mates are based on cost factors experienced in prior construction and modification, and are therefore considered realistic for providing austere facilities for APOLLO network systems. STADAN engineering and real-time station, GSFC While the dollar amount of the cut in this project is relatively small, it represents an 8.7-percent cut in a facility whose costs were estimated on the basis of providing an austere station to perform a threefold purpose: (a) As an operating "test bed" for evaluating network equipments under development; (b) as the ground link for real-time telemetry data processing so vital to the spacecraft engineers and scientists at the Goddard Space Flight Centers; and (c) as a facility for acquiring certain operational tracking and telemetry data from scientific satellites. The implementation of this station will allow the closing down of the Blossom Point, Md., minitrack station and the College Park, Md., real-time station. Since all functions will be consolidated and combined into one facility utilizing common and basic data acquisition equipments and subsystems, a savings of about $250,000 annually will be realized in operating costs. The estimated construction costs are not considered by NASA to be excessive for a facility of this scope. Maximum attention was paid to realizing costsaving benefits by locating this station on Government-owned land immediately adjacent to the Goddard Space Flight Center. NOTE. The line item in the budget for site preparation and fencing for this facility is $35,000, which is the amount of the cut. The committee report gives no indication that this is, in fact, the reason for the cut. If it is, however, it must be realized that the fence is not merely for security purposes. It is a safety fence to prevent inadvertent personnel intrusion into the lethal radiating beam of the antenna. Relocation of Wallops Island MSFN training facility, GSFC Here again, while the dollar amount of the cut is not large, it represents an 11-percent reduction in an extremely vital facility for which costs were estimated on the basis of providing an austere station at Goddard Space Flight Center where cost savings could be realized by locating on an existing plant. The construction costs are not considered excessive, particularly in view of the fact that APOLLO network equipments will be installed including an antenna system for which consideration was given to siting, RF interference, and radiation safety. Senator SMITH. Do you have any more questions? If not, the committee will stand adjourned to be reconvened at the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m. the committee was recessed subject to call.) APPENDIXES APPENDIX A SPACE ACTIVITIES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT Historical summary and 1965 budget recommendations Jan. 21, 1964 1 Excludes amounts for aircraft technology in 1961 and succeeding years. Amounts for NASA-NACA aircraft and space activities not separately identifiable prior to 1961. Includes recommended 1964 supplemental appropriation of $141,000,000. 681 APPENDIX B SPACE PROGRAMS OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Dr. GLENN T. SEABORG, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES, Chairman, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, DEAR DR. SEABORG: This committee will soon begin hearings on the budget request for fiscal year 1965 for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. As you know, the committee has a deep interest in the nuclear aspects of our space program and, particularly, those projects in this area which are the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Commission. In view of this interest, and in order that the committee might more completely Judge NASA's request, it would be most helpful if you could file a statement which would be studied by the committee and included in the record of our proceedings. Such a statement might include both the technical and funding aspects of your space projects, and any other related programs that you feel might be useful to the committee. We can, of course, determine at a later date whether or not it would be necessary to have oral presentation by the Commission. With warm personal regards, I am, Sincerely yours, CLINTON P. ANDERSON. U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committe on Aeronautical and Space Sciences DEAR CLINT: I have received your letter of February 18, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences with information on the Commission's nuclear space program. We have just released a report by the Commission on Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (copy enclosed) which discusses the role of nuclear energy as a source of space power, the present SNAP programs, future activities, and the relationship between "user" agencies and the AEC. The report contains the Commission's conclusions concerning the future direction of the SNAP program. I am also enclosing a copy of an evaluation of the SNAP program upon which the Commission report was based. We believe these reports will provide your committee with the data you requested. A statement on the Rover program which describes the details of the program and the current technical status as well as tables outlining the cost for these programs through fiscal year 1965 are enclosed. Please advise if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely yours, GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman. |