Fiscal year 1970 rehabilitations and modifications of facilities—Continued Langley Research Center_____ $687,000 Rehabilitation of transonic dynamics tunnel building-. 252, 000 435, 000 Lewis Research Center_____ 1, 127, 000 Rehabilitation of materials and stresses laboratory- 357, 000 Rehabilitation of the electrical distribution system at Plum Replacement of engine research building intercooler tubes__ Flight Research Center_. Rehabilitation of central standby electricity--- Total, Office of Advanced Research and Technology-- Goddard Space Flight Center-- 350, 000 150, 000 100,000 170, 000 120,000 120, 000 2,704, 000 385, 000 Rehabilitation of chilled water and air-conditioning system___. 295, 000 90,000 Jet Propulsion Laboratory-- 726, 400 Rehabilitation of roofs and weatherproof laboratory buildings__ Rehabilitation of west side access road, Wallops Island___. 142, 680 55, 000 Replacement of the central air service line---- 24, 000 Western Test Range. Rehabilitation of communications and electrical systems for Total, Office of Space Science and Applications___ Various locations_. Fire protection, Goldstone_‒‒‒‒ Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition----. Grand total__. JPL WORK IN ISOTOPE THERMOELECTRIC SYSTEMS Question 5. The fiscal year 1971 construction of facilities program includes a request for an isotope thermoelectric systems application laboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Does the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have any prior experience in isotope thermoelectric systems? Isn't there a substantial capability in this field at the Lewis Research Center? Why is the facility being built at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory rather than at one of NASA's permanent research centers? Answer: JPL's work in isotope thermoelectric systems started in 1959 with tests of the SNAP-3 generator (reported in 1961). Experimental and analytical efforts have continued from 1959 until the present. Tests have been made of two SNAP-11 and two SNAP-19 units, a SNAP-27 unit, and a SNAP-19 TAGS unit which is being used to develop information in direct support of the Pioneer Project. In parallel with testing of complete radioisotope thermoelectric generation (RTG's) as well as thermoelectric modules in both air and vacuum, JPL has engaged in R&D aimed at identifying and developing solutions of RTG/ spacecraft integration problems in the magnetic, nuclear radiation, electrical, thermal and mechanical design areas. Studies of outer planet missions, such as the Grand Tour concept, have, in the last several years, focused on the need for adequate self-contained power sources for these missions. Thus, we began research and advanced development funding for analysis and testing at JPL so that this technology would be in hand when required. JPL secondary power research and science integration funding has increased over the years to a $1.6 million level in FY 1970 with a planned level of $2.3 million in FY 1971. This research and advanced development represents NASA's major effort toward the utilization of multi-hundred watt RTG's in spacecraft missions. The thermoelectric effort at the Lewis Research Center from 1967 to the present has consisted of a very small effort and extremely modest test facilities (laboratory bell jars) in which only thermoelectric modules, can be tested. The work since 1967 has consisted of (1) bell jar testing of three nine element modules built by RCA, (2) a contract with RCA to develop and fabricate hybrid thermoelectric elements and sub-assemblies. (3) modest support of tests of a USAF cascaded device at Atomics International and (4) parametric studies on paper of the relative merits of RTGs using two types of thermoelectric materials. RTG/spacecraft integration problems have not received study. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is a government-owned, contractor operated facility which is considered to be an integral part of the NASA institutional capability. NASA plans call for JPL to be heavily involved in future outer planetary missions, therefore, it was selected as the site for the proposed Isotope Thermoelectric System Application Laboratory. The Laboratory's eleven-year experience with RTG units for planetary missions makes it the most logical center to conduct the planned RTG/Spacecraft/Science instrumentation integration program. SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF MANNED FLIGHTS Question 6. Last fall two reports were published relating to some of the scientific aspects of NASA's manned space flight program. One of these reports, entitled "Lunar Exploration, Strategy for Research 1969-75," was prepared by the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The other report, entitled, "The Biomedical Foundations of Manned Space Flight," was prepared by the Space Science and Technology Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee. JPL WORK IN ISOTOPE THERMOELECTRIC SYSTEMS Question 5. The fiscal year 1971 construction of facilities program includes a request for an isotope thermoelectric systems application laboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Does the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have any prior experience in isotope thermoelectric systems? Isn't there a substantial capability in this field at the Lewis Research Center? Why is the facility being built at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory rather than at one of NASA's permanent research centers? Answer: JPL's work in isotope thermoelectric systems started in 1959 with tests of the SNAP-3 generator (reported in 1961). Experimental and analytical efforts have continued from 1959 until the present. Tests have been made of two SNAP-11 and two SNAP-19 units, a SNAP-27 unit, and a SNAP-19 TAGS unit which is being used to develop information in direct support of the Pioneer Project. In parallel with testing of complete radioisotope thermoelectric generation (RTG's) as well as thermoelectric modules in both air and vacuum, JPL has engaged in R&D aimed at identifying and developing solutions of RTG/ spacecraft integration problems in the magnetic, nuclear radiation, electrical, thermal and mechanical design areas. Studies of outer planet missions, such as the Grand Tour concept, have, in the last several years, focused on the need for adequate self-contained power sources for these missions. Thus, we began research and advanced development funding for analysis and testing at JPL so that this technology would be in hand when required. JPL secondary power research and science integration funding has increased over the years to a $1.6 million level in FY 1970 with a planned level of $2.3 million in FY 1971. This research and advanced development represents NASA's major effort toward the utilization of multi-hundred watt RTG's in spacecraft missions. The thermoelectric effort at the Lewis Research Center from 1967 to the present has consisted of a very small effort and extremely modest test facilities (laboratory bell jars) in which only thermoelectric modules, can be tested. The work since 1967 has consisted of (1) bell jar testing of three nine element modules built by RCA, (2) a contract with RCA to develop and fabricate hybrid thermoelectric elements and sub-assemblies. (3) modest support of tests of a USAF cascaded device at Atomics International and (4) parametric studies on paper of the relative merits of RTGS using two types of thermoelectric materials. RTG/spacecraft integration problems have not received study. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is a government-owned, contractor operated facility which is considered to be an integral part of the NASA institutional capability. NASA plans call for JPL to be heavily involved in future outer planetary missions, therefore, it was selected as the site for the proposed Isotope Thermoelectric System Application Laboratory. The Laboratory's eleven-year experience with RTG units for planetary missions makes it the most logical center to conduct the planned RTG/Spacecraft/Science instrumentation integration program. SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF MANNED FLIGHTS Question 6. Last fall two reports were published relating to some of the scientific aspects of NASA's manned space flight program. One of these reports, entitled "Lunar Exploration, Strategy for Reearch 1969-75," was prepared by the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The other report, entitled, "The Biomedical Foundations of Manned Space Flight," was prepared by the Space Science and Technology Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee. Both reports contain recommendations as to what NASA should do in the scientific areas treated by the reports. On receiving the reports, the chairman requested Dr. Paine to study them and to send to the committee his evaluation of the reports and any plans for implementation or rejection of the recommendations they contained. Without objection, the two letters from Dr. Paine replying to the chairman's request will be placed in the record at this point. Dr. Paine, do you have any further comment with regard to the reports or your letters to the chairman that you would care to make at this time? (The two letters referred to in the above question follow:) NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, Washington, D.C., December 24, 1969. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In further response to your letter of November 7, we have reviewed the study of the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences, "Lunar Exploration, Strategy for Research 1969-1975." Basically, NASA agrees with the Board's conclusion that the best use of the manned lunarlanding capability ". . . entails a shift of emphasis from technological development to an exploitation of existing Apollo technology for scientific objectives," and we are moving as expeditiously as possible to maximize the scientific return on future Apollo missions. Specifically, on future missions we would hope to implement a lunar exploration program in which we would (1) Land at selected sites of prime scientific interest; (2) Extent the astronauts' time on the lunar surface and increase the payload available for scientific investigations; (3) Provide a roving vehicle to reach important features at a distance from the landing site; (4) Return increased quantities of lunar material and data to Earth; and (5) Obtain comprehensive coverage of the lunar surface through remote sensors and cameras in lunar orbit. These items are consistent with the primary augmentation recommended by the Space Science Board. The successes of Apollo 11 and 12 give us assurance that the augmentation is feasible, and, in some cases, well in hand. A unified program for Manned Space Flight employing common hardware systems for earth orbit, lunar, and planetary missions is now under study. While these capabilities are being developed, we would hope to continue with missions to the Moon which would satisfy the scientific objectives outlined by the Board. The report of the Space Science Board discusses problems we have encountered with management of scientific aspects of the Apollo Program. In a broader examination of the NASA organization and management, one of my objectives is to alleviate problems such as those pointed out by the Board. Several significant changes have already been made in Houston. I believe the outstanding scientific success of Apollo 12 has shown the effect of these changes. I am enclosing a report prepared by the Office of Manned Space Flight outlining the steps we would take on the specific recommendations set forth in the Board's report, assuming resources are available. As you know, we are now in the process of putting together the elements of the FY 1971 NASA budget request, and I am not in a position at this time to say whether we will be able to implement fully the lunar exploration program outlined in the enclosure. Sincerely yours, T. O. PAINE, Adminisrator. |