After the completion of a total of 2 days docked, there will be an undocking and then a series of docking tests to really verify the flight test and verify the mechanism of both the Soviet Union and the United States.

After this is completed, the Soyuz will go through a retrofire sequence and be recovered in the Soviet Union. The Apollo will stay in orbit for a determined period of time. The time it will stay in orbit is determined by the experiments we will have on board to perform. This is being defined at this time. Our total mission could be as short as 6 days, or could be as long as 12 days.

After the completion of the mission there will just then be a retrofire and we will be recovered in the Pacific Ocean.

Now, what I would like to do is to show you this mechanism that we have developed. This is a case where I think both countries have gotten together and come up with a better mousetrap or egg beater, I guess, Senator Weicker called it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that modeled to scale? Is the Soviet craft that much smaller than ours?

General STAFFORD. Yes, sir. This is the exact scale size of the Soyuz and the Apollo. This basically is what we call their landing module. The two cosmonauts are launched and the landing module out in front is the orbital module where they basically spend most of their time. In the back is a service module, somewhat similar to ours. If we had redesigned the spacecraft we probably would not have a service module. This was designed for a full payload to carry out to the Moon. That is the reason for the oversize.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead and explain this to us.

General STAFFORD. The two countries can work together, we think. Probably the better part of this is based on our experience in Apollo. That [indicating] is the outer part as far as the guide rings and the other part, the real structural latches. We are using Soyuz structural latches, their recent design. It is a mixture of both countries' designs. The interface is identical. What is behind the interface is each country's design. Where ours is basically a hydraulic spring actuated with some power cables on it, the Soviet Union's is electrical-mechanical. But the interface is the same.

I would like to come up and show you just a quick demonstration. Also for Senator Cannon, this 2/5 scale engineering model did go to the Soviet Union for tests. We could make that a part of the record. Basically we have a guide ring. This is the guide ring that has attenuators used for the extension to absorb energy. As it goes forward, it engages lines both in roll and pitch and finally these three latches here engage on the three body latches to make an initial lock. After the initial lock is made, a sequence of motors pulls in the retract cables and basically this ring holds the vehicles together. When they are finally together, these two interfaces are touched and the structural latches are driven over the center to lock together.

This is a design which is superior to what we had in Apollo, where you have to take out the probe, dig out the probe. Here you just open the hatch and go through. This is also designed better than the earlier Soyuz in which they had the same type of mechanism.

The CHAIRMAN. If the two of those fins happen to come together would they then automatically turn until it fits?

General STAFFORD. Right. They will line and roll as they come in. You see, the way the surfaces are alined, so it is automatic alinement and roll.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

General STAFFORD. At this time we would like to show you a demonstration.

That indicating] is initial contact. You can be off line and it goes in. Again, this unit was tested with the Soviet Union's 40-percent scale model in December. Next fall the Soviet Union will bring a full-scale model to the United States, to Houston for testing.

Now, this is what will happen as we go up for initial contact. After we verify that the three latches are made up, we will then actuate a switch which will pull down on the engage ring and pull it in where the two structural rings are together. The mechanism is locked. The CHAIRMAN. Now it is locked.

General STAFFORD. Yes, sir. After that, then, on the docking module which is this area, the astronauts will then go in, equalize pressure in this area, open the hatch and the cosmonauts will open the hatch on their side and the transfer can be complete.

The CHAIRMAN. Do not the cosmonauts have their capsule under a different pressure than we do?

General STAFFORD. Yes, sir. The Soviet Union basically on their Soyuz has a 14.7 or sea level pressure which consists of 80 percent nitrogen, 20 percent oxygen but for this mission we requested that they lower their pressure to 10 pounds per square inch. They have gone through an extensive redesign effort and for this mission they have lowered the pressure to 10 pounds per square inch and that saved us considerable money since we do not have to have a prebreather unit.

BENEFITS OF JOINT MISSIONS WITH THE U.S.S.R.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, docking up with the Soviets in space is a tremendous thing, psychologically, internationally, and in every way. What else do we get out of that?

General STAFFORD. We are showing that we can work together as far as cooperation in space and this is the first step in it. By having possibilities of future cooperation and joint missions we can undertake certain tasks in the future that can reduce the costs for a joint mission.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you say that we will go to this kind of a docking mechanism on any future spacecraft that we send up?

General STAFFORD. Yes, sir. For the Shuttle, as an example, it will be a modification of this first universal docking mechanism. Any spacecraft we have in the future for manned space flights can perform a rescue or rendezvous mission and accommodate joint cooperative activities.

The CHAIRMAN. So it would be feasible after we had the common docking system for the Soviets to come to a rescue mission if we were in trouble of any kind or we could go to help them.

General STAFFORD. That is correct. I think it has been quite remarkable in the short period of time that we have been able to work out such a technical detail here.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, how much of the Soviet language are you going to have to command before you can rendezvous with them? General STAFFORD. We are undergoing Russian training at this time and we are trying to work out what we would call a common space language of certain terms that are applicable for this mission. But we are studying Russian very actively.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you actually met the crew that is going to fly the Soyuz?

General STAFFORD. The Soviet Union has not announced their crew yet, but in our basic negotiations it was worked out. In fact, I was on the negotiating team that worked it out, that we will have both crews working together, the crews starting the mission, for 2 years prior to the launch date. The present launch date is now July 15, 1975.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have to get together pretty soon, then. Two years in advance of that is almost upon us.

General STAFFORD. That is right, so we expect the Soviet Union will announce their crews shortly. There will be a working group here in March in which two cosmonauts will be coming over to work in this joint group that meets at a series of times.

The CHAIRMAN. With regard to the experiments to be performed, are the Soviets suggesting some that they do and the United States suggesting some? How is that going to be divided up?

General STAFFORD. This is being worked out in the working groups. We are proposing a series we will carry on board. On the other hand, the Soviets are proposing a series they will launch on the Soyuz and we are right now just starting to formulate these together.

The CHAIRMAN. Again, by mutual agreement the number will be determined by the two countries.

General STAFFORD. Yes, sir. That is correct.

Dr. FLETCHER. I should reemphasize what Tom said earlier. The primary experiment is the docking itself, to test out the docking, for two reasons. One is that we will then have the capability, in the future, of mutual rescue and we will not have to have each of us back up our own program. We can back up each other. The Shuttle will be made with the same kind of compatible universal adapter. Therefore, this is the first step in an experiment, so to speak, of working space programs out on a mutual basis, and if this one works out maybe we can do some of the more the larger programs by sharing the costs and each building pieces of the equipment that we plan to use together.

ASTP is the actual practicing of the operation, plus the testing of the adapter that is going to be the big part of this experiment.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cannon, any questions?

Senator CANNON. No. I do not have any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Weicker?

Senator WEICKER. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Abourezk?

Senator ABOUREZK. What time do you plan to adjourn, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. We will stay until 12:30 if you would like to ask your questions.

Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you.

Dr. Fletcher, I am just curious to know if OMB has impounded any funds for ongoing programs in NASA.

NASA FUNDS IMPOUNDED

Dr. FLETCHER. Yes; a fair amount of impounding. I think to a rough approximation, it is about $29.8 million that they have impounded from the fiscal year 1973 appropriation.

Senator ABOUREZK. What was the $29.8 million for?

Dr. FLETCHER. Primarily $24,800,000 for QUESTOL and $5 million for TIROS-N. That was delayed, as you recall.

Senator ABOUREZK. So that was one of the programs where you received more than just plain input from OMB just directing you not to spend it.

IMPORTANCE OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE

Dr. FLETCHER, I think that is an accurate statement.

Senator ABOUREZK. You made the statement in your testimony, as a matter of fact, I think you departed from your text, when you said that the Space Shuttle will completely change the way we do business in the 1980's. I wonder if you would elaborate on that.

Dr. FLETCHER. Yes. Senator Abourezk, we feel that it is important to do the missions that the ordinary kinds of launch vehicles can do cheaper and that is what caused all of these cost effectiveness studies. These have been done and redone by many different groups and we still think the Shuttle is cost-effective-that it will provide a good return on the investment in the R. & D. program.

However, that is not the main reason why the Shuttle is being developed. The main reason for the Shuttle being developed is to allow us to do routine operations in space, to go back and forth with men and equipment into space which you cannot do with existing launch vehicles except extremely expensively and also allow

Senator ABOUREZK. If I can just interrupt, have you defined what those operations will be exactly, such as going back and forth into space?

Dr. FLETCHER. No; we have not, except in the mission model. In other words, when you predict 10 years ahead or 20 years ahead, you have to make certain assumptions and the mission models are those assumptions. The mission models that we use are based upon spacecraft that we know are going to be needed during that period. But to predict what might be needed, all the things that people will want once they have easy and routine access to space is like trying to predict what new discoveries are going to come along 20 years from now. But there are a lot of candidates for this and I think Senator Weicker mentioned one, for example, disposal of nuclear waste.

Another candidate is simply the so-called space station that would be an extension of the kind of work that the Russians have done in the Salyut and we propose to do on the Skylab. All of these are candidates but we cannot say with certainty this is what the country is going to want during that period. But it is all of those things, plus many military missions, that need the quick access to space at a moment's notice and go back and forth without having to worry about the cost and without having to worry about elaborate preparations the way we have now with Apollos and our other kinds of launch vehicles. That is the main idea of the Shuttle.

Senator ABOUREZK. That is why you say you change the way you do business in the space program.

t

Dr. FLETCHER. Yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. Well, are you not really saying that you are going to develop a Shuttle now and hope you can find something to keep it busy?

Dr. FLETCHER. No. We know we will keep it busy and that is why the mission model is done. That is a minimum.

Senator ABOUREZK. You are certain you are going to find something for it to do?

Dr. FLETCHER. The mission model is a minimum of what it is going to do.

Senator ABOUREZK. What does the mission model include?

SPACE SHUTTLE MISSIONS

Dr. FLETCHER. It includes quite a large number of missions. I have forgotten how many but we can provide that.

Senator ABOUREZK. Is that the 580-mission figure you quote?

Dr. FLETCHER. That is a mission model which we used in the March 1972, fact sheet. We have another mission model, 480. There are different kinds. The baseline case of 581 Shuttle flights is the last one we made a computer run on.

Senator ABOUREZK. Based upon your mission model of 580 launches. You contended, I think in many papers which you furnished me that that will be the break-even point on the cost.

Dr. FLETCHER. No, no. That is much more than the break-even point. That gives you a very large return on your investment, I think of the order of 13 percent the last time we calculated it.

Senator ABOUREZK. Now, if you launch 580 payloads, that is over a 10-year period; is it not?

Dr. FLETCHER. 12 years.

Senator ABOUREZK. If you launch 580 payloads over a 12-year period, you are saying that will give you a 13-percent profit, so to speak.

Dr. FLETCHER. That is what the calculations say. That is a very conservative assumption. All of our assumptions in that mission model are very conservative, primarily because that is the one that is going to be attacked the most. And so it is going to be much more than that almost certainly, but we are safe in saying 13 percent.

Senator ABOUREZK. Does the cost of a launch depend more on the size of the payload than anything else?

Dr. FLETCHER. NO. It depends on many, many factors. It depends on the nature of the payload to a large extent, although size of the payload certainly is one factor.

Senator ABOUREZK. You said 30 launches a year would make a break-even point. Did I hear that correctly?

Dr. FLETCHER. Yes; 30 launches give you 10-percent return on investment.

Senator ABOUREZK. Does that not also depend on the size and the nature of the payload as to whether you will get a return on your investment at all?

Dr. FLETCHER. Oh, by all means. It depends on the particular model, in this case 30 missions per year, which is made up of a certain mix.

92-229 (Pt. D) O-73-6