FISCAL YEAR 1971 February-Complete program definition of 33' Diameter Space Station. February-Extension of program definition efforts to encompass definition of the Modular Space Station made up of shuttle compatible modules. May-Initiate Phase B definition study of Research and Application Modules. FISCAL YEAR 1972 November-Complete Phase B definition of Modular Space Station. January-March-Perform in-house comparison of Modular Space Station study results. April-June-In-house evaluation of RAMS Phase B study results. June-Begin in-house preparation of RAMS Phase C statement of work. SPACE SHUTTLE Question 1. What funds have been expended or will be expended on the Space Shuttle program in FY 1970 and prior years, FY 1971 and FY 1972? (Indicate recipients, nature of expenditure and cost.) Question 5. What is the composition of the planned expenditure for the shuttle program, by major sub-area in FY 1972? How does this compare with FY 1971 expenditures? Answers 1 and 5. Prior to FY 1970, approximately $2 million of Advanced Missions funds was expended on Integrated Launch and Recovery Vehicle Studies to determine the feasibility of developing a Space Shuttle Transportation System. These contracted study efforts were performed by Lockheed, North American Rockwell, General Dynamics, and McDonnell Douglas. Space Shuttle Program funds planned are as follows: FY 1970 and FY 1971 funds support primarily the preliminary definition and design verification (Phase B) efforts of the Space Shuttle vehicle and engine. The vehicle (orbiter and booster) Phase B effort is being performed by North American Rockwell and McDonnell Douglas. Phase B engine studies are being conducted by Aerojet, Pratt and Whitney, and Rocketdyne. In addition, studies of alternate shuttle configurations are being conducted by Grumman, Lockheed, and Chrysler. In FY 1972 it is planned to initiate the design and development of the engine. The engine contractor design and development work will commence in August 1971. The results of Phase B vehicle studies and all related efforts will be considered in our decision later this year, to continue detailed design or to initiate development of a specific design, depending on the progress of the studies underway. Question 3. What is the effect of the difference between fund request by NASA to the Office of Management and Budget and the budget plan submitted to Congress for the shuttle program in FY 1972? Answer 3. The $100 million proposed for the Space Shuttle is a reduction from the $190 million requested from the Office of Management and Budget, and will result in at least a three month delay in the initiation of the detailed vehicle design and development phase. However, the amount remaining lets us proceed in an orderly fashion with the development of the shuttle engine and provides funding for airframe design or development at last year's level. Question 4. What is the role of the Department of the Air Force in the shuttle program? Has this role been altered in FY 1971? Answer 4. In April 1969, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Adminstrator of NASA established Terms of Reference for a phased study of space transportation systems; and in February 1970, they established the NASA/USAF Space Transportation System (STS) Committee. These mechanisms have successfully coordinated Air Force Participation in the NASA managed Space Shuttle and assured that national requirements are factored into shuttle studies. Air Force specialists participate in Design Review Boards, Source Evaluation Boards and all technology panels. DOD personnel have been assigned to the Space Shuttle Program offices in OMSF, NASA Headquarters, MSC, Houston, and MSFC, Huntsville. In general, then, the Air Force role has remained constantto assure consideration of DOD space requirements-but participation has increased as planned. Question 6. What unobligated balance remains in the shuttle program for FY 1971? Answer 6. Of the $80M required for FY 1971, $36M has been obligated. An additional $21M will be obligated by June 30, 1971. This will result in a funding availability of $23M to support the initiation of the main rocket engine design and development effort in August 1971. Question 7. What are the long lead-time items associated with the Shuttle Program? Answer 7. Timely development of the shuttle is principally dependent upon the main rocket engine and the termal protection systems. The development of a new vehicle requires subjecting it to the rigors of the flight environment. Some early flight testing of the vehicle is planned in an "aircraft mode" (horizontal, subsonic flight) using jet engines, however, vertical flights to higher altitudes and greater speeds will require propulsion by the main rocket engine and existence of the necessary structures for withstanding the temperature extremes. Due to the long lead-time required for engine development, an early initiation of design effort is necessary to have the engines integrated into the vehicle system. Engine deliveries must start approximately four years before operational capability to support vehicle ground and flight testing. The most demanding technical studies are now being directed to the design of an airframe structure in conjunction with thermal protection materials which must be lightweight and extensively reusable. This is required to protect against the extreme aerodynamic heating expected. Question 8. What are the major decisions and decision dates associated with the shuttle program for FY 1971 and FY 1972? Answer 8. Major decision points in FY 1971 and 1972 start with the important ones just accomplished. This was first the selection of the engine test facilities on March 1. This will allow the necessary early initiation of testing to properly integrate the long lead-time engine development into the vehicle systems. Secondly, we have just issued the RFP for the engine design and development and contractor selection is expected in August 1971. The results of Phase B vehicle studies and all related efforts will be considered in our decision later this year, to continue detailed design or to initiate development of a specific design, depending on the progress of the studies underway. ADVANCED MISSIONS Question 1. What studies were accomplished in FY 1970 and 1971 with prior year and current year funds? Answer 1. The following studies were completed during FY 1971 with FY 1970 and prior year funds: Study area 1. Evaluation of Earth Orbital Shuttle__ Amount (in thousands) $400 Ancillary Equipment for Transportation. 2. Lunar Studies... 1, 135 Four Studies to determine and develop Lunar Mission Safety and 3. Nuclear Shuttle Feasibility. 4. Space Tug Concepts- 270 A study to define a reusable Nuclear Shuttle and the associated opera- 250 Identify the characteristics of a versatile and reusable Space Tug 5. Automated Techniques for Spacecraft Systems Monitoring_ Investigate techniques for automating Spacecraft Systems Monitoring 200 6. Orbit, Navigation and Guidance for Long Duration Space Missions___ To develop new techniques that will meet the requirements of long duration missions. 150 7. Space Base Nuclear Safety.. 170 To establish design, operation, and emergency procedure guidelines, 8. Mission Control Data Base.. 325 Provides a system design for incorporating a data base into the Mission Question 2. What is the current status (February 1971) of obligations of Advanced Mission funds? What unobligated balance (February 1971) of prior year and FY 1971 funds are on hand and what is their planned disposition? Answer 2. As of February 1971 no fiscal year 1971 funds have been obligated. There are no unobligated balances of fiscal year 1970 and prior years on hand. Initiation of current fiscal year funds for advanced studies begin following the submission of the budget to reflect decisions made in its preparation. This permits OMSF to select the most beneficial studies of future missions. Study area 1. Geoscience Support from USGS 2. Space Tug Parametric Cost Analysis.. Amount (in thousands) $100 To provide geoscientific support to NASA Centers in support of and 125 To develop parametric data and provide a cost comparison for con- 3. Translunar Chemical Shuttle_. 250 To provide a preliminary development plan, conceptual design, and 225 To examine activities in the Integrated Space Program which require 125 4. In-Space Propellants Logistics.. 5. Safety in Earth Orbit____ To analyze hazardous conditions and situations pertaining to earth 6. Orbital Operations-Assembly, Checkout, Maintenance and Cargo Handling The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of the actual mechanisms required for on-orbit assembly and checkout and the constraints imposed on the spacecraft designs, system hardware,and the operational involvement associated with space assembly, maintenance and cargo handling. 7. Agena Applications in Association with the Earth to Orbit Shuttle____ To determine the suitability of using Agena vehicles as low cost interim earth orbital Space Tugs. 8. Agena Systems Support and Launch Site Support Cost Data Acquisition 225 75 25 The purpose of this study is to acquire contractor support cost, schedule, and technical data from the Agena Target Vehicle Project used in the Gemini Program. 100 9. Space Propellant Logistics Safety. To analyze Space Propellant Logistics operations and space vehicles and interfacing systems and to eliminate or reduce potential hazards. 10. Advanced Program Assessment To derive a set of mission requirements to be used as a basis for developing manned space missions and to satisfy a wide spectrum of requirements that reflect national goals and objectives. 11. On-Board Clinical Medical Facilities. To derive concepts of instrumentation requirements, facility design, facility operation, personnel requirements and procedures that will provide a clinical medical (diagnostic and therapeutic) capability for early and more advanced spaceflight missions. 125 Question 3. What specific studies will be undertaken with the $1.5 million included in the FY 1972 budget? Answer 3. OMSF advanced studies are directed toward specific planning requirements identified during the preparation of the annual budget submitted in December of each year, reflecting the major program decisions made in the budget process. The funds in the Advanced Studies line item are utilized to supplement the overall in-house planning activities conducted largely in the MSF field centers. The results of the in-house and supporting contract work are a major information base for the decision-making of top NASA planners. The availability of the resources in this program permit NASA to draw upon the capabilities of industry and universities in areas where their expertise can most effectively help. The type and scope of work to be done with FY 1972 funds is best seen by reviewing the specific contracts now being written in the FY 1971 program. Contracts to be funded with FY 1971 Advanced Study funds have just been firmed up and will be underway before the end of June. Planning of specific contracts to be undertaken with FY 1972 funds will follow the FY 1971 program according to a five-year plan for studies. Study areas which will be addressed in FY 1972 are: Study area 1. Integrated Space Program Safety---. Amount (in thousands) $250 Two studies to prepare an Integrated Contingency Plan considering escape and rescue from space vehicles in Earth orbit, such as a Modular Space Station, Earth Orbital Shuttle, Space Tug, etc. 2. Earth Orbit Mission Analysis/Space Station and Shuttle Concept Analysis Studies to analyze Earth orbiting systems, such as Shuttle, Tug, RAM, and Space Station, and alternative mission capabilities in order to establish the operational interactions and interfaces among these systems. 3. Lunar Mission Studies____ In-house planning for follow-on lunar exploration will be continued to incorporate results from completed Apollo missions and will be supplemented by contracted study effort and by technology investigations in such areas as production of oxygen from indigenous lunar materials. 4. Payload Effects... Several studies to develop preliminary shuttle/tug design requirements for potential payloads to be carried into space by the shuttle/tug system. 5. New Mission Requirements.. Two studies to develop requirements for advanced missions beyond those presently programmed for lunar orbit, lunar surface, and earth orbit utilizing currently planned hardware or the development of new systems. QUESTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES FOR MANNED SPACE FLIGHT MARCH 3, 1971 400 200 400 250 Question. 1. According to the recapitulation of capital plant value shown in Volume III of the justification books, the total recorded value of capital type property under NASA control is over $5.0 billion, of which over $2.8 billion falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of Manned Space Flight. Of the Manned Space Flight amount, $677,383,000* is shown as "various locations." Specifically, where is this part of the capital investment located and what is the value at each location? *NOTE: Figure should be $678,383,000. Answer. 1. The following is a breakdown of the recorded value of capital type property at major contractor locations and under the jurisdiction of the Office of Manned Space Flight: Contractor/Location North American Rockwell Canoga Park, CA (incl. Edwards AFB & Santa Susana ) Downey, Calif__. Seal Beach, Calif McDonnell Douglas Sacramento, Calif. Huntington Beach, Calif___ Santa Monica, Calif. AC Electronics, Milwaukee, Wis. IBM Corp., Houston, Tex Recorded value (in thousands) Grumman Aerospace Corp. Bethpage, N.Y. (incl. KSC and other loca tions) Lockheed Electronics Co., Houston, Tex Bendix Corp., Ann Arbor, Mich M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass. Wyle Laboratories, El Segundo, Calif. IBM Corp., Huntsville, Ala. Bendix Corp., Teterboro, N.J. ZIA Company, Las Cruces (WSTF), N. Mex. Taft Broadcasting Co., Houston, Tex_ Dynalectron Corp., Fort Worth, Tex.. General Electric Co., Houston, Tex. (incl. other locations) Boeing Company, Huntsville, Ala-- Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., Greendale, Wis_ Wyle Laboratories, Huntsville, Ala.. General Electric Co., Huntsville, Ala. Auburn University, Auburn, Ala--- Kennedy Space Center (contractor-held property)_. $103, 317 113, 596 21, 359 35, 528 5, 934 2,065 7,044 1,979 1, 507 783 1,504 6, 044 642 1, 386 7,772 3, 270 1, 292 543 1, 366 1, 454 2,508 102, 090 501 590 577 582 952 143, 750 569,935 Sub-total major locations__. All other contractor locations (contractor-held property) Total 108, 448 678, 383 Question 2. Do the recorded value amounts shown for each location include construction and equipment acquisition in progress? If so, does this represent the amounts spent to date or the estimated final acquisition costs? Answer 2. The amounts shown in the grand total column for each location on summary chart 6 include the recorded value of construction and equipment acquisition in progress which amounts are identified in the "Fixed Assets in Progress" column on the summary chart. These amounts represent the value of construction work in place and related materials and equipment delivered to the site as of June 30, 1970. The amounts shown, therefore, do not represent obligations or the estimated final total acquisition costs of facility projects. Question 3. The recorded value of capital type property at each of the three major Manned Space Flight Centers is shown as $857.6 million at KSC: $394.6 million at MSC; and $383.7 million at MSFC. Based upon identified firm future requirements, how much will it cost to complete master-planned facilities at each Center? Answer 3. All identified future facility requirements at each MSF Center (KSC, MSC, and MSFC) are based on unmanned programs, such as Viking, as well as post Apollo manned programs, such as Skylab and Space Shuttle. The facilities required to support the Apollo Program have been provided through prior years CofF programs; depending upon the Apollo Program's future definition, however, some minor follow-on requirements may be necessary. The FY-72 CofF Program incorporates modifications and alterations to KSC launch facilities to accommodate the unmanned Helios and Viking missions. This CofF program also provides for current rehabilitation and modification needs at KSC, MSC, and MSFC, including correction of conditions contributing to the pollution of air and water at these centers. |