1964 NASA AUTHORIZATION THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1963 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPLICATIONS AND TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 214-B, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. J. Edward Roush presiding. Mr. ROUSH. The committee will be in order. We are pleased to have with us this morning the Honorable John H. Rubel, Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Gen. Paul T. Cooper. The subcommittee has been concerned with possible duplication of the purchase of tracking ships for the use in the NASA Apollo program. Also it is concerned that appropriate coordination and cooperation may not have been established between NASA and the Department of Defense in satisfying their ship tracking requirements. The purpose of the hearing this morning is to investigate the possibility of meeting the needs of NASA with their current DOD ship inventory. The subcommittee would like to have a presentation of what the current DOD inventory of ships is, what the workload factors are, and in what manner they feel they could satisfy the NASA Apollo requirements We hope, Mr. Secretary, that you can throw some light on this question. It is a pleasure to welcome you and General Cooper before the committee, and you may proceed with your prepared statement. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. RUBEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING; ACCOMPANIED BY BRIG. GEN. PAUL T. COOPER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RANGE AND SPACE GROUND SUPPORT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Mr. RUBEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to to appear before this committee to present Department of Defense information concerning ships for the Apollo mission. Representatives of the Department of Defense have been discussing NASA requirements for ships to be used with the Gemini and Apollo programs for over a year. Until recently, these requirements were stated in very general terms. Based upon our understanding of NASA needs, a DOD study conducted last June concluded that there would be enough tracking ships and telemetry ships in the combined instrumentation fleets of the Pacific Missile Range and the Atlantic Missile Range during the 1966-68 time period to fully accommodate NASA requirements. Recently, NASA has definitized requirements in more detail. On April 2, 1963, NASA forwarded to DOD an 8-page description of the operational requirements for three Apollo tracking ships. They requested our assessment of the availability of these three ships from those already in or planned for addition to the Defense Department inventory. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I believe that that request on the part of NASA was in response to a congressional inquiry that they ask the Defense Department in a formal way as to whether or not these three ships could be furnished out of either existing or planned additions to the Defense Department inventory. Mr. ROUSH. This committee had asked NASA to submit in detail their requirements to the Defense Department with the view of determining whether or not you would meet those requirements. Mr. RUBEL. Yes, sir. We immediately formed a study group consisting of personnel of the Air Force Missile Test Center at the Atlantic Missile Range and representatives of the Pacific Missile Range to analyze in detail the new statement of NASA requirements. The results of this study were presented to NASA on April 23. The study concluded that the instrumentation required by NASA for the Apollo program is similar to the instrumentation on board the general-purpose ships of the Atlantic Missile Range and the Pacific Missile Range, with certain exceptions. The principal exception is the lack of the so-called NASA unified S-band system; however, the study concluded that provisions could be made to accommodate this Apollo-peculiar equipment on the ships in question. I might add here, too, that it is my impression from the data and information that I have seen that ships for the Apollo mission and general purpose ships have much more in common than they have dissimilarities. There are nine ships in the combined fleets of the Atlantic Missile Range and the Pacific Missile Range, existing and planned, with a tracking capability as required and with hulls of sufficient size to accommodate this additional NASA equipment. The study group analyzed the NASA and DOD programs which will require ship support in terms of the anticipated ship workload for the time period of the Apollo program. Using a computer technique, an operations analysis was conducted to determine the number of ships required, with proper allowance for launch schedule slippage, delays due to weather, cancelled launches, and so forth, and with the proper allowances for steaming time, reprovisioning, refueling, drydock and crew rest. This study assumed that every Apollo launch would require an arbitrary 30-day, onstation coverage and that Apollo requirements would be supported 100 percent as a matter of national priority. By using the computer technique, one can determine where the law of diminishing returns sets in as the size of the fleet increases. The study concluded that 11 ships are needed to achieve the desired level of support to the total NASA/DOD programs, again, assuming 100-percent support to Project Apollo. I mentioned that DOD will have nine tracking ships of sufficient size to accommodate Apollo. We had planned to commence construction of a large satellite tracking ship, known as Aris-3, during this fiscal year, to be operated in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean areas for the purpose of monitoring satellite events taking place in those areas. The bid proposals submitted by industry indicated that the cost of this ship would greatly exceed our original estimates. A very careful review of the data requirements of the several satellite programs for which this ship was to be configured indicated that none of this data was absolutely essential to the success of any program. Whereas it would be extremely desirable to collect this data and, undoubtedly, such data would enhance the various satellite operations in question, it was our considered judgment that this data was not worth the price of Aris-3. It was decided that we must either forgo the data or be satisfied with a ship of a lower order capability in order to stay within reasonable costs. We are currently studying the feasibility of modifying (for this purpose) one of the several relatively small C-1 hulls now in the AMR telemetry fleet. Assuming this plan is pursued, this modification will provide the DOD with a 10th tracking ship although this ship is too small to accommodate the special Apollo requirements. It will serve, however, to satisfy some of the general-purpose ship workload and thus relieve the burden of the larger, more expensive ships. I guess I should make it clear, if it isn't perhaps absolutely clear, that we dropped the Aris-3 from our program. We are not going to include it in the Aris program. We are going to have a substitute of lesser but adequate capability. That is the thrust of this paragraph. The Department of Defense study, and I am referring again now to the study that I set up with Air Force and Navy representatives, addressed specifically to the question of whether or not the Defense Department fleet could satisfy NASA's Apollo requirements, this study concluded that only one ship, the 11th, must be added to the tracking fleet for Apollo, if others are suitably modified to meet the special Apollo requirements. Although NASA proposed a total of three ships, our study concludes that this number is marginal, if indeed the Apollo requirements are "mandatory" requirements. I should differentiate between the term "mandatory" and the term "desired." A mandatory requirement is one which would cause cancellation of the mission if it could not be satisfied on the day of the mission. The desired requirement is one which would not cause a cancellation. Therefore, in order to meet the requirements as stated by NASA, we believe it is necessary to configure a minimum of five ships with Apollo equipment; one in the Atlantic between Bermuda and Antigua to monitor the insertion into Earth orbit, two in the South Atlantic or Indian Ocean to monitor the injection into the lunar trajectory, with two additional ships in the Pacific to monitor this same injection maneuver, when and if it occurs on that side of the world. Our estimate of costs to modify four ships is approximately $50 million. Adding the new ship, the 11th, raises this cost to the Apollo program to $80 million. I should hasten to add that these costs are pure estimates, based on our experience in the DOD in the configuring of nine tracking ships. If our experience has proved anything, it is that the magnitude of costs are consistently underestimated. Additionally, as this study developed, we realized that the statement of operational requirements provided by NASA left many questions unanswered, some of which depend on Apollo program decisions of the future. Therefore, one must realize that there is no precise solution to the currently anticipated requirement 3. There is room for a difference of approach and viewpoint with respect to the ship operations. I believe the DOD and NASA are in general agreement that general-purpose ships should be deployed wherever possible in order to achieve maximum utilization. We are also in agreement, I believe, that special-purpose ships are the proper solution in cases where the equipment on board is indeed unique to a particular project. The questions at hand are how much of the equipment on board these ships is unique to Apollo requirements and whether this equipment requires operators directly under the control of NASA, and whether these ships will be fully utilized in this special configuration. The answers to these questions will indicate whether the ships should be project peculiar or part of the general-purpose fleet. DOD cannot make this determination with the information at hand. It is necessary for NASA to arrive at these decisions which so vitally affect their programs. We have submitted a plan to NASA which examines the various alternatives and suggests an arrangement whereby 100 percent of their Apollo requirements can be met by the modification of four DOD ships and the addition of one new ship as a part of the national fleet. We believe that it is up to NASA to answer the remaining questions as to the extent of the Apollo-peculiar equipment or whether there are deficiencies in this plan. We have provided them with our best estimates as to how we may assist them. However, the decision is theirs and it is not a simple one. NASA may determine that three new ships especially equipped for Apollo are necessary for the Apollo program. We shall, however, continue to take every opportunity to assist them in minimizing costs and to provide any tracking ship support that can be made available from DOD resources. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement, but since that statement was prepared I have received a letter from Dr. Seamans, the Associate Administrator of NASA. It came too late for incorporating its contents or the burden of its message in the prepared statement. I really haven't had time to study it in detail, either, but having read it now, it is my impression that what it says is that NASA has studied the Defense Department proposal, that NASA feels there are certain assumptions that were made in conducting the Defense Department study which were incorrect or would prove to be incorrect, that for these reasons NASA believes that it is necessary to add three new ships to the national inventory to satisfy the Apollo mission requirements without at the same time eroding support for other missions, and, finally, that it is NASA's conclusion that the solution and recommendation contained in the Defense Department report will not prove acceptable, and that the three-ship solution initially proposed by NASA is the one to be followed. That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be very happy to answer any questions that I can. General Cooper, who is Assistant Director of Defense Research and Engineering for Ranges and Space Ground Support, is here at my right, and has much more detailed information on all of these subjects than I. With your permission, I would like to feel free to call on him to answer questions, or for you to feel free to call on him directly at any time to give you whatever information you would find useful. Mr. Rousн. We would be very happy to have General Cooper participate in this discussion. We were aware, of course, that NASA |