Mr. DAVIS. That is all, thank you.

Mr. BUCKLEY. May I say the reliability of these circuits is far higher than the reliability of the normal circuits, largely because of the monitoring effort that is put on by the carriers. When we go into an operation such as we had yesterday, for instance, there are people stationed at Goddard, at the headquarters, at the Cape and at all points between in order to be sure that the circuits are brought right up to the peak of quality and also to come in in case there is any trouble. There is a heavy monitoring effort on these circuits during the time we use them.

Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Wolff.

Mr. WOLFF. I understand that it is possible to communicate through the X-band on reentry. Is that correct, to eliminate the blackout ? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. This, Mr. Wolff, is a very direct function of the velocity at which the spacecraft does reenter. On Apollo, especially on reentry from a lunar trajectory, the velocity is so much higher and consequently creates a considerable denser shield around the spacecraft, that even the X-band will not be able to penetrate it. On vehicles like Mercury, yes, X-band is high enough that it could have penetrated that type of shield.

Mr. WOLFF. I would like to ask one further general question with respect to the highly sophisticated equipment that you constantly need. I know in business our startup costs are generally the highest at the point of origin. I noticed, too, in going through some of the requests that, for example, on the manned space flight network the equipment costs, ship modification and aircraft modification, the cost of the general program is higher rather than lower than last year by about 10 or 12 percent. The point I am trying to make is the fact that its seems each year there are startup costs of about the same amount for equipment. I was wondering about the question of obsolescene. Is there a high degree of obsolescence in your equipment? Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. It is not so much a matter of obsolescence, Mr. Wolff, as it is a matter of the continual increase in required capability that emerges as we get closer to the specifics of a mission. The equipment that we put in for Mercury, as an example, we are continuing to use on the Gemini program; however, there is a considerable amount of increased data handling equipment required for Gemini. There was an augmentation carried out at all the Mercury stations, but the basic receivers, antennas, and the VHF range, for example, we are continuing to use for the Gemini program. The obsolescence will be a factor in about the Apollo time period where as a total system change we are going from the use of multiple frequencies, for example, to the use of a single carrier frequency with subcarriers, the so-called unified S-band system. In this particular time period I think we will phase out the current equipment. But this is a matter of an entirely different philosophy change.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, at some point may I raise a question about a matter that was referred to in Mr. Buckley's testimony yesterday? This may not be the opportune time.

Mr. ROUSH. We are really pressed for time here. Is it a matter of general interest to the committee or is it a matter that you could ask Mr. Buckley and get the statement for the record?

Mr. RYAN. I think it is a matter that we ought to have in the record.

Mr. ROUSH. Could you request that it be placed in the record so it will not take the time of the committee?

Mr. RYAN. If I may, Mr. Chairman, it will take me about 2 minutes to raise the questions.

Mr. ROUSH. All right, go ahead and raise the questions.

Mr. RYAN. Yesterday in your testimony you referred in connection with the satellite network on pages 6 and 7 of your testimony to 12 optical stations which are apparently funded by NASA through the Smithsonian Institution. I noted a station in Athens was not included in your testimony. Is that separate from the 12? What is that Athens station?

Mr. BUCKLEY. There is a chap named Dr. Veis in Greece, one of the many foreign scientists of extremely high caliber that Smithsonian uses, who has put together a camera to investigate what a camera is going to be like in the future. It is not one of the 12. This is research on cameras as to what Veis thinks the camera would be of the future.

Mr. RYAN. I understand that Dr. Veis applied through the Smithsonian to NASA to improve that particular camera. Has that application been passed on by NASA?

Mr. BUCKLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RYAN. Has it been approved?

Mr. BUCKLEY. Yes, sir, pending evaluation of the requirements.
Mr. RYAN. For $30,000, or approximately that amount?

Mr. BUCKLEY. I don't know the exact amount. I would like to supply that information for the record.

Mr. RYAN. I think from my understanding that he is performing a very instructive service, and this goes a good way toward promoting international cooperation. I know as of last fall it had not been approved, but it has been approved since?

Mr. BUCKLEY. I believe it has.

Mr. RYAN. Would you check on that?
Mr. BUCKLEY. I will.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Dr. Veis' experimental work on the geodetic camera station in Athens, Greece, was supported by NASA through the research grant to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) at a rate of about $200 a month while NASA was evaluating requirements for geodetic stations as suggested by Dr. Veis. Upon completion of this evaluation in April 1964, it was determined that NASA had no current requirement for a geodetic station in Athens and SAO was advised to suspend the geodetic station effort. The NASA program office which is responsible for coordination of the forthcoming geodetic program is presently drawing up plans and requirements for the program. Several Government agencies, including the Department of Defense, will participate in this program. Until the plans for this program have been completed, the extent to which the geodetic camera stations recommended by Dr. Veis may be required cannot be determined. Mr. RYAN. Would this come under this money that is appropriated for the Smithsonian?

Mr. BUCKLEY. Yes.

Mr. RYAN. How much is that, the total amount?

Mr. BUCKLEY. $4,200,000.

Mr. RYAN. In other words, you are asking for that money for next year?

Mr. BUCKLEY. For the whole of the Smithsonian program.

Mr. ROUSH. I believe we are ready to move on to the construction items.

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. The final area is the construction of facilities program.

Mr. ROUSH. We find these in our backup book, beginning under "Various locations," CF 11-18.

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. I plan to discuss these, Mr. Chairman.

The first item is an addition to the unmanned 85-foot antenna facility in Madrid for providing space for the installation of equipment that will be used to support the manned space flight program. As you know, we plan to use as one of the backup antennas for Apollo support the 85-foot antenna for the deep space network that is currently nearing completion in Spain.

This item will provide additional space in the operations building of this facility to house manned space flight equipment. This facility in conjunction with the manned facility that is currently under construction will provide the two antennas that we require for backup of the lunar portion of the manned program.

Mr. ROUSH. Are there questions on this item?

Mr. HECHLER. Where is the equipment funded for this?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. The equipment is funded in the equipment budget of the "Manned space flight network equipment" budget.

The next item is for the same purpose, except that is the addition to the antenna facility in Canberra to house similar manned space equipment and provide us a second antenna in that location of the world. Equipment costs are again funded in the equipment budget of the "Manned space flight network." These are only the construction costs.

Mr. WYDLER. Can you tell me where are the facilities that you have located in Australia? Could you give me the locations where you have facilities in Australia?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Yes. There are facilities located in the Canberra

area.

Mr. WYDLER. That is what we are talking about here?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. Yes, we are. Facilities are also located in the Woomera area, generally the south-central portion of Australia, and a more recent station on the northwest coast of Australia, in Carnarvon. These are the three major locations. There is a portable facility in the Darwin area for the support of certain satellite programs, a very small facility.

Mr. WYDLER. And each of these facilities is located in one of the places you mentioned? For instance, there is one facility in Camberra, not two, not separated by distance?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. No, there are multiple facilities. There are three major facilities under construction or completed in the Canberra

area.

Mr. WYDLER. What was the reason you couldn't place the facilities at Woomera at Canberra ?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. The installation at Woomera represents the very first installation in Australia. At that time it was the judgment of both the Australian Department of Supply and Weapons Research Establishment, who run the Woomera Range, and the NASA people, that this was the most logical place to install that particular antenna. At that time the Australian organization, the Weapons Research Establishment which operates this antenna, felt that their major technical backup was in the Woomera area and they felt they should

install this antenna there to provide technical operators for its operations.

Since that time and with the increase in the facilities the Australian Department of Supply has decided that they can conduct these technical operations in other than Woomera primarily through the use of outside contracting people in their own country.

Mr. BUCKLEY. When we went into Woomera originally, it was a range that was supporting the British big rocket development when they were in the missile business. That had fallen off quite a bit just before we went down there. So it looked like a readymade spot where they had not only the technical capability that Mr. Truszynski mentioned, but also people who would be phasing out of the British program and the Australian program. However, these programs did not phase out as anticipated.

As space exploration developed, both the British and the Australians increased their program rather than decreased them. Eventually they decided to fire the ESRO-the combined European Space Research Organization rockets from Woomera. We had great difficulty in recruiting people. They tried in Europe. In 1 year they had a hundred people added and we got none of them. We were running the minitrack station with about 11 people and it should have had at that time about 33. As we initiated plans to add facilities in Australia, we decided then to stay away from the Woomera area.

By the way, the Woomera area is on the desert. It is a Governmentowned town of about 4,000 people. It is entirely a civil service situation; therefore, they can't offer premium pay in order to get people in the Woomera area. This resulted in us leaving Woomera.

Mr. HECHLER. I am told the cost per square foot of this Canberra installation is considerably more than the Madrid installation; is that correct?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. It is a difference of a factor of about 10 percent. Mr. HECHLER. What its the reason for this difference? Could you give the committee some idea?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. It is primarily a matter of the levels of the local economy, since in our construction we use local labor, and materials when feasible. I believe this is merely a reflection of the particular overall level of construction costs in Australia as opposed to Spain.

Mr. HECHLER. This is a different installation, is it not, than the one Mr. Buckley indicated would be operational by the end of 1964 in last year's testimony?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. That is correct, sir. The installation that was supposed to be operational by the end of 1964 is the current unmanned facility that is there at this time. It is essentially in operation now. We plan to augment this facility to allow this antenna to support the manned flight program.

Mr. ROUSH. Are there other questions? You may proceed.

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. The next item is the construction of two facilities at our Alaska station which has literally outgrown its confines. When we first established this station, the major program that was foreseen for this particular antenna was the Nimbus program. Since that time, not only has there been included a weather bureau program in Alaska but polar orbiting satellites such as POGO have been also emerged, and at the current time there is a polar orbiting Tiros satellite. Further, we are also being required to support the EGO satel

lite from the Alaskan station. There are a considerable number of additional equipment requirements that have emerged in Alaska. The purpose of these additional facilities is to provide proper space for these added equipments and support requirements.

One further facet of this expansion is that it will allow us to move the minitrack equipment that is currently located at College, Alaska, to this area and further consolidate operations in Alaska.

Mr. PELLY. I assume that the advance planning has already been taken out of fiscal 1965 funds?

Mr.TRUSZYNSKI. That is correct, sir.

Mr. PELLY. And these fiscal year 1966 costs do not go to advance planning?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. That is correct.

Mr. HECHLER. Can we get the Weather Bureau to finance part of this?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. The Weather Bureau did finance the installation of the second 85-foot antenna and its associated operations building in Alaska. When this was first installed, there were certain NASA equipments that were installed in the Weather Bureau facility. These now in turn must be removed and housed elsewhere as the result of the operational TOS program that the Weather Bureau is going to be conducting next year. We originally had been utilizing space in their facilities which now is no longer available to us.

Mr. ROUSH. If there are no other questions, we will go to the next item. I am sorry, Mr. Wolff.

Mr. WOLFF. I just wanted to know why there was such a high unit cost on these buildings. Is it because of the weather that is involved or the transportation or what?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. It is both. The cost factor in Alaska is about 1.9 brought about primarily because of the short building season, as well as the conditions of the soil and the additional piling that usually has to be provided.

Mr. ROUSH. You may move to the next item.

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. The next item is the support requirement on Antigua for the housing of the operations people and support of the station being put there. There is no community center on the island of Antigua in which the operations personnel can obtain housing. The Air Force has been required to provide housing for their operations personnel on the island. The costs reflected here represent the additional amount of money that we plan to transfer to the Air Force to increase the capacity of their housing area to provide for the operations people associated with our Apollo station on Antigua. This has been investigated in conjunction with the Air Force. Visits have been made to Antigua to ascertain the details of the types of additions that should be provided.

Mr. ROUSH. Are there questions?

Mr. WYDLER. Yes. I don't understand this program. This station is being built to perform what function?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. This is one of the new stations for Apollo, Mr. Wydler.

Mr. WYDLER. You say there are personnel there already?

Mr. TRUSZYNSKI. There are some Air Force personnel associated with Air Force tracking and data acquisition equipment on Antigua; yes, sir.