In a solid system the modes of failure are relatively few. A failure that is likely to be catastrophic can be predicted by rise in pressure. The larger the engine system becomes, the longer it probably will take for the pressure to rise to catastrophic value.

So, as the engine gets larger, you have more time to detect the onset failure and to get the man away. However, I think because of the simplicity of the solid system and its accompanying reliability that we are overemphasizing this particular problem when we are talking about solid boosters.

I might point out that once you do detect failure, you want to get the man away before the launch system blows up. You still depend on the solid rocket abort system to get the man away.

Mr. BELL. As of right now, you think perhaps liquid does have a little bit more warning system, little better warning system than does the solid?

Dr. RITCHEY. It is primarily because the particular modes of failure in liquid systems are not particular modes of failures in solid rockets. .It can't even fail this way in the first place.

A liquid engine system has certain modes of failure that a solid system doesn't have. These particular modes of failure usually are rather long periods of warning in order to detect the onset failure and get the man away.

Mr. ANFUSO. What would happen, Dr. Ritchey, if a large solid booster were to be dropped and then crack up? Would this increase the safety hazard?

Dr. RITCHEY. It certainly would. If a large solid booster were dropped, the outside case would be dented. This can be detected visually in the form of a dent, or scratch, or some other defect. If you dent a case or deform it very severely, then you begin to deform the inside of the propellant in such a way that it will begin to crack and here, of course, you have additional burning surface which would probably cause heat to get to the wall of the pressure vessel and burn through in a few seconds. With any care whatsoever in assembling a launch vehicle, I would think any engine that had been damaged by this type of method would be easily detected and would be replaced in the launch vehicle.

.

Mr. ANFUSO. And the possibility of large solid booster dropping like that would be remote?

Dr. RITCHEY. I would think it would be extremely improbable the large solid booster of the 240-inch size that we are talking about would be dropped.

About the only place it could be dropped would be at the final launch pad where it is being removed from the barge and set on the launching pad and ready for the other stages to be assembled on top.

Mr. ANFUSO. Let me ask you this: You believe that we should have a parallel program for the development of large solid boosters similar to large liquid boosters?

Dr. RITCHEY. I do indeed. I believe this very strongly. I think it is very unfortunate that we have wasted almost a year or over a year since the committee first considered this question.

Mr. ANFUSO. This particular committee has been pushing for such a program.

Dr. RITCHEY. I am aware of that. Over a year ago this committee, as far as I know, seemed to be quite interested in the particular matter and I believe made a strong recommendation that parallel efforts be established in this field of large boosters. We have gone something over a year with very little having been done in the way of establishing a program, although I do believe there soon will be a development program for an engine of the size we are talking about. Mr. ANFUSO. If we did not go into parallel programs as soon as possible, do you think this would slow up the U.S. space program? Dr. RITCHEY. I think you have put it very well, Mr. Chairman. First off, let me say I think the liquid propulsion systems can be made to work. I question very seriously whether it can be made to work on schedule which can make us competitive.

I believe we have the technology in the solid systems for attaining high thrust that is very far superior to any other country in the world. I think it is a shame we are not using this. We should take advantage of this particular technology that we seem to have a unique advantage over our competition. We should push it rapidly and see if we

can't make use of it.

Mr. ANFUSO. Do you think we have an advantage in the field of solids over the Russians?

Dr. RITCHEY. It is my personal opinion that we do have an advantage in this field. It is very substantial.

Mr. ANFUSO. I think a lot of people share your views.

Dr. RITCHEY. In the way of danger, I think the dangers are twofold. First, I think that there will be a danger to our prestige if we don't take advantage of every bit of technology we have to prove the superiority we have in this field.

Secondly, I feel very strongly that there will be indeed military missions to face. I think the same basic ground rules apply here that apply to scientific missions in space. The bigger payloads you can put out there, the more advantages you have. There is no payload that is too large.

Mr. ANFUSO. There isn't any question in your mind that if we were able to reach the moon first, the possibilities of peace would be that much greater.

Dr. RITCHEY. I think it is extremely important for the purpose of keeping peace that we establish a technological supremacy that is absolutely overwhelming and secondly, we make this technological supremacy known to everyone.

Mr. ANFUSO. The Russians have been reluctant to cooperate in outer space explorations, but recently they have indicated an interest in such cooperation.

Would you say this indicates that the United States is making greater strides in this development field than the U.S.S.R.?

Dr. RITCHEY. I think the whole world was quite impressed by Colonel Glenn's flight in the Mercury Capsule IV. We did this in a goldfish bowl so the whole world could look on.

In addition to that, we had the nerve to do it with the whole world watching. This was very impressive. At least time-wise it appeared to be the reason why the Russians seemed to be more interested in international cooperation.

Mr. ANFUSO. Do you think that we are making the greatest effort possible at this moment to speed up the U.S. space program?

Dr. RITCHEY. This is one area where I feel we could put considerable additional effort directed in an effective way.

Mr. ANFUSO. It is surely one way.

Dr. RITCHEY. This is one field where we could and should have more effort. I think in most of the other areas we seem to be doing quite well.

We have the whole range of liquids under development. If we would go ahead and establish solid boosters of such thrust to use these liquid engines as upper stages, then I think we would have covered the field. We may discover other things.

It could be that things will come from these research efforts which will point other directions as far as our future space exploration vehicles are concerned.

Mr. ANFUSO. What is the largest thrust you could expect from the solid rocket booster?

Dr. RITCHEY. A 20-million-pound thrust could be made with a solid propulsion system. We could possibly go above that. I would say maybe as high as 50 million pounds. Here the laws of nature begin to become quite limited.

Mr. ANFUSO. Doctor, General Schriever of the Air Force believes in solids as well as liquids. He believes that some day the ideal booster would be a combination of both. Do you share that opinion? Dr. RITCHEY. Yes, sir; I do. The combination of both, however, I think he was talking about was the Air Force Titan III concept. Here the combination of both as a first stage is caused by the desire to avoid ignition of the liquid system as a second stage and, of course, there is another stage on top.

But it does appear to me the best launch vehicle consists of solid boosters as a first stage, and upper stages of liquids.

Mr. ANFUSO. You have been a very valuable witness. We certainly appreciate your coming here. We are approaching the hour when we must stop.

Any more questions?

Mr. CORMAN. Do I understand correctly the $60 million you indicated for aggression program for solid fuels

Mr. PEACOCK. For facilities. He said $40 million.

Mr. CORMAN. He said for the total amount was some $59 million including facilities. I wanted to know if this was just for the 240inch diameter engine or in addition to funds spent by Department of Defense in other areas of research and development of solid fuel engines?

Dr. RITCHEY. The $40 million I mentioned is for a program extending over approximately 2 years, a 2-year period ending with the static testing of a flight weight 240-inch-diameter solid rocket engine. Previous to this there would be a short-length firing in the 13th month, a short-length firing in the 17th month, and a full-scale firing in the 21st month.

Mr. CORMAN. That would be in addition to the other solid programs underway?

Dr. RITCHEY. That is correct.

Mr. CORMAN. We had testimony that you could segment them like a pie. Do you think that area has any validity?

Dr. RITCHEY. I think you could build a booster this way. It is not clear to me what advantages you could get. Perhaps the advantage of being able to transport the pieces in smaller size increments, perhaps the advantage of using existing manufacturing or making machinery. But it would appear that costwise and schedulewise the best approach is to build a plant with access to deep water and make your engine in one big piece and tackle this problem in the way that you really mean business and you are going to establish a facility so you can use them over a long period of time.

Mr. ANFUSO. Thank you very much, Dr. Ritchey. We will recess for 1 minute to permit our next witness to come up. Dr. Sutton. The meeting will come to order.

Mr. Sutton, we already have your biography. We will insert it in the record at this point.

(Biographical sketch of George P. Sutton follows:)

George P. Sutton is manager of long-range planning at Rocketdyne, a division of North American Aviation, Inc., and in this job he is intimately concerned with current and future rocket technology.

Between 1958 and 1960, he served as the Hunsaker professor of aeronautical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, then as chief scientist for the Advanced Research Projects Agency in the Department of Defense and as Division Director of the Institute of Defense Analysis.

Sutton joined a nucleus group of North American Aviation guided missile scientists in 1946 as a research engineer and subsequently held successive prominent roles in Rocketdyne's development of rocket systems in the fields of liquid and solid propellants, nuclear and electrical propulsion. He was manager of Rocketdyne's advanced design engineering until the fall of 1958; he assumed his present responsibilities in mid-1960.

He has written many technical magazine articles and one of his books, "Rocket Propulsion Elements," has become a standard text in many technical colleges. Sutton began his career in rocketry in 1943 after graduation from California Institute of Technology with a bachelor and a master of science degree in mechanical engineering.

Sutton, who is a consultant to the U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, is a past president of the American Rocket Society. He has served this society as the first president of the southern California section, as a director, as chairman of several committees, as vice president in 1957, and as national president of the nearly 15,000-member technical professional organization in 1958.

Sutton is a fellow of ARS, an associate fellow of the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences, a fellow of the British Interplanetary Society and a member of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Raketentechnik und Raumfahrt (the German Rocket Society). He is a member of the board of trustees of the National Youth Science Foundation, an organization formed to arrange a series of summer science camps for selected talented youngsters.

With his wife, Yvonne, and their two daughters, Christine, 15, and Marilyn, 13, Sutton lives in Woodland Hills, Calif.

Mr. ANFUSO. If you will, please, give us a statement. We will insert your statement at this point.

(The prepared statement of G. P. Sutton folows:)

STATEMENT OF G. P. SUTTON, MANAGER, LONG-RANGE PLANNING, ROCKETDYNE, A DIVISION OF NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC.

It is a pleasure to appear today before this committee. My name is George P. Sutton, and I serve as manager of long-range planning for Rocketdyne, a division of North American Aviation, Inc.

As you know, we have had the honor of appearing before you on previous occasions, including the testimony last year of S. K. Hoffman, president of

Rocketdyne. The importance of the committee's work and its concern with the Nation's space effort are well understood by us. We are, therefore, pleased to discuss with you the progress that is being achieved in the field of propulsion, and to offer some observations and comments.

Since 1945, we have been actively engaged in the design and development of rocket propulsion systems, which now include liquid propellant, solid propellant, nuclear, and electrical discharge types. Rocket engines developed and produced by Rocketdyne include those for the Redstone, Jupiter, Thor, and Atlas ballistic missiles; the boosters for 64 of the 69 successful satellite and deep space launchings; and boosters and upper stages for various Saturn configurations. Both the manned ballistic flights, as well as the manned orbital flight, in the Mercury program were boosted by engines developed and built by our company.

In discussing propulsion, I would first like to acknowledge the established national policy of pursuing an intensive space exploration program. Three comparatively new engines currently under development at Rocketdyne for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be devoted to carrying out this commitment. They represent a very substantial increase in propulsive power, and provide an opportunity of matching and possibly surpassing Soviet space power.

While each of these engines has been discussed previously before your committee, I would like to briefly review their designed performance and the current status of their development.

The H-1 rocket engine is being developed under the technical direction of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. It is used in a cluster of eight on the Saturn C-1 vehicle. This photograph (fig. 346) shows the successful first flight of the booster last October. For the first few flights, each of the engines delivers 165,000 pounds of thrust. Later, this will be increased to 188,000 pounds of thrust for a total lift-off thrust of 1.5 million pounds.

This engine uses conventional propellants-liquid oxygen and a kerosene-type rocket fuel. It has a simple design (fig. 347) intended for rugged, high thrust dependability. Its capability to start, operate, and shut down under any single nalfunction has been demonstrated in a series of static tests in which two sample. production engines were operated for 12 equivalent, full-duration tests to within 2 percent of rated thrust.

On the basis of its excellent record to date, I believe that it is fair to say that H-1 has achieved its goal of providing our Nation with a reliable booster at an early date for the first manned flights into deep space.

Production of these engines is currently being carried out at our Canoga Park, Calif., plant and is planned for transfer later to our plant in Neosho, Mo.

The next photograph (fig. 348) shows a firing of the F-1 rocket engine, the largest single engine currently under development in the free world. It has a thrust of 1.5 million pounds. Like the H-1, it uses liquid oxygen and a kerosene-type fuel. It is currently undergoing development tests at NASA's high thrust test area at Edwards, Calif. The initial development program is approximately twothirds of the way to its goal and results to date are satisfactory.

The principal objectives in the design of this engine (fig. 349) are reliability, a degree of ruggedness to provide a greater margin of safety for future manned applications, simplicity, and compactness. As an example of the latter, the thrust chamber has a segmented, uncooled, detachable, large-diameter nozzle extension to accommodate any expansion area ratio required by the vehicle up to 16 to 1 and to permit easy transportation.

Many components and a number of different engines have been built and tested to date. One engine has been fired 26 times-19 of them in consecutive order. Through such repetitive testing, a great wealth of data may be obtained from the same piece of hardware under a variety of conditions.

A significant consideration in the F-1 program is the comparatively low cost of its propellants, which is just a few cents per pound. This is important in view of the power levels involved. For example, the cluster of five F-1 engines for the Saturn C-5 will have a total thrust of 7.5 million pounds.

With this high-thrust engine available in 1963, and through the experience gained in engine clustering in the Saturn program, the way will be cleared for launching advanced vehicles capable of establishing the first true outposts of man in space, beginning in the mid-1960's. More specifically, a cluster of five F-1 engines will provide in the first-stage booster power for the Saturn C—5 vehicle. Later, a cluster of eight or more F-1's is planned for the Nova vehicle.