning, space motion sickness,
responsiveness of blood vessels to transmitters, and
effects of drug action are not defined.
e. Bioinstrumentatjon for making inf light measurements
of renal and blood changes occurring during space
flight are not yet totally available.
The overall approach planned for research in this area is.
for studies to be conducted on ground subjects and animals
directed toward first reproducing the changes observed
in the Skylab crewmen, and understanding these changes if
possible on the ground. The results will provide flight
experiments for final zero..g verification.
Disease Risk
While the above distinct and particularly troublesome
clinical conditions are considered areas, of prime
importance in the future missions and command paramount
concern for Shuttle crews, other diseases will certainly
bear significantly on mission achievements. Further
studies will also be directed toward timely recognition
of the relatively unpredictable acute processes and
exacerbatjons of chronic disorders and their inevitability
of occurrence as .a function of aging.
PAGENO="0968"
964
In the field of medicine proper, the significant progress
in diagnostic and therapeutic measures in recent years
is indisputable; however, the knowledge of prognosis has
been lagging behind. By utilizing the available resources
(clinical and bioengineering) we can collect increasing
masses of retrospective data and attempt to perfect our
prognostic capabilities.
Because exposure to weightlessness causes physiological
adaptations, our definition of normal must change as we
enter and depart from the weightless state. The first
task under future programs will be to define what is
"normal" body function during these* adaptive phases.
This will require systematic integration of past flight
data and the development of the overall body systems
"performance criteria" which will serve as preliminary
guidelines for future evaluation of the health status of
Shuttle crews and passengers.
The goal of space-related bioinstrumentation research and
development is to provide space biomedical science with the
capability to detect and measure subtle changes in body
functions, as well as their underlying mechanisms, during
exposure to a weightless state. Though this goal is not
directed toward detection and identification of disease
processes, the measurement requirements imposed on the
space-rtlated instrumentation systems are similar to systems
for use on earth. Further, the requirements for crew
selection and inf light treatment and health status
monitoring promote similar needs.
A major activity in FY 1978, which has application to
both space medical research and clinical medicine on earth,
will be the build up o~ the JPL medical image analysis
project. This activity involves image processing, computer
simulation studies and flow experiments at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, experimental animal studies at
Ames Research Center, and clinical testing at the
University of Southern California Medical School. This
capability i~ being developed to allow the application of
advanced image processing techniques to study the effects
of actual or simulated spacef light on the cardiovascular
and musculoskeletal systems, and to make this same
technology available for the benefit of ground-based
medical practice.
A capability is being developed to process data such
as X-ray images of coronary blood vessels and light
microscope images of muscle cross sections (Chart SB77~872).
PAGENO="0969"
965
PAGENO="0970"
966
In Fl 1978, work will continue on developing a radio-
graphic image processing technique toestimate the maximum
f low capability of diseased coronary arteries under
conditions of stress. Other work will include development
of advanced processing techniques for the analysis of
opacified heart chambers, tracking implanted markers, and
analyzing bone sections from experimental animals subjected
to stress (such as simulated weightlessness) to quantify
abnormal mineralization patterns.
In previous testimony I have reported on the advanced
remote health care delivery system known as STARPAHC (Space
Technology Applied to Rural Papago Advanced Health Care)
which has been in operation on the Papago Indian
Reservation in Arizona since May 1975, and has resulted
in a wealth of medical, systems, and cost data whicb
are proving valuable to community health planners and
NASA medical planners. Results to date have clearly
demonstrated the feasibility of using paramedics augmented
by telecommunications to deliver a broad range of health
services to people in remote areas.
The narrow band (slow scan) video is proving to be a
particularly cost-effective element of the system. This
communication link, which transmits high quality still
video images using telephone lines, has been used for
numerous transmissions of X-ray images. This has enabled
specialists at the Phoenix Indian Medical Center to consult
with physicians at Sells Hospital and made it possible
for decisions to be made about treatment and/or referral
of patients without the delay previously involved in
sending the X-rays, and without unnecessarily transporting
the patient. In (Chart $B77~873) a medical technician
stands by to receive a radiographic image in Phoenix for
subsequent consultation by an orthopedic surgeon.
In mid-1977, the operation of the STARPAHC system will be
taken over by the Indian Health Service. NASA's efforts
in Fl 1978 will involve assisting IHS in the transition
and providing technical consultation as required.
Under a separate contract from the main STARPAHC activity,
a space-oriented medical evaluation of STARPAHC has been
underway. This effort involves extrapolating the results
of the ground based telemedicine operations and deriving
guidelines for future manned space missions. A final
report from this activity will be completed in early 1977.
The Planetary Biology Program explores the origin, evolu-
tion, and distribution of life in the universe. It is
also concerned with the relationship of life to the evolu-
tion of planets. Through research in chemical evolution,
PAGENO="0971"
967
PAGENO="0972"
968
organic geochemistry, biological adaptation, and life
detection we hope to learn the biological secrets of
the past and~future of the planet Earth as well as of the
existence arid nature and distribution of extraterrestrial
life..
Research includes the laboratory study of the non-biological
systhesis of biologically significant organic molecules
under conditions presumed to have existed on the primitive
earth before the event of life. Experiments relevant to
prebiological organic chemistry can in principle explain
the processes by which primitive cells and ultimately life
itself could have originated on earth. These studies on
the origin of life further focus on the production of
functional molecules and their organization into living
cell-like systems that metabolize and replicate. Obviously
the role of ultraviolet light as a primitive energy source
as well as a degradative force, the role of the atmospheric
constituents, and physical conditions such as temperature
and pressure are all integral parts of the problem.
The successful Viking missions have provided a wealth of
data. We now know a good deal about the physical and chemical
constituents and conditions of the Mars atmosphere and soil.
From this information we are beginning to define the
environment of Mars in some detail at the two lander
locations. The biology experiment has shown that the
Martian surface material is chemically very reactive,
apparently the result of eons of ultraviolet bombardment.
This reactivity, in many ways, mimics the biological
responses one would expect from livi4g organisms. Such
responses are not found on the Earth in any of the soils
investigated to date. This has opened new research areas
in soil chemistry and new unde~standing of. the complex
nature of planetary surface materials. At:~the same time it
has made the unambiguous determination of the presence or
absence of life on Mars, a most difficult problem, which
is requiring more Earth-laboratory and ~Mars-surface
experimentation than anticipated. Therefore, the question
of life on Mars is still unanswered., The data frbm Viking
has far from ruled out the possibility of life. It is',
quite possible that the reactive chemistry of Mars is
masking any indigenous biological activity.~' The absence
of organic matter in the two landing sites suggests,
however, that if life is present it is in very low abundance.
Concurrent study of the atmospheres and surfaces of the outer
planets and their satellites (e.g., Jupiter, Titan) will
provide the balanced perspective required to view oixr
solar system as an integrated entity. The chemistry of the
PAGENO="0973"
969
atmospheres appears to be quite different from that of
Earth-Mars-Venus, and may well provide clues to the
chemical events which led to the advent of life on Earth.
The history of the outer planets promises to be of pro-
found importance. The Possibility of life in even these
environments cannot be ruled out, although there is no
question that present knowledge does not make it likely,
and only exploration and analysis can provide the answers.
Beyond our solar system we can now only begin to probe
for signs of life. Our most promising tool is the radio
telescope, used as a listening device for signs of intel-
ligent signals of one kind or another. The potential
scope of such an effort is enormous, but the implications of
such a discovery even more so. An array of radio tele-
scopes, as would be needed for such an effort, would also
serve as a potent research tool for basic astronomy, and
would indeed by the most powerful system on Earth for
studying the far reaches of the galaxy and beyond. At
the present time we are studying the technc~logy required for
such an effort in the event that the decision is made
to attempt it.
The Planetary Quarantine Program has the responsibility
to insure that no extraterrestrial life is introduced into
the Earth's environment, and that no other planet is conta-
minated by terrestrial organisms through operations of
U.S. spacecraft.
Every mission, whether it be flyby, orbiter or lander,
must be assessed for its potential for contamination of
other planets and sufficient sterilization technologies
and regimens must be developed to prevent contamination.
These include spacecraft cleaning procedures, clean room
- technology, spacecraft bioassay techniques, and statistical
methods for predicting the total spacecraft bioburderi and
the efficacy of sterilization,
For example, the Viking spacecraft were sterilized, both
to prevent the biological contamination of Mars and, of
course, to guarantee that the Viking biology instrument
would not detect organisms carried from Earth. This effort
was quite successful, and can now be relatively easily
applied to any mission requiring such treatment.
In the event of sample return missions, from Mars or
elsewhere where we are returning material to Earth of unknown
hazard to our biosphere, special precautions would have
to be taken to protect the Earth and its inhabitants.
We are studying the available technology to contain
PAGENO="0974"
970
vigorously such material behind a biological barrier
where preliminary study and hazard assessment can be done.
We feel that any extraterrestrial material will be on
considered potentially dangerous until such. studies can
be done. Facilities, management expertise, assay protocols,
and monitoring devices will all be needed for such a mission.
Present studies will prepare us for such an event in the
late 1980's or beyond.
It is now possible to perform biological experiments in
space, an environment that is free of gravitational
influence, free of tidal forces and the cyclic events-
of celestial mechanics, and free from the earth's magnetic
field. This new dimension in biological research can make
a significant contribution to: the clarification of the
role variations in' gravitational and magnetic fields
have played in the evolution of biorhythms; the elucidation
of the influence that gravity has exerted on the growth,
development, function, and evolution of plants and animals;
and the application of such knowledge to the welfare of
man in space and mankind on earth. This research is also
a necessary prelude to the growth, maintenance and
utilization of plants in space, a complex problem that
we must ultimately face in the not too distant future.
A new long term study of the feasibility of using biological
processes to provide a closed life support system for
future space- habitats has been initiated. The use of
biological processes to support man in space for long
periods is seen as a future requirement to eliminate the
large logistic.~penalties associated with long duration
flight use of current physical-chemical processes and
stored expendables used in current spacecraft. This study
is directed at identifying the technologies needed for
such a system, using biological links and processes to
support man in a closed habitat. This support involves the
revitalization of the breathable atmosphere, `including the
uptake of carbon dioxide and provision of oxygen, the utili-
zation of waste products associated with man, and the
provision of foodstuffs and portable water.
The establishment of fully-closed biological life support
system is an extremely complex undertaking. A great deal
of new knowledge must be obtained, for example, concerning
man's nutritional needs and the ability to provide these
needs with small sized biological food chains. The ability
to utilize all of man's wastes, along with the inevitable
wastes from the biological life support system, to provide
all the nutrients required-for the biological elements of
the system, poses additional significant problems.
PAGENO="0975"
971
Although we have the beginnings of an understanding of how
ou~ closed terrestrial ecology functions, we are still
a very long way from the knowledge of how such a system
operates and what modifications impair its normal
functioning, or to what degree. A closed ecological system
for space use must be configured to support man with
minimal complexity, and still meet the necessary require-
merits of long-term stability and reliability. A complete
understanding of these problems and the establishment of
the knowledge of their solutions is seen as a relatively
long-term effort. However, the gaining of this knowledge
will be of significant value and benefit here on earth as
our earth is, when viewed from space, a closed biological
system that must be improved if we are to sustain our
increasing population.
The space environment, superficially explored to this
point, is largely unknown in its basic effects on organisms.
The Shuttle era will bring flights of up to one month and
possibly beyond. This should afford very favorable
opportunities to set up careful, detailed investigations in
the weightless environment.
Our most recent use of space for biological research
occurred on the USSR Biosatellite, Kosmos 782, last year.
Investigations on the effect of weightlessness on red
blood cells demonstrated a reduced (5%) red blood cell
life span during flight. A number of factors potentially
were contributors, e.g., launch and reentry, weightlessness,
diet and radiation. A tissue growth experiment to detect
the effect of wgightlessness on carrot tumor development
produced statistically significant reductions in growth in
zero-g; just the opposite reaction had been predicted
from ground based experiments using gravity compensation.
The effect of space flight on bone formationwas investi-
gated also and all parameters tested were significantly
decreased. It appears that a complete cessation of
bone growth occurred during the flight. By 25 days post-
flight bone formation had reinitiated.
The Joint US/USSR Working Group on Space Biology and
Medicine met in September 1976 and agreed upon, and began
detailed planning for, the flight of five U.S. biological
experiments on a ~Kosmos biosatellite scheduled to be
launched during the third quarter of 1977. These experiments.
will include further Study of red blood cell life span,
bone growth, and a joint radiation dosimetry experiment.
In addition, studies will be performed on the genetics and
aging process of drosophila, and on various metabolic.,
hormonal, and enzyme changes occurring in rats jn zero
gravity. The effectiveness of onboard centrifugration
(simulating gravity) in mitigating these changes will be
evaluated.
PAGENO="0976"
972
The U.S.-supplied flight hardware for the 1977 flight
consists of a radiation dosimetry package for the joint
experiment, and the external flight container for the
experiment. These items are currently under develop-
ment at the University of San Francisco and Ames
Research Center, Throughout the 1980's the Space
Transportation System (STS) will provide the Life
Sciences community an excellent opportunity to
investigate the effects of weightlessness and other
factors on life systems, and to exploit the uniqueness
of the space environment to an extent heretofore not
possible. Spacelab, now under development by the
European Space Agency (ESA), will be the prime carrier
for crew-oriented Life Sciences experiments for this
program. We envision Spacelab missions dedicated to
Life Sciences studies starting in 1981. Life Sciences
"mini-lab" missions, flown in conjunction with investi-
gations from other scientific disciplines, and Life
Sciences "carry-on" experiments are also being planned
at a rate of two per year. A payload carrier, consisting
of a pressurized Spacelab module equipped with appropriate
Common Operating Research Equipment (CORE) and specialized
support systems, will serve as the "dedicated laboratory"
in which Life Sciences research will be performed.
The Integrated Life Sciences Shuttle Experiments (ILSSE)
Program will support fundamental Life Sciences investigations
including the determination of effects of space environment
on life systems and processes, the expansion of our
understandii~g of life systems, and the determination of
advantages of space research for helping support medical
research both on the ground and in space. To meet these
objectives, a two-phased approach is planned. First,
a Shuttle payloads preparation phase is in progress to
develop the capability needed to support the payload
operations during the 1981 through 1992 period. Second,
a payloads operations phase will be initiated utilizing
the capability developed tO successfully accomplish the
Shuttle flight missions.
In our Common Operating Research Equipment (CORE) program
to provide Life Sciences equipment and instrumentation
for Spacelab, the problems of specimen and biological
sample holding facilities have been given first priority.
Conceptual designs from FY 1976 studies were breadboarded
in FY 1977 for initial tests in the Spacelab Mission
Demonstration (SMU III) Life Sciences ground simulation.
Improvements determined from this simulation, along with
PAGENO="0977"
973
results from on-going tests on specimen requirements for
space confinement (feeding and watering requirements,
living space, activities and interactions,'data
requirements, etc.) will be incorporated into the design
and development of flight prototypes. Completion of
tests with these prototypes will lead to initiation of
flight-qualified hardware development.
Another CORE element that is vital to our on orbit research
is a deep freeze storage facility for preserving specimens
obtained in flight until they can be examined on the ground.
Starting in FY 1977 a prototype is being designed and
built for delivery in FY 1978 for ground tests. This
unit will provide temperatures of -70°C and will, in
addition, provide the capability for a refrigerant loop
for use by Life Sciences ~Principal Investigators using
a refrigerated centrifuge. We have been exploring with the
Office of Applications the use of this same technology for
providing refrigeration for space processing.
Our Vestibular Function Research' (VFR) program to conduct
animal flight studies of neural responses in basic inner
ear adaptation will be continuing in FY 1978. The
experiment preparation effort will concentrate' on
establishing the ground database using the flight design
equipment. This involves preparation and test of the
experiment and the reduction and analysis of the resulting
data. Improved data reduction techniques are being tested
and validated to reduce the time and effort involved.
At the same time the flight hardware qualification models
will be fabric~ted and preliminary flight testing begun.
In the study of space medicine and ways to make man's
"life in space" safer and more effective, we- have
developed several new approaches to solve space oriented
problems. As we so Often find, the serendipity of these*
programs is most rewarding. For instance, as a' result of
a study with Kansas. State University, we have `a new
concept of water disinfection for manned spacecraft. The
device, termed a "microbial check valve" consists of a
simple tube, packed with chemicals. its function is to
kill essentially all microorganisms which may be growing
in the spacecraft water supply by pumping `the water
through this device prior to consumption by the crew.
Iodine is the key biocidal agent in this device, and it
is supplied to the water as a direct function of water
flow through the device. Residual' iodine in the treated
water is low; less than 0.5 mg/l, thus providing an
extremely long, useful life to the device,-as well as
product water which does not have a `perceptible iód~ne
taste. We have let a contract to conduct further
92-082 ~ . 62
PAGENO="0978"
974
development work, and to provide a prototype system
for space flight and to use the system onboard the
Shuttle to insure sterility of the potable water. We
are -investigating the applicability of this concept to
the public sector. -
A technique for depositing a silicon compound into plastics
has been developed by the Ames Research Center. It is
expected that this technique will be used to coat the
visors of the helmets worn by astronauts to provide
both anti-reflective and scratch resistant characteristics
to these visors for future extravehicular activities.
The coating is applied by a plasma-deposition process
in a high vacuum chamber, as shown in (Chart SB77-ll7l).
The resulting silicon coating forms a very thin, hard
surface on plastics or other materials, and is highly
resistant to scratching and abraiding, a problem that
has been seen in the past with the policarbonate visors
on astronauts' helmets. This coating also minimizes
the reflections from the surface of the plastic, thus
improving the optical properties of the plastic. An
illustration of the protection afforded by these coatings
is shown in (Chart SB77-l172), where, on the left side
of the photograph is the .uncoated lexan plastic, and on
the right side, the. coated plastic. In this close-up
photo, scratches resulting from moving a rubber eraser-
repeatedly across both the uncoated and coated sections
clearly illustrate the protection afforded by the coating.
Application of this technology is now being funded by
our Technology. Utilization Office, investigating the
applicability of this process to the coating of plastic
lenses used in correcting human visual defects.
The erection of large space structures, such as solar
power systems and large antennas will require also
efficient, comfortable, and highly mobile space suits.
One of the problems that will be evident in extravehicular
activities from the Shuttle spacecraft is that of the
transition from tbe Skuttle. atmosphere of 14.7 psia
(one atmosphere pressure) to the much lower pressure
(4 to 5 psia) currently used in space. suits. This large
pressure change requires that astronauts breathe pure
oxygen for several hours prior to going EVA at low suit
pressures. in order to avoid a painful (and possibly fatal)
occurance of diver's bends (dysbarism) resulting from
the outgassing of nitrogen from the body fluids.. The
use of a higher. pressure space suit, one that can be
pressurized to 8 psia, will avoid this problem entirely
and will eliminate the need for prebreathing oxygen to
PAGENO="0979"
975
PAGENO="0980"
976
PAGENO="0981"
HIGH PRESSURE SPACE SUIT ASSEMBLY
NASA HO S877-1167(3)
12-29-76
PAGENO="0982"
978
eliminate the nitrogen from the body. (Chart SB77-l167)
is an engineering drawing of a space suit, assembly that
is currently being developed, which incorporates a number
of improvements to significantly increase man's capability
to perform useful work in space. This suit has easily
replaceable components, (arms. legs, etc.) thus
reducing spares inventories and, more importantly,
allowing suits to be made up to fit a broad range of sizes
of astronauts; eliminating the costly, custom-tailored
suits of the Apollo era. The dual-plane closure of this
design makes it easy to put on and take off. Even the
joints of this suit have been improved to provide maximum
mobility under higher pressures.
Equipped with new instrumentation, clothed in advanced
protective wear, and armed with increased knowledge about
himself and his environment, man in space looks toward
the future, confi4ent in his ability to contribute
significantly to man on EaTrth. -
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks.
PAGENO="0983"
979
STATEMENT OP DR. NOEL W. HINNERS, NASA ASSOCIATE ADMIN-
ISTRATOR FOR SPACE SCIENCE, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ANTHONY
J. CALIO, NASA DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR; DR. DON-
ALD M. HUNTEN, NASA DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
SCIENCE (ACTING); CHARLES E. WASH, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM
REVIEW AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT; THEODRICK B. NOR-
RIS, DIRECTOR, ASTROPHYSICS PROGRAMS; DR. HAROLD
GLASER, DIRECTOR, SOLAR TERRESTRIAL PROGRAMS; DR. DA-
VID L. WINTER, DIRECTOR FOR LIFE SCIENCES; DR. LAWRENCE
R. GREENWOOD, DIRECTOR, UPPER ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
OFFICE; AND A. THOMAS YOUNG, DIRECTOR, LUNAR AND PLANE-
TARY PROGRAMS
Dr. HINNERS. Thank you. With me at the table this morning are
Ed Wash, Director of our Program Review and Resources Manage-
ment; Tony Calio on my left, my Deputy; and Don Hunten, Deputy
for Science filling in temporarily for Dr. Rasool.
I would like this morning to enter our statement for the record.
I will not be reading from it, but will use the viewgraph technique to
bring you up to date on our program and fiscal year 1978 budget
request to give you some background on our proposed new starts-
the Space Thiescope and the Jupiter Orbiter Probe mission. For the
benefit of the new members of the committee, I will give a brief over-
view of what space science is trying to accomplish and how it fits into
the scheme of NASA's exploration program.
Mr. LLOYD. Proceed.
Dr. HINNERS. Can you hear me or should I use the microphone over
here?
Mr. LLOYD. We can hear you. We have a request that you do, indeed,
use the microphone.
Dr. HINNEES. Let me have the first slide.
Our total fiscal year 1978 authorization ,request for Space Science
is about $405.7 million broken down into three budget line items
(slide SP 77-1828). In the physics and astronomy program you will
notice significant changes from fiscal year 1977 to fiscal year 1978 in
our flight projects reflecting the phasing of their development.
The High Energy astronomy observatories (HEAO) project is
nearing the first launch-HEAO-A in April of this year when we will
launch the HEAO-A mission.
You see a decrease in funding as we complete the hardware develop-
ment buildup and get set for the launch period. The HEAO B and C
missions will be launched in 1978 and 1979, respectively. We expect
the HEAO-A mission to go on April 15, as scheduled. Everybody says
it is looking good now. We are on schedule, and we believe that we are
within our current cost estimates.
PAGENO="0984"
_______ ___________ FY 1977 FY 1978
PHYSICS & ASTRONOMY ______ ______ 166,300 224,200
HIGH ENERGY ASTR .OBSERV. 39,362 22,450
SOLAR MAXIMUM MISSION 21,300 30,600
SPACE TELESCOPE -- 36,000
SHUTTLE SPACELAB PAYLOAD DEV. 6,000 28,900
ORBITING EXPLORERS 30,238 35,000
SOLAR OBSERVATORIES 1,000 1,270
ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORIES 2,600 1,980
SUBORBITAL PROGRAMS 26,000 26,000
UPPER ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH 11,600 11,600
SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES 28,200 30,400
__________________________ _____ 67,464 191,900 158,200
____________ 20,576 5,436 22,125 330
434,126 116,400 380,325 415,700
Last year, we had approval from the Congress to start the solar
maximum mission development. We are continuing with that effort.
We are now on contract for the spacecraft and experiments, and are
building up toward launch during the solar maximum period in late
1979.
Our new start in physics and astronomy, which I will talk more
about later, is the Space Telescope, which we are requesting $36 million
in fiscal year 1978. For Shuttle/Spacelab science payload develop-
ment, we are requesting $28.9 million in fiscal year 1978. About $20
million of this amount is for Shuttle orbital flight test science pay-
loads and continued development of Spacelab I and II payloads; $8
million of the request is to get started on development of experiments
to be flown on follow-on development Spacelab missions.
We are now starting in a mode of operation whereby the university
community will develop experiments on a timely schedule. Specific
flight assignments will be made when the experiment is ready. We be-
lieve this is a more cost-effective way for the Shuttle/Spacelab science
payload development than trying to hold firm to specific flight sched-
ules which can drive the cost up.
The Explorer program shows an increase of about $5 million from
fiscal year 1977 to fiscal year 1978. As you remember, we had planned
a funding level of $33 million in fiscal year 1977. However, due to a
reallocation of funding necessary to meet technical difficulties in the
HEAO project, the fiscal year 1977 funding level was reduced by $2.8
million.
980
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE
BUDGFT PLAN
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
TRANSITION
FY 1976 QUARTER
159,300 43,500
59,218 14:510
1,100
29,922
3,600
2,300
24,800
3,500
34,860
2,600
6,500
625
490
7,500
1,000
10,275
LIFE SCIENCES
LUNAR & PLANETARY EXPLORATION 254,250
TOTAL
PAGENO="0985"
981
Our orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO-8) and Orbiting Astronomy
Observatory ~OAO-3) continue to operate well and return high
quality science data.
Our suborbital programs include balloons, sounding rockets, and
aircraft observations. These provide a basis for experiment develop-
ment and allow us to conduct many operations above the atmosphere
which do not require a space platform.
The upper atmospheric research program is continuing at a steady
level; I will talk later about where we stand, with regard to the Freon
and the aircraft assessment programs and the basic resei~rch activities.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE
BUDGET PLAN
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
TRANSITION
FT 1976 QUARTER FT 1977 FT 1978
LUNAR & PLANETARY EXPLORATION 254,250 61,464 191,900 158,200
VIKING 39,500 11,600 25,400 20~000
* PIONEER VENUS 56,600 15,300 42,800 19,000
MARINER JUPITER/SATURN 1977 82,400 22,100 50,300 14,300
JUPITER ORBITER/PROBE -- -- *-, 20,700
PIONEER 6-11 3,900 879 2,600 3,600
HELlOS 1,200 200 900 700
PLANETARY FLIGHT SUPPORT 29,200 8,700 27,900 25,000
MARS FOLLOW-ON MISSION
DEFINITION -- -- -- 15,000
SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES 41,450 8,685 42,000 39,900
SICS & ASTRONOMY 159,300 43,500 166,300 224,200
LIFE SCIENCES 20,576 5,436 22,125 33,300
434,126 116,400 380,325 415,700
TOTAL
In the Lunar and planetary exploration program, we are requesting
$20 million for fiscal year 1978 Viking funding requirements to con-
tinue through what we call the extended mission (slide SP77-1830).
With two successful Viking spacecraft in orbit and two on the sur-
face, we are looking forward to conducting a 2-year mission at Mars
which will take us through one full Martian year and show us the
seasonal variation of the Mars atmophere and surface effects.
Pioneer Venus, with two launches scheduled for 1978, is coming
down in funding as we progress through the development phase. We
are on schedule for launch of the orbiter in May of 1978 and the
multiple probe spacecraft in August of 1978. We are progressing on
plan and within the cost estimate on Pioneer Venus,. Mr. Chairman.
The Mariner Jupiter/Saturn `77 project funding is decreasing as we
prepare for the launches. We are on schedule for the launch of those
two spacecraft this summer. The fiscal year 1978 funding request for
our lunar and planetary exploration new start proposal, which I will
discuss in more detail, the Jupiter Orbiter Probe, is $20.7 million.
PAGENO="0986"
982
The Pioneers continue to operate and return good science data.
Some of the funding buildup you see is due to the Pioneer II going on
to Saturn after it was redirected following the Jupiter encounter. We
expect to successfully encounter Saturn in September of 1979.
The two Helios continue to return data to Earth. Planetary flight
support funds provide for the basic computer center operations at the
jet propulsion laboratory to support the wide range of space programs.
Supporting activities funding is up very slightly in fiscal year 1978.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE
BUDGET PLAN
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
TRANSITION
FY1976 QUARTER FY 1977 FY 1978
UFE SCIENCES 20,576 ~j~6 22,125 33,300
COMMON OPERATING
RESEARCH EQUIPMENT 1,000 500 1,500 8,000
VESTIBULAR FUNCTION
RESEARCH *- *- 900 1,500
INTEGRATED LIFE SCIENCES
SHUTTLE/SPACELAB
EXPERIMENTS -. 1,000
SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES 19,576 4,936 19,725 22,800
PHYSICS & ASTRONOMY 159,300 43,500 166,300 224,200
LUNAR & PLANETARY EXPLORATION 254,250 67,464 191,900 158,200
TOTAL 434,126 116,400 380,325 415,700
In our life sciences program we are getting started now for pay-
loads to be flowh on the Space Shuttle and Spacelab (slide 5P77-1829).
The increase in life sciences is due to the buildup of what we call
CORE, common operating research equipment, which will outfit the
Spacelab to enable scientists to conduct life sciences experiments in
the Spacelab.
We are starting on the experiment development for the life sciences
Spacelab activities, and expect this item to build up in ensuing years.
The small change in the supporting activities that you see here is
primarily a change in funding due to the transfer of life sciences
from the OMce of. Space Flight to the Office of Space Science last year.
Next slide, please. "Space Science and Exploration."
PAGENO="0987"
9&3
Now, I would like to get into what we are doing, where we are going,
and try to give you a basic rationale for both of our fiscal year 1978
new start proposals and the ongoing program.
Many people ask us what space science is and why we spend all that
money for science. In thinking this through, I have concluded that
the space science program is really a multifkceted one which has four
basic parts.
Considering that it is exploration, and not just science for science's
sake, I would like to think we start with something that we call ~vision.
I will try to define it because one could say that vision is just looking
out, contemplating the stars.
11 have come up with what I think is a sensible definition for myself:
Vision is a perception of a .challen~e to be met and knowledge to be
gained, it is wrapped up in the conviction that we possess the will and
the means to pursue those goals, and capped off with the firm belief
that, if we can accomplish that, we have served humanity well.
That is th~ start of what leads to the quest for knowledge. Space
science, indeed, is basically the quest for knowledge. Our direct returns
are data and knowledge and interpretation which ultimately appear
in literature, textbooks, and scientific journals.
Frequently very soon thereafter, but sometimes 20 or 30 years later,
that store of knowledge that is built up makes its way into what we
call practical applications.
PAGENO="0988"
984
We have seen that in the past with the study of planetary atmos-
pheres. Mars and Venus have given us a basic chemistry that has en-
abled us to get ahead, to have a headstart on studying some of the
problems in the Earth's atmosphere su~h as the freon problem. We
studied chlorine in the atmosphere of Venus long before we worried
about its presence in the Earth's atmosphere.
The scientist wants to see further development in technology. He
wants to see smaller things. He works with smaller amounts of ma-
terials. He. is also after the next order of magnitude of improve-
ment so he puts demands on technology to produce instrumentation
that will enable him to do that.
That falls out into the other uses. Our desire to detect small
amounts of lead in lunar samples enabled us to detect small amounts
of lead in paint here on Earth and small amounts of lead in blood
samples.
Spinoffs from our science missions are finding their way into de-
tecting contaminants in our atmosphere and in the atmosphere of
submarines. That is further downstream and you maybe wondering
wondering why I am talking about it.
Fifty years `ago, when' we started to explore Antarctica, nobody
thought about the economic potei~itial. Today, we do discuss oil and
coal deposits in Antarctica.
It is not too early to consider the use of resources existing on the
Moon. There are great titanium deposits, which. could have some use
for people on Earth orbiting stations.
We are finding many more asteroids crossing the Earth's orbit.
Some of these are expected to be pure iron and nickel. One individual
asteroid weighing many millions of tons has as much iron as we mine
in 100 years on Earth.
All of this leads to what I sum up~as national purpose and prestige.
While I do not think we conduct a space program entirely for that
purpose, it is both a fallout and a starting point. It came home to me
in the Viking missions this last year that the editorials and com-
mentary were to the point that the United States, not NASA, did
this mission. We developed the technology and showed that a very
difficult task could be done when we set our minds to accomplishing
the goal.
Getting over the philosophical part of it a bit, what we are look-
ing at in space science is, essentially, the whole universe, the cosmos
(slide SP77-4191).
We are trying to determine, where we have come from, where the
beginning is, where we are now and where we are going. It takes a
coordinated study using many techniques, including ground based
observatories. `
We have a problem of looking at. where we have been and where
we are going because of the prevailing atmosphere. One sees a very
small part of the electromagnetic spectrum from the ground. Stars
twinkling illustrate the interference of the atmosphere.
PAGENO="0989"
985
Much of the energy never reaches the ground; X-rays, and gamma
rays never make it through the atmosphere. One must get above the
atmosphere and conduct most of the observations in space in order to
observe most of the energy arriving from other sources.
For the planets themselves, we use first, ground based observations
and then our planetary spacecraft to actually go out and make, in
situ observations.
We are getting some clues as to where the universe started. You
may have heard about theories that talk about a "steady state" uni-
verse where things never had a beginning, or the "big bang" where
things did have a finite beginning point.
Several years ago, using Earth-based telescopes, we saw the first
evidence of the radiationleft over from what is now interpreted as the
big bang. We can detect that radiation today. We are looking for the
matter and where it has gone from that initial e~plosion. Can we
actually look back in space to see the beginning, other than just the
radiation? The answer* is, yes, we can.
What you see when you look out from Earth is not just light com-
ing from other objects. You are seeing back into time.
When you get light from a star or galaxy very far off, that light
has traveled for billions of years. If you can now detect light that
started out 10 oi1 15 billions of years ago you are seeing back in time.
Much of this takes larger optics in space to collect this light which
IS very faint, having traveled so long and far in space.
PAGENO="0990"
986
How do we do it and what are the tools the space scientist uses (slide
SA Dt-1546)?
To give you some idea of what we are trying to do, this is a spec-
trum. Visible light is a very narrow part of this spectrum.
Here is what one can see using the ground-based observatories.
Going down to Ion~er wavelengths you can see part of the infrared
and part of the radio spectrum from the ground.
Down there where the high energy processes take place there is no
way to do it except to get out in space. We use aircraft and balloons
to get us above part of the atmosphere which lets us see part of the
infrared, that part of the energy which comes from stars which are
now still forming-very cold.
It is this part of the radiation left over where the beginning of the
universe comes. The higii energy process in quasars, black holes, and
pulsars which are emitting energy or detectable energy which show
only in this part of the spectrum [indicating on chart.]
In the future, we will be using spacelab along with the space tele-
scope, and high energy laboratories to enable us to see where the
radiation is coming from, what it is telling us, and what processes it
it telling us about.
PAGENO="0991"
987
Looking at whether the universe is going to go on forever, whether
it will keep expanding, as it appears now, or whether it will come
back together sometime in the future depends on seeing where things
are in relation to each other (slide SA 77-1198).
What is there, is the basic lack of knowledge. You see stars and
some very small fraction of what we think is the last of the universe
in the form of solid matter.
There is gas out there. We are trying to look back in time and see
what happened and how much matter is there. We have two ways of*
doing this: Looking and counting up the amount of grams of material
out there, or looking for clues as to what happened in that big bang.
This is a fine detector, you might say, of what happened in those
very first minutes of the universe. For example, deuterium is just heavy
hydrogen and can only be created in this big bang process as far as we
know.
If there is lots of deuterium around now in space it says the original
density was low and the universe will expand forever, but if there is
little deuterium it says the density was high and that the universe has
enough mass so that as the particles ~nd galaxies spread apart there is
enough gravity to pull them back together.
One of our satellites last year made the first determination of deu-
terium in space and in a local environment. It determined there was
quite a bit of deuterium so the original density was low, and it looks
from this argument at this stage that the universe will continue to ex-
pand forever. To insure that this abundance of deuterium is not just
a local phenomenoa, we h:ave to make this kind of measurement look-
ing out into other galaxies to see if this is something that applies to the
entire universe~
Next slide, please.
PAGENO="0992"
988
We know that matter, when it started out from the big bang, was
mostly hydrogen and helium. Illowever, it condensed to form galaxies,
clusters of stars (slide SA77-1193).
There are generally about 100 billion starts in a galaxy. There
appear to be about 100 million galaxies. The enormity of space and
what is out there and the number of individual stars is overwhelming.
So far we have only been able to look around~ if you will, mostly in
our own galaxy and we are in what is called the spiral galaxy. We are
about two-thirds of the way out here [indieatinig].
If you look at the galaxies, they have a disc shaped form~ and here
we are about two-thirds of the way out. The process that is going on in
the nuclei of these galaxies is, in large part, unknown.
You see the central core. When you try to look at that core from
Earth back here, much of what you are looking for is obscured by the
large number of stars and dust and gasses in that galaxy.
What we do then is try to look out, on into this direction to see what
is going on in other galaxies. So `far, the~ limits of our telescopes have
not enabled us to see what is going on in detail in individual stars in
other galaxies.
The Space Telescope will give us the potential capability to start
looking at the pieces of these distant galaxies, the nearest of which is
2 million light years away.
PAGENO="0993"
989
Quasars you may have heard about; they are tremendously ener-
getic objects. A quasar is the name of a phenomenally high energy
source we do not understand. There are objects out at the far regions
of the universe which emit 100 times as much energy as a whole galaxy,
yet we cannot see evidenec of galaxies around these objects. Being far
out, they appear to be something that started in the very early days
of the universe.
The Space Telescope will give us the first capability to see to dis-
tances comparable to those of the quasars, to see if they are associated
with galaxies as we know them.
More importantly, what is the energy mechanism? We do not under-
stand what the physics might be, the collection of this large amount of
energy.
While I do not like to prophesy the near future about this, 1 think
again one has to look hack and say nuclear fusion is an interesting
scientific area of research really instigated by a study of stars.
What makes a star burn? It was 20 or 30 years before nuclear fusion
t in our own energy generation.
what we are looking at is the use of gravity as an
to understand what drives things like quasars.
head us off in new direc-
92-082 0 - 77 - 63
PAGENO="0994"
990
Registered of course as a star, is our own Sun (slide SP77-443).
I will talk more about this later, but we are trying to see how the
Sun evolves. The Sun is at least 5 billion years old, and we think it has
another 5 billion to go before it burns out.
To see how the Sun evolves, you look at the other stars that are in
different states of evolution.
The birth, or source, is an area that is now becoming amenable to
investigation (slide SA77-1200). We think that stars form in these
large clouds of dust and gas in interstellar space.
Much of the radiation they give off in doing that is in the infra-
red region which `you cannot see very well from the surface of the
Earth.
Using our i*n~frared telescopes above the atmosphere in several satel-
lites and observatories we got our first good look at the ac~tual birth
process of these stars.
When stars, such as the Sun, start to burn out, they become what
we call giants. They expand `at the end of their evolution.
We expect the Sun to go throu~ih this phase, though it may be 5 `mil-
lion years away, so it is not an immediate concern.
This chart, with a little artistác license in the foreground, would be
what would `happen to the Sun when it `starts its additional nuclear
burning process. Earth will be about here on the chart `in this process.
I am glad the evolution is slow enough so that I need not worry
about it, Mr. Chairman, bat we can study the process now, the stars
among the galaxies.
PAGENO="0995"
~91
SAfl-1199)
new stars
PAGENO="0996"
992
PAGENO="0997"
9~3
Ion.
- ~ a second.
PAGENO="0998"
994
PAGENO="0999"
995
The ultimate fate, maybe I should not say "ultimate," whenever we
say "ultimate" in science, somebody proves us wrong, but the most
curious known fate is called the black hole where the star collapses to
such a density that light can no longer get away from it, and `any light
that comes near this object gets sucked in and is never emitted (slide
SA77-119~).
This is the ultimate in generation of energy, by gravitational
collapse.
How do you see something you cannot see? You see it `by its effect
on other things. If anything comes near a black hole, this matter will
get sucked into it and in the process of being sucked into it before it dis-
appears in the hole, it will emit X-rays. Our High Energy Astronomy
Observatories (HEAO's) , the first of which will be launched this year,
are designed in large part to study the mysterious processes which
seem to trap matter, possibly in ways that end its evolution at that
point.
Next slide, please. ("Space Telescope.")
We were rea
scope, but bud
we have prepared t
Telescope.
PAGENO="1000"
996
Scientific capabilities of the Space Telescope which most of you
are familiar with will not only be applied to observing the stars and
galaxies I have talked about in the past few minutes; but it will also
be used to observe the planets of our solar system such as Jupiter
and Neptune.
The great capability of the telescope is occasioned by being above
the atmosphere where we do not have the "twinkle" effect. We will
also see radiation which cannot get through the atmosphere. Its point-
ing capability will surpass anything we have been able to achieve
previously, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the keys to the telescope
and the reason why we should begin it now is that the technology has
become available that allows us to make these great advances and to
see out to the furthest reaches of the universe.
Technology is in hand for both the science instrumentation and
for putting large payloads into orbit.
There is no way to do the science without putting a heavy tele-
scope, weighing approximately 20,000 pounds in orbit. The Shuttle
not only gives us that capability, but also it gives us the assurance
that we will be able to launch a very large mass and this has been
a cost saver in the design of the Space Telescope.
We could theoretically launch this Space Telescope on the expend-
able Titan Centaur but considerably more cost than the cost of a
Shuttle launch.
As you know we have launched space science missions on expend-
able vehicles in the past. With the Shuttle, we will be able to guar-
antee that launch capability.
The reusable Shuttle will allow us to launch a heavier weight than
we might be able to on an expendable launch vehicle. The Shuttle's
weight capability and versatility really translates into savings in the
cost of the project.
One can substitute weight growth for cost and thus make the
structure more rigid and reduce the testing program. With the
Shuttle, you do not get into expensive weight reduction programs
with increased sophistication.
The lifetime of the Space Telescope will be 10 to 15 years. This
will be longer than any project we have ever undertaken before.
That capability is again given to us by the Shuttle. Most of our
satellites are designed for a 1-year lifetime, but some of them do
last 3 to 5 years. We have had good success.
To put a project of this size into orbit, one has to operate it as a
long-life observatory. With the Shuttle, we have a repair capability
in orbit.
We are designing the Space Telescope so that it can be repaired,
in orbit. If necessary, we will be able to bring the telescope back to
Earth for refurbishment if we have a major problem with any of
the subsystems.
PAGENO="1001"
[1 also be able to
experimeni
Lent ~
Lt capability into the system Mr.t
PAGENO="1002"
998
The maintenance, repair, and update, are an integral part of the de-
sign of the telescope (slide SA77-1501). We are completing a very
good advanced technology effort. As a result, we believe the technologi-
cal problems have in large part been solved through this effort and have
high confidence in the solutions.
We are working with the European Space Agency for international
cooperation on the space telescope in terms of one of the experiments;
part of the actual structure-the solar panels; and for continued Eu-
ropean participation in the operational phase of the telescope through-
out the 10 to 15 years of its projected life time.
One problem I would like to address here is the question of large
science versus small, We do get asked the question, Doesn't a project
such as the space telescope preempt small science?
In one sense, it does. If you do a large project which costs a large
amount of money, it eliminates some smaller projects.
We looked carefully at the priority of the project to be done and the
total participation. Astronomers, including those doing the ground-
based research, agree the space telescope is the next step to take in
astronomy.
Working with the National Science Foundation, we have phased the
start of this program with other facilities, including those which are
ground based.
An observatory like this, Mr. Chairman, creates many opportunities.
The telescope will be operated much as a ground-based observatory. We
expect hundreds of astronomers to use the space telescope and its
instrumentation.
PAGENO="1003"
999
They will be located on the ground, of course, and use a radio relay
link, but to them the space telescope will not be all that different from
the telescope at our other observatories.
We are ready to begin this project technologically. The science is
ready and the space telescope constitutes the next step to take in space
astronomy. The industry is also ready. We think the time is ripe. The
science community has been ready, having started to study this project
in 1965. It has been well thought through, and I am convinced that this
is the best defined NASA project to come before this committee.
essed some
underway
expect to
some of the ultraviolet
part of our strategy. You go up and do a survey mission to
that is t]
or the space telescope is to pinpoint some of the
and to do the detail, with high resolution and hugh
proceeding in
rear, two space-
studying the
PAGENO="1004"
1000
San Marco is a joint program with the Italians. W~ will provide two
launch vehicles to launch Italian spacecraft, which are designed to
study the Earth's upper atmosphere, the radiation entering the Earth's
atmosphere, and some of the chemistry of the stratosphere.
Our ~infrared astronomy satellite is next. I noted why infrared is so
important: in order to look at the birth of/the stars. This is our first
step in infrared astronomy to see what exists out there in infrared,
and to help define what the things are that we should be looking for
with the space telescope and Space Shuttle.
This explorer has new technology involved in it; we are for the
first time programed to fly with cryogenic systems down at tempera-
tures of 2° or 30 Kelvin, which you have to get to in order to detect
these very cool objects in space.
Spacelaib, which I know you are all interested in, is proceeding (slide
SP77-442). We are in the final process of selecting the experiments
for Spacelab 1, and expect to have an announcement on that next week.
We have about 17 experiments from the IJnited States for Space-
lab 1, and about 25 instruments from the European Space Agency. This
is a joint mission in which we are sharing the resources about 50-50
in terms of weight, volume and energy available. We will be oriented
primarily toward the study of the atmosphere and life sciences pro-
gram. The Spacelab 1 flight is scheduled for 1980.
The Spacelab 2 experiments are now in the process of being formu-
lated. It will be a U.S. mission with primarily an astrophysics and
astronomy orientation. We expect to have experiments selected for
PAGENO="1005"
1001
that mission in June of this year, Mr. Chairman. We have $8 million
in the fiscal year l~YT8 budget for physics and astronomy payloads for
follow-on Spacelab missions.
Once we make an investment in a Spacelab payload, it will be used
time and time again; many of the experiments for Spacedab 1 and 2
can and will fly again.
The first time up, many of the experiments will be used in an
exploratory manner. They may even do some engineering tests on
Spacelab 1 and use the experiments for scientific data later in a
reflight.
There is a near-term hump in the funding for experiment develop-
inent, but we amortize the cost throughout a number of flights.
We expect to build up to a rate of six space science flights per year
by 1983, on Spacelabs dedicated to OSS, on the program we are em-
barking on this year.
~xp1orers will
environment to see ~
I outside of the
Sun is putting into the
PAGENO="1006"
1002
environment. The other satellites will stay inside the magnetic field
environment. All three satellites are looking at the cause and effect
relations; to see what the Sun is doing and how the Earth's environ-
ment reacts to the solar input.
The next proposed series of satellites to study the problem of the
Earth's response to the solar input is called the dynamics explorer
program. This started out as the electrodynamic explorer program
which we had to reduce to a smaller program. In the program, we will
be looking at the electrical interactions in the Earth's environment.
We know there are many electrical currents that flow in the Earth's
environment.
These electrical currents eventually cause disruptions in radio com-
munications, have led to power blackouts in Canada, and cause the
aurora. We are also getting to the point of understanding how some
of the aurora are formed.
Do not worry too much about the words on the chart, here, is the
Earth's magnetic field. One looks at the Northern Lights and you run
into a real problem (slide ST ~i-1496). If you estimate the energy
in those aurora and the energy the Sun puts in, you cannot account
for the creation of the aurora. Something in part of the Earth's outer
radial environment must be storing energy. There are several theories.
One is that the nuclei in the solar wind are accelerated and come down
in the Earth's polar regions, where the magnetic field comes into the
Earth. These high energy particles then cause the aurora. They put a
lot of energy in the upper atmosphere in northern latitudes.
We think this energy is the cause of a wave motion that starts in
the upper atmosphere and ultimately controls the weather patterns
south of the polar regions.
PAGENO="1007"
1003
In a study by NOAA scientists and other weather researchers there
are indications that it is the Sun's energy in the high northern lati-
tudes and changes in that energy that affect the global weather
patterns.
The fact that the Sun's ultraviolet radiation energy is approxi-
mately equal to the energy coming into the aurora, means that particle
rnfluxes are an important part of understanding the physics of atmo-
spheric motions and energy transfer.
sunspo
totheL,~
cold time on I
cold period.
We are just now starting to understand what generates the sunspot
cycle. It is not the sunspot cycle itself we are interested in, for there is
PAGENO="1008"
1004
little energy in it. It is other processes that also have a periodic be-
havior, and the sunspot cycle provides a reference that helps under-
stand the process. What is the rest of the Sun's radiation doing as we
go through the sunspot cycle?
This shows what we call the solar constant, which is a measure of
how much energy the Sun puts out (slide ST77-1312). The energy
that comes to us that we see is relatively unimportant in causing
changes in the Earth's atmosphere. What is important is the ultra-
violet radiation. In the solar cycle minimum period we just paved
through, we sent up our sounding rockets to make the first measure-
ment of what the Sun's total radiated energy is. We need to measure
the solar constant to a quarter of a percent because we know that at
poorer levels of measurement the Sun does not change much, but we
know it changes at some place in the spectrum and at the level of one
quarter of 1 percent the change might be significant.
PAGENO="1009"
1005
The solar maximum mission development is now underway
(slide SG75-15400). We just approved, 2 ~ ago, a solar constant
experiment for the spacecraft, which will give us our first accurate
measurement of the solar energy output across the whole range of
energies. The solar maximum mission is the first one in NASA to use
a reusable spacecraft. We are now negotiating contracts for the mod-
ules. The spacecraft will be retrievable by the Space Shuttle. When
we bring this mission back, hopefully in the early 1980's, we can reuse
much of the equipment that is going up in 1979 and refurbish and
refly this with a Shuttle launch.
92.082 0 - 77 - 64
PAGENO="1010"
1006
Our Pioneers in outer planetary space have been telling us about the
Sun recently (slide ST77-1313). The Earth goes around the Sun in
a plane called the ecliptic. We have only been able to see what the Sun
does along the equatorial regions, but there is suspicion that the Sun
acts differently in the polar regions.
Pioneer 11 on its coarse to Saturn, determined, on an experimental
basis, the fact that the Sun is divided into a north and south polar
region without any doubt and that its equator is warped.
When we looked at it from Earth we go through the north and
south pole type of environment about every 7 days and one could not
tell for sure what was happening but it was hypothesized it was a
warped equator.
Pioneer II got far enough out of the eliptic plane so that all it saw
was the north pole region. We now know about the warpage of the
Sun's magnetic equator and we will continue to observe it to better
understand it.
Mr. RIJDD. Does that mean it would be off its axis ~
Dr. HINNER5. A slight amount.
What we are seeing on Earth is not that wobble, but the warped
equator.
At one point you can see the north pole, and when the Sun rotates
once a month, we then see the south pole and then the north pole on
account of this warping-this wave in the equator of the Sun.
Next slide, please. "Out of Ecliptic Mission."
PAGENO="1011"
1007
We have asked for $1 million in our budget to study the advanced
technology for an out-of-the eclyptic mission. What we are looking
forward to is a potential fiscal year 1979 new start proposal.
It takes a lot of energy, a lot of gas to get out of~this plane of the
planets.
One plan we can use is to go out to Jupiter and go over the north
and south poles of the Sun. It looks quite feasible.
We are working with the European Space Agency on this, Mr.
Chairman. The initial proposal is that the Europeans provide one
spacecraft and that the U.S. provide one spacecraft.
This would be a dual mission, one satellite could go over the north
solar pole and the other, to give stereo effect, would go over the south
solar pole.
Now, I would like to bring you up-to-date on the upper atmosphere
research program. We have a three-pronged attack, looking at at-
mospheric problems: Release of freons, the chlorine compounds from
the Space Shuttle, and some of the effluents from aircraft.
PAGENO="1012"
1008
As you know, we have been involved and coordinated with the regu-
latory agencies in trying to pin down just what the effect of freon (slide
StT76-1781) on the upper atmosphere: will it, indeed, destroy the
ozone layer to a significant degree. We are acquiring information on
the physical effect to provide the appropriate agencies with a basis for
possible regulatory actions.
The National Academy of Sciences report did come out last summer.
NASA is following up from that in terms of pinning down some of
the measurements that the Academy said were still required to put it
on a firm foundation and also to looking at aspects which the Academy
reports did not go into.
One of the most significant of those areas concerned modeling. Any
time somebody tells you a given amount of freon will destroy a cer-
tain amount of ozone, it is based on a model.
What we are trying to do in our assessment, which is due in Sep-
tember of this year, is to look at the different computer models from
which people make numerical predictions.
There have been great variations in the numbers people generate.
We have to understand, Mr. Chairman, what it is about different
models that creates a different number, even though we think we put
the same information into that model.
PAGENO="1013"
1009
This will be, I think, a prime contribution of the NASA assessment.
We are working with the regulatory agencies, EPA, Consumer Prod-
uct Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration as
we go through this assessment, and as they go into the start of their
regulatory process.
In the Shuttle assessment we have finished the environmental effects
assessment which will be fed into the impact statement for the Space
Shuttle.
In the aircraft program we are working closely with the FAA and
extending some of the modeling in the freon problem to attack the air-
craft effluent problem.
That, Mr. Chairman, is coordinated with the FAA's high altitude
pollution program. When we tail off in the assessment activity we will
be building up in the research capability.
In assessing freons and shuttle aircraft we did not have the basic
knowledge of physics and chemistry of the atmosphere. We are ready
to fund additional proposals now to conduct the basic laboratory and
theoretical studies and measurements in this program, and expect
within a couple of weeks to fund about 15 university proposals in this
area.
That aspect will build up as the assessment part tails off and we
still will stay, alert to other assessments.
For example, nitrogen fertilizer has started to raise its head as an
instance of something which might affect the ozone layer a~nd pollute
the upper atmosphere.
Next slide, please, "Goals-Origin, Evolution, State-Planetary
Bodies."
PAGENO="1014"
1010
One of our goals, of course, is to understand the origin and evolu-
tion of the solar system. We do that by looking at the spectrum of
planets available to us.
We have other goals in our planetary program. To understand the
dynamics of planets on a comparative basis, is a basic objective.
Next slide, please, "Goals-Dynamic Processes-Climatology."
th~ solar output.
ic changes of the
the atmosphere, and ho~r
ere of Venus.
PAGENO="1015"
1011
The real interest for the man back here is the "greenhouse" effect.
Why does Venus, about the same size as Earth, have a "greenhouse"?
We are worried about the buildup of carbon dioxide in the Earth's
atmosphere.. Will this lead to a "greenhouse" effect on Earth? The
study of such processes on the other planets, where we can see what
has happened gives us much greater confidence in our capability of
prediction of effects of trace amounts of these elements introduced into
the Earth's atmosphere.
Next, we have a good strategy for planetary exploration. We start
with the discovery mode., using as an example, Earth-based telescopes
(slide SL77-1141).
We then go through a series of projects which encompass reconnais-
sance, exploration, and eventually utilization.
Our early flyby spacecraft, the two Mariner Jupiter/Saturn mis-
sions coming up for launch this year, give us the first look at the
planets.
From these reconnaissance missions, we can design the next genera-
tion of spacecraft-orbiters to take the next detailed look at a planet.
We have gone through that phase with Viking and Mariner orbiters
at Mars, and Vensus will have its first orbiter in 1978.
We then progress to entry probes. We are sending an entry probe
to Venus to go through the atmosphere and tell us the chemistry as to
how that atmosphere is behaving.
Our Jupiter orbiter/prcthe mission will send a probe into the at-
mosphere of Jupiter. Eventually we will go to landers and sample re-
turn for detailed exploration.
PAGENO="1016"
1012
Jupiter, is a recon-
1~usapeekat
into the
~e not planned ~hen it started, but
Saturn, and we can feed back some of the results f
MJS encounter with Saturn in' 1981.
MJS is going to pass Jupiter on its way to Saturn and will add to
what we got from Pioneer and give some additional information.
We are ready to take the next step for Jupiter. We have obtained
enough information from Pioneer to make i~ profitable to go into
orbit around Jupiter.
We looked at a two-pronged attack on Jupiter: one to study the
great magnetic field and its radiation, some of which gets to Earth,
and another to look at its planetary system.
I say planetary because Jupiter's satellite system is like a miniature
solar system. The satellites of Jupiter mimic this behavior.
PAGENO="1017"
1013
The Jorian atmosphere will be studied with a probe and I will show
you that in a minute (slide SL77-1053). We have come up with a mis-
sion design which will avoid having to go with two separate missions
to Jupiter.
Many of you remember that we have the Mariner spacecraft, which
are stabilized, to do imaging of planets and we have the Pioneer
series which are spinners and are used mainly to detect fields and
particles. You want to look in all direótions for fields and particles; so
you develop one class to spin around and one to point.
What we have done for the Jupiter Orbiter/Probe is to combine the
attributes of spinners and stabilizers into one spacecraft that we will
use throughout the 1980's.
PAGENO="1018"
1014
PAGENO="1019"
1015
Over a period of a year and a half we can crank this orbit to go in
and out of Jupiter's magnetic field and do an investigation of its
magnetic system and satellite region.
nique to make
We use Jupiter
s~acecraft close en
PAGENO="1020"
1016
The spacecraft is being designed to have a spinning section at the
bottom, much as our Pioneers had. (Slide SL77-1056.)
Using technology developed for the Earth-orbiting satellites, we
will de-spin the upper part of the spacecraft so it can point and do the
television imaging, arid point antennas to the probe and Earth.
Particles and fields instruments will be on the spinning part.
We thing this spacecraft, which also carries the probe, will be the
workhorse of the 1980's for outer planet missions. Once developed, it
will yield savings by its potential to be used for a Saturn Orbiter, and
an orbiter for the large Saturn satellite, Titan. It could also carry
entry probes into the atmosphere of Titan and Uranus in the mid-
1980's.
There is international participation in the works for this. The
Germans have expressed an interest in providing the propulsion sys-
tem for the Jupiter Orbiter/Probe mission using the Symphonic
system developed for their communication satellites. It has a better
capability than the engine we anticipated using. They are also looking
at providing a science package on the probe which will perform pre-
entry science. We do the entry part and the orbital part. The pre-
entry science package would provide the capability to go through the
magnetic field, and to the edge of the atmosphere and measure the
particles much as we do on Earth.
PAGENO="1021"
1017
I am not going to speak too much about Viking. We had a rather
thorough review with you last fall, but there are a couple of points
I would like to make here as to what it has done and what jt means.
In terms of vision 8 or 9 years ago, ther~e was a need for the
space sciences. Technologies suggested we could do it. The scientists
and the public had a reason for going to Mars. It has always had an
aura of mystery-is there a possibility of life there?
Also, what is on Mars?
What are those polar caps?
We had the vision and we got the approval to undertake Viking.
We also had many technological challenges atid they were all met.
(Slide 76-HC-855.)
The success of Viking is uppermost; we have two working Orbiters
and two working landers. The redundancy in the system has allowed
us to work around many. of the problams and allowed us to also start
the extended mission.
In terms of knowledge, Mars is new. The Mars of a year ago is almost
nonexistent now. We now know there is nitrogen in the atmosphere
which could form the basis for life processes on Mars.
We know there is carbon there, and other data tells us that in the
past Mars had a very dense atmosphere. The ice and signs of rivers
on Mars which we could not understand in terms of today's climate
on Mars are explainable in looking at the past atmospheres.
PAGENO="1022"
1018
Billions of years ago Mars had an atmosphere that was no different
from the Earth's. It had rain and storms and running rivers that
eroded and created clay minerals, which have left signs in terms of
very fine surface material. Highly oxidized iron is seen on the surface.
We understand many aspects of the atmosphere and see how it
moves around, and how climate has chaged by dust in its atmosphere.
We expect dust storms to start on Mars in the next few months as
we go into the winter period in the Northern Hemisphere, and we hope
to see the buildup of dust storms and how they affect local tempera-
tures.
In terms of technology, Viking technology is already being used.
We will be expanding on the technological use of this capability in
future projects, of course, in space science.
I have no doubt that the technology involved in the instrumentation
will be used. The biological community is starting to become aware of
the great advances made in instrumentation developed in the search
for life on Mars.
We have not determined whether there is or is not life on Mars.
We have been finding the unexpected, however. You go with objec-
tives. Two years ago I told this committee why we were going to
Mars and what we were looking for.
Well, the really interesting findings coming out of the Mars investi-
gations are the unanticipated ones. We are finding a surface chemistry
that was completely unanticipated, a chemistry which is highly oxi-
dized and causes strange reactions in the biology test chambers.
It is having its effect. The atmospheric people are saying that the
Earth must have gone through this phase; it was also highly oxidizing.
What happened to Earth's atmosphere to change it from this environ-
ment to one that could support life?
It is causing a rethinking of what took place in the early stages of
terrestrial evolution, Mr. Chairman.
Now, let me go back to resources. We found unequivocally that there
are great sources of water on Mars. When the day comes, and I do not
know whether it is 20 years from now or 100, when man goes to Mars,
water is there as a resource to be used.
In terms of national prestige I think again it has been clear, as I
noted to the committee last year, Viking was not perreived by the pub-
lic as a NASA spacecraft. I have a hard time finding a reference to
NASA in editorials and in the scientific journals. It is the U.S. which
landed on the planet Mars.
Next slide, please. ("Future Mission Developmen1~").
Where are we going from here in space science and the planetary
program?
We are looking now at what might be the follow-on program fo~
Mars. The scientific community has said, based on what we are learn-
ing from Viking, a goal downstream should be to return a sample
from the surface of Mars.
PAGENO="1023"
1019
The kind of experiments one wants to do now are so sophisticated
there is no way we see to transfer the required technology and minia-
turize it to spacecraft size.
Rather, it is much easier in that sense to `bring the `material back to
earth for the detailed study to understand the very strange chemistry
that is occurring.
Along with that, we are saying `we should develop the ability to have
mobility on the Mars surface. Mars is exhibiting a very heterogenous
surface in many `respeets. If one were to return a sample from Mars,
the feeling is it would notmake much sense to take a sample `from any-
where you happened to land.
In a sense, we were lucky on Viking. When you look at the rocks
there, we are not surprised `that the Soviets failed to `land on Mars.
We are amazed sometimes we were so successful.
We designed a lot into the spacecraft, but when you look at the
rocks and the size `of them, there is an element of the gods having been
with us. But this says `also, where one looks downstream, that one
should have the ability to poke around, to go out to get a variety of
samples and not take just a piece of rock one has landed on.
The development o'f mobility on the local basis; and on an orbital
basis, to look at the planet fo'r the most appropriate site for a sample
return are the objectives of this study.
We are looking at new techniques of propulsion in space in con-
junction with our friend's in the Office `of Aeronautics and Space
Technology.
PAGENO="1024"
1020
One of the drivers for this activity is the desire to rendezvous with
a comet so we can intercept and sail along with it for an exitended
period of time to do the analysis. If we go past the comet as fast as 40
miles per second then we do not have instruments that can analyze the
material of the comet. A comet rendezvous or slow fly by requires a
high energy propulsion system. We are looking at two technologies for
the propulsion capability. One is solar sailing, whereby a sail of ex-
tremely thin foil or mylar is deployed and solar pressure on the sail
propels the spacecraft much as if it were a sailboat.
There is enough area in the sail so that solar pressure can exert a
propulsive force. It is free energy. You do not have to take any pro-
pellant with you except a minor amount for attitude control.
We are doing an alternate study looking at a solar electric-powered
ion thrust engine for high energy propulsion. By the end of the year
we will determine which propulsion technique is most useful for an
intercept with Halley's comet in the early 1980's and a Mars sample
return in the late 1980's.
This committee has always been interested in where we stand in
our planetary program, if we have a balanced program, and where
are we going-are we doing the right work in our advanced studies
to get us there.
PLMETARV EXPI.ORATION PROGRESS
ACCOMPLISHED OR CONTINUING
APPROVED
PROPOSED FY18
EJ UNDER STUDY
1X1L'DED IXPLUP\1ON, MANNED
OLIJ'.1L1) SIIJDY,~E5,OU1ICE UTILIZATION LAJO1NG
~i ~LrAiUGV, PFTTOLOCsY, -~ - SAMPLE *:~:
A(~ ~i:~~; E~TJ1iCY RETURN ~
ROVER
SO ~ F 1) II LA DER
1 ATMOSPHERK [ ~[`~ El
PROBE [~:..
CL~C1~ISThY, POlAR
T?:O:C DYNAMICS CONIFER
A i~iS, -- PRELIT.~NARY f::.::.f ~I /
I C CSF~IER1cUBV(YOI TER I ~ /
LII ~ft~ES TICS - FLIBY T
SOuR ~`tSiEA EOVY~IJTiMENT INTERPLYIJETARY
CEIFASURLIRY - -~O~- LLLLLi.~LLLjii~
/ / / / ~/ I/i, / /~/ / /
0S7 I)
REV 1 1777
PAGENO="1025"
1021
I have tried to èhart here (Slide SL77-1317) where we stand in the
exploration of the solar systems. We do not plan to take a first look
at any one body and forget about it.
We do expect some day to go back to the Moon and do orbital
geochemistry there. With our proposed new start this year we will
take the next step working toward a balanced program, the diagonal,
investigating both Jupiter and the satellite system of Jupiter. Here
in blue are omissions that are approved, such as Mariner Jupiter/
Saturn. \
Under study are the Mars follow-on missions, the lunar polar or-
biter which we were not successful in obtaining approval of this year,
and the study of comets, and asteroids. Our mission studies are thus
toward a balanced program and will give us the direction for the
next several years in our new start proposals.
Slide-"Space Station" 75-110-271.
Lastly, coming to life sciences, I have been asked what we are try-
ing to find out with man in space? With the Skylab station, we con-
ducted highly successful space operations for 3 months' duration. This
was the Skylab 4 Manned Mission.
For short-duration missions, the answer is twofold: We know
that man can survive, indeed, quite well for 90-day periods. However,
there is calcium loss from his bones, and while it hasn't reached the
critical stage yet, we do not yet know how to alleviate that.
92-082 0 - 77 - 65
PAGENO="1026"
1022
If the calôium loss continues for a year we anticipate that it would
be a critical problem and man could not continue under those circum-
stances without alleviating that loss. So, there are questions about the
long term,
Before we talk seriously about long duration space systems we must
solve those problems and our research is aimed at doing just that.
We are worriea oz~ the short term, too. Shuttle missions are short,
7 days to start with. Astronauts, cosmonauts, whoever you have, have
a habit of getting motion sickness the first 2 or 3 days of the mission.
We cannot afford to take that kind of chunk out of our early shuttle
missions and come out with a 50-percent return on use of astronaut
time.
We are trying to determine those who are motion sickness prone.
Alternatively, if we cannot do that, and we may not be able to, we must
determine if there are ways we can aleviate the condition once we are
up there so that we gain the maximum for that 7-day initial Spacelab
period.
We are looking downstream, that is not on Earth but in space,
somewhere, sometime, to a closed ecological system. We are interested
to determine how we can completely close the life cycle, from reuse of
minerals and elements and water, to complete recycling.
The obvious benefit of this is its applicabilijy to the Earth's man-
agement of its own resources. So we have drivers here for other rea-
sons than those which we anticipate due to our own problems.
PAGENO="1027"
1023
eating on cha
PAGENO="1028"
1024
PAGENO="1029"
1025
I cannot keep my plastic lenses from scratching. I replace my glasses
about once a year. What we have developed for helmets is a coating
that can be put on. When this coated surface is rubbed with an eraser,
there are no scratches.
Working through out technology utilization office we are getting
this kind of technology into the public sector and expect to see it ap-
plied to such things as plastic eye glasses in the near future.
I will end now. We have gone from the origin of the universe to
eyeglass lenses when you really come back to it, and OSS is where
we have been and where we are going.
Slide-"Knowledge from Space Science."
PAGENO="1030"
1026
My question is, Is that one start really going to reverse the going
out of busines curve that you presented to us last year?
Dr. HINNER5. The Jupiter Orbiter/Probe Mission will start us back
in a healthy way, away from the so-called going out of business trend.
It is the first start.
What we have shown previously in our testimony has been that
the sporadic implementation of new starts, particularly after the
large number in the 1968-69 time period led in large part to that
unfortunate trend.
What we are structuring now is a series of program which would
anticipate starts in 1979-80 and 1981 which would bring us back up
into a healthy program status.
Jupiter Orbiter/Probe is, indeed, a healthy start. It does not get
us all the way there. We have got to see to it that people understand
what a logical exploration program is, to develop a rationale and a
commitment to the consistency and economy of a program so we do
not have these ups and downs and fits and starts.
Mr. FTJQUA. For the past 2 or 3 years NASA and your office has
internally reprogramed funds for the orbiter explorer program.
Haven't the scientific goals of this program suffered from the
reprograming that has had to go on.
Dr. HINNERS. It is almost a wife beating question, yes, and no.
The necessity which led to my decision to reallocate from the
Explorer program, was indeed based on a painful decision. It was
a no win question. -
Mr. FUQUA. My question is are you going to have to continue to do
this?
Dr. HINNi~s. No. I would like to talk more to that if I could.
Mr. FUQUA. Certainly.
Dr. HINNERS. At the time of the reallocation, we faced technical
problems in the High Energy Astronomy Observatories (HEAO)
project. These difficulties occurred after the fiscal year 1977 budget
had been submitted, and there was no opportunity to go back into the
budget year.
Looking at what. resources I had available to try to solve that prob-
lem, it was clear that it did not make sense to allocate funds from one
of the on-going projects that had already been initiated.
I did not want to reduce the level of effort program. We tried not
to impact the level of effort and supporting research programs because
these funds are the seed money for the future.
The only place I had available from which to obtain funding and
not affect those on-going efforts was in the Explorer program. The
fiscal year 1977 funding which I reallocated from that program did
cause us to drop the initiation of a mission in high energy, the same
field as the HEAO program, and that was the gamma ray Explorer.
The immediate effect was to cause us to drop from consideration the
start of that mission. What that has done also is to say that when we
initiate the next generation of high energy programs, gatnma ray
astronomy will take a high priority.
The HEAO-A is on schedule for the April launch. HEAO-B is in
good shape, and on HEAO-C there is no obvious problem. We think
we have the financial problem and schedule under control. I do not
anticipate additional reallocations.
PAGENO="1031"
1027
Mr. FtIQUA. I want to apologize for not being here earlier but I had
a meeting with the President this morning and was detained.
I want to thank Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Tonry for presiding in my
absence.
Mr. Tonry, any questions?
Mr. TONRY. Doctor, I want to compliment you on your presentation,
it was really thorough.
When you were talking about the space telescope you mentioned that
we do not have launch capability for it now.
Dr. HINNERS. We do theoretically have the ability. A Titan Centaur
launch vehicle could put the space telescope into orbit. However,
NASA will not have a Titan Centaur launch capability after the
Mariner Jupiter/Saturn 1977 launches.
We would not like to use the Titan Centaur, which occasionally
dumps things into the ocean.
For the Space Telescope, we are not building back-up hardware.
We are making only one. We can do this because the Shuttle, we feel,
is guaranteeing us 100-percent probability of not losing the spacecraft.
There is great economy in doing one of a kind with the guaranteed
capability of placing it in orbit and being able to service it. The cost
is cheaper. A Titan Centaur launch is about $45 million now, whereas
the Shuttle launch is about $20 million.
Mr. TONRY. When do you anticipate the Space Shuttle will be ready
to launch the telescope?
Dr. HINNERS. On the telescope schedule, we are aiming toward a
late 1983 launch.
The Shuttle, of course, will be operational by then.
Mr. FUQUA. In regards to Mr. Tonry's comments about Our launch
capability, the Shuttle launch capability is not available now but by
the time the telescope is ready for flight, it will be.
Dr. HINNER5. Yes.
Mr. TONRY. You do not want to use the other because of its
unrealiability?
Dr. HINNERS. We have had good luck with Titan Ceiltaurs, but
it made me very nervous,
Mr. FUQIJA. Mr. Gore?
Mr. GORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What percentage of your projected budget is allocated to the solar
terrestrial program? I cannot find any breakdown.
Dr. H1Nx~ns. We do not have the number right here with us. We
will provide it.
Mr. GORE. Do you have an estimate?
Dr. HINNER5. About one-fourth.
[The information requested follows:]
Qustion~ What percentage of your projected budget is allocated to the solar
terrestrial program?
Answer. Our projected budget for solar terrestrial activities, including upper
atmospheric research actn ities is approximately $110 million or 27 percent of
the fiscal year 1978 space science budget request.
Mr. GORE. What other elements in yourprogram have a direct appli-
cation.to the understanding of the problem at hand?
Dr. HINNERS. Of the elements in our program which relate to it, of
course, planetary atmnospheres is the most immediately applicable.
PAGENO="1032"
1028
Our upper atmospheric program is very directly related to under-
standing how the ozone affects it, how pollutants might affect the
atmosphere and we are establishing a basic research program.
In the solar terrestrial program itself, we have just completed or
are in the midst of the atmosphere Explorer program.
There are other explorer missions downstream which will bear
directly on understanding the physics and chemistry of the atmos-
phere.
Within NASA there is also a significant part of the program in
understanding terrestrial matters in the Office of Applications which
you will be hearing about next week. It is a joint OSS/OA program.
Mr. GORE. I must express the general feeling that this ought to be
given a higher priority by NASA. I have expressed this a couple of
times and I hope that we can justify that in the future.
I do not have any additional questions because I am not yet familiar
with your budget but I do congratulate you on your statement. It is
fascinating and I envy .you being able to work with this day in and day
out.
Dr. HINNERS. We love it. I thank the Congress and the country for
providing the program for us and I hope we are giving them their
expected return.
Mr. TONRY [presiding]. Mr. Wirth, any questions?
Mr. WIRTH. Yes; on page 21 you mention that the Space Telescope
has the strong backing of the scientific community and is given the
highest priority over all astronomy projects.
I just have a question about the priorities of the Space Telescope
as it relates to other astronomy projects and other projects which you
might undertake.
First of all, is the whole astronomy community behind this pro-
gram, as opposed to a land-based telescope program?
Dr. HINNERS. Yes; we have been concerned about that question.
We dared not, ui fact, come to the Congress with a proposal for this
if we did not have that support. There would be an outcry from the
ground-based astronomers.
We have coordinated very closely for many years with the National
Science Foundation and the other astronomers in the Academy to
assure that we get proper phasing of the astronomy projects.
We are very aware of and familiar with the very large array which
NSF initiated several years back and which is under construction now;
a large facility project for ground astronomy.
The VLA, as it is called, is coming down from it~ peak funding
and will be completed in 1979, just at the period whe~ we are build-
ing up.
We have tried to phase the production of the facilities for astronomy.
Mr. WIRTH. All the ground-based people would be able to use this
telescope at whatever facilities are designed on the ground?
Dr. HIN~ERS. In this sense, NASA is entering a new phase of
astronomy. Previously, you could really say there are a ground-based
community and a space-based community.
Most of the observers on the Space Telescope will be what we called
land-based astronomers today, the same people who use the research.
Mr. WIRTH. So any rivalry that might once have existed is pretty
well gone?
PAGENO="1033"
1029
Dr. HINNERS. Yes.
Mr. WIRTH. Second, what other projects was the Office of Space
Science considering that would move to a lower priority than the Space
Telescope?
Dr. HINNERS. This year we were looking at three project~ for what
we call the new starts in OSS-the Space Telescope, the Jupiter Or-
biter Probe Mission, and the Lunar Solar Orbiter.
Mr. Winmi. This is your No. 1 priority?
Dr. HINNERS. Absolutely.
Mr. WIRTH. As we move from this committee to the Appropria-
tions Committee process, I think a number of questions are likely
to be raised probably on that committee and generally raised across
the country about the advisability of this sort of a major investment
in the space telescope and in science. We have heard in the NSF
debates up here last year and the year before as to the :need that we
have for science. I think your community and those of us in the Con-
gress who are concerned about basic research and science better ex-
plain why it is very important to make these investments and what
the return on these investments will be and, for that matter, what
the return has been in the past.
Have you all put together a primer with a layman's explanation
of the importance of this space telescope and what the returns of
that investment are. I guess I am talking about a very basic explana-
tion to the individual who is ultimately paying the tab for the space
telescope and also the politi~al explanation to the Appropriations
Committee where they are worrying about the tradeoffs and the broad~
popular base.
Dr. HINNEns. Yes, we are putting such a paper together through
our own people and advisory committees and our education office at
NASA.
We have produced, first of all, several documents which just came
out on astronomy, in fact, designd primarily to be fed into the high
school science courses and to the laymen as to what astronomy pro-
vides.
We are working on a document which addresses this very point, the
practical benefits from astronomy.
It is very difficult to say that something I do today is going to result
in such and such a practical benefit, but one can easily go back in his-
tory and show how something done for astronomy has led to the devel-
opment of mathematics and gravitational theory and maybe the ulti-
mate use of gravity as an energy source; and the development of use-
ful instrumentation. -
I think we can and are looking at that, and that will accelerate.
Mr. Wnrrn. Let me underline your intention of doing that. That
is going to be a very important package you have to work on and there
are a number on this committee who will be glad to help you put to-
gether the future and potential of this.
Dr. HTNNERS. Dr. Hunten has been working along with the Astro-
nomical Society and perhaps he has a comment.
Dr. HUNTEN. The society has just issued several booklets which at-
tempt to do the very things you suggested.
Mr. WIRTH. Finally, can you sketch for me briefly where you are
in negotiations with the European Community?
PAGENO="1034"
1030
Dr. HINNERS. There are three items, and we are close to coming to
an agreement on a memorandum of understanding.
The three elements are, one, an experiment. We had a team go to
Europe last summer to assess their ability to provide one of the key
instruments on the space telescope.
On the basis of our assessment, we determined that they do have the
capability to produce a high quality instrument on schedule.
They are enthusiastic about that. They recognize the Telescope, is
going to be the instrument of the future.
Mr. Wiwm. So you are developing that. The point I want to make
is, you are close to a memorandum of understanding between NASA
and ESA.
Dr. HINNERS. Yes.
Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. TONRY. Thank you, doctor. We will recess for a few minutes to
answer the bell and we will be back shortly thereafter.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. FUQUA [presiding]. The subcommittee will resume.
Noel, I do not at this moment have any additiona.1 questions for you.
I probably will submit some to you for the record.
I am very glad to see the new start this year of the Jupiter Mission
and I hope we can somehow reverse the trend that has developed over
the years.
Again, I want to congratulate you and the Viking people for the fine
job which, a few years ago, seemed very hairy.
Thank you and your associates very much for being with us this
morning.
Mr. HINNERS. You are quite welcome.
Mr. FUQUA. Our next witness this morning is Dr. James J. Kramer,
NASA Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Tech-
nology. In the past, the subcommittee has sought NASA's ultimate
efforts on advanced propulsion technology.
We are looking forward to your remarks on this and other issues
this morning. You may proceed in any manner you choose.
[The prepared statements of Dr. Kramer, Mr. Holloway, and Mr.
Hayes follow:]
PAGENO="1035"
1031
HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL
PRESENTED BY WITNESS
FEBRUARY 9, 1977
NASA SPACE TECHNOLOGY
Introductory Statement of
Dr. James J. Kramer
Acting Associate Administrator
Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Before the
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications
Committee on Science an~ Technology
House of Representatives
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here again representing the Office of
Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) to testify on
the NASA space technology FY 1978 budget request. Let me
begin by informing you of the changes in the management
personnel that have taken place in the Office of
Aeronautics and Space Technology since the hearings held
in September of 1976. In December 1976, Mr. Robert E.
Smylie, the Acting Associate Administrator for OAST, was
named Deputy Director of the Goddard Space Flight Center
and I was named OAST Acting Associate Administrator.
Mr. Paul F. Holloway, the Director for Space at the
Langley Research Center, has been temporarily detailed to
Headquarters to serve as my Deputy. Mr. Holloway is here
with me today and will give you a comprehensive overview
of the proposed OAST FY 1978 space technology program.
With me also is Mr. William Hayes, the Director of our
Space Shuttle Technology Payloads Office, who will discuss
the Orbiter Experiments program which will be conducted
on the Space Shuttle beginning in the Orbital Flight
Test program.
Before the more detailed testimony, I would like to
reflect briefly on the overall scope of responsibilities
of OAST's space technology activities and highlight some
significant accomplishments and contributions to our
space programs. Within NASA it is the responsibility of
OAST to provide the advanced technology that other NASA
program offices (and industry) require so that future
space programs can be effectively selected, planned, and
successfully accomplished. This technology evolution
PAGENO="1036"
1032
process is a complex effort requiring the coordinated
application of the best scientific and engineering minds
and a broad spectrum of facilities at all of our research
centers.
That the OAST efforts in the past have been successful
can best be appreciated by reviewing briefly some major
technology contributions to two highly complex NASA
space programs; namely the Viking Mars Exploration and
the Space Shuttle.
Figure 1 illustrates the operational mission profile of
the Viking Mars Orbiter and Lander. On this figure I
have identified eight major OAST technology contributions.
Each required a high degree of inventiveness to enable
the Viking program to achieve the successes that it has.
I do not have time to discuss all of these but let me
expand briefly on one of these-- the three color camera
on the two Landers. You have seen the extremely clear
photographs that have been made of the Mars surface by
these cameras. This camera system, used to record all
color and black and white pictures of the Martian surface,
is a flight version of a system first developed by OAST
in 1969. The camera has spatial resolution varying from
a few millimeters close to the camera to approximately
one meter at the Martian horizon. Recent studies indi-
cate that auxiliary optics could be added to the camera
system to improve its resolution capabilities
significantly.
Figure 2 illustrates the total Space Shuttle system and
identifies six major OAST contributions. Again, let me
expand a bit on just one of these--the reusable surface
insulation, otherwise known as the Thermal Protection
System (TPS). The success of the reusable Shuttle
Orbiter is obviously dependent on the ability of the
Shuttle surfaces, especially the lower, to survive the
high reentry temperatures and be quickly reusable with a
minimum of refurbishment. The original insulation
coating material selected for the Shuttle failed to
achieve the desired performance of withstanding a temper-
ature of 2300°F for a 100-mission lifetime. The coating
cracked after 10 to 15 simulated missions. However, at
our Ames Research Center an advanced in-house program
was developing an insulation technology that was required
for application to advanced vehicles. It was found that
this parallel development could readily provide a
coating for the insulation that would meet the stringent
Shuttle temperature and life requiretnents and at less
cost. It is now being used on the Shuttle Thermal
Protection System.
PAGENO="1037"
1033
PAGENO="1038"
1034
PAGENO="1039"
1035
PAGENO="1040"
1036
I would like to conclude my introduction by presenting
a brief summary of our proposed Fiscal Year 1978 space
research and technology budget shown in Figure 3. You
will note a substantial increase over 1977, in the over-
all budget request and specifically the increases in the
Systems Technology programs and the Experimental programs.
To a great degree these increases are a reflection of the
maturing of the individual technologies so that they can
be assembled and demonstrated as systems and experiments.
In the area of the Systems Technology programs, for
example, we are increasing our activities in space
materials and structures technology because it is clear
that this technology is a necessary ingredient for many
potential future space programs. In the area of
Experimental programs, our experiments to be conducted
on the Space Orbiter are rapidly beginning to take
shape as a viable source of new technology and Mr. Hayes
will describe this program to you in more detail. The
Low Cost Systems program goes a step beyond technology
readiness to further reduce the cost of space systems by
standardization of components and subsystems.
I believe the testimony you will hear today will provide
you with a good overview of the OAST space programs and
planning for FY 1978. This program involves some very
interesting and challenging technical work and we believe
it contains the activities required for the new and
exciting concepts of the future to become reality. It
is focused on meeting near-term and long-range goals
evolved from our planning effort. The program supports
advanced research with high potential payoff, and I feel
it is contributing significantly to maintaining our
Nation's technological leadership in the world.
PAGENO="1041"
1037
HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL
PRESENTED BY WITNESS
FEBRUARY 9, 1977
NASA FY 1978 SPACE TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
Statement of
Paul F. Holloway
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator
Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Before the
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications
Committee on Science and Technology
House of Representatives
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
As Dr. Kramer pointed out, the Office of Aeronautics and
Space Technology (OAST) is responsible for providing NASA
with the capability to accomplish future space objectives.
This is a major responsibility since if the ressarch and
technology is not advanced and technological break-
throughs are not made, then the future opportunities
cannot become reality. For this reason we devote a great
deal of attention to space technology planning. Figure 1
illustrates the OAST methodology which permits systematic
planning of the continuing and evOlving space R&T efforts.
I believe that a.brief description of this process in
the context of our FY 1978 planning cycle will be useful
in setting the stage for the proposed work I will
describe shortly.
Our planning began with a review of potential future
space missions, and the identification of three basic
themes which typify the needs for important advances in
space technology. Figure 2 illustrates these three basic
themes. Let me expand a bit on them. They are:
1. Industrialization in Space, which includes such
possibilities as:
a. Space Construction and Manufacturing,
b. Space Power Platforms, and
a. Advanced Space Propulsion and Fully
Reusable Transportation Systems;
/
92.082 0 . 77 . 66 /
PAGENO="1042"
1038
PAGENO="1043"
1039
PAGENO="1044"
1040
2. Global Services from Space, including:
a. Advanced Remote Sensing of the Environment and
b. Worldwide Communications and Navigation
Services; and
3. Exploration of Space, involving:
a. Solar System and
b. Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.
The advanced technology and system studies and the OAST
Space Technology Working Groups and Workshops, shown in
the second level blocks of Figure 1, are primary plan-
ning tools through which we examine future programs,
missions, and technologies (both planned and forecast).
We define required research and technology, identify gaps
in the ongoing R&T programs, and evaluate alternative
means of satisfying the needs. The alternative approaches
are assessed in terms of the relative cost, risk, and
benefits, with particular emphasis on the major items
which would drive technology requirements. Plans are
then developed for new initiatives in the R&T base
activities, systems technology projects, and flight
experiments. This is the process, for ~xamp1e, that led
to the Orbiter Experiment program which Mr. Hayes will
discuss later.
The advanced studies have covered such topics as sample
return strategies, technologies for SETI (Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence), advanced Earth-to-orbit
transportation technology, solar electric propulsion,
solar sailing feasibility, data compression technology,
and space industrialization concepts. They have also
examined the opportunities for application of projected
technology advances such as onboard data processing,
planetary propulsion, large antennas, machine intelli-
gence, automation/teleoperators, high pressure engine
cooling, figure and attitude control, kilowatt/megawatt
power, end-to-end data management, large area structures,
and sensor-integrated processing. Key technology needs
and opportunities identified in the advanced studies were
considered in preparing the current research program.
To supplement these planning processes and focus special
emphasis on the three basic themes, we convened a Space
Theme Workshop in April 1976 at the Langley Research
Center. The workshop then identified the key research
and technology requirements needed for the specific
theme missions. These included significant technology
needs in space, power, propulsion, materials, structures
and electronics, as shown in Figure 3.
/
PAGENO="1045"
1041
PAGENO="1046"
1042
Finally, the Space R&T Base program was critically
examined during the workshop to identify those tasks
which either enhanced or enabled a theme and to identify
new and promising R&T candidates which should be
incorporated into the base to meet essential long-range
goals. In many instances, the existing base program
provided enhancing or enabling theme-related technologies.
As might be expected, however, some R&T base programs
would have to be expanded or accelerated to meet then~e
objectives. Potential new initiatives for FY 1978, as
well as future years, were also identified.
In summary, an effective, systematic planning methodology
has been utilized in generating CAST space R&T activities.
Using the themes, the Outlook for Space Report, and this
Subcommittee's "Future Space Programs, 1975" as overall
mission guidelines, the advanced studies and the workshops
have resulted in identification of several key space
technology needs as identified in Figure 3. The proposed
CAST program which I will describe today will address
the most important and time-critical technologies. We
believe it is fully responsive to this Subcommittee's
desires to meet the future needs of the Nation's space
program.
Let me now give you a brief overview of what we are
planning to do in the following space technology areas:
Power, Propulsion, Materials, Structures and Electronics.
SPACE POWER
The Space Power Technology program is essential to all
future space systems. As missions become more demanding,
so too do space power needs. To provide power for the
future exploration and development of space will require
new, higher power and longer life energy systems at
improved specific mass and cost.
One of our major goals in space solar power technology,
as shown in Figure 4, is to develop the technology for
and demonstrate a high-power photovoltaic space solar
array with 100 watts of electrical power output per
pound of weight. This technology is a three- to
fourfold improvement over our near-term capability. A
significant stride toward this goal has been achieved
with the development of thin (2 to 3 mil) silicon solar
cells at one-fifth the mass of current flight solar
cells. In FY 1978 we will continue to work toward the
improvement of the efficiency of these thin cells. This
technology is fundamental, not only to the relatively
near-term thrust of extending performance capability of
PAGENO="1047"
1043
solar electric propulsion, but also for space
industrialization and other future concepts such as the
satellite power station currently undet study. Signifi-
cant advances have also been made in gallium-arsenide
solar cell research which offers the promise of improved
performance in efficiency and resistance to environmental
degradation.
A major component of a power system is the battery. It
is one of the most significant factors in low-Earth
orbit satellite mass and life limitations. Our advanced
battery technology effort is aimed at the goal of doubling
life and power density of nickel cadmium batteries by
1980. In FY 1978 battery component technologies will be
evaluated for fabrication and test in FY 1979.
Isotope power systems are needed for a variety of
missions for which solar power is impractical. At
present they are both costly and heavy. In a joint pro-
gram with ERDA, we are developing critical Brayton
system components as shown in Figure 5 for a possible
future system in the 2-kilowatt range, which promises
substantial cost and mass savings. Key components of
this system will be delivered to ERDA in FY 1977 for
initiation of ground testing. During FY 1978, support
for this activity will continue.
In addition to component technology, we are investigating
environmental effects on power systems and spacecraft
charging. During FY 1978 analytical models developed
under the joint NASA/Air Force spacecraft charging
program (to provide design criteria, techniques, and
test methods to insure control of absolute and differen-
tial charging of spacecraft surfaces) will be correlated
with flight test data from the Air Force Spacecraft
Charging at the High Altitudes (SCATHA) satellite.
SPACE PHOPULS ION
The space propulsion technology program is structured to
meet future space transportation requirements for a broad
spectrum of~future mission applications, including
planetary and Earth-orbital operations. These require-
ments range from very large chemical propulsion systems
with hundreds of thousands of pounds of thrust to very
small high specific impulse electric propulsion systems
with thrusts of millipounds. Figure 6 illustrates the
relative sizes of these systems. The overall objectives
of this technology program are to extend our capability
to economically explore the solar system and to minimize
the cost of Earth-orbital space operations.
PAGENO="1048"
1044
PAGENO="1049"
1045
PAGENO="1050"
1046
PAGENO="1051"
1047
The small electric propulsion system will be used in
geosynchronous satellites for station keeping replacing
the chemical propulsion systems currently used. In a
communication satellite application, for example,
electric propulsion will allow as much as 30 percent
growth in the payload weight, permitting increased
satellite capability. A 20,000-hour, 5000-cycle endur-
ance test of the one millipound ion thrust system shown
in Figure 7 will continue in FY 1978. This system is a
candidate for a full-scale flight test on an early
Shuttle mission.
This basic engine approach may be scaled up to a 30-
millipound thrust level and combined with a solar electric
system as shown in Figure 8 to provide a solar electric
propulsion (SEP) system. At these sizes, SEP can provide
the primary thrust for planetary exploration at signifi-
cantly reduced trip times. The 15,000-hour endurance
test of a 30-millipound ion engine, initiated in FY 1977,
will continue in FY 1978 as well as the evaluation of the
power processor unit. The fabrication of one wing of a
full 25-kilowatt solar array (two wings), similar to the
one shown in Figure 8, is scheduled for delivery in
FY 1978. This 13-by-l04-foot wing, having a specific
power of 30 watts per pound, is capable of producing
12.5 kilowatts of power and is being.considered for test
on an early Shuttle flight. In FY 1977 a program was
initiated to investigate extending the performance of
solar electric propulsion at higher.power (up to
120 kilowatts) and lower propulsion system mass. This
factor of 5 improvement could enable very high energy
missions, such. as a rendezvous with Halley's Comet.
Work also continues on exploring various potential
applications of the ion beam technology. Experiments in
the areas of sputter deposition, milling, texturing, and
biomedical applications continue. A major scientific
development which resulted from this research program was
the demonstration that the physical process of plasma-
dynamic lasing is possible.
At higher thrust levels, we have undertaken a chemical
propulsion program to provide the technology for an
advanced, high performance planetary spacecraft retro-
propulsion system. A systems technology program was
initiated in FY 1977 with the goal of evaluating by 1980
a complete fluorine-hydrazine system as shown in Figure 9.
The use of fluorine-hydrazine will increase specific
impulse by 25 to 30 percent over current retropropulsion
systems. This increase will enhance mission capability
or reduce the number of launch vehicle upper stages
PAGENO="1052"
1048
PAGENO="1053"
1049
PAGENO="1054"
1050
PAGENO="1055"
1051
required. In FY1978, procurement of flight-weight
components will be completed and made ready for verifica-
tion testing.
Another major effort in chemical propulsion is to provide
the technology for future space transportation vehicles
that will reduce their physical size (while maintaining
payload capability), extend their life, and lower their
operation cost. The focus of this work is on mIxed mode
propulsion which involves the use of two fuels (low
density liquid hydrogen and a high density fuel such as
RP-l) and an oxidizer (liquid oxygen) in one vehicle.
This dual-fuel tripropellant approach reduces the amount
of hydrogen required to accomplish a given mission, and
therefore the vehicle size as compared to a vehicle using
only liquid hydrogen. Figure 10 illustrates the effect
of the dual-fuel approach on vehicle size for a typical
orbital transfer vehicle with equal payload capability.
In FY 1978, technology efforts will continue in the basic
areas of combustion, cooling, and heat transfer for both
single and dual-fuel engines. Also, work will be con-
tinued to extend component life and to characterize
candidate high density fuels for mixed mode propulsion
applications.
The feasibility of advanced high thrust, high specific
impulse propulsion concepts is also under study. Some
of the concepts that have potential for achieving high
thrust with high specific impulse (1000-5000 seconds)
include atomic and metallic states of hydrogen, and
gaseous fuel nuclear propulsion. Work is continuing on
methods to produce and store metallic hydrogen. Recently,
a new phase of experiments began in research in gaseous
fuel reactors. In December, a reactor test assembly,
shown in Figure 11, with a circulating gaseous uranium
fuel ~as completed and made ready for operation. In
addition to potential applications in space, the gaseous
fuel reactor system may have potential for Earth-based
power systems with improved safeguard features including
radioactive waste annihilation by the reactor. For these
reasons, ERDA has initiated a preliminary study of gaseous
fuel reactors for Earth-based power plants.
We have also initiated an evaluation of the solar sailing
concept as a potential alternate form of low thrust space
propulsion. Recent studies have indicated that the solar
sail of fer~ potential for improvements in planetary
exploration capability. The solar sail, shown concep-
tually in Figure 12, utilizes the pressure of light from
the Sun to create a continuous force. Because light
pressure is extremely small, the sail must be very large
PAGENO="1056"
1052
PAGENO="1057"
1053
92-082 0 - 77 - 67
PAGENO="1058"
1054
PAGENO="1059"
1055
in order to achieve required thrust levels--a sail area
of approximately 150 acres. In addition, it must have a
very small mass to make interplanetary trips within
acceptable time periods. These two conditions (large
size and low weight), plus consideration of the most
extreme space environments to which the sail could be
exposed (high temperature and strong ultraviolet radiation
at its closest approach to the Sun) have established the
technology requirements which must be satisfied. There
are several confiqurations under consideration. One, a
square sail, might appear as shown on the figure when
fully deployed in space. This configuration is stiffened
by expandable structural members. An alternate approach
is to spin the sail and take advantage of the centrifugal
force to stiffen the sail and thus save weight.
The solar sailing technology program is scoped to provide
the necessary information required to compare its
capability with that of an advanced solar electric
propulsion system. It is anticipated that by August of
this year, we should be able to assess the relative
merits of these two concepts.
SPACE MATERIALS
The primary technology concern with solar sails is the
sail material. It will probably be a polymer film on
the order of 1/10,000-inch thick. It must have a highly
reflective coating, and have great resistance to high
temperatures and strong ultraviolet radiation. In order
to scope the technical challenge of building such a
large structure from very thin film material, 1/10,000-
inch thick, imagine, if you will, the square sail placed
in a familiar portion of the city of Washington. If
one corner' of the sail is placed near the Washington
Monument, the corner diagonally opposite will end up
quite near the Lincoln Memorial. Obviously, the solar
sail structure is many times larger than any we have
attempted to deploy in space.
Another high priority area in materials is focused on
advancing composite technology for space applications.
Last year `we described the initial progress in the program
to develop 600°F composites for advanced spade trànsporta-
tion systems. The technology demonstration will culminate
with laboratory testing of a full-scale Shuttle component
which can be directly compared with the current metallic
component. As shown in Figure 13 the Shuttle body flap
has been selected as the technology demonstration
component. Also indicated on the figure are the FY 1978
plans involving fabrication technology developments and
PAGENO="1060"
1056
PAGENO="1061"
1057
preliminary design of the composite body flap to Shuttle
requirements. The polyimides to be investigated have
been selected on the basis of screening tests which
determined that the material can withstand to 600°F for
the required lifetime. Fabrication studies will establish
the best techniques for producing a structure and provide
assurance that the demonstration component can be designed
to meet the load and temperature cycles required.
Successful attainment of the program objectives will allow
significant reductions in weight and maintenance in
future space transportation systems.
STRUCTURES
The space structures program spans a wide range of
activities from fundamental research through investigations
of technology applications to laboratory demonstrations
of advanced technology. Today, I will cover only a few
of the many important aspects of the program.
As was discussed last year, efforts are underway to
provide the technology needed for large space structures
which can be efficiently transported to orbit and deployed
or erected in space. Since that time we have surveyed
the potential needs for large structures between now and
the year 2000. These needs represent a large variety of
ultimate users of the capability provided by the large
structures. This survey is, of course, only to guide
our technology. It indicated that within the next
decade, dish-shaped antenna structures and planar
structures up to 900 feet in diameter are desired in
both low-Earth orbit and geosynchronous orbits for a
variety of users. The users are the ones that we have
discussed with you previously and include the Departments
of Transportation, Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce.
Most of these agencies would use the structures for
Earth communication and resource service. Some would be
used for generating power in space to permit these
operations.
We can visualize, by the end of the century, the need
for much larger structures with some being square miles
in size. The biggest of these might be used to generate
power for transmission to Earth. It seems to us that
such structures are in fact attainable but that a broad
technology development program is required to attain
the very large sizes, to minimize the transportation
cost, and to assure the surface precision that is
required for communication and observation purposes.
Deployable structures, which can be packaged for launch
in the Shuttle and automatically extended in orbit, are
PAGENO="1062"
1058
being investigated. An objective is to make possible
launching the largest structure in the smallest package
and provide for a deployed structure with the necessary
dimensional accuracy and stability. An example of the
possibilities being developed for deployable antennas is
illustrated in Figure 14. A typical large dish antenna
as shown will require a reflector surface with accuracy
of a few hundredths of an inch. Previous technology
studies resulted in a launch package 14 feet by 30 feet
for a 100-foot diameter deployed antenna. Preliminary
results of advanced technology studies indicate the
potential for packaging a 300-foot antenna in the same
size launch container.
Technology is being investigated for larger structures
which would require multiple Shuttle flights and would
need to be erected in space. In this program, the old
packaging concept of "dixie cups" has been applied to
develop a tapered column which is shown in Figure 15.
The taper permits stacking many half columns to greatly
improve the packaging density and launch efficiency. The
column pictured is fabricated from graphite/epoxy
composite material which provides high stiffness and
thermal stability to simplify maintaining the alignment
accuracy of the assembled structure. Techniques for
erecting large truss structures using such elements will
be studied. Work in large structures is continuing and
we believe it will be an area of great importance and
high payoff in the space program.
SPACE ELECTRONICS
Turning now to our space electronics programs, we have
reoriented our current programs to address major tech-
nology needs. The resultant new directions for space
electronics are summarized in Figure 16. With the in-
creased payload volume anticipated for the Shuttle era,
reduction in future mission support costs will become
critically important. We hope to reduce these costs by
a factor of 10 (per bit of raw data) by focusing on
automated operations for both Earth-orbital and planetary
space systems. Increased reliance on autonomous naviga-
tion, station keeping, and maneuver control will signifi-
cantly reduce tracking and mission support requirements.
The use of free-flying teleoperators and robotics will
allow us to petform in-orbit inspection, assembly,
maintenance and repair.
Extension of our current capability to acquire information
on a global scale will require efficient data acquisition
systems and precision pointing and control. Efficient
PAGENO="1063"
1059
PAGENO="1064"
1060
PAGENO="1065"
1061
PAGENO="1066"
1062
data acquisition will result from development of
dedicated sensors which directly monitor selected
features such as crop status, and through multifunction
or tunable sensors which allow observation of several
parameters such as atmospheric constituents or pollutants
from the same instrument. Precision pointing and
control will provide systems with better than 1 arc
second pointing capability to adequately resolve surface
features, control large sensor arrays, and control large
structures for orientation and stabilization.
Real-time data management and low-cost data distribution
concentrate on the ability to reduce and apply vast
quantities of acquired data in real time at affordable
costs. Emerging technologies such as charge coupled
devices, microelectronics and fiber optics permit
revolutionary advances in onboard data processing, and
the direct transmission of the resultant information to
a wide variety of users.
We believe that successful development of the space
electronics technologies covered by these new directions
in the next decade could provide this country with the
space-based capability needed for global monitoring and
protection of the environment, for the efficient
utilization of natural resources, and for the cost-
effective exploration of the solar system and universe.
Within our FY 1978 budget submission, principal efforts
will focus on real-time data management because of the
high potential for near-term payoff. We have undertaken
a program, illustrated in Figures 17 and 18, to provide
and demonstrate advanced technology solutions for near-
term critical data handling problems. These include
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) image processing, multi-
spectral data processing, and microprocessor-implemented
digital data systems. The Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)
used by SEASAT in the Oceanphysics program requires that
the data collected be converted into images as shown in
Figure 17. The SAR processor will use a digital charge
coupled device (CCD) system for real-time reduction of
radar data to images, a process that currently takes
several hours of high speed processing time for each
10 minutes of observed data. A breadboard process will
be built and tested with SEASAT type data during FY 1978.
This effort will be followed by a real-time ground
processor in FY 1979, and an FY 1980 Shuttle demonstration
of an onboard processor suitable for SEASAT, Pioneer
Venus Orbiter or Shuttle imaging radar flight applications.
Processing cost savings of better than forty to one over
present capabilities are expected with these flight
systems.
PAGENO="1067"
1063
PAGENO="1068"
1064
PAGENO="1069"
1065
For multispectral data reduction, an analog CCD processor
breadboard system illustrated in Figure 18 will be built
in FY 1978 and tested with LANDSAT image data during
FY 1979. A follow-on flight system, to be demonstrated
on a Shuttle payload flight, should permit substantial
cost improvement in multispectral image classification--
with costs per processed image reduced to less than $10
compared to today's cost of about $7000. In addition to
these activities, new "computer-on-a-chip" or micro-
processor systems, which can significantly simplify
spacecraft onboard data management and control functions,
are being developed. A prototype version of such a
system will be mechanized during FY 1978 and a flight
model will be validated on the Shuttle by FY 1981. Two
proposed planetary missions (Jupiter Orbiter Probe and
Lunar Polar Orbiter) plan to use this system if proven
successful, and it is being considered for selection as
NASA standard equipment. Estimated implementation costs
will be one-third those of present systems.
In addition to these specific developments, the real-time
data management new direction will examine long-range
data processing requirements during FY 1978, and define
ground and flight system design approaches and funding
needs to minimize processing time and cost for planetary,
applications and Shuttle missions.
This morning I have only briefly described to you some of
the highlights of our proposed FY 1978 program. We
believe that this program is exciting and that it contains
the basic technology building blocks required for the
future.
PAGENO="1070"
1066
HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL
PRESENTED BY WITNESS
FEBRUARY 9, 1977
OAST SHUTTLE ORBITER EXPERIMENTS PROGRAM
Statement of
William C. Hayes, Jr.
Director, Space Shuttle Technology Payloads Office
Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Before the
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications
Committee on Science and Technology
House of Representatives
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
At our hearings in September 1976, we noted the
unprecedented opportunity presented us by the Space
Shuttle to perform advanced research and technology
investigations in the flight environment on a routine
basis. The Shuttle Orbiter is an order of magnitude
larger than any vehicle previously built for atmos-
pheric entry, and with it we may conduct flight
research in an environment which we cannot simulate
either analytically or in our ground-based facilities.
The character of a Shuttle mission profile is such that
any flight will provide opportunities for research
across the full spectrum of aerospace technologies.
Figure 1 depicts the several flight phases of a Shuttle
mission and notes those disciplines amenable to inves-
tigation during each phase from launch (lower center)
through approach and landing (clockwise to lower right).
In order that we may exploit the Shuttle flight oppor-
tunity, we are presently implementing an Orbiter
Experiments (OEX) Program to provide the mechanism
through which we will perform Shuttle-based research
and technology investigations. The knowledge resulting
from these experiments will greatly enhance our
research and technology base and will provide informa-
tion to support the design of future aerospace
transportation systems which may operate with increased
capabilities and at lower recurring costs than the
the present system. The planned program consists of
PAGENO="1071"
1067
PAGENO="1072"
1068
experiments which fall into two broad categories:
(1) those which will only utilize data available from
the Development Flight Instrumentation (DFI) and the
operational Instrumentation (01) to be on-board during
the Orbital Flight Tests (OFT); and (2) those which
will require augmentation to the DFI and 01. In addi-
tion to the planned program, we will provide for the
dissemination of selected flight data to the research
community for use in additional investigations.
In the remainder of my testimony, I will briefly
describe those experiments we are presently developing
which require unique instrumentation, and also high-
light those technology disciplines in which we are
presently defining experiments.
Two examples of unique instrumentation which are under
consideration to augment the Development Flight Instru-
mentation are illustrated in Figure 2.
First, pressure and temperature sensors would be
installed in the Orbiter nose cap to provide us with
free-stream environment and vehicle-to-stream relative
attitude information over the entire Shuttle entry
regime. This information will be extremely valuable
from the standpoint of research in the areas of aero-
dynamics, aerothermodyflamics, and flight controls. The
development, by our Langley Research Center, of the
unique instrumentation for this experiment in itself
represents a technology advance associated with fail-
safe penetrations of high temperature thermal protection
materials.
Secondly, an instrumentation package of research-quality
rate gyros and accelerometers is presently installed
in the Shuttle approach and landing test vehicle
(OV-lOl). This instrumentation package will provide
vehicle inertial attitude and rate information with
sufficient precision to allow flight determination of
vehicle aerodynamic coefficients. Comparison of flight
data from these instruments with appropriate wind tunnel
data wIll aid us in improving our capability to predict
full-scale vehicle subsonic aerodynamics. An improved,
space-hardened instrumentation package, being developed
for the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology by
our Johnson Space Center, could fly aboard the Orbital
Flight Test vehicle (OV-l02) as a part of the Orbiter
Experiments Program. Data obtained with this instru-
ment will complement the subsonic information, and
enhance our aerodynamic predictive capabilities for entry
vehicles in the transoniC, supersonic, and hypersonic
flight regimes.
PAGENO="1073"
1069
92-082 0 - 77 - 66
PAGENO="1074"
1070
Experiments which promise to be of significant value to
our research in entry aerothermodynamics are illus-
trated in Figure 3. These experiments could provide
surface temperature distributions on both the leeward
and windward sides of the Shuttle Orbiter during atmos-
pheric entry by viewing those surfaces with infrared
sensors.
The leeside temperature sensing experiment, being
developed by the Langley Research Center, consists of
an infrared camera to be mounted within a pod atop the
Orbiter vertical tail. The infrared sensor will repeat-
edly scan the Orbiter leeside surfaces during that
portion of an entry trajectory where the Orbiter experi-
ences significant aerodynamic heat transfer, thereby
obtaining a time history of leeside surface temperature
distributions. Analysis of i~hese data will permit
increased efficiency in the design of advanced leeside
thermal protection systems.
The windward temperature sensing experiment, under
development by the Ames Research Center, will utilize
an infrared telescope to obtain Orbiter windward side
temperature distributions. An observation aircraft,
carrying the telescope, will underfly a portion of the
Orbiter entry trajectory, providing a single surface
temperature distribution for each entry. By viewing
multiple flights, a time history of windward surface
temperature distributions will be obtained. Analysis
of these data has high potential for improving our
knowledge and our analytical and simulation capabili-
ties in entry aerothermodynamics.
Additional experiments are presently entering a defini-
tion phase where the specific approach required to
accomplish the experiment objectives is determined.
Several experiments which fit into this category are
noted in Fj~ure 4.
The Dynamic, Acoustic, and Thermal Environment (DATE)
Experiment seeks to improve our predictive capabilities
in the areas of flight vehicle structural dynamics
and thermal and acoustic environments. Comparison of
data obtained from experiment instrumentation with
present analytical predictions will provide a technology
advancement in this discipline. Improved structural
environment predictive capabilities relate to potential
reductions in payload development costs and enhanced
structural efficiency for advanced vehicles. Experi-
ments of a similar nature are presently being conducted
on prototype and experimental military aircraft.
PAGENO="1075"
1071
PAGENO="1076"
1072
PAGENO="1077"
1073
The Flight Control Systems Experiment will provide the
instrumentation necessary to investigate a number of
advanced concepts in flight controls. Specific candi-
date concepts which are being addressed in the defini-
tion phase are flying qualities, redundancy design
techniques, and in-flight gain scheduling. Technology
advancements which may result from this experiment will
help provide the basis for design of future flight
control systems with increased reliability and lower
cost.
The Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) Experiment will
replace Orbiter TPS panels over small, non-critical
surface areas with instrumented panels to investigate
advanced concepts in insulative thermal protection.
This experiment will include investigations of high
temperature/density reusable surface insulation (RSI),
flexible RSI, RSI coating repair methods, and certain
aerothermodynamic phenomena associated with aerodynamic
heating of thermal protection systems.
In summary, the Office of Aeronautics and space Technol-
ogy has proceeded into definition and development of
experiments which take advantage of the inherent opera-
tional capabilities of the Space Shuttle to perform
advanced research and technology investigations on a
full-scale vehicle in the flight environment. The
Orbiter Experiments Program will provide the technology
advancement required to support the design of future
aerospace transportation systems with improved capa-
bilities and lower operational costs than the present
Shuttle system. Conduct of this program will enhance
our predictive capabilities across all of the pertinent
technology disciplines. It will also aid us in assess-
ment of the relative value of our ground-based
facilities.
This completes my testimony on the Orbiter Experiments
Program. It has been a pleasure to appear before the
Subcommittee.
PAGENO="1078"
1074
STATEMENT OP DR. IAMES T. KRAMER, ACTING NASA ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY,
ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL HOLLOWAY, NASA DEPUTY ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
(ACTING); AND WILLIAM C. HAYES, DIRECTOR, SPACE SHUTTLE
TECHNOLOGY PAYLOADS OFFICE, NASA OFFICE OF AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
Dr. KRAMER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
to be here today. There are a couple of people with me today who I
would like to introduce and I would like to update you on personnel
changes in the management of the Office of Aeronautics and Space
Technology (OAST).
Ls~st July, Dr. Lovelace, who was the Associate Administrator for
Aeronautics and Space Technology became the Deputy Administrator
of NASA. At that time, Mr. Ed Smylie wa's named Acting Associate
Administrator of OAST. In December, 1976, Mr. `Smylie became the
Deputy Director of the `Goddard Space Flight Center and I assumed
his position as Acting Associate Administrator of OAST.
Mr. Paul Holloway, the Director for Space at the Langley Research
Center, has been temporarily detailed to Headquarters as my Deputy
and is on my left.
Mr. Holloway will be discussing a good part of our future activities.
On my right is Mr. Bill Hayes, Director of our Space Shuttle Pay-
loads Office who will be discussing our planned experiments using the
Space Shuttle.
We will be giving oral testimony which is substantially briefer than
the written testimony we have submitted to you, but with your per-
mission, we* request that the written testimony be included in the
record.
As you know, the role of OAST is to develop the technological capa-
bility so that the other NASA program offices can carry out their
missions of space exploration and other kinds of mission activity with
greater efficiency and effectiveness. Thus, we respond to the anticipated
needs of the other NASA program offices.
It is very difficult for us to tell you precisely how we go about struc-
turing our program to respond to future needs because we are always
in the process of estimating what those future needs will be.
I think we have done rather well in the past and I would like to
review very briefly for you some of the OAS'T technological contribu-
tions to two of the major NASA programs, namely the Viking vehicle
and the Space Shuttle.
Several OAST contributions to Viking are shown on the first chart.
PAGENO="1079"
1075
Shown here is a schematic of the Viking vehicle landing on the
Martian surface (figure 1). We have listed five contributions of OAST
technology over the past 10 or 15 years which impacted the Orbiter
and three which impacted the lander.
First is the beryllium rocket engine. This technology was developed
in the rocket programs at the Lewis Research `Center in Ohio. In fact,
in the early 1960's, I worked on the component materials which found
their way into the Viking spacecraft. Another OAST contribution is
the multilayer insulation which provides thermal control in the vacuum
environment.
Another problem was to develop solar cells which would be
mechanically reliable and would remain together asIa structural en-
tity in the low temperature environment on Mars.
In the late 1960's, we were also working on optical navigation
systems and these found their way into use on the Viking orbiter and
were of critical importance when it was necessary to make rapid
navigational calculations because of the number of unanticipated
course corrections required because of the overpressure gas problem
on the spacecraft.
FIGmts 1
PAGENO="1080"
1076
As you know, we have been very active in advanced composites tech-
nology and as a result of this work, the antenna system on the orbiter
is made out of advanced composites.
On the Viking lander, the three-color camera which provided the
pictures of the Martian surface was an outgrowth of an OAST pro-
gram of the late 1960's and early 1970's where we effectively updated
the old new~paper photo transmission system to give color capability
and much higher resolution and transmission over hundreds of mil-
lions of miles of space rather than just over land.
The engine catalyst was developed around 1960 under an OAST
program to catalyze the decomposition of hydrogen, a propellant
used in planetary exploration. Finally, the development of nickel
cadmium batteries which could withstand the high heat cycle required
in order to assure that the package that landed on Mars was indeed,
sterile, was also a result of OAST technology activities.
The next chart illustrates some similar contributions of OAST
technology to the Space Shuttle (fig. 2).
One of the more significant contributions is the reusable surface
insulation. Of course, the Shuttle encounters a very high heating rate
during its entry into the Earth's atmosphere, and the insulation must
protect the Shuttle from this heat. I am passing before you a couple
of samples of these tiles which are used on the Space Shuttle thermal
protection system.
FIGURE 2
PAGENO="1081"
1077
The initial tile failed after 15 mission cycles. You can see it is
cracked and will absorb moisture making it become very heavy on
the ground.
The second tile is in relatively good condition although it has been
subjected to 100 simulated mission cycles which is the requirement for
the Space Shuttle itself.
Again, the Shuttle utilizes advanced composites and there are some
17 pressurized tanks which are overwrapped with composite materials
to decrease their weight.
In the middle 1960's, both the Air Force and NASA worked ex-
tensively on high pressure, hydrogen/oxygen rocket engine com-
ponents. This work leads to higher specific impulse and lower sized
engines for the Shuttle main engine.
We also worked on the large solid rocket motor program back in
NASA in the middle 1960's and I believe you attended one of the test
firings of the large solid rocket motor program which NASA per-
formed in about 1966.
We also worked on fly-by-wire flight control programs and we are
checking out the very system being used on the Shuttle in one of our
current programs.
A very significant activity was our work on lifting body aeroclyna-
mics which began in about 1966. This work conclusively proved that
Shuttle could be landed safely without an onboard propulsion system.
I have briefly described sOme of the technology contributions we
have made in the past. With the resources that we are requesting for
fiscal year 1978, we will achieve similar progress for the future.
` ~ :> ~ `~ ~ OASTSPACE BUDGgTME9flST. `~ L~:~; ~ Y ~ ~
(TH*USANDS O~ D0IA:R1
~si;Rc M~~4 :FI~ ~ ~ ~
r)t °~Q ~%4~ ~ 4 ~ I
~ ~ ~ (FY78)
~ ~ 91$9p
~ `~ 4 ~ 4%
çJfl\ ~ : ~ `. \~. ~,
~ct. ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ Si
;l2~ ~ S ~ ~
at ir
e4,a ~ S ~!` ~
~
£cS*~S~:rr:*,t,?tSn~:~iikrstk ¼J~4~*% ~
~ : ~t c*t r$'9!!~~t~iiZ ~:c~$~ ~r'4 ~
flotma8
PAGENO="1082"
1078
Our fiscal year 1977 budget plan is $8Q million (fig. 3) . In fiscal
year 1978, we are requesting $97.7 million, which is very close to the
25-percent increase that your committee recommended in its future
space program report.
Mr. Holloway, who is acting as my deputy, will describe our pro-
posed activities and point to some of the areas where we are planning
to increase our activity in fiscal year 1978 and Mr. Hayes will then
summarize our Orbiter experiments program to be carried out on the
Space Shuttle.
I would now like to turn the podium over to Mr. Paul Holloway
who will review some of the technological efforts to be supported by
our 1978 budget request.
Mr. HOLLOWAY. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here today to
discuss some of the details of the OAST space technology program.
As Dr. Kramer pointed out, the purpose of our program is to provide
the technology needs of the agency and the Nation so that future mis-
sions such as Dr. Hinners just discussed can become reality. Without
some significant research and technology advancements and break-
throughs these opportunities cannot become reality. Therefore, we
have spent a great deal of effort during the past year in planning our
space technology program (fig. 4).
POTENTIAL SPACE MISSIONS
`3PAC rH M
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY OAST SPACE TECHNOLOGY
AND SYSTEM STUDIES WORKING GROUPS & WORKSHOPS
SPACE THEME
WORKSHOPS
RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY
REOUIREMENTS
FIGURE 4
We defined a pretty broad base of potential space missions, con-
ducted advanced systems studies, convened disciplinary oriented tech-
nology groups with membership from all of the appropriate NASA
centers and, finally, conducted a major theme workshop at our Langley
Research Center in April of last year to consider this set of potential
missions as a model to drive the technology requirements for the
future. Out of these we defined some detailed research and technology
program needs. The written testimony covers this planning process iii
detail and, with your permission, I would like to move into a descrip~
tion of some of the key elements in each of the technology areas.
PAGENO="1083"
1079
SPACE TECHNOLOGY AGENDA
S POWER
* PROPULSION
* MATERIALS
* STRUCTURES
* ELECTRONICS
FIGuRE 5
NASA N11C77.i$7N (1) *2.77
Next slide, please (figure 5). I will discuss examples of technologies
in each of these disciplines and let me start with power. New., longer
life higher energy systems and reduced cost and weight are critical
to all of our future space missions.
FIGURE 6
PAGENO="1084"
1080
Next slide, please (figure 6). A primary goal in me space power
program is to develop and demonstrate a photovoltaic solar technology
capable of delivering 100 watts per pound of weight. This is three to
four times better than our best technology of today and actually a
factor of 10 better than anything flying in orbit. We have already
achieved a significant step forward toward this goal with very thin, 2-
to 3-mu-solar cells such as those being passed around to you now.
These cells have one-fifth the weight of the current cells. Just last
week we achieved for the first time large hexagonal 2-mil cells. One
of these large cells is in the box. One of the small cells is also mounted
on it's side so you can see a thickness of 2 mils. If the larger size cell
can be produced in mass with high efficiency the cost will come down
significantly over the smaller cell.
Our space propulsion technology must support a broad range of
missions both in Earth orbit and planetary missions. Therefore, it
covers the big range in sizes from the Shuttle main engine type of
system of chemical propulsion with hundreds of thousands of pounds
of thrust all the way down to a very small electric ion engine with a
thrust of only 1 millipound. We also have a model of the engine here
that you can look over (figure 7). It will be used in a geosynchronous
orbit for station keeping, replacing the chemical propulsion system
currently used, and result in significant weight savings. For example,
a communications satellite in geosynchronous orbit can have a payload
increase of about 30 percent with the use of this engine, thereby in-
creasing significantly the revenue return from the satellite.
FXGURE 7
PAGENO="1085"
1081
Mr. FUQUA. How long before that will be operational?
Mr. HOLLOWAY. In the test phase on the ground we now have a 20,000
hours, 5,000-cycle testing program going on. It will continue in fiscal
year 1978. We are working toward an early Shuttle flight opportunity
for testing the engine in orbit. What we are aiming at is to have it fly
on one of the shuttle orbital flight tests. We could take the basic tech-
nology of that engine and scale it up to a 30 millipound thrust and
combine it with the solar rays coming out of the space power program
to provide solar electrical propulsion components. Also, in 1978 we will
take delivery on one full wing of the solar array. That is half of the
array shown on the slide (figure 8).
Mr. FUQUA. How much money do you have in the budget for ad-
vanced solar electric propulsion?
Mr. HOLLOWAY. Follow-on beyond this system?
Mr. FUQUA. Apparently this is already in the pipeline.
Mr. HOLLOWAY. Yes. We have about $2 million in fiscal year 1977.
We increased the funding in 1977.
Mr. FUQUA. How much is in 1978?
Mr. HoLLowAY. It would be another $7.5 million.
Dr. KRAMER. It could be as high as $7.5 million, depending on some
decisions that we are going to be making in the course of the next year
as to whether or not the solar electric propulsion would be the propul-
sion system used for a future candidate high energy mission, such as
the Halley's Comet mission.
Fioui~ 8
PAGENO="1086"
1082
Mr. FUQUA. The other day when Doctor Fletcher was here, I asked
a very similar question, "What is going to happen to solar electric
propulsion, is it going to be that or solar sail ?" I certainly hope you do
not abandon solar electric propulsion in any way in favor of solar
sail, because I think it has some excellent advantages also.
Dr. KRAMER. We have no intention of reducing our technology or
interest in solar electric propulsion technology to zero no matter
what happens to solar sail. We continue to plan a program in solar
electric propulsion technology. Mr. Chairman, the issue yet to be
decided is the level at which we pursue that technology, and that is
tied to whether or not that kind of propulsion system would or would
not be used on a near term candidate mission, such as the Halley
Comet rendezvous. We definitely will not abandon solar electric pro-
pulsion.
Mr. FUQUA. I think it is very, very important in the long range
development program.
Dr. KRAMER.We agree.
Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, sir.
Mr. HOLLOWAY. The size of the wing that will be delivered is about
13-by-104 feet. It is capable of delivering 12.5 kilowatts of power. We
are also looking into the possibility of flying this wing on an early
shuttle flight, the purpose of the test is to do some structural dynamics
tests because it will be a pretty flimsy structure and we need to under-
stand its behavior. In fiscal year 1977 we have-received $1.6 million
of additional funds to initiate a program to extend the performance
of solar electric propulsion for advanced missions.
In that program, we are planning to have a full array, that is a two-
wing array instead of the one-wing array, having a power level ca-
pability of 120 kilowatts. That is a factor of five improvement over the
system that will be delivered in 1978. If we can achieve that factor of
five improvement and those thin solar cells we just passed out are
very critical to that, without increasing the weight and then solar
electric propulsion or advanced solar electric propulsion will permit
high energy missions such as rendezvous with Halley's Comet.
We have also initiated this year, as you are aware, an evaluation of
the solar sailing concept as a potential alternate form of thrust for
space propulsion (figure 9). The sail uses pressure of light from the
sun to provide a continuous propulsion force and because light pres-
sure is extremely small, the sail must be very large, about 150 acres,
to obtain the required thrust. It also must be very light weight in
order to obtain acceptable trip times. These two conditions, large size
and light weight, combined with the severe temperature and ultra-
violet radiation in space, establish the technology requirements.
We are trying to develop enough technology information to compare
the solar sail concept with the advanced solar electric propulsion
concept, and we hope, as Doctor Hinners said earlier, to make the
assessment by August of this year. The primary technical concern
with the solar sail is the material.
PAGENO="1087"
1083
FIGURE 9
FIGuRE 10
PAGENO="1088"
1084
Next slide, please (figure 10). The material must be extremely thin,
about one ten-thousandth of an inch thick, in order to meet the weight
requirements. We have some samples of the leading material can-
didate which we thought you might like to have. It is one ten-
thousandth of a mill thin. In this figure, we have shown the size of
the sail super-imposed on a familiar part of the Washington land-
scape in order to show the technical challenge of building something
so large out of such thin material.
Another area in our space materials program which is receiving a
lot of emphasis is the advancement of composites (figure 11). This
effort is aimed at developing composites to withstand 600 degrees
farenheit. We will soon complete laboratory tests on a full scale
component of the Shuttle, built from composites, for direct compari-
son with the baseline. Since the last testimony the body flap, and that is
the body flap right across here (indicating on chart)-it is approxi-
mately 6-by-20 feet in size-has been selected for the demonstration.
This piece of structure that is being handed to you now is a basic
structure of the component of the body flap. In recently completed
tests we have identified two materials which may be capable of with-
standing the 600 degrees temperature for the required lifetime. In
fiscal year 1978 we will begin fabrication technology development
and preliminary design and analysis. If we can achieve these goals,
it will be possible to significantly reduce maintenance costs and the
weight of future transportation systems, particularly on the upper
surface of those systems.
FIGuRE 11
PAGENO="1089"
1085
In the structures technology area, our primary emphasis is on the
development of technology for large area structures which can be
efficiently transported to orbit and either deployed or erected. We re-
cently conducted a survey of use and needs over the next decade to
see what types of structures were required and found that both antenna
and flat surfaces up to 1,000 feet in size are desired in both low Earth
and geosynchronous orbit. The potential users include the Depart-
ments of Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, and Interior. By
the end of the century much larger structures-square miles in size-
may~ be required. An example would be a satellite power system. We
believe that these structures are feasible but a significant technology
development program is required to achieve the size, minimum trans-
portation costs and the required surface accuracy.
92-082 0 - 77 - 69
PAGENO="1090"
1086
If I could have the lights on, please. We are also doing quite a bit
of work in both deployable and erectable flat surface structures. The
structure depicted in this model is the approach being considered to
yield a deployable flat surface. A full scale version of this model struc-
ture located in the Shuttle would be about 30 feet by 300 feet in length,
when, deployed out of the cargo bay and would have an area of about
9,000 square feet. Our program is looking very closely at direct deploy
merit techniques or construction in orbit.
The columns that are being pulled apart here, as you can see, apply
the old Dixie Cup packaging coücept to get a high density within the
Shuttle. The primary structural element formed then is a 17-foot-long
tapered column composed of two 8~-foot-long sections made of
graphite epoxy composites and wrapped in a high temperature resin
to provide torsional stiffness. We are considering a lot of simple
joints for this type of approach. In the example shown here, the
joint must be strong, very lightweight and simple to make in order
to accomplish the assembly* in orbit. The large model on the table
over against the wall depicts a cargo bay load of these basic structural
elements to be built in orbit by using remote manipulator systems.
In fiscal 1978 we will continue to define structure technologies that
arc best suited for the many potential missioPs that are being con-
sidered. The near-term goal i~ to define a technology development pro-
gram that will enable us to undertake the development of whatever
type of structures may be required for the missions the Agency and
the Nation would like to pursue in the future.
Th final technology discipline I will discuss is space electronics.
May I have the next slide, please?
FIGuRE 13
PAGENO="1091"
1087
The program focuses on the objectives shown in the three primary
boxes on the slide here (figure 13). With the increased space activity
that is envisioned for an operational Shuttle system, support costs
become increasingly important. We hope to be able to reduce these costs
by a factor of 10 by providing a technology for automated operations
both in Earth orbit and planetary missions. For example, autonomous
navigation can reduce tracking requirements. With global data gather-
ing required for many applications of the future, efficient data acquisi-
tion and precision pointing and control become critical.
We are developing dedicated sensors which are capable of monitor~
ing a selected feature such as crop status, and multipurpose sensors
which can detect atmospheric pollutants. These sensors will be com-
plemented by a precision pointing and control system which will pro-
vide a much finer surface resolution. We have an example of a one-
quarter scale pointing system on the table that uses magnetic suspen-
sion to provide pointing and tracking accuracy of one arc second. This
is called the annular suspension pointing system. Because of the signifi-
cance of the pointing requirement, particularly to Earth resources
type surveys, we are going to try to fly this system and qualify it on
an early Shuttle flight to accelerate its availability to users.
For real time data management being able to transmit data to users
in as near real time as possible is very significant. Because of the
emerging technologies that include charged couple devices, micro-
processors and fiber optics, revolutionary advances in data reduction
and transmission are possible since the payoff in the near term from
this capability is extremely high, we have emphasized this area in. our
1978 program.
PIGtRE 14
PAGENO="1092"
1088
My last slide shows an application of a charge-coupled device proc-
essor to the processing of multispectral imaging (figure 14). In 1979
we will have a system which can process such images in real-time on
the ground. A follow-on flight system is planned to provide the capa-
bility to reduce the cost of a completely processed image from today's
$7,000 to less than $10.
This morning I have only briefly touched on several of the key
technology areas. There is quite a bit more detail in the written testi-
mony but I would like now to ask Mr. Hayes to discuss our Shuttle
Orbiter experiments program because we are asking for a substantial
increase in that program.
Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Hayes, happy to have you.
Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-
committee. It is a real pleasure to appear before you this morning to
talk about what we feel is one of the most challenging elements of our
technology payload program-the challenge to use the routine opera-
tions of the Space Shuttle to perform space technology investigations
in support of the development of future space transportation systems.
The Orbiter itself is larger than any space vehicle we have ever built
for atmospheric entry. We propose to use it to perform research and
technology in aerodynamics, aerothermodynamics structure and ma-
terials, and flight control systems; and to perform the kind of experi-
inents that we cannot adequately get the answers to analytically, or
through ground-based facilities.
PIGURE 15
PAGENO="1093"
1089
I would like to start with my first slide (figure 15) which was the
slide I used at the close of my presentation in September of last year.
Basically, this shows the elements of a typical Shuttle flight start-
ing with launch, through boost, on-orbit, entry, and landing. It depicts
the areas or disciplines amenable to research during each phase of the
flight.
Slide off, please.
Our experiments are currently categorized in two ways. The first
category includes those experiments that use the development flight
instrumentation or the operational instrumentation which is already
on board the Shuttle and will be there during the first six `orbital
flight test missions. The second category of experiments are those
which require some augmentation of the onb'oard instrumentation.
In addition, we have experiments currently going `on in two phases.
Some are in the development phase where we are actually designing
the hardware and developing it, and some `are in t'he definition phase
where we are studying the feasibility of the concept of the experiment.
The first `four experiments which I will describe on two slides are
those experiments that we have closer to the development phase. Some
are in development, some are almost to the point of development.
Next slide, please (fig. 16).
PAGENO="1094"
1090
The first of these shown here, the. aerodynamic coefficient instrumen-
tation pathage allows us to obtain research quality flight data at a
rate that will permit the extraction of aerodynamic coefficients. The
particular configuration you see is the one that will he mounted for
the approach and landing tests. The vehicle will be flown in the next
few months. This, Mr. Chairman, will give us aerodynamic coefficients
at subsonic speeds. We propose, through the J~hnson Space Center, to
develop a space-hardened version of this particular package and fly
it on the orbital missions to obtain aerodynamic data at transonic,
supersonic, and hypersonic speeds.
The second experiment is the instrumented nosecap. There is an
advance in technology just in developing the system itself. It, re-
quires the penetration of the nosecap in some 14 places.
This will give us a real angle of attack: a real angle of side slip, and
free-stream temperatures and pressures through the entire Mach num-
ber `and altitude range during a standard entry.
Mr. Throckrnorton will pass to you two samples of material, that
have undergone approximately 60 simulated entries. As you see, there
is essentially no d:ifYerence between the sample that was not penetrated
and the sample that does have the penetration in it.
In (addition to the fundamental research information provided by
these two systems, they are extremely important for additional in-
formation that we need in support of experiments in flight control
systems, thermal protection systems, and structUres and materials.
Basically, they tell us about the position; attitude, and speed of the
spacecraft at the time we are performing the other experiments.
May I have the next slide, please (fig. 17)?
FI4iURE 17
PAGENO="1095"
1091
Two other experiments under development have to do with the
sensing of the heating of the orbiter during reentry. The first per-
formed by mounting an infrared scanner at the top of the vertical
stabilizer to scan the leeside. of the orbiter during the entry. Mr.
Kantsios is here from the Langley iResearchOenter and he will demon-
strate that particular system for you following my presentation. The
scaner would provide one complete mapping of the leeside temper-
ature every 10 seconds during the 900 seconds of entry that we are par-
ticularly interested in. To measure the heating on the windward side,
we propose to mount an infrared telescope in an observation aircraft
and by sequential flights below the orbiter during various phases of
its entry we would be able to develop a history of the heating associ-
ated on the windward side.
The ultimate objective is to provide lighter weight structures and
subsequently to reduce the recurring costs of maintenance and refur-
bishment on the ground.
The inserts here are simply illustrative of the type of maps that we
hope to obtain.
The blue coloring indicates about 600° with the yellow at the lead-
ing edge and on the nose indicating temperatures of about 3,000°.
Now, I would like to discuss a series of areas of experimentation
currently under definition.
Let me have the last slide, please.
In the area of thermal protection systems we are studying advanced
materials, repair techniques, and tile gap effects. That is the peculiar
heating that occurs between tiles on the surfaces exposed during entry.
We have a sample of a new tile which we propose to instrument. It
is slightly heavier than the current tiles which allow temperatures up
to 2,300°; however, it will allow us to perform tests up to 3,000°. We
would mount it on the surface of the Shuttle initially in noncritical
areas.
In the area of dynamic, acoustic, and thermal environments, we are
prop9sing structural dynamics, structural-acoustics interaction, and
thermal load experiments. These particular experiments call for the
instrumentation of various structural elements in the Shuttle. They
contribute to our predictive capability for design of spacecraft. They
also have a side effect, in that they will allow us to design payloads
more economically than we can currently.
Finally, in flight control systems we are defining experiments on
flying qualities, control systems performance, and inherent system
redundancy.
The experiment on inherent system redundancy is one, in which we
use the readings from dissimilar instrumentation to infer information
which we would normally get from a typical control system readout
(fig. 18). The objective is to improve the reliability of the system
to the point that, in the event the primary system fails, we will be able
to infer information, from other systems.
In summary, we will have the opportunity to use the Shuttle Orbiter
on a routine basis, accomplishing research and technology across a
broad spectrum of disciplines.
PAGENO="1096"
1092
We think this will allow us ultimately to develop future space trans-
portation systems of increased reliability, efficiency, and economy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. KRAMER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that completes our oral
testimony. We will entertain any questions you might have.
Mr. FTJQTJA. Dr. Kramer, getting back to the space propulsion. In
the report that was issued by this subcommittee in 1975 on future
space programs, we stated very strongly that there should be an ex-
panded program in fundamental research for the development of new
propulsion concepts.
What has your office been doing in that regard?
*Dr. KRAMER. We feel that we have been responsive to your sugges-
tion in this area. We propose to increase our budget in the advanced
space propulsion area from fiscal year 1977, which is planned at $12.8
million, to fiscal year 1978 where we are requesting $14.4 million or
an increase of $1.6 million-slightly more than 12 percent.
We are giving considerable attention to the very advanced propul-
sion concepts to determine how best to bring them along and to deter-
mine whether it is possible to accelerate their develOpment. We are
also intensifying our efforts in several systems where we have been
working for some time.
Mr. FUQTJA. Mr. Gore?
Mr. GORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This solar cell that you passed around, are you the people within
NASA who have responsibility for basic research in those cells?
Dr. KRAMER. Yes, sir.
FIGuRE 18
PAGENO="1097"
1093
Mr. Goim. Is that proceeding at a rather leisurely pace?
Dr. KRAMER. OAST has been in the business of developing photo-
voltaic cells for more than 15 years. We have had very substantial
improvements in them in that time period and we still see a very rapid
pace of technological development.
For some advanced missions we need to improve the power output
per unit cell weight by a factor of two or more and we are working
toward that objecitve.
Mr. GORE. Well, this is obviously one of the areas where the spinoff
element is very important and one of the areas in which we have an
opportunity to argue for more money for the space program.
This is one example of an area where you can make an immediate
impact on the domestic economy.
How much money are you spending on the program associated with
the improvement of the cells?
Dr. KRAMER. We propose to spend in the neighborhood of $2.7 mil-
lion for solar cell technology in fiscal year 1978.
Mr. GORE. How does that compare with the last fiscal year? Is that
an increase?
Dr. KRAMER. In the solar cell technology work itself, yes, it will be an
increase. Even in fiscal year 1977 we are placing $720,000 additional
over fiscal year 1976 toward extending the performance of solar arrays
for electric propulsion. A good part of that money is being directed at
manufacturing very thin cells and trying to achieve higher efficiencies.
Mr. GORE. As a general proposition when you decide to allocate
money between the different kinds of research programs, do you take
into account the relative spinoff value or is it solely within the context
of NASA's needs?
Dr. KRAMER. Certainly not the latter. However, NASA's needs are
a predominant consideration, particularly if we are talking about some
near-term capability that is required for a specific mission.
NASA's needs are a very strong factor, but when we arrange our
prhgrams, we are very sensitive to the potential of spinoff-technology
utilization-and its various forms, and actually fund some program
activities whose sole purpose is to facilitate the spinoff.
Mr. GORE. Well, I think that is probably as it should be, but I think
we must consider whether the level of funding that we give various
projects within the agency reflects the society's decision to place more
or less attention on various elements and, reflects the extent to which
we make up our mind, so' to speak, to solve certain problems.
This problem, the photovoltaic cell, is very near the top of the priori-
ties that I would assign to research projects and we are still burdened
with unanswered questions-steam-cycle power generation and. direct
conversion of the Sun's light or other sources directly into electricity.
It seems to me we have to overcome that gap before we make a quan-
tum leap. For that and many other reasons I `just question $2.7 million
on the research into photovoltaic cells in an effort to improve `them is a
rational reflection of the priorities that I believe the vast majority of
people in `this country would like to see assigned to this kind of effort
and if this is the right place to make that point I would like to make it.
I would like to see these efforts ste.pped up dramatically.
PAGENO="1098"
1094
Dr. KRAMER. Mr. Gore, we appreciate that point. As you know, we
are not the only ones in the photovoltaic cell area. ERDA is in the
business also.
Mr. Goiu~. Sure.
Dr. KRAMER. I am sure you understand.
Mr. Goiu~. But they all have the same answer that other people are
doing it and they all have a certain attitude about to what extent it is
money elastic. That is a bad phrase, I guess, but there is a general
assumption that we do not need a vastly increased effort into solar elec-
tricity, and I just think that is insane.
Dr. KRAMER. If I may, let me make a couple of points relative to the
solar cells themselves. I made one. We are not the only ones involved;
but we are a principal player. There is no doubt about that and at this
stage what we are trying to do is to improve the efficiency of space
solar cells. For civilian use, too, it is absolutely essential that the cost
be driven down.
We want to get the efficiency up and the cost down and at this stage
of technology development, the requirements are such, that one can
work at laboratory scale very effectively, which requires relatively
modest funding.
When one gets into looking at large-scale problems which require
the construction of very large arrays, which somehow or other must be
stowed inside a spacecraft and taken into space and deployed while
keeping the weight down, so they are relatively flimsy, those are space
problems and they require large amounts of funding.
For ground-based problems we can work on laboratory tests of solar
cells and improve the efficiency, and on manufacturing techniques to
get the cost down. This research and technology effort is not requiring
large amounts of money or large-scale demonstration projects.
I think that dollars are only a gross indicator of effort. When one
judges the adequacy of dollars it must be remembered that these are
relatively small efforts and we can work very effectively on a small
scale.
If we are to move into other, honest to goodness full-scale power pro-
duction facilities where we are going to put out acres of solar cells
either on Earth or in orbit, then we have large-scale development
problems which are going to totally dwarf any $2.7 investment in the
technology of how you build better and cheaper cells.
Mr. Goi~. Well, you correct me if my understanding is wrong, but
my impression is that the major problems associated with solar energy
are by and large the economics of the photovoltaic cell.
The other problems are relatively simple to work out. Is my im-
pression correct there?
Dr. KRAMER. I think you put your finger on it quite properly.
Mr. GORE. Well, that is the technological bottleneck that we are
faced with and you have part responsibility for solving that bottleneck.
ERDA has part responsibility as do others.
It just seems to me that the importance of that bottleneck grows in
direct proportion to the gravity of the problem which would be solved
if we could circumvent that bottleneck.
It still gets back to the $2.7 million being applied to that very critical
bottleneck.
PAGENO="1099"
1095
Now, I would say the other possibility is storage capacity and gath-
ering and I would like to explore that also briefly if I still have time,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FUQtrA. Yes.
Mr. GORE. You mentioned or one of you mentioned in your presen-
tation that you are also working on the problems associated with im-
proving the capacity of storage batteries, is that correct?
Dr. KRAMER. That is correct, Mr. Gore.
Mr. GORE. Am I correct in my perception that this is another tech-
nological bottleneck that we have to get around if we are to get more
efficient energy production?
Dr. KRAMER. For Earth-based civilian economy it is, indeed, the case.
We have to find, Mr. Gore, a reasonable means for energy storage,
especially with any sort of space system.
`Mr. GORE. How much money is in the budget for that this year?
Dr. KRAMER. I believe it is about $1.5 million. However, I do not
want to mislead you. That is primarily for work on batteries for space
power systems.
Mr. GORE. Yes, I understand but the entire justification for work the
United States of America is spending as much money as it does on the
effort to explore space and do not get me wrong, but I think the bene-
fits are enormous. But the entire theoretical justification is the benefits
we reap here on Earth. Does the quest for knowledge, and the national
prestige outrank those?
As a representative of the people looking at the amount of money we
are going to spend the primary argument you have in your favor is the
spinoff argument. If you are going to-look at that in a rational way and
if we are going to try to reflect the. priorities that the American people
have, it seems to me, we ought to be spending a great deal more
proportionaly.
What proportion is $2.7 million of your total budget? It is very
small, is it not?
Dr. KRAMER. It is about 3 percent. The fiscal year 1978 budget re-
quest for space research and technology is just under $100 million; it
is $97.7 million.
Mr. GORE. You are spending $2.7 million on the cell, less than that
on the research to improve storage batteries. It seems to me that this
is the point to make some kind of change in that or at least induce a
desire to do that.
I would like to see the public's desire for solving these problems play
a larger role in your decision on how you allocate resources within the
agency to specific projects. I would like to see these two projects assume
a lot more importance.
Dr. KRAMER. I appreciate the point you make so clearly. I can assure
you we will continue to give it attention in our ERDA-NASA Coordi-
nating Board meetings where we do discuss ways of transferring space
technology th Earth-based energy problem solutions. We will continue
to work on that very hard, Mr. Gore.
Mr. GORE. Thank you.
Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Gore, and thank you Dr. Kramer, Mr.
Holloway, and Mr. Hayes. We appreciate your very enlightening pres-
entation this morning.
Our final witness this morning Edward Z. Gray, NASA Director for
Industry Affairs and Technology Utilization.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:]
PAGENO="1100"
1096
HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL
PRESENTED BY WITNESS
STATEMENT k~)3 3) ~Ii
MR. EDWARD Z. GRAY
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR INDUSTRY AFFAIRS
AND TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
be fore
S1JT~COMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
It gives me great pleasure, as always, to appear before
this Committee to review the status and progress of
activities in the NASA Technology Utilization Program.
In deference to the new members of this Committee, I will
briefly describe the objectives of the TU Program and
each operational element designed to transfer aerospace-
developed technology to the public and private sectors of
the nation's economy. In addition, I will apprise the
Committee of the progress we have made during the past
year and our plans and expectations for the next fiscal
year.
In accordance with the mandate of the National Aeronautics
and Space Act of 1958, the Technology Utilization Program
transfers new aerospace knowledge and innovative technology
to industry, medicine and other important public sector
areas such as transportation, environment, urban develop-
ment and public safety.
Technology transfer does occur naturally; however, care-
fully planned and organized efforts, such as those in the
NASA Technology Utilization Program, can accelerate the
process and insure broad user participation. Over the
past 15 years, thousands of aerospace-derived technologies
have spun off to the public and private sectors of the
economy. For example, the steady stream of technological
innovations and advancements (spawned by such programs
as Apollo, Viking, interplanetary probes and, ,more recently,
the Space Shuttle) have entered nearly every facet of our
lives--home and automoti~re design, fire prevention and
protection for firefighte.r~s, medical diagnostic instrumenta-
tion, bridge construction, f.ood processing equipment,
farm machinery, computerized banking, traffic controls
and highway safety, microelectronic products, energy
systems, and industrial processes of almost every description.
PAGENO="1101"
1097
Some have created substantial advances with values running
into the millions of dollars; while others have yielded
moderate, incremental economic gains. In the aggregate,
however, benefits resulting from the use of aerospace
technology have added significantly to the society's
general welfare and to the nation's economy.
The four basic operational elements of the Technology
Utilization Program are shown on this first slide. I
will briefly describe each of these elements and report
on the progress we have made in each during the past
year.
Our Publications Program took a significant step forward
last year when we moved to a completely new quarterly
Tech Brief journal format. This was done to promote
higher incidence of use and increase the shelf life of
new technologies announced therein. We feel that this
latter point is especially important since aerospace
technoloqy is sometimes ahead of its time and therefore
must wait on the emergence of a problem to which it may
apply. The new Tech Brief journal has received many
very favorable comments from users. More than 25,000
copies of the Tech Briefs have been requested and the
number is growing at the rate of 500 per month.
Over 600 innovations were published in NASA Tech Briefs
last year, and these generated over 44,000 requests for
additional technical information--a 63% increase over the
previous year. All told, the number of program inquiries
received last year, including these technical inquiries,
exceeded 92,000--twice that of the previous year. In
addition, we initiated a cooperative effort with the
Small Business Administration last year to selectively
disseminate new technology announcements to small business
firms throughout the nation.
The Publications Program has been one of the principal
mainstays of our program over the years. Since 1968 we
have maintained a data bank on requests and uses of new
technology announced by our Tech Brief Program. In fact
this data bank provides one of the most complete records
of any technology transfer program operated by the Federal
Government.
This past year, we asked the Denver Research Institute (DRI) to
evaluate this data bank and conduct a cost/benefit analysis
of our Tech Brief operation for the five-year period
from 1971 to 1976. DRI used random sampling methods to
obtain user estimates of their costs and those benefits
attributed directly to NASA technology. These estimates
PAGENO="1102"
1098
were statistically analyzed to derive an expected net
benefit for users of Tech Brief information. We then
analyzed our annual operating costs for the Tech Brief
Program for this same time period.
This slide shows the cumulative present value of net
benefits to Tech Brief users and for related costs from
1971 to mid-1976. The ratio between economic benefits
and program costs iS nearly 11 to 1. By way of comparison,
the average ratio for several other informatio*n abstract
services used by private industry is 4.7 to 1.
The statistical methods used in this study have also
provided us with a basis for designing improvements that
may increase the future benefit to cost ratio for our
Tech Brief Program. Further analysis and study along
these lines are planned during this coming year.
One of the Tech Brief users whom we interviewed in the
course of this study is our first witness. Dr. Edward J.
Murry is Executive Vice President and Director of R&D
for Fibra-Sonics, Inc. in Chicago, Illinois. It gives
me great pleasure to introduce Dr. Murry at this time.
.Witness.,.
.Thank you, Dr. Murry.
Included among our industrial application and dissemination
efforts is the Computer Software Management and Information
Center, known as COSMIC. This Center, operated at the
University of Georgia since 1966, provides aerospace
developed computer programs to industry and other govern-
ment agencies. Computer tapes and associated program
documentation are evaluated, checked out to ensure proper
operation, and placed in inventory for sale to user
organizations nationwide. Last year alone, COSMIC sales
exceeded $200,000. This represented a 45% increase in
sales compared to the previous year.
The NASA Industrial Applications Center network showed
substantial growth in 1976. These Centers, located at
six universities across the nation, represent a major
program effort through which scientific, technical and
management information and expertise are brought to bear
on the solution of the problems in U.S. industry and
state and local governments. These Centers have direct
access to one of the world's largest scientific and
technical information data banks containing more than
8,000,000 documents.
The graph shown on this slide indicates a greater than two-
fold increase in user clients compared with the previous
PAGENO="1103"
1099
year topping off at over 10,000 industrial users. The
number of client interactions with these users exceeded
80,000 last year compared with 50,000 in 1975. We also
expanded the geographical coverage of the IAC network
last year by increasing the off-site coverage from seven
to eleven industrial cities. This has enabled the Indus-
trial Applications Centers to more effectively serve the
technical needs of industrial clients w~io are remote from
present Center locations. This outreach program, initiated
two years ago, has substantially increased the effective-
ness of the IAC network in fulfilling its technology
transfer objectives.
In a few moments I would like to introduce our next
witness Mr. Edmond Howie, Director of the NASA Industrial
Applications Center at the University of Pittsburgh, and
Dr. Roy Morgan, Director of Research of the Youngstown
Sheet and Tube Company--but first, I would like to discuss
briefly two experimental inititatives undertaken last
year to bring NASA technology to bear on technical problems
of our cities and states as well as private industry.
Experimental programs are now just getting underway with
the state university systems in Kentucky and Florida in
order to find meaningful and productive ways in which
NASA can work with both government and industry in applying
aerospace technology to identified needs. This slide
summarizes the experimental objectives and policies govern-
ing these efforts. These experimental programs will provide
for a means to effectively cover a complete geographic
area and make NASA technology more readily accessible and
available to small business, industry and governmental
agencies. It should be noted that these programs are to
be supported on a coequal basis with the participating
states. Now, I would like to present our next witness.
First, it is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Edmond Howie,
Director of the Knowledge Availability Systems Center at
the University of Pittsburgh who will introduce Dr. Roy
Morgan of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, one of
their industrial clients.
.Witness...
.Witness...
.Thank you Dr. Morgan and Mr. Howie.
In the technology applications area we continue to
demonstrate that many problems in the public sector can
be solved using existing NASA technology. Our existing
application teams in biomedicine, transportation and
public safety, shown in this slide, have been largely
instrumental in ferreting outpublic sector technical
needs across a broad front and matching these with applicable
PAGENO="1104"
1100
aerospace technologies as a means toward the development
of viable solutions. This past year we have augmented
these teams by establishing a new Manufacturing Processes
Team (MATEAM) at the Illinois Institute of Technology
Research Institute to help American industry improve
productivity.
The primary short-range goal of this new team during the
next six months will be to identify and compile a list
of national needs in manufacturing and industrial processing.
Although not typically considered to lie in the realm of
the public sector, manufacturing and industrial productivity
have been cited by experts to be of paramount importance
in the growth and maintenance of a sound national economy.
Recently, the new National Center for Productivity and
Quality of Working Life concluded, and I quote, "much of
the historical growth of productivity in this country is
the direct result of technological change." Further they
said that "technological advances are critical to continued
productivity growth because they lead to increasingly
effective use of labor, capital, and natural resources."
Thus, it is in this important area of national concern
that the new NASA manufacturing and processing team will
be involved. Next year we will report to you the progress
gained by this team during the coming year.
At our hearings last year, I promised to report on our
activities on Project FIRES, otherwise known as Fire-
fighters Integrated Response Equipment System being conducted
at the Marshall Space Flight Center for the National Fire
Prevention and Control Administration (NFPCA) of the U.S.
Department of Commerce. This multiyear project will
investigate the applicability of aerospace materials to
improve firefighters' protective equipment, tools and
implements. To date, a User Requirements Committee,
comprised of NASA technical personnel1 members of NFPCA,
safety experts, fire chiefs and union representatives of
firefighting services, has met to identify and discuss
specific needs of the firefighter. The results of these
deliberations will yield material and equipment specifica-
tions incorporating, where applicable and appropriate,
NASA technologies. The NFPCA as well as others involved
are highly optimistic about the potential results of this
effort and the impact which existing aerospace materials
ffiay have on firefighters' protective systems. The first
integrated unit will be evaluated by the User Requirements
Committee in the Fall of 1977.
We are currently sponsOring 60 applications projects, like
Project FIRES, in a variety of areas such as transportation,
medicine, and environment. Many are in support of problems
defined by other federal- agencies. * Representative examples
of these projects include a fully implantable, rechargeable
PAGENO="1105"
1101
human tissue stimulator to control pain in patients with
nerve system and organ problems. This project is jointly
sponsored by the Johns Hopkins University Hospital.
Another project is being conducted jointly with the Federal
Railroad Administration. This project measures and predicts
the dynamic' stability of locomotive wheel assemblies. This
information will be used for improved design, thus contributing
to transportation safety.
Our next witness will discuss a joint project in the field
of environmental control and protection being conducted
at the Langley Research Center. Dr. Wilson K. Talley
is Assistant Administrator for Research and Development,
Environmental Protection Agency.
.Witness..
Thank you, Dr. Talley.
We have long been concerned with the need to measure the
effectiveness of NASA's TU Program, so before I conclude
my testimony I would like to describe the preliminary
results of a cost/benefit analysis of NASA's technology
transfer mechanisms conducted by Mathtech, Inc., the
technical research and consulting division of Mathematica,
Inc.
Although only partial coverage of the TU Program has been
made, Mathtech's preliminary results show that TU Program
contributed to technology transfers over the period 1970
to 1976 which generated econon~ic benefits worth more than
$245 million (1976 dollars). This compares with a total
TU badget over the same period (also expressed in 1976
dollars) of about $59 million, for a gross benefit/cost
ratio of about 4 to 1. In view of the fact that the
benefit figure of $245 million does not include all of
the impact of the TU Program this is a substantial benef it!
cost ratio. It is remarkable considering the relative
weakness of our economy over the first half of this decade.
While these results show that TU Programs have exerted
substantial leverage on the transfer process, we foresee
even greater potential in the future for two reasons.
First, many of the applications engineering projects we
are supporting will reach commercialization in the next
few years, thus adding substantially to benefits. Secondly,
the program as it is now structured is still in its infancy.
As the public and private sectors become more and more
aware of the vast store of technology and its ready availa-
bility, especially through our' IAC's and state technology
application programs, we are convinced that the effectiveness
of these efforts, in the form..of~ tangible benefits, will
become increasingly apparent. `
92.082 0 . 77 - 70
PAGENO="1106"
1102
The Technology Utilization budget request for FY 1978 is
$8.1 million, which is the same as FY 1977. We feel that
this amount will enable us to continue our technology
transfer efforts in an effective manner.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want the Committee to know
about our Spinoff 1977" annual report which will be
available for distribution next month. The "Spinoff~
1976' was published last year to inform the public on
the secondary benefits resulting from NASA R&D programs
and how they can participate in the Agency's efforts to
transfer this technology. The reception of `Spinoff 1976"
by industry and the public was enthusiastic. We expect
that the level of interest will be even greater for this
new issue. 1 will see that copies will be made available
for the Committee's use.
This concludes my statement, *Mr. Chairman. If I can
answer any questions, I would be happy to do so. Thank
you.
PAGENO="1107"
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION PROGRAM
PURPOSE - "....TO PROVIDE FOR THE WIDEST PRACTICABLE AND
APPROPRIATE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION CONCERNING
ITS ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS THEREOF."
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS & SPACE ACT OF 1958
:~
:*
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
*PUBLICATIONS
* INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS CENTERS
* APPLICATION PROJECTS
* PROGRAM EVALUATION & BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
NASA NO KT7N-1913 (1)
1-20-76
PAGENO="1108"
1104
PAGENO="1109"
TECHNICAL BRIEF PROGRAM
Cost Benefit Analysis
70.3
7O~-
~ 60-
5o~-
~: .4O~-
Co
t5 ________
0
Q 20-
6.4
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
NET BENEFIT TO USERS
NASA COSTS
PAGENO="1110"
1106
PAGENO="1111"
1107
PAGENO="1112"
STATE TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO:
* FIND MEANINGFUL AND PRODUCTIVE WAYS
TO TRANSF ER AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY TO
IDENTIFIED STATE AND LOCAL NEEDS
AS WELL AS STATEWIDE INDUSTRIES
* PROVIDE MORE EFFECTIVE GEOGRAPHICAL
COVERAGE AND MAKE TU SERVICES MORE
READILY ACCESSIBLE AND AVAILABLE TO
CiTIES AND STATES
POLICIES:
* * 50% COST SHARE WITH STATES
* CLIENTS TO BE CHARGED FOR SERVICES
NASA HO KT77-1557 (1)
1-26-77
PAGENO="1113"
APPLICATION TEAMS
* BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS.
* STANFORD SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
* RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
* UNIVERSITY Of WISCONSIN
* TRANSPORTATION
* STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
* PUBLIC SAFETY
* PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY, INC.
* MANUFACTURiNG, PROCESSES
* lIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
NASA HQ KT761912 (1)
(Rev. 1) 1-26-77
PAGENO="1114"
1110
PAGENO="1115"
1111
PAGENO="1116"
1112
PAGENO="1117"
1113
STATEMENT OF EDWARD Z. GRAY, NASA ASSISTANT ADMINISTRA-
TOR FOR INDUSTRY AFFAIRS AND TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. EDWARD P. MURRY, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
PIBRA-SONICS, INC., CHICAGO, ILL., AND DR. WILSON K. TALLEY,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOP.
MENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Mr. Gi~y. I shall introduce the other witnesses. In deference to
the short time I recognize we have to cover our presentation, I would
like to submit my prepared testimony for the record; I shall only
touch on the highlights of the testimony as we go through it.
I have with me Edward J. Murry, executive vice president and
director of R. & D. for Fibra-Sonics, Inc., and Dr. Wilson K. Talley,
Assistant Administrator for R. & D. of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION PROGRAM
PURPOSE - "....TO PROVIDE FOR THE WIDEST PRACTICABLE AND
APPROPRIATE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION CONCERNING
ITS ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS THEREOF."
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS & SPACE ACT OF 1958
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
* PUBLICATIONS
* INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS CENTERS
* APPLICATION PROJECTS
* PROGRAM EVALUATION & BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
NASA HO KT761913 (1)
FIGuRE 1
PAGENO="1118"
1114
If we can have the first slide (fig. 1) , I would like to just remind
you that we will talkabout the four program elements shown ; namely,
the publications program, the industrial applications centers, our
projects, and also our evaluation of the benefits.
Here we show many of the technology transfers that have happened
from the space program.
I would also like to submit for the record this document called
space benefits, in which we have compiled 513 cases of technology
transfer ; these have been documented by the Denver Research In-
stitute. We are confident each one of these is a true, bona fide transfei
of space technology to the nonaerospace economy.
~ :ç~~jft%. ~
,~ `::` ~$Sbii1: 4 tfj' ~
1st1~~J~\ :~ ~ i~ : ~ ~ `
~ ~
Vth~4~&~( , % ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ tTh'~ ~
~At I Si
~? ~ ~
at ~ ~
t~ ittaa~ sPwuirtA
ii 4 *~_s_ ~ iat~*'~ >tSt ` ~ ~ ` ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~
~L; ~ 0~ pJr:t
s~t ~a:2~:~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~
4i$~ ~ C ~
~r ¼
~x~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \~ `
~1: :
~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ \ ~~~V~,Jt¼4r ê~
~9:4t ~ *4 ~
~ 4~6~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t
Fierut 2
If we may have the next slide (fig. 2) ~ I would like to talk about
our publications program. In our publications program this past year
we took a significant step forward when we moved to a completely
new quarterly tech brief journal format.
This was done to promote higher incidence of `use and increase the
shelf life of the new technologies announced therein.
The new tech brief journal has received favorable comments from
the more than 25,000 users. During this past year, we circulated the
list to make sure that every one of the users is a bona fide user and
has expressed an interest in using the document.
PAGENO="1119"
1115
You would be interested in knowing the number of users is grow-
ing at the rate of about 500 per month. This reflects the fact that
throughout the country there is great interest in the use of this
document.
Over the past year, more than 600 innovations have been published.
These have operated more than 44,000 requests for additional technical
information. This is a 63-percent increase over the previous year.
All told,the number of program inquiries received last year, includ-
ing these technology requests, exceeded 92,000-twice that of the pre-
vious year.
In addition, we initiated a cooperative effort with the Small Busi-
ness Administration to selectively disseminate new technology an-
nouncements to small business firms throughout the Nation.
Let me have the next slide, please (fig. 3).
TECHNICAL BRIEF PROGRAM
Cost Benefit Analysis
70.3
70
`~6O
C
0
E 50
~
10L 6.4
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
FIGuRE 3
I would like to show the results of a cost-benefit analysis of the
NASA tech brief program that we asked Denver Research Institute to
conduct this past year.
NET BENEFIT TO USERS
NASA COSTS
PAGENO="1120"
1116
The Denver Research Institute used a random sampling method to
obtain user estimates of the cost and benefits attributed directly to
NASA technology, obtained by the users from tech briefs.
On this slide you can see the cumulative present value of the net
benefits to these users and the related NASA cost from 1971 through
mid-1976.
The ratio shown herB between~ user benefits and program costs is
approximately 11 to 1. We made a comparison with other similar serv-
ices that are in the private sector, and the average ratio for other
information abstract services was about 4.7 to 1. So we feel quite con-
fident that the tech brief program is healthy and a beneficial program.
To give you a firsthand assessment of the tech brief program, we
have asked Dr. Edward J. Murry, executive vice president and direc-
tor of research and development for Fibra-Sonics of Chicago, Ill., to
give you his views, It gives me a great deal of pleasure to now intro-
duce Dr. Murry.
Dr. MTJRRY. Thank you, and good morning Mr. Chairman and mem-
bers of the subcommittee. I wish to thank you for this opportunity to
give you a citizen's view of what is of benefit to us from NASA.
I am an inventor, a businessman, and a sometimes scientist because
of the press of business. I have been in the military for 13 years, 5
years in the civil service, 5 years in research and development and 8
years in big corporations and 9 years in my own business so I have a
pretty good idea what tech assessment is.
I came here at my own expense since I believe this subject is of some
importance to myself as a businessman because businessmen never do
anything which does not return an interest on our investment.
I run a high technology business. We make complex gadgets. In our
case we make ultrasonic devices which is a rare and exotic occupation,
more witchcraft than science so it seems.
I have some of our literature here whhth I will be glad to leave
with you so you can produce our product line. Everything in this
book is pointed at technology.
Our motto is we do the hard ones. It is a lonely business in this
pioneering and one mistake by us, we small businessmen, in making a
bad decision or technical decision can put us out of business, unlike
the big people.
Being small, about $3 million per year, we cannot afford a great deal
of research and development and must demand on anybody else we
can get it from.
Even though our present R. & P. dollar budget is 40 percent, it cost
18 times the amount of money than regular labor does so when you
get to that kind of budget, R. & P. is expensive so we must depend
on others.
At the say time, as you know if you check your history, a prime
source of much of the future is small business work. A real bed of
inventiveness lingers on. Making these devices we dream up requires
positive results, concrete facts which we use to make actual devices
which serve man, not theoretical devices. So I will briefly show you
how we brought NASA down to Earth. That is the importance of
NASA's research to us.
PAGENO="1121"
111.7
What is possible, what has been done, and what works is not only
necessary to a small businessman but vital. The breath o~f life itself
to us who gleen the reports for answers to real problems which we find
sitting on our desk every day and they do not go away.
Alas, however, far too many small business peopie engaged in the
hard job of making products, do not research the already past, take
the old documentation, Or work done by. others.
Hence, they are doomed to continually reinvent the wheel. One
specific example of some of NASA's technology I brought with me
today is a simple device. I have lugged it a 1,000 miles to show you
how its application can be made.
Now, I have here the original document which is of more importance
because what this simple tech brief describes we did not bother to
invent ourselves. We built this machine and it has been in production
since 1970.
This machine has put out Over 10,000 thermal couples, and in the
plant at the moment we have another order for 10,000 more. I readily
ripped this out of my production to bring it down here. I cut the hose
and took it off the bench.
These are the original papers in my hand. If I had not got this
device from NASA, I would have invented it myself at great cost.
I estimate it would cost me $15,000 to put this out.
Mr. FUQUA. What do you use it for, Doctor Murry?
Mr. MURRY. Make thermal couplers out of it. They are tiny wires
which you join together and braze them and you use them-well, you
are familiar with them in your heaters in your thermostats and furnace
but these are a whole new ball game.
Mr. FUQUA. How does that work?
Mr. MURRY. You have a spring load in back here and you have
another device with a hook up.
You put your tiny wires down here and use a microscope and there
is another big machine, a discharge device which takes in and wires a
monitor and the girl operates these under a glass and slides the two
wires up and this goes down and contacts another wire we have in
the back and we hit it with a condenser and they weld themselves
together beautifully.
These wires are, Mr. Chairman, 0.001 inch in diameter. They have a
very fast response; When you bond these things together ~ou get a
flow of electrons from one wire to the other.
It is of great value in industry and to the civilian population. With-S
out these devices it is difficult to see how the society as we know it
would function.
This invention was disseminated throughout the world in 1860-
1900 by technical journals at that time. Some 70 years later at a time
nobody knew what it was all about and they were play things.
You use these thermal couples in your hot water tanks and hun-
dreds of other uses. But what if you wanted to measure the temperature
inside a very tiny space-say within a cell inside the brain or eye?
In our machines for doing surgery inside the eye, we use small
needles. The needles are about 0.023 inch in diameter.
92-082 0 - 77 - 71
PAGENO="1122"
1118
I brought some samples along which might be of interest to you.
`rhese are the needles that go inside the eye on a cataract operation.
We have to slip these tiny thermal couples in the center of that needle.
Anyhow, these thermal couples go down there. Now, there are some
even smaller than these. These are 3 mil-0.003 inch diameter. These
are thermal couples made with this machine and we can go down to
0.001 inch with this device. If you care to look at it you are welcome.
It is very tiny. It is almost impossible to believe, really.
When you break up human tissue with ultrasound you generate
heat, and you have to be very careful to control this heat. If the heat
is not kept below 158° you destroy tissue and the ball game is over.
We are watching this very carefully.
We had barely started our work in 19'TO. Indeed, we had just come
to realize the need for the tiny thermocouple junction when our
weekly batch of NASA tech briefs came along. We have a standard
tech brief package like this one here, and about 10 pages into it I
ran across a device and stopped the ball game-his research-and then
I built it.
Within 2 weeks, Mr. Chairman, we had this in production. To give
an example with this, we have an order in house for 10,000 of these
new thermalcouples which will be included in other applications.
This other cactus-like device is just another spinoff. There is one
thermocouple wire on each spine. This device is then connected to
an integrated circuit which is put down in the ultrasonic bath and
you spin it around and you thereby tell if the ultrasonic cleaning is
effective, if it has been degassed or the crystal has gone bad. This
device will be adopted as a standard by the American Standards In-
stitute, Mr. Chairman. We will introduce this device in about 6
months.
As I said, NASA gave us a leg up. We built the machine and while
a simple device, there was some little techniques we had not used
and did not realize, so we looked in the tech brief and had the whole
answer.
If you look in the drawings you will find it is the identical brief
that NASA put out. Using this machine we are now doing the
unique job of measuring temperatures anywhere within the human
body.
This brings me to this point. Once I have found a good way to do
something and NASA paid for it, I do not blow my horn about it,
no, sir.
I quietly adopted it and do not tell my competitors. Several per-
sons asked me how well these tiny thermalcouples are gathered. I
tell them I use very tiny men with little hammers.
The second point is that while hundreds of business people use
NASA technology they would be foolish to blab about it since busi-
nessmen must protect their many competitive secrets. I am convinced
many of NASA's technical briefs are being used by industry but
they are reluctant to say so.
In point of fact much of what NASA provides is simply ideas. A
growing brilliant single purpose of man's mind is ideas. I myself get
these things and maybe 5 years later they will come out-a brandnew
idea.
PAGENO="1123"
1119
I do not know where they come from. I might take credit, but I
cannot say. That really is why I am here and why we get NASA's
briefs sent to us.
Many areas are of peripheral interest, not specific; chemistry, com-
puters, solid state, areas not directly related to us businesswise but
do provide me with new ideas and new thoughts which I can put
together sometime later on.
All inventions simply consist of putting together ideas from all over
the place to make a new gadget. There is very little you contribute
yourself.
Researchers and developers spend billions of dollars developing
new ideas, enabling us to go to the Moon and NASA made this possi-
ble and I have to step back sometime because this is a mind boggling
concept and far too many people do not realize it.
Myself, I step out of my skin and look at this. This is really fan-
tastic. We do not appreciate it enough. It is too easily accepted but
it would have remained impossible.
The end result of all research is really and finally only a piece of
paper, a report, a document, a table of numbers such as a ballistics
chart or something of like nature.
All these papers are useful still. The end result is billions of dollars
in research which go to the ultimate user. Cut off communications in
1977 and the world will die.
Let us not limit communication of scientific knowledge. That one
brain out there somewhere will take NASA's technical brief, write a
journal, add 10 years of training and a divine sparkle will give us
many things.
They also permit us businessmen to convert into risk something we
are used to dealing with and can handle. I, myself, find it ridiculous
that you spent $8.1 million in disseminating all these billions of dollars
of research and your budget this year is $7 million.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and
present views on this very important subject.
Thank you. -
Mr. FUQUA. Thank you very much, Dr. Murry. Very interesting.
Mr. Gray, we have a vote. We will have to leave for a few minutes.
Did you have another witness out of town with you?
Mr. GRAY. I have an out-of-town witness and another witness who
will not be able to join us this afternoon.
I could defer to you until after the vote and bring the other one on.
Mr. FIJQtTA. Can you come back this afternoon at 1:30?
Mr. Gr~r. Yes; I would like, however, to put Dr. Talley on.
Mr. FUQUA. We can hear him briefly and I apologize for the predica-
ment we are in.
Mr. ~ We will take Dr. Talley out of order. The reason we have
asked Dr. Talley to come as our witness is that NASA technology is
used to support many other agencies.
Dr. Talley is the Assistant Administrator for Research and Devel-
opment of the Environmental Protection Agency here in Washington.
He is to tell you about a project we have going on with EPA, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. TALLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a written statement which I will
submit for the record.
PAGENO="1124"
1120
Let me say I am pleased to be here to support the authorization for
1978, the technology utilization group, the report, and my written
statement speaks for itself.
I am pleased to support this aspect of NASA, but earlier today you
heard how they are helping us with the problem of ozone depletion.
These are just two examples of cooperation my agency has had
with NASA.
Mr. FUQIJA. I want to thank you, Dr. Murry for taking your time
and paying your own way to come down here and testify.
It makes it even better I might say and I could tell by the way you
were testifying you are very enthused about this.
Mr. MTJRRY. Absolutely.
Mr. FUQUA. We will stand in recess for a half hour, until 1 :30 p.m.
[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at
1:30p.m. of the same day.]
AF1~ER RECESS
Mr. FUQUA. The subcommittee will resume. This morning we were
unable to conclude and we have asked E. Z. Gray to continue this
afternoon, and I understand it will only take a few moments and then
we will get on with the other hearing.
Mr. Gray?
Mr. GRAY. Thank you.
FIGURE 4
PAGENO="1125"
1121
Well, to continue, I would like to talk about our industrial appli-
cations centers-figure 4. On this next chart we indicate again that
we have six of these located at six universities across the Nation, and
that the centers have direct access to one of the world's largest scien-
tific and technical information data banks-which now contains more
than 8 million documents.
The graph on this slide shows that we have had greater than~a two-
fold increase in the number of clients this year. We now have over
10,000 industrial users. The number of client interactions with these
users exceeded 80,000 this last year compared with 50,000 in 1975.
We have also expanded the geographic coverage of the network by
increasing the offsite coverage from 7 to 11 industrial cities; this
enables our application centers to more effectively serve the technical
needs of our clients who are remote from the present center locations.
Now, could we have that slide off.
In a few moments I would like to introduce our next witness who is
Mr. Ed Howie, Director of the NASA Center at the University of
Pittsburgh, and one of his clients, Dr. Roy Morgan, director of re-
search of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
First, before I do that, I would like to mention to you that we have
this year undertaken two experimental derivations of the applications
centers by starting what we call State technology application centers.
One is being opened in Kentucky and another is being opened in
Florida.
The purpose of these two experimental centers is to assist in the
transfer of technology to the potential users in the city and State
governments as well as to industrial clients.
As this point I would like to introduce our next witness who is Mr.
Ed. Howie from Pittsburgh.
STATEMENT OP EDMOND HOWIE, DIRECTOR, KNOWLEDGE AVAIL-
ABILITY SYSTEMS CENTER, NASA INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS
CENTER, UNIVERSITY OP PITTSBURGH
Mr. Howiz. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the resources
of the university have channeled into three broad areas of activity-
teaching, research, and community service. The NASA Industrial
Applications Center at Pitt falls in that third category.
The center is staffed with people, senior members of the staff and
faculty at the sèhool of engineering, computer scientists, and informa-
tion specialists. We serve a broad spectrum of organizations within a
fairly close geographic area of the University of Pittsburgh.
In a moment you will hear from one of our large clients, but many
of our small business organizations take advantage of it.
I want to call your attention to one industrial organization in par~
ticular in Pittsburgh with less than 500 employees. This company used
our services to identify information which facilitated the development
of a new product which is now that company's second best seller, which
generates $325,000 in sales.
Recently NASA granted us the privilege and a challenge of extend-
ing our services to six specifically designated geographic areas. We
welcome the challenge and the opportunity. Let us get to the bottom
line and hear from one of our users, Dr. Morgan.
PAGENO="1126"
1122
STATEMENT OP DR. R. P. MORGAN, DIRECTOR OP RESEARCH,
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO., LYKES CORP., YOUNGSTOWN,
OHIO
Dr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity present to you some very positive experi-
ences our organization has had with the NASA Industrial Applica-
tions Center at the University of Pittsburgh. Just by way of back-
ground, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. is the eighth largest steel com-
pany in the United States and manufacturers a broad range of carbon
and low alloy steel products. We depend extensively on materials tech-
nology and process technology to advance our business.
For example we are the second largest producer of seamless pipe
in the United ~tates. A large amount of this material goes into the
oil and gas industry, and there is a very large demand in this area
for improved technology materials.
We are also pioneers in the development and sales of the new high-
strength steels prominently featured in the automotive industry's
drive for weight reduction and energy conservation.
The NASA Industrial Applications Center at the University of
Pittsburgh first approached Youngstown in 1974 with a proposal for
conducting information surveys and described the availability of com-
puter stored data from NASA work and from sources such as Chem-
ical Abstracts and the Engineering Index. These data sources are used
extensively in our technical investigations. We initiated a test project
involving several information searches at the center, and we found
that their response was very quick, both in terms of their answers to
broad based questions or restricted search questions.
On the basis of this experience we signed an unlimited search con-
tract with the university and since mid-1974 we have conducted 38
searches in a wide variety of areas.
As you might anticipate, the results of a lot of these searches tend
to be intangible because in a sense they create ideas on the part of
the leader and some of these ideas are diverse and very difficult to re-
late back to the original search.
There are however two examples which I would like to give to you
which show very tangible, positive results.
In the first case, we were concerned with the development of im-
proved yield in some of our seamless products, and we recognized that
the yield of the product was related to the presence of oxygen in the
steel. We asked for a search on the role of oxygen in steel, and the
search turned up many useful papers, two of which indicated that
the control of oxygen level to within certain limits and the addition of
aluminum in the form of solid rings rather than powder would pro-
vide an improved practice.
PAGENO="1127"
1123
We evaluated these practices in a series of test heats in our steel
mills over a period of 3 months and found out that they were in-
deed very effective in improving oxygen control. By placing the prac-
tice into production of an extended time basis, we found that the
yield of the seams product actually increased ~½ percent and the con-
sumption of aluminum in the steelmaking process decreased. The net
effect of the practice change to our company is in excess of $1 million
a year in improved product yield and reduced material consumption.
The second case is a little more recent and relates to the production
of zinc bearing paints for use in the automotive industry. Over the
last 2 years Youngstown has been carrying out an extensive research
program to develop zinc containing paints with the idea of applying
them to steel sheets, using those sheets in the automobile to reduce
rust and corrosion. We spent something on the order of $200,000
on this program and have been unsuccessful in finding a paint which
met all our specifications.
In the NASA program and the information releases which were
received from NASA we find that they have in fact successfully
developed over a l)eriod of years a zinc paint which looks as if it could
conceivably meet our requirements. We are therefore at the present
time initiating further studies of this particular product and we hope
to find a basis for further activitity here which should develop mate-
rials of very extensive use in the field.
In conclusion, let me state Youngstown's very strong support for
the continuation of the NASA industrial applications centers. Based
upon our experience, the system presents a positive and rapid access
to information ideas which cannot be achieved on a corporate basis
without extraordinary expenditures of time and money. The dollar
return from implementation of the resulting concepts appears to be
quite substantial.
I would like to thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman and
members Of/the subcommittee.
Mr. FUQtJA. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gray, in the interest of time, we have some questions that I
would like to submit to you so that you could supply the answers for
the record.
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir. I have a few more points I wanted to make
and then I would be willing to take those questions.
Mr. FUQUA. Certainly.
Mr. GRAY. Could we have the next slide (fig. 5)?
PAGENO="1128"
1124
APPLICATION TEAMS
* BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS
* STANFORD SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
* RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
* UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
* TRANSPORTATION
* STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
* PUBLIC SAFETY
* PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY, INC.
* MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
* lIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
NASA HQ KT76-1912 (1)
(Rev. 1) 1-26-77
FIGURE 5
In the technology application team area, I think the significant
point to make here is that we have eliminated one of our biomedical
teams and added a manufacturing processes team at the Illinois
Institute of Technology Research Institute to help American industry
improve productivity. The primary goal of this new team will be
to identify national needs in manufacturing and industrial processing.
May we have the next slide (fig. 6)?
PAGENO="1129"
1125
At our hearings last year we committed to report on the project
FIRES, known as the firefighters and integrated response equipment
system being conducted for the National Fire Prevention and Con-
trol Administration. To date we have formed a user's requirement
committee and the first integrated until will be delivered this year
and evaluated by the user requirements committee. I have explained
a bit more about this activity in my prepared testimony.
We are currently sponsoring about 60 application projects, like
Project Fires in a variety of areas such as transportation, medicine,
and environment. Many arc in support of problems defined by other
Federal agencies. More than half of the pro~eets are in the biomedical
field, such as an improved pediatric monitoring system to help crip-
pled children, an implanted rechargeable pain reliever to rehabilitate
persons who are not able to function because of pain and cerebral
palsy, a voice-controlled wheelchair, which we showed you last year,
i's still under development for quadruplegies, a cataract removal tool
and an intracranial pressure monitoring system for head injuries. In
addition to these, we have a picture here of the technology demonstra-
tion house which demonstrates to the average citizen that you can
build a house which will reduce the energy consumption in the home
by two-thirds and the water consumption requirements by about one-
half. This house has been built at our Langley Research Center and
will be occupied by a family this coming year.
Next slide, please, (fig. 7).
FIGURE 6
PAGENO="1130"
1126
We also have seen one of our developments come on the market; it
is called an echocardiscope, and measures heart function. Its purpose
is to make the diagnosis of heart problems cheaper, lighter and more
accesible to the clinics throughout the country.
Finally, the last slide (fig. 8).
FIGuRE 7
PAGENO="1131"
1127
We have a project that is being conducted jointly with ~he Federal
Railroad Administration. This project measures and predicts the
dynamic stability of locomotive wheel assemblies to improve design
and contribute to transportation safety. This is particulurly relevant
right now because the railroads are having a problem with some of
their locomotives derailing-in fact there was one down in Georgia
this past month. This is the kind of problem to which we are address-
ing our technology.
Although I have only given you an encapsulated version of our
activity, I would like, before concluding, to mention to you the pre-
liminary results of a cost-benefit analysis being conducted by Mathe-
matica, Inc., on this subject. Although only partial coverage of the
TU program `has been made, Mathematica's preliminary results al-
ready show that the TU program over a 5-year period has generated
economic benefits of more than $245 million. This compares with the
total TU program costs over the same period of about $59 million-for
a gross benefit to cost ratio of about 4 to 1.
PIGiJEE 8
PAGENO="1132"
1128
In view of the fact that the benefit figure of $245 million includes
only a portion of the TTJ program, the total benefit estimate should be
substantially greater than that.. In fact., preliminary estimates show
that over a 15-year period more than $1.2 billion will be added to the
U.S. economy due to the rru- program. While these resulits show that
the program has exerted substantial leverage to date, we foresee even
greater potential in the future because many of the application proj-
ects we are supporting will reach commercialization in t.he next. few
years, and second it is becoming increasingly evid.ent that t.he public
is becoming more and more aware o.f the vast store of technology and
its ready a.vailabilit.y through our IAC system. Our experience shows
that they will want t.o use this information even more aggressively
in t.he future.
Our request for next year is $8.1 million, t.he same as in fiscal year
1977. We feel that. this amount will enable us to continue our tech-
nology transfer efforts in an effective manner.
Finally, I would like you to.know that in the coming year we will
be releasing another document called "Spinoff 1977," which will be
similar t.o "Spinoff 1976." We will insure that each one of the sub-
committee members will receive a copy.
Mr. FUQUA. Thank you.
Mr. Gore?
Mr. GoRE. In the interest of time, I will defer my questions.
I will just say I am interested in seeing the answers to the written
questions that the staff has prepared.
I congratulate you all on your testimony and on the work you are
doing. If t.here was not such a program we would be up here saying
why isn't. there such a program. I think it is something that more
agencies ought t.o do, and I congratulate you on it.
Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much.
Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Gray and your associates that came up.
We apologize for having you carryover to this afternoon.
Next I want to welcome the participation of Mr. McCormnack, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Advanced Technologies and Energy
Conservation Research and Deevlopment and Demonstrat.ion.
The NASA/ERDA cooperative energy programs are of much inter-
est to both of t.he subcommittees. Our discussion this afternoon will
focus on energy technology ac.tivities which are. designed to use NASA
capability in support of the energy programs of other agencies and
departments on a solar satellite power system concept..
The subcommittee is pleased that reimbursable energy technology
responsibilities assigned to NASA cont.inue to increase and expand.
However, it is disappointing to note that neither the NASA budget
requests nor the ER.DA budget requests recognizes the potential of-
fered by solar satellite power systems.
Last year we were told that responsibility was transferred by ERDA
to the 0MB too late to adjust to t.he ERDA budget requests. ERDA
and NASA have had a year in which to agree on a plan for accom-
plishing the technology needed to resolve the technical, environmental,
and economic issues. Yet the combined NASA and ERDA budget
requests for this effort is grossly inadequate to even begin addressing
these issues.
PAGENO="1133"
1129
The solar satellite systems concept offer exciting and challenging
possibilities for helping provide for future energy needs. When we
see evidence every day of ever decreasing conventional energy supplies,
it is indeed frustrating that ERDA and NASA are not requesting the
small investments required to carefully study the technical feasibility,
environmental acceptability, and economic viability of these systems.
At this time we will hear from Mr. Ginter who is the Assistant Ad-
ministrator for the Office of Energy Programs. We want to congratu-
late you on being named as a permanent Assistant Administrator, and
you may want to introduce your associates that you have with you.
STATEMENT OP R. D. GINTER, NASA ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR ENERGY PROGRAMS
Mr. GINTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On your right is Mr. Ralph LaRock, Director of our Solar Energy
Division, and on your left is Mr. Rex Miller, Director of the Energy
Conversion Division. That, by the way, comprises the two divisions in
our office.
Mr. Chairman, it is again a pleasure to have an opportunity to re-
port the status of our energy activities and the progress we are mak-
ing toward fulfilling our broad goal of assuring the effective use of
NASA technologies and experiences in support of national energy
R. & D. needs.
This work remains focused in two primary activities; energy tech-.
nology which is designed to use the NASA capability in support of the
energy needs of ERDA and other Government organizations, and,
energy systems, the use of space, an effort to more fully understand
and define how the unique characteristics of the space environment
and our ability to successfully function in space may be used to he1~
solve energy needs on Earth as well as in space.
An essential element of the energy technology activity is the long-
term process of technology identification and verification which is di-
rectly supported by the NASA budget. These efforts result in projects
which, when approved, are conducted in a fully reimbursable manner
for the other agencies.
The reimbursable responsibilities assigned to us continue to increase
and expand. Using the convenient, but still, not very accurate, indica-
tor I used last fall to reflect the increase in responsibility, the dollar
level has grown from about $4 million in fiscal year 1974 to close t.o
$60 million in fiscal year 1976, including the transition quarter, and
we are now predicting that the overall effort may exceed $100 mill jon
in fiscal year 1977.
I believe this to be a good indication that the capabilities of the
Agency are being brought to bear on energy problems in a rather
substantial manner and I trust that you will see that your continued
support of the NASA technology identification and verification effort,
sometimes called "seed money", budget is justified.
PAGENO="1134"
1130
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROGRAMS
AREAS OF EMPHASIS
PHOTOVOLTAICS
WIND TURBO-GENERATORS
SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING
ADVANCED GROUND PROPULSION
ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS
GAS TURBINES
FUEL CELL SYSTEMS
HYDROGEN
ADVANCED COAL ENERGY EXTRACTION
MAGNETO HYDRODYNAMICS (MHD)
ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS
COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY
COMPOSITES, POLYMERS AND CERAMICS (MATERIALS)
HEAT EXCHANGER TECHNOLOGY
NASA HO N77-845(1)
12-2-76
Our efforts are concentrated in 14 areas of emphasis as shown here
along with the particular centers that are involved (slide N11-845 (1)):
Photovoltaics (solar cells)
Wind turbo-generators
Solar heating and cooling
Advanced ground propulsion
Energy conversion systems
Gas turbines
Fuel cell systems
Advanced coal energy extraction
Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)
Energy storage systems
Combustion technology
Composites, polymers, and ceramics (materials)
Heat exchanger technology
These serve to focus our initial efforts and also provide the general
basis of understanding with ERDA and the Department of the In~
tenor concerning their general interest in the use of NASA capabilities.
I would now like to briefly indicate some of the accomplishments
which have occurred during the past few months in the reimbursable
projects we are conducting.
PAGENO="1135"
1131
In solar energy-wind turbogenerators, we have resolved most of
the technical difficulties associated with the MOD-O 100 kilowatt wind
turbine shown here (slide N77-856(3)). This machine, located at the
Lewis Research Center Plum Brook facility, near Sandusky, Ohio,
Is an important research tool in the initial phase of this program.
Recent accomplishments include:
Successful operations in winds up 40 mph.
PAGENO="1136"
1132
Synchronous operation with both the local utility power grid and
with a 160 kilowatt diesel generator.
Automatic start up, operation, and shutdown when connected to
a simulated load.
And emergency shutdowns using automatic blade control. (By the
way this was actually achieved in 15 seconds which represents a little
less than four complete revolutions.)
You may recall that two similar machines are currently being
fabricated having a power rating of 200 kilowatts. Actual operation
of these machines will be slightly delayed due to the technical prob-
lems encountered on the MOD-O machine. We are now planning to
install the first machine late this year at the site ERDA selected in
Clayton, N. Mex. The site for the second machine will be selected in
the very near future and is scheduled to begin operation in mid-1978.
IS. Ri.
Shown here are the locations of 17 candidate sites which ERDA
selected from an original list of over 60 utilities which offered sites
in response to an ERDA request for proposal (slide N77-1888). For
the record may I indicate we did not have time enough to change the
spelling of Montauk Point, but we do recognize that it should have a
"k" instead of a "g" at the end.
Mr. MCCOR~ACK. May I interrupt to ask you how Stamania County,
Wash., became Portland, Oreg.?
Mr. GINTER. Could I answer that maybe it is artistic license by the
graphics arts people, sir.
Mr. MCCORMACE. People in Washington will think that is quite a
lot of license. [Laughter.]
LOCATION OF THE 17 CANDIDATE SITES/UTILITIES
PUERTO
RICO
NASA HO N771$8H
2.2577 1)
PAGENO="1137"
11~33
Mr. GINTER. We accept that comment and we will modify the
chart.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Thank you.
Mr. GINGER. It is expected that two of these will be selected some-
time this year for the larger 1,500-kilowatt machines that are under
contract with General Electric and also planned for initial operation
by mid-1978.
We are currently completing negotiations with ERDA for the de-
sign and construction of one or more larger machines. These have
been designated the MOD-2 and will have a blade diameter of about
300 feet. Engineering studies indicate that the cost of electric energy
generated by wind turbines should decrease as the size of the machines
is increased. The limits of present technology will be pressed by the
MOID-2 machines. However, the. results will provide a sound basis
for decisions concerning the practicality of developing even larger
machines.
/
Shown here is a general perspective of the size of the three machines
I have mentioned (slide N77-1638(1)). As part of this very aggres-
sive and challenging.program, we recently awarded a contract to Ka-
man Aerospace Co. for the design fabrication and test of a 150-fOot
blade that is expected to be representative of the blades needed for the
nominal 300-foot diameter rotor.
WIND TURBINE SIZE COMPARISON
MONUMENT
MOD-2
MOD-i
MOD-OA.
(
/
HQ N77163$ (1)
1.3177
92-082 0 - 77 - 72
PAGENO="1138"
1134
In photovoltaics the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is continuing the
low-cost silicon solar array project for ERDA which is aimed at
achieving the breakthroughs needed to reduce the cost of these arrays
to $0.50 per watt in 1974 dollars by 1986. You can see by this next
chart the nature of the reduction required to lower the initial price of
approximately $21 per peak watt (slide N77-1637 (3)). This chart also
depicts the shift from ingot technology to full automation which ap-
pears essential if the targeted cost goal is to be met. Delivery of a sec-
ond batch of arrays, approximately 140 kilowatts procured in fiscal
year 1977 is underway at an average price of about $15.50 per watt.
Mr. MC:CORMACK. Do you mind if I interrupt you?
Mr. `GINTER. Not at all, sir.
Mr. MOC0RMACK. You are shooting for $50 a watt-
Mr. GINTER. $0.50 a watt.
Mr. MCC0RMACK. $0.50 a watt, $500 a kilowatt by 1980?
Mr. GINTER. 1986.
Mr. MdCORMACK. 1986. Do you have indication that you can make
it-any reason to believe that you ca~i do this? ,
Mr. GINTER. That we êan do it?
Mr. McC0RMAcK. Yes.
Mr. GINTER. Yes, I think we have very good reason to believe that
we can. Now, obviously it is not an easy thing to do as it is planned
by ERDA as an approximate 10-year program. In fact it will be very
difficult. There are a large number of technologies that have to be
PAGENO="1139"
1135
advanced and those are indicated, but not all that clearly on the chart,
together with the nature of the technology areas and their approximate
contribution to the overall price reductions that have to be achieved.
The first indications we have are that we are coming down that
curve. The very initial results out of these technology programs are
beginning to show that, yes, whether we get all the way down the curve
or not, we will get a very long way down the curve.
Mr. MOCORMACK. This is peak power and it is~~-it is not installed,
it is the cost for the sales; is that correct ~
Mr. GINTER. No, sir, this is for the entire array cost.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Installed system.
Mr. GINTER. Yes.
Mr. MYCORMACK. Seed power. Thank you.
Mr. GINTER. Yes, sir. Most of the arrays procured as part of the
JPL project are then delivered to the Lewis Research Center and other
places. Some are installed in the system test facility now under con-
struction at Lewis. Shown here are the 10 kilowatts that have been
installed and tested to date. We expect this capacity to increase to
about 40 kilowatts during the next several months (slide C-76--4580).
It will be initially used to understand how these systems can operate
directly with public electric utilities.
PAGENO="1140"
1136
Recently, two TJ.S. Forest Service lookouts in the IJ.S. Rassen and
Plumas National Forests in `California have been equipped with solar
cell power, as shown on this chart (slide C-76-4766). These are 300-
watt installations and in conjunction with battery storage provide
electric power to operate a `water pump, radio, lights, and a refrigera-
tor. It is interesting to note that when the cost of solar arrays can be
reduced from their present level of $15.50 per watt to about $7 per
watt, they appear to be cost competitive with the gasoline ~generator
systems now being used for such installations.
Mr. `MOCORMACK. So you are saying this is about $7,000 per kilowatt?
Mr. GINTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. MOCORMACK. Installed?
Mr. GINTER. Well, installed and operated, Mr. McCormack. The
operation and maintenance costs on gasoline generators are fairly
significant.
Mr. MCC0RMACK. Do you believe that you can get all the way down
to $0.50 a watt with silicon? Do you believe that you can make it with
silicon or are you going to have to switch to a different material' and
if so which one?
PAGENO="1141"
1 1~37
Mr. GINTER. Well, on this particular project, Mr. McCormack, we
think we can make that price with silicon, that is why we signed
aboard for it. Our responsibilities in this area are limited at this time
to silicon. As far as comparing silicon with other materials, such as
galium arsinide or some of the other photovoltaje ~orn.petitors I would
like to defer to my colleagues from ~ERDA who are here and will be
testifying shortly. They are much more knowledgeable on that than I
am.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Thank you.
Mr. GINTER. In solar heating and cooling we are making progress
in this important area, As you may recall, our Marshall Space Flight
Center has been assigned three specific responsibilities. These are:
Development of systems for demonstration, technical and management
~upport of the ERDA commercial demonstration program, and the
design and operation of a national solar heating and cooling data
collection and analysis system.
PAGENO="1142"
1138
OPERATIONAL TEST SITES
GENERAL LOCATIONS
The first equipment procured in the development for demonstration
program is now being received and assembled on test stands at the
Marshall Space Flight Center as shown here (slide NT77-1538 (3)).
It is expected that by the end of the fiscal year 1978 the 36 contracts
in the program will have delivered solar heating or heating and cool-
ing systems for some 67 buildings (N77-1519 (1)).
The legend which is not explained on the chart is as follows: SF
stands for single family; MF multifamily; and finally COMM for
commercial. The W, H, and HC stand for hot water, heat, and heating
and cooling.
In the commercial `demonstration program, last year ERDA selected
32 contractors from the 300 proposals received in response to their
first program opportunity notice for a total Government cost of ap-
proximately $8 million. By the end of calendar year 1976, five of these
projects were complete and operating. Marshall is now evaluating pro-
posals for a second set of awards which are expected to be made with-
in the next few weeks.
In a related but slightly different area, last year we reached agree-
ment with ERDA on a solar facilities program which may result in
the construction of solar heating and hot water systems on selected
NASA buildings. Initially 10 facilities have been identified for mi-
LEGEND
~ SF-W
o SF-H
o SF-HC
A MF-H
A MF-HC
N COM-H
0 COMHC
PAGENO="1143"
1139
tial design studies to determine feasibility and cost effectiveness. These
studies will be completed early this year and if warranted, construc-
tion of the selected solar energy systems will be complete near the end
of this calendar year.
Shifting to the area of coal, we continue to make reasonably good
progress in our work for the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which has been studying means
of improving the state of the art of underground coal mining tech-
nology, has identified the physical and operational characteristics of
15 mining sites. It is expected these data can be used to develop an
approach for evaluating the potential merit of new coal extraction
concepts.
At the Marshall Space Flight Center an evaluation has been com-
pleted on seven different concepts for automatically determining the
coal/rock boundary in a coal seam. Two coal interface detectors have
been selected for actual hardware evaluation on a longwall mining
machine in fiscal year 1977. These are shown here. The first is the
radar concept shown as a laboratory breadboard ~slide N77-1674(2))
and the second is the nucleonic concept. (slide N77-1673 (2))
PAGENO="1144"
1140
arusi
e is one
~d that it can be ei~ectivet~
ing large quantities of coal
calli ii the energy
nul ~ation and
L. Advance
agencies,
overall
uture coal-fired, base
now reviewing the
PAGENO="1145"
1141
We are negotiating with two of the ERDA organizations, that is
fossil energy and conservation, concerning industrial and utility gas
turbine research and technology activities (slide N77-1622(3)). These
will include an interesting near-term effort involving both ERDA~
Conservation and the Electric Power Research Institute. This initial
activity is the development and test of thermal barrrier coatings ap-
plied to turbine blades as an insulation layer (slide N76-4259(2)).
It is expected that the results of this effort may allow some improve-
ment in current turbine efficiency as well as providing the capability
so that lower quality fuels may be successfully used in these turbines.
PAGENO="1146"
1142
PAGENO="1147"
1143
As part of our technology identification and verification activity
we constructed a small ooal-fired pressurized fluid bed combustor to
understand the turbine materials which have been developed over
many years for use in aircraft engines (slide N76-4412(3)). Such a
test facility is necessary so that the actual effects of the corrosive coal
combustion products can be accurately determined and directly com-
pared with the materials performance. which has been obtained on
test rigs using relatively clean fuels, basically natural gas. The facility
has completed its initial checkout and is expected to begin operation
within the next few weeks.
PAGENO="1148"
1144
In ground propulsion we are pleased to report that ERDA and
NASA have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOD) de-
lineating our responsibilities in the broad area of ground propulsion.
Specifically, this MOD assigns a significant amount of research tech-
nology responsibility to the Lewis Research Center in continuous
combustion propulsion systems, that is the Brayton or Gas Turbine
and Stirling Cycles. In addition, we are currently negotiating a re-
search and technology effort directed toward electric and hybrid
vehicles and this is expected to be a coordinated effort at both our
Lewis Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The heat engine for continuous combustion program activity being
conducted for ERDA is designed first to establish within the auto-
mobile industry the technology base for an early 1980 produc1~ decision
on an improved engine. It would have a multifuel capability, low emis-
sions, competitive cost, and, very importantly, fuel economy improve-
ments of 20 to 30 percent as compared to the internal combustion
engine. The second key objective, in the mid-1980's approximately,
is to provide the technology which would possibly allow an industry
decision on the development of an advanced engine with a 50- to
60-percent improvement in fuel eèonomy. At this time, the Brayton
(Gas Turbine) (slide N77-1672 (2)) and Stirling Cycle engines are
both included in this challenging and very important effort.
PAGENO="1149"
1145
We are also, continuing our work for ERDA in support of the
Chrysler baseline gas turbine engine and this has been undergoing
tests at Lewis (slide ND7-852(a)). We now expect delivery of a new
generation engine to Lewis for testing in March of this year.
PAGENO="1150"
1146
As I indicated we are currently negotiating specific interagency
agreements with ERDA in support of their electric and hybrid vehicle
program. This support is expected to be concentrated primarily in
research and technology efforts for both the vehicle and propulsion
systems. As we reported last fall, we have tested the five electric
vehicles shown here and these results were documented in a report
to ERDA in October (slide N76-4280 (3)). We have been actively
planning with ERDA an effort to further evaluate the current tech-
nology of electric and hybrid vehicles. We expect to be conducting
more vehicle tests in the near future.. In fact, three are now at the
test tract and another five have been ordered with delivery expected
in March.
Last fall we reported to you that ERDA and NASA were jointly
planning an approximate 3-year program definition activity for the
satellite power system (slide N77-851 (3)). This joint effort was de-
signed to determine whether the potential attractiveness of obtaining
electric power from space for use on Earth should, in fact, be pursued
by developing the technologies needed for an eventual system
demonstration.
This joint planning has been essentially completed and was ini-
tially presented to the ERDA/NASA Coordination Committee Meet-
ing in November 1976. The Coordination Committee formally ap-
proved, at that time, establishment of a satellite power system panel
to assure effective and anpronriate coordination and managment of
this definition activity. The planning for this effort is now scheduled
for completion by early March and the overall program plan will be
presented to the Coordination Committee at that time.
PAGENO="1151"
1147
SATELLrTE POWER SYSTEMS
MAJOR SUB~PROGRAMS
* SYSTEMS DEFINITION
* ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
* COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
* IMPACTS AND BENEFITS
* SPACE RELATED TECHNOLOGY
NASA HQ N77-1671 (1)
22~77
The plan identifies five major subprogram elements (slide N77-
1671(1)):
Systems definition,
Environmental factors,
Comparative evaluation,
Impacts and benefits, and
Space related technology.
This plan envisioned essentially parallel activities in all five sub-
program areas so that the initial program definition could be corn-
pleted as quickly as possible.
PAGENO="1152"
1148
The fiscal year 1978 budget decision~ reflected in the President's
budget submitted to Congress in January `1977 provided no funds
for a joint ERDA/NASA study. The budget did however include $1
million in NASA's fiscal year 1978 budget request which, combined
with $2.5 million in fiscal year 1977, will allow NASA to complete an
initial technical systems definition activity.
ERDA has been assigned responsibility for conducting and financing
any further definition and evaluation of a solar satellite power con-
cept. NASA's initial definition and planning activities will serve as
an input to the development of an overall strategy for energy research
and development. If future funding for this concept is warranted,
ERDA would be expected to use NASA capabilities and facilities on
a reimbursable basis.
As indicated, our budget request for fiscal year 1978 includes the
$1 million for energy systems which will be used for the preliminary
SPS systems definition. It also includes $3.5 million for energy tech-
nology or technology identification and verification activities. The $4.5
million R. & D. funding for energy programs is considered necessary
to: (1) Sustain the growth and effective use of NASA capabilities in
support of energy R. & D. needs and (2) to complete the preliminary
SPS systems definition activities which have been initiated during the
past few months.
Unfortunately, time does not permit discussion of many of the other
accomplishments we have made during the past few months, nor does
it permit discussion of a number of activities planned for the coming
year. Much of this work will be covered in other testimony, particu-
larly by ERDA. As you can see, the bulk of our activity is directly
related to their program areas.
We believe we are making significant progress in our work for
ERDA. Our workload continues to increase and expand and we are
working harder than eve! `before. With your continued support, I am
confident that the investment this Nation has made in NASA will be
effectively brought to bear in the long and difficult search for solutions
to some of our energy problems.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FIJQTJA. Thank you, Mr. Ginter.
You mentioned some five major program elements for solar satellite
power systems, I think, on the last page of your testimony.
Do NASA and ERDA plan to pursue all of these elenients in fiscal
year 1978
Mr. GINTER. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated, the
combined funding for fiscal years 1977 and 1978 is $3.5 million. It is
enough to get a good start on the first of the five subprogram elements-
the preliminary technical systems definition. The other elements, if
waranted, would be done sequentially rather than in parallel, as the
initial plan envisioned.
Mr. FUQTJA. How much money did NASA request from 0MB for
the solar satellite power system?
Mr. GIWPIER. For fiscal year 1978, we requested $3.5 million for SPS
studies.
Mr. FUQUA. How much in other solar activities?
PAGENO="1153"
1140
Mr. GINTER. That was all. The balance was for the "seed money"
or technology identification and verification. The $1 million in the
fiscal year 1978 budget request is the total for study activities in my
office for the solar satellite power system.
Mr. FTJQUA. Mr. N~cCormack?
Mr. MCCORMACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ginter, first of all I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for in-
viting me to sit in on this hearing today. I very much appreciate it,
and I want to say for the record-
Mr. FUQIJA. We are also happy to have Mr. Goldwater who is the
ranking minority member on the subcommittee.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Goldwater and I and members of our com-
mittee are very pleased to work closely with you in this area and we
are pleased to have the expertise of NASA available to help on energy
projects. I think our primary concern of course is the system actually
is working, if not perfectly, at least reasonably well and reasonably
smoothly, and that the priorities are established consistent with the
priorities of the Energy Research and Development Administration
as part of overall energy policy.
So I suppose I have two questions.
Is the mechanism for coordinating activities and establishing work-
ing interfaces between the agencies functioning reasonably well and
would you recommend that the existing memorandum of understand-
ing and the existing mechanism for operations between the two agen-
cies be maintained as it is or would you recommend any changes in it?
Mr. GINTER. Mr. McCormack, in my judgment, I think that it is
functioning very well. That does not mean that there are not a num-
ber of rough edges or that we do not have some difficulty understand-
ing each other. We do have a lot of give and take. But I see nothing
abnormal or unusual about that. It is a relatively difficult process to
try to relate the broad aeronautics and space capabilities, that reside
within NASA and to get those properly translated into, as we said
in the past testimony, what we hope are competent, sound proposals
and plans which fit ERDA's evolving program needs. I do not think
either agency is perfect on that, but I do think there is a good healthy
attitude of trying. I believe the general record over the last 2 or 3
years indicates we are doing pretty well.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Thank you.
Mr. GIN~ri~R. I did not really answer your second one, but it is implied
in that answer. At this point in time, I certainly have no recommenda-
tion to make that says the nature of the memorandum of understand-
ing or our general working relationship in this area should be
modified.
Mr. MCCORMACK. It is a peculiar relationship, perhaps more from
our perspective than yours. We all have nothing but great admiration
and repeatedly expressed praise for NASA operations and the expertise
that NASA has. At the same time NASA is a much more stabilized,
functioning organization than the ERDA, because ERDA is still in a
sense being born and as it is being born it can already see itself being
reorganized out of existence. It has been under incredible pressures
to try to solve all of the problems in the next 25 years and to do them
all with simplistic fairly tale solutions within 6 months and had other-
PAGENO="1154"
1150
wise responsible Members of Congress insisting on these sorts of solu-
tions. So ERDA has been under great pressure and has had difficulty in
getting organized and NASA on the other hand has a tremendous rec-
ord and is a very stabilized organization. By comparison our admira-
tion and c~ur great respect for NASA is somewhat colored, or there is a
caution that goes with it in that we are able to have NASA carrying
the ball away horn of their own existing organization, their own en-
thusiasm and the fact that they are looking for something to do since
they do not have manned space programs right now. We are very con-
cerned that the program should really be at the discretion of the
Energy Research and Development Administration to carry out energy
needs rather than space needs. This is a point of a generalized philoso-
phy and I think a lot of us share without any criticism that it is a mat-
ter of consciousness, but I would like to make you aware and I would
like to know if you would like to make any comment.
Mr. GINTER. Yes; we would like to make a couple of comments. One,
we are very aware of that; and although, in order to make my first
comment I have to admit to maybe more age than I would like to, I have
been with the National Aeronautics and `Space Administration for what
will be 17 years in May. So I was afforded the opportunity of expe-
riencing some, if not all, of the growing pains of that organization. I
think we tend to forget that there was a point in time when the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration did not appear as stable
as it does now.
We, too, share a great concern in the nature of the size of the ERDA
job. Maybe it is because we work so closely with them; but my office,
I think, certainly recognizes that it is a much more difficult, much
more diffuse, and overall, a more complicated undertaking than what
`\\ NASA had to do at the beginning of the space program.
I would like to make one other particular comment though from
the standpoint of the way we view our functions in relationship to
ERDA. Although we draw heavily on space technology, we draw
much more heavily on the NASA/NACA aeronautics heritage of
working for others. My office came from the Office of Aeronautics and
Space Technology, so we like to think we are standing on close to 60
years of experience along those lines. The general nature of providing
a technology base for industry to use and to try to create the technol-
ogy that they need, is the approach that my office uses in the ERDA/
NASA relationship.
Mr. MOCORMACK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Goldwater?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Thank you~ Mr. Chairman.
Following up on what Mike McCormack was concerned about-
there is always this discussion `between the division of the two agen-
cies. I think it is a legitimate concern and I think what we are trying
to do is to understand the logical flow of the relationships and divi-
sion of money and projects. For instance in the solar satellite pro-
gram, would you conclude that ERDA should manage this tvne of
effort, control its funding and in essence bynass the funds to NASA,
or is this something that should be rele~ated strictly to NASA?
Mr. GINTER. Mr. Goldwater, may I change your question or may I
try an answer that may change your question a little bit?
PAGENO="1155"
1151
The nature of the plan that we have been working jointly with
ERDA envisions a delineation of management responsibility. If I
may refer to those five subprogram areas that we listed, the first of
those we have envisioned as primarily a NASA management respon-
sibility. That is the overall definition of the system. The next three
listed under that, we have envisioned as an ERDA responsibility, and
the last one-space related technology again as a NASA responsibil-
ity.
The structure of that activity, like operating vice presidents of an
organization, reports to the solar power satellite panel under the
overall coordination of the ERDA/NASA Coordination Committee.
I might add that this working in harness with another agency,
whether it is a joint office or very tightly coordinated is not exactly
new to NASA. For many years we had the Space Nuclear Power
Office, which was a joint AEC/NASA office.
We envision that in a joint program, NASA would be primarily
responsible for those efforts that are space-related, and for carrying
them out in a coordinated manner; and those efforts that are related
more to terrestrial energy R&D needs and environmental factors and
all those kind of factors would be under ERDA.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I think the concern here is assuring the decisions
and technology development meet energy needs and not space
requirements.
Mr. GINTER. Mr. Goldwater, there may be a problem there, but I am
not aware of it. As this subcommittee knows, NASA comes here with its
space research, and technology budget request. `Those things which
have been specifically `delineated as needed for SPS have been carried
through in the joint planning activity. We have no argument whatso-
ever that the prioritization of what systems arc needed, for energy
R. & D. needs is a decision the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration does not make. I would like to add we do feel it is our
responsibility to assure that efforts where we have experience and
capabilities are defined, and understood in enough depth, to be properly
considered as the energy R. & D. priority list is established.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Do you feel that as far as ERDA is concerned, and
maybe you are not qualified or maybe you may not want to give an
opinion, do you think this is important enough that this should be
funded as a new program in ERDA or should NASA moneys be re-
programed within ERDA ?
Mr. GINTER. I actually cannot answer that. We do not have that
sort of an overview of the ERDA budget problems or priorities.
`Mr. GOLDWATER. Turning to the final report of the task group on
satellite power stations, in the table on page 7 it indicates that you are
talking about $60 billion, four to five times more expensive than other
options that we are presented with, and I am wondering if you were.
sitting where I am and having to make a decision in light of those costs,
how you would evaluate the priority in relationship to other options
that we have. For instance I understand that the breeder reactor they
are talking about-$11 billion. We are talking about $60 billion here,
how do you place the value on solar satellite power versus other options.
In other words, how do you justify going ahead?
Mr. GINTER. Mr. Goldwater, I would like to make two points there.
One is the $60 billion number is not a number which we have sug-
PAGENO="1156"
1152
gested. We do not in fact know what the development costs of SPS
would be. This is somebody's judgment of what it might be.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Were you not on the task force?
Mr. GINTER. No, sir. That was an ERDA task force.
Mr. GOLDWATER. You had none of your people on it?
Mr. GINTER. No, sir, not on the task force. Mr. LaRock was a formal
observer on that task force. Our people, NASA people, briefed the
ERDA task force. They were given all of the information that we
had and they used it within this report as they saw fit. But the point I
really want to make is that what we have been recommending is a
first-step program definition only, and that estimate is approximately
$20 million over 4 years. When this step is completed a decision would
need to be made to determine whether the technology advancement
portion of an SPS effort would be warranted.
I want to be very clear. We are not suggesting at this time-because
the facts arc not there-anything like `a $60 billion program. We do
think the satellite solar power option holds sufficient potential at-
tractiveness, to warrant a full understanding so that you and others
would have the facts on which to base the types of decisions that you
would be faced with.
Mr. GOLDWATER. In essence what you are asking for is $20 million
to prove or disprove ERDA's conclusions.
Mr. GINTER. That is what it would require because the facts are
not available to either prove it or disprove it at this point in time.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Do you have a dissenting opinion from this re-
port as far as the total costs?
Mr. GINTER. I do not know how we could have a dissenting opin-
ion. We cannot verify the $60 billion number because we do not know
what it is, and we are in no position, of course, to judge what the cost
of fusion, which is shown as $15 billion, would be.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Do you have a ball park figure then that may be
different than this. All we have to go on is this report. Recognizing
that you may have plus or minus several billion dollars.
Mr. GINTER. Certainly, Mr. Goldwater, if this Nation ever decides
to proceed with the development of a satellite solar power system, you
are talking in terms of tens of billions of dollars, but whether that is
40, 50, 60, 70, 80, I do not know and none of my people know. We are
not going to be able to know until we have done the detailed kind of
planning homework-which you have learned to expect of NASA when
we come forwar with a new start or a new mission proposal.
We are back in the phase A stage, the conceptual phase, trying to
get ourselves sorted out and to understand what we are talking about.
That is `all, in our view, we are confident of speaking about at this
point in time.
Mr. GOLDWATER. From my experience I have the highest regard for
NASA's capability of making pretty accurate projections when they
are willing to do so. When they are willing not to or unable to, I re-
spect your candid statement on it.
I am wondering though how ERDA did arrive with a fairly defini
live figure and yet you cannot, but I guess we can ask ERDA that
question. But still, we are sitting here with a pile of money trying to
divide it out. This concept is exiting and we are tempted somewhat
to say, OK, we will venture out on this program. But with ERDA's
PAGENO="1157"
1153
figures which are four or five times more than other wel1-desi~ned
programs, even if it was three times, it would tend to make you hesitate
a little bit, and what I guess 1 am looking for is some evidence that
could truly justify venturing down this road.
Mr. GINTER. This is why, Mr. Goldwater, in our judgment it is a
step-by-step process that we have suggested. The first step would be
over 4 fiscal years. Our estimate there, that we will stand on, is $20 mil-
lion for the first step program definition only. There is one mid-point
opportunity and then one end-point opportunity for a decision on
whether a next step should be taken. The next step, in our judgment,
would be the advancing of the technologies that are truly needed to
reach a mission decision. However, the technology advancement deci-
sion would be in terms of hundreds of millions rather than tens. We
are confident of that.
In the vicinity of 7 to 9 years from now, the Congress and the Ad-
ministration would be faced with a decision-presuming success all
the way through this process-that would involve tens of billions.
But in terms of the data, the nature of the risks and the mission
design, as well as the environmental impacts, the overall economics,
and almost any area you want to touch on, we are not in a position at
this time to remotely defend a tens of billions of dollars decision. That
is not what we have been suggesting.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Are we to understand that the technical side of this
is not a complicated one?
Mr. GINTER. I would say it is a very complicated one technically, but
it does not require, as far as we know now, any new scientific break-
throughs to achieve. It is a tremendous advancement in technology to
achieve this potential economically. At this point in time, and I be-
lieve the ERDA report substantiates this, there have been no insur-
mountable technical or scientific barriers discovered. That does not
mean there won't be. Assuming we go on with the definition, that
could occur any time, and if it says it is insurmountable, that you
cannot do it, then you have the facts which say why this option should
be dropped from any consideration within the overall energy R. & D.
picture.
Mr. GOLDWATER. You are saying that $20 million will buy us a go-
or-no-go decision point.
Mr. GINTER. The first go-no-go decision point. A decision on whether
it is worth advancing the technology to get to a go-no-go development
decision.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I do not quite understand.
What is the second go-or-no-go point then?
Mr. GINTER. We could get into deep trouble and not be able to meet
our technology advancements predictions. What you might find is
probably not an insurmountable technical problem, but that the eco-
nomics or some other factor might show up indicating that you cannot
get the system cheaply enough to ever deliver electric power at a com-
petitive price.
What I am attempting to say is that the mission decision-the new
start type of mission decision you are used to hearing NASA talk
about for a Landsat, or for something like that-is many years down
the road. When we come to the Congress with a requ~st for a new
PAGENO="1158"
1154
start, we want to the best of our ability, to know that we are standing
on a sound technological base and that it will be a minimum risk
development, even though there is always some risk. What I am at-
tempting to say is that kind of advancement in understanding of SPS
is still several years down the road. In fact, there are annual decisions
pointe from that standpoint with each year's budget request.
Mr. GOLDWATER. $20 million is an awful lot of money. It is hard for
me to comprehend $20 million worth of technical knowledge and
assessment.
Mr. GINTER. It is much more than technology assessment. There is
a large number of economic considerations. There is a large number of
environmental and siting considerations. It is an overall systems study
and program definition that is more than just looking at a heavy lift
launch vehicle or a solar cell.
Let me cite one example. You have to begin to think of this thing
somewhat in the way I thought about them building the Bay Bridge.
It was a major construction job. We know how to keep a man in space.
We know some of the things he can do in space, but we do not know
how a bridge builder would program the man in terms of the produc-
tivity he can count on getting per day or per month. That is unknown.
Those things have to be correctly and properly defined. It may be that
during the definition a reason is found which indicates you cannot
do it. But we do not know that reason today and nobody who has
looked at SPS has found the reason why you cannot do it and proved
their point.
Mr. GOLDWATER. It is difficult to me to understand why we should
spend $20 million to prove or disprove the points which are made by
this task group.
Mr. GINTER. As I said, Mr. Goldwater, basically we have our
opinion.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I would like to hear your opinion in regard to th~is
report.
* Mr. GINTER. We have not critiqued or reconciled that report. There
is nothing inherently wrong with it, but certain iudgment items that
are contained in it, going back for instance to table 5. There is no way
that I could verify those numbers, any of them, at this point in time.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Well, I guess I must reserve my judgment on it
until perhaps you do address yourself to this.
* Mr. GINTER. Mr. Goldwater, I guess I have to state that we will not
be doing that. As I indicated earlier, our fiscal year 1978 request to the
subcommittee is $1 million for satellite solar power systems, and that
amount combined with the $2.5 million in fiscal year 1977 will allow
us to complete a preliminary SPS technical systems definition. At the
end of that definition study effort, we will know more precisely the
technical system we are talking about, and also the subsystems. We
will be able to answer, for example, why it is solar cells versus some
sort of a thermal heat conversion system We will know the system
concept and that is all we will know. We will still not be able to verify
the development numbers.
Mr. GOLDWATER. In other words you are saying after $3 or $4 mil-
lion you will be able to verify this report?
Mr. GINTER. No, sir. That report really points out the need for-
and we have worked with some of the same people in ERDA-$20
PAGENO="1159"
1155
million to define this over a 4-year period. That is not a NASA num-
ber; it comes from a joint ERDA/NASA group that has reported to
the ERDA Coordinating Committee. In their best judgment about
$20 million is required to achieve a full program definition.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to beat this to death,
but I think it is an exciting concept and I know the individuals within
NASA are very excited about it. In many respects I guess I share
that enthusiasm, but then when I see $60 billion and becoming more
familiar with some of these other energy options, recognizing that
there is a limitation on the amount of money that is available, it is a
hard decision regardless, and your enthusiasm notwithstanding, has
to be made, and, therefore, that is one of the reasons why I am inter-
ested in seeing more justification or at least some comments on where
there is a difference between ERDA and NASA as far as their analysis
is concerned.
Mr. FUQUA. Maybe ERDA could supply that when they have an
opportunity for the basis of their conclusions.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Of course, this is an ERDA task force, and I think
it is up to NASA to make a comment, regardless of what ERDA may
comment, because NASA is saying they do not necessarily agree on
the $60 million.
Mr. GINTER. Let me just say it very bluntly, sir. At the moment I
am too dumb to either agree or disagree. It is just that. We do not
know enough to agree or disagree.
Mr. FUQUA. In other words you think the report is premature then?
Mr. GINTER. I think pricing the entire program, is premature. I do
not think we know what that number is. I can apologize for this, but
that is the best I can do. We are saying that it is going to take time
and some additional resources to be able to get the answers you want
and need.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I will defer to someone else. I have
one or two other questions.
Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Gore?
Mr. GORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Ginter.
I would just like to follow up on Mr. Goldwater's line of question-
ing here and read from the task force report. I am not sure that it is
as inconsistent as might be indicated.
They say, based on the present overview no obvious and clearly
insurmountable problems for SPS were identified by the task group.
The group concluded however that insufficient information is currently
available for any significant program decisions.
Is this essentially what you are saying?
Mr. GINTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. GORE. I do not think that is inconsistent necessarily, and one
of the options they recommend is the $20 million-a-year level of
funding, but it seems to me that is like kind of searching around in
the darkness. If they indicate at the outset that enough information
is not available to give an intelligent analysis to this.
Mr. Ginter, I have the privilege of serving both on this subcom-
mittee and on Mr. McCormack's subcommittee, and I am very inter-
ested in this program, and I hope to discover what it is that has gone
wrong, and I would like to give you my understanding of the program
PAGENO="1160"
1156
as a novice. I am new on bOth subcommittees. I ask you to correct
me where I have gone wrong in my impression of what this program
is all about.
About 7 or 8 years ago somebody with this idea said this might be a
feasible way of generating a significant portion of power in the United
States. Since that time the cost of every other method of generating
power has gone up enormously. This method has the virtue of not
consuming resources which increase in price and if you assume that
the accelerating costs of alternative means of power will continue to
go up indefinitely into the future, then you project an even more
attractive competitive analysis of this means of producing power.
It is uncertain how much it is going to cost. The basic hurdle that
has to be crossed is the economics of the photovoltaic cell, and if that
is solved, and if the tremendous logistical problems of constructing one
of these things are solved, and if we have the kind of rocketry neces-
sary to carry it into space, then it is your judgment, hedged with all
these uncertainties, that it might very well be a competitive means of
producing power.
Mr. GINTER. That is very close. I would make a couple of minor
comments. Certainly this would be consuming resources which increase
in price, to correct you just slightly-
Mr. GORE. In construction?
Mr. GINTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gom~. But not fuel?
Mr. GINTER. But not fuel.
Mr. GORE. That was my point. All right.
Mr. GINTER. Yes; you are substantially correct that given the first
projections and the calculations we have today, it appears that this
source of electric power would be competitive with others. Obviously
there is great room for error in all of that including what the price
is that you are talking about as being competitive.
Mr. GORE. Sure. Sure. I recognize that difficulty, but let me pursue
a little bit further.
If you accept that kind of generalized view of the issue that we are
discussing, against that background NASA asked last year for $31/2
million, is that right? I mean this year.
Mr. GINTER. We asked 0MB for $3.5 million for satellite solar power
studies in fiscal year 1978~
Mr. GORE. And you got the $3~/2 million?
Mr. GINTER. No, sir, we got $1 million.
Mr. GORE. I thought you asked for $3~/2 million in fiscal year 1978
and got $1 million.
Mr. GINTER. That is right. In fiscal year 1977, I think we asked for
$5 million.
Mr. Goiu~. You asked for $5 million and you got $3.5 million.
Mr. GINTER. No, sir; as a result of congressional `action we got $2.5
million in fiscal year 1977.
Mr. GORE. You got $2.5 million. OK, my figures are wrong then.
You got $2.5 million in fiscal year 1977. Why did you only ask for
$3.5 million in fiscal year 1978?
Mr. GINTER. Because at the time that request was made, Mr. Gore,
we envisioned a joint study program with ERDA along the general
PAGENO="1161"
1157
lines I have discussed here and that involved ERDA funding. It was
not intended for NASA to carry the entire program definition funding.
Mr. GoRE. Now, at the same time in fiscal year 1977, do you know
what ERDA requested for this?
Mr. GINTER. When the budget decisions were made on this, and I
think I am on firm ground here, those were made sucth that ERDA
did not make any requests. The budget had already been completed at
that time.
Mr. GORE. My figures indicate that ERDA spent $200,000 in fiscal
year 1977 and it has projected for fiscal year 1978 the same figure.
Mr. GINTER. Those are the numbers as we understand it, but actually,
Mr. Gore, I think it would be more appropriate if we allowed ERDA
to-
Mr. FUQUA. We will have Dr. Willis on in a few minutes.
Mr. GORE. OK. That is part of the difficulty with dealing with two
agencies and I ask for your patience as I stumble along iii the area I
am not that familiar with, but it just seems to me to be incredible to
have a power option that we do not know if it is viable, but it might
be viable, against a background of diminishing energy resources,
greatly increasing costs of all other means of producing energy, that
both you and ERDA have assigned such an incredible low priority to
it. It just seems to me incredible. I cannot impress upon you enough
the feeling which I think is shared by the vast majority of the Ameri-
can people, that if they knew this story, they would say this is an out-
rage. I really believe that. I really believe that they would like to see
this thing funded, and they would like to see it at least checked out
to bring us up as quickly as possible to the point where the Congress
of the United States can make an intelligent decision on the spending
or the next magnitude of spending whether or not it is feasible to
commit a great deal of money to this. But to just let it flounder, I just
cannot for the life of me understand how, whether it is in the coordina-
tion between the two agencies or whether it is in both of the two agen-
cies, I just cannot believe that this is happening. I hope we can rectify
it in this budget year. I do not know where the money needs to be
taken away from, but I cannot think of anything in the NASA budget
that ought to be given a higher priority if the chances of success here
are anything like I have been told they might be, even if it is a small
percentage.
Mr. GINTER. May I make one comment,. I would like to have the
record show that, in my judgment, the problem is not associated with
coordination between the two agencies. There is a joint plan. There is a
plan that has been worked out jointly. There is, to repeat, a satellite
power systems panel. Mr LaRock is the NASA cochairman of this.
Mr. GORE. May I just ask a couple more questions?
Mr. FTJQTJA. If you will be brief, Mr. Gore, we have another witness
to go.
Mr. GORE. I will try to be brief, Mr. Chairman.
What do you think the problem is?
Mr. GINTER. I am sure there is a problem, but it relates to the dis-
cussion I had with Mr. Goldwater.
The administrations of this Government are charged with making
a number of very, very painful, very difficult decisions. They must
establish overall priorities.
PAGENO="1162"
1158
Mr. GoRE. Do you think they have made the right decision here?
Mr. GINTER. I am only entitled to an opinion on that.
Mr. GORE. What is your opinion?
Mr. GINTER. My opinion is pretty well as indicated. I think this
4-year study program to obtain that first step definition should be
done.
Mr. GORE. For $20 million.
Mr. GINTER. For $20 million over that period of time is just about
what the job requires. You are not going to get twice as good a product
for $40 million; let me say it that way.
Mr. GORE. I yield back the nonexisting remainder of my time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Gore.
Mr. Gammage?
Mr. GAMMAGE. Just one comment, Mr. Chairman.
I am just slightly familiar with the background of what has been
going on here. I have been downstairs listening to nuclear power for a
while, but I do have the advantage of having the Johnson Space
Center in my district and I think I am slightly familiar with some of
the development that has been going on in this area.
I would like to commend the Agency as a whole for the beautiful
bootlegging job they have done so far to bring it as far as they have,
because they have not had the resources to do the necessary R. & D. on
this, and they have done it in spite of that to this point, and I think as
the gentleman said, and I will slightly contradict my colleague to my
right here-it is not a question of Agency priorities, I think it has been
a question of political priorities and we are the ones that have to make
a decision as to whether they go forward or not, but they have never
asked for enough to waste, and they are the least spendthrift of the
agencies that I am familiar with.
Thank you.
Mr. M0CORMACK. Thank you, Mr. Gammage.
Mr. `Goldwater?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I have one other area I would like to
explore involving funds spent by NASA for their technology iden-
tification and verification.
I understand that over the past 2 years that you have spent some-
thing in the neighborhood of $8 million in this activity which basically
as I understand it is a marketing of NASA technology to ERDA, and
that you are requesting $31/2 million in 1978.
The question that has to be asked I think is why must we continue to
fund the marketing activities when in fact $3~/2 million represents in
some cases our program budget for some of ERDA's activities.
Mr. GINTER. I guess I cannot answer whether it has to be funded. I
can only answer what it is used for.
Mr. `GOLDWATER. What do we get for it?
Mr. GINTER. What you are getting for it is access to the NASA
capability. It is not possible for any organization, whether NASA or
private industry or anything else, to relate their capability `to other
iieeds without some sort of resources to do that with.
I mentioned that the three primary centers that we were using, the
two primary ones are Lewis and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. A
portion of that money goes for paying salaries of the JPL experts
PAGENO="1163"
1159
who work on this initial identification, for plan preparation, and for
the whole process by which we structure ourselves in attempt to relate
to the ERDA needs. Yes, it is a significant quantity of money, but
I think it might also be fair to view it in terms of the dollar volume
of what has been achieved by the use of these funds. As I indicated, the
total responsibilities we expect will be assigned to us during fiscal year
1977 represents about $100 million.
Mr. GOLDWATER. In light of that, though, it is hard to understand
why it is still needed. NASA has about $100 million worth of reim-
bursable work and certainly your testimony today supports this con-
clusion that ERDA is well aware of NASA's capability. Therefore,
it is difficult to justify $~½ million. I rest my case unless you have
something else to add.
Mr. GINTER. I think, Mr. Goldwater, in my testimony you will
note that repeatedly I indicated we were in negotiation, we expected
to have things like that. I can indicate that only about 4 of those
14 areas of emphasis have firm joint agreements where we have worked
out the use of NASA capabilities. These four comprise something
over 80 percent of the $100 million effort. The balance is in a rela-
tively early stage. I can state very factually that not having the $3~/2
million seed money would, in a very short period of time, reduce that
list of 14 to the 4 that we currently have. That would represent a de
facto decision that these four areas are all of the NASA capabilities
needed in the energy R. & P. activity.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Ginter, I want to thank you.
I want to thank Mr. Ginter, Mr. Goldwater, Mr. Gore, and Mr.
Gammage. Somehow or other I find eveyrbody's name starting with
"G's" up here. I would hate to insert my own, it would make a very
]ousy law firm. [Laughter.]
But I want to thank you and all of your colleagues for coming and
testifying before us today, and with your permission, we will proceed
now to the ERDA witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ginter follows:]
PAGENO="1164"
1160
HOL~~ FOR RELEASE UNTIL
PRE~ENTED BY WITNESS
STATEMENT OF
Mr. R. D. Ginter
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROGRAMS
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
B~FORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am pleased to have another opportunity to report the
status of our energy activities and the progress we
are making toward fulfilling our broad goal of assuring
the effective use of NASA technologies and experiences
in support of National energy R&D needs.
This work remains focused in two primary activities: Energy
Technology, which is designed to use the NASA capability in
support of the energy needs of ERDA and other government
organizations and; Energy Systems (the Use of Space) an
effort to more fully understand and define how the unique
characteristics of the space environment and our ability
to successfully function in space may be used to help solve
energy needs on earth as well as in space.
An essential element of the energy technology activity is
the long term process of technology identification and
verification which is directly supported by the NASA budget
request. These efforts result in projects which, when
approved, are conducted in a fully reimbursable manner for
the other agencies.
The reimbursable responsibilities assigned to us continue
to increase and expand. Using the convenient, but still not
very accurate, indicator I used last fall to reflect the
increase in responsibility, the dollar level has grown
from $4M in Fiscal Year 1974 to close to $60M in Fiscal Year
1976, including the Transition Quarter, and we are now predicting
that the effort may exceed $100M in Fiscal Year 1977.
I believe this to be a good indication that the capabilities
of the agency are being brought to bear on energy problems
in a rather substantial manner and I trust that you will
see that your continued support of the NASA technology
identification and verification effort, sometimes called
"seed money", budget is justified.
PAGENO="1165"
1161
concentrated in 14 areas of emphasis
(N77-845 (1))
Photovoltaics (solar cells)
Wind Turbo-Generators
Solar Heating and Cooling
Advanced Ground Propulsion
Energy Conversion Systems
Gas Turbines
Fuel Cell Systems
Hydrogen Systems
Advanced Coal Energy Extraction
Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)
Energy Storage Systems
Combustion Technology
Composites, Polymers and Ceramics (materials)
Heat Exchanger Technology
These serve to focus our initial efforts and also provide
the general basis of understanding with ERDA and the
Department of the Interior (DOl) concerning their general
interest in NASA capabilities
I would now like to briefly indicate some of the accomplish-
ments which have occurred during the past few months in the
reimbursable projects we are conducting.
SOLAR ENERGY - WIND TURBO-a~N~PaI'~P~
Our efforts are
as shown here:
We have resolved most of the technical difficulties associated
with the MOD-O 100KW wind turbine shown here (N77-856(3)) This
machine located at the Lewis Research Center Plum Brook
Facility, near Sandusky, Ohio, is an important research
tool in the initial phase of this program Recent accomplish-
ments include
a Successful operations in winds up to 40mph
b. Synchronous operation with both the local utility
power grid and with a 160KW diesel generator.
c. Automatic start up, operation and shut-down when
connected to a simulated load.
d Emergency shut-downs using automatic blade control
(This actually was achieved in 15 seconds which
represents less than four complete revolutions
PAGENO="1166"
You may recall that two similar machines are currently
being fabricated having a power rating of 200KW. Actual
operation of these machines will be slightly delayed due to
the technical problems encountered on the MOD-0 machine.
We are now planning to install the first machine late this
year at the site ERDA selected in Clayton, New Mexico
The site for the second machine will be selected in the
very near future It is scheduled to begin operation in
mid-1978
Shown here (N77-1625(1)) are the locations of 17 candidate sites
which IRDA selected from an original list of over 60 utilities
which offerred sites in response to an 1~RDA Request For
Proposal. It is expected that two of these will be selected
sometime this year for the larger 1,500KW machines that
are under contract with General Electric and also planned
for initial operation by mid-1978.
We are currently completing negotiations with ERDA for the
design and construction of one or more larger machines
These have been designated the MOD-2 and will have a blade
diameter of about 300 feet Engineering studies indicate
that the cost of electric energy generated by wind turbines
should decrease as the size of the machines is increased
The limits of present technology will be pressed by the
MOD-2 machines. However, the results will provide a sound
basis for decisions concerning the practicality of
developing even larger machines.
Shown here (N77-1638(l)) is a general perspective of the size of
the three m~chines I~s part of this very aqgressiv~ and
ch~llenqing program w~ recently awarded a contract to Kainan
Aerospace Company for the design fabrication and test of a 150
foot blade that is expected to be representative of the blades
needed for the nominal 300 foot diameter rotor (MOD-2 machine)
PHOTOVOLTAICS
a) Low-Cost Silicon Solar Array Project
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is continuing the
Low-Cost Silicon Solar Array, Project for ERDA which is aimed
at achieving the breakthroughs needed to reduce the cost of
these arrays to $.50 per watt (1974 dollars) by 1986. You
can see by this next chart (N77-l637 (3)) the nature of the
reduction required to lower the initial price of approximately
$21 00 per peak watt This chart also depicts the shift from
ingot technology to full automation which appears essential if
t~e targeted cost goal is to be met Delivery of a second batch
ot arrays (approximately 140KW) procured in Fiscal Year 1977
is underway at an average price of $15.50 per watt.
1162
PAGENO="1167"
1163
b) Tests and Applications
Most of the arrays procured as part of the JPL
project arc thcn d~elivered to the LLwis Research Center
(LeRC). Some are installed in the System Test Facility
(STF) flOW under construction. Shown here (C-76-4580) arc the
10KW that have been installed and tested to date. We expect
this capacity to increase to 40KW during the next several
mbnths. It will be initially used to understand how these
systems can operate with public electric utilities.
Recently two United States Forest Service Lookouts in the
U. S. Lassen and Plumas National Forests in California have
been equipped with solar cell power, as shown on this chart.
(C-76-4766) These are 300 watt installations and in conjunction
with battery storage provide electric power to operate a water
pump, radio, lights and a refrigerator. It is interesting
to note that when the cost of solar arrays can be reduced
from their present level of $15 50 per watt to about $7 00
per watt, they appear to be cost competitive with the
gasoline generator systems now being used.
SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING
We are making progress in the important area of solar
heating and cooling where as you may recall, our Marshall
Space Flight Center has been assigned three specific
responsibilities. These ate: development of systems for
demonstration technical and management support of the ERDA
commercial demonstration program and the design and operation
of a National solar heating and cooling data collection and
analysis system.
The first equipment procured in the development for
demonstration program is now being received and assembled
on test stands at the Marshall Space Flight Center as shown
here (NT77-l538(3)) It is expected that by the end of Fiscal
Year 1978 the 36 contracts (N77-~l5l9(l)) in the program will
have delivered solar heating or heating and cooling systems
for some 67 buildings.
COMMERCIAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Last year ERDA selected 32 contractors, for a total government
cost of approximately $8M from the 300 proposals received
in response to their first Program Opportunity Notice (PON)
PAGENO="1168"
1164
By the end of Calendar Year 1976, five of these projects were
complete and operating Marshall is now evaluating proposals
for a second set of awards which are expected to be math.
within the next few weeks
NASA/ERDA SOLAR FACILITIES
Late last year we reached agreement with EI~DA on a solar
facilities program which may result in the construction of
solar heating and hot water systems on selected NASA buildings
Initially 10 facilities have been identified for initial
design studies to determine feasibility and cost effective-
ness These studies will be completed early this year and,
if warranted construction of the selected solar energy
systems will be complete near the end of Calendar Year 1977
COAL
We continue to make reasonably good progress in our work
for the Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines The
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) which has been studying
means of improving the state-of-the-art of underground coal
mining technology has identified the physical and operational
characterisbicS of 15 mining sites It is expected these
data can be used to develop an approach for evaluating
the potential merit of new coal extraction concepts
At the Marshall Space Flight Center an evaluation has
been completed on 7 different concepts for automatically
determining the coal/rock boundary in a coal seam Two
`Coal Interface Detectors' (CID) have been selected for actual
hardware evaluation on a longwall mining machine in Fiscal
1977. Shown here (N77-1674(2)) and (N77-l673(2)) are
laboratory models of the preferred radar and nucleonic concepts
We are also close to an agreement with ERDA to undertake a
feasibility demonstration of an innovative JPL concept
which may help solve the difficult problem of continuously
feeding coal into high-pressure coal reactors This concept
uses a screw type mechanism for extruding heated coal
under very high pressures (N77-l594(3)) I have here with me
one example of a coal extrusion This technique is one which is
PAGENO="1169"
1165
used regularly in the plastics industry and it is hoped that
it can be effectively adapted to the difficult problem of
providing large quantities of coal to high-pressure coal
reactors.
ENERGY CONVERS ION
We have completed the Energy Conversion Alternatives
Study (ECAS) except for publication and distribution of the
final reports which will begin in April. Advance copies
of these reports have been provided to the sponsoring
agencies, EPDA and tI'o National Science Foundation I
believe the overall objective in evaluating the relative
potential of future coal-fired, base load utility plants
has been met and ERDA is now reviewing the results.
We are negotiating with two of *the ERDA organizations, that
is Fossil Energy and Conservation, concerning industrial and
utility gas turbine research and technology activities
(N77-1622(3)) These will include an interesting near-term
effort involving both ERDA-Conservation and the Electric Power
Research Institute. This initial activity is the development
and test of thermal barrier coatings applied to turbine blades
as an insulation layer. (N76-4259(3)) It is expected that
results of the effort may allow some improvement in current
turbine efficiency as well as providing the capability so that.*~
lower quality fuels may be successfully used in these turbines.
As pirt of our technology identification and verification
activity wc con5tructcd a small coal-fired pressurized fluid
bed combustor to understand the turbine materials which have
been developed over many years for aircraft engines. (N76-4412(3))
Such a test facility is necessary so that the
actual effects of the corrosive coal combustion products
can be accurately determined and directly compared with the
materials performance which has been obtained on test rigs
using relatively clean fuels. The facility has completed
its initial checkout and is expected to begin operation in
the next few weeks.
GROUND PROPULSION
We are pleased to r~port that ERDA and NASA have signed
a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) delineating our
PAGENO="1170"
1166
responsibilities in the broad area of ground propulsion
Specifically, this MOU assigns a significant amount of research
and technology responsibility to the NASA Lewis Research
Center in continuous combustion propulsion systems; that is
the Br~yton (Gas Turbine) and Stirling Cycles In addition,
we are currently negotiating a research and technology
effort directed toward electric and hybrid vehicles This
will be a coordinated effort at both our Lewis Research
Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
HEAT LNGINL CON fINUOU~ COMBUSTION PROGRAM
This activity, being conducted for ERDA, is designed to first
establish within the automobile industry the technology base
for an early 1980's production decision on an improved engine
It would have a multi-fuel capability low emissions, competitive
cost, and, very importantly fuel economy improvements of
20 - 30% as compared to the internal combustion engine The
second key objective (in the mid-l980's) is to provide the
technology which would possibly allow an industry decision on
the development of an advanced engine with a 50 - 60% improvement
in fuel economy.. At this time, the Brayton (Gas Turbine)
(N77-l672(2)) and Stirling Cycle engines are both included in
this challenging and very important effort.
We are also continuing our work for ERDA in support of the
Chrysler baseline gas turbine engine and have been conducting
in-house tests (N77-852(3)) We expcct delivery of a new engine
to Lewis for testing in March of this year.
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE
We are also currently negotiating specific interagency agree-
ments with ERDA in support of their electric and hybrid vehicle
program The support is expected to be concentrated
primarily in research and technology efforts for both the
vehicle and propulsion systems. As we reported last fall,
we have tested the five electric vehicles shown here (N76-4280(3))
and these results were documented in a report to ERDA in October.
We have been actively planning with ERDA an effort to further
evaluate the current technology of electric and hybrid vehicles
We expect to be conducting more vehicle tests in the near
future In fact, three are now at the test tract and another
five has been ordered with delivery expected in March
PAGENO="1171"
1167
USE OF SPACE
Last fall we reported to you that ERDA and NASA were
jointly planning an approximate 3-year program definition
activity for the Satellite Power System. (N77-85l(3)) This
joint effort was designed to determine whether the potential
attractiveness of obtaining electric power from space for
use on earth should, in fact, be pursued by developing the
technologies needed for an eventual system demonstration.
This joint planning has been essentially completed and was
initially presented to the ERDA/NASA Coordination Committee
Meeting in November 1976 The Coordination Committee
formally approved, at that time, establishment of a Satellite
Power System Panel to assure effective and appropriate
coordination and management of this definition activity.
The planning for this effort is now scheduled for completion
by early March and the overall program plan will be presented
to the Coordination Committee at that time.
The plan identifies five major sub-program elements as
follows: (N77-167l (1))
(a) Systems Definition
(b) Environmental Factors
(c) Comparative Evaluation
(d) Impacts and Benefits
(e) Space Related Technology
This plan envisioned essentially parallel activities in all
5 sub-program areas so that the initial program definition
could be completed as quickly as possible.
The Fiscal Year 1978 budget decisions reflected in the
President's Budget submitted to Congress in January 1977
provided no funds for a joint ERDA/NASA study. The Budget
did, however, include $1 million in NASA's Fiscal Year 1978
budget request which, combined with $2 5 million in Fiscal
Year 1977, will allow NASA to complete an initial technical
systems definition activity.
ERDA has been assigned responsibility for conducting and
financing any further definition and evaluation of a solar
satellite power concept. NASA's initial definition and
planning activities will serve as an input to the development
of an overall strategy for energy research and development.
If future funding for this concept is warranted, ERDA would
be expected to use NASA capabilities and facilities on a
reimbursable basis.
PAGENO="1172"
1168
BUDGLT /
As indicated, our budget request for Fiscal Year 1978
includes thc $1M for energy systems which will be used for
the preliminary SPS systems definition. It also includes
$3 5M for energy technology or technology identification and
verification activities The $4 SM R&D funding for
energy programs is considered necessary to: (1) sustain
the growth and effective use of NASA capabilities in st'pport
of energy R&D needs and (2) to complete the preliminary
SPS systems definition activities which have been initiated
during the past few months.
SUMMARY
Unfortunately time does not permit discussion of many
of the other accomplishments we have made during the
past few months nor does it permit discussion of a number
of the activities planned for the coming year. Much of this
work will be covered in other testimony, particularly by
ERDA As you can see, the bulk of our activity is directly
related to their program areas.
We believe we are making significant progress in our work for
ERDA. Our work load continues to increase and expand and
we are working harder than ever before. With your continued
support, I am confident that the investment this Nation
has made in NASA will be effectively brought to bear in the
long and difficult search fOr solutions to some of our energy
problems
Thank you.
PAGENO="1173"
1169
Mr. MCCORMACK. I would like to ask Dr. Willis to join us.
Mr GOLDWATER Mr Chairman, would it be possible to submit ques
~ions to Mr. Ginter and his staff?
Mr MCCORMACK I am sure it would I am sure Mr Ginter and his
staff will be delighted to try to answer.
Mr. GINTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. MOCORMACK. I would like at this time then to welcome Dr.
Eric Willis. The last time you appeared before us you were. heading
up the Geothermal Energy Research and Development Demonstration
Program for the Solar and Geothermal Advanced Technologies Agen-
cy within ERDA, for lack of a better name, and who-somehow or
other having solved all the geothermal programs-was promoted to
Assistant Administrator for Institutional Relations.
We welcome you here Dr Willis It is a pleasure to have you back
again, and I would like to ask if you would mind introducing all of
your colleagues so that the members of the committee and I may meet
them
STATEMENT OP DR. ERIC H. WILLIS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS, ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Dr Wiu~is Thank you very much, Mr Chairman
It is a pleasure to be here before you again. I am sorry to miss
Chairman Fuqua.
I would like to introduce the members of ERDA who are with me
today They have special expertise and knowledge and I am sure the
members of the committee will wish to avail themselves of their ex-
pertise from the point of view of responding to questions. I would say
it is going to be a very active session.
On my immediate right is Mr. Donald Beattie, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Solar, Geothermal, and Advanced Energy Systems
On my far right is Dr Henry Marvin, Director of the Solar Energy
Division of ERDA On my far left is Dr LeRoy Furlong, Senior
Technical Adviser to the Assistant Administrator for Fossil Energy,
on my middle left, Mr Esposito, Director of the Division of Trans
portation Energy Conservation; my immediate left, Dr. Robert Sum-
mers, Chairman of the ERDA task group on Satellite Power Stations
I am sure Dr Summers is well prepared now to answer any lofty
questions that are going to come up.
Mr Chairman, the details of the ERDA/NASA activities in the
energy field are somewhat lengthy May I have your permission, Mr
Chairman to summarize the ~ahent points from my testimony orally
and submit the full testimony for the record ~
Mr MCCORMACK Yes, if there is no objection, your full testimony
will be inserted in the record and you may proceed as you like, Dr
Willis.
Dr WILLIS Thank you I Mould like to address my remarks par
ticularly in the spirit in the letter we received from the chairman and
the invitation to this hearing, and deal for a moment with the ques
tion which has exercised some people's minds concerning the nature
`Lnd tenor in which ERDA/NASA relationships are conducted
PAGENO="1174"
1170
The institutional aspects of the relationship may appear to some as
much to be barriers as to providing cooperative benefits It would be
small wonder if the interfacing of two agency staffs involving pro
grams on the order of $100 million were to be conducted without the
basic missions of the agencies, and, to a lesser extent the so called
culture heritage of their staffs, not being an important factor influ
encing the course of that interface. This was recognized early in the
association, and the interagency review procedure was created under
the memorandum of understanding which was discussed earlier this
afternoon
Mr MOCORMACK Eric, are you reading from some place in your
presentation ~
Dr WILLIs No, sir, I am reading some outline summary remarks
Mr. MCCORMACK. Thank you.
Dr WILLIS The review procedure had a built in advantage since
the structure of the procedure was essentially transferred from NASA
to ERDA because certain of the key officials, including the Adminis-
trator himself, were familiar with the NASA mode of operation. One
such person is Donald Beattie, who is accompanying me here today.
Thus, the Administrator's status reviews, the concept of program
goals and objectives, program approval documents, work plans and
critical milestones, were conducted in a common lexicon in the two
agencies That is important to recognize When the time came for a
joint review of common projects, both agencies ~ere able to address
problems, institutional and technical, from well understood terms of
reference.
We feel that this fortunate situation has made for a very fruitful
relationship Certainly, as it has been pointed out, some individuals
in the program, not so familiar with the common heritage, have found
trouble in communicating, but the basic mechanism for redressing
this situation exists and, we believe, it has been very effective.
ERDA/NASA COORDINATING COMMITTEE
CO~CHAIRMAN: MR. ROBERT W. FRI
DR. ALAN M. LOVELACE
DATES MET : APRIL 15 1976
NOVEMBER 2., 1976
JANUARY 2'L 1977
FIOtRE 1
PAGENO="1175"
1171
We have had three meetings of the Program Coordinating Com-
mittee since April 1976 and they will be continued on a quarterly
basis. They have been cochaired by the then Deputy Administrator
of ERDA, Mr. Robert Fri, and the Deputy Administrator of NASA,
Dr. Lovelace. As shown in figure 1, I serve the role of cosecretary of
this committee. The terms of reference for the committee are shown
on figure 2, and include:
(a) Coordinating joint program planning in pursuit of joint goals
(b) Implementation of joint and corporate programs.
(c) Coordinated agency positions, where appropriate, for presen-
tation to 0MB.
(d) Exchange of technical information.
(e) Review of institutional and other issues.
RE$PQB.[Lfl_LEa~E1cc.
(A) COORDINATING THE PARTICIPATION OF BOTH AGENCIES IN
THE PLANNING OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PROGRAMS IN PURSU-
ANCE.OF JOINT GOALS)
(B) THE COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREED~-UPON
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS)
(C) THE DEVELOPMENT OF COORDINATED AGENCY POSITIONSJ
WHERE APPROPPIATE1 FOR PRESENTATION TO OM!~
(D) A FULL EXCHANGE OF PROGRAM AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
BE1WEEN THE TWO AGENCIESJ
(E) IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION OF ISSUES THAT MAY ARISE
FROM TIME TO TIME BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES.
FIGURE 2
EIRSLMEETING - APRIL 15~ 19~
ACI1~&
* COMMITTEE CHARTER * DRAFT FOR NEXT MEETING.
INFORMATION EXCHANGE NONE - INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY
ERDA PROGRAM
NASA CAPABILITIES
* TECHNOLOGY ID~NTIFIçATIOr~ AND * AGREED ON NECESSITY FOR INCORPO-
VERIFICATION SEED MONEY RATION IN NASA BUDGET SUBMISSION
* NASA REQUESTED ERDA TO ESTABLISH * NASA'S ROLE AND AREAS OF EMPHASIS
LONG-RANGE NEEDS FOR SUPPORT TO ADDED AS A CONTINUING AGENDA ITEM
ASSIST IN PLANNING, CONSERVATION ARES TO BE REVIEWED.
IUTURE USE OF LENC TO BE REVIEWED
FIGURE 3
PAGENO="1176"
SEC0NDJ~IFFTINr1
IDEIC.
CON ITT £ C RTER
UTILIZATION OF NASA CENTER
CAPA~_ITIES
!H~ORMi~i lOX EXCHANGE:
~NDUSTRL~L IURBINES
PUIOMQTIVE ~NGINES
LEMC SOLA~I VROJECTS
S~ I P ~ STArIoN
~RDA IASK ~ROUP ~PQBT
~ROGRAM OUTLINE ~i ii-78
I3ROGRAM COORDINATION SCHEDULE
TI4TPF N1~TII~
ici~ir
!NSTITUTZOXAL PLANNING STUDY STATUS
* SPS PROGRAM P~N
* SOLAR ENERGY P~OGRAMS
MANAGZ~~T r~ROBLEM
FOSSIL. E~!ERGv PROJECTS
G~s ~UE~DINE ~,DaD
t~i1D S1JO!2~
LXT~WSLON ~.CAL FEEDER STUDY
* NASA MEMB~RSX!P ON GEOTHERMAL
ADVISORY COLNCIL
I thought it might be pertinent to show you how this review process
~orks with figures 3, 4, and 5 The details of the agenda topics and
action items of the three meetings show that both programmatic and
institutional problems are tackled directly and freely, and by this
mechanism agency managements are aware of deficiencies as well as
progress I assure you we provide no rugs for artful sweepers
You will have observed that the topics discussed have covered
institutional aspects, program review and coordination, and budget
issues
Concerning institutional issues discussed by1 the committee, ERDA
has initiated a process for developing long range plans for the guid
ance and support of its `own laboratories such as Brookhaven and Ar-
gonne for instance It has extended this planning to the NASA field
centers of Lewis and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which are per
forming significant energy R & P for ERDA The intention is to
provide these laboratories with both continuity and purpose so that
planning can be meaningful in teims of buthret, program areas, and
manpower deployment A hand to mouth existence is not conducive
to getting the best from this type of facility-they really `Lre national
assets which have to be used purposefully
1172
- NQ~EMPEW9Th
ACJJ~
APPROVED
INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING STUDY
EXTENDED TO INCLUDE LERC AND JPL.
MASA PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO ERDA.
~NTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BEING NEGOTIATED.
RESPONSIBILITIES TO BE DEFINED.
MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS TO BE ASSESSED.
SF5 PANEL FORMED.
NONE - ~JFQRMATION PURPOSES ONLY
IJRAFT SNS I~ROGRAM DEFINITION FLAN
TO BE PREPARED.
COOPERATIVE EFFORTS EXPLAINED.
To BE IDENTIFIED.
BUDGET COORDINATION
PROJECT MILESTONES
FIGURE 4
~dnQ~
NONE - INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
BUDGET LEVEL DISCUSSED
* PROGRAM MANAGERS DISCUSSED
RESOLUTION ON JANUARY 25TH.
DETAILED PLANS TO BE PREPARED.
NASA DROPPED MEMBERSHIP BUT RETAINS
MEMBERSHIP ON WORKING COMMITTEE.
FIGURE 5
PAGENO="1177"
1173
The ERDA program areas principally affected by the ERDA-
NASA interaction are solar energy, fossil energy, and transportation
energy conservation. Each program area has a different perspective
on the interaction, colored primarily by the nature of the segment
of the economy which they serve. It is important to understand these
perspectives because they characterize the commercialization problem
which ERDA faces.
Commercialization should and does motivate ERDA in a variety
of ways. ERDA-NASA interactions are affected in similar ways
by those motivations. A thorough understanding of the industrial
market and infrastructure, coupled with the commercialization or
market penetration factors involved, is essential in formulating Gov-
ernment/industry relationships in specific energy technology i'reas,
and only in that context can ERDA-NASA relationships fully de-
velop and evolve.
Let me give you some examples. Fossil energy has an existing vigor-
ous, capital intensive, and highly competitive industrial counterpart.
This counterpart is highly knowledgeable and in many instances has
research facilities and staffs larger than those of NASA or ERDA.
The bulk of fossil energy's outreach is toward industry, but it sees
NASA's facilities as being useful adjuncts, particularly in areas
such as turbomachinery where it regards Lewis Research Center as
the Government's preeminer~t laboratory for this purpose.
Some solar energy technologies, whose commercial use is more dis-
tant, including photovoltaic systems, windpower, and esoteric concepts
such as space power stations, are in a good position to use the aerospace
expertise of NASA. An instance of this is the wind energy program
outlined in more detail in my testimony, and also covered by Mr. Gin-
ter. He referred to a big windmill called MOD-2 and that is a 300-foot
diameter wind turbine which is being actively considered. At 30 revolu-
tions per minute, the tips of the blade travel at 320 miles per hour. At
twice this speed, one revolution per second, they approach sonic veloc-
ity. This poses problems of aerodynamics, strength of materials, stress
analysis, the down wind effects of the tower on blade performance, and
mechanical engineering__problems which are no strangers to NASA
which they are well suited to solve.
Solar heating and cooling on the other hand is directed toward a
diffuse market of residential and commercial buildings, and commer-
cialization is an immediate prospect. In this case, NASA's major role
has been to assist industry in advancing their early concepts toward a
more mature technology which would then have a higher probability of
achieving commercial success.
Transportation energy is also geared to an existing industry, but in
this case the industry is characterized by a slowness to move into in-
novation, largely because it is geared to a competitive market more
concerned with front-end cost than life-cycle cost, the reverse of the
situation in industrial investments, such as utilities.
This multifarious aspect of ERDA's activities necessitated by hav-
ing to deal with different industrial infrastructures, characterizes its
approach to involvements and interfaces with other agencies, in this
case NASA.
92-082 0 - 77 - 74
PAGENO="1178"
1174
NASA's energy technology programs reimbursed by ERDA
amounted to $34.9 million in ~scal year 1976 and $13.4 million in the
transition quarter. It is estimated to amount to $84 million in fiscal
year 1977 and $80 million in fiscal year 1978. It should be realized that
these amounts do not represent actual work performed in NASA f a-
cilities. A significant portion of the funds are subcontracted to indus-
try by NASA. In addition to this, there is considerable involvement
by NASA in a management role where no funds are involved.
I would now like to devote a few minutes to the intriguing possibili-
ties posed by the concept of satellite power stations (SPS) in which I
believe the committee has a particular interest. Briefly, this concept en-
visions the collection of solar energy in space using a satellite in geo-
stationary orbit. The solar energy would be converted to electrical
energy by photovoltaic cells or solar thermal power systems and
beamed back to Earth by microwave transmission. The concept was
first proposed in 1968, and NASA is continuing to fund studies on the
concept. During the formulation of the fiscal year 1977 budget~ time
previous administration determined that ERDA should assume re-
sponsibility for the SPS and determine the appropriate support level
in the total context of the nat.ional energy research development and
demonstration program. This role has been confirmed by the new ad-
ministration. No funds were identified for the program in fiscal year
1977, but $200,000 was subsequently allocated to ERDA for evaluation
of the NASA studies.
The SPS was the subject of the ERDA task force under the chair-
mnanship of Dr. Summers, copies of which you have before you. At. this
time, there is no clearly technical insurmountable barriers to this con -
cept have been identified-now there. may be some real whoppers-
but they just have not yet. been identified and wifl not be until further
work is done. This poses a problem which is generic to advanced tech-
nologies, particularly when the promise is great and both the
unknowns and costs are very significant. The. dilemma is how far does
one go before one establishes a prima facie case that we have a winner
in prospect. The dilemma will remain unresolved as long as the data
are incomplete. In this case. the questions must be addressed: Is it.
is it not a viable energy technology? Is it environmentally safe? Is it.
institutionally acceptable? Are time space technologies tractable? What
are the cost-benefit implications and under what. circumstances could
it be economic. Some of the key issues are shown on figure 6. It is fruit-
less to invest in research activities that answer no such questions and
form no basis for decisions. To be candid, it is ERDA's view that we
are in such a position with t.his program currently. -
ERDA believes that it must first answer in a convincing way the
critical questions that will determine whether this technology could
contribute significantly to time Nation's future energy needs. To do this,
it must conduct a program addressing:
Environmental/institutional studies;
Satellite system studies; and
System economics.
PAGENO="1179"
1175
) P~VF~~ R~'~'~t~
* TRANSPORTATION
* COST TARGET (1/10 SHUTTLE)
* FRONT-END LOAD (HLLV AND TUG)
* COMMIT TO MANY SPS'S)
* ALLOCATION OF COST
* SOLAR ARRAYS (Si or GaAs)
* 50 to 1CO: 1 COST REDUCTION (BELOW ERDA cOST TARGET FOR SI)
* 30 YEAR LIFE -
* SPACE MANUFACTURING FEASIBILITY -
/ o LEO: 200-500 CREW e Productivity of Man in Space
* GEO: 10-20 CREW * Support of Man in Space
0 Training;Indus~ria~ Standardé
* ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NEED EVALUATION
* MICROWAVE
* Ionosphere (RFI)
* Bloenvironment on Ground (sitting; Public Acceptance)
* LAUNCH VEHICLES
* Exhaust (ozone Layer) * Noise -
* SPACE RADIATION
** ECONOMIC VIABILITY
~ COST TARGETS a 30 YEAR LIFETIME
* NET ENERGY * RESOURCE LIMITATIONS
* INTERNATIONAL/INSTITUTIONAL
- ~- ----. ~-~--- ~ --j. --~ /
FIGURE 6
You can see from the key issues shown on figure 6 that there are in
an imposing array of problems. None of which by itself is intractable,
but which and when put together, make a very formidable menu of
tasks to be accomplished and, I might add, at some expense.
In answering these questions, ERDA will have to assign the relative
emphasis devoted to SPS in comparison with the other energy tech-
nologies considered to hold promise in the future.
Some of these are the breeder, fusion, and the solar thermal
technologies.
As stated in the NASA testimony, the SPS program has been placed
under the direction of the ERDA/NASA Program Coordination
Committee to assure effective and appropriate coordination and man-
agement of this definition activity. NASA and EIRDA agreed that if
the program proceeded ERDA would be responsible for studies of
environmental factors, impacts, and benefits and comparative evalua-
tion with other energy alternatives. NASA would be responsible for
systems definition and technology development. Thus, the pie was
divided according to the capabilities of both agencies. This planning
exercise is now drawing to a close. A program plan will be presented
to the ERDA/NASA Program Coordinating Committee for approval
this spring. Until a decision on how to proceed is reached, ERDA plans
to continue to monitor the ongoing NASA activities, and funds have
been provided in the fiscal year 1978 budget to accomplish this, in the
amount of $200,000.
PAGENO="1180"
1176
Mr. Ginter has described in succinct fashion the nature of the various
technologies that NASA is pursuing on behalf of ERDA, so I will
refrain from further elaboration, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of
time.
In conclusion, ERDA feels that its institutional relationships with
NASA are healthy but it believes in preventative medicine to main-
tain that health. This we feel is well-served by the Program Coor-
dinating Committee. The interfaces are complex, involving different
industrial markets and degrees of technological sophistication. We feel
that broadly the technical programs are not only on track, but making
very good progress. We look forward, Mr. Chairman, to utilizing this
relationships in satisfying the energy needs of our Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I would be most
happy to respond to any questions that you may have.
Mr. MCCORMAOK. Thank you, Dr. Willis, we very much appreciate
your testimony.
If we may capitulate now just for a moment, what happened was
that NASA requested $5 million for the satellite space program and
received $2½. Did ERDA request any independent money for 1977?
Dr. WILLIS. Not for fiscal year 1977.
*Mr. MCCORMACK. This was assuming to be all within the NASA $5
million for 1977.
Dr. WILLIS. I think that is correct.
Mr. MCCORMACK. What is requested by ERDA for 1978, by the
ERDA-
Dr. WILLIS. The President's budget.
Mr. MCCORMACK. What is in the President's budget?
Dr. WILLIS. $200,000.
Mr. MCCORMACK. $200,000 for 1978.
Dr. WILLIS. That was in the previous administration's budget sent
up in January. I have no reason to believe it will be substantially
changed.
Mr. MCCORMACK. I am sorry, Dr. Willis.
You say $200,000 was sent up by the previous administration.
Dr. WILLIS. I have no reason to believe that the new administration
will change that materially.
Mr. MOCORMACK. Then we had how much requested by the previous
administration for NASA this year, $3'/2?
Dr. WILLIS. For fiscal year 1978, $1 million.
Mr. MCC0RMACK. For this year.
Dr. WILLIS. Making $3.5 for the 2 years, fiscal year 1977 and fiscal
year 1978.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Now, Mr. Ginter layed out a 3- or 4-year program
as I understand it coming to about $19 million to come to some go-or-
no-go decision points on the system. Do you in general agree with the
schedule and the amoutns of money that he presented to us, that is the
approximately $19 million over 3 and 4 years to reach this go-no-go
position?
Dr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, the ERDA task force conducted by Dr.
Summers, made a recommendation that one of two options out of seven
should be adopted. One of those options was around about $12 million
and the other option was a bit more advanced, was about $19 million.
Mr. MCC0RMACK. They are about on the same schedule?
PAGENO="1181"
1177
Dr. WILLIS. Yes, sir, a 3-year period.
Mr. MOCORMACK. At the end of that time, then we would have a
more definitive recommendation from NASA and ERDA on whether
they think we should proceed.
Dr. WILLIS. That is correct.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Is there any hardware involved or any physical
testing in space involved in this~ program that you have set up?
Dr. WILLIS. No, sir, not in space.
Mr. MCCORMACE. Well, let me express a rather naive approach to
this matter.
If someone assigned me the responsibility of managing this project,
it seems to me one of the things I would do early on would
be to attempt to put up a small synchronous satellite or put a small
solar collector on a synchronous satellite that was going up, we could
piggy back on something else, and try beaming the energy down to
a stationary target on Earth, just to see if we could make this thing
go at the 100 watt level or something of that magnitude, and I am
curious to know if anything of this nature is contemplated.
Dr. WILLIS. There is no active space flight experimentation in this
phase. I think that even before you get to that stage, however, Mr.
Chairman, you really have to look at what it is you have got. You
may have the tiger by the tail with the prospect of beaming energy
back from space by a microwave transmission. It has some serious
institutional problems attached to it, and it certainly has some en-
vironmental problems which really have to be looked at.
Mr. MCCORMACK. I am very much aware-I recall seeing the
promotional brochure put out by one of the aerospace corporations
rather happily displaying a~ stream of satellites strung across the sky
in a straight line. I believe there were a couple dozen of them or
something in that order of magnitude, each substantially brighter
than Venus. I can see wild environmentalists type protests over put-
ting extra stars in the sky, particularly in a straight line, and I rec-
ognize the nature and I recognize also the serious questions asso-
ciated with health and safety associated with beaming down this much
energy and the environmental questions on the other hand are taking
up so much on the ground that the beam would be diffuse enough to
be harmless.
It would strike me that one of the things one would want to know
is whether the gadget will work or not and to demonstrate whether
it will work or not. This seems to be sort of a starting point for nearly
every thing else we do in this field of energy, we make a little one
and make it run, and then say, see, this is one of the problems of mak-
ing it bigger, and it does not do much good to talk about environmental
problems of a system if we do not know-if we have not demonstrated
that the gadget will work. Are we so confident that we can beam downY
energy with any degree of efficiency from these altitudes through the
atmosphere without any problems that we do not even have to try
that out before we spend the money.
Dr. WILLIS. No; I do not think we are that confident. It is my under-
standing that that would come in the second phase which Mr. Ginter
outlined and which follows the first go-no-go decision, perhaps more
properly termed the first milestone point.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Goldwater?
PAGENO="1182"
1178
Mr. GOLDWATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Willis, let me just say that I am serving on th~ Energy Subcom-
mittee and am going to enlist your expertise in the area. I respect your
broad perspective in the area and hopefully you will not retreat com-
pletely.
Dr. WILLIS. I hope not.
Mr. GOLDWATER. This concept for a solar satellite power is an excit-
ing one, and as I said previous, just on that basis one would tend to
support as Mr. Gore was reading, is an exciting and is an option.
The problem that we are faced with though is dividing up available
amounts of money that are available to energy R. & D.
I am somewhat intrigued by the cost projections of $60 billion as
published by the ERDA task force on satellite power stations. I was
wondering if we could ask Dr. Summers, I believe, how large a figure
is that and is it a reasonable figure?
Dr. SUMMERS. I believe as Mr. Ginter mentioned, and I will certainly
second his statement, it is a very soft figure. It, like almost all the
other data in this report, was provided to the ERDA task group by
NASA. Now that number probably was in a series of contractor
reports. It was one number of many. It is a very soft number, and I
might also add that the number that you see there for fusion may also
be soft. I do not want to speak for the magnetic fusion energy pro-
gram, but similar difficulties of estimating the development costs of
something which is at a preliminary conceptual stage may prevail and
thus the numbers tend to be soft. Also, the basis for the. fusion number
may be different in that the fusion demo plant envisoned may be much
smaller than the 10 gigawatt electric demonstration plant, which is
included in the very, very soft $60 billion number under SPS.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Even if we take a conservative figure of say $40
billion or even $30 billion which is still 21/2 or 3 times the breeder and
maybe twice the magnetic fusion, recognizing your constraints on the
available dollars, is there still justification to spend $20 million to
reach a decision point. Do not look at the $60 billion but just come
down to $40 billion which is still a pretty high figure, and even if we
take $40 billion should we still spend the $20 million to decide whether
we are going to spend $40 billion or more?
Dr. SUMMERS. Well, if you accept that there is a need in the post-
2000 period for tapping the potential inexhaustible sources of energy,
then you h9ve to look at what are the potential technologies in that
era particularly for baseload power. Now fusion and solar SPS hap-
pen to be two alternatives and, in judging whether you want to go
any further in these endeavors, you have to look at development costs
which lead you to the first demonstration. That is the same kind of
thing you have looked at in the past in examining space programs,
~but in this kind of a program, where you are producing and selling a
service or product-energy-you have to go further arid ask how much
will the unit cost and sales price be in that era? Is it economically
competitive with other potential sources, and-
Mr. GOLDWATER. That is the investment you are talking about.
Dr. SUMMERS. No. I'm now referring to the unit cost of generating
this electrical energy in that time frame. That is somewhat different
from the question of what is the development cost. They are related,
but they are a little different. Now, in terms of development costs, you
PAGENO="1183"
1179
are going to inquire what is the payback period. As you are selling
those products at a "profit," how many years does it take to pay back
the development-investment-costs? You do not quite have the same
kind of thing in a space program. Yes there are "intangible" pay-
backs, but here, in selling energy, there are very definite pecuniary
paybacks and payback periods. So these two aspects of cost develop-
ment cost and unit energy generation cost are related.
There is another issue and that is how long will it take to demon-
strate the competing long-range energy technologies. In the case of
magnetic fusion, scientific breakeven is something yet to be accom-
plished.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Even in the area of magnetic fusion they are pro-
jecting the year 2000, pre-2000.
Dr. WILLIs. Pre-2000?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Pre-2000. Here we are talking about after the year
2000 and some very high figures.
I think that is a concern. In your final recommendation. I want to
understand this. You recognize in your summation conclusions that
we have got to look toward fusion and the breeder reactor from the
standpoint of priority to meet our projected needs in the post-2000.
If I understand your recommendations, there are either one or two
options. One, either to prove that it is not going to work, spend money
to prove that it is not going to work, and answer the questions or, two,
prove that it will be-
Dr. SUMMERS. "Prove" is a little stronger term than I would choose.
What was recommended by the task group and I should point out I
can only speak for the task group and its recommendations. I cannot
speak for the program arrangements between ERDA and NASA and
I am sure Mr. Beattie would be happy to speak to that. It happens
that the recommendations in terms of program options of the task
group are very close to the arrangements that seem to have been ar-
rived at by ERDA and NASA so that there is no real disagreement
there.
As Dr. Willis pointed out the task group sort of straddled two of
the seven broad options that it looked at ~nd recommended a 3-year
program of between $12 and $19 million.
Mr. GOLDWATER. And that will answer both your options.
Dr. SUMMERS. That will provide more information and a better
ability to estimate whether or not you want to go further into the next
level of activities.
Mr. GOLDWATER. You say here that these studies warrant, these stud-
ies seem either one to go positive viability of SPS in the promise of
energy technology, or two, they possibly identify barriers that suggest
that B. & D. investment in SPS ought to he halted, and you are saying
that those two options would answer those two questions?
Dr. SUMMERS, The committee felt that this level of investment would
go a long way toward answering whether you are building confidenee
for a program that ought to go forward, or `whether you have identi-
fled barriers which suggest that the confidence level is low enough to
terminate work at that point. That is a judgmental matter of course.
Mr. GOLDWATEfl. If we spend these amounts of money, what is the
next milestone after that, how much money do we have to spend? Do
you know?
PAGENO="1184"
1180
Dr. SUMMERS. Well, I would like to defer to the ERDA program
people for the next step.
Mr. B1~rrIE. I believe, Mr. Goldwater, that would be part of the
next Studies to identify what the next phase would actually have to be.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Then we do not really know.
Mr. BEATPIE. I would say at this point we do not really know what
the second phase should be, perhaps NASA would like to say
something.
They nod agreement.
May I make one point of clarification, please.
We are presently, as Dr. Willis indicated, finishing up a definition
study. At this point in time NASA and ERDA do not have an official
position on what should go on from this point. The report will be pre-
sented to the Coordinating `Committee, hopcfu:lly in March or early
spring. At that point in time NASA and ERDA will decide what
should be the next step. That has not been done yet. At that point,
when NASA `and ERDA agree as to what the size of the program
should he or what should be the next step, then ERDA has one fur-
ther thing that it must do. ERDA must take that recommendation of
program scope `and go back and examine all of the other alternatives
and decide on the basis of priorities, looking at the other alternative
whether in fact that recommendation makes sense, and that will be the
final step before we decide to go forward with the program.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Excuse me.
Would the gentleman yield?
Are you talking about the total program?
Mr. BEATPIE. No, the next step of what people have been saying is
a $20 million program. First, it has not been determined that that is
in fact the program; the results that `we are seeing now from the panel
which is reporting to the `Coordinating Committee. Then we must take
the results of the NASA-ERDA Coordinating Committee and place
that within the context of the other energy priorities. At that point in
time we would be in a po'sition to go forward `and say, yes, we should
take all of that program or part of that program or something else
as we judge against other program possibilities.
Mr. MCCORMACE. May I ask, Don, behind what you are saying, and
this is what caught my attention, is the inference that is either this
program or some other program. That we have a total number of
dollars to spend and that we will spend it either here or there.
Am I drawing the correct inference?
Mr. BEATTIE. No; what I am saying is that we would prioritize the
SPS against other programs that we have responsibility for.
Mr. MOCORMACK. It strikes me-I have two immediate reactions to
your statement, one is that this is the wrong approach, and two, it is
the congressional prerogative not the administration's prerogative.
We should not be playing one technology against the other, not be
judging one against the other, but rather analyzing each one in it's
own right and its own light to see whether or not we should go ahead
and whether or not this Nation can afford to proceed, the benefits are
worth the cost in its own right.
To give you a simple example-to me the cost of the fusion and the
breeder program side by side are insignificant compared to the bene-
fits of either one of them, and the fact that either one of them may
PAGENO="1185"
1181
cost from $10 to $15 billions of dollars really means nothing in terms
of their benefits, and I do not trade them off against the other. I say
we must go forward with both of them, as we go forward with solar
energy, heating and cooling, and geothermal energy and energy con-
servation and all the coal technologies and shale and everything else.
Now, except for the fact that this is an exceptionally-that satellite
solar energy obviously is an exceptionally expensive program and it
is unique in a lot of ways, it requires second generation shuttle, it re-
quires permanent station tending of hundreds of men permanently in
space, a prolonged time in space, it involves a whole new category of
environmental problems.
It still should be analyzed on the basis of the costs and we should
treat it on its own costs and benefits. Isn't it appropriate to approach
the problem in that manner rather than whether we can afford a
certain total sum. Am I missing something here, Don?
Mr. BEATTIE. I hope that I did not imply that we were trying to
split a pie up. What I was saying was that we would look at this par-
ticular concept in priority with all of the other alternatives that are
available to ERDA and to the Nation at that point in time and we
would attempt to provide information as to where we see the priority
of this program, just as we do now with all the other programs. We
make a judgment on fusion and breeder and solar electric and you
eventually make the decision on what the funding should be.
Mr. MCCORMACIc. What you are saying is that you would decide
each one on its own merit then and recommend accordingly.
Mr. BEATTIE. Definitely.
Mr. MCCORMAOK. OK, fine. Then I think we are in tune. I did not
want to let that inference get away.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I will defer to Mr. Gore.
Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Gore?
Mr. GORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to first address the matter of perspective that was raised
by Mr. Goldwater. It seems to me that there was the implication that
the figure in the range of $40 billion in the second phase might cause
us to automatically disqualify it right now. I would like to say that I
do not believe that is the case because that still is substantially less, for
example, than we are paying for oil for 1 year.
I would like to ask you, Dr. Willis, what you mean by the institu-
tional implications which has come up twice during your testimony.
At one point you indicated that this might not be institutionally
acceptable.
Dr. WILLIS. Well, the answer is social acceptance of new technology
is something which we have to combat all the time. We are having it
with the breeder, we will have it with fusion, and even will ever have
it with solar electric. Here we have a situation where energy is `being
beamed down from the sky and you have to do an educational process
if you are going to get people to accept that. People have the notion
they are going to get fried by it.
You remember the big problems we had when we put out very big
radar antennae. There are already big problems associated with social
acceptance, and I think perhaps that is not just national but interna-
tional in this case, and there are a lot of things of that nature that just
have to be overcome-4who owns it, the financing of it, the funding of
PAGENO="1186"
1182
it, the rights, everything that goes with it. It is a novel kind of under-
taking.
Mr. Goiu~. Do you think that it is a problem that this might be more
appropriate with publicly owned than privately owned, `that this might
be more trouble with the public than nuclear power for example?
Dr. WILLIs. Not necessarily, the Intelsat communication satellites
are operating very well on an industrial basis. They use the NASA
facility to put them into orbit, and the day-to-day operations are run
by COMSAT, which is an operating company, operating in this coun-
try. It is quite conceivable that we can get to that degree of sophistica-
tion in our institutional arrangements. I do not see that these institu-
tional problems are necessarily insoluble. They do have to be looked at
in considerable detail.
Mr. GORE. What I am getting at is I am not even trying to see it as
a problem. I am from the TVA region. Would it trouble you if we
could not work that problem out, that it would have to be a public
generation of power?
Dr. Wir~is. It would not trouble me. I do not think I am in a posi-
tion to be troubled one way or another `by it, provided that it was ac-
cepta'ble to the Congress of the United States.
Mr. Gom~. OK. Thank you. 1 just wanted to clarify for the record
whether this was the kind of thing you meant by institutional
problems.
At what point in your budget cycle do you decide the level of re-
imbursable funding for NASA?
Dr. WILLIS. The final commitment if you like comes out after the
apportionment process from 0MB. It is only then that we are able to
make a commitment to NASA. I would like to point out that the
budget preparation process and planning process for the budget is a
continuous one between ERDA and NASA. It goes on the whole year.
Actual commitment can only be made when we have funds apportioned
to us by the Office of Management and Budget as a result of the au-
thorization process and appropriation process of Congress. So this
year it has been made very complicated by the fact that we did not
have an authorization-we had an appropriation but not an
authorization.
Mr. GORE. Whh~h one of you was the author of the task force report?
Dr. WILLIS. Dr. Summers.
Mr. Goiu~. This recommendation, one option calling for a $20 million
study, how do you reconcile that with the budget requests of ERDA?
I am a little naive on this type of stuff, but I do not-maybe I missed
something, but it seems to me that you looked at it and you recom-
mended $20 million or less, if you take the other option, and yet the
`agency has requested only $200,000?
Dr. SUMMERS. Let me say again that this report is the product of a
group of professionals within ERDA selected to cover a wide variety
of expertise, reporting to the Administrator of ERDA on this problem,
which I think indicates the seriousness wi'th which it was taken by
ERDA. These recommendations were presented to the Administrator
who then assigned such programatic action as would be taken to the
division of solar energy. Now for what happens from then on I
think I will defer to Mr. Beattie.
PAGENO="1187"
1183
Mr. GORE. OK.
Mr. B1~rrIE. Well, I think as was indicated earlier, the fiscal ye.a~
1977 budget was put to rest, essentially, before there was a decision to
give the responsibility, the oversight responsibility for SPS to ERDA,
so as a result we made no requests in fiscal year 1977. We did not know
that we were going to be asked to take on that responsibility. This was
done after the budget went forward.
So there was no request. Subsequently we allocated $200,000 for this
effort.
Mr. GORE. The NASA people just said, I asked them why they re-
quested so little in fiscal year 1977, and they said, well because ERDA
had responsibility for it because it was a dual program at that point
in the program's history or am I mistaken?
Mr. BEATTIE. I believe they were referring to fiscal year 1978, sir.
Mr. GORE. How much did you request in fiscal year 1978?
Mr. BEAPTIE. Our original budget request was $6 million in budget
authority and $5 million in budget outlay.
Mr. GORE. Let me see, you were appropriated in 1977, let us go back
to there, $2.5 million; why didn't you spend that?
Mr. Br~rrIE. The appropriation, of course, came down and was in
some difficulty because we did not have an authorization; however, the
appropriation did not have funds specifically identified for SP'S. When
the appropriation came down we did ask for $31/2 million in the ap-
portionment request based on the ERDA study.
Mr. Gom~. It was my understanding that only $200,000 was
allocated to-
Mr. BEATTIE. That was the sum that finally came back to the Agency
after the apportionment request.
Mr. Goiti~. Now, wait a minute. How did it get from $2.5 million
to $200,000? That is what, I am trying to get at. Whose decision
was that?
Mr. BEATTIE. That decision is finally made with the Office of Man-
agement and Budget.
Mr. GORE. So they cut it out? 0MB cut it out?
Mr. BEATTIE. The discussions that we had with 0MB were such
that they thought that the $200,000 was sufficient to cover the activi-
ties that should be done in 1977.
Mr. GORE. So 0MB did it in consultation with ERDA?
Mr. BEATPIE. Yes.
Mr. GORE. Why did ERDA allow this to happen? You come here as
a freshman with a lot of methodology and it takes time to immerse
yourself in the facts and the details surrounding these programs
and decisions.
Part of the methodology that I am equipped with is that there is
a bias within ERDA toward ~nuclear power generation. Could that
possibly be true, and could it possibly be relevant to the decisions
which have been made concerning this program?
Mr. MCCORMACK. Will the gentleman yield? Dr. Willis, would you
permit me?
Dr. WILLIS. Of course.
Mr. MOCORMACK. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. GORE. Certainly.
PAGENO="1188"
1184
Mr. MCCORMACK. Rather than ask the representatives of ERDA to
answer that question, let me say that I have now been working on this
budget for 4 years for energy research and development, first with
the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion and now with ERDA, and that at no time has there ever been
the slightest shred of evidence that the necessity for nuclear programs
has in any way affected the desire to go forward with other programs.
As a matter of fact we have noted quite the opposite, great enthu-
siasm to push forward as rapidly as possible in nonnuclear areas, and
that especially applies to the solar area that Dr. Hank Marvin who is
sitting on the left here, we will be hearing more from him later, but
we have taken the budget in concert with ERDA from about $1 million
5 years ago to over $220 million this last year.
The fact is, let me just give one point more, Mr. Gore, if I may. The
fact is that this particular item of satellite solar energy was caught in
administrative, shall we say, a minijungle within the administration
between 0MB and NASA and the ERDA, whch resulted in some de-
lays. These delays were not considered critical at the time. They
would obviously be worked out, but the program even in its most ad-
vanced, most accelerated form would have still been in a stage of doing
the studies that are now being projected by the committee. I think
it is unfortunate that we have lost the 6 months or so that has been
lost in this program, and I was quite upset last year when we found
that money was not actually funded any place for this program when
both Congressman Fuqua and I assumed that it was going to be, but I
do not think we should try to attribute any particular motivation to it.
I think we simply have to accept the fact that between the formation
of the ERDA and all the administrative~ confusion that existed in
bringing it into existence and then the attempting to tie programs to-
gether, the uncertainty that has existed as far as executive agency
setting policy was concerned, the fact that we have had in the last 4
years some dozen energy czars in the White House, and the fact that
there is simply, until very recently last year, nobody really trying to
coordinate administrative programs in energy. There was no particular
reason for this program not going forward except that it sort of fell
through the cracks of all the administrative reorganization and
disorganization.
If I may, without suggesting in any way to be assuming the preroga-
tives of the Chair or seniority, suggest that the real issue before us
today is how we go from here. What we do now, and how we can
make this program function as efficiently as possible starting with
today. We are in a new administration with a new Executive and I just
think that all we get is further confusion by trying to understand what
happened behind closed doors in the last administration.
Mr. GORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I readily profess my naivete and my lack of information in this area,
and I of course defer to your experience in dealing with the wide
range of issues here. I would just respectfully assert that the record
seems to indicate that something has gone wrong, but I appreciate
your explanation that what it is is a minijungle, administrative jungle.
I think that the record also indicates a relatively greater amount of
enthusiasm for this program in NASA than is evident in ERDA. I may
be mistaken about that, too, but I agree with your comment earlier
PAGENO="1189"
1185
that we need to proceed with all alternative sources of energy, and that
we do not necessarily have to trade one off against the other. I share
your concern that this program, while it is in the possibility stage, not
be killed simply by someone's, enthusiasm for an alternative source of
energy.
My purpose, I assure you Doctor, is not to find out where any
bodies are buried or find out where the perspective became ascued,
but just to find out for myself what it is that has gone wrong. I have
learned a great deal during these hearings and I am confident that
with the leadership of the chairman and with the leadership of both
of the subcommittees in this area that we can straighten this thing
out and at least bring this program up to a point where we can make
an intelligent lecision on it.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. GORE. Yes, sir.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I would just like to make an observation.
I respect your enthusiasm for this because I think in i~nany respects
I share it, the problem, of course, becomes somewhat complicated
when we begin looking at areas of jurisdiction, and we went through
a very painful period of energy reorganization, the creation of ERDA.
The intent of creating a vehicle to pursue all energy options.
One argument is if you do that you did it with good intent that that
agency should provide leadership in making priority determination.
I think that is where you get some discrepancy or difference in opinion
between NASA and ERDA.
ERDA would, I think, more naturally look at the broad, total pic-
ture of the options viv-a-vis the moneys that are available and where
do you spread this money on a priority basis, whereas the solar power
satellite would naturally look like it falls within NASA, the solar
application program. But it is still an energy option and in trying to
define who has the leadership role in here.
I do not think that we should ever lose sight of the fact that we
did create ERDA to provide that leadership and direction, fortu-
riately or unfortunately, because I would recognize first off the tre-
mendous technical expertise that has been gathered together in NASA.
There is no question in my mind that given the job to do that NASA
could probably handle it, but it was the wisdom of the Congress, the
decision of the Congress, to create an energy agency and use that
as a lead and then transfer these funds around to where expertise
is and there is about $100 million worth of expertise in NASA that
ERDA has made that decision should be funneled through and per-
haps maybe that is as it should be.
Another question that might be raised in that regard with the pend-
ing creation of an energy agency, might not the question be `asked that
the $100 million be transferred back to the energy agency. I do not
know. I do not know what the answer is, but I can understand NASA's
enthusiasm. It is a natural follow-on to what they have been doing.
It has potential, but here again you have to weigh all of this, place
it on a platter and decide what the priorities are unless we have un-
limited funds. That is a problem.
I am just as enthusiastic about it as you are, hut we have tried to look
at moneys and what kind of answers those moneys are going to give
us.
PAGENO="1190"
1186
Mr. GORE. I do not disagree at all with what you have said and
taking the chairman's lead of saying where we go from here is a proper
question. We have got a proposal for $20 million to investigate the vi-
ability of this program. I take that ERDA believes that is at least
the outside perimeter for what this is-is that correct?
Dr. WILLIs. For that phase.
Mr. Gom~. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. WILLIS. We have not made a decision, but the recommendations
of the task group which the Administrator of ERDA accepted falls
something in that order and indeed the budget requests were, I think,
made in that context.
I would like to make a point, Mr. Chairman, if I may. ERDA is in
the business to create choices for energy options for the future. It is
not in the business of foreclosing choices. To decide whether we will
proceed with a given option or not, we obviously have to have the
right data upon which to base those decisions. We are at the point
now with this one where we have an intriguing possibility, and that
is what it is-an intriguing possibility. The quetion is, Where does
one take it and make the go-no-go decision. We feel that that has been
very well defined in the task force report.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Dr. Willis, what you are really saying is that we
ought to take the $20 million-
Dr. WILLIS. Well, I feel as I said in my summary testimony, ERDA
believes that it is not very productive to spend money on activities
which answer no questions and leads to no decision.
Mr. GOLDWATER. That says that the $1 million is not going to do that.
Dr. WILLIS. That could be, we will have to wait until we get to-
gether and resolve it and consider it in conjunction with NASA at
the forthcoming Program Coordinating Committee. After that time
we would be happy to come before you in an oversight-
Mr. MCCORMACK. What I would like to do is consider the possibility
of a special joint committee with Congressman Fuqua's subcommittee
and mine after you have your next meeting and reach your next posi-
tion and if then you choose, you and the administration choose to make
recommendations for additional authorizations on this fiscal year, we
will have to do it in a supplemental authorization bill in this fiscal
year, which will leave time for the budget in October.
Dr. Wiu~is. That would be a very appropriate move.
Mr. MOCORMACK. I guess I should only say that we will solve all of
these problems, and we will not have any problems of any relation-
ships at all as soon as we get a Department of Steam created, where
we have Science and Technology and Energy Materials and NASA
and National Science Foundation and ERDA will all be part of the
same department.
[Laughter.]
For all the hair on the heads of all the people without standing on
end sufficiently, I think it is time we have done enough damage for
the day, and I thank you all for coming.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Willis follows:]
PAGENO="1191"
1187
STATEMENT OF DR. ERIC H. WILLIS
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
BEFORE THE
HOUSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCtENCE AND APPLICATIONS
February 9, 1977
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am most pleased to
have the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to present an
overview of ERDA-MASA relationships and interfaces. My name is Eric Willis
and my responsibilities embrace relations with other government agencies
such as NASA, as well as with state and local governments, industry and
universities.
Since these interfaces are broad in scope and embrace several technol-
ogies, I am accompanied by representatives of the program Assistant
Administrators and their Divisions of whose special expertise and knowledge
you may wish to avail yourselves in responding to questions I feel the
Committee may have. They are Mr. Donald A. Beattie, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Solar, Geothermal, and `Advanced Energy Systems; Dr.
Henry H. Marvin, Director, Division of Solar Energy; Dr. LeRoy R. Furlong,
Senior Technical Advisor to the Assistant Administrator for Fossil Energy;
Mr. Vincent S. Esposito, Director, Division of Transportation Energy
Conservation; and Dr. Robert A. Summers, Manager, Plans and Programs,
Office of the Assistant Administrator for Field Operations. Dr. Summers
was the ChairThan of the ERDA Task Group on Satellite Power Stations.
PAGENO="1192"
1188
-2-
BACKGROUND
In the several legislative acts which established and gave ERDA its
authority, there are several directives to use the talents and facilities
of other Government agencies. The "Energy Reorganization Act of 1974"
(~.L.93~4~E~ has ~ocsettions~*hi*h eon4~ain th~is interagen~ymandate.
Section 103(5) states:
"The responsibilities of the Administrator shall include,
but not be limited to --
"(5) partIcipating in and supporting cooperative research
and development projects which may involve contributions by
public or private persons or agencies, of financial or other
resources to the performance of the work;"
Section 104(1) states:
"(I) In the exercise of his responsibilities under section
103, the Administrator shall utilize, with their consent, to
the fullest extent he determines advisable the technical and
management capabilities of other executive agencies having
facilities, personnel, or other resources which can assist
or advantageously be expanded to assist in carrying out such
responsibilities. The Administrator shall consult with the
head of each agency with respect to such facilities, personnel,
or other resources, and may assign, with their consent,
specific programs or projects In energy research and develop-
ment as appropriate. In making such assignments under this
subsection, the head of each such agency shall insure that --
"(1) such assignments shall be in addition to and not detract
from the basic mission responsibilities of the agency, and
"(2) such assignments shall be carried out under such guidance
as the Administrator deems appropriate."
The "Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974" (P.L. 93-
409) makes several references to working with the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, the National Bureau of Standards, the National
Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and
the Department of Defense. The "Solar Energy Research, Development and
PAGENO="1193"
1189
- 3-
Demonstration Act of 1974" (P.L. 93-473), the "Geothermal Energy Research,
Development and Demonstration Act of 1974" (P.L. 93-410), the "Federal Non-
nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-577), and
the "Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development and Demonstration
Act of 1976" (P.L. 94-913) also make reference to working with and uti-
lizing the facilities, capabilities, expertise, and experience of Federal
agencies. Thus, the legislative directives are many, and clear.
ERDA recognized the capabilities of other Federal agencies and has
expressed its willingness to cooperate with them in order to make maximum
use of existing facilities and speed energy research, development and
demonstration. NASA's capabilities were recognized very early because of
their experience in materials, engine, solar and advanced technologies,
primarily at the Lewis Research Center (LeRC), Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL), and Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC).
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The staff of ERDA and NASA began drafting of a Memorandum of Under-
standing (MOU) to establish basic policy and a mechanism for coordinating
joint efforts as an early prtority item. This culminated in Dr. Seamans
and Dr. Fletcher signing a MOU on June 23, 1975, only five months after
ERDA came into existence. A copy of this Memorandum of Understanding is
attached (Attachment A).
PROGRAM COORDINATING COMMITTEE
The MOU established a Program Coordinating Committee (PCC). This
Committee is composed of responsible ERDA and NASA officials and, as
92-082 0 - 77 - 75
PAGENO="1194"
1190
shown by Figure 1, is co.-chalred by Mr. Robert W. Fri, Deputy Administrator
of ERDA, and Dr. Alan M. Lovelace, Deputy Administrator of NASA. The
total membership of this Committee is attached (Attachment B). The
Committee has formally met on three occasions, April 15 and November 2,
1976, and recently on January 24, 1977; and the members are very active
In coordir~atlon activities outside the formal meetings. As shown by
Figure 2, the Program Coordinating Committee is responsible for:
(a) Coordinating the participation of both agencies in the planning
of their respective programs in pursuance of joint goals;
(b) The coordination and implementation of agreed-upon joint and
cooperative programs;
(c) The development of coordinated agency positions, where appropri-
ate, for presentation to 0MB;
(d) A full exchange of program and technical Information between
the two agencies;
(e) Identification and resolution of Issues that may arise from time
to time between the two agencies.
The detaili of the agenda topics and action items of the three meetings
(Figures 3, 4 and 5) show that both programmatic and Institutional problems
are tackled directly and freely, and by this mechanism agency managements
are aware of deficiencies as well as progress. The topics discussed have
fallen into three major areas: (1) program review and coordination,
(2) long-range planning in the use of NASA centers, and (3) budget coord-
Ination. The following presents an example of each.
PAGENO="1195"
ERDA/NASA COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Co-CI-IAIRt'tAN: MR. ROBERT W, FRI
DR. ALAN M. LOVELACE
DATES MET : APRIL 15~ 1976
NOVEMBER 2, 1976
JANUARY 24 1977
FIGURE 1
PAGENO="1196"
RESPONSIBILITIES OF PCc~
(A) COORDINATING THE PARTICIPATION OF BOTH AGENCIES IN
THE PLANNING OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PROGRAMS IN PURSU
ANCE OF JOINT GOALS)
(B) THE COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREED-UPON
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS)
(C) THE DEVELOPMENT OF COORDINATED AGENCY PQSJTIONS,
WHERE APPROPRIATE, FOR PRESENTATION TO UMBJ
(D) A FULL EXCHANGE OF PROGRAM AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES)
(E) IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION OF ISSUES THAT MAY ARISE
FROM TIME TO TIME BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES.
FIGURE 2
PAGENO="1197"
FIRST MEETING - APRIL 15~ 1976
TOPIC
$ COMMITTEE CHARTER
* INFORMAIION EXCHANGE:
~RDA I~ROGRAM
NASA CAPABILITIES.
$ TECHNOLOGY ID~NTIFICATIOI~ AND
VERIFICATION SEED MONEY'
* NASA REQUESTED ERDA TO ESTABLISH
LONG-RANGE NEEDS FOR SUPPORT TO
ASSIST IN PLANNING.
ACTION
* DRAFT FOR NEXT MEETING.
* NONE INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
AGREED ON N~c~SSITY FOR INCORPO-
RATION IN NI~SA BUDGET SUBMISSION.
* NASA's ROLE AND AREAS OF EMPHASIS
ADDED AS A CONTINUING AGENDA ITEM.
CONSERVATION ARES TO BE REVIEWED.
11JTURE USE OF LEXC TO BE REVIEWED.
FIGURE 3
PAGENO="1198"
SECOND MEETIN& - NOVEMBER 2.. 19Th
* COMMITTEE CHARTER
$ UTILIZATION OF NASA CENTER
1~APABI LIT IES
INFORMATION EXCHANGE:
INDUSTRIAL .IURBINES
AUIQMQTIVE ~NGINES
LERC SOLAR F'RQJECTS
* SAIg~~IIE POWER SThTION:
~WJh IAS~ GROUP l~gPQBT
L~ROGRAM UUTLINE ~yii-78
F'ROGRAM COORDINATION SCHEDULE
* BUDGET COORDINATION
$ PROJECT MliisToNEs
Io~
ACT 1(1K
* APPROVED
* INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING STUDY
EXTENDED TO INCLUDE LERC AND JPL.
$ NASA PLAN TO BE SUBMI TTED TO ERDA.
* INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BEING NEGOTIATED.
1~ESPONSIBILITIES TO BE DEFINED.
MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS TO BE ASSESSED.
* SPS PANEL FORMED.
I~ONE - J.NFQRMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
IJRAFT Si~'s I~ROGRAM DEFINITION 1~LAN
TO BE PREPARED.
COOPERATIVE EFFORTS EXPLAINED.
To BE IDENTIFIED.
-L
FIGURE 4
PAGENO="1199"
THIRD MEETING - JANUARY 24.. 1977
TOPIC
INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING STUDY STATUS
SPS PROGRAM PLAN
SOLAR ENERGY PROGRAMS
MANAGEMENT I~ROBLEM
FOSSIL ENERGY PROJECTS
~ TURBINE R,D&JJ
~JHIJ STUDIES
LXTRUSION COAL FEEDER STUDY
* NASA MEMBgRSHIP ON GEOTHERMAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
ACTIOJI
* NONE - INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
* BUDGET LEVEL DISCUSSED.
* PROGRAM MANAGERS DISCUSSED
RESOLUTION ON JANUARY 25TH.
* DETAILED PLANS TO BE PREPARED.
* NASA DROPPED MEMBERSHIP) BUT RETAINS
MEMBERSHIP ON WORKING COMMITTEE.
FIGURE 5
PAGENO="1200"
1196
- 5..
Program Review and Coordination
Considerable information has been exchanged at each of the three
meetings on both ERDA and NASA programs and capabilities. Descriptions
of ERDA programs and NASA capabilities were presented at the first meeting.
These presentations served to establish areas for future review, but more
Importantly brought ERDA and NASA program staff together to discuss areas
of mutual interest. Areas of more specific interest, such as industrial
turbines, automotive engines, and solar projects were discussed at the
second meeting. Several fossil energy projects, gas turbines, magneto-
hydrodynamics, and extrusion coal feeders were discussed at the third
meeting. These discussions have Identified areas where detailed plans for
projects that are potentially beneficial to ERDA's RD&D program should
be prepared. The SPS program is, of course, one example of this,
Long-range Planning
In order to properly focus and manage the energy R&D efforts at the
NASA field centers, the centers principally concerned (LeRC and JPL~ were
requested by the Assistant Administrator for Field Operations to prepare
long-range plans which reflect their particular areas of expertise in
energy R&D as well as in-depth interactions with ERDA program divisions
covering solar, fossil and conservation technologies~ Both ongoing
and potential new work areas are covered. These plans have been reviewed
by ERDA Program Divisions and their comments have been given to the NASA
Assistant Administrator for Energy Programs, After these comments have
been reviewed by NASA, the long-range plans will be put into final form.
PAGENO="1201"
1197
-6-
In the performance of energy R&D, it is ERDA's intention to consider
the potential of NASA field centers in a manner equivalent to that of
ERDA laboratories.
~et Coordination
The ever-important subject of budgets has arisen at each of the
meetings. The policy and management level discussions which have taken
place at these meetings, as well as In preparation for and following the
meetings, have been both useful and served to coordinate ERDA and NASA
budget submissions in energy R&D.
***
I would now like to discuss progress being made on NASA's energy
technology programs which are reimbursed by ERDA. Such work performed
by NASA was $34.9 million in FY 1976 and $13.4 million in the Transition
Quarter. It is estimated to amount to about $84 million in FY 1977 and
$80 million in FY 1978. It should be realized that these amounts do not
represent work actually performed *in NASA. A portion of the funds are
subcontracted to industry by NASA.
SOLAR ENERGY COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
The ERDA Division of Solar Energy has initiated numerous cooperative
activities with NASA in its programs on `Wind Energy, Photovoltaics, the
Heating and Cooling of Buildings, and, most recently, Satellite Power
Stations. These efforts are ongoing and successful, and are expected
to continue for some time in the future.
Wind Ene~y
The Federal Wind Energy Program, initiated by the National Science
Foundation in 1973, was transferred to ERDA in 1975. Early in this
PAGENO="1202"
1198
program, the NASA Lewis Research Center was determined to be the most
appropriate Government laboratory to manage the effort to develop large
horizontal wind turbines for utility applications. This arrangement
Is continuing.
NASA-Lewis is responsible for four projects in this program.
-- One is the 100-kilowatt wind turbine, being tested at
Sandusky, Ohio. This unit has been tied Into the Ohio
Power Company grid for tests of the utility interface.
* The main objectives for this machine are (1) accumulation
of "hands-on' experience, (2) testing of new concepts, and
(3) a training tool for operating first-generation machines
and managing the development of future machines.
-- The second project is to design a 200-kilowatt wind turbine
which will incorporate Improvements based on the testing of
the Sandusky device. NASA is In the process of selecting
contractors to labricate the blades and to build the overall
system. The first of two machines of this model will be
Installed at Clayton, New Mexico.
-- The third project Is management of the 1.5 megawatt, 200-foot
diameter wind turbine project being designed by General
Electric. A design review has just been held, and a test
rotor spar will be completed next month. NASA-Lewis is
also managing the design of a larger machine.
-- The fourth effort comprises both in-house and contracted
supporting research and technology for large and improved
PAGENO="1203"
1199
-8-
rotor blades. The use of fiberglass is a potential way to
lower initial costs and to decrease maintenance costs of the
rotor blades. Fabrication of a fiberglass blade of the same
size as the Sandusky blade has recently been completed and
the blade is now. being inspected. It is the largest composite
blade yet made. In preparation for future machines, a
contract has been let to an industrial contractor to design
and fabricate a 150-foot blade suitable for use on a 300-foot
diameter wind turbine. This blade will determine the practi-
cality of going to very large size wind turbines.
Many of the technical and economic questions surrounding wind energy
are associated with the user and the interface between the user and his
conventional power system. Even though these machines are highly experi-
mental in nature, we are proceeding to place them directly at utility
company sites. NASA and its contractors will help train utility company
personnel in the operation of .these systems, and the utilities, along
with NASA and ERDA, will evaluate how well these wind turbines function
in today's complex utility operations.
Photovol taics
NASA is working with ERDA in two areas within the Photovoltaic
Program.
The NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) manages the silicon solar
cell array effort. The work Is progressing smoothly and schedules are
being met. As you know, silicon cell purchases managed by JPL for ERDA
PAGENO="1204"
1200
-9-
have been reduced in cost by 26% in the past year. The average price of
equipment purchased in September 1976 was $15.50 a watt, compared with
$21.00 a watt six months earlier. Our target is a cost of 50 cents per
watt by 1986.
NASA's Lewis Research Center (LeRC) is managing part of the photo-
voltaic test and application project for ERDA. In the test and applica-
tions area, LeRC has demonstrated an excellent instrumentation and environ-
mental testing capability, based on its experience with photovoltaic space
applications. Several successful remote field tests are under way,
including applications for refrigerators ata remote Indian village and
power applications at Forest Service lookout towers.
Solar Heating and Cooling of Buil4j~g~
The Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Program Is receiving
support in three areas from NASA, with activities centered at the
Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) at Huntsville, Alabama.
The first area is titled the Development in Support of Demonstration
Program. The objective of this program is to develop cost-effective,
reliable heating and cooling systems and subsystems for use in the demon-
stration program, which will be capable of being mass-produced and marketed
by industry. Thirty-six development contracts are underway with industry,
mostly with small businesses. Test and evaluation activities are under'
way, and 67 fully-instrumented operational test sites will be utilized to
test these systems and subsystems. One of the sites under consideration
Is the ERDA Washington Headquarters at 20.MassachuSetts Avenue.
PAGENO="1205"
1201
- 10 -
Marshall's second area of responsibility is to provide management
support to ERDA's first-cycle commercial demonstration projects. Marshall
is also currently evaluating proposals for the second-cycle projects.
A regional approach to management of the field demonstrations will be
implemented in future cycles by Marshall.
The third area is data management. Operational and climatic data
will be collected from demonstration sites across the continental U.S.,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico by Site Data Collection Sub-
systems (SDCS). The data are then sent to a Central Data Processing
Facility, analyzed and entered into the heating and cooling data bank for
dissemination. This data collection system has just become operational
under contract with IBM. Data from one solar system at the Towns
Elementary School in Atlanta are now being processed. Plans are to
bring up to 100 additional commercial and residential sites on line
during the remainder of the fiscal year.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
The ERDA Division of Geothermal Energy and NASA have cooperated on
four major programs, conducted by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
of the California Institute of Technology. In brief,' these programs are:
1. Development of a comprehensive national plan for geothermal
energy, in fulfillment of the requirements of P.L. 93-410.
This project provided the data base and analyses needed for
the preparation of the Geothermal RD&D Program Definition
Report: ERDA-86.
PAGENO="1206"
1202
11 -
2. Development, in association with the State of California's
energy agency, of a realistic scenario for the development
of geothermal energy resources in California, together with
a definition of the nature and timing of public actions required
in order for the scenario to materialize. A preliminary
scenario for the development of geothermal energy resources
in California has been developed, and requisite public and
private actions have been identified.
As part of this project, detailed scenarios for the commercial
development of geothermal energy resource sites in Lake
County and at Heber in the Imperial Valley will be generated
and analyzed to identify specific public actions required
for the scenarios to become a reality.
3. Provision of advanced technology for the development of an
electrical power generation system driven by a helical rotary
*screw expander for use with geothermal brines. The objective
of this project is to evaluate, by field measurements, a
single-stage, full-scale experimental expander system. Measure-
ments will include thermodynamics of the expansion process,
performance characteristics, and determination of component
reliability and life expectancy during use with geothermal
brines.
4. ModificatiOn of elastomeric (rubberlike)~ compounds to extend
their capabilities in geothermal environments..
PAGENO="1207"
1203
-12-
The working relations between ERDA and JPL have been satisfactory in
all of these efforts.
fO~IL ENERGY COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
Three Divisions of Fossil Energy, Coal Conversion and Utilization,
Magnetohydrodynamjcs, and Major Facility Project Management, Intend to
support efforts at either the Lewis Research Center (LeRC) or the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in F? 1977.
The Coal Conversion and Utilization Division, Advanced Power Systems
Branch, plans to use LeRC for support In certain critical areas of
advanced gas. turbine technology. These areas include Synfuel combustion
studies, improved cooling concept studies, long-life materials corrosion/
erosion evaluations, and system studies. For F? 1977 the LeRC cost
estimate for these support areas Is approximately $1.6 million and the
estimated cost is presently under negotiation. Additionally, LeRC will
be supported in F? 1977 at $450,000 by both the Combustion and Advanced
Power Branches to manage an extension of the Energy Conversion Alternatives
Study (ECAS) they recently completed.
It Is anticipated that the funding level for the support areas will
not exceed $1.5 million In FY 1978.
The Magnetohydrodynaml~s Division is workThg on a procurement In which
LeRC would be assigned the following tasks: Systems Analysis and Design
Studies; Engineering Studies on combustors, channel, magnet, inverters,
preheater, cost models, and system alternatives; Evaluation of the Engin-
eering Test Facility designs and of the upgraded Energy Conversion Alterna-
tives Study; and special task assignments.
PAGENO="1208"
1204
- 13
The total funding level for this work over FY 77 FY 79 Is estimated
at $2.85 million.
The Major Facility Project Management Division has assigned to JPL
a work effort to assist In evaluating and selecting coal feeders and
feeder systems; This responsibility includes the analysis of requirements,
the formulation of criteria, the evaluation of performance data, and
recommendations for the selection of the most promising designs. Additionally,
JPL Is to manage, direct, and coordinate the efforts of selected subcon-
tractors In determining the feasibility of feeding coal in the plastic
state continuously bymeans of extrusion; organize and conduct a seminar
on coal handling and preparation oriented towards coal feeding; and
analyze data and evaluate proposals in selected areas of work.
The funding level for this effort amounts to $1.32 million In FY
1977, of which $700,000 will be allocated by JPL to outside contractors.
In FY 1978 the funding level Is estimated to be $855,000, of which
$300,000 will be contracted out.
CONSERVATION COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
The ERDA transportation program within the Office of Conservation
addresses a sector which is almost 100 percent petroleum dependent and
notably inefficient in Its use .of that fuel. About 25 percent of our
national energy consumption goes for transportation every year. For
obvious reasons, then, this sector isa suitable target for both energy
efficiency and fuel switching work.
PAGENO="1209"
1205
- 14 -
We have selected two alternative heat engine systems for developme~t:
the Stirling cycle and the gas turbine. Both of them look promising.
i_hey offer high efficiency, virtually no pollution, and the ability to
run on a wide variety of nonpetroleum fuels. Our latest turbine car
will be road-tested this year.
Our aim is to have work done on a cooperative cost-shared basis
with Industry. We look for development of the two engines In parallel
up to 1985. At that time, It is expected that sufficient data, both
technical and economic, will be generated so that corporate decision
making within the automotive industry will envision sufficient profit
Incentives so that production conwitments will be made towards vehicles
powered through the options of high efficiency, cleaner engines.
To assist In the achievement of its overall objectives, the Division
of Transportation Energy Conservation has asked NASA to participate in
the program. The use of another agency's facilities accomplishes three
*things. It aUgments ERDA's management strength, complieswith the policy
of decentralized project management, and capitalizes upon technical and
~ontracting capabilities for the performance of the bulk of the work
with Industry. At this point, 1 wish to emphasize that amaxlmum of
20 percent of total program funds Is retained by NASA for In-house work.
The remaining 80 percent is being employed by industry for R&D efforts.
Here is the ERDA/industry/NASA arrangement wUutch is being forjnalizeil
through programmatic Memorandums of Understanding and Interagency Agree.~
ments:
92-082 0 . 77 - 76
PAGENO="1210"
1206
- 15 -
-- ERDA is responsible for managing the program.
-- Industry will be responsible for conducting the mainline
technology and hardware developments. The mainline develop-
ments Include those systems to be developed and demonstrated
within the next five years.
-- NASA will be supportive of the industry work and will assist
industry in solving high-technology problems and in testing
industry-developed components and systems.
-- Using ERDA transferred funds, NASA will be responsible for
awarding contracts to industry to meet program goals and for
managing the Individual contracts.
-- NASA will conduct in-house research to develop technologies
needed for advanced engine systems (as contrasted to the
mainline engine systems).
In September, 1976, the Congress enacted P.L. 94-413 which authorized
R&D in the electric and hybrid vehicle technologies and demonstration of
the commercial feasibility of the vehicles. Prior to the enactment,
NASA evaluated the performance of five electric vehicles, and the results
were reported to us in October. Presently, ERDA is considering asking
NASA to broaden their involvement with Industry in project management
activities. The two NASA centers under consideration are the Lewis
Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The direction of the
program would be Implemented through Interagency Agreement.
Wfth. the fullest industry participation, we believe that this arrange-
merit with~ NASA wtl 1 accelerate the technical development needed to reduce
PAGENO="1211"
1207
16 -
our dependency on foreign oil reserves in the transportation sector.
With regard to the Division of Energy Storage Systems activities
in Conservation, an effective blend of NASA's technical background and
management experience with our mission and commercializatIon goals is
achieved in the sub-program-project assignment concept. Three Storage
program areas are now using this approach which provides the added benefit
of permitting more efficient use of ERDA's manpower resources, while
still, retaining professional project management.
Approximately $2 million in Storage funds are managed through
ERDA/NASA teams. The following areas are involved:
-- ifjgJ~ Temperature and Latent Heat Thermal Stor~g~. This involves
storage of thermal energy in high temperature media such as
hot oil and molten salts, or in materials which change form
(i.e. solid to liquid) while absorbing or releasing heat.
NASA Lewis Research Center will prvide project management
assistance for some 12 contractors in FY 1977.
-- Thermochemical Hydrogen Systems. Hydrogen is an important
energy `storage and distribution media, and improved methods
for hydrogen production merit attention. The thermochemical
production approaches seek to obtain hydrogen from water
through a series of high temperature chemical steps requiring
less energy input than electrolytic methods. Approximately
ten contractors will be involved in FY 1977 with program manage-
ment assistance provided by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
PAGENO="1212"
1208
- 17 -
-- Redox Battery Systems. Redox systems are.batteries in which
the reactive species are liquids containing dissolved oxidizable
and reducible chemicals. These systems have potentially
attractive possibilities for weekly cycle utility applications
and for solar energy systems. NASA Lewis Research Center
provides technical oversight for efforts In-house and three
contractors.
The management strategy of the storage programs is that it inyolves
the industrial base, where the commercialization potential lies, as
fully as possible. The corollary is that in-house government efforts
should be devoted to highly selective technologies, and It is expected
that the bulk of the work. will be done by tndustry~ This facilitates
ERDA's requirements for user adoption of technology capable of being
commercialized.
Communication between storage program managers and NASA. team leaders
occurs on a regular basis but particular importance is attached to the
annual program plan, jointly agreed.to. Once established, with ERDA~s
goals highlighted and long-range plans defined, it permits a measure of
Independent action by NASA personnel. Experience suggests that this
results In a more aggressive and innovative management while ensuring
pursuit of ERDA's mission requirements.
SATELLITE POWER STATIINS
The Satellite Power Station CSPS1 envisions the collection of solar
energy in space using a satellite in geostationary orbit. The solar energy
PAGENO="1213"
1209
-18-
would be converted to electrical energy by photovoltaic cells or solar
thermal power systems and beamed back to earth by microwave transmission.
The concept was first proposed in 1968, and NASA is continuing to fund
studies on the concept. During lormulation of the FY 77 budget, the
Administration determined that ERDA should assume responsibility for the
SPS and determine the appropriate support level in the context of the
national energy research, development and demonstration program. No
funds were identified for the program in FY 77, but $200,000 was subse-
quently allocated to ERDA ior evaluation of the concept.
In order to help define SPS options, the ERDA Administrator
established a task group to investigate previous work and to provide
recommendations to him. NASA cooperated fully with the ERDA task group
and a NASA observer worked with it. The task group concluded that
there are no obvious and clearly insurmountable technical problems
identifiable at this time. However, the task group also concluded that
insufficient information is available to make a major program commitment
to proceed. In addition to technological uncertainties, there are major
unknowns in the environmental area, particularly with regard to the
safety and public acceptance of microwave energy transmission and its
reception on earth. Institutional and International considerations
also remain to be analyzed. Some of these key issues are outlined in
Figure 6.
Both economic and net energy comparability with future inexhaustible
systems (for example, fusion) appear possible if R&D targets can be met.
PAGENO="1214"
c~v ~u
* 30 YEAR LIFETIME
o RESOURCE LIMITATIONS
i~( ~J'j~i'l
`F
o TRANSPORTATION
o COST TARGET (1/10 SHUTTLE)
o FRONT-END LOAD (HLLV AND TUG)
~ COMMIT TO MANY SPS'S)
o ALLOCATION OF COST
o SOLAR ARRAYS (Si or GaAs)
o 50 to 100: 1 COST REDUCTION (BELOW ERDA COST TARGET FOR Si)
o 30 YEAR LIFE
o SPACE MAi\IUFACTURING FEASIB)LITY
o LEO: 200-500 CREW * Productivity of Man in Space
* GEO: 10-20 CREW * Support of Man in Space
0 Training; Industrial Standards
* ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NEED EVALUATION
* MICROWAVE
* Ionosphere (RFI)
o Bioenvironmenton Ground (sitting; Public Acceptance)
o LAUNCH VEHICLES
* Exhaust (ozone Layer) * Noise
o SPACE RADIATION
e ECONOMIC VIABILITY
* COST TARGETS
* NET ENERGY
o INTERNATIONAL/INSTITUTIONAL
FIGURE 6
PAGENO="1215"
1211
19 -
Reaching these targets require (1) very large advances in solar arrays
(cost, weight, and efficiency), (2) very large reductions in transporta-
tion costs, and (3) 30-year lifetimes In space (with periodic maintenance).
A heavy lift reusable launch vehicle system much larger than the space
shuttle will be required. The productivity of man in the space environ-
ment is an area requiring additional experimentation, and a major space
station program may be necessary to gain such experience. The task
group made a preliminary comparison of SPS with other energy systems
and estimated that the development costs for the SPS would be approxi-
mately four times as high as the nearest competitor. This development
cost is estimated to be $60 billion.
The task group completed its work and reported to the ERDA Admin-
istrator In August, 1976. The Members of this Committee have received
a copy of that report. Seven program options, shown In Figure 7, were
developed and the task group recommended a program of studies ranging
from $3,250,000 to $5,350,000 In FY 1977 and from $4,750,000 to
$6,100,00b In FY 1978 (Options III or IV).
The Administrator accepted the recommendations of the task force
and Initiated discussions with the NASA Administrator concerning a joint
program based on the option preferred by the task force. As stated in
the NASA testimony, the SPS program was placed under the directIon of
the ERDA-NASA Program Coordination Committee to assure effective and
appropriate coordination and management of this definitIon activity.
NASA and ERDA agreed that If the program proceeded ERDA would be responsible
PAGENO="1216"
I
PROGRAM OPTIONS
`CARRIES SOLAR & NUCLEAR THERMAL THRU FY79.
tDOES NOT INCLUDE CIVIL SERVICE PERSONNEL.
DESIGNATION
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
BUDGET LEVEL (S1,000)
THREE
YEAR
TOTAL
FY77
FY78
FY79
`ZERO": DEPEND UPON ON-GOING EFFORTS
0
0
0
0
II
ENVIRONMENTAL/INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES
1,600
2,600
800
5,000
III
AS IN U BUT ADD SATELLITE SYSTEM STUDIES &
SOME SYSTEM ECONOMICS
3,250
4,750
4,450
12,450
IV
AS IN III BUT: * STRENGTHEN SATELLITE SYSTEM
DEFINITiON (THIN FILM + MO/I & SYSTEM
* ADD PHASED EXPERIMENT PLANNING
5,350
6,100
7,300
18,750
~
V
AS IN IV BUT: * ADD "UNIQUE" TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
* ADD"UNIQUE" ORBITAL OPERATIONS
5,350
9,600
13,800
28,750
VI
-
>
`NASA "SPS-UNIQUE": COMPARED WITH V-
* HEAVIER ON SYSTEM DEFINITION
(INCLUDES RECTENNA SITING,
ORBIT OPERATIONS, PHASED
EXPERIMENT PLANNING, SYSTEM
ECONOMICS(
* HEAVIER ON MW TRANSMISSION
* OMITS INSTITUTIONAL!
iNTERNATIONAL & TRAINING
* ASSUMES"C-l" FUNDED
7,125
t
11,500
t
15,125
t
.
33,750
.
VII
LEVEL OF EFFORT GRANT TO NASA ("SPS SEED MONEY")
~°~j
`
~J'~
FIGURE 7
PAGENO="1217"
1213
- 20 -
for studies of environmental factors, impacts, and benefits and compara-
tive evaluation with other energy alternatives. NASA would be responsible
for studies of systems definition and technology development. This
planning exercise is now drawing to a close. A program plan will be
presented to the ERDA-NASA Program Coordinating Committee for approval
this spring. Until a decision on how to proceed is reached, ERDA plans
to continue to monitor the on-going NASA activities, and funds have
been provided in the FY 78 budget to accomplish this.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, ERDA feels that its institutional relationships with
NASA are healthy and maintained well by the Program Coordinating Committee.
The interfaces are complex, Involving different industrial markets and
degrees of technological sophistication. Wèfeel that broadly the tech-
nical programs are not only on track, but making very good progress.
We look forward to utilizing this relationship in `Satisfying the energy
needs of our Nation.
PAGENO="1218"
1214
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND~
THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PAGENO="1219"
1215
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND
THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
(`II James C. Fletcher
Administrator
Dated
~2
Robert C. Seamans, Jr.
Administrator
,c.,,
PAGENO="1220"
1216
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
ERDA AND NASA
INTRODUCTION
The Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) is charged by law with the responsibility
for planning, coordinating, and prosecuting a vigorous national program in energy R&D. In order to meet
the national goals of energy independence by 1985 established by the President, it is necessary for ERJ)A
to seek out and utilize the Nation's most capable scientific, engineering, and management resources in the
private, public, and university sectors of the economy. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) provides one important base of capability for supporting a national program of energy R&D.
NASA Centers, currently engaged in aeronautical and space research and development, are staffed by
personnel with a high degree of competence in engineering and scientific disciplines, many of which are
applicable to energy research and technology. In addition, they have in place a number of highly
sophisticated research facilities which aie adaptable to research in energy R&D. Further, NASA has
extensive experience and proven management techniques and procedures for working successfully with
industry and university organizations.
POLICY
In light of the Nation's energy R&D needs and taking into consideration tie willingness and ability of
NASA to support ERDA R&D programs, it is the policy of ERDA and NASA management to identify
specific program tasks which can be undertaken by the NASA Centers in support of ERDA programs to the
benefit of both agencies and the Nation.
PURPOSE
The purpose oi~ this Memorandum of Understanding is to describe the general conditions under which
ERDA/NASA cooperative efforts will be formulated and to outline over.all management approaches and
procedures which will govern program approval and implementation.
PROGRAM PLANNING AND APPROVAL
ERDA is responsible for formulating, justifying, and managing the energy R&D programs which form the
major thrust towards national energy self.sufflciency. In carrying out these responsibilities, ERDA, in
consultation with NASA, will consider project and program plans which make use of the NASA capabilities
described above and which enhance the ability of ERDA to reach the program goals and objectives set forth
In its programs to Congress. Normally, NASA efforts will be of three kinds:
1. Research and Technology. Performance of basic and applied research and technology at selected
Centers in specified disciplines and technolàgies. Examples ofbroad technology areas are photovoltaic
systems, gas turbine technology, fuel cell technology and hydrogen technology; while examples of
component technologies are bearings, seals, combustion, automatic control, materials and structures.
ERPA would require project plans, other documentation, and program status information consistent
with Its program management responsibilities. Normally, ERDA sponsorship of significant in-house
R&T work of this kind would be long.term in order to provide a reasonably stable and predictable
support base for manpower and facilities assigned to such tasks. Both ERDA and NASA recognize that
such support would not supplant work which could be carried on in private sector, national, or
university laboratories but, rather, would make effective use of the unique combination of skilled
personnel and research facilities now in place at NASA Centers. It is further recognized that such
ERDA sponsored research and technology would tend to promote the increasingly beneficial use of
these national facilities in their primary aeronautical and space technology programs by improved
scaling of overhead and institutional support activities.
PAGENO="1221"
1217
.2.
2. Psisgiams and Projects. NASA may also submit proposals and plans to ERDA for specific technology
developments, including test, evaluation, and demonstration, which normally would involve extensive
private sector participation in all aspects of the proposed work. In suchinstances, ERDA program
approval of project proposals would carry with it specific management controlS extending to review
and amendments of statemerits of work, membership on source evaluation boards, limitations on
resources and other mutually agreed to management procedures normally associated with specific
hardware-griented R&D. For such activities, NASA would submit program documentation consistent
with ERDA procedures and conduct the projects compatible with ERDA program and resource
management policies and systems. Moreover, it is recognized by both agencies that specific endhitem
projects undertaken by NASA for ERDA should generally be those particularly well suited for NASA
participation because of the presenàe of unique project management experience, program interest,
extensive test and demonstration requirements, and other factors which would maximize the return to
the Nation.
3. Technicial and Administrative Management Support. In prosecuting its full program of energy R&D,
ERDA will establish an extensive network of program relationships with high technology institutions in
the private sector. Many of these associations will call for extensive managment arrangements
including, for example, technical review boards, evaluation groups, and other assessment techniques~ In
appropriate instances, provision of NASA technical and administrative expertise to ERDA on both a
short and long.term basis will be considered by NASA as another element of ERDA support. Such
manpower details would be handled so is to recognize the needs of both organizations and to promote
the over.all efficiency of the Nation's energy R&D efforts.
PROGRAM FUNDING
In order to preserve the clear nature of program responsibilities assigned to ERDA and to provide a proper
focus for external examination and review of ERDA programs, both parties agree that funding for program,
project and other tasks performed by NASA for ERDA under the provisions of this Memorandum of
Understanding will be budgeted and accounted for by ERDA through its normal budgetary processes. Such
funding will provide for costs of NASA civil service personnel, contractor support, and other costs as
appropriate and as specifically set forth in the program documentation for each sponsored effort. NASA
agrees that it will provide such documentation on resource needs and utilization as necessary to sustain the
integrity of ERDA financial accounts and systems, including making available any records and accounts
relating to work sponsored by ERDA if required for audit. ERDA agrees to provide necessary authorization
covering resources required to ensure program and project continuity.
PROCUREMENT POLICY
Most program and project activities undertaken by NASA for ERDA under the provisions of this
Memorandum of Understanding will involve contractual arrangements with non-governmental institutions.
Such arrangements shall be conducted under NASA policy, regulations, and procedures except where
specific statutory requirements of ERDA require otherwise.
MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
This Memorandum of Understanding envisages direct access of ERDA program officials to the NASA
Centers performing work in support of ERDA and the recognition of direct program management lines
between ERDA personnel and NASA Centers. Program or project plans with appropriate detail required by
ERDA will serve as program or project documentation and will set forth the specific arrangements under
which program implementation will take place. In those instances of project work involving contractual
participation by commercial contractors or other organizations outside of NASA, Such Project Plans will set
forth necessary interface arrrangements and procedures for handling various levels of governmental
decisions. Normally such management arrangements will clearly set forth the decision and delegation levels
- considered appropriate for each project and clearly describe the management reporting and coordination
processes between ERDA and NASA.
PAGENO="1222"
1218
4-
Although variations can be anticipated to allow for specific cases, the general o~er.a1l ERDA/NASA project
structure is illustrated on Appendix A. In all cases of NASA Center support for ERDA R&D, NASA
Headquarters officials will approve the proposed project before formal submission to ERDA. Finally, it is
expected that subsequent to project agreements, NASA Headquarters will receive reports in sufficient detail
to ensure successful program coordination witI~in NASA anc~ a continuing availability of resources.
PATENT AND BACKGROUND RIGHTS
The patent provisions of contracts awarded by NASA pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding will
be based upon NASA's patent policy, regulations, and procedures except where specific statutory
requirements of ERDA require otherwise. A copy of the disclosure of each invention made under such
contracts will be furnished to ERDA. It is agreed that requests (if any) by contractors or subcontractors for
the grant of exclusive rights to such inventions will be referred to ERDA for consideration under ERDA
patent policy and no grant under NASA statute will be made without ERDA approval. Consideration will
be given by NASA to whether background patent clauses should be included in any contract awarded under
this Agrement. Specific clauses to implement these general principles will be subject to agreement between
ERDA and NASA in the light of specific contracts to be awarded under this Memorandum of
Understanding.
ERDA/NASA PROGRAM COORDINATION COMMITTEE
To provide a continuing mechanism for reviewing both the breadth and depth of NASA support for ERDA
programs, both agencies agree that an ERDA/NASA Program Coordination Committee will be established.
This Committee, which is expected to meet quarterly, will consist of such officials whose commitment and
support is required for program success. The joint Chairmen of this Coordination Committee will be the
Deputy Administrators of each agency. A Charter for the establishment and operation of the ERDA/NASA
Program Coordination Committee will be approved by the Administrators of both agencies.
ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEWS
To ensure appropriate development of support tasks and work under this Agreement, the ERDA/NASA
Program Coordination Committee will conduct a joint review of NASA R&D work in support of ERDA
each year preceding submission of ERDA program recommendations to the Office of Management and
Budget and to the President. Following such annual review, the Administrator of ERDA and the
Administrator of NASA will provide guidance for the adjustment of the over.all level of NASA support in
light of over.all energy R&D strategies, program changes and content and in due consideration of the
institutional plans of NASA.
PUBLIC INFORMATION COORDINATION
Timely release of information to the public regarding projects and programs implemented under this
Memorandum of Understanding will be by mutual agreement between ERDA and NASA representatives.
AUTHORITY
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into pursuant to the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 1958, as amended.
Enclosure:
Appendix A-Typical
Organizational Arrangement
for NASA Support
PAGENO="1223"
1219
APPENDIX A
* TYPICAL ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENT
* FOR NASA SUPPORT
GPO UO.468
PAGENO="1224"
1220
ATTACHMENT B
ERDA-NASA Program Coordin on Committee
ERDA Members:
Deputy Administrator (Co-Chairman) - R. W. Fri
Assistant Administrator for Institutional Relations
(Co-Secretary) - Dr. Eric H. Willis
Assistant Administrator for Field Operations - Dr. M. I. Yarymovych
Assistant Administrator for Solar, Geothermal and Advanced
Energy Systems - Dr. Robert L. Hirsch
Assistant Administrator for Fossil Energy - Dr. Philip C. White
Assistant Administrator for Conservation - Dr. Gene G. Mannella (Acting)
Assistant Administrator for Administration - R. F. Allnutt (Acting)
NASA Members:
Deputy Administrator (Co-Chairman) - Dr. Alan M. Lovelace
Director, Interagency Relations (Co-Secretary) - J. M. .Coulter
Assistant Administrator for DoD and Interagency Affairs -
J. M. Coulter (Acting)
Assistant Administrator for Energy Programs - R. D. Ginter
Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Technology -
Dr. J. J. Kramer (Acting)
Associate Administrator - Dr. John E. Naugle
Solar Power Systems Panel:
Dr. H. Richard Blieden, ERDA Co-Chairman
Assistant Director for Biomass, Ocean and WindSystems
Division of Solar Energy
Mr. Ralph I. LaRock, NASA Co~Chairman
Director for Solar Energy Division
Office of Energy Programs
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.]