« PreviousContinue »
Mr. PARKS. However, they did not have experience in the total spacecraft which they needed to be able to transfer into the block V activity.
Dr. PICKERING. And that is what they got through the block III support.
Mr. PATTEN. May I ask one question?
Mr. KARTH. Mr. Рatten.
Mr. PATTEN. Do they have anything to do with the work that RCA was doing on the TV end of it?
Dr. PICKERING. No, sir.
Mr. SCHURMEIER. If I might clarify that a little bit, they did participate in helping the people at the Laboratory who were working on the TV subsystem portion of the spacecraft.
In other words, there were some Northrop people assigned and working in this area, but as an organization, they did not have any control or direction over the RCA activity. That was controlled and directed by JPL.
Mr. PATTEN. February, March, and April have gone by-practically 3 months, now. Have you changed your thoughts about Northrop, RCA, or the way this went? Has anything turned up that you would do something differently now if you were free?
In other words, are you satisfied as you look back, with your contractors?
Dr. PICKERING. Well, let me say that that as was discussed earlier in the testimony-there were a number of changes made between round 6 and round 7, of course. These changes have evolved with the help of the contractors, NASA people, and the whole group. As of this reading, I believe it is correct to say we are satisfied with the changes we have put in.
If you go back and say as of now, from the benefit of the hindsight, did we make the right decisions in January or February of 1963 regarding block III, I will still support what was done at that time. I think we made the right decision.
Mr. PATTEN. As you talk here about your success, the thing that has a big question mark, Doctor, is as you looked at the project, did you fear you would have trouble with the TV? You had Tiros and Telstar, and this didn't look like the area for trouble, did it?
Dr. PICKERING. No, sir, it looked like the easy part of the system. Mr. PATTEN. That is what I figured right along.
Dr. PICKERING. Yes.
Mr. KARTH. Were there any specific recommendations made by the Northrop people for inclusion in block III?
Dr. PICKERING. I will have to ask Mr. Schurmeier if he knows? Mr. SCHURMEIER. Well, as I say, as individual people-I am just not familiar with the detail. These people I am sure made suggestions, some of which were incorporated, some of which were not.
Mr. KARTH. The reason I asked the question was that for block V, I understand that Northrop would have redesigned the entire spacecraft. I know what went on before, because, Dr. Pickering, you and I had a little colloquy on the design of Ranger and why it was so designed, and so I understand that.
Was Northrop's suggestion of design of block V more in keeping with the thought that, in this instance, a specifically designed lunar
spacecraft would be in order and probably give us a better assurance of success?
Mr. SCHURMEIER. I would say the answer to that is "No."
Mr. KARTH. The design they envisioned for block V, would that also serve the purpose of the on-coming Mariner program?
Dr. PICKERING. If I may pick up that one, the difference between the Mariner programs and the Ranger programs I think perhaps need a little bit more clarification, because I said earlier the fundamental design consents were common to the two. The implementation of the design is quite different, and, as a matter of fact, the implementation of Mariner for Mars looks quite different than the implementation of Mariner for Venus.
It is a different task and has required different hardware to carry out the task. The only thing that is common is the fundamental concepts in the two, so when you ask the question whether the block V hardware would have any application to, say, the Mars mission, the answer must be "No"-it would have very little application. There may be some ideas in it which would have application, and there may be some manufacturing techniques or such few things.
Mr. KARTH. And the same is true of Ranger, of course.
Mr. KARTH. I understand your point. I think it is a valid one. Dr. PICKERING. Continuing with the written testimony, "Block IV support."
This task specified that the contractor provide similar support to that required for block III. However, block IV was canceled in July 1963, before any significant number of contractor personnel had been assigned.
(3) Block V: This task was further divided into eight subtasks, and included all efforts associated with the contractor's block V activities. A detail description of these subtasks is contained in JPL Document EPD 154, revision 1, "Ranger Block V Spacecraft System Requirements." Under this task, the contractor completed design evaluations of the total spacecraft system and of each spacecraft subsystem. The results of these design evaluations and the contractor's recommended spacecraft configuration were submitted to JPL as a series of design evaluation recommendations. Incorporation of all the designated experiments was necessitating some significant design revisions to the spacecraft. At the time of project cancellation, the contractor's recommendations were being evaluated prior to finalizing the block V spacecraft configuration.
Mr. KARTH. Doctor, what contractor recommendations?
Dr. PICKERING. Northrop.
Mr. KARTH. So they did make some recommendations.
Mr. PARKS. For block V.
Mr. KARTH. This was for block V.
Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir.
Mr. KARTH. And they had not recommended that these be included. in block III.
Dr. PICKERING. Oh, no, sir.
Mr. KARTH. Thank you.
Dr. PICKERING. In summary, it is my firm belief that:
1. JPL has demonstrated successfully its technical and project management capabilities during the past 20 years.
2. JPL has developed and pursued a basic policy and philosophy of project management which has remained dynamic and responsive to its changing tasks and responsibilities.
3. JPL has always considered the skills and capacity of industry as an essential resource needed to support the difficult projects we have undertaken.
4. JPL, as a university-operated laboratory, has always sought to work on the forefront of science and technology. It has confidently undertaken projects which carried the risks involved in pioneering and exploration. It will continue to do so in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KARTH. Are there further questions? Dr. Pickering, I want to thank you very much for appearing before the subcommittee today. I hope it will not be necessary for us to ask you to take more time from your very busy schedule to again appear before this subcommittee before we formalize and arrive at our conclusions.
If however, we feel it is necessary, I would hope that you would understand the reasons, and we would apologetically call you back. Dr. PICKERING. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to come back any time you say.
Mr. KARTH. Thank you very much, Dr. Pickering, Mr. Parks, and Mr. Schurmeier.
Mr. KARTH. If there are no further questions, the subcommittee will adjourn at this time until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, April 30, 1964.)
INVESTIGATION OF PROJECT RANGER
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1964
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS,
The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., in room 214-B, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joseph E. Karth, a member of the subcommittee, presiding.
Mr. KARTH. The meeting will come to order.
The first witness today before the subcommittee will be Mr. Barton Kreuzer, vice president and general manager of the Astro-Electronics Division, Radío Corp. of America.
Mr. Kreuzer, would you take the chair at the witness table, please, and if there is anyone from your organization you would like to accompany you, would you give his name for the record, please?
STATEMENT OF BARTON KREUZER, DIVISION VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, ASTRO-ELECTRONICS DIVISION, RCA
Mr. KREUZER. I think for the moment, Mr. Chairman, I will be here alone. I have some associates present and, if necessary, I think I can consult with them.
Mr. KARTH. Thank you very much.
I would like to recognize Mr. Patten at this time.
Mr. PATTEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Mr. Kreuzer. Most of your RCA Astro-Electronics Division employees live in my district, and your facilities are right on the border of it.
We are well aware that you are living there in the shade of Thomas Edison and fellows like Albert Einstein in the Princeton complex, and I would like to say for the record that we are very proud of the job that RCA has done, not only in astroelectronics, but also in other fields. You are with a great company, and we are glad to have you here today.
Mr. KREUZER. Thank you, Mr. Patten. I think it is a great company, too.
Mr. KARTH. Mr. Kreuzer, if you would care to begin now with your prepared statement.
Mr. KREUZER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as indicated my name is Barton Kreuzer, division vice president and general manager of the Astro-Electronics Division of the Radio Corp. of America. I have been continuously employed by RCA for the past 35 years.