SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 1971 BUDGET AUTHORITY REQUESTED AND FINAL ALLOWANCE Mr. GEHRIG. Previously it was indicated to the committee that it would be difficult to operate at only two Saturn V launches per year as proposed earlier by scientists. I think part of that was based on the thinking that NASA wanted to be sure that the launch crews and the astronauts were always kept at the peak performance to reduce the risks. How does NASA feel about this now that Saturn V's are scheduled to be launched at only two per year? Dr. PAINE. We feel that at the rate of two per year which we are now planning, you will indeed still use the procedures that we have worked out and tested, the training programs, the launch crews and the support across the Nation in contractors and NASA centers, and we feel that we can indeed fly two per year without an undue risk. But I should always, of course, remind the committee, which it well knows, that we are supplying experimental equipment here. These are some of the most advanced vehicles that man has ever developed, probably the most, and there are always some risks involved. We feel going to two a year does not increase the risk beyond our current operations. Mr. GEHRIG. Now, Apollo 19, the last exploration mission, will be flown several years after the previous lunar exploration mission and there will be only one Saturn V flight in there to put up the Apollo applications workshop. Is this interval between these launches of concern to NASA? Dr. PAINE. We have looked at this very carefully. We will be launching-after the dry workshop-we will have the three S1B command and service module launches for the rendezvous and revisits and then we will have both Apollo 18 and 19 after these Apollo applications flights-two lunar missions to be flown in 1974. Mr. GEHRIG. Is there any concern about the storage of the Saturn V launch vehicles for several years? Dr. PAINE. Yes, there is concern and this is receiving a good deal of attention, we feel adequate attention. Mr. GEHRIG. Are there any plans for the other Saturn 1B launch vehicles that remain in the inventory? I think that will leave fourhow many, four? Dr. PAINE. Four in the inventory. We have no specific plans but studies are underway as to various alternative uses and I have no doubt that they will indeed find application. Mr. GEHRIG. Are there any plans for lunar exploration after the last Saturn Apollo flight to the moon? Dr. PAINE. NO. We feel that the next trips that an American would make to the moon would either be on a Saturn V following a resumption of Saturn V production, which I would think would probably not be the main use for the new Saturn V production after the 515. Rather than that, we feel that the next trip to the moon by Americans would probably be made with the new space transportation system in the late seventies or early eighties when the space shuttle, space station, and perhaps the space tug system, which are outlined in the space task group report, come into use. SPACE SHUTTLE SYSTEM Mr. GEHRIG. The space shuttle system will have a lunar exploration capability? Dr. PAINE. Well, the space shuttle system, of course, will be a general purpose system which will support activities that take place in earth orbit and beyond. Mr. GEHRIG. How much is in the 1971 budget other than $110 million under space flight operations that is applicable to the space shuttle and space station? Would you put that in the record, please? Dr. PAINE. Yes. (The material submitted for the record follows:) The FY 1971 Office of Manned Space Flight budget request includes $110 million under the Space Flight Operations program for definition and preliminary design of the shuttle engine and airframe, definition of the space station module and experiments, and design verification and advanced prototype testing of selected long lead-time components applicable to the space station or shuttle. In addition, a significant portion of the OART Space Technology effort is directed technology in such areas as large solar arrays, electrical power modules, protective structures and materials, and long-duration life support systems for the space station; and structural thermal protection systems, vehicle aerodynamic analysis, and long-lead main booster and altitude control propulsion system efforts in support of the space shuttle. Mr. GEHRIG. Are there any provisions in this budget for a "Grand Tour" mission? Dr. PAINE. This question was not faced in the 1971 budget. This will be a question that we face as we prepare the 1972 budget. Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Paine, in the 1970 budget there was approximate $8 million, I think $8,088,000, for additional laboratories at the el tronics research center. With the closing of that facility, to wh activity is NASA allocating these funds? Mr. LILLY. The total amount of our appropriation for facilities this fiscal year was $53 million. Our request was for $58 million. T facility you are referring to is slightly less than $8.1 million. V have continued to hold $3 million for claims and contingencies. you noticed, the actual plan of the other facilities is for slightly ov $50 million, leaving us a $3 million to take care of the claims and al contingencies. To give you an example of the kind of claims that are still existence, we have $44 million of pending claims including court cas on land acquisition and on construction of facilities. Mr. GEHRIG. Dr. Paine, one more question on the space shuttl Does the Department of Defense and more specifically the Air For support the shuttle and space station development? Dr. PAINE. Yes. Mr. GEHRIG. Are they cooperating-is DOD cooperating fully wi NASA in the definition studies and technological development f these projects? Dr. PAINE. Yes, and we are preparing an agreement between th Air Force acting for the department of Defense and NASA on requir ments to make certain that as we proceed to develop the space shuttle it contains all of the things which will make it the most useful for t Defense Department. Mr. GEHRIG. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other question that I can put in the record with the committee's permission. That all the questions I have. (Questions submitted by Mr. Gehrig and answers supplied for th record by Dr. Paine are as follows:) SUSTAINING UNIVERSITY PROGRAM Question 1. The sustaining university program has been abolishe in the fiscal 1971 budget. How will this affect NASA's relationshi with the colleges and universities? Answer: The Sustaining University Program has provided NASA wit an effective mechanism to develop and maintain close and viable relationship with the academic community. NASA, through the Sustaining University Pr gram, was able to appropriately involve universities in the national space effor during its period of rapid expansion. Much needed laboratory facilities wer constructed, graduate training programs initiated, and deeply talented researc teams organized to respond to the NASA needs. The Sustaining University Pr gram allowed NASA to work with universities in a way which strengthene them while they were contributing directly to the NASA mission. The con bination of both broad multidisciplinary research and training support wit specific project activities provided a balanced means of involving the Nation universities in NASA's activities. Termination of the Sustaining University Program will result in phasing ou of multidisciplinary research and predoctoral training grants to about 50 unive sities and colleges. This will terminate further NASA support for predoctora students in engineering systems design, noise and vibration, aeronautics, lase technology, international science policies, public administration and management It will also lead to phasing out about 60 university research grants in a variet of disciplines such as materials, physics, astronomy, biology, environmenta ecology, computer technology, life sciences, project management and technology assessment and transfer. Termination of the Sustaining University Program will not affect project oriented university research grants and contracts initiated and monitored by NASA program offices and field centers. We estimate that about $90 million will be obligated in fiscal year 1971 for these purposes. EARTH RESOURCES SURVEY PROJECT Question 2. How much money is in the fiscal 1971 budget applicable to the earth resources survey project, including the funds under space applications, construction of facilities, launch vehicles, tracking and data acquisition, and advanced research and technology? Answer: The fiscal year 1971 budget includes $61,050,000 directly applicable to the earth resources survey project. Of this amount, $41,500,000 is associated with development of the Earth Resources Technology Satellites A and B; another $3,900,000 is for the Delta launch vehicles; $2,050,000 of Construction of Facilities funds is provided for an Earth Resources Technology Laboratory at the Goddard Space Flight Center; and $2,600,000 is included in the Tracking and Data Acquisition programs for computer peripherals in the above GSFC Control Center and for wide band receivers at selected stations. $11,000,000 of earth resources survey funding is also included for a continuation of the aircraft program to develop and test remote sensing techniques, sensors, and data handling systems in connection with this project. In addition to these direct project funds, $9,000,000 of Earth Resources Supporting Research and Technology funds are included within the Space Applications programs. Activities within the Advanced Research and Technology program are directed toward general advances in the state-of-the-art and while some portions of this activity may be utilized by the earth resources satellites, as well as by other programs, no such funds are directly applicable to this project. LUNAR AND PLANETARY EXPLORATION PROGRAM Question 3. I note an increase in the fiscal year 1970 cost for the Pioneer and for the Mariner-Mars 1971 flight projects. What is the current estimate of total costs of each of these projects? What was the estimate of total costs last year? To what do you attribute these increases in project costs, and how can we improve the accuracy of the estimating process? Answer: Current run-out cost estimates for Mariner Mars 1971 are $142 to $147 million (including approximately $22 million for launch vehicles). Current run-out cost estimates for Pioneer are $235 million to $255 million (including approximately $68 million for launch vehicles). The Pioneer cost estimates include Pioneers A thru G and Helios. One year ago, the run-out cost estimate were about $125 million for Mariner Mars 1971 and about $205 million for Pioneer, including launch vehicles in both cases. The major reason for the Mariner Mars 1971 cost increase was changes to the Mariner Mars 1969 spacecraft design which will substantially increase the return from the Mariner 1971 missions and allow for modifications indicated by the in-flight performance of Mariners VI and VII. The Pioneer cost increase is related to the Pioneer F and G missions. The major causes were (1) the addition of scientific experiments, and (2) increase in spacecraft cost estimates. The earlier estimates were prepared envisioning a modified Pioneer A-E spacecraft with sufficient increased capability to provide some direct physical measurements at and in the vicinity of Jupiter. In selecting the scientific payload a larger number of excellent scientific instruments were proposed than had been anticipated. To maximize the return from the mission, more of these experiments were selected than had been previously planned. The additional experiments were compatible with the overall spacecraft design. However, in the course of detailed definitization of design, some internal spacecraft rearrangements were required. This resulted in the negotiated spacecraft contract value exceeding that planned in the earlier estimates. In addition, there has been a small increase in the launch vehicle costs for Pioneer F&G and Helios. We are acutely aware of the need to improve the accuracy of the estimating process and are studying this problem very closely. In addition, we will strive to convey to the Congress a better characterization of the uncertainty in our cost estimates. It is for this reason that we have indicated above the ranges in our current cost estimates for Mariner Mars 1971 and Pioneer Program. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES FUNDS Question 4. The fiscal year 1970 budget contained a request of $9 million for modification and rehabilitation of facilities at all locations. This money was authorized and appropriated. Would you put into the record a detailed accounting of how that $9 million was used? Include any additional funds that may have been added to this account. Answer: Attached is a detailed listing of current planning for use of the $9.0 million authorized for modifications and rehabilitations of facilities at all locations. No additional funds have been applied to this project to date. Fiscal year 1970 rehabilitations and modifications of facilities Manned Spacecraft Center__ Erosion control.. Fire protection improvements, EAFB.. Marshall Space Flight Center Repair haulover canal bridge--- Improvements to fire protection systems.. Rehabilitation of air-conditioning systems- Kennedy Space Center--- Rehabilitation of propellant services access road and VAB park- Rehabilitation of platform support beams, LUT No. 1, LC 39-- Modifications and rehabilitations of mobile service structure, Rehabilitation of fire alarm and safety detection system_. Rehabilitation of service air compressor_. 295,000 239,000 632, 000 354, 000 278,000 620,000 105, 000 145, 000 Rehabilitation of ventilation and air-conditioning, Downey 70,000 300, 000 3, 748,000 770,000 245, 000 140,000 185,000 125,000 75,000 |