million [$308 million accounting units] is what they put down. It is already $58 million more than we estimated it to be, so they have added their own $58 million to our estimate.

The CHAIRMAN. And your assumption is that there is enough elasticity to come within it?

Dr. FLETCHER. We think so and certainly, they have to make the commitment by August 15, I believe it is, and there is not going to be very much that they can come up with that I can see which would lead them to increase that estimate. It has already been increased, as I said by $58 million, and unless they find some really strange things in the design, which is unlikely, it is hard to see how they would exceed that estimate so early in the program.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there other nations joining the four that you mentioned in your statement as participating in building the Sortie Lab?

Dr. FLETCHER. There are four countries that have committed verbally to go ahead with the Sortie Lab and also have agreed to put money into the ongoing phase B studies. There are at least two others that have said they are going to contribute: Great Britain and France. It is likely that there will be still others by August 15, but we have no firm commitment, of course, on any of them except for phase B. August 15 is the date they have set to commit to the whole program. We expect there will be a lot more than just the six that I named. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose an eastern European country turned up and wanted to join. Would they be acceptable?

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, this is an ESRO undertaking. ESRO is the European Space Research Organization and the members of ESRO are primarily Europeans. ESRO has the option of allowing other countries to contribute. That would have to be ESRO's responsibility. Of course, we would have to go along with it, but it would be up to them whether or not they decide to bring in others that do not belong to the European Space Research Organization.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I do not see anything wrong with it. I just wondered if there was any policy or any consideration being given to that.

Dr. FLETCHER. Certainly, consideration is being given because there are a number of countries that express interest. Our arrangement, when we finally firm it up, will be between ESRO and NASA and then similar arrangements between the respective governments contributing and the United States. Now, it will then have to be up to ESRO to decide whether they want to allow others to come in.

JAPANESE SPACE ACTIVITIES

The CHAIRMAN. If Japan wanted to come in, they would go to ESRO in the first instance and have to get admitted through that group, is that correct?

Dr. FLETCHER. That is the way it is now set up, Mr. Chairman.
Senator HASKELL. Mr. Chairman, may I interject?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, surely.

Senator HASKELL. Is Japan doing any spacework?

Dr. FLETCHER. Yes, Japan has a very active space program. They have orbited several satellites and I would say, among the non-European nations, are the most active.

Senator HASKELL. How is our exchange of information? Is it reasonably open and free or is it reasonably tightly held?

Dr. FLETCHER. It is reasonably open and free, but various people, depending upon their persuasion, have different ideas of what that means. Some people think we are too open and free and others think we are not open and free enough, but I think we have about the right balance at the moment.

Senator HASKELL. I see.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

NASA/OMB DISCUSSIONS ON SHUTTLE FUNDING

The CHAIRMAN. Did NASA receive instructions from OMB or anyone else that the Space Shutle had to be funded at or above a certain level or that you had to proceed with the Shuttle according to any pre-determined schedule?

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, we had a great many discussions with OMB a little over a year ago and there were no private arrangements or anything of that sort. But I had to give them the feeling of confidence that the costs that we were talking about were real and not just the studies which we had made which Mr. Myers described, but a personal commitment. And I did make personal commitments on the cost of the shuttle to OMB at that time, when George Shultz was the Director.

The CHAIRMAN. Their concern was that the costs might escalate considerably above what your estimate was?

Dr. FLETCHER. They were not concerned any more than this committee is concerned. Naturally, they want to know how good your estimates are because they do not want to be stuck with a big bill when we are talking about a smaller one. So we had not only to present all the data that we had on the estimates of the cost, and that was a very thorough, careful operation, but in addition, I had to make a personal commitment that that would be the cost. So I am the one that has my neck stuck out on the cost and I am asking Dale to do the same.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, was the 9 months' stretchout really then dictated by OMB?

Dr. FLETCHER. No; this was a year ago that I made the commitment. No commitments were made since the 9-month stretchout.

The CHAIRMAN. I do have a few questions that I will ask for the record rather than prolong this.

[The questions for the record follow :]

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Fletcher, last year you estimated the cost of Apollo-Soyuz to be $250 million. What is the current estimated total cost of the Apollo-Soyuz test project?

Answer. The current estimated total cost of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project is $250 million.

The CHAIRMAN. Does this include the equipment transferred to this project from the Apollo program? Would you provide a table for the hearing record which shows the estimated cost by fiscal year?

Answer. This does not include the original cost of the equipment transferred to this project from the Apollo Program, but it does include the cost of all necessary modifications to this equipment for the Apollo Soyuz Test Project. The estimated funding requirements in $ millions by fiscal year are:

The CHAIRMAN. What is the estimated cost of the docking adapter that will be produced by Rockwell International?

Answer. The current estimated cost of design, development, test and fabrication of the docking module and docking system and associated test, training and flight hardware is about $48 million and does not reflect a change from the original estimate.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the original estimated cost of this adapter? Why did you go sole source to Rockwell International on this project?

Answer. North American Rockwell Corp. (NR) was selected as the sole source for the docking module (DM) for the following reasons:

1. NR designed, developed, qualified, and supported for flight the Apollo Command and Service Module (CSM) and Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter (SLA) which will be used in the joint U.S./U.S.S.R. mission. During the Apollo program NR developed and fabricated a CSM/LM docking system. This docking system will be utilized in the CSM/Docking Module interface. To minimize modification cost for adapting CSM subsystems and present CSM/LM systems interfaces, areas such as communications, power, and environmental control, must be utilized to the maximum extent. Existing umbilical wiring and feedthrough connectors in the CSM docking ring must be used to power, control, and obtain data on the environmental, life support, communications and electrical system in the docking module (DM). The DM design must consider CSM require ments, configuration, electro-magnetic sensitivities, et cetera, NR, as the CSM contractor is the only contractor with that detailed knowledge of the CSM interface which is required to provide the close integration between the CSM and DM.

2. NR has a CSM simulator and computer simulation facility used to evaluate docked and undocked CSM moments of inertia throughout our mission phases. This capability does not exist at any other location.

3. The CSM/DM will utilize the NR-designed Spacecraft LM Adapter (SLA) to house the DM during the launch. The DM and its supporting structure must be compatible with the SLA structure, interface attachment points, and environment. NR has the most intimate knowledge of the total SLA requirements and compatibilities.

4. NR developed computer programs for analysis of CSM stresses imposed by docking. These programs are directly applicable to docking with the DM and with relatively minor modification, are also applicable to the CSM/DM docking with any international space station. No other contractor has this existing capability.

5. Mission planning and support have already been developed by NR. This would have to be developed by another source.

6. Data from previous tests, missions and studies are already at hand at NR. Another source for the DM would require considerable duplication of the data base.

7. Drawings, specifications, test data and supporting documentation for the CSM are available at NR. This would have to be reproduced for any other contractor who might be chosen to design, fabricate, and test the DM.

8. The mission will require NR to have mission support personnel and combined testing personnel available for the CSM. Another source for the DM would unnecessarily duplicate this support by having different people from different contractors supporting individual pieces of flight hardware for a single mission. 9. Management of interfaces between the CSM/DM and CSM/DM/Soyuz for two contractors would require more Government personnel to accomplish. Therefore, the selection of NR, the prime contractor for the Apollo spacecraft, as sole source contractor to produce the docking module is justified from the overall viewpoint because it involves the least technical risk, the best assurance to meet a firm schedule, and the lowest overall cost.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you explain the Space Shuttle management system to the Committee?

Answer. The Space Shuttle Program Director in the Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF) utilizes the program office and a systems integration group located at the Johnson Space Center to manage the program on a day-to-day basis. This management concept was selected to make use of available skills and capabilities, while minimizing the need for additional personnel. The Program Manager at the Johnson Space Center utilizes the technical and managerial skills of each Manned Space Flight Center to accompilsh those parts of the program for which it possesses a special expertise.

Although the size and complexity of the Space Shuttle Program requires a degree of uniformity to insure proper integration of the various program elements, contractors are being encouraged to make maximum use of their own management systems to control program costs, schedules and technical performance. NASA program management maintains effective control through regularly scheduled meetings, attended by all responsible elements of the management teams, including the participating contractors. These meetings are supplemented by the operation of Management Information Centers (MIC) in the OMSF and at field centers and contractor's plants. MIC's provide continuing program visibility for management and operating personnel.

This management system has been in operation since July 1971 and has proven quite effective. It has, in fact, eliminated the need by OMSF for integration support contractor effort at Headquarters as was required during the Apollo Program. We are confident that this shuttle management system will do the job and will be cost effective.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is the Space Shuttle program director located? When do you plan to appoint a full-time Shuttle program director?

Answer. The Space Shuttle Program Directorate is located in Washington, D.C., in the Office of Manned Space Flight.

On April 2, 1973, NASA announced the appointment of Dr. Myron S. Malkin as Director of the Space Shuttle Program. The announcement is attached. Dr. Malkin succeeds Mr. Charles J. Donlan, who, since 1970, was the Acting Director of the Space Shuttle Program.

Dave Garrett.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION,

Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

RELEASE NO: 73-68.

MALKIN TO HEAD SPACE SHUTTLE OFFICE

Washington, D.C.

Dr. Myron S. Malkin has been named Director of the Space Shuttle Program, Office of Manned Space Flight, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. His appointment is effective April 9, 1973.

In this position, Malkin will report to Dale D. Myers, the Associate Adminis trator for Manned Space Flight. He will be responsible for planning and directing the design, development and test of the Space Shuttle system which was initiated by NASA last year. The major components of the Shuttle are the orbiter, the main propulsion system for the orbiter, the external hydrogen oxygen tank and the twin solid rocket boosters.

Malkin comes to NASA from the Department of Defense where he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Technical Evaluation) from 1972. Prior to this position, Malkin was president and a director of NUS Corporation, Rockville, Md., a multi-divisional firm providing engineering consulting services in the field of air and water pollution, nuclear energy, and instrumentation for the chemical and pipeline industries. He held this position from 1969 to 1971.

From 1961 to 1969, Malkin was employed by the General Electric Co., successively as Program Manager of the Titan II, Minuteman III and General Manager of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Program.

Malkin was a faculty member of Yale University and Associate Director of the Yale Heavy Ion Accelerator from 1954 to 1961.

Malkin was graduated from Yale University with a B.S. in physics and elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He also received his M.S. in physics and Ph.D. in physics from Yale.

In his new position, Malkin succeeds Charles J. Donlan who has been acting director of the Shuttle program since 1970. Donlan will resume his position as Myers' deputy for technical matters, a post he has held since 1968.

Malkin is married to the former Jocelyn Schoen of Brooklyn, N.Y. They have two children. The family resides in Bethesda, Md.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Myers, what is the total cost of the Skylab project?

Answer. The total Manned Space Flight Research and Development cost of the Skylab project is estimated at about $2,529 million.

The CHAIRMAN. Does this include the cost of the hardware transferred to Skylab from the Apollo program? What is the cost of that hardware?

Answer. The Apollo hardware currently assigned to Skylab includes one Saturn V vehicle, three Saturn IB vehicles and three Command and Service Modules. In addition, one Saturn V vehicle, one Saturn IB vehicle and one Command and Service Module have been assigned to Skylab as backup and rescue vehicles. The total value of the above hardware is about $760 million.

The CHAIRMAN. Does your total cost figure include any allocation of the funds you carried since fiscal year 1972 under Development, Test, and Mission Operation?

Answer. No.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be a fair allocation of costs from Development, Test and Mission Operations to Skylab? (Could you proceed with Skylab without the funds from Development, Test and Mission Operation?)

Answer. Development, Test and Mission Operations (DTMO) provides for a variety of common technical and disciplinary capabilities necessary to support any program conducted at a Manned Space Flight Center. The planning and budgeting for activities such as the Skylab assume that the Manned Space Flight Centers will be able to provide the support necessary to meet program requirements on a timely basis. Since this capability is not funded or directed by any specific program and yet is available to all programs, the only practical method of determining the funding related to a specific program is to estimate the extent to which the program will receive support from the DTMO capability. The estimate of the support to be provided by DTMO to Skylab is calculated at approximately $168 million in fiscal year 1973 and $134 million in fiscal year 1974.

The Skylab missions could not be conducted without the launch operations at Kennedy Space Center and the mission control activities at Johnson Space Center and the launch vehicle support and Apollo Telescope Mount monitoring at Marshall Space Flight Center. These operations are provided to Skylab by DTMO.

THE CHAIRMAN. Does the total cost you quoted for the Skylab project include the NASA incurred costs in Research and Program Management program (civil service personnel and other administrative costs)?

Answer. No.

THE CHAIRMAN. Would you give the Committee the number of man years NASA civil service personnel have spent on Skylab by fiscal year and the average NASA salary for these years?

Answer:

THE CHAIRMAN. Are Construction of Facilities costs in your total cost figure for Skylab? What are they?

Answer. No. However, over and above the Skylab costs there are CofF dollars as follows: 1968, $1.0 million; 1970, $9.0 million.

THE CHAIRMAN. Would you please supply a table showing these costs (R. & D., and C. of F., by fiscal year going back to the origin of the program (first funds specifically authorized for fiscal year 1968) through completion of the program?