Question b. How many 16 foot transonic wind tunnels exist and what are their location, present usage, and ownership?

Answer. There are two 16-foot transonic wind tunnels in existance which are government owned. One is located at the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC), Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee and the other is located at the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. The AEDC tunnel is being utilized for developmental testing about 10 hours a day over a 2-shift period. The remaining time is required for maintenance, getting models ready, setting up instrumentation, etc.

The Langley 16-foot Transonic Wind Tunnel conducts tests on propulsion effects of airframe aerodynamics and propulsion system airframe intregation on a one-shift basis. An additional shift is required to set up and get models ready for testing. Also, electric power constraints presently restrict Langley Research Center from testing more than on a one-shift basis.

Question c. Apparently this project is part of a program plan to upgrade major facilities at the Center. What is the scope of the modification and rehabilitation program? How much has already been accomplished? What is the future for completion?

Answer. At the present time this Langley program is envisioned to total about $30-35 million. Through FY 1975 about $7.7 million or slightly less than 25% of this total have been provided. The residual requirements will be considered on their merits in proceeding years within the present plan in order to provide for these total needs prior to FY 1980.

Question d. How long will the tunnel be out of operation during the proposed rehabilitation?

Answer. The 16-foot Transonic Wind Tunnel will be out of operation about eight months from January 1976 to August 1976.

Question e. Can the present facility be continued in operation for another year without rehabilitation?

Answer. The existing facility can continue to operate under present conditions. However, there will be some increased risk since the existing wooden propeller blades and shanks and the 180 ton hoist lift mechanism are potentially hazardous. Due to normal wear and deterioration over the past 10 years for the wooden propellers and 20 years for the hoist, it is considered most imprudent to assume the heavily increasing risks attendant to the continued operation of this large, high energy, drive system without the work planned in this project.

Question f. What are the specific safety hazards existing which require immediate attention?

Answer. The specific safety hazards existing that require immediate attention are the wooden propeller blades and shanks and the 180 ton hoist lift mechanism that greatly increase the risk of operating the facility unless something is done real soon.

Question g. How much has been included in the estimate for contingencies and escalation?

Answer. 10% contingency and 10% per year escalation factors have been used. Question h. Specifically, what is the extent of office and shop rehabilitation to be accomplished at a cost of $20.00 per square foot?

Answer. The shop area is 20,000 square feet and the office area is 9,000 square feet. This portion of the project includes general upgrading of administrative and laboratory shop areas in Building 1146. The exterior walls will be repaired and repainted, windows will be replaced and a new fire escape will be provided. Interior work will include new partitions, ceilings and upgraded toilet facilities. New air conditioning equipment will be provided to replace existing units. Lighting will be replaced and electric wiring will be extended and upgraded.

Question i. What was the status of design at the time the cost estimate was prepared?

Answer. The cost estimate was based upon a preliminary engineering report by an architect-engineering firm and an "in-house" engineering validation.

SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES

Question 1. Rehabilitation and Modification.

a. It is noted that of the $14.9 million being requested by NASA for agencywide rehabilitation and modifications, $4,488,000 is intended for work in support of OAST activities.

(1) Specifically what work will be done?

Answer. The details concerning the $4,488,000 for the Rehabilitation and Modification work at the OAST Centers in the FY 1975 CoF Budget can be found on pages CF-11 through CF-27 of the FY 1975 Budget Estimates.

Question (2) How much was authorized for OAST in FY 1974, and how much has been allocated to OAST? What is the status of obligations?

Answer. In FY 1974, $5,875,000 was specifically authorized for OAST Rehabilitation and Modification program and it was anticipated that OAST would receive $500,000 of "lump sum" funds for a total of $6,375,000.

As of March 15, 1974, OAST was allocated and funds were released to the Centers in the amount of $6,371,000.

The OAST Centers have obligation $890,000 of the total Rehabilitation and Modification funds released as of January 31, 1974. The program for FY 1974 is just now moving forward and contractual action will essentially be complete in 1974.

Question b. How much of a backlog of deferred maintenance, rehabilitation and modification work prevails at the OAST centers beyond FY 1975?

Answer. The backlog of work over the next five year period at the OAST Centers for "deferred maintenance" as distinguished from rehabilitation and modfication is $6-8 million. The rehabilitation and modification backlog is now estimated at $60-70 million giving a work total of some $70–75 million.

Question c. It is noted that the FY 1975 request includes $1.5 million for "Miscellaneous Project less than $50,000". How much of this is earmarked for OAST facilities? How does this compare with FY 1973 and FY 1974?

Answer. In FY 1975, $500,000 are “earmarked" for OAST. In FY 1974, $500,000 were programmed for OAST Centers and in FY 1973, $225,000.

Question 2. Minor Construction.

a. It is noted that of the $4.5 million being requested by NASA agency-wide for minor construction, $1,020,000 is intended for work in support of OAST activities.

(1) Specifically, what work will be done?

Answer. The $1,020,000 identified in the FY 1975 CoF Minor Construction Budget for work at the OAST Centers is described in detail on pages CF-12-5 through CF 12-8 of the FY 1975 Budget Estimates.

Question (2) How much was authorized for OAST in FY 1974, and how much has been allocated to OAST? What is the status of obligations?

Answer. In FY 1974, $1,250,000 was authorized for specific OAST Center Minor Construction projects and $150,000 for lump sum work. This totals $1,400,000 for OAST in FY 1974.

Of the $1,400,000, $1.384,000 have been allocated and released to the OAST Centers, as of March 15, 1974.

The OAST Centers have just begun obligation of these funds with schedules calling for this total amount to be essentially obligated by the end of 1974.

Question b. The FY 1975 request includes $500,000 for Miscellaneous Projects less than than $25,000 each". How much of this is intended for OAST activities? How does this compare with FY 1973 and FY 1974?

Answer. In the FY 1975 CoF estimates $175,000 is earmarked for the OAST Centers.

In FY 1974, $150,000 was allocated to the OAST Centers and $150,000 in FY 1973.

Question 3. Facility Planning and Design.

a. In the overall agency-wide request of $10,000,000 for Facility Planning and Design, $2.6 million is specifically designated for "Large Aeronautical Facilities Planning and Design".

(1) Specifically, what is this to be used for?

Answer. The $2.6 million will provide for basic final design for the High Reynolds Number Transonic Research Tunnel ($800,000) to be located at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia; the Modification of the 40x80-Foot Subsonic Tunel ($950,000) located at Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California; and the Additional Combustion Air for the Propulsion Systems Laboratory ($850,000) located at Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio. Additional design effort will probably be required in order to provide all documentation necessary for procurement; however, the "basic final design" effort answered here will be adequate to provide sound future estimates and schedules and to eliminate subsequent design risks. Until additional design is accomplished, it is not possible to further refine these estimates.

Question (2) How much has been authorized for these purposes in the past by fiscal year?

Answer. Facility Planning and Design funds previously authorized for "Large Aeronautical Facilities" are as follows:

The $400,000 in FY 1974 are for engineering studies relating to the construction of the High Reynolds Number Transonic Research Wind Tunnel.

In FY 1973, $750,000 are to conduct cost optimization studies, complete final design of the drive system and to initiate design of selected components for a Full Scale Subsonic Wind Tunnel.

Question (3). Of the amounts authorized in the past, how much has actually been allocated and obligated for these purposes?

Answer. Of the $400,000 authorized in FY 1974 for the High Reynolds Number Transonic Wind Tunnel, $60,000 have been allocated and obligated for an engineering study to investigate and recommend the best method for insulating a cryogenic wind tunnel. An additional $200,000 have been allocated for development of a preliminary engineering report which will provide the necessary data required for initiation of final design. Also, $140,000 have been allocated for initiation of the tunnel design.

Of the $750,000 authorized in FY 1973 in support of activities for the "Large Aeronautical Facilities", some $860,000 have been allocated for the modification of the 40x80-Foot Subsonic Wind Tunnel including the $750,000 (mentioned above) authorized in FY 1973. Subsequent to the authorization of the 750,000 in FY 1973, it was determined that the existing 40x80-Foot Wind Tunnel could be modified at a substantial lower cost and still achieve the desired test results for the immediate future. Consistent with the NASA determination the $750,000 authorized in FY 1973 plus $110,000 of previously authorized funds were redirected to the NASA proposed project modification of the 40x80-Foot Wind Tunnel for the National Aeronautical Facilities Program. To date, 260,000 have been allocated and $50,000 obligated to conduct large scale tests of proposed fan and power sections designs. Funds also allocated include $40,000 for an acoustic analysis of the tunnel to optimize the acoustic treatment of the proposed tunnel, $20,000 for development of a preliminary engineering report which will include detailed cost estimates and construction schedules, $100,000 for an engineering analysis of the main drive system and $440,000 for initiation of final design.

It is planned that just about all the unobligated funds for both the Transonic Research Tunnel and the Modification of the 40x80-Foot Wind Tunnel will be essentially obligated before the end of 1974.

Question b. What is the status of the National Aeronautical Facilities Program? Answer. NASA and DOD have agreed on the following facilities program plan. Neither NASA nor DOD have made any commitments past FY 1975.

Question (1). What is the potential contribution by NASA and DOD for this program in terms of dollars?

Answer. NASA and DOD have indicated on the following potential facilities funding plan. Neither NASA nor DOD have made any commitments past FY 1975 and these requirements will have to be considered on their specific requirements as each annual agency program is involved.

1.a. Question. There appears to be considerable differences between the amounts authorized for fiscal year 1973 and the actual costs for that year as reflected in the justification books. Please explain the following differences :

Answer. The Federal pay raises granted in January of 1972 and January of 1973 were not included in FY 1973 authorization figures cited. The cost of these pay raises were calculated to be $12.3M. Through restrictive hiring and promotion practices, early scheduling of the FY 1974 personnel reduction at the Lewis Research Center, and other economics to reduce the impact of these costs, we were able to hold the actual impact to $4.5M over the original authorization. 1.b. Question. There also appears to be considerable differences between the amounts authorized for FY 1974 versus the amounts now shown in the FY 1974 budget operating plan as reflected in the justification books. Please explain the following differences: