The Apollo ship configuration was compared to that of a DOD general-purpose ship. The main difference between them is due to program-peculiar instrumentation such as the unified S-band system and the need for more display equipment aboard the Apollo ship. Some DOD ships are also instrumented with program-peculiar systems such as the unified SHF for X-20 and X, L/UHF-band radars for the ABRES program. Most of the equipment aboard the ships is common usage. Program-peculiar equipment represents a relatively insignificant amount of the total ship configuration, as shown by (X) equipment on the chart. DOD proposes to add Apollopeculiar instrumentation to existing general purpose ships, as for the X-20 and ABRES program, as the most efficient and economical means of doing the job. OPERATIONS ANALYSIS COMPUTER MODEL Workload factors Random launch schedule. Launch schedule slippage. Launch delays for weather. Average workload periods selected. Ship support factors One home port and one alternate per ship. Optimum selection of ships. Special ships selected for certain tests. 30 days on-station for Apollo. 100 percent support for Apollo. An operations analysis using a computer model has been performed to determine the ability to support the DOD/NASA ship workload. Using factors shown on the opposite page, the model is able to realistically account for all the significant variables in ship support for missile and space tests. First, workloads for typical periods are constructed using factors based on past experience extrapolated as necessary to future conditions. The ships are then selected and moved by the computer in a realistic manner to determine those tests which can be supported. By repeating this process many times and averaging the results the randomness is removed from the answer. Repeat runs permit the variability of ship support to be determined. The analysis gives the percentage of the test workload which can be supported by any given number of ships. The result of the operations analysis of ship support for the total DOD/NASA workload, including 100 percent support for Apollo, is shown here. Note that the curve flattens out toward the right side. A very large number of ships would be required to provide 100 percent support for firm programs. For this reason, plus the large cost of each additional ship and in light of range experience in rescheduling lower priority launches, a management decision was made to limit planned range support (except Apollo) to the 85-percent level. Ten ships are needed to achieve the desired level of workload support without Apollo. The effect of guaranteeing 100 percent Apollo support with a 10-ship fleet is to reduce the capability of supporting the balance of the workload below the acceptable level of 85 percent. To once more reach this level, 1 additional ship is needed for a total of 11 ships. In summary, the operations analysis has shown that one additional general purpose ship is needed to provide 100 percent support for Apollo and achieve the desired level of support for the balance of the workload. 1. To meet need for Apollo injection over either Atlantic or Pacific Oceans: Million Modify 4 existing AMR/PMR ships___ Add 1 new C-2 general purpose ship. Total... 2. To meet need for Apollo injection over Pacific Ocean only: Modify 2 existing PMR ships___ Add 1 new C-2 general purpose ship. Total... 3. To meet need for Apollo injection over Atlantic Ocean only: Modify 2 existing AMR ships. Add 1 new C-2 general purpose ship. Total... $30 30 To support Apollo at the 100-percent level and the balance of the DOD/NASA workload at the acceptable level, one new C-2 general purpose ship capable of Apollo support is needed and four existing DOD general purpose ships must be modified with program-peculiar Apollo equipment. The costs have been reached by using the NASA estimate of $30 million per ship and the NASA GSE of the unified §-band station and control and command consoles as specified in the 1 April 63 Apollo requirements. The modification costs of existing AMR and PMR ships have been reached using established costing procedures. COMPARISON OF DOD AND NASA SOLUTIONS NASA separately supports Apollo with 3 new ships. DOD ships support complete DOD/NASA workload with Apollo.. Millions $90 60 The DOD solution provides five ships configured to support Apollo. One of these will support the insertion into parking orbit between Bermuda and Antigua. Two will cover the Atlantic Ocean injection area and two will cover the Pacific Ocean injection area. (Injection area to be selected by NASA prior to each test.) The DOD five general purpose ship solution offers the following advantages over the Apollo sole-use three-ship solution: a. A comparison of the proposed DOD and NASA support concepts shows that the DOD solution is more economical and yet provides 100 percent, top-priority support for Apollo and maximum support of all other high priority U.S. missile and space missions. b. No loss of ship time between tests by moving injection coverage ships from one ocean to the other (30 days per trip). c. Provides NASA the option of two injection points per orbit. d. Additional reliability by insuring that the bare minimum of ships will always be available. e. Although not a part of this study, the ships would have possible use in future reentry and recovery requirements. M. and (), costs represent several additional millions of dollars yearly if three new ships are used rather than modifying existing ships and adding only one more. DOD can and should: RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Support all NASA/DOD tests including Apollo using the National Range fleet. 2. Implement solution 1 shown in the conclusions. 3. Manage and operate the combined national fleet of range instrumentation ships. (Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.) 1964 NASA AUTHORIZATION THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1963 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPLICATIONS AND TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:30 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 very pleased to have with us Dr. George L. Simpson, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Technology Utilization and Policy Planning of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, this morning. Dr. Simpson, in the course of discussion questions have arisen which we felt could best be answered if we called you back. Dr. SIMPSON. Yes, sir. Mr. ROUSH. I do hope we did not disturb your program too much, but we did feel that it was quite important that these questions be resolved. Dr. SIMPSON. Yes, sir. Mr. ROUSH. And that we be given as much information as possible, before we made our decision. I observe that you have a statement which is not too long. Are you prepared to give this statement, or would you want this to be included in the record and then comment generally on it? Dr. SIMPSON. Well, I think, since this is a general statement, and not too radically different from the earlier statement, that I would like to submit it for the record, and answer any questions. Mr. ROUSH. All right. If there is no objection on the part of the members of the committee, the statement, together with the attachments, will be included and made part of the record. Is there any objection? Would you care to make any general comments before the committee begins to question you? Dr. SIMPSON. I believe I would like to make this comment: This business of Mr. RUMSFELD. I have not had a chance to read this, and since it is not very long, I wonder if I could have an opportunity to do so. Could we, perhaps, take a recess for about 5 minutes, so that we all have a chance to read it? Mr. ROUSH. Well, yes, certainly. Mr. DAVIS. I think that would be a good idea. Mr. HECHLER. It might be just as expeditious for Dr. Simpson to read it, if that is agreeable. it. Mr. Roush. Yes. All right. I had assumed that you had all read Mr. DAVIS. I didn't have an opportunity to read it, either. Dr. SIMPSON. I will be happy to read it. Mr. Rousн. You can go ahead, then, Dr. Simpson, and read it. STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE L. SIMPSON, JR., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND POLICY PLANNING, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Dr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the functions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as contained in the Space Act, section 203 (a) (3) “shall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof." Accomplishment of our national goals in space exploration will require and will result in accelerated progress in science and technology, will produce important innovations and inventions which can be widely used in nonspace applications and constitute a valuable national resource. The NASA regards, with a sense of deep responsibility, the importance of realizing the full industrial potential of the technological advances which are developed in terms of new products, processes and services as a contribution toward continuing national economic growth. The technology utilization program has been established to accomplish this objective of insuring the fullest utilization of NASA sponsored scientific research and development for long-term national benefit. This program includes a team of technical specialists within headquarters who work in close cooperation with other groups having related interests both in headquarters and in all of our field centers. The technology utilization program, broadly speaking, covers the major program elements, identification and reporting of innovations, cataloging, evaluation, and dissemination and transfer of information. The sources of information include: NASA in-house research and development projects, NASA-Contract Research and Development projects, and the invention disclosures of NASA employees and contractors. A Technology Utilization Office has been established at each of our field installations to work with the installation technical project personnel and patent counsels. Organized activities to systematically search out and identify useful technological innovations have been established and this office is being assigned the responsibility for monitoring research contract requirements for reporting new technology. The task of innovation, evaluation and appraisal for industrial potential is a difficult one, requiring a combination of talents of strong technical capability and knowledge of current industrial needs and requirements. This capability is difficult to find. One of the best sources, and I may say, not the only source since we are exploring others, but one of the best sources for this capability which has been enlisted is the industrial research institutes, such as A. O. Little, Inc., |