Mr. WOLFF. Why is there a great difference in this and some of the others?

Maybe Mr. Myers can answer that.

Mr. MYERS. I might answer that question, Mr. Wolff, if I may.

The construction generally-there are changes, or differences in construction of course depending on whether you have high bays, whether you have a particular need for an overhead crane, whether you are using a particular type of architecture which is different at each of our centers.

The weather in Cleveland is different than what we provide for in California at our Ames Research Center.

You will find there are some differences due to detailed design, and also depending upon the particular types of equipment that are required in them, whether you need very heavy floors, or whether you don't need very heavy floors, or whether you have optical equipment which would require very deep footings, or even piling, and so forth. So they do vary somewhat. They also depend upon the type of land; for example, at Langley, you do have a general swampy area there, and we sometimes have to build a different type of structure there, depending upon the specific location.

In general, however-and this was brought out earlier, Mr. Chairman, in this subcommittee, and Mr. Gould over the past several years has helped the NASA in working up a design criteria, which is a socalled general criterion.

We are pleased to report we have worked out a design manual which covers most types of construction that we may employ in the space

program.

These, in general, have been adaptations of the GSA, the Army, Navy, and Air Force design criteria that have been developed over the years, and we think represents the best guidance for construction standards available in the country today. In specific response to your earlier remark about the October 21 letter, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Bisplinghoff, in response to that letter, which was addressed to the institutional directors, has instructed all of our research centers to use and abide by this design manual, and any deviations therefrom must come to our office for review which I am responsible for, if there are deviations.

Our centers did participate in the development of this, along with the DOD and other people. And we do think it is a good design manual, and we are intending to follow it.

Mr. HECHLER. This is a very healthy development for which I commend you.

Mr. MYERS. Yes, sir, we are pleased that a certain amount of pressure was put on this.

Mr. HECHLER. This committee over the years has developed quite an expertise on parking. [Laughter.]

You will note that we not only asked you why you have included certain amounts of funds for parking, but now we are about to ask you why have you not included funds for parking?

Mr. TISCHLER. In this particular instance, as a wing of an existing building, there were no funds asked for parking, because there is really no parking space to be had in the immediate vicinity of the building that is not already being used.

Mr. DAVIS. Are you building this building on a parking lot?

Mr. TISCHLER. I would confess that the area the building will occupy has been used by automobiles in the past.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Myers a question?

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Wydler.

Mr. WYDLER. What would be the cost per square foot of this building in Boston?

Mr. MYERS. I would like to turn to our estimates for those buildings. Let's see, let me get my unit costs out here.

Mr. WYDLER. Are you prepared to testify about this later?

Mr. MYERS. To give you an example of the square-foot costs in Boston, depending again on the type of building, they will run from $18.67 to $32.75 a square foot.

I can give them to you building by building, but that is the lowest and highest for the buildings we have proposed to build.

Mr. HECHLER. Any further questions of this particular facility? If not, we will go on to the Space Power Research Laboratory, at Lewis. Mr. Woodward?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. WOODWARD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR SYSTEMS AND SPACE POWER DIVISION, NASA

Mr. WOODWARD. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am speaking in support of the "Space Power Research Facility" described in your budget book on pages CF-8, CF-9-10, of your budget book. The facility, to be located at the Lewis Research Center, is proposed as a two-story type of building, without a basement, which will be compatible with and attached to the existing Energy Conversion Laboratory.

Ås illustrated by the floor plan in your budget book, page CF-6-10, the facility will contain about 13,000 square feet. The floor space will be primarily devoted to 10 laboratory areas. The estimated total cost of the facility is $487,000, including preliminary design. We are asking for $460,000 of fiscal year 1966 funds. The remainder, $27,000, is for design. No increase in the Lewis complement is involved.

The Space Power Research Laboratory is needed to provide a strong capability at Lewis, for electrochemical research and technology that does not now exist in the NASA. Representative electrochemical systems include the familiar battery systems in wide use, and the relatively new fuel cell used in the Apollo and Gemini projects.

Both of these systems, you will recall from Mr. Finger's testimony here the day before yesterday can be significantly improved in performance. For example, batteries that are used now as primary batteries have about 50 times the output of the same type of battery used as a secondary battery recharged.

The main difference between the primary and secondary batteries is that the secondary battery is "wearing out" as it is recharged. We think a fiftyfold gain is well worth going after.

Similar types of gains are available in the fuel cell technology, although not as much in weight as in life and reliability. The basic electrochemical research and technology to be conducted in this addition is needed in order that we may achieve these potential fuel cell and performance improvements in an orderly and efficient fashion. The research laboratory will also provide an increased capability for solar cell research and technology. Finally, it will also provide an increased capability for which we do not now have room for conducting investigations on a bench-type scale of breadboard or prototype.

In summary, we estimate that the potential for the performance in solar and chemical power systems exceeds that we have achieved in practice by a large factor. This proposed facility will improve our capabilities of achieving these potentials.

That completes my statement.

Mr. HECHLER. Are there any questions?

Mr. Wolff?

Mr. WOLFF. It seems to me we have a lot of small buildings in many of these facilities.

Do you have to have a separate building? Do these things require separate buildings for each one of these activities?

Mr. WOODWARD. This is a wing of an existing building.
If I may have the slide, please (fig. 232).

This is the existing Energy Conversion Laboratory over here [indicating]. It is a building of about 30,000 square feet. This wing, the Space Power Research Laboratory, is about 70 feet wide and about 90 feet in length, and is attached to and compatible with the Energy Conversion Laboratory. It is not a new separate building. Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Myers, I wonder if I might ask, I notice these are all fairly low buildings. Is there any reason why, since space is getting crowded out there, why you can't go up instead of out?

Mr. MYERS. This is the Lewis Research Center, and the same answer applies that Mr. Tischler gave you. We are restricted in building heights, because we are located right on the edge of the airport. [Correction of this statement inserted at start of afternoon session.] Mr. HECHLER. Are there any further questions of Mr. Woodward? I am sure we will have a few for the record, with regard to these and other facilities.

Thank you, Mr. Woodward. We will now proceed to the electronics field.

I suggest we proceed on this, Mr. Sullivan, taking up first the electronic systems at other centers, and then the Electronics Research Center at Cambridge.

I notice you have a very lengthy statement which will be incorporated in the record. I would hope you don't go through it.