ED 052 931

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 010 602

Kaprielyan, S. PeterAerospace Management, Volume 5 Number 1.General Electric Co., Philadelphia, Pa.70130p.General Electric Company, Valley Forge SpaceTechnology Center, P. 0,. Box 8555, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania (copy or subscription free)

EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58Administration, *Aerospace Industry, *AerospaceTechnology, Management, Physical Sciences, Technology

Presented are articles and reports dealing withaspects of the aerospace programs of the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA). Of major concern are the technologicaland managerial challenges within the space station and space shuttleprograms. Other reports are given on: (1) medical experiments, (2)satellites, (3) international cooperation, (4) tracking and dataacquisition, (5) managerial objectives, (6) program economics, (7)manpower resources, (8) interagency cooperation, (9) commercialapplications, and (10) patents and licensing. (RS)

... . ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,

Nroi 11.f.5Tripfl 4 .7 0. 0137741;1 0-1 , '

P4. ttt . 11"to (, (

. . °O.

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFI'ICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY.

t4 ,ii,),1'114g'.vV,'44

D, 4,1"Pi

36Vi.-

t\lt,

a rindas

a

k,C

ic,

;-':51

iPit,%/0$*kt(6'dti*c"

CrilF1,10141

0 ,1

4 ;

". . . the United States will take positive, concrete steps toward internationalizingman's epic venture into spacean adventure that belongs not to one nation but toall mankind. I believe that both the adventures and the applications of space mis-sions should be shared by all peoples. Our progress will be faster and our accom-plishments greater if nations will join together in this effort, both in contributingthe resources and in enjoying the benefits."

(Excerpt from President Nixon's statement onMarch 7, 1970, Key Biscayne, Florida)

AEROSPACE MANAGEMENTGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AEROSPACE GROUP

1970 VOLUME 5 NUMBER 1

GENERAL ELECTRIC

Manager, Management Practices SectionSpace DivisionKeineth 0. ChilstromEditorS. Peter KaprielyanArt DirectorRoy Scarfo

Distribution ManagerSydney Eckman

Divisional AdvisorsAircraft Equipment DivisionDr. John G. HuttonDefense Programs DivisionLawrence R. CohenElectronic Systems DivisionHugh Mease, Jr.

Re-entry and EnvironmentalSystems DivisionDonald E. BurrusSpace Divisionlames R. Polski

Mark Morton, Vice PresidentGeneral Electric CompanyGroup ExecutiveAerospace GroupCharles W. George, Vice PresidentGeneral Electric CompanyGeneral ManagerAircraft Equipment DivisionL. Berkley Davis, Vice PresidentGeneral Electric CompanyGeneral ManagerDefense Programs DivisionDr. Roy H. Beaton, Vice PresidentGeneral Electric CompanyGeneral ManagerElectronic Systems DivisionOtto Klima, Vice PresidentGeneral Electric CompanyGeneral ManagerRe-entry and EnvironmentalSystems DivisionDaniel J. Fink, Vice PresidentGeneral Electric CompanyGeneral Manager, Space Division

FEATURES Page

ACTIVE ROLE FOR NASC SEEN IN 70SBY AGENCY'S EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 9

Interview with William A. AndersExecutive Secretary, National Aeronautics and Space CouncilUnder charter provided by 1958 Space Act to National Aeronautics andSpace Council energetic former astronaut aims at broadeningagency's problem-solving capabilities

CONCEPTS FOR SPACE STATION & SHUTTLESHAPING UP FROM STRENGTHS OF CENTERS

Viewpoints from NASA Headquarters on the technological and man-agerial challenges of the manned space-flight programs of the Seventies,their scope and significance, and facets of organizational roles.

POSTPOLLO MANNED OPERATIONSCENTER ON MAXIMIZING RETURNS 16Dr. Wernher von BraunDeouty Associate Administrator for Planning

AN OVERVIEW OF THE SKYLAB,STATION AND SHUTTLE ROLES 23Charles W. MathewsDeputy Associate Administrator, Office of Manned Space Flight

SPACE SHUTTLE REQUIREMENTS,PROGRAM PLANS AND PROGRESS 29Dale D. MyersAssociate Administrator for Manned Space Flight

SPACE STATION OBJECTIVES,OPERATION AND APPLICATIONS 35Dale D. MyersAssociate Administrator for Manned Space Flight

OART WORK TOWARD SHUTTLE,AND RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS 41Oran W. NicksActing Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology

OART WORK TOWARD STATIONTECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES 50Oran W. NicksActing Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology

DEVELOPING THE TECHNOLOGICALBASE FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE 58Adelbert 0. TischlerDirector, Chemical Propulsion Division, OART

AEROSPACE MANAGEMENT, a publication of General Electric's Aerospace Group, isprovided as a forum for the exchange of system/project management concepts, tech-niques and practices evolving in the government, the industry and their interface.The opinions expressed or implied in this publication are private, and do not neces-sarily represent the views of the General Electric Company. AEROSPACE MANAGE-MENT is produced by the Space Division's Management Practices Section, of theFinance and Contract Management Operation, Room M-3128; Valley Forge SpaceTechnology Center, P. 0. Box 8555, Philadelphia, Pa. Tel. 215 - 962 -5040.

4

.........mrre7.0=7711M4LIMITIMItralltrITRITYARAVALIMMTWItMansooew

(Table of contents continued)

FEATURES Page

AIM OF MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS PROGRAM:TO BETTER KNOW EARTH-MAN IN SPACE 63Interview with Dr. Sherman P. V inograclDirector, IMBLMS Program and Research and Technology

Broad Medical/Behavioral Experiments Program for evaluatinghuman system changes induced by space flight may advance diagnosisand therapy in Earth's environment

OSSA'S R&D TASKS TOWARD SEVENTIESSTRESS SATELLITES FOR SERVING MAN 73Interview with Dr. John E. NaugleAssociate Administrator for Space Science and Applications

Despite NASA budget decrease over recent years, the budgetof the Office of Space Science and Applications has continued toincrease, with emphasis on applications

COOPERATIVE INTERNATIONAL VENTURES OF 60SFORM BASES FOR BENEFICIAL PROGRAMS OF 70S 81Interview with Arnold W. FrutkinAssistant Administrator (or International Affairs

Extensive participation of international scientific community inU.S. space efforts provides prototypes for applications programsoriented to the global needs of man

OFFICE OF TRACKING & DATA ACQUISITIONMAINTAINS LIFELINES TO SPACE MISSIONS 93Interview with H. R. BrockettDeputy Associate Administrator for Tracking and Data Acquisition

NASA's three specialized communication networks around the worldprovide the vital links between Earth and spacecraft, to rendermission support and gather space data

MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVES ON 70'S NEEDSPROJECT TREND OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES 101Interview with Bernard MoritzActing Associate Administrator for Organization and Management

High selectivity in choosing goals and management tools, sharperfocus on system objectives and requirements characterize NASA'saustere approach to the Seventies

"ECONOMY THROUGH CONSCIENTIOUS HOMEWORK" 104Interview with William E. LillyAssistant Administrator for Administration

"REVITALIZING NASA'S MANPOWER RESOURCES" 107Interview with Grove WebsterPersonnel Division Director, Office of Administration

NASA'S MULTIPLE INTERAGENCY INTERFACESBLEND KNOW-HOW TOWARD COMPLEX PROGRAMS 111Interview with General Jacob E. Smart, USAF (Ret.)Assistant Administrator for DOD and Interagency Affairs

Extensive experience integrating efforts and resourcesneeded for managing complex endeavors, provides useful insightsfor coping with coming challenges

NASA'S OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATIONFEEDS USEFUL CONCEPTS TO PUBLIC SECTOR 119Interview with Melvin S. DayActing Assistant Administrator for Technology Utilization

Wide variety of specialized publications and information centersmake findings from space-oriented technology accessible tocommercially-oriented entrepreneurs

PATENTS AND LICENSING POLICY 126Interview with Gayle ParkerPatent Attorney, Office of General Counsel, NASA Headquarters

Cover Motif: An interpretation of NASA symbol, from a sculpture by Billy Newman, West Chester, Pa.

5

6

RIPENING OPPORTUNITIESFOR GLOBAL COOPFRATION

5

We take pleasure in devoting thisissue of our publication to discussionshighlighting NASA's major challengesfor the Seventies, from the perspectiveof a representative group whose mem-bers have played distinguished roles instructuring the successful space pro-grams of the Sixties. From this experi-ence stem the thoughts, synopsized onthese pages, on the beneficial uses ofman's developing skills and tools in anewly-accessible realm, of dimensionsto match his imagination.

The many momentous events andvaliant deeds of the last decade leaveus a legacy of vital technologicalprogress, which formerly was the con-comitant only of global conflicts.

We are proud to be an active part ofan industrial community which con-tributed to the development of a newlevel of national competence in thelast decade, with attendant benefits tothe economy and national prestige;and we welcome the opportunitiespresented by the current decade fordirecting this newly-acquired compe-tence toward the improvement of theconditions of life on our planet.

On a planet moving in a universeruled by a diversity of scarcely-under-stood forces new science and tech-nology provide for man insights onaspects of reality which relate directlyto his comfort, sustenance, and sur-vival. These insights, be they newly-discovered truths or novel tools, serveto extend the dimensions of his con-sciousness, and to augment his powersto shape his destiny. As attested bythe record of human events, the socie-ties which have failed to appraise thisvital tenet of existence have eitherbeen overcome by their more vigorouscontemporaries, or have withered intheir neglect.

A simplistic notion is swelling in ournation today tending to discredit sci-ence and technology, and to ascribe to

them the host of social ills that arenow impinging on human conscious-ness. And through fatuous discredit-ing of the role and beneficial aspectsof science and technology we arelosing sight of the very potentials ofour new scientific tools and methodsthat may serve us in seeking answers toour dilemmas. In the wake of a mostremarkable decade of achievements wecan ill-afford to lapse back into theinnocence and technological torpor ofpre-Sputnik days; we may never havethe luxury of a second start in thiseventful century.

Is it not significant that many of thedilemmas of the human conditionwhich we now consider in conflictwith man's higher aspirations, andhence insufferable were, not so longago, still accepted as part of thehuman lot on this planet? Is it not alsonoteworthy that this change in atti-tude and aspirations became morepronounced in this era of space explor-ation the high bench mark ofscience and technology?

In the first decade of space achieve-ments, it was vigorous internationalcompetition which motivated man toreach the moon and the thresholds ofthe planets. Today, in the seconddecade, unprecedented opportunitiesare beckoning to motivate man towork with his fellowman, endowedwith vision from a new perspective aperspective which makes politicalboundaries recede into imperceptibil-ity . . . oceans and continents to coa-lesce into the outline of a tiny, blue,and beautiful planet . . . and many ofits major problems to merge into thechallenges common to the diminutivecommunity of man.

Dare we fail to grasp the signifi-cance of this moment, and be negli-gent in fulfilling the promise of itsunequaled opportunities?

Daniel J. Fink, Vice PresidentGeneral Electric CompanyGeneral Manager, Space Division

6

8

',17vArrme-r,

ACTIVE ROLE FOR NASC SEEN IN 70S ABY AGENCY'S EXECUTIVE SECRETARY illInterview with William A. Antlers'Executive Secretary, National Aeronautics and Space Council

Under charter provided by 1958 Space Act to National Aeronautics and Space Councilenergetic former astronaut aims at broadening agency's problem-solving capabilities

Historians of the future who focustheir hindsight on the signal docu-ments of this century, are likely topick PL 85-568 as the epochal piece oflegislation that led the U.S. into thespace age.

Better known as the National Aero-nautics and Space Act of 1958, this43-page declaration constitutes ineffect the combined birth certificateof the National Aeronautics and SpaceCouncil (NASC) and the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration(NASA). Congress has amended thebasic Space Act from time to time, tokeep it up to date with changingcircumstances. The National Aero-nautics and Space Council includes:the Vice President as Chairman, theSecretaries of State and Defense, theChairman of the Atomic Energy Com-mission, and the Administrator of VieNASA. The Secretary of Transporta-tion is also invited to participate when-ever discussions bear on aeronautics.As the Council's Executive Secretary, Iam responsible for the developmentand direction of the advisory staff.

It's unfortunate, in a way, thatnames and designations which arelengthy often tend to get telescoped inusage to the point of losing identity.As a descriptive identity, the oncesignificantly structured name ofNational Aeronautics and SpaceCouncil has gradually eroded into thatof "Space Council." I feel that thistransfiguration has been insidiouslydetrimental to the original purposeand policy of this Council. That is, theshedding of the qualifier "National"has d eem p hasized the Council'scharter and character, and the mutingof the term "Aeronautics" has tendedto weight the Council's apparent orien-tation singularly toward "Space."

Perhaps in the period leading up to

"Crew member of APOLLO 8manned by astro-nauts Frank Borman, lames A. Lovell, Jr., andWilliam A. Anderslaunched on December 21,1968, which became the first manned spacecraftto orbit the moon.

' As a descriptive identity, the once significantly structured name of National Aeronautics andSpace Council has gradually eroded Into that of 'Space Council.' I feel that this has beendetrimental to the original purpose and policy of this Council."

the lunar landings it was appropriateto have a more narrowly directednational orientation. But now that wehave attained our initial objective ofmanned lunar exploration, we shouldbroaden our aims toward a widerspectrum of aero-space competence.President Nixon's statement of March7 at Key Biscayne stressed the impor-tance, for our nation, of adopting a"bold and balanced" approach tospace exploration. This concept of abalanced approach is inherent also to

the Act which provides the charters ofthe NASC and NASA. Here's some ofthe specific wording of the legislationthat states NASC's reason for being:

"It shall be the function of theCouncil to advise and assist the Presi-dent, as he may request, with respectto the performance of functions in theaeronautics and space field, includingthe following functions:

(1) Survey all significant aeronau-tical and space activities, including the

9

"Located as it is, close to the political pulse of the nation, the Council's orientation could easilybe political rather than technical. It is my intention make a strong technical and policyorientation prevail. For I believe it Is primarily through this kind of orientation that we canhope to render our country's aerospace activities most relevant to some of the major problemswe are facing as a nation."

10

policies, plans, programs, and accom-plishments of all departments andagencies of the United States engagedin such activities;

(2) Develop a comprehensive pro-gram of aeronautical and space activ-ities to be conducted by departmentsand agencies of the United States;

(3) Designate and fix responsibilityfor the direction of major aeronauticaland space activities;

(4) Provide for effective coopera-tion among all departments andagencies of the United States engagedin aeronautical and space activities,and specify, in any case in whichprimary responsibility for any cate-gory of aeronautical and space activ-ities has been assigned to any depart-ment or agency, which of those activ-ities may be carried on concurrentlyby other departments or agencies; and

(5) Resolve differences arisingamong departments and agencies ofthe United States with respect toaeronautical and space activities underthis Act, including differences as towhether a particular project is anaeronautical and space activity."

What this implies, in essence, is thatthe NASC is a Cabinet-level organiza-tion that looks at aerospaceactivities and makes policy recom-mendations to the President as theultimate decision-maker. So in myposition as Executive Secretary of theNASC 1 must view the nation's aero-space activities through the President'seyes, so to speak, in order to helpdetermine what needs to be done toserve national interests in aeronauticsand space consistent with otherpriorities. Considering the swift paceof advances in these fields, this task ofthe NASC is of a self-rene ving nature.This was reflected in part in the SpaceTask Group Report to the President(September 1969) with a closing state-ment to the Conclusions and Recom-mendations, as follows:

,ersarl`rt: rrV'S,StlanatIvxmarntraporcernmwaren.

"The environment in which thespace program is viewed is a vibrant,changing one and the new opportuni-ties that tomorrow will bring cannotbe predicted with certainty. Our plan-ning for the future should recognizethis rapidly changing nature of oppor-tunities in space.

"We recommend that the NationalAeronautics and Space Council beutilized as a mechanism for continuingreassessment of the character and paceof the space program."

Key Role of Space Task Group

Starting with the mid-Sixties, wheneach success of the Gemini programwas bringing the Apollo Program abuilding block closer to reality, theconcern of the aerospace communitywas turning to the uncharted region ofpost-Apollo goals. Eventually, with theapproaching lunar landing, the need toestablish new space goals ripened. Tohis credit, Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, sci-ence adviser to President Nixon, earlyin 1969 suggested the formation of aSpace Task Group to make definitiverecommendations on the future direc-tion of the U.S. space program. Thusat the President's request a Space TaskGroup was assembled, under the chair-manship of Vice President Agnew,composed of Dr. Robert C. Seamans,Secretary of the Air Force; Dr.Thomas 0. Paine, Administrator,NASA; Dr. DuBridge; Dr. U. AlexisJohnson, Under Secretary of State forPolitical Affairs; and Dr. Glenn T.Seaborg, Chairman, Atomic EnergyCommission; with Dr. Roberti.). Mayo, .

Director, Bureau of the Budget, andDr. DuBridge as observers. The reportof the Space Task Group made to thePresident in September 1969 as I

began my assignment provided thebases for Mr. Nixon's announcement,on March 7 of this year, for a "boldand balanced" U.S. Space Program for

the Seventies. And what has beenmade clear regarding the "balanced"approach to future efforts in space isthat, as stated by the President, ourSpace Program should be directed (1)to achieve manned exploration, (2) toacquire scientific knowledge, and (3)to yield practical applications forimproving the conditions of life onEarth.

Thus the Space Task Group hasfulfilled its vital catalytic function,and the U.S. Space Program hasacquired its objectives for the Seven-ties. It is now the management chal-lenge of the NASC to continuallyreview the course of the Space Pro-gram charted by the President, and toimplement national policy and coordi-nation decisions toward the estab-lished objectives. The NASC charterprovided by the Space Act of 1958 isactually quite broad and adequate forcarrying out these tasks.

Staffing of the Top Team

One of my first concerns, afterbeing appointed as Executive Secre-tary of the NASC, was to meet withthe Vice President and traditionalChairman of the f:Puncil, as well aswith the other members and theExecutive Office, regarding what I

should do in my new position. Therewas general agreement that I shouldwork to develop a competent staffwhich would assist in providing andmaintaining the new direction of theSpace Program. With general guidancefrom the Vice President, and consider-able latitude to implement the Cowl-CH'S "Charter I'M nOWin proCeSS ofdeveloping initial candidate policyissues for possible Council consider-ation.

My initial concern was to bringtogether a small group of civilian andmilitary experts, from various fields ofaerospace activity, to solidify a broad

10 11

w/P

12

"As implied by our charter, our basic mission is to broadly coordinate the technical aspects ofaeronautics and space, ultimately for the general welfare and security of the United States."

11

spectrum of capability in the eyes ofthe Executive Office. The functionsand responsibilities of our staff requirea considerably broad viewpoint; weneed to keep our sights on the over-view and riot get mired in minutiae.We must, however, be also capable offocusing attention on so-called nuts-and-bolts aspects, should these appearto be of significance in the Beaterscheme of things.

Located as it is, close to the polit-ical pulse of the nation, the Council'sorientation could easily be politicalrather than technical. It is my inten-tion to make a strong technical andpolicy orientation prevail. For I be-lieve it is primarily through this kindof orientation that we can hope torender our country's aerospace activ-ities most relevant to some of themajor problems we are facing as anation. It is also my intention to makecertain that an environment benevo-lent to aeronautics is maintained, so asto prevent technological lags in thisfield.

Policy Needed on Aeronautics

The Space Task Group prescribedcertain directions for the post-ApolloSpace Program, and the Presidenttranslated these into goals. As such, wehave fairly well-delineated guidepoststo our near-term objectives in space;we shall reassess these on a yearly basisto determine our progress. But wehave no equally clear national direc-tion or policy on aeronautics. TheNASC will work toward the definitionof our national objectives in this re-

.

Among the promising concepts ofaeronautics close to realization, forexample, is that of short take-off andlanding (STOL) aircraft. Yet the devel-opment of this concept to the point ofpracticality seems to be stymied, atthe moment, by the consideration of

needs versus facilities. From thewealth of technological advances madein the process of exploring space, theremust undoubtedly exist a host ofdevelopments of potential applicationto aeronautics. I'm sure I'm not aloneon this aspect of technology transfer,nor in feeling the need to bolster curR&D in aeronautics. Similar feelingswere expressed, earlier this year,during a session of the House Sub-Comittee on Advanced Research andTechnology, with recommendationsthat the United States establish anational aeronautics and aviationpolicy emphasizing R&D toward thesolution of some major aviation prob-lems, including: avionics, propulsion,noise suppression, instrumentation,turbines and compressors, man-machine relationships, air traffic con-trol and air congestion.

As implied by our charter, or basicmission is to broadly coordinate thetechnical aspects of aeronautics andspace, ultimately for the general wel-fare and security of the United States.This is, then, a function that willdepend greatly on effective communi-cation among and with the intricatenetwork of government agencies. Wehave developed a comprehensive list oforganizations and individuals, in thegovernment, which have an interest inaeronautics and space; we are nowestablishing a procedure to assure theactive and bilaterial flow of informa-tion.

We are facing a spectrum of tech-nological and managerial challenges,both in aeronautics and space, whichare of national r-olevance and sigc -i icance. As a policy-development teamof the Executive Branch, the NASC isprovided with a unique vantage pointfor the consideration of unusual prob-lems, and also with the opportunitiesto recommend viable and achievablealternatives, to the Pres-ident, for their solution.

12

14 13

CONCEPTS FOR SPACE STATION & SHUTTLE ASHAPING UP FROM STRENGTHS OF CENTERS AiViewpoints from NASA Headquarters on the technological and managerial challenges of themanned space-flight programs of the Seventies, their scope and significance, and facets oforganizational roles, by the following:

1'

e,

lth,;

Dr. Wernher von Braun.Deputy Associate Administrator for Planning

Charles W. MathewsDeputy Associate Administrator, Office ofManned Space Plight

Oran W. Nicks'Acting Associate Administrator for AdvancedResearch and Technology

*Presently, Deputy Director of the NASA LangleyResearch Center.

14

Dale D. MyersAssociate Administrator for Manned Space Flight

Adelbert 0. TischlerDirector, Chemical Propulsion DivisionOffice of Advanced Research and Technology

15

POST-APOLLO MANNED OPERATIONSCENTER ON MAXIMIZING RETURNSDr. Wernher von BraunDeputy Associate Administrator for Planning

16

:

"The first science and applications work in orbit, supported by astronaut-scientists, will beginin 1972 with the launching of the Skylab. The Skylab Program (known previously as the ApolloApplications Program) will make maximum use of Apollo Program experience and hardware forthe conduct of space science and applications work."

Cz,

it

15

Dr. von Braun heads the NASAPlanning Board which was formed, onMay 4, 1970, to integrate and cen-tralize the agency's planning activities,and to serve in an advisory capacity tothe Administrator.

Charged with the NASA-wide in-tegration of aeronautics and spaceprogram planning, this Board and itsactivities are 'supported by a centralstaff under Dr. von Braun and Dr.DeMarquis D. Wyatt, Assistant Ad-nimistrator for Planning. The Board'sfunction is to oversee and supplementthe planning performed by all NASAline offices.

r.

r.

r

In the heydays of Apollo, we had avery simple and clear charter to land aman on the moon in the Sixties andbring him back alive. So there was verylittle talk about goals and objectives inmanned space flight. The goals andobjectives were stated back in 1961,and had never changed.

In the post-Apollo 11 environment,we shall have to make the applicationsand the science returns justify and payfor a good part of the space program.Unless we can prove to the partici-pating scientists, the people on thestreet, and to our "customer" agenciesthat the space program is really usefulfor them, we will find it increasinglydifficult to retain their continued sup-port.

The first science and applicationswork in orbit supported by astronaut-scientists will begin in 1972 with thelaunching of the Skylab. The SkylabProgram (known previously as theApollo Applications Program) willmake maximum use of Apollo Pro-gram experience and hardware for theconduct of space science and applica-tions tasks.

The first Skylab flight will be un-manned, boosted by a two-stageSaturn V. Only the first and secondstages will be live Saturn V stages. Thethird stage is replaced by what we usedto call the Orbital Workshop and whatwe now call the Skylab. The Skylabwill be this country's first mannedorbital space station.

Attached to this Skylab will be anAirlock Module (AM) and a MultipleDocking Adapter (MDA), to whicharriving Command and Service Mod-ules dock for crew exchange. Alsoattached to it will be the ATM theApollo Telescope Mount, a mannedsolar observatory serviced by theastronaut-scientists living in the Sky-lab.

One day after the Skylab with itsattached modules has been launchedinto orbit (and has deployed the solar

-

Artist's concept depicting Skylab in Earth orbit.

panels both of the ATM and Skylabitself), it will be visited by a SaturnIB-launched Command and ServiceModule, manned by the first Skylabcrew complement of three.

The Command Module docks withthe Multiple Docking Adapter, and thecrew slips through the Docking Adapt-er and the Airlock Module into theSkylab which provides quarters forthem. The first crew will stay up therefor 28 days. This is about twice as longas the longest flight so far that ofGemini 7 where Frank Borman andJim Lovell orbited the earth for 14days.

After the 28 days are over, the threemen will crawl back into their Com-mand Module, detach the CSM fromthe MDA, and use the Service Modulepropulsion system to deboost them-selves back into the atmosphere. Priorto reentry, the Command Module willdetach itself from the Service Module.It will then go through the usualairbraking sequence and make a nor-

16

mal Apollo parachute landing.About three months after the first

flight, another flight will go up. Thistime the crew will stay in the Skylabfor 56 days.

Finally, there will be a third visit,again of 56 days, after which the thirdcrew will descend. The Skylab willthen go into storage. It can be reac-tivated thereafter for a few morerevisits, if desired.

Second Generation Station

The Skylab will be this country'sfirst Space Station. We hope it will besucceeded by a modularized long-lifeSpace Station, which will come in thelate Seventies. This station will in alllikelihood be 33 feet in diameter, andeach module will be capable of accom-modating a total of twelve people. Themodules can be stacked together, andthe Station can grow as more modulesare brought up.

17

18

Space Shuttle

To transfer equipment and person-nel between the Earth and this perma-nent Space Station, a Space Shuttlewill be used. The development of thisShuttle is, of course, one of the mostexciting and at the same time one ofthe most difficult problems NASA isabout to tackle. In the Saturn V, as inall other launch vehicles used thus far,we have thrown all our rocket stagesaway as we went up into orbit, andonto the moon. This, of course, is avery costly operation.

So the obvious idea occurred: canone not build a completely reusablevehicle that can fly into orbit andreturn, like an airplane, to be refueledand fly again; a vehicle that can dothat maybe a hundred times?

Well, with presently available pro-pellants, including liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen, any idea of building aone-stage-to-orbit vehicle doesn't lookvery promising. I'm not saying that itcannot be done, but our studies in-dicate that all one-stage-to-orbit de-signs are very marginal and so sensitivewith respect to weight and perform-ance assumptions that you'd lose allyour payload if you stay just a littlebit too far on the optimistic side. Andwe just don't know enough about suchvehicles to be able to say with cer-tainty that our present technologypermits us to build a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle with a reasonable pay-load.

So all our studies indicate that weseem to need a two-stage-to-orbit vehi-Cie. It could take the form of a bigrocket-powered airplane, the"booster," to which a smaller rocketplane, the "orbiter" would be side-strapped. The unit would take offvertically. At about Mach number 9the propellant tanks of the boosterwould be depleted. At this point, thebooster would peel off and the re-usable orbiter would be ignited.

17

"The development of the Space Shuttle isone of the most exciting and most difficultproblems NASA is about to tackle."

During its deceleration to subsonicspeed, the booster would perform aU-turn and, with the help of air-breathing jet engines, return to thelaunch site where it would land air-plane fashion. Only the reusable or-biter would reach orbit. It would getinto orbit with its payload and enoughpropellant left for the return flight. Toreturn, it would deboost itself backinto the atmosphere for an aerody-namic deceleration and a subsequentairplane-type landing.

All-out vs Piecemeal Approach

A reusable booster and a reusableorbiter is, of course, an all-out solu-tion. One could conceivably argue:"Let's not go all-out; let's at first justaim for a reusable orbiter." Even hereone has several options. For example,

one could envision a returnable air-plane-type spacecraft that is boostedto orbit, either with an all-solidbooster or with something like a TitanIII, a large liquid rocket, to which anumber of solids are strapped. Theliquid fuel Titan core itself could be atwo-stage vehicle. In this case wewould get a throw-away multi-stagebooster with a reusable orbiter. Wecould also use one or two stages of theSaturn V to help get the reusablespacecraft into orbit. Needless to say,any such half-expendable, half-reusable vehicle would only be aninterim solution that could never com-pete in recurrent flight costs with afully reusable system.

On the other hand, it may still betoo early to say which developmentroute, all-out or piecemeal, should bechosen toward the ultimate objective.Clearly, as far as recurrent cost isconcerned, a completely reusablesystem will be more cost effective.Once you have a reusable two-stagevehicle, it seems that you could makeone flight to orbit for something like$5 million. Of this, about one-halfwould probably be for amortization ofthe machine. So, if your two-stage

'Vehicle were capable of making 100flights, but costs $250 million tobuild then you would have to charge$2.5 million depreciation per flight.

Reusably orbiters launched by dis-cardable rocket-stages are undoubtedlymore costly to launch to orbit justbecause during each flight you wouldthrow the rocket stages away. But theinitial non-recurrent cost to developsuch a hybrid machine would be sub-stantially less than that leading towarda completely reusable two-stagesystem.

Question of Returns

And so one of the crucial questionswe are presently wreslting with inNASA is this: will the traffic that can

"Once you have a reusable two-stage Shuttle system, it seems that you could make one flight toorbit for something like $5 million. Of this, about one-half would probably be for amortizationof the machine."

1819

20

be expected in the next 10 or 15 yearsjustify an initial multi-billion dollaroutlay to develop a completely re-usable Shuttle vehicle? Can we expectthat the drastic reduction in orbitalflight cost and the Shuttle's ability tobe used almost like an airplane willattract enough new space business tojustify this kind of an investment? Orwould we be smarter to go only halfway by limiting our objective to areusable orbiter thereby foregoing thechance of a drastic fare reduction?Should we stick to throw-away booststages for a while and tackle a reusablebooster later? Or should we possiblybuild only a reusable booster at first,and inject the manned or unmannedspacecraft into orbit with a discardablesecond stage?

There is also the question of prac-tical feasibility of building at once avery large two-stage reusable Shuttle,considering the state of the art. Somepeople seem to believe that it wouldbe smarter to develop a smaller re-usable spacecraft first and use this tolearn how to build a large one.

The question of optimum payloadsize and weight for the Shuttle has notyet been settled, anyway. Some peoplefavor smaller vehicles because, as thelogic goes, a smaller vehicle wouldmake more flights to move any giventotal traffic volume. And it is in thevery nature of a reusable Shuttle vehi-cle, of course, that it loses moneywhile it's sitting on the ground justlike an airliner.

This is the point in favor of smallerShuttles. The argument in favor oflarger payloads is that a substantialportion of future traffic will be to veryhigh orbits, in particular Earth-synchronous orbits. In order to geteven a modest unmanned payload tosynchronous orbit (with the help of anextra high-speed stage), the Shuttle'slow orbit payload capability must bequite high.

There are lots of market studies

19

going on in that area what will themarket spectrum for orbital flightsreally be? It is almost like an airlinetrying to find out what type airplaneto acquire for its particular routestructure. Only an airline knows whatits route structure is; we don't.

Figure 1 shows several types ofShuttle concepts presently understudy.

Mode of Operation

Figure 2 shows how the completelyreusable vehicle would work in princi-ple. After the booster peels off, itmakes a high angle-of-attack reentry,while turning back to base. Its air-breathing cruise engines enable it tofly back to the launch site.

The orbiting vehicle goes all the wayinto orbit. It first enters a 100 nauticalmile orbit from which it can make aHohmann transfer to a higher orbit.Here it can stay up to two weeks. Toreturn, it deboosts back into the atmo-sphere for aerodynamic braking anddescent. The orbiting vehicle probablydoes not need air-breathing enginesbecause the departure from orbit canbe timed so the landing area on therotating Earth rolls into the footprintarea. There is still some question withrespect to the need for go-aroundcapability, or at least an ability toprovide for a powered approach.

Possible Applications

Regardless of whether the booster isreusable or not, the upper end, theorbiting element, will probably looksomething like the vehicle shown in.Figure 3. Now this configurationwould give us over a thousand milescross-range, which seems to be desir-able for some applications. If a hun-dred miles cross-range is sufficient, theorbiter could have straight wings in-stead.

SPACESHUTTLEAPPLICATIONCONCEPTS I ----

2

PASSENGER AND CREW

TRANSPORTATION

PROPELLANT DELIVERY SATELLITEREPAIR

SHORT DURATION

ORBITAL MISSIONS

Ty'll

DEPLOYMENT OF SATELLITE

1114:12L

PLANETARY PROBE

SPACE SHUTTLE TYPICAL MISSION PROFILE

HOHMANNTRANSFER

CIRCULARIZ

PARKING

ORBITALBURNOUT

STAGING

LAUNCH

7 DAYSON

ORBIT SEPARATION

TERMINAL DE ORBITRETURN

RENDEZVOUS PHASING

100 N MI ORBIT ENTRY

TRANSITIONBOOSTERRECOVERY

DESCENTLANDING /

4

"Scientific or applications tasks would beexecuted aboard the Shuttle by its pas-senger- scientists pretty much like scientificdata are collected from an oceanographicresearch ship."

22

A reusable Space Shuttle can beused for a wide variety of applications.For instance, it can carry quite a fewpassengers into orbit. The true astro-nauts, in our present sense of theword, would be confined to thecockpit like the flight crew of anairliner. The passengers in the backcould be scientists, engineers or tech-nicians who need not have any highermedical qualifications than an airlinepassenger.

By placing tanks into the orbiter'scargo compartment, the Shuttle canAlso. PCP P P.1.14.110.

pellants will be needed for orbit-to-orbit transfer operations with the helpof orbital "tugs," or to fuel nuclear"Nava" type rockets for flights to themoon or the planets.

One of the most interesting uses ofthe Shuttle will undoubtedly be the"sortie" mission. The orbiter's cargobay will be large enough to accom-

21

modate sizable instrument installationsfor astronomical and Earth observa-tion. Many of these tasks can becompleted within the orbiter's two-week life-support limit. Such scientificor applications tasks would then beexecuted aboard the Shuttle by itspassenger-scientists pretty much likescientific data are collected from anoceanographic research ship. After twoweeks, the orbiter returns both thescientists and their instrument instal-lations to Earth and the instrumenta-tion can be updated, modified orrebuilt.. 4 few weeh or rr1Prittllatcr,....the observers and their equipment canbe taken aloft again for another orbitalflight. In this operating mode itappears possible to make very substan-tial savings in space payload costs.These savings may indeed turn out tobe the most important contribution ofthe Shuttle to the reduc-tion of space flight costs.

rtrorni

AN OVERVIEW OF THE SKYLAB,STATION AND SHUTTLE ROLESCharles W. MathewsDeputy Associate Administrator, Office of Manned Space Flight

We look upon both the Space Sta-tion and the Shuttle as the mostsignificant elements in our approach tolong-term, low-cost utilization ofspace.

Over the past ten years we havebeen able to maintain a fairly activepace of both manned and unmannedprograms. Our unmanned programshave served to glean a mass of scienti-fic data from space, as well as pro-duced the first practical tools forputting space at the service of man;while our manned programs, in addi-tion to expanding operational capa-bilities in successive steps, have culmi-nated in one of the major achieve-ments of this century the journey toand landing of men on the moon. Wehave thus been able to vector ouroperational capabilities to areas ofactivity aimed at the needs of thefuture.

The unprecedented potential of thecombined capabilities of the Shuttleand Station arises from the technologi-cal base and the experience developedfrom both manned and unmannedmissions. In addition, before theShuttle and Station concepts mate-rialize, we shall also have the benefitof basic operational experience in late1972, from the Skylab Program whichuses much of the hardware and know-how developed in Apollo.

Pilot Functions of Skylab

Utilizing some of the hardwaredeveloped for the lunar explorationprogram, the Skylab will serve as anearly experimental Space Station. Itwill be used for conducting scientificinvestigations in Earth orbit, to deve-lop methods of assessing Earth's en-vironment from space; and will also beused for gaining a detailed understand-ing of man's capability to live andwork in space for increasing periods.

The principal scientific effort in thisprogram will involve the use of a solar

"Economical space operations is the focal consideration around which the concepts of the SpaceStation and those of its logistics support vehicle, the Shuttle, have been evolving."

2') 23

24

astronomy module for detailed studiesof the sun, whose energy provides thedriving force that controls our environ-ment on Earth and throughout thesolar system.

Another significant group of Skylabexperiments shall center on applica-tions, such as observations of Earthresources, meteorology, communica-tions and material processing. Thisgroup of experiments will add to andcomplement the knowledge gainedfrom ground-based research and auto-mated space programs aimed at directbenefits to man.

A third cluster of activities plannedfor the Skylab will involve habita-bility, medical, behavioral and work-effectiveness experiments on missionsof increasing duration, probably up toeight weeks. Biological studies are alsoplanned on the effect of zero gravityon living organisms and the effect ofthe alteration of the basic rhythms,such as the sequence of day and night,which influence the processes of life.

The combined results of all theseactivities wit' the Skylab will give usvital scientific and engineering data wecannot acquire otherwise. These datawill enable us to establish sound andeconomical bases for our subsequentphases of space operations and exploi-tation.

For Long Operational Spans

Until about a year ago, our plan wasto utilize the spent Saturn IB secondstage as the first Orbital Workshopafter this stage had served its functionas booster. The solar observatory partof the Skylab would then have beenlaunched by another Saturn IB, andthe two would have been dockedtogether. However, the results of testsand Systems Engineering analyses indi-cated that flight hardware, launchfacility requirements, and space flight

23

operations would be simplified con-siderably by launching the Workshopwith a single Saturn V completelyoutfitted on Earth. Thus, by com-bining the delivery capabilities of theSaturn V and the modest accommoda-tions provided by the Skylab, forscientists and experiments, we shall beable to achieve useful operationalspans measurable in weeks andmonths.

In view of the considerably longer-life utility and functional flexibilityneeded for economical Space Stationoperation, however, the all-up ap-proach to be used for the Skylab wasconsidered impractical for the Station.Instead, we decided to plan the de-velopment of the Station and that ofthe experiments in a coordinatedmanner, yet separately, for tworeasons: to simplify overall manage -merit; and to provide for the evolu-tionary changes of experiment pack-ages toward new requirements, byusing a modular approach.

Economy is Focal Consideration

Actually, economical space opera-tions is the focal consideration aroundwhich the concepts of the Space Sta-tion and those of its logistics supportvehicle, the Shuttle (discussed in adja-cent articles), have been evolving. Andthe economy we are planning toachieve is based on long-term to per-manent use, with the avoidance ofsystems that are dead-ended in pur-pose. Or, in other words, the intentbehind the Space Station and Shuttlesystem is to make space more accessi-ble to investigators having meaningfulactivities to conduct.

From the long-term use and flexi-bility aspects then, the modular con-cept is the basis for the block-by-blockevolution of the Space Station itself,as well as of the associated experi-

ments. The experiment modules shallhouse new laboratory and observatoryfacilities as they become available, andbe delivered to the Station (or re-turned to Earth as needed) by Shuttle.We are currently studying, under con-tract, various versions of experimentmodules, including some intended tobe attached externally to the Station,and others that will orbit at a distancefrom the Station, as self-supportingsystems.

Catalog of Experiments Evolving

We cannot foresee, of course, whatwe may exactly need in terms ofinvestigations over the next ten orfifteen years, but starting as early as in1968 we have been working to developa so-called catalog of candidate experi-ments grouped into functional areas ofactivity. Since then, successive studiesby contractors have served to define inmore detail the scope and sequence ofthese experiments. These efforts cul-minated in a Space Station UtilizationSymposium held in September 1970 atNASA's Ames Research Center,Moffett Field, California. Us& panelsby discipline areas and of internationalmemberships from industry, govern-ment and universities will now ad-vise NASA on the optimum use of theSpace Station, and make recommenda-tions to establish detail requirementsand priorities.

International Participation

We are greatly interested in pro-moting international participation inthe Space Station and Shuttle pro-grams, and have already held a numberof briefing conferences to this end,both here and abroad. We held a SpaceStation Overview meeting in Paris,early in June, with the participation ofover 250 European Space ResearchOrganization (ESRO) members. We

1

"From aspects of long-term use and flexibility, the modular concept is the basis for theblock-by-block evolution of the Space Station itself, as well as of the associated experiments."

also had a meeting with the EuropeanLauncher Development Organization(ELDO) in July, and discussed thepossibilities of ELDO's participation inthe development of an interorbit trans-fer vehicle as part of the Space Statior.and Shuttle system. In addition, at theinvitation of the European Space Con-ference (ESC)* a group of NASA and

*Member countries of ESC are Australia,Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic ofGermany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K.

24

industry officials headed by Dr.Homer E. Newell, Associate Adminis-trator of NASA, briefed Europeanspace representatives, in Bonn, on U.S.space transportation plans, includingthe reusable Space Shuttle. Lastly, weparticipated in the Fourth EurospaceIndustrial conference held in Venice,Italy, in late September, where infor-mative discussions were held betweenU.S. industry officials and theirEuropean counterparts on respectiveplans and capabilities. These con-tinuing discussions are serving to estab-lish the foundations of our cooperativeefforts on projected programs.

25

USA

Versatility of Shuttle

An aspect I would like to stress, asrelated to the Shuttle, is that itsfunction should not be viewed only aslogistic support. We envision theShuttle as a versatile work-horse capa-ble of replacing a large variety oflaunch vehicles between the Scout andthe Saturn V not only for U.S.users, but for other countries as well.In addition to serving as a regularEarth-to-Space Station ferry-vehicle,to transport crews and supplies, the

26

I

Docking of Shuttle with Station, conceptualized by North American Rockwell's Space Div.

Shuttle would also be used to returnprocessed experiments to Earth, toreplace or repair equipment in orbit,and to function as a rescue vehicle.Automated satellites have proven theirpractical usefulness to man in manyways. But they have been vulnerableto modes of automated deployment,and been limited in life spans fromconsiderations of reliability and by thefinite quantities of consumables onboard. The use of a Shuttle wouldmake it possible to control the deploy-ment of satellites at close range and

25

assure their operation before leavingthem in orbit unattended; it wouldalso enable us to effect in-orbit repairs,to resupply consumables, or to retrievepayloads for shop-repair on Earth. Buthow far up or down we may go indelineating the Shuttle's capabilitiesmay depend on cost considerations,which in turn depend on the extent ofprojected usage. The coordination ofuser needs, both domestic and inter-national, is therefore a vital step at thisstage of program planning.

The design concept of the Shuttle,

like that of the Station, centers on lowcost achieved through a large numberof reuses of the same vehicle with aminimum of refurbishment. TheShuttle is a combination of a rocket-propelled space vehicle and airplane,and as such it poses unique ground-and flight-test requirements, but thedevelopment costs must be kept as lowas possible. We are applying the con-cept of early testing of critical com-ponents to perform design verificationtests on such critical features as light-weight structures and heat shields.These will be large or full-scale build-ups resulting from the preliminarydesigns which will be accomplished byindustry in the Definition ContractPhase. Also, during the 11-monthDefinition Phase there will be heavyemphasis on wind-tunnel testing of thevarious configurations. Some wind-tunnel testing has been done over thepast year on possible configurationsfor the Shuttle. As the point designswhich will be accomplished during theDefinition Phase are sharpened, con-siderable tunnel testing will be neededto identify the expected aero-dynamics, stability and control, andthermal characteristics.

Ground and Flight Tests

Our engineering ground-test pro-gram will be a combination of tech-niques presently used for mannedspace vehicles and large high-performance aircraft. But the large sizeof the Shuttle will limit environmentaltesting mostly to the module level.

We are presently in favor of using,for test purposes, vehicles that canlater be refurbished for full opera-tional use. This would be similar to theapproach used for the C5A and the747.

Because the initial number ofShuttle vehicles produced will besmall, probably less than five, the

4.

"We are greatly interested in promotinginternational participation in the Space Sta-tion and Shuttle programs."

vehicles allotted to flight test willrepresent a significant portion of the"fleet" cost. Our present plans are alsoto implement a flight-test program instages of progressive difficulty, whichwould parallel to some extent theground tests. In addition to conduct-ing suborbital flight-tests, as in thecase of past space vehicles, in flighttesting the Shuttle we shall also use anaircraft development approach withmodifications and corrections for mal-functions being made following eachtest phase.

The operational flight regime of theShuttle will, or course, be extensiveand rigorous. But the testing ex-perience from the Mercury, Geminiand Apollo spacecraft added to ourfindings from aircraft such as the B-58,XB-70, X-15, and the SR-71 will pro-vide a valuable background. If we wereto look further down the line, flightresearch data from the Shuttle wouldcontribute to the development ofcommercial transports beyond the

forthcoming generation of SupersonicTransports. This would be the genera-tion of surface-to-surface sub-orbitaltransports foreseen operating aboutthe turn of this century.

Expandable System for the Future

In considering long-range and eco-nomical spa:..e capabilities for thefuture, the Space Shuttle and SpaceStation should be viewed as one sys-tem with functionally interrelated ele-ments. The overall concept is in es-sence a block-by-block long-range planamenable to unfolding at variousrates based on our progress in ac-quiring new knowledge and funding.

The Space Shuttle represents ourfirst space vehicle concept featuringreusability; and the Space Station fea-tures commonality to the extent thatit can be used in many ways: initiallyin low Earth orbit (240 to 270 miles),later in synchronous orbit (about28,000 miles), or in lunar orbit, andultimately in interplanetary space.

Our studies indicate that as re-sources become available in later years,the benefits from these concepts mightbe expanded in Earth-orbit and ex-tended to the surface of the Moon bythe introduction of two additionalsystems: the Nuclear Shuttle and theSpace Tug. The Nuclear Shuttle pro-pelled by the NERVA nuclear rocket,is envisoned as a reusable vehicle usedbetween Earth-orbit and lunar orbit,or between low Earth-orbit andsynchronous orbit. The Space Tug, acomplementary vehicle propelled bychemical rocket, would be used tomove passengers and cargo betweenlunar orbit and the Moon's surface.This vehicle would also exhibitcommonality since it might be utilizedboth as a transfer vehicle in Earth-orbit, and to move small payloadsfrom low Earth-orbit to synchronousorbit or lunar orbit. Lastly, it appearsthat in the exploration of the solar

27

28

"If decisions are made now to proceed toward these programs, both nationally andinternationally, we shall have the distinct and joint advantage, this time, of a head-start on theeffective utilization of space for the benefit of all mankind."

system also we might be able to useand adapt systems and techniquesdeveloped within the framework ofcommonality and reusability.

To Serve Multiple !nterests

As I implied earlier, low-cost trans-portation to and from space is thereason for having the Space Stationand Shuttle system. The capabilities ofsuch a system would open space to abroad spectrum of public, private andinternational interests.

From impressions gathered fromour international meetings on futurespace efforts it becomes quite clearthat the possibility of cheap space-transportation constitutes beneficialprospects from numerous national van-tage points. And the question thatseems to concern a good number ofour overseas colleagues, at this point,is not whether they should participate,but how they might contribute to the

27

augmentation of the projected Stationand Shuttle system capabilities. Someof the machinery for coordinatingjoint efforts is already established andoperating*; we look forward, ofcourse, to seeing our working relation-ships expand further.

Role of NASA Centers

Speaking in broad terms, the partic-ipation of international agencies inthese major programs would be some-what in the manner of our NASAResearch Centers. These Centers man-age the implementation of specificportions of programs assigned to themby NASA Headquarters, and phaseinto industry which provides the tech-nical resources and brings needed hard-ware into being.

In the current Phase B definition ofthe Shuttle Program, for example,contractors are expected to implement

'efforts to cover all aspects of theShuttle: analyses and design verifica-tion of evolving operational concepts,technical studies, definition of furthereffort to move into subsequent activ-ities, etc. Our in-house activities areprimarily to support andcomplement not to replace thework performed by contractors.

It took nearly a full decade ofbroad-scale effort on an unprecede-nted scale to translate a national com-mitment into manned lunar landings.It will require a similar time span toprogress from our present experi-mental era in space, into the stage ofoperational maturity. Therefore, if de-cisions are made now to proceed to-ward these programs, both nationallyand internationally, we shall have thedistinct and joint advantage, this time,of a head-start on the effective utiliza-tion of space for thebenefit of all mankind.

*See article starting on page 81 on Coopera-tive International Programs.

3

.1,11114111TIVIVI,,.01

SPACE SHUTTLE REQUIREMENTS,PROGRAM PLANS AND PROGRESSDale D. MyersAssociate Administrator for Manned Space Flight

A realistic way of looking at themajor challenges of the Seventieswould be to visualize them as anorganization chart or hierarchy of re-lated problems and priorities.

Our priorities at NASA extend fromthe advancement of aerospacesciences, technology and applicationsaimed at the betterment of man, tothe exploration of space. And theunderlying requirement for all thesethings is that they be done at leastcost.

During the last decade space explo-ration became a catalyst for revitaliz-ing technology, and acquired a place inthe American way of life; in thisdecade space activity must increasinglypay its way in order to acquire sup-port. This is another way of sayingthat the benefits of space must be-come available at down-to-earth costs.

An implication of this requirementis that our future space activities willhave to mature from the heretoforeexperimental mode, using expendablesystems into an operational modeutilizing reusable systems. This con-cept of reusability, as projected for thespace operations of the late Seventiesand beyond, is incorporated in anintegrated space system which wouldinclude a Space Shuttle and an orbit-ing Space Station. We would thuscombine a reusable transport vehiclewith a permanent laboratory in spacefor scientific and technological workand Earth-resource surveys.

Space Shuttle System

As visualized now, the SpaceShuttle would consist of a completelyreusable rocket-powered, two elementvehicle composed of an orbiter and abooster. The Shuttle's operationalmode would be a vertical launchwhereby the booster would acceleratethe orbital vehicle to the outer fringeof the Earth's atmosphere where sepa-ration of the two would occur. Upon

Space Shuttle orbiter configuration, by North American Rockwell's Space Division, aimed atreentering Earth's atmosphere at low angles of attack in order to achieve relatively highcross-range capability.

'28 29

30

reentry and deceleration, the booster,powered by jet engines, would cruiseto a site for a conventional airplane-type landing. Meanwhile, the orbiterelement would proceed to orbit,powered by its own rocket engines, todeliver its payload and perform itsassigned missions. After reentry, theorbiter would land with its returncargo, also under jet power. After acheckout period of about two weeks,and minor refurbishment and refuel-ing, both the orbiter and boosterwould be ready for another mission.Launch operations would be simplifiedby system-diagnostic instrumentationon-board, so that only vehicle erec-tion, propellant loading and finalboarding of payload and passengerswould be necessary. Pre-launch check-out would be carried out on-board bythe pilots.

Product of Cooperative Studies

The Space Shuttle is a product ofcooperative studies conducted by boththe Air Force and NASA over anumber of years. The Space TaskGroup Report "The Post Apollo SpaceProgram Directions for the Future",submitted to the President in Sep-tember 1969, indicated the need for anew space transportation system thatwould meet the requirements of boththe DOD and NASA. Our studies withthe DOD based on recent advancesin rocket engines, thermal protectionand structural concepts led to theconclusion that a Shuttle system suit-able for the needs of both agenciesshould be developed.

Since the Shuttle would be essen-tially a transporter and cargo vehicle,its utility would not be restricted to asingle program or a single agency.Rather, we expect that at the veryearliest opportunity both NASA andDOD space programs would benefitfrom this development. To this end,extensive cooperation between NASA

29

and DOD in analysis, design and sub-sequent development will be main-tained. We believe that eventuallycommercial uses will also be found forthe Shuttle.

The universal applicability of theShuttle is expected to provide oppor-tunities to expand and improve inter-national cooperation in space. InOctober 1969, NASA invited inter-national participation in a SpaceShuttle conference held in Washing-ton, D.C., and considerable interest inthe Space Shuttle was expressed thenand has been since, in conferences heldin Europe during this past Summerand Fall.

Operational Characteristics

The Space Shuttle is expected toweigh between 3 and 4 million poundsat launch, and will be propelled byliquid-oxygen and liquid-hydrogen en-gines. These rocket engines, to be usedboth for the booster and orbiter, arebeing designed to generate thrust ofabout 400,000 pounds each. Thebooster will be powered by about 10of these engines, and the orbiter by 2or 3. Our choice of these propellants isbased on our experience in Apollo,particularly on our ability to handlethem safely and relatively easily on theground during loading and transfer. Wefeel it will be possible to load theShuttle directly from tank trucks atthe launch pad, and thus greatly re-duce both facility and handling costs.Another great advantage to these pro-pellants is that they do not producetoxic chemicals to pollute the atmos-phere.

With a payload compartment 60feet long and 15 feet in diameter, theorbiter would accommodate varyingcombinations of personnel and cargo,in a pressurized environment similar tothat of current commercial jetliners.An important objective of the Shuttleprogram is to provide a very benign

environment both in terms of flightstress and pressure for passengersand payloads, from launch to landing.

The Shuttle would provide round-trip transportation from Earth to lowEarth-orbits. Its operational altitudewould range from about 100 to 800nautical miles, with most missionstaking place in the 100 to 300 nauticalmile range. The Shuttle would also becapable of operating as a rescue vehi-cle.

As space operations advance, thetraffic carried by the Space Shuttlewill include propellants. Supply depotswhich may be established near theSpace Station or in other suitableorbits, may provide facilities for fuel-ing and reprovisioning space vehiclesfor travel out to more distant destina-tions.

An early cost study, based on theNASA traffic model of 30 flights peryear, was made to determine the eco-nomics of the Shuttle based on the useof present-day launch vehicle systemssuch as the Atlas, Titan, Saturn seriesor their derivatives for comparablepayloads. This analysis indicated thatthe Space Shuttle development costswould be recovered through its eco-nomy of operation after about 51/2 to 6years of utilization. Air Force usageplus any increased flight density couldsignificantly shorten this break-evenperiod. Even a greater potential inreduction of the cost of payloads isanticipated.

Economic Considerations

The total number of Shuttles thatwill eventually be built is not knownat present; however, for the purpose ofcomputing systems costs we con-sidered a fleet of four to six Shuttlesystems supporting the baseline trafficmodel. Our design objective is to makeeach Shuttle capable of 100 flightswithout major refurbishment. There-fore, with several Shuttles making 100

"Our design objective is to make each Shuttle capable of 100 flights without majorrefurbishment. Therefore, with several Shuttles making 100 flights each we would accomplish atotal number of flights substantially greater than required to reach the break-even point (abotit100 to 150 total flights) in competition with expendable systems."

flights each we would accomplish atotal number of flights substantiallygreater than required to reach thebreak-even point (about 100 to 150total flights) in competition with ex-pendable systems.

Of the several classes of SpaceShuttles studied, the fully-reusableclass has been determined to be themost economical configuration forachieving a low-cost transportationsystem with a high degree of opera-tional flexibility.

The critical design and developmentareas for the Shuttle have been sub-jected to progressively more penetrat-ing reviews, and these have producedcandidate configuration concepts re-sulting in definition of desired Shuttlesystems characteristics. In addition, wenow have confidence that the tech-nology and engineering required tomove into the next phase of activity is

either available, or well defined andreadily achievable.

Chronology of Contracts

November 1, 1969 Convair Divi-sion of General Dynamics, Lockheed,McDonnell Douglas, and North Ameri-can Rockwell, each completed a

$450,000 Phase A study portion ofthe Shuttle Program.

February 18, 1970 NASA issuedrequests for proposals for preliminarydefinition and planning studies of theShuttle's main propulsion system:liquid-hydrogen, liquid-oxygen fueledengines for launch, orbital insertionand flight operations, and reentry.RFP recipients were: Aerojet General,Bell Aerospace Systems, Marquardt,North American Rockwell, TRW, andUnited Aircraft's Pratt and WhitneyAircraft Division. Subsequently thethree companies submitting replies to

31

32

"In this decade space activity must increas-ingly pay its way in order io acquire publicsupport."

31

the RFP were selected for these PhaseB engine definition studies: Rocket-dyne Division of North AmericanRockwell, Aeroject General and Prattand Whitney.

February 20, 1970 RFPs issuedfor preliminary definition andplanning sti;dies for the Space ShuttleSystem to Boeing, Chrysler, GeneralDynamics, Grumman, Lockheed,Martin-Marietta, McDonnell Douglas,and North American Rockwell.

May 12, 1970 NASA selectedMcDonnell Douglas and North Ameri-can Rockwell's Space Division for finalnegotiations of parallel 11-monthcontracts valued at about $8 millioneach for definition and preliminarydesign studies of the Shuttle. NASA'sMarshall Space Flight Center will man-age the McDonnel Douglas work, andthe Manned Spacecraft Center willmanage the North American Rockwellcontract. Both are Phase B contracts.

July 15, 1970 NASA selectedGrumman Aerospace Corp., LockheedAircraft Corp., and Chrysler Corp., for11-month Phase A (feasibility) con-tracts to study several alternateShuttle concepts with Boeing Co. asmajor subcontractor to Grummam.These studies are aimed at rigorouslyreexamining the feasibility of Shuttleconcepts that might be competitive

technically and economically withthe concept of the two-stage fully-reusable system.

The Grumman/Boeing fixed-pricecontract, with an estimated value of$4 million, will be managed byNASA's Manned Spacecraft Center.This contract involves the study ofthree different concepts:

(1) A stage-and-a-half Shuttle con-sisting of a single reusable mannedspacecraft with an on-board propul-sion system and droppable tanks toprovide supplementary propellants.

(2) A reusable orbiter with ex-vendable booster. This is envisioned as

1

a second-stage orbiting Shuttle launch-ed on an existing expendable booster,or on a new minimum-cost first-stage-liquid or solid-propellant booster.

(3) A reusable first stage usingexisting J-2S engine technology, andsolid - propellant auxiliary boosterswith a reusable second-stage orbitalShuttle also powered by J-2S engines.The J-2S is an advanced version of theJ-2 hydrogen-oxygen engines success-fully used on the second and thirdstages of the Saturn 5 launch vehicle.

The Lockheed study, to be managedby NASA's Marshall Space Flight Cen-ter, will define an alternate stage-and-a-half Shuttle system including bothlow and high cross-range designs. Esti-mated value of the Lockheed fixed-price contract is $1 million. In arelated Phase A (feasibility) effort, theChrysler Corp. will study another con-cept a reusable vehicle that canplace a payload into Earth-orbit with asingle stage. This fixed-price contract,with an estimated value of $750,000,will also be managed by the MarshallSpace Flight Center. Correlation ofresults from all these studies will helpascertain that the Shuttle conceptfinally selected for development willrepresent the most cost-effectiveapproach to future space transporta-tion.

August 4, 1970 NASA awarded a$1,366,400 contract to General Elec-tric Company, Aircraft Engine Group,to build fuel systems needed for study-ing the operation of turbojet enginesusing liquid methane and liquid hydro-gen fuels. This contract will be super-vised by the Lewis ResearchCenter NASA's prime Center forR&D related to aircraft and spacecraftpropulsion. Lewis will use the GEsystems with present turbojet enginesto study the fuel-system dynamicsassociated with the use of liquidmethane as a possible fuel for futuregenerations of supersonic aircraft andliquid hydrogen for the Space Shuttle.

"Future space activities will have to mature from the heretofore experimental mode, usingexpendable systems into an operational mode utilizing reusable systems."

Space Shuttle orbiter concept, by North American Rockwell, represents configuration intendedfor reentry at steep angles of attack in order to shorten the duration of high heat loading.

33

Phase B Objective

This Phase has as its basic objectivethe derivation of detailed informationwhich is prerequisite for follow-onphases of design and development.These Phase B studies will be focusedon specific point designs and support-ing technology for both high and lowcross-range maneuverability configura-tions. The systems characteristics to beused as the baseline for the Phase Bstudy are listed below.

1. Fully reusable vehicle withflyback.

2. Vertical take-off horizontallanding.

3. Gross I ift-off weight 3.5million pounds.

4. Payload compartment size 15'diameter by 60' length.

5. Maximum attainable payload.6. 400,000 pound thrust bell-

type engines.7. Vehicle life of ; 00 missions

with minimum maintenance.8. Intact abort.9. Two-man crew.

10. Air breathing engines willburn hydorgen fuel.

11. Shuttle orbiter self-sustainingfor 7 days.

12. Shirt-sleeve environment forcrew and passengers.

Phase B engine contractors will pro-vide preliminary designs for high andlow cross-range, provide specifications,and deliver selected configurations forwind tunnel testing. Also to be ac-complished during the Phase B periodare demonstrations of critical struc-tural design and fabrication techni-ques.

The Shuttle effort has progressed tothe point where the current Phase Bdefinition studies are the next logicalstep in providing a basis for continuedrefinement and definition of com-peting designs to the point of pre-paredness necessary for initiation ofdevelopment.

PHASE 'B SHUTTLE MANAGEMENT PLAN

"The Space Shuttle concept is a product ofcooperative studies conducted by both theAir Force and NASA over the years.

OMSF

SHUTTLEPROGRAM OFFICE

KSC MSFC

CONTRACTOR

PROGRAM pFFie4:.::.. .

ENGINEOFFICE

.,.. ,,,..,,,-'..sysTEM,...VEHICLE.:

"OFFICE'INTEGRATION

..OFFICE,

[CONTRACTOR]

,

PROGRAM'', INTEGRATION.

34

..

. VEHICAK SYSTEMINTEGRATIONACTIVITY

'OFFICEPROGRAM

"SYSTEM'11`1TEGRATION,','''OFFICE:'

VEHICLEOFFICE:

VEHICLE,TECHN4CAC REQUIREMENTS

'1100STiR :TECH N I CA REQUIREMENTS

. ORBITER TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

I BOOST ER INTEGRATION ORBITER BOOSTER INTEGRATION ORBITER

!VA, rr,,or,,,,ttn,

Shuttle Management Plan

NASA's Office of Manned SpaceFlight will manage the Space ShuttleProgram, with initial contractual re-sponsibility for one total systemsstudy at the Manned Spacecraft Centerand one at the Marshall Space FlightCenter. For follow-on phases, how-ever, MSC will be responsible for theorbiter and MSFC for the boosterwork. During the Phase 8 study efforteach Center will participate in thetechnical direction of the part of thetotal system for which the Center willassume ultimate responsibility. Thisplan essentially provides for technicaldirection of the booster elements byMSFC, regardless of which Centerhandles the total systems contract.Similarly, MSC will be responsible forthe technical direction of the orbiterelements of the total systems con-tracts. As reflected in the accompany-ing chart, program offices, one locatedat MSFC and the other at MSC willeach contain an integration group thatwill be composed in part of personnelfrom the other Center. The purpose ofthis program office structure is toensure the necessary coorde- Anation and cross-fertilization.

"An important objective of the Shuttleprogram is to provide a very benign environ-ment both in terms of flight stress andpressure for passengers and payloads,from launch to landing."

SPACE STATION OBJECTIVES,OPERATION AND APPLICATIONSDale D. MyersAssociate Administrator for Manned Space Fligfit

Space Station ObjectivesThe Space Station will be a central-

ized facility in Earth orbit supportinga wide variety of space activities. Itwill be similar to a highly flexiblemulti-disciplinary research, develop-ment, and operations center on Earth.The Space Station will utilize andexploit the unique features providedby its location in low Earth-orbit

weightlessness, unlimited vacuum,wide-scale Earth viewing, and unob-structed celestial viewing with thedirect presence of skilled scientists andengineers to pursue a wide variety ofresearch and applications activities.Like its Earth-based counterpart, theSpace Station will be configured forsupport and conduct of activities inmany identified areas, and will have

34 35

36

Conceptual presentation of multi-deck Space Station, by North American Rockwell, showsEarth Surveys Module mounted on the side of the Station oriented to the Earth (at right).

33

the flexibility to support others whichmay not be defined in detail at pre-sent.

The activity categories and ex-amples listed below provide a basis forestablishing the nature of the SpaceStation Program.

Technology Forcing FunctionIntrinsic in the development, use,

growth, and continual updating of amajor space facility and its equipment.

Sciences The combined environ-ment, facilities and crew will provideexcellent research opportunities inmany disciplines including astronomy,life sciences, physics and chemistry.

Exploration Essential data acqui-sition, equipment development andqualification, and operational conceptdemonstration and training for futuremanned missions to the Moon andplanets.

Public Services Global surveys inEarth resources and meteorologicaldisciplines, primarily for the develop-ment of better equipment and techni-ques, but also for user-oriented datacollection.

Foreign Relations A focal pointfor productive international coopera-tion and joint ventures, including theuse of foreign nationals as members ofthe on-board technical team.

Private Sector Support Uniquematerials and manufacturing researchand, possibly, production services ex-ploiting the zero gravity and hardvacuum environment for example,growth of large crystals, formulationof composites and precision casting.

National Defense Spacecraftequipment and operations develop-ment which will have application tofuture military missions and systems.

Orbital Operations A servicingand maintenance platform for bothunmanned and manned spacecraft inEarth orbit and in transit to and fromthe Moon and deep space.

An operational Space Shuttle (dis-cussed in some detail in adjacent arti-

Iles) would make the economical logis-tic servicing of the Space Stationpossible.

The initial Space Station modulewould accommodate as many as 12persons, most of them to be engagedin useful orbital activities, rather thanmerely in "housekeeping" tasks. TheStation would have an internal volumeof over 30,000 cubic feet, a 33-footdiameter, and a length of about 40feet. It would weigh 60 tons or more.

Orbital research activities will ulti-mately be staffed with specialists witha minimum of astronaut-type trainingor physical conditioning. Therefore,particular attention will be paid toassuring comfortable, attractive andeffective working and living condi-tions. The provisions may include in-dividual quarters, kitchen and diningfacilities, recreation areas, showers andgreatly improved toilet facilities.Housekeeping functions will be highlyautomated to free the crew as much aspossible for more productive work.

Operational Mode

Although the Station will be de-signed for operation in a zero-gravitymode, it will also be able to carry outan engineering and operational assess-ment of artificial gravity in the earlyweeks of its mission. The Station isexpected to be operated in circularorbits inclined 550, and at approxi-mately 270 nautical miles altitude, inorder to accommodate the wide varie-ty of experiments identified so far,including Earth-viewing applications.Circular orbits from 240 to 270 nauti-cal miles would require m're pro-pellant for remaining in orbit, andhigher altitudes would provide lessatmospheric protection from naturalradiation.

Before the Space Station becomes areality, however, the Skylab missions(formerly Apollo Applications Pro-

gram) projected for the latter part of1972 will provide a wealth of designand operational data for the Station.Assuming successful accomplishmentof the Skylab missions, using theSaturn V as a launch vehicle, thesemissions will develop data on thefollowing aspects:

Physiological effects of zerogravity on the crew for periods up to.56 days.

Effectiveness of task perform-ance in station-type activity.

Habitability of the orbitalworkshop.

In-flight qualification and de-monstration of several imp )rtant newcomponents, including large solar ar-rays, control-moment gyros and mole-cular sieves.

General experience in logisticand orbital operations, including majorin-flight experiments. Additional datato be derived from the Skylab will beidentified as the Space Station defini-tion effort progresses.

Larger Space Base

Provided it has been proven eco-nomically feasible and desirable, theSpace Station could eventually bedeveloped into a large Space Base inlow Earth-orbit. The Space Base wouldbe constructed by clustering SpaceStation and other specialized modules.The Base would provide a large spacelaboratory of common equipment andmodules where non-astronaut scienti-fic personnel would be able to conducta variety of scientific experiments.Initially, the Base would accommodateapproximately 50 persons, includingthe operations team to performcommand, control, service, and main-tenance functions. Growth to a100-man capacity would be possible.

In order to incorporate the extentof flexibility toward future growththat may be required for a nationalresearch and operations center, the

Space Base would be modular in con-struction, so that it could be re-modeled or expanded in orbit, usingthe logistic capabilities of the SpaceShuttle. The Space Base would bedesigned with large safety factors andperformance margins in keeping withits semi-permanent character.

Research and Applications

The total spectrum of future acti-vities to be conducted in the SpaceStation and Space Base cannot beforeseen at this time. Many goodproposals and concepts for researchand applications are already in deve-lopment. This situation is analogous tothe one that exists whenever plans arebeing formulated for a major newEarth-based laboratory. In fact, his-tory shows that unexpected uses, dis-coveries and payoffs often outweighthe planned payoffs on the frontiers ofscience and technology. Table 1

summarizes some of the most pro-mising fields of research and experi-ments we can foresee at present.

Station Effort Management

The Deputy Associate Administra-tor for Manned Space Flight is respon-sible for the agency-wide supervisionand integration of the total SpaceStation effort.

An agency-wide steering group in-cluding the directors of participatingCenters was established to provideperiodic review of the Space StationProgram. This group provides guidanceto the Deputy Associate Administratorof Manned Space Flight in the conductof the overall program.

A Task Force with the DeputyAdministrator of Manned Space Flightas Acting Director is organized withinthe Office of Manned Space Flight.This Task Force has the responsibilityfor the overall management of theprogram definition effort, for the

preparation of the overall in-housereport evaluating the results of defini-tion studies, and the preparation ofthe plan for design and development.In carrying out these responsibilities,the Task Force is assisted by personnelof NASA Centers. The Manned Space-craft Center and the Marshall SpaceFlight Center have established in-housetask teams for this specific activity,and have assigned personnel needed tomanage the portions of effort assignedto them.

For the definition (Phase B) effort,two parallel contracted studies arebeing conducted; one is managed bythe Manned Spacecraft Center, and theother by the Marshall Space FlightCenter. Other NASA Field Center re-sponsibilities include the managementof contracted supporting studies, andperformance of in-house studies andsupport to Source Evaluation Boards,Steering Groups, Technical Panels, andthe evaluations leading to the Designand Development/Operations phases.

Monitoring Definition Phase

A Space Station TechnologyManagement Team, directed by theOffice of Advanced Research andTechnology and composed of repre-sentatives of all Centers and Head-quarters program offices, has the re-sponsibility to focus research and tech-nology to support Space Station de-velopments.

Technical monitoring of the Defini-tion Phase activities is accomplishedby a Technical Review Group, com-posed of senior personnel from Head-quarters, the Centers, and otherappropriate activities. This Groupmeets at six-week intervals to reviewprogress in all aspects of the DefinitionPhase, and to make recommendationsregarding the future. At the end ofeach three-month period, prime con-tractors make a presentation to the

38 A):7

NASA Administrator and the SteeringGroup on the status of the Definitioneffort.

Other elements of NASA will becalled upon for participation in theselection of experiments and in areasover they have technical orprogram authority. Broad areas ofrespo:,ibilities for experiments are asfol lows:

* Office of Space Science andApplications for science and applica-tions.

Office of Advanced Researchand Technology for technology.

Office of Manned Space Flightfor engineering, space medicine andmission operations.

These Offices will exercise technicaland program management authorityfor the definition of experiments. TheOffice of Space Science and Applica-tions and the Office of AdvancedResearch and Technology will con-tinue to maintain technical and scien-tific responsibility during the develop-ment of the experiments; these will beunder the direction of the Office ofManned Space Flight, as an integralpart of the Space Station developmentprogram.

Program Status

NASA is currently involved in thePhase B definition of a Space StationProgram. The overall objective of thiseffort is to obtain the technical andmanagerial information required sothat a choice of a single approach to aSpace Station can be made from thealternate approaches available.

Major contracted support to thedefinition effort consists of twoparallel, $2.9 million studies with in-dustry initiated with Fiscal Year 1969

One of these studies, con-ductt.... by a team headed by Mc-Donnel Douglas, has been monitoredby the Marshall Space Flight Center;

, 71,1C,71,.7nit 'MA nrrwrI,

DISCIPLINE

ASTRONOMY.

SPACE PHYSICS

AEROSPACE

MEDICINE

ADVANCED.TECHNOLOGY

SPACE. BIOLOGY

EARTH. SURVEYS

INDUSTRIALENGINEERING ANDAPPLICATION

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE .EXPERIMENTS AND PAYLOADS.

FOR THE SPACE STATION

EXPERIMENT :GROUP

Grazing inCidence X-ray telescopeStellar astronomy moduleSolar astronomy moduleUV stellar :surveyHigh-energy stellar survey

CosniiC ray physics laboratoryIonospheric plaSma investigations

Biomedical and behaVioral researchMan/System integrationLife support and protective systems

Contamination.and exposureLarge space structures, developrnentFlued physics in"microgravitySensor development and calibrationAdvanced subSystem development

Small vertebratesPlant specimens

Earth resources and meteorology-

Meteorology subsatellite

Materials science and processingMSF engineering and operations

...*wwrowenrV,V1".

DESCRIPTION

Advanced research in astronomy to understandorigin and evolution of the universe byobserving and interpreting the basicphysical processes in the solar system,stars and galaxies.

These experiments will increase knowledgeof the fundamental laws and principles ofphysics as manifested by physical phenomena.

-.e search to understand man's reaction tothe space environment and to determine therole and function of man in long duration

ispa,ze flight.

A group of experiments intended to develoPthe design data for advanced long durationspace flights, and contribute to the technologyrequired to obtain maximum benefits from'spaCe programs.

Research on the effects of gravity and timeon plants and vertebrates.

Experiments intended to provide insight intothe beneficial uses of near-Earth space,with emphasis on weather prediction andresources prospecting techniques.

Research will provide fundamental knowledgeon the, effect of gravity on physical processesleading to advances in industrial processes.Engineering experiments will advanceknowledge of spaceflight.

39

40

...

"The Space Station will utilize and exploitthe unique features provided by its locationin low Earth-orbit weightlessess, un-limited vacuum, wide-scale Earth viewing,and unobstructed celestial observationwith the direct presence of skilled scientistsand engineers to pursue a wide variety ofresearch and applications activities."

_AO

eft

Concept of a Space Base cluster, by North American Rockwell, illustrates radial arrangement ofStation modules to be rotated for simulating gravity. Y-shaped extension at left representsnuclear power supply and radiator panels.

and the second study undertaken byan industrial team headed by NorthAmerican Rockwell has been moni-tored by the Manned SpacecraftCenter. The purpose of these Phase Bdefinition studies has been to generatebasic information on the followingaspects:

(1) A preliminary systems designfor the Space Station, along withappropriate development and opera-tion plans.

(2) A preferred Space Base con-cept, including a buildup plan coveringdetails of how the Space Station or itsderivative would be utilized in orbitalassembly.

(3) A concept for a planetarymission module, and the requirements

'34

it could impose on the Space Station.(4) Definition of the requirements

and changes, if any, to the SpaceStation for performing geosynchro-nous and lunar-orbit missions.

(5) Evaluation of advanced logis-tics system concepts and requirementsimposed by the Space Station andSpace Base.

Additional supporting activity hasincluded various small, competitive,primarily fixed-price contracts forstudies and technological work relatedto Space Station Program definition.There are also numerous small cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts to principalinvestigator organizations, for thedefinition of experimentsrelated to the Space Station.

OART WORK TOWARD SHUTTLE,AND RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTSOran W. Nicks*Acting Associate Administrator (or Advanced Research and Technology

Our Office of Advanced Researchand Technology (OART) carries out abroad range of activities in aeronauticsand space missions for NASA:

We perform work oriented to theneeds of the future, so as to providetechnical bases for developments andmissions that lie ahead, as well as tohelp solve problems that exist today.

We try to carry new technologyfar enough to evaluate its practicalpotential, to demonstrate experi-mentally its advantages for adoptionand use, and to help ensure the transi-tion from research to application. Thismeans many things the incorpora-tion of research results in new designs,the testing of new concepts by modi-fying existing equipment, the coalesc-ing of numerous advancements overseveral years into new aircraft or spacevehicle concepts and designs, and theexperimental demonstration of im-proved aircraft or space vehicles.

We provide supporting effort forthe development and operation ofspecific new aircraft or space vehicles.This means we use our existing knowl-edge and facilities to help other NASAprograms, government groups, and theprivate sector solve current develop-ment or operational problems, or pre-pare for new aeronautical and spacedevelopments in the immediate ornear-term future.

Much of OART's work in advancedresearch and technology, during theSixties, wad generally oriented to ap-plications on the Space Station andShuttle projected 'or the latter part ofthis decade. We have held a number ofspecial conferences on reusable vehi-cles, where new technical informationwas compiled and presented.

*Presently, Deputy Director of the NASA LangleyResearch Center.

"The technology focused on the Shuttle and Space Station is contained in six programs: SpaceVehicle Systems, Chemical Propulsion, Space Power and Electric Propulsion Systems,Electronics and Control Systems, Human Factor Systems and Basic Research. Although notdirectly involved, the Aeronautical Vehicles Program contributes to Shuttle Technologythrough work on hypersonic aircraft and air-breathing engines."

41

The first of these meetings was atechnical symposium held at the AmesResearch Center in March 1958. Otherconferences were held in 1960 at theLangley Research Center, one in 1964at the Marshall Space Flight Center,and another in 1967 at the FlightResearch Center. NASA and DOD,under the auspices of the Aeronauticsand Astronautics Coordinating Board,conducted a joint study in 1965 and1966 to assess the technology appli-cable to reusable boosters. Space Sta-tion technology also has received at-tention with a conference at Langleyin 1962 and a joint Space Station andShuttle Conference at Langley in1969.

As agency planning last year beganto focus on the concepts of a reusableShuttle, those of us on the researchside also began to focus our efforts onnear-term applications. This process is,of course, in line with our mission tofacilitate the introduction of tech-nology into practical use. Our involve-ment ranges from analyzing the tech-nology needed and concentrating cur-rent research and technology effort oncritical problem areas, to direct sup-port of the Office of Manned SpaceFlight (OMSF) and its contractorsthrough the use of research personneland facilities to test specific conceptsand models. We have established teamswithin OART to work closely withOMSF, to identify and sort out ourcurrent and relevant tasks, to pinpointproblem areas, and to recommendadditional work necessary to a con-certed NASA effort on the Shuttle andSpace Station. Efforts totaling 30 to40 million dollars each have beenidentified in the OART program asrelating to the Shuttle and SpaceStation. However, much of this tech-nology is also applicable to otherEarth-orbital applications and to otherfuture missions.

The technology focused on theShuttle and Space Station is contained

42

'""Muiv"The Office of Advanced Research and Technology performs work on the needs of the future,so as to provide technical bases for developments and missions that lie ahead, as well as to helpsolve problems that exist today."

in six programs, namely: Space Vehi-cle Systems, Chemical Propulsion,Space Power and Electrical PropulsionSystems, Electronics and ControlSystems, Human Factor Systems, andBasic Research. Although not directlyinvolved, the Aeronautical VehiclesProgram contributes to Shuttle Tech-nology through work on hypersonicaircraft and air-breathing engines.

Let's discuss some of the criticalproblem areas that cut across theseprograms as they relate to the Shuttle,and what OART is doing toward theirsolution.

OART Work Toward Shuttle

One concept of a two-stage Shuttleis outlined in Fig. 1, and compared indimensk'ns and weight to three otherexisting flight systems. The Shuttle isboth a huge and complicated spacevehicle and an airplane. And because it

41..

combines the operational characteris-tics of both, its design represents atremendous technical challenge. Weare already at work on a formidablearray of research problems that havebeen identified as of prime importanceto the Shuttle; some examples follow.

Configuration Research: Majorproblems being studied in our SpaceVehicle Program are: reentry heating;hypersonic, transonic and subsonicaerodynamics; stability, control andflying qualities at all speeds; and spe-cial operational problems such ashypersonic maneuverability, approachand landing, and ferry operations fromfactory or landing site to the launchingarea.

We have been undertaking an exten-sive research and advanced technologyprogram in all of these areas, but muchwork remains to be done. Our studieshave indicated that each design con-

er

ercour1013:11,0

FEET

350

300

THE ISPACESHUTTLES.cONIPARABLE IN SIZE.... ...,TO. EXISTING

100

:SATURN If SSTSIC-200,000 LB 282,000 LBSII - 81,000 LB.

SIV- 25,000 LEI

C-5 SPACE SHUTTLE.

BOOSTER-458,000 LB

ORBITER -203,000 LB

NASA HO MR70-50581-14-70

Fig. 1

43

44

"The Shuttle represents a tremendous technical challenge because it combines the operationalcharacteristics of a huge and complicated space vehicle, and those of an airplane."

cept for the Shuttle has its own set ofcritical problems. In other words, allconcepts are strongly configurationdependent.

For example, certain missions indi-cate a need for cross-range capability(flexibility to choose landing sites)from 1000 to 1500 miles. This capabil-ity has a significant impact on config-uration, the thermal protection to beused, etc. And although we have madesome cross-range feasibility studies,these have not been extensive enoughto pin down cross-range implicationsin terms of additional weight, tech-nological costs, operational expenses,delivery schedules, etc. We anticipatetherefore, that continuing experi-mental research activity will be re-

43

quired in order to provide an effectivetechnological basis for evaluation ofthe various candidate configurations,as well as to provide solutions tocritical design problems.

Heat Transfer Research: Heattransfer is one of the major problemsencountered during reentry by boththe space orbiter and the boosterstages of any Space Shuttle system.For example, wind-tunnel tests of anorbiter configuration under considera-tion indicated that temperatures alongthe nose and undersurface of thevehicle could be predicted, but a vor-tex type of flow formed on the side ofthe vehicle produced unpredictableregions of high temperatures. Thisunpredicted vortex impinged on thetail and caused a local regime of hightemperature or a hot spot. This vortexheating was present on some config-urations but not on all. But an impor-tant consideration here is that none ofthe methods in use today for estimat-ing heat transfer would predict theseunusual flow fields and high-tempera-ture effects. Results such as these fromthe Space Vehicles Program provideconvincing evidence of the need forextensive investigation.

Thermal Protection Research: Thedesign and fabrication of the structureof both the orbiter and booster is oneof the most critical areas in the devel-opment of a Space Shuttle. A trulypractical and economical Space Shut-tle must be of the lightest weightachievable and capable of multiplereuse, with minimum inspection andmaintenance between flights. Fig. 2indicates some of our structures andthermal protection research goals andproblem areas indicative of the kindsof research and advanced technologyactivities which we plan to continueduring FY 71.

The first of these is the develop-ment of design criteria. The objectiveof the design criteria effort is to insure

Fig. 2

STRUCTURES AND THERMAL PROTECTION RESEARCH

GOALS

MULTIPLE REUSES

MINIMUM WEIGHT

HIGH RELIABILITY

LOW -COST INSPECTION& MAINTENANCE

SOUND TECHNOLOGY BASE(DESIGN CONFIDENCE)

PROBLEM AREAS

BOOSTER

500 600 °,F 2750° F

ORBITER

1800-2200° F

1450° F 1650° F

/X800-1200° F

DESIGN CRITERIA

REUSABLE HEAT PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS

. HIGH-. TEMPERATURE INSULATION

ADVANCED CRYOGENIC TANKAGE

FABRICATION & TEST OF LARGESTRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL. DESIGN OPTIMIZATION

.NONDESTRUCTIVE INSPECTIONSe' TEST

44

1100-1250°F

700-1100° F

500-700° F

LARGE STRUCTURALTEST ELEMENT

45

46

that the Space Shuttle is designedwithout unnecessary weight, e; ressivethermal protection, or other unduepenalties for overdesign, so that it cannot only perform its mission safelyand reliably, but also economically.

Research and development to pro-vide a reusable heat protection systemis of major importance. Figure 2 re-flects some of the operational temper-atures predicted for typical boosterand orbiter stages of the Shuttle. Thebest heat protection system would beone capable of a reasonable number ofreuses without needing refurbishment.With careful attention to configurationdesign, it may be possible, for ex-ample, to protect a major portion ofthe orbiter surface and all of thebooster's by currently available super-alloy materials. Only relatively smallareas of the orbiter, that reach thehighest temperatures will require thenew high-temperature materials suchas TDNickelChrome or coated colum-bium.

Another important research objec-tive is to develop better high-tempera-ture insulations. Arcas of the Shuttlewhich experience extreme tempera-tures will require improved high-temperature insulations which are nowin the early stages of development.

Since both stages of the Shuttle willcontain large cryogenic tanks, exten-sive studies are required to determinewhether or not these tanks should beintegral with the primary vehicle struc-ture. It is entirely possible that re-search results might indicate that itwould be advantageous, from weightconsiderations, to use integral tanks inthe booster stage, but that the hightemperatures experienced by the or-biter might require internally-installedtanks insulated from the primarystructure.

Another important question to beanswered by research is whether to useinternal or external cryogenic tankinsulation. Many types of low-temper-

ature or cryogenic tank insulationmaterials, which will also endure hightemperatures, will be required for usewith various Shuttle components.

As indicated earlier, one of ourgoals is to develop optimized struc-tural designs for minimum weight,high reliability, low-cost inspectionand maintenance, and multiple reusecapability. To achieve these goals, itwill be necessary to fabricate and testexperimentally many unique and ad-vanced structural specimens and some

large structural elements. The lowerrighthand portion of Fig. 2 shows asketch of how a large structural ele-ment might look. This particular ele-ment is a part of the orbiter vehiclewhich includes the cargo bay,. Struc-tural test elements such as this willinclude the heat-protection system,insulation, primary load-carrying struc-ture, znd cryogenic tankage. Advancedtechnology activities of this naturewould include development of newfabrication techrliues utilizing ad-vanced materials, and various tests offull-scale structural components. Insome tests, cryogenic fuel:, would beplaced in the tanks and the test speci-mens subjected to intense heating.

Another area receiving attention inthe structures research program isnon-destructive inspection and testsfor vehicle flight recertification. Be-cause of the large size of the Shuttlestages, we are continuing to explorevarious ways and means by which theload-carrying structure and the heat-protection system can be thoroughlyinspected quickly and reliably.

Figure 3 shows two typical reradi-ative thermal protection systems forSpace Shuttles. The principal differ-ences are that the concept at the tophas a metallic heat shield, while theone on the bottom uses a non-metallicor hardened compacted fiber heatshield. In the concept at the top, thearea between the metal heat shield andthe primary structure of the vehicle is

45

partially filled with a special low-density fibrous insulation to protectthe primary load-carrying structurefrom the high temperatures experi-enced by the metallic heat shield. Themetallic heat shield is attached to thestructure of the vehicle by a uniquearrangement of metallic clips.

In the non-metallic heat shield con-cept, the rigid fibrous insulation mate-rial which acts as the heat shield isbonded by an adhesive to the primaryload-carrying structure of the vehicle,In this concept, the primary structurealso serves as an integral tank, but, inaddition, an integral cryogenic insula-tion is also shown.

These and other thermal protectionconcepts will be investigated in orderto provide a basis for determining themost efficient, reliable and effectiveheat-protection system required tomeet the stringent requirements of theSpace Shuttle.

A typical distribution of orbiter dryweight is illustrated in Fig. 4. Here theimportance of the structure and theheat shield, in determining weight,becomes obvious. Therefore, we aredirecting considerable effort in struc-tural research and technology to waysof reducing weight. We think it mightbe possible to reduce both the struc-tural weight and the total launch-weight of the Shuttle by about 25%,through the use i composite mate-rials.

Lifting-Body Flight Research: Fig-ure 5 shows a photograph of the threevehicles used in lifting-body flightresearch which is a part of the SpaceVehicles Program. They are, from leftto right, the U.S. Air Force X-24A, theNASA M2-F3, and the NASA HL-10.The Lifting-Body Flight Research Pro-gram has been underway since May1964, and is being used to investigatesome of the low-speed flight problemsthat will be encountered by both theSpace Shuttle orbiter and the booster.The program is continuing to provide

U.

Fig. 3 TYPICAL THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS

METALLIC HEAT SHIELD,

NON-METALLIC HEAT SHIELD

RIGID FIBROUS INSULATION

ADHESIVE

PRIMARY STRUCTURE& INTEGRAL TANK

CRYOGENIC INSULATION

METAL SHIELD

ATTACHMENT .

FIBROUS INSULATION

PRIMARY STRUCTUREANDINTEGRAL TANK WALL

v-

Fig. 4 TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION OFORBITER DRY WEIGHT

AIR BREATHINGENGINE SYSTEM 9%

PRIMARY STRUCTURE& HEAT SHIELD

:LANDING 14%SYSTEM

AERODYNAMICSURFACES

46 47

Three "manned lifting bodies", the X-24A, M-2, and HL-10 are being flight-tested by NASA'sFlight Research Center, in a joint NASA -USAF effort to provide data toward the design of theSpace Shuttle.

information on subsonic and transonicflying qualities.

Integrated Electronics: Automatedinternal control, navigational and com-munications equipment with selfcheckout capability is needed if theShuttle is to achieve cost-effectiveoperation. The technology on whichto base thesc developments is largelyin hand insofar as components andsubsystems are concerned. Prior todevelopment there is, however, theproblem of defining an optimum sys-tem to perform the required functions,identifying the desired characteristicsof components and subsystems, andelectronic system. Impressed on thiseffort are two imperative ground rules:The Shuttle must have autonomousoperational capability, ond it must befully compatible with the Space Sta-

48

tion and the ground support installa-tions. These requirements necessitatecontinuous and thorough coordinationwith similar efforts relative to theSpace Station and ground installations,to assure compatibility among thevarious systems and commonality ofsubsystems and systems where feasi-ble and justified.

Principal efforts underway andplanned in the electronics area, as partof the Electronics Systems Program,include research and technology in theareas of communications and tracking(antennas, sensors, transmitting andreceiving device -,); guidance, navigationand control (automatic and manualsystems, terminal area guidance andcontrol ct,ncepts, low visibility ap-proach systems); and data systems(software technology, sensors and in-

4t7

strumentation, mass storage devices,data bussing techniques componentscreening and reliability). Ames andLangley Research Centers and MarshallSpace Flight Center are the majorcontributors to this effort.

Since the design of large-scale inte-grated systems is so complex, it isdesirable that the entire process fromdesign, through fabrzation, to screen-ing and testing be automated. We areputting major emphasis on automatedtesting because we think it offers animmediate payoff in improved relia-bility of iarge-scale integrated circuitsand is necessary to meet the require-ments of the Space Shuttle. Re, ,uire-ments for large -scale integrated circuittesting are: automated in-process test-ing, high speed, and versatility so thatthe test sequence 7 .n be easily modi-

fied to test different types of systems.Efforts are also needed to develop thenecessary software to adequately testvarious types of large-scale integratedcircuits. This work will continue in FY71, with primary emphasis on deve-lopment of the software or computerprogramming requirements.

Electric Power: Some major powerprocessing technology challengesassociated with the Shuttle are: weightreduction; on-board preflight powersystem checkout, automatic inflightfailure detection and isolation, andcommonality with the Space Station.Flight operations of the Shuttle mayrequire very high peak lowers forshort durations for deployment ofaerodynamic surfaces (e.g., wings), en-gine gimballing and landing-gear actua-tion. Chemically-fueled turbines,commonly called Auxiliary PowerUnits (APU), which supplement thebase load power system, may be re-quired to meet these needs. One pro-mising concept, related to our previouswork on turbine systems, is a turbine-powered alternator and/or hydraulicpump power system which runs onsteam generated by the combustion ofhydrogen and oxygen. In FY 71, aspart of the Space Power and ElectricPropulsion Program, we plan to ini-tiate a combined in-house and contrac-tual effort to study specific APUconfigurations, develop preliminarydesign, identify technology problemareas, and initiate component procure-ment for development testing.

Other work is directed toward thepower conditioning and distributionsystem to provide the requisite typesand levels of power required by thenumerous electronics and other subsystems. The Lewis Research Center isthe lead Center in this work.

Biotechnology: The Shuttle will bea manned vehicle, accommodatingboth highly-trained and conditionedcrew members, also non-conditionedpassengers. Although the operating

"An Important research objective for theSpace Shuttle is to develop high-tempera-ture insulations."

duration of the Shuttle is nominally inthe same range that has been ac-complished in manned spaceflights indicating that major exten-sions of life-support technology proba-bly will not be required new effortwill be needed to delineate optimumusage of safety for the human ele-ments of the system.

presence of relatively uncondi-tioned passengers and Space Stationpersonnel deconditioned from longdurations in space in the Shuttle, willnecessitate new investigations in thebiomedical area to establish acceptableenvironmental bounds. We shall alsoneed to develop special personnel re-straint and support systems. In addi-tion, some work on atmosphere sen-sing and control, environmental con-trol, and water and waste managementsystems must be undertaken to meetparticular enviornmental conditionspeculiar to the Shuttle. Various as-pects of the Shuttle biotechnology

3

program are under investigation atAmes, Flight, and Langley ResearchCenters, and at the Manned SpacecraftCenter.

Operations, Maintenance andSafety: Only limited efforts havebeen undertaken in operations, main-tenance and safety because the majorinfluencing factors are heavily depen-dent on the particular Shuttle con-figuration and its associated operatingmode. As other program elements leadto a better system definition, thisactivity will be amplified.

Underway and planned are thestudy and development of control anddisplay simulation requirements, deve-lopment of crew workload criteria forsystem monitoring, and developmentand simulation of techniques for per-sonnel and cargo transfer and theassociated extravehicular activity.

The Kennedy Space Center is thelead Center for operations, mainte-nance and safety work, and the Chair-man of a Technology Working Groupis located there. This Group is vitallyinterested in the integration of theelements of the Shuttle system. TheGroup maintains close liaison with theWorking Groups on Integrated Elec-tronics and Biotechnology; it alsomaintains liaison with: (a) the FlightResearch Center, where much flightresearch pertinent to the orbiter partof the Shuttle is being conducted; (b)with the Manned Spacecraft Center, inrelation to interlaces with the groundand flight operations systems; and (c)with the Space Station program.

When in the final analysis peopleask "What is the value of these effortsand the role of the Shuttle in thefuture of man?" the answer may boildown to this: the real benefits to manwill come from the applications pay-loads delivered by the Shuttle, toimplement the operation of the orbit-ing Space Station; the Shuttle itselfwill serve to make these thingspossible at reasonable cost. mA

49

OART WORK TOWARD STATIONTECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGESOran W. Nicks'Acting Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology

,111111/

10041,

"Through coordination with other government agencies and open channels of communicationswith industry and universities, an increasing number of non-space related applications are beingfound for the products of this NASA-generated technology."

*Presently, Deputy Director of the NASA LangleyResearch Center.

50 49

Major activity being directed by theNASA Office of Advanced Researchand Technology to Space Stationneeds includes research effort relatedto the following aspects.

Artificial-Gravity Problems: Todate, the question of whether artificialgravity must be provided for longduration space flights has not beenanswered. It may be required eitherfor astronaut performance enhance-ment or for physiological reasons, orfor both. One of the concepts beingconsidered for the generation of intra-vehicular artificial gravity calls forrotation of portions of the space vehi-cle.

Because these systems involve largerotating modules connected with rela-tively long flexible members, dynamicresponse of the structure must be welldefined so that stabilization and con-trol systems can be properly designed.A problem here is to predict adequate-ly the dynamic behavior during arti-ficial-gravity evaluations. Accurateanalysis of the structural dynamicsrequires experimental data which can-not be obtained with full-scale struc-tures prior to flight. Consequently,simulation of the structural and oper-ating characteristics in the laboratorywill be necessary using advanced tech-niques for dynamic scale-model tests.Research will be directed to develop-ing reliable techniques for such simula-tion tests, and to resolving dynamicproblems unique to this mode of spacestation operation.

Environmental Protection: A vitaldesign consideration for the SpaceStation is a ten-year orbital lifetime.As such, it will be logical to acceptsome possibility of repairable damagerather than overdesign against antici-pated hazards. Since the loss of pres-sure and consequent loss of cabinatmosphere are of great concern, weneed to develop sensitive leak-detec-tors and localizers to permit fast warn-ing and identification of damage criti-

, ,71,4,,t1t^:14`MIT,IVIAMEWITOMMIlulenrm

cal ity particularly for inaccessibleareas.

A major thermal problem of large,manned space vehicles is the designand development of efficient radiatorsfor the rejection of heat from bothinternal and external sources. Radia-tors for large Space Stations require anextremely wide-ranging heat rejectioncapability, along with a rapid responseto changing external temperatures.

We are developing techniques in-volving the use of heat pipes or fusiblematerial heat sinks which will providethe faster thermal response required inradiators designed to use coolants suchas freon, rather than water glycolsolutions. We are also developing im-proved thermal control coatings whichwill maintain a low solar absorptanceas well as high heat rejection capabilityover a long period of time.

Surface contamination has a majoreffect in degrading and thus increasingthe solar absorptance of white space-craft thermal control coatings. Notonly is contamination by handlingprior to launch a major problem, butthe effect produced by the exhaustplumes of attitude control motors canbe detrimental.

The possible effects of surface con-tamination on telescope and otheroptical surfaces utilized on a SpaceStation are obvious. Here the systemscan be affected by minute amounts ofcontamination produced by reactioncontrols, by waste disposal, and byoutgassing of spacecraft materials invacuum. Therefore, an analysis of allpotential contamination sources andhazards must be made to eliminate, orat least minimize such effects. We arepursuing a vigorous program to under-stand the problem, and then to de-termine what to do about it.

The dimensions of spacecraft nowon the drawing board and in theplanning stage far exceed those whichwere envisioned several years ago.Since the construction of consecu-

tively larger thermal/vacuum test facil-ities is not envisaged as spacecraft getlarger, we must continue to improvetechniques of thermal scale modeling,methods to verify new thermal designconcepts, and tests of thermal per-formance of spacecraft.

Meteoroid Environment: We have,plotted meteoroid frequency as a func-tion of effective meteoroid mass usingdata obtained from Explorers XVI andXXIII, the three Pegasus spacecraft,and ground-based meteor observations.These data have been used to developa generalized meteoroid environmentmodel as part of NASA's SpaceVehicle Design Criteria Program.

Some uncertainties still exist, how-ever, in the region of interest forfuture manned missions. To meet im-mediate needs for Space Station de-sign, we are investigating the feasibilityof a low-cost thick-wall meteoroidpenetration flight experiment, utilizingspent Saturn launch vehicle stages inorbit.

Electric Power: The electric powerrequirements of Earth-orbitingmanned spacecraft to-date have notexceeded about one kilowatt of elec-tric power. Further, these spacecrafthave had to survive in space for arelatively short period of time. Bycontrast, the proposed Space Stationand projected Space Base will requirefrom 25 to 100 KW of power forperiods of up to ten years. Theserequirements not only demand thathigher power energy sources be devel-oped, but also that new and moreeffective techniques for its distributionto the user in the Space Station bedeveloped.

Thus, our Space Power and ElectricPropulsion Program is concentratingon power ;:ethnology developmentsfor Space Stations in three areas: (1)high power-density, long-life energysources, (2) high-efficiency power-con-version systems, and (3) multikilowatt,

..'''.5051

52

IOW

"In conjunction with the Office of SalineWater, NASA has been searching for newand less-costly water-reclamation methods."

high-reliability power-distribution andprocessing techniques.

During FY 71, the Atomic EnergyCommission (AEC) will continue itsdevelopment of high power-density,long-life energy sources in support ofmanned space missions. Included inthis activity ?re the SNAP-8 Uranium-Zirconium-Hyaide thermal reactorand large Plutonium 238 heat capsules.We will also exarr'ne reactor designs ofmuch higher efficiency that couldeventually replace the Uranium-Zirconium-Hydride reactor. To a morelimited extent, techniques for improv-ing solar array system technology willalso be pursued. In this latter area,emphasis will be directed to the struc-tural dynamics of deployable solarpanels having areas of up to 10,000square feet, and to the evaluation ofb7ttery-cell technology aimed at a highpower-storage capability and long-cycle life. Such data would be usefulshould we need to develop a large

51

solar/battery power system.In FY 71 the high-efficiency ther-

mal-electric power conversion effortwill concentrate specifically on twosystems: the Mercury-Rankine andBrayton engine. Although both con-cepts will be actively pursued, weexpect the Mercury-Rankine engine toreach technology readiness first be-cause all components have alreadybeen endurance-tested for more than10,000 hours. On the other hand, theBrayton engine, because its potentialoperating efficiency is much higherthan that of the Mercury-RankineSystem, has good growth capabilitiesfor even larger power requirements. Inaddition, the Brayton engine can alsooperate equally well with a radioiso-tope heat source, thus giving it abroader operational applicability. Bothsystems require extensive analyticaland expe;imental efforts which involvea great deal of component, system,and life testing.

Multikilowatt, high-reliability powerdistribution and processing techniquesare needed to efficiently handle up to100 times more power than has beenused in space. We know that currenttechnology is inadequate to accom-plish this task. We do not know whatpower distribution concept is best forour purposes. The form in whichpower is distributed (alternating cur-rent, direct current, voltage level, fre-quency, waveform) is of paramountimportance in determining the type ofe lectronic component technologywhich must be developed. These fac-tors are of vital concern in focusingthe technology program, which in it-self will be a major task.

Information Systems: Studies haveshown that checkout and fault isola-tion of the operational and supportsystems of a Space Station are ofcritical concern if we are to operatesuch systems for extended periods oftime. The handling of the large massesof data associated with the operation

and utilization of manned Space Sta-tions is another area of vital concern.Current estimates indicate that dataloads will be several orders of magni-tude greater than we have had tohandle to date, ipproaching billions ofbits of data per :second. The programmust also include related developmentof communications technology and, inaddition, on-board position determina-tion and guidance for support of ex-periments or resupply vehicles.

The FY 71 effort in the ElectronicsSystems Program will continue analy-sis of automated on-board checkoutand fault-isolation systems that willassist in reducing the time and cost oflaunch operations. Work will continueon automated on-board methods forsystem-status monitoring for long or-bital lifetimes independent of doseground-control. New effort will bedirected toward the reduction of tech-nology gaps in checkout software anderror correction language, and the de-velopment of passive techniques forverifying the performance of radiocommunications systems.

Operation of the Space Station, itsexperiments and laboratories requiresthe development of new computerapproaches that can handle high data-rates and, in addition, provide theflexibility to process many differentkinds of data. A "multiprocessor"computer having modules of memoryand processor capability, which can beamomatically modified to overcomepartial failures, will be studied. Inaddition, effort will be directed at theverification of multiprocessor tech-niques for Space Station applications.Work on a natural programming lan-guage compatible with a multiproces-sor will be started so that special crewtraining in computer programming canbe minimized.

It is anticipated that a tracking anddata relay satellite will be utilized totransmit experimental inputs to theStation and results from the Station to

reduce the number of ground trackingsites. Thus, we plan to examine thedesign problems of new, lightweightSpace Station antennas, high power C,S, or K band transmittes, and low-noise receivers that will be compatiblewith the relay satellite.

During FY 71 data coding technol-ogies will be examined to determinewhat can be done to extend currenttechniques to the higher data-rates.Optical communication techniques,which look very promising will also beexamined as a means for providingcommunications links between theSpace Station and free-flying experi-ment modules.

With regard to position determina-Lion and pointing control, the programwill contain work on advanced horizonsensors and "str .ipped- down" gyro/accelerometer systems. A laser radarwill be redesigned and testing startedto verify its capability to satisfy antic-ipated Space Station needs.

Control Research: In carrying outan extensive research program on con-trol systems for latge manned space-craft, as part of the Electronics Sys-tems Program, Langley ResearchCenter has developed a simulationcapability which can now be appliedto mission research studies. TheLangley simulation facilities providefor incorporating sensor and actuatorhardware and the human operator in asimulated system, as well as simulationof all elements of the system.

Research efforts applicable to SpaceStation control system definition anddevelopment are under way. This ef-fort is concerned with mission phasesand is organized into the area ofvehicle dynamics, stability, experi-mental control system functions, newoperation efforts and control of sub-systems. Efforts to date have: im-proved the steering and maneuverlogic; identified a minimum-energyadaptive stabilization approach to re-duce ground testing requirements for a

5 2

wide range of configurations antici-pated for the Station; and developedand tested a monitor and diagnosticsystem for on-board failure detectionand repair. These efforts will be con-tinued.

In providing jet thrust for SpaceStation control, a major milestone wasachieved in the development of resisto-jet technology applicable to mannedSpace Stations with the successfulcompletion of endurance testing ofammonia and hydrogen resistojets.

During FY 70, initial tests wereconducted on thrusters capable ofoperating on environmental controllife support systems biowastes, such ascarbon dioxide, methane, urine, andwater. The operation of such propel-lant at high temperatures creates anenvironment which is hostile to mostmaterials. Potential problems of oxida-tion, carburization or material deposi-tion can exist. The crucial researchproblem therefore is in the selection ofappropriate materials from which toconstruct the thrusters.

This work will continue in FY 71along with research on necessary sub-system elements required to success-fully integrate the biowaste systeminto the environmental control and lifesupport system of a Space Station.

Life Support Systems: As theduration of man's stay in the spaceenvironment increases, it becomestremendously important that life sup-port and protective systems be highlyreliable and maintainable. In addition,where weight conaraints limit supplystorage, or in the case of Earth orbit,where resupply can only be accom-plished periodically, systems must becapable of regenerating vital supplies.Recycling of oxygen and water andmanagement of human wastes willb ecome essential. Consequently,oxygen and water recovery technologyare receiving primary attention be-cause the payoff in tern,f of weight-savings is greatest.

54

A 90-day test with a four-mansimulator was conducted in summerthis year for the Langley ResearchCenter by the McDonnel Douglas As-tronautics Company, Western Division.This NASA-sponsored run included anon-board oxygen recovery systemwith a water electrolysis unit. Thiswater electrolysis device, a major com-ponent in the subsystem for oxygenrecovery from carbon dioxide, was anadvanced development completed byLangley Research Center on the basisof data obtained in their earlier 28-daymanned test.

Other advanced subsystems werealso tested during the 90-day run.Highly, advanced subsystems for waterrecovery utilizing vacuum distillationand vapor pyrolysiis with an isotopepower source, as well as a water vaporelectrolysis unit for humidity controlwere validated. A flight prototypeatmosphere sensor and controller, andan advanced carbon dioxide removalunit were also tested for a comparisonof their performance against previ-ously tested equipment.

The odors and trace gases that canbuild up in sealed environments mustalso be removed or altered to less-toxiccompounds. The functional unit thataccomplishes this task consists of alarge sorbent bed, a cat..',.tic oxidizerand several small sorbent beds, a bac-terial contaminant control unit(0.3-micron filters), and a particulatecontaminant control unit composed ofseveral debris traps and roughing fil-ters. High temperature catalytic oxida-tion is the principal trace-gas contam-inant-control device. It is a satisfactoryprocess for the removal of methane,hydrogen, carbon monoxide, andmany volatile organics present in theatmosphere. However, since somecompounds (sulfur, for example)poison the catalytic oxidizer, pre- andpost-treatment sorbent beds are re-qu ired.

Activated charcoal also has applica-

5 3

tion for contaminant control, but theweight penalty involved constitutes amajor drawback for very long-termmissions. The results of studies aimedat charcoal regeneration by applicationof heat and a vacuum have beenencouraging. Electrochemical regenera-tion methods are being developed inconjunction with the Federal WaterPollution Control Administration.Sorbent development programs alsohave application to air pollution con-trol, and NASA is exchanging researchdata with the National Air PollutionControl Administration in this area.

As the projected duration ofmanned spacecraft missions is in-creased, the need to measure andcontrol more accurately the partialpressure of major atmospheric constit-uents and trace contaminants also be-comes increasingly important. Sincethe basic technology is for the mostpart already available, the develop-mental thrust has been primarily di-rected at miniaturization and packag-ing for minimum power and weightpenalty and high reliability.

Processing of waste water and urinehas long been recognized as a highpriority item in regenerative life-sup-port systems. The majority of theprocesses now under development forurine and condensate water recoveryinvolve vaporization and subsequentcondensation. Recovery in the 95 to97 per cent efficiency range has beenconsidered sufficient to effectivelyclose the water loop. Catalytic oxida-tion of water, via vacuum distillationand vapor filtration, is one of the morecompetitive advanced subsystemsavailable.

One significant penalty of distilla-tion techniques is the cost in weightand power. NASA, in conjunctionwith the Office of Saline Water (OSW):ias been searching for new and less-costly water reclamation methods. Theresult of this collaboration is the uevel-opment of a highly promising wash-

1

ti

Full -scale mockup of General Electric Space Division's Earth Surveys Module displayed insemi-operational mode, with solar panel visible in retracted position in upper part of photo.

_Me

54

water reclamation technique based onthe principle of reverse osmosis, thatis, pressure filtration through a semi-permeable membrane, to remove sol-utes. Such a reverse osmosis unit hasbeen developed by Philco-Ford Com-pany for OSW and NASA.

As must be evident, psychologicaland physiological acceptance of cur-rent bag concepts for feces collectionand urine dumping will decrease sharp-ly for long-term space missions. Sev-eral advanced concepts are currentlyunder development. The objectives ofeach of these are to: (1) collect, treat,and store all solid and liquid wastes;(2) eliminate odors, aerosols, andgases; (3) sterilize waste matter toinhibit or eliminate microorganismproduction, prevent production ofgases, and prevent crew contamina-tion; and (4) reduce storage mass andvolume of waste materials.

Another advanced waste processingunit is Leing developed which is ofinterest to the Federal Water PollutionControl Administration in connectionwith sewage treatment techniques. Ituses a technique known as high-pres-sure wet oxidation. Briefly, this sys-tem combines the wet residue fromthe water recovery subsystem withsolid waste .naterial and processes themixture at about 550°F. Early labora-tory tests showed that the gases andvapors evolved were principally non-toxic ones water vapor and carbondioxide.

A variety of government or indus-try-funded research programs are cur-rently studying new foods for spaceflight, including frozen food packs,dried fruit packs, and canned foods.The most promising developments ap-pear to be modification; of presentfreeze-dehydration methods to reducevolume and to enhance flavor alongwith such techniques as wet packaging.These approaches when tried so farhave served to boost morale consder-ably.

55

For very long-term space missionslogistical considerations indicate that,if at all possible, at least a portion ofthe food consumed by the crew shouldbe regenerated. This would result inconsiderable weight and volume sav-ings. At the present time, physio-chemical regeneration of carbohdratesfrom expired carbon dioxide andwater appears to offer the most prom-ise. An estimated 50% of the dietcould be provided in this manner.During the past year, there have beenmajor advances in this approach as aresult of efforts at the Ames ResearchCenter.

Diets have been developed at Ameswhich contain only two or three chem-i ca I ly-syntehsized pure nutrients.These diets fed to young animals didnot impair normal growth, sexualmaturation, or reproduction. Somegroups of animals have been reared forthree generations consuming onlythese diets.

Laboratory prototypes have beendeveloped for synthesizing two purenutrients, formose sugars and glycerol.They will be used to obtain data forthe fabrication of automated minia-turized apparatus more suitable foraerospace evaluation.

Recently, several private organiza-tions have expressed considerable in-terest in physiochemical nutrientsynthesis. The commercial processwould differ from the aerospace appli-cation process in that methane, ratherthan carbon dioxide and hydrogen,would be the raw material.

Astronaut Protective Systems: Al-though a shirtsleeve environment isplanned for long-term missLns, extra-vehicular activity still requires efficientspacesuits. Advanced spacesuits andreliable portable life support systemswill be needed for the safe conduct ofextravehicular tasks, such as repairs.Recent progress in these areas is de-scribed in what follows.

56

41111",;---

(

Conceptual rendition of General Electric Space Division's Earth Surveys Module depictedin operational mode, mounted on the Space Station in an Earth-scanning attitude.

The Manned Spacecraft Center con-tracted with the AiResearch Manu-facturing Division of the Garrett Cor-poration to produce a spacesuit whichfeatured the best capabilities of boththe hard and soft spacesuit joints forextravehicular use. The AiResea,-ch ex-travehicular suit utilizes the hardspacesuit derived "stovepipe" joint inthe shoulder and hip areas, moulded"nesting bellows" convolutes in theelbow, waist, thigh, knee, and anklesections, and a single-axis rigid-bodyclosure with rotation capability.

The reduction in torque valuesachieved in all joint ranges represents astate-of-the-art breakthrough. Proof-of-concept has led to acquisition ofthis system under the Office ofManned Space Flight mission funding

for engineering design verification test-ing.

At the Ames Research Center, thedevelopment of the AX-2 hard space-suit system has had for its technologygoals the achievement of a totally hardstructure system, proof of the stove-pipe principle in complex joint sys-tems, and a total operating pressure of7 to 10 psia. The AX-2 hard suitprogram has successfully me:: its tech-nology goals. Only the glove systemstill has soft components. Work hasbeen initiated this year to study poten-tial solutions to this problem.

The design goal of the metal fabricsuit program ,s the establishment of asuit system which embodies in onefabric layer the capabilities for gasimpermeability, abrasion resistance,

K

VA'

.c,

0',

0.4

Artist's rendition of the General Electric Company Space Divis;on's robot Teleoperator shownin process of replacing a sensor unit on the Earth Surveys Module:

and structural restraint instead ofthree layers with one capability perlayer. The Litton Systems, Inc., Ap-plied Technology Division, is con-structing such a suit system undercontract to the Manned SpacecraftCenter.

Human Research: Scientific dataobtained during the more than 5,000hours of ;panned space flight to datehave done much to dispel speculationabout man's ability to function for ashort time in a weightless environmentand to make the stressful transition toand from that environment. Whileresults so far are encouraging, there isas yet no definitive answer to thequestion: "Are there subtle changes(in response to long-term weightless-

ness) which, as yet have been unde-tected? Are there changes which willappear only in prolonged flight?" Thisquestion was posed in 1967 by thePresident's Science Advisory Commit-tee. Since that time a great deal ofeffort has been expended to providethe answers. Much has been learned,but much yet rcmains in be done if weare to "achieve a depth of understand-ing about man and his role in spacethat will permit his optimal integrationinto future space programs." This lastrequirement set forth by the Pres-ident's Science Advisory Committee inNovember 1969 can be said to be thegoal toward which the Human FactorsSystems Program is working.

All the foregoing examples of re-

search effort represent only a portionof the work currently sponsored anddirected by the NASA Office of Ad-vanced Research and Technology,through the Space Vehicles Program,the Space Power ;.nd Electric Propul-sion Program, the Electronics SystemsProgram, and the Human FactorsSystems Program. The evolving tech-nology has many applications, com-mon to many needs both here onEarth, as well as in space. It is notsurprising, then, that almost. half ofOART's space technology effort, is

applicable to the Shuttle and theSpace Station.

Through coordination with othergovernment agencies and open chan-nels of communication with industryand universities, an increasing numberof non-space related applications arebeing found for the products of thisNASA-generated technology. Theseapplications can also contribute toincreased safety in transportationsystems, improved techniques in clini-cal medicine, new insights into humanphysiology, and techniques for Aenvironmental pollution control. AI

58

DEVELOPING THE TECHNOLOGICALBASE FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLEAdelbert 0. Tisch lerDirector, Chemical Propulsion DivisionOffice of Advanced Research and Technology

Molding the concept of a reusableSpace Shuttle economical to develop,produce, and operate presents by farthe most challenging technical task wehave had in the space program. For weare dealing with a concept that willmarry the most advanced states ofaircraft and spacecraft technologiesand then some more. And the fore-most question we are now trying toanswer is: how much more technologywill we need, without risking escalat-ing development costs? The answerwill help us project the design of theShuttle with some realistic cost esti-mates.

Technology Steering Group

To develop inputs toward theseends, the NASA Office of MannedSpace Flight (OMSF) last year com-missioned the Office of Advanced Re-search and Technology (OART) todevelop a base of technological in-formation and of experience forjudging the merits of various technicalconcepts on which to base a realisticdesign. Since the OART was function-ally organized, it was in an advanta-geous position to structure a ShuttleTechnology Steering Group to tap thespecialized expertise residing atNASA's field Centers.

The Technology Steering Group issubdivided into seven Working Groups,each representing a technologicalspecialty. Working groups are headedby senior technologists from the fieldCenters (see accompanying chart). Thetotal advisory body represented by theWorking Groups includes some 125people, with about even representationfrom OMSF and OART. We also haveten representatives from DOD, dis-tributed throughoLt the SteeringGroup.

What was done through the organi-zation of this Technology SteeringGroup, inAffect, was the superimpos-ing of a project structure on top of an

_MO

existing disciplinary tree. The SteeringGroup and the Working Groups serveonly in an advisory capacity; theactual management of funds and theboilerplating are accomplished throughthe 0," RT and the OMSF.

All Centers Contributing

The development of the Apollorepresented a massive challenge incommunication and effort integration.Yet the development ot the SpaceShuttle and Space Station as a totalsystem may pale the Apollo effortone reason for this being that whileApollo involved the integration ofeffort mostly from the Marshall SpaceFlight Center and the Kennedy SpaceCenter, the Shuttle and Station willdraw from the technological resourcesof all the Centers.

We have a wealth of technologydeveloped during the Sixties, but wealso have sizeable gaps in the totalspectrum of know-how needed forpredicting costs realistically. It wouldbe foolhardy to make technological orcost projections without a firm footingin all the major areas of expertisebecause of the extent of interdepend-ence of these areas in shaping thesuccess of the Shuttle.

For example, our studies indicatethat there is a critical relationshipbetween the performance of a two-stage Shuttle and its mass to theextent that a one percent change inmain propulsion performance is equiv-alent to almost one quarter of thepayload to be put in orbit (in-orbitpayload represents 1.0 to 1.5% of theShuttle's take-off mass). Consideringthat the Shuttle's propulsion systemsand structural as well as thermal pro-tection materials would be extensionsof current technology, it would bedifficult to overstate the importanceof having some real livable numbersbased on experience in these areas.

JO,

"What is a functional interface? It is ahypothetical boundary which is opaquef r o m both sides . . . Human nature beingwhat it is, interfaces can never be eliminatedcompletely. But when common goals can be:-:greed upon the interfaces lose some oftheir opacity."

Unprecedented Integration

Another unique aspect of the Shut-tle's design will be an unprecedentedextent of systems integration, andautonomous on-board checkout.Systems integration should, for ex-ample, be to the extent that theShuttle's guidance, navigation, controland communication systems should beable to interplay with each other andpresent the pilot with only what heneeds to know for his decision-making.Man is superior to machine in absorb-ing and judging new information, butinferior to computers and machineryin performing routine and repetitivetasks.

Invisible Boundary

As I said earlier, our basic challengein pulling together the resources andtechnological information needed forthe Shuttle, is communicationcommunication across countless inter-faces: inter-organizational, inter-personal and functional. And what is afunctional interface? It is a hypotheti-cal boundary which is opaque fromboth sides ... In this respect, I feel myfunction is essentially to increase thetranslucency of interfaces in this ef-fort. Human nature being what it is,interfaces can never be eliminatedcompletely. But when common goalscan be agreed upon interfaces losesome of their opacity.

"We need total visibility of all the thingsbeing done in the name of the Shuttle, tomake the needed decisions based on scien-tific and engineering judgement, indepen-dent of political judgement."

"While the Apollo program involved the integration of effort mostly from the Marshall SpaceFlight Center and the Kennedy Space Center, the Shuttle and Station programs are drawingfrom the technological resources of all the NASA Centers."

Formal Reporting Procedures

We have a fairly formal reportingprocedure to promote the flow ofinformation from over 100 individualon-going efforts in the Shuttle tech-nology program which spans sevenNASA Centers. Each effort reportsmonthly both to managing NASAHeadquarters Divisions, and to cogni-zant Technology Working Groups.These Groups then summarize theinputs from all the tasks being per-formed, and they evaluate and reportresults to the Technology SteeringGroup. The Steering Group com-posed of chairmen of Working Groupsplus senior personnel from the Centers

.58

and Headquarters then feedbackdown to specific efforts to shift em-phasis or initiate new studies as

needed. It is the responsibility of theTechnology Steering Group to surveythe total effort for deficiencies, and tointegrate the results of studies fromthe various disciplines into answers toour technological questions.

Our reporting procedure is on afairly detailed format. We need totalvisibility of all the things being done inthe name of the Shuttle, so we canscan the total effort for trouble spots.We need this kind of visibility to makethe needed decisions based on scien-tific and engineering judgment, in- Adependent of political judgment. in

59

SPACE SHUTTLE TECHNOLOGY EFFORT

TECHNOLOGY STEERING CROUP(TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION & PROGRAM BALANCE)

OFFICE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT(OVERALL SYSTEMS INTEGRATION)

OFFICE OF ADVANCED RESEARCHAND TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DOD CENTERSFISCAL

SPACE VEHICLESDIVISION

L.-

RESEARCHDIVISION

AEROTHERMODYNAMICSCONFIGURATION

LANGLEYRESEARCH CENTER

60

DYNAMICS &AEROELASTICITY

LANGLEYRESEARCH CENTER

DYNAMIC LOADS& RESPONSE

AEROELASTICITY

FLIGHT DYNAMICS& ENVIRONMENT

STRUCTURES &MATERIALS

LANGLEY.RESEARCH. CENTER

'STRUCTURAL'DESIGN

.TECHNOLOGY

THERMAL PROTECTIONSYSTEMS & MATERIALS

MATERIALSTECHNOLOGY

SPACE SHUTTLE TASK GROUP

OFFICE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT

REQUIREMENTS

ADMINISTRATION

SUPPORTING RESEARCH& TECHNOLOGY

CHEMICAL PROPULSIONDIVISION

1 ELECTRONICS & CONTROLDIVISION

POWER & ELECTRICALPROPUL. DIVISION

BIOTECH. & HUMAN RES.DIVISION

-PROPULSION

MARSHALLSPACE FLIGHT CENTER

AUXILIARYPROPULSION

MAINPROPULSION

FAIR-BREATHINGPROPULSION

INTEGRATEDELECTRONICS

MANNED SPACECRAFTCENTER

SYSTEMSINTEGRATION

COMMUNICATIONS& TRACKING

GUIDANCENAVIGATION& CONTROL

HUMAN FACTORS

OFFICE OFADV. RES. & TECHNOLOGY

DATA SYSTEMS

SENSORS '&INSTRUMENTATION

POWER

1 CREW INTERFACESMANUAL CONTROLS

& DISPLAYS

60.

OPERATIONSMAINTENANCE & SAFETY

FLIGHT RESEARCHCENTER

61

; 4. IVA. 'TeS

,L kit

.19

"6,1,

0 a TA 16. ak

t ift 4.

Z9

ltbil :;'..,.?.?.',%-i.,......'

110P ,

4. 4,(,,,... ..i.....

,........., ..0

I. 4.- ,. , , . ,,, ,..,, ..p.

.r. .... ...... %

;t1

AIM OF MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS PROGRAM: ATO BETTER KNOW EARTH-MAN IN SPACE AiInterview with Dr. Sherman P. VinogradDirector, !MUMS Program and Research and Technology

Broad Medical/Behavioral Experiments Program for evaluating human system changes inducedby space flight may advance diagnosis and therapy in Earth's environment

"Know then thyself, presume notGod to scan;

The proper study of mankind isman."

Alexander Pope (1822-1892)

"Know thyself!" the precept saidto be coined by Socrates and a few ofhis lesser-known colleagues, some2400 years ago spells the basic pur-pose and motivation for any of ourefforts related to NASA's Life Sci-ences Program.

Meaningful discussion of projectsand concepts in this field of activityrequires the highlighting of programcontexts and kinships. For example,NASA's overall Life Sciences Programincludes two major and related fields,Space Medicine and Space Biology.Space Medicine is concerned with thetask of understanding man as a func-tioning whole, and with safeguardinghis well-being while he is engaged inspace operations and exploration;Space Biology is aimed at utilizing theunique environment of spaceunhampered by the regulating influ-ences of Earth to increase ourunderstanding of the detail processesof human life and those of other livingorganisms. The ultimate objective ofboth fields of study is to know moreabout man the prodigious productof this uncommon planet.

As man's successful but short spacevisits, in the early Sixties, began firm-ing the foundations for the longer onesto come, information on the effects ofthe new environment became of vitalimportance. We realized, as far asaerospace medicine and its technologywere concerned, that we needed toextend: (1) our knowledge about thelong-term biomedical and behavioralcharacteristics of man in space, and (2)to provide means whereby his physio-logical capabilities in the space en-vironment might be enhanced forlong-duration missions.

"A general philosophy of the Medical (Behavioral Experiments Program has been to planexperiment flight-schedules to explore known or expected problems, as well as to conducthuman systems monitoring across-the-board, as much as practicable."

Early Flights for Engineering

The primary orientation of our firstmanned space flight program ProjectMercury was toward demonstratingthat the overwhelming engineeringproblems of space flight could beovercome. Accordingly, during theMercury missions, and the follow-onGemini, the concern of the medicalscientists centered mostly on assuringman's support in space and his safereturn to Earth while predeterminedengineering goals were being achieved.The Gemini Program did carry somemedical experiments. but again thesewere secondary to the engineeringobjectives of the missions.

Unlike the Gemini Program, thecurrent Apollo Program does not

62

undertake formal medical experimentsfor learning more about the biomedi-cal changes of man in space. Themedical experience from Gemini indi-cated what could be expected of man'sphysiological capabilities on a two-week mission. Therefore, the shorter-duration Apollo missions, from a bio-medical sense are, merely addingbreadth to the manned space flightexperience; the Apollo Program nowin progress represents an extension ofthe application of the traditionalprinciples and practice of aerospacemedicine to include the lunar environ-ment.

Apollo's Medical Requirements

Medical requirements for Apollo aredicatated by three objectives which

64

have been constant throughout theentire manned space program: (1)crew safety; (2) medical informationrequired for mission management; (3)continued study of biomedical changesin man as a prelude to longer-durationmissions. These objectives are beingmet by gathering medical informationthrough three methods:

Ground-based measurement, orprevious flight data gathered as base-line information for operational pro-files.

Monitoring of heart rate, respir-atory rate, and body temperature dur-ing missions, by physicians on theground, as well as verbal reporting offlight crews.

Extensive pre- and post-flightmedical examinations.

Even as early as in 1963, we couldsee that truly intensive biomedicalstudies have to be projected for thelonger-duration capabilities of post-Apollo programs. But the Apollo Ap-plications Program (now called Sky-lab), which was to become the firstorbiting research laboratory for suchpurposes, was far in the future. So wehad to keep our interim biomedicalobjectives on the limited capabilitiesof the Gemini Program. Thus, a Medi-cal/Behavioral Experiments Programbegan in 1963, with a study of theBiomedical Experiments WorkingGroup an ad hoc group of NASAlife scientists who devoted a series ofmeetings to an evaluation of the medi-c;J and behavioral aspects and require-ments of an orbiting research lab. Thiswas followed by two study contracts,to explore these questions in greaterdepth. One contract was with Repub-lic Aviation, the other with NorthAmerican Aviation.

Start of Intensive Studies

In January 1964, the Space Medi-cine Advisory Group (SPAMAG) of 20prominent consultants of the medical

63

community began its in-depth study ofthis problem. The report of this groupwas followed by a series of eighttwo-day meetings chaired jointly bythe NASA and the DOD.

A Technical Advisory Committee often NASA Centers and HeadquartersLife Sciences specialists was calledtogether in February 1965; their mis-sion was to assemble, from the fourreports resulting from the work thusfar, a group of potential medical andbehavioral experiments for an orbitinglaboratory program. This was part ofan investigation directed by Dr.Robert Seamans (then NASA's DeputyAdministrator) resulting in the formu-lation of 23 medical/behavioral experi-ment concepts, as a representativepackage of medical experiments forthe orbiting lab. Shortly thereafter,this group of pseudo-experiments wasreassembled into eight componentareas of body function: neurological,cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolicand nutritional, endocrine, hematolog-ical, microbiological and immunolog-ical, and behavioral. Each of theseareas has its own list of requiredmeasurements and procedures. Thislist has been reviewed and updatedrepeatedly with the aid of our con-sultant advisors, the Biomedical Sub-committee of the Science and Tech-nology Advisory Committee (formerlythe Medical Advisory Council). Thetotal measurement requirements forthe evaluation of the above eightcomponent areas of body functionwere eventually incorporated into thecapabilities of a system which came tobe identified by the acronymI M BL MS Integrated Medical Be-havioral Laboratory MeasurementSystem which I shall discuss in somedetail later.

First tests of the medical/behavioralexperiments of the program were con-ducted aboard Gemini spacecraft, in1965. The Gemini package consistedof eight experiments, several of which

were flown on more than one mission.As originally conceived, the medical/behavioral experiments plan for theApollo Program was an expansion ofthe Gemini package. But changes inthe Apollo flight program ultimatelyrestricted these plans to the extentthat only three pre- and post-flightexperiments were implemented. Theremainder have been projected for uselater in this decade, when the orbitingSkylab becomes a reality. Thoroughmedical operational evaluation, how-ever, continues to be carried out inApollo.

Technology and Methods

The initiation of the medical/be-havioral experiments program in 1963signalled the establishment of a newgoal beyond the development of life-su pport technology the develop-ment of technology and methods, alsofor evaluating the changes in humanfunctions and capabilities that mightbe induced by space flight. Such anevaluation was addressed to answeringa number of top-priority questions,the answers to which would provide aclearer delineation of man's capabili-ties and role in the man-machine sys-tems of spacecraft. These questions aregrouped as applicable to the eightcomponent areas of body function wediscussed earlier. A few typical ques-tions in the cardiovascular area, forexample, are:

How are venous compliance andcentral venous pressure and their ad-justing mechanisms influenced by pro-longed space flight?

How is cardiac function affectedby long-duration space flight?

What are the factors of spaceflight which cause changes in circulat-ing blood volume and its distribution?At what point and under what condi-tions is a new equilibrium established?Etc.

I

-1107:1.

"Space medicine has already had very significant, although largely indirect, influence on healthcare as evidenced in a number of ways: in the use of bioinstrumentation in intensive care units,in computer technology for more accessible and quickly available medical data, and in dynamic(as opposed to static) electrocardiographic and other evaluations for the earlier identification ofpotential medical problems."

6 4 65

Two Major Objectives

It should be stated for the purposeof gross orientation, that the total listof top-priority questions referred toearlier constitutes our detailed ap-proach to the two major categories ofour program's objectives. In the firstcategory, which is oriented to mannedspace flight, we need to determine asprecisely as possible man's medical andbehavioral responses, functional limita-tions, the time course of the effects ofspace flight, means of prevention orcorrection of undesirable effects, sup-portive requirements in space flight,etc. This information will be appliedto the substantiation of man's role inman-machine systems, and to the plan-ning of future missions.

Our second major category objec-tives is oriented toward Earth-basedmedical science. Our purpose in thisrespect is to advance medical sciencethrough experiments designed to uti-lize the unique environmental charac-teristics of space, without a primaryinterest in applying any resulting find-ings to space flight. For example, anyphysiological function which might beconsidered to be gravity-dependent insome respect is potential subject mat-ter for investigation in the space en-vironment.

Major Conceptual Approaches

Efforts directed toward these objec-tives are guided by several conceptualapproaches that should be explainedbriefly to clarify the .cope of theMedical/Behavioral Experiments Pro-gram. The following are some of themajor approaches used

(1) Principal investigators in thisProgram are not necessarily NASApersonnel. It must be recognized thatthe Space Program is national in scopeand broadly scientific in nature; theinstallation of experiments aboardspacecraft is expensive; and flight op-

66

portunities are sparse. For these rea-sons, NASA places strong emphasis onthe participation of highly competentindividuals of the national scientificcommunity as principal investigators

regardless of their affiliations.(2) A general philosophy of the

Program has been to plan experimentflight schedules to explore known orexpected problems, as well as toconduct human systems monitoringacross-the-board, as much as practic-able. Had this not been done in theGemini Program, we would still beunaware of the red blood cell and fluidcompartment changes which were dis-covered.

(3) Regarding the technical con-tent of the Program, the major variableis the duration of flight. The mostintriguing unknown factor is pro-longed weightlessness. This does not,by any means, imply that weightless-ness is the only factor of interest, nordoes it imply that it will necessarilyturn out to be the most important.However, it is an important factor andit remains unknown because of ourinability to reproduce it on Earth.

(4) With respect to the question ofartificial gravity, the Medical/Behav-ioral Experiments Program seeks toestablish the need for it by evaluatingflight crews who operate for increasingperiods without gravity. Shorter mis-sions can provide the opportunity toinvestigate artificial "g" techniquesconsistent with optimal crew, space-craft and mission function, and per-formance. However, until the role ofgravity can be determined, we feel thatartificial "g" should be consideredat least initially as a design featureof future spacecraft.

(5) As humans we are character-ized by a broad range of individualresponsiveness to any given set ofconditions. This fact, and the relative-ly small number of flight crew mem-bers participating in space missions,necessitate the repetition of most.ex-

65

periments to establish statistical valid-ity of the findings.

(6) Lastly, the Medical/BehavioralExperiments effort must be viewed asa continuing one, serving and beingserved by a succession of flight pro-grams of different durations. As theseexperiments fulfill various investiga-tions related to space flight and toEarth-based medicine, the Programwill be continually revised to accom-modate refinements and new studies,and to discontinue those which can beconsidered completed.

Functional Organization of Program

For program management purposesthe Medical/Behavioral Experimentsefforts have been structured function-ally into two mutually-dependentgroups of activity as shown in Table 1..The first group (I) includes the experi-ments themselves their planning,solicitation and management duringboth the definition and developmentphases. One aspect here, item 1B inTable I, deserves additional explana-tion. The process of reviewing experi-ment proposals for scientific merit,used since 1966, involved two steps: areview by the NIH Study SectionSystem, and a succeeding evaluationoriented primarily toward mannedspace-flight capabilities and require-ments. The second evaluation wasmade by a highly qualified team ofmedical consultants to NASA (estab-lished in May 1965 as the MedicalAdvisory Council) now known as theBiomedical Subcommittee of NASA'sScience and Technology AdvisoryCommittee.

As mentioned earlier, the Medical/Behavioral Experiments Program ispresently organized into the explora-tion and evaluation of eight areas ofhuman function. Components of theseeight areas make up the individualexperiments in development For theSkylab, and four experiments in pro-cess of definition.

Table .1

FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONOF MEDICAL/BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS PROGRAM

I. MANAGEMENT OF MEDICAL/BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS.

A. Determination of requirements and maintaining relationships,support, and participation of the scientifi6 community;

B. Review of experiment proposals for scientific merit.

C. Support of experiments in definition.

D. Selection, conversion, and support of experiments for developmentphase.

E. Support' and guidance during operational data gathering; and postmission data reduction and reporting phases.

Application of data to the Medical/Behavioral Experiments Program, manned space flight, and the civilian community as indi-cated.

II. R&D SUPPORT OF MEDICAL/BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTSPROGRAM

A. IMBLMS (Integrated Medical and Behavioral Laboratory System).

Parallel deVelopMent efforts to advance status of the art inmeasurement techniques and equipment to enhance the capabilities

: of IMBLMS and proposed experiments.

Simulations and ground-based data, i.e., the support of .ground-based simulation and other 'studies in. order to obtain a body ofpertinent data as a normative or control baSe, to permit theextraction of Valid conclusions from flight:data.

R&D Support

Turning again to the functional or-ganization of the Medical/BehavioralExperiments Program (Table 1) let'sconsider the activities grouped underitem II, the R&D Support of theProgram. Task I IA consists of theIntegrated Medical and BehavioralLaboratory Measurement Systems

(IMBLMS), introduced earlier.IMBLMS identifies the development ofa highly flexible and sophisticatedlaboratory system for accommodatingthe medical and behavioral measure-ments required for existing and antici-pated experiments.

The Medical/Behavioral Experi-ments Program presents some unusual-

66 67

67

ly challenging aspects; it is an effort togain sound scientific knowledge ofhuman responses to an unknown en-vironment through research in amedium which requires hard, complexand predetermined engineering and op-erational interfaces. The IMBLMS con-cept was devised to meet such require-ments by featuring maximum internalflexibility (through modularity) withminimal impact on its basic envelopeof external needs.

Basically, IMBLMS consists of arack-and-module system which can beassembled into working consoles tosuit the requirements of the spacecraftand the experiments program of theparticular mission. Hardware modulesor submodules for any projected spe-cific experiment can be developed foraccommodation in the IMBLMS andused as needed.

Five Functional Elements

Flexibility of the modular approachis aimed at significantly reducing leadtimes, simplifying in-flight mainte-nance, and providing for the economi-cal updating of equipment. The cur-rent concept of IMBLMS incorporatesfive functional elements: physiologi-cal, behavioral, biochemical, micro-biological, and data management.These five elements together will ac-commodate the required measure-ments in all eight human functionareas of the medical/behavioral investi-gation. The IMBLMS will be composedof two or three consoles, plus five orsix pieces of peripheral equipment.Presently identified peripheral equip-ment includes: a bicycle ergOrneter, arotating litter chair, a body -mass meas-urement system, a lower-body nega-tive-pressure device, and a specimen-mass measurement system.

The IMBLMS measurement capabil-ity was derived from the previouslymentioned 23 Medical/Behavioral Ex-periments formulated in 1965. At that

time we needed to time-line these 23pseudo - experiments. We decided to dothat by extending an existing studycontract with Lockheed. They were tobuild a mock-up of a Medical/Behav-ioral Laboratory in a mock-up of aLunar Excursion Module, and time-line these measurements with crewsuited and unsuited. This was accom-plished as a four-month effort whichended in February 1966.

Chronology of IMBLMS

In our first draft work-statement, inMarch 1966, we defined the modularand highly flexible IMBLMS concept,including prefabricated rack mount-ings, interfaces, etc., and began prepa-rations for Phase B final definition ofthis Phased Project Procurement. ARequest for Proposal was distributedand responses received. In April 1967General Electric's Space Division andLockheed Missile and Space Com-pany's R&D Division were selected,and Phase B work started in June1967. This phase has actually con-sisted of four steps or subphases ex-tending from concepts through bread-board development, and on to prelimi-nary flight design. Phase B4 will endlater this year; it will be followed bythe selection of a single contractor,and the initiation of Phase C, detaildesign, in early 1971. According topresent plans, IMBLMS hardware willbe available for flights of this decade.

Let's refer once more to the func-tional organization chart of the Medi-cal/Behavioral Experiments Program(Table 1) and discuss briefly items II Band IIC, to complete the picture.

Task area II B consists of a series ofindependent grants and contractsaimed at further refining measure-ments techniques and equipment toaugment the capabilities and accura-cies of the IMBLMS. This is an impor-tant task area for many reasons, amajor one being that many standard

"By pointing to its own unique needs forbioinstrumentation and telemetry, NASAplayed a catalytic role in the rapid growthof this field."

techniques are not adaptable to theenvironment and other circumstancesof manned space flight. Also, most ofthese requirements were identifiedseveral years ago and can benefit bynew viewpoints. There is still workneeded especially in such areas as

behavior, biochemistry, microbiology,energy metabolism during suited activ-ity, accurate determination of fluidintake and output measurement,venous pressure and cardiac outputtechniques, etc.

The last R&D task area, IIC, con-sists of chamber studies, bed-rest stud-ies, and similar types of simulations assources of essential ground-based data.Individual principal investigators doobtain ground-based or control data aspart of their experiments. Neverthe-less, economic considerations dictatethat evaluations of certain environ-mental factors such as spacecraft at-mosphere by long-term chamber stud-ies, weightlessness effects simulated bybed rest, etc. are best made by

6869

)41,4Pmic

'",,.,via/':1I 4'

qn?- "*),4 re IDr

Artist's rendition of IMBLMS concept, which would include two or three consoles, plus five orsix pieces of peripheral equipment. Presently identified peripheral equipment includes: a bicycleergometer, a rotating litter chair, a body-mass measurement system, a lower-body negative-pressure device, and a specimen-mass measurement system.

70 63

NASA, with the participation of allprincipal investigators whose flightfindings would be influenced by theseaspects of the environment.

Impetus to Bioinstrumentation

I believe that NASA has succeededin providing impetus to the whole fieldof bioinstrumentation. This is notmeant to imply that NASA createdthis field, but that by pointing to itsown unique needs for bioinstrumenta-tion and telemetry, NASA played ahighly important and effective catalystrole in the rapid growth of the field.Other new needs, and the needs forrefining existing medical techniquesare continually being identified; theresults of the studies and develop-ments generated by these needs arelikely to be useful in a broader sensethan aerospace applications. We need,for example, to devise non-invasivemethods of determining cardiac out-put, central and peripheral venouspcessure, deep regional blood flow,etc. For purposes of convenient bio-diemical analyss in the space milieu,we need reagents that are non-toxicand non-liquid, or techniques whichavoid the use of chemical reagentsaltogether. And in general, we need toimprove the accuracy and practicalityof our measurement techniques.Lastly, there is also a unique require-ment in this type of directed research,which is rarely if ever mentioned. Thisis the need to compress new techniqueevaluation and verification time-spans,in order to establish accuracy, reliabil-ity, repeatability, and in some in-stances interpretability.

Testing Man in Motion

An interesting paradox exists be-tween the practice of medicine in theenvironment of the Earth and that inspace: in Earth's normal environmentmedical science is oriented to the

0

9

"For purposes of convenient biochemical analysis in the space milieu, we need reagents that arenon-toxic and non-liquid, or techniques which avoid the use of chemical reagents altogether."

study and treatment of man's ab-normal conditions, and measurementsare made mostly in his static state;whereas aerospace medicine is orientedto the study of essentially normal manin his active working state within anabnormal environment. One result ofthe association of these different view-points has been the new trend ofmonitoring and recording human bio-medical data, on Earth, during man'7,normally active state. NASA Head-quarters, and now many other organi-zations, have been using portable,Walkie-Talkie size devices for record-ing biomedical data as part of annualcheckups while the subjects are inprocess of their normal daily activities.

Influence of Space Medicine

NASA's program of medical experi-ments can perhaps be consideredunique in that it is a program ofdirected or goal-oriented research,centered on a set of rather unusualrequirements. Yet, this work is anintegral part of medicine and medical

research in general. As we progress inour efforts this fact will become moreapparent.

Space medicine has already had verysignificant, although largely indirect,influence on health care as evidencedin a number of ways: in the use ofbioinstrumntation in intensive careunits, in computer technology formore accessible and quickly availablemedical data, and in dynamic (asopposed to static) electrocardiographicand other evaluations for earlier identi-fication of potential medical problems.

I believe that as we continue theseendeavors, applications to clinicalmedicine in the form of specific tech-nologies, information and approaches

as well as those due to stimulationof certain areas of research will in-crease-exponentially:. With the growinginterest of clinical medicine in therelationships of the environment withhealth, the contributing influence ofspace medicine, which is a form ofenvironmental medicine, is des- Atined to be even further enhanced. Olt

71

,rrnlrewirre.1.,

OSSA'S R&D TASKS TOWARD SEVENTIES ASTRESS SATELLITES FOR SERVING MAN ORInterview with Dr. John E. NaugleAssociate Administrator for Space Science and Applications,

Despite NASA budget decreases over recent years, the budget of the Office of Space Scienceand Applications has continued to increase, with emphasis on applications

By the very scope and spectrum ofits tasks NASA's Office of Space Sci-ence and Applications (OSSA) will beoperating at the forefront of some ofthe Seventies' major challenges. Basi-cally, our responsibilities span activi-ties centering on four prime functions:

Selection of the science and ap-plications payloads for both auto-mated and manned missions. We workvery closely with the Office of MannedSpace Flight to develop the scientificand applications experiments for theApollo missions and the projectedSkylab.

Development of automatedspace flight projects for science andapplications.

Execution of cooperative inter-national programs.

Mission support and launching ofsmall and medium class vehicles(Scout, thrust-augmented Thor Delta,thrust-augmented Thor Agena, andAtlas-Centaur) for both NASA andnon-NASA users such as ESSA,COMSAT, and other nations.

Dual Overlay of Responsibilities

From an overview standpoint, thesefunctions translate themselves into adual overlay of personal responsibil-ities: first, as a Program AssociateAdministrator, I'm charged with themanagement and technical direction ofOSSA R&D programs and projects,which involve work in virtually allNASA Centers; and second, from aninstitutional position I'm assigned theoverall management of the GoddardSpace Flight Center, the Wallops Sta-tion, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,and the NASA Pasadena Office (seeaccompanying charts).

Putting the total tasks of the OSSAin context of the climate of theSeventies, we can summarize our fore-most challenge as "operating in abalanced mode." I mean balanced

"Over the years the number of competent individuals aware of space opportunities forexperiments has grown steadily in the scientific community; yet such opportunities for theirparticipation have steadily declined, in recent years, due to the shrinkage in funding."

from the viewpoint of program objec-tives tempered by equal considerationto exploration, scientific knowledgeand practical application as pre-scribed by the President.

In view of the international climateand conditions that prevailed at thestart of the last decade, the mainthrust of our space efforts was pointedtoward exploration. Having acquired abasic lead in space exploration, scien-tific knowledge, and technology, wecan now apply this experience towardthe study and solution of loomingearthly problems. Before discussinghow we are preparing to work on someof these complex problems, I shouldlike to touch on an aspect of nationalsignificance in the long run. Apartfrom the scientific and technological

72

legacies from the space efforts of theSixties, we have also acquired a newawareness of the opportunities forscientific experiments in space. Overthe years the number of competentindividuals aware of space opportuni-ties for experiments has grown steadilyin the scientific community; yet suchopportunities for their participationhave steadily declined, in recent years,due to the shrinkage in funding. Con-sequently, during the last two to threeyears we have been able to accommo-date only 10% to 15% of the first-classexperiments proposed by the scientificcommunity. And this spells the secondmajor managerial challenge for theOSSA for the Seventies: a very tightselection and coupling of missions,people, and experiments.

73

74

SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS IN THE NASA ORGANIZATION

ADMINISTRATOR

GENERALMANAGEMENT

ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

SENIOR STAFF

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFF CE OF OFFICE OF

SPACE SCIENCE MANNED ADVANCED RESEARCH TRACKING& APPLICATIONS SPACE FLIGHT' Si TECHNOLOGY & DATA ACQUISITION

GODDARDSPACE FLIGHT

CENTER

PROPULSIONLABORATORY

-WALLOPS. MARSHALL.SPACE FLIGHT

KENNEDY

CENTER

MANNED.SPACECRAFT-

CENTER .. ..

PROJECT SYSTEMSMANAGEMENT .. . :: ; .: ' : -..::

OAO ': MM 69 -:,SOUNDINO.1 z ATM .: :,0

i. ,.: '!':'::

LAUNCH ,

'.' 060 i .1., : MM 71 i ROCKETS , : i:, : ,,.,' SUPPORT ..

OSO :- : 7 .2. ' : MM 73 . ,' BARIUM : '';''. :: I'. : ''''': :.' ''':" '; ::.:. '.:

.

AMES

,.'.....LANGLEY LEWIS FLIGHT

RESEARCH RESEARCH: . RESEARCH RESEARCH ;

CENTER.

CENTER, CENTER

' ....

. ..

Eits- PIONEER '; SCOUT' ' AGENN

ACFT ':. : BIO-, VIKING: CENTAUR

: LRL : ; .,". : : SATELLITE !, , AD/ I I :. % ' ATLAS

...

ERTS. ..,

. .

INTERNAT'L

GEOS

SOUNDING ROCKETS

73

Applications Funding Up

Returning now to the major earthlyproblems, to the study of whichNASA is preparing to apply its re-sources and experience, we have inFY 1971 allocated to space applica-tions R&D $69 million over that allo-cated in 1969. Even though the totalNASA budget has decreased over re-cent years, the OSSA budget has con-tinued to increase as shown below,with the major share of that increasegoing to applications.

In essence, in the allocation of itsscarce resources NASA has emphasizedprojects which may help solve ourproblems of immediate priority andhas deferred major new starts whoseobjectives are primarily to gain newscientific knowledge. But obviously,promising scientific projects could notbe deferred indefinitely, withoutmortgaging to some extent the techni-cal progress, the economic vitality, andultimately the security of this nation.

As reflected in the preceding tableof allocations, OSSA R&D programs

are grouped into five major categoriesof which Space Applications is one.All these categories of efforts areobviously essential to a balanced spaceprogram. But for the specific purposeof spotlighting the role of the OSSAwith regard to the major and pressingproblems of the Earth, I shall confinethis discussion to Space Applications.

What are our problems of globaldimensions now and for the yearsahead, and what challenges do thesepresent in particular to the OSSA?

Problems of Population

In most basic terms, our majorglobal problems are derivatives of thecontinuing growth of the world's pop-ulation imposing ever-growing de-mands for the basics of life, such asfood, water and shelter, as well as forsuch social needs of civilization asimproved means of transportation andcommunication. And of course themost noxious effect of expanding pop-ulation and industrialization has beenthe pollution of the Earth's environ-

OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONSFY 1971 Research and Development Budget

Program Summary(Dollars in Thousands)

FY 1969 FY 1970 FY 1971

Physics & Astronomy 128,850 111,835 116,000

Lunar & Planetary 87,923 151,013 144,900

Bioscience 37,900 19,670 12,900

Space Applications 98,665 128,400 167,000

Launch Vehicles 99,900 108,000 124,000

TOTAL OSSA R&D 453,238 519,718 565,700

74

"During the last few years we have beenable to accommodate only 10 to 15% of thefirst class experiments proposed by thescientific community."

75

SPACE SCIENCEAND APPLICATIONS

STEERING COMMITTEE

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPAI:r AF)MINISTRATIONOFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND ')..1.1CATIONS

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR- FOR SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS

. DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATORFOR SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS

DEPUTY ASSOC. ADMINISTRATOR (SCIENCE)DEPUTY ASSOC. ADMINISTRATOR (ENGINEERING)DEPUTY ASSOC, ADMINISTRATOR (APPLICATIONS)

ADVANCED. PROGRAMS

PROGRAM REVIEWAND RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT

I

BIOSCIENCEPROGRAMS

LAUNCH VEHICLEAND PROPULSION

PROGRAMS

PLANETARY.PROGRAMS

PHYSICS-AND. ASTRONOMY

PROGRAMS

EARTHOBSERVATIONS

PROGRAMS

COMMUNICATIONSPROGRAMS

JET PROPULSIONLABORATORY

(Contractor Operated)

NASA PASADENAOFFICE

Pasadena, California

76

GODDARD SPACEFLIGHT CENTER

Greenbelt, Maryland

.*REPORTS JOINTLY TO OlviSF. AND OSSA.

1

[STATIONWallops Island, Va.

WALLOPS

.. APOLLOLUNAR

EXPLORATION*

ment and the effects of this pollutionon the mechanics of this environment.Whereas primitive man was once at themercy of the elements, we are fastapproaching the time when both"civilized" man and his environment"the elements" will be at the mercy ofhis waste. The actions the Presidenthas recommended in his message onthe environment are essential stepsthat must be taken now to begin a realattack on this problem. But in the longrun, the only way we can reallyunderstand and control this situationis on a world-wide basis. If we are tomaintain the Earth as a habitabledwelling place for some ten billionhuman beings in the next century,then we must master the ecology ofthe planet Earth. The synoptic viewthat satellite systems give us can helpus to understand and develop theEarth's natural and cultural resourcesand to monitor the status of theenvironment. Through effective use ofour space capabilities we can begin tounderstand more thoroughly the com-plex interactions between solar energy,the atmosphere, the oceans and theland interactions which determineour weather and climate. Man haslearned many things about his environ-ment, but exceedingly serious gapsremain. We know, for instance, thatthere have been major changes in ourclimate, but we do not know whatcaused them. We have no idea howstable our present climate is, or howmuch of a perturbation the environ-ment can tolerate in atmospheric pol-lution, in ground cover, or in groundwater without undergoing catastrophicchanges.

These questions spell out a host ofscientific and technological tasks forNASA and particularly for the Officeof Space Science and Applications(OSSA). Let's now briefly reviewOSSA's Space Applications Programs,as they relate to some of the majorchallenges of the Seventies.

Space Applications Programs

Our Space Applications Programsare grouped under two functional cate-gories: Communications Programs andEarth Observations Programs.

Communications Programs: Theobjective of these programs is to applyspace technology and satellite systems,to better serve the national and inter-national needs for communicationswith and between earthbound, air-borne, and spaceborne terminals andto continually improve capabilities forterrestrial air and space vehicle naviga-tion and traffic control. These pro-grams also include satellite geodesy,which has as its objective the improve-ment of our knowledge of the size andshape of the Earth and its gravity field.

The Applications Technology Sate-lites (ATS) and the Geodetic 17.i. rth

Orbiting Satellites (GEOS) have beenthe prime means for attaining theobjectives of the Communications Pro-grams. Since the ATS-1 and -3 space-craft systems have continued to func-tion after most of the planned experi-ment programs have been completed,we have developed plans to use ATS-1and -3 for new experiments. As anexample, we have approved the pro-posal by the State of Alaska to con-duct educational television and radiobroadcast experiments through ATS-1.

ATS-5 was launched in August1969. However, deployment of thesatellite in a spin-stabilized modeabout the wrong spin axis preventedthe operation of Gravity GradientStabilization system. Although weclass the mission a failure, we expectto meet many objectives of 7 of the 12experiments on ATS-5, including theexperiments which are important tothe design of future navigation andtraffic control satellite systems.

In 1969 we completed the designphase of the ATS-F and G project, andshall now proceed with its Phase D,hardware development. However, be-

b

cause of the need to minimize expend-itures, the launch of these satellites hasbeen postponed until 1973 and 1974.

For fiscal year 1971 we also re-quested and received authorization toinitiate the definition and design of anexperimental satellite system to im-prove over-ocean aircraft navigationand traffic control. We shall continueto work jointly with the Federal Avi-ation Administration and with theEuropean Space Research Organiza-tion in this definition and designphase.

Earth Observations Programs:Here's where we concentrate our ef-

forts toward a better understanding ofthis planet's environment. There are anumber of reasons why we believe weshould move aggressively into thefields of Earth observations:

1. Research by user agencies andrecommendations of NationalAcademy Summer Study Groups haveclearly demonstrated that attainableand significant contributions to thesolution of Earth observation prob-lems can be obtained through applica-tion of space and astronomical tech-niques to problems related to solidEarth and ocean physics.

2. Improvements in space tech-nology and verification of our abilityto produce suitable space sensor sys-tems have reached the point wheresuch valuable products can be pro-vided to the resource and environ-mental scientists.

3. Verification of the useful natureof space-acquired remote sensor datahas been obtained throughout the re-source and environmental scientificcommunity.

4. Ability to use the data is beingdeveloped rapidly in the user agencies,the world of commerce, and the aca-demic community.

5. Results from research and devel-opment, and experimental satellites inthe meteorological program are ex-

77

ceeding the expectations of the origi-nal concepts. We fully expect theseadvancements to continue to meteor-ology, and expect a parallel and pos-sibly even more significant history ofvaluable application and development,and opening of new horizons for im-proved methods to help us face thecritical resources and environmentalcrises of the nation and the world.

Among the many recent achieve-ments of the Earth Observations Pro-grams I would like to highlight, inparticular, three: the results of NIM-BUS 3, of TI ROS -M, and those of theMu Itispectral Camera PhotOgraphyfrom APOLLO 9.

Probably the most significantachievement of the past calendar yearwas the successful measurement fromspace of the vertical distribution oftemperature, ozone content, and watervapor conter t in the atmosphere bysensors installr.d on NIMBUS 3. Twoexperimental sensors, the Satellite In-frared Spectrometer (SIRS) and theInfrared Interferometer Spectrometer(IRIS), have demonstrated the feasibil-ity of obtaining atmospheric tempera-ture soundings from space. This newcapability, which represents a genuinebreakthrough in meteorological tech-nology, will enable us to obtain quan-titative data from the entire globe,rather than from the conventionalstations located mostly in thetemperate belt of the northern hemi-sphere from which we now obtainsuch soundings of the atmosphere.

The prototype of the next genera-tion of operational meteorologicalsatellites, TIROS-M, or ITOS-1 as it isnow known, was successfully launchedin January 1970. TIROS-M providesday and night observations of cloudcover, and combines in one spacecraftthe ability to provide both a picture ofthe global cloud cover and a picture ofthe local cloud cover to stations belowthe satellite's path. Previously, two

spacecraft were required to pfovidethe same capability.

Another highlight was the multi-spectral camera photography (S065)experiment on APOLLO 9. In thisexperiment cameras were flown thatwere designed to provide the sameresolution and cover the same parts ofthe color spectrum as the televisioncameras we have planned for the EarthResources Technology Satellite% TheS065 pictures, together with concur-rent aircraft pictures, show that at theresolution obtainable from televisioncameras planned for the Earth Re-sources Technology Satellite the tonalsignatures, combined with sequentialcoverage, can be used to identifycrops, determine their vigor, and esti-mate their yield.

The major Earth Observations pro-jects are NIMBUS, the Earth Re-sources Technology Satellite, and theSynchronous Meteorological Satellite.NIMBUS 4 launched successfully onApril 8, 1970, is continuing the workof NIMBUS 3. We have two morelaunches of this versatile meteorologi-cal observatory, NIMBUS E and F,scheduled in 1972 and 1973. Thosetwo observatories will explore the useof microwaves to sound the atmo-sphere, which will enable us to soundthrough cloud layers. We shall also useNIMBUS E and F, in conjunction withthe Applications Technology SatellitesF and G, to test the feasibility of datarelay and satellite tracking.

We are also proceeding with thedevelopment of a Synchronous Mete-orological Satellite (SMS), with thelaunch of the prototype spacecraftscheduled for early 1972. The SMSwill provide the capability to achievecontinuous observations of selectedportions of the Earth's cloud cover.

The Earth Resources Survey Pro-gram is progressing toward the launchof the first Earth Resources Tech-nology Satellite, ERTS-A, in 1972, butwe still have a lot of work to do. Some

78 7 7

prototype experiments have been con-ducted through the aircraft program;some Earth-oriented space photogra-phy has been obtained through themanned space-flight programs; and ananalog of the television camera sys-tems that are planned for ERIS A andB was tested on the S065 experimenton APOLLO 9.

All these data sources and experi-mental programs have been developedby NASA in close cooperation withthe Departments of Agriculture, In-terior, Commerce, and Navy. The aca-demic and industrial communities alsohave been included in this programthrough direct NASA support andthrough cooperative programs with theuser agencies.

Experience date with a largevariety of data sources and extensiveanalysis programs indicates that wecan, with continuing cooperation ofthe user agencies, move toward ourgoal which has been stated in NASA'sreport to the President's Space TaskGroup as:

"To establish a capability for re-sponsible management of the Earthresources and human environment."

Academic Lag in Applications

Needless to say, both material andmanpower resources are essential tothe success of any program. But whilematerial resources can be allocated orshifted between priorities, resources ofexperienced and competent manpowercan hardly be produced on demand.This is another way of saying that tobe able to make the most of our spacecapabilities for service to man, we shallalso need in greater numbers scientists,engineers and administrators, whounderstand the Earth's ecology as wellas spacecraft technology and capabili-ties. For our space science and explor-ation programs we have in the past andshall continue to engage the best talentin NASA Centers and the academic

community. It is important to involvethe scientists in universities becausethey can feed the newly acquiredknowledge directly into the main-stream of our academic life, thusmaking it possible for us to get newPhD's who have teethed on some ofour new programs. Yet, I feel we havenot had academic involvment in appli-cations sciences to the same extent asin pure science, and I consider this tobe one of our vital needs for thefuture. I can judge this need from thefact that in inviting proposals forexperiments from universities weusually receive about 10 to 15 ofpurely scientific nature to one or twothat are oriented to understanding thebasic problems of the ecology of theEarth.

Another good reason for strengthen-ing our academic orientation towardapplications is the greater opportuni-ties that will become available later inthis decade through the Space Shuttle.We are presently studying ways ofdelivering and supporting both applica-tions and exploration payloadsthrough the use of the Shuttle. Ourstudies are aimed at ways of reducingspace transportation costs, and ofmaximizing the results we obtain fromthe payloads we place in space.

Ways of the World

While we are discussing the role ofthe academic community in orientingthe coming generations of scientistsand engineers to the needs and oppor-tunities ahead, I should like to suggestif I may the cultivation of one moreattribute in the well-informed andhighly enthusiastic youth of today. Ifeel the academic community is doinga splendid job in imparting technicaleducation to an exceptionally brightgeneration of budding engineers andscientists. I only wish it were possiblefor them to have also the benefit ofsome courses in the "ways of the

outside world" before leaving the ivy-covered halls of academe. For the factis that knowledge of this naturewhich at present is primarily acquiredthrough experience is essential evenprior to beginning the practice of one'sprofession. We have no lack of compe-tent and imaginative teachers in ouracademic community, so I shall letthem work out the de-tails of such a curriculum.

A

"Whereas primitive man was once at themercy of 'the elements, we are fast ap-proaching the time when both 'civilized'man and his environment, the elements, willbe at the mercy of his wastes."

7879

80

If-

79

11:

COOPERATIVE INTERNATIONAL VENTURES OF 60S AFORM BASES FOR BENEFICIAL PROGRAMS OF 70S inInterview with Arnold W. PunkinAssistant Administrator for International Affairs

Extensive participation of international scientific community in US space efforts providesprototypes for applications programs oriented to the global needs of man

Cooperation with other nations, inthe conduct of aeronautical and spaceactivities, is one of the clearly statedobjectives of our charter, as providedby the National Aeronautics and SpaceAct of 1958. We have been seriouslyinterested in such cooperation, andhave devoted considerable time andenergy over the last ten years to thedevelopment of meaningful workingrelationships. It has been a rewardingexperience in most respects, thoughdisappointing in some others. I wantto emphasize first the progress we havemade in joint ventures in space.

Cooperatively Funded Projects

Since the start of the Sixties, NASAhas entered into nearly 250 agree-ments for international space projects.These have comprised specific kinds ofundertakings with tangible resultsnot simply meetings and discussions.Such projects have been funded co-operatively by the participants, andnot through the export of dollars.

These agreements have been madewith some 35 separate countries, whilebroader programs involve the scientificcommunities of about 70 countries.The most significant form of coopera-tive activity has probably been thelaunching by NASA boosters of satel-lites developed by other nations. Anexample of such activity is the $100million HELIOS project with Ger-many. We also solicit proposals forexperiments from abroad, to be selec-ted on their merits, for flight in ourown satellites. We have participated inover 500 cooperative soundings of the

_atmosphere by rocket, from sitesquarters of the world. Right now,some 50 foreign scientists are involvedin the analysis of lunar surface sam-ples. We have made it possible forsome 50 countries to have direct dailyreception of data from our weathersatellites, using simple equipment oftheir own, and we have engaged in

"We have been seriously interested in international cooperation, and have devoted considerabletime and energy over the last ten years to the development of meaningful workingrelationships."

major ground stations in a dozencountries in the experimental testingof communication satellites.

Arrangements exist also for the ex-tensive participation of foreign tech-nicians in the operation of our over -seas tracking and data acquisition facil-ities. The United Kingdom, Canada,Australia, Spain and South Africaactually run stations for us. And lastly,we have provided important inter-national training and information pro-grams. There are some equally signifi-can r- couperative -OM j detc ricief:takings with British, Canadian, Frenchand German agencies.

The total list of cooperative effortsis much too extensive to cover indetail here. The significant aspects ofthese undertakings are the cost savings,the scientific and technological bene-

fits, the impetus to space research, andthe strengthening of working relation-ships with the world's scientific com-munities. These are aspects that bene-fit all the participants and provideincentives for further efforts of inter-national scope.

Now, what can we learn from ourexperience in the Sixties, to use asguidelines for more rewarding inter-national relationships in our field ofendeavor in the Seventies?

We can look at thv considerablespectrum and international impact ofour joint efforts, and conclude that inthe first decade of space explorationwe haven't done so badly. Or we canface up to aspects where we haven'tbeen as successful as we could havebeen, and attempt to correct deficien-cies keeping in mind that success in

81

"Since the start of the Sixties NASA hasentered into nearly 250 agreements forinternational space projects."

cooperative ventures requires the con-sent and commitment of at least twopartners.

Perhaps we should consider as amajor deficiency the fact that we havebeen only marginally successful inengaging the Soviet Union's interestand participation in cooperative aero-space efforts.

Repeat Invitation to the USSR

In accordance with the express de-sires of four United States Presidents,and many members of the Congress,NASA has throughout its historysought to engage the Soviet Union incooperative space ventures. Bilateralagreements for four specific projectsresulted from the Dryden-Blagonravovtalks of 1962-65. These projects in-cluded satellite meteorology, commun-ications, geomagnetic surveying, andspace biology and medicine. But theseagreements provided solely for coordi-nated efforts, rather than integratedprojects. Regrettably, the progressachieved under these limited agree-ments has been disappointing. A greatmany other U.S. initiatives over theyears have not gained any responsefrom the Soviet side.

Over the past months, formerNASA. Administrator, Dr. Thomas 0.Paine, wrote a new series of letters toPresident Keldysh and AcademicianBlagonravov of the Soviet Academy ofSciences, proposing new initiatives inspace cooperation. These letters in-vited Soviet scientists to:

Propose experiments to fly onour spacecraft.

4o. Use. the laser reflector left o.n.the..Moon by the Apollo 11 astronauts.

Participate in the analysis oflunar surface material.

Attend a conference on theNASA Viking Mars mission.

Discuss compatible docking ar-rangements in space.

In addition, Dr. Paine offered to

discuss the coordination of our respec-tive planetary programs, and reiteratedour readiness to meet to consider anypossibilities for cooperation betweenour nations.

The Soviet Response

President Keldysh replied, agreeingthat Soviet-American cooperation inspace "bears a limited character at thepresent time and there is need for itsfurther development". He acceptedDr. Paine's suggestion for a meeting onthis question, but deferred its time andplace. He declined our specific invita-tion of Soviet proposals for experi-ments aboard NASA planetary probes,advocating instead, a relationship inwhich NASA and the Soviet Academywould coordinate "planetary goals"and "exchange results" of unmannedplanetary investigations.

In September 1970, PresidentKeldysh indicated an interest in takingup Dr. Paine's suggestion that weexplore compatible docking arrange-ments for Soviet and NASA space-craft. It was then agreed that fiveNASA representatives should meetwith their Soviet counterparts onOctober 26-27 for preliminary discus-sions.*

Another deficiency in the spaceefforts of the Sixties was the absenceof foreign participation in the develop-ment of such major space items as theSaturn vehicle and the Apollo space-craft. Undoubtedly, other countriesdid not feel equipped yet to contri-bute to these demanding activities, andour national commitment to lunarlanding, within the decade, left verylittleleeway- for them to .catchup''within the time frames we had set forourselves. However, just as in the caseof the Soviet cooperation "gap", we

*An agreement for compatible docking arrange-ments was signed in Moscow on October 28, 1970.

"It is not difficult to envisage in gross form the types of arrangements appropriate to importantcooperative ventures. We can foresee, for example, participation in clearly separable tasks withwell-defined interfaces, and participation with NASA in the development of integral systems orsubsystems."

82 83

84

"We are hopeful that the benefits of joint space efforts will enhance the healthy growth ofinternational participation, and motivate the Soviet Union also to enter into substantivecooperation."

are now taking definite steps to inviteinternational participation in ourmajor hardware programs of the fu-ture.

Dr. Paine's Briefing Tour

At President Nixon's request, inOctober -1969 Dr.. Paine visited -the--major European capitols with a specif-ic mission: to inform ministerial andspace agency officials, including seniorofficials of the European Space Con-ference, of the detailed U.S. plans forspace exploration and utilization overthe next two decades.

We made a similar brief trip to

Canada in December 1969, and an-other in the early Spring of 1970 toAustralia and Japan. In all of thesecountries, Dr. Paine described theprincipal elements of our future spaceprograms the balanced science andapplication programs, the reusableSpace Shuttle, the multi-purposeSpace -Static n,- 'and- the 'advanced -nu,'clear stage as recommended in thereport of the President's Space TaskGroup. In each of these countries weinvited careful study of our plans sothat each nation could assess the impli-cations of our proposed future ad-vances for their own planning, so theycould determine what interest they

83

might have in constructive participa-tion in these programs.

To support this initiative and helppotential participants acquire the in-formation they need to determine theextent and nature of their interests, wehave already taken several additionalconcrete steps:

(1) In October 1969, NASA con-vened in Washington a conference ofindustrial firms to critique conceptsfor the Space Shuttle and to lay outdesign considerations for the nextsteps in the program to develop theShuttle. At our invitation, some forty-three foreign participants and observ-ers attended from Germany, France,the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,Canada, Sweden, and Italy, as well asthe European Launcher DevelopmentOrganization.

(2) As a next step we invited repre-sentatives of the European Space Con-ference, the European Space ResearchOrganization (ESRO), the EuropeanLauncher Development Organization(ELDO), and many of the nationalagencies with which we deal bilaterally(including Canada, Australia, Japan,Brazil, India and others) to attend aquarterly review of NASA space sta-tion studies in March. Seventeen coun-tries were represented.

(3) We briefed several hundredEuropean officials, scientists, and in-dustrial people in Europe, in June,July and September 1970, on theShuttle and Space Statiun programs.

(4) Further arrangements for infor-mation exchange in this early periodof planning and study for the newprograms of the 1970's are being made

-so -that--other- interested- natious tan'both observe and contribute. Forinstance, foreign participation was in-vited, and will be next year, in elabo-rate summer studies of requirementsfor the future Space Station.

(5) ESRO and ELDO have both setup full-time liaison offices with NASAin Washington, and have provided

them representation on our supportingtechnology steering committees forthe Space Station and the Space Shut-tle. On their side, the European SpaceConference has already voted funds tothe extent of several million dollars forearly studies of possible contributionsto the post-Apollo program.

The Way Is Open

The degree to which other nationswill decide to participate in the majordevelopmental programs of the futuredepends on decisions that only theycan make.

Certainly, many have the technicalcapacity and financial strength to par-ticipate. Only if they do so can therebe a fully equitable sharing of both thebenefits and the costs of space explo-ration and utilization. At present allof the "third" countries togetherspend roughly $300 million a year onspace. This is an order of magnitudeless than the space expenditures of theUnited States and, we believe, of theSoviet Union.

Should other industrialized coun-tries decide to allocate larger amountsof their resources to cooperative pro-grams in space, the way will be openfor their participation in the develop-ment of the large-scale systems. Webelieve these systems are going to payimportant scientific and technologicaldividends in the future. We also believethat the Shuttle and the Space Stationwill reduce the costs and totallychange the manner of conductingspace experiments in both science andapplications. This will come about asthese facilities-make it easier' fur men'to work in space, giving us capabilitiesfor servicing and repairing space sys-tems, and even permitting us to re-trieve and reprogram experiments.

Decisions Take Time

It is not too early to discuss in

detail such benefits, nor is it too earlyto lay the basic founciu_ions to futurecooperation on such programs. We dorecognize that decisions of this magni-tude cannot be made overnight, with-out the development of adequate in-formation bases. It is for this reasonthat we have, invited our colleaguesfrom other countries to attend ourinternal management sessions, studyreviews and conferences even toestablish permanent liaison offices inWashington. Their closer orientationto these forthcoming projects duringthe planning phase of this year shouldmake it easier to organize the mech-anisms of their eventual participation.

These are, of course, decisions to bemade by them, and not by NASA. Wecertainly want to provide maximumscope for the making of such de-cisions, and here timing is important.That is, with the passage of time weshall be approaching commitment todesign and development, and shallhave less leeway ourselves.

Models For Cooperation Exist

It is not too difficult to envisage ingross form the types of mechanisms orarrangements that may be appropriateto such important cooperative ven-tures; we already have had some tenyears of experience with joint efforts,though on smaller programs. We canforesee, for example, two basic typesof cooperative effort: (1) participationin clearly separable tasks with well-defined interfaces, and (2) participa-tion with, NASA in the development ofintegral systems or subsystems.

-In the first instance; our- establisiiedrelationships would apply throughagency-level agreements, employingjoint working groups to coordinate thetasks and assure the compatibility ofinterfaces.

In the second case, we would needto arrange, again through agency agree-ments, for a closer industry-to-in-

84 85

86

dustry interface, possibly on the basisof consortiums of companies fromboth sides. Since NASA would verylikely have the major responsibility,the prime contractor would certainlyhave to be American. Foreign govern-ments would fund their subcontractorparticipation. And to preserve managereffectiveness, the U.S. prime wouldhave a voice in the release of foreignfunds to the subcontractors.

Even though it is still quite early fordetailed discussions, we are pleased tosee some evidence of European focuson the Shuttle and Space Stationprograms. As I indicated, ESRO isalready funding studies of a SpaceStation module and ELDO is fundingstudies of an orbit-to-orbit space tug,which would operate with the Shuttle.We are very hopeful that these prelimi-nary interests will be followed up anddevelop into participation of real sig-nificance. We are equally hopeful thatthe benefits of joint space efforts willenhance the healthy growth of inter-national participation, and motivatethe Soviet Union also to enter intosubstantive cooperation.

Sharing Support and Benefits

In concluding this brief review ofinternational space efforts, I can thinkof no words which summarize ouraspirations better than the assertionsmade earlier this year by PresidentNixon:

"... the United States will takepositive, concrete steps toward inter-nationalizing man's epic venture intospace an adventure that belongs notto- one nation but to all mankind. Ibelieve that both the adventures andthe applications of space missionsshould be shared by all peoples. Ourprgress will be faster and our accom-plishments greater if nations will jointogether in this effort, both in contri-buting the resources and in enjoyingthe benefits".

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMSUMMARY

The 1958 legislation creating NASAprovided that "the aeronautical andspace activities of the United Statesshall be conducted so as to contributematerially to ... cooperation by theUnited States with other nations andgroups of nations in work done pur-suant to this act and in the peacefulapplication of the results thereof."NASA's international programs, under-taken to implement this directive, canbe categorized in three principal areas:space sciences, space applications, andthe ground support of space opera-tions. (It should be noted that in thesecooperative programs, it is a cardinalprinciple that each side funds its ownparticipation.)

What follows is a brief, selectivesummary description of these pro-grams.

I. SPACE SCIENCES

Cooperative satellite projects are amajor element of international spacescience programs. In these projects,the foreign participant contributes thesatellite while NASA contributes thelaunching. NASA in effect gets a freesatellite, while the cooperating partnergets a free launching. To date therehave been 12 such cooperative launch-ings of spacecraft built by the UnitedKingdom, Canada, France, Italy andGermany, as well as by the EuropeanSpace Research Organization (ESRO).

The satellites launched in 1969 in-clude:

ISIS-A, a Canadian ionosphericresearch satellite, and

Azur, a German radiation beltexperiment.

Ten additional cooperative satelliteprojects have been agreed upon, andthere are prospects for the furthercontinuation and growth of coopera-

tive satellite programs. It is anticipatedthat Spain, Sweden and possiblyothers will be participating in thefuture. New projects are also beingplanned with present partners.

The. U.S. and Germany agreed lastyear to the most ambitious coopera-tive spacecraft effort yet undertaken.In this project, calied HELIOS, twoGerman spacecraft, carrying sevenGerman and three U.S. experiments,will be launched by NASA to makephysical measurements within about28,000,000 miles from the sun, closerthan any spacecraft has flown before.HELIOS will complement the NASAPioneer series of spacecraft in provid-ing total solar system coverage. Of thetotal project cost, estimated to exceed$100,000,000, Germany will bear themajor portion.

In addition to cooperative satellites,NASA also solicits foreign proposalsfor experiments to be flown on NASAsatellites. Twenty-two such experi-ments from France, the U.K., Italy,the Netherlands and Switzerland havebeen selected on their merits throughcompetition with U.S. and other pro-posals. Of these, 17 have been flownto date. Financial support was pro-vided by the foreign sponsors.Through this program, foreign scien-tists have opportunities to participatein useful flight research, while NASAgains access to outstanding space sci-ence capabilities in the internationalcommunity. The flight opportunity ismade available at no cost to theforeign cooperators who, in turn,make their experiments available at nocost to NASA.

The launching of foreign scientificspacecraft on a cost-reimbursable basisis an international activity of growingimportance. Already two ESRO satel-lites have been successfully orbitedunder such arrangements and fourmore are planned for the future. Dis-

cussions are also underway with othernations.

The program to analyze lunar sam-ples returned in the Apollo programnow includes 55 approved PrincipalInvestigators from 16 countriesAustralia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslo-vakia, Finland, Germany, India, Italy,Japan, Korea, Norway, South Africa,Spain, Switzerland and the U.K. Thusnations around the world are affordedthe opportunity to share, in a scientifi-cally significant way, in one of man'struly great endeavors. These investiga-tors, selected on the merits of theirproposals and with no U.S. financialsupport, are performing a full range ofphysical, chemical, minerological andbiological experiments on the lunarsamples, along with their 139 Ameri-can colleagues. Other important inter-national participation in Apollo 11included:

A Swiss solar wind experimentplaced on the lunar surface and laterretrieved by the astronauts.

A laser reflector left on thelunar surface and announced as avail-able to all countries (and already inuse by France).

Sounding rocket programs representa broad area of international coopera-tion, some nineteen countries havingjoined with NASA in projects of mutu-al interest. Because of the low costs ofsounding rocket work, countries with-out the resources for satellite projectsare able to participate directly in validscientific space flight projects. In addi-tion, the small launching facilities de-veloped in such countries as Brazil,India, Argentina and Pakistan havebeen available to NASA soundingrocket programs that have requiredspecial launch locations for researchinto polar, auroral and equatorialphenomena. More than half of NASA'stotal sounding rocket effort is in col-laboration with foreign partners, withlaunchings in 14 different countries.

More than 40 countries have beeninvolved in a wide range of cooperativeground-based observations, as distin-guished from flight projects. Scientistsabroad have been able to carry outsuch observations in support of or-biting satellite projects in such fields asionospheric studies and geodesy. Manyof these complementary ground activ-ities have actually been necessary toachieve flight program objectives.

A variety of research and trainingopportunities for foreign scientists andengineers in space-related science andengineering at U.S. universities andNASA centers are available and haveso far involved more than 1,000 in-dividuals from some 40 countries. Inmany cases the participants in theseprograms have returned to their coun-tries to serve as the nucleus aroundwhich national space organizations andprograms have developed.

II. SPACE APPLICATIONS

Experimental communications satel-lites have for the past decade been amajor element in international collab-oration. In the early Relay, Telstar andSyncom experiments a dozen coun-tries built ground terminals at theirown expense to work with NASA intesting these satellites. From this be-ginning has evolved the 74-memberINTELSAT consortium which hasgreatly expanded telecommunicationscapacity internationally, reduced costssubstantially, and provided real-timeTV coverage in large portions of theglobe. NASA also provides reimburs-able launchings for foreign nationalcommunications satellites; U.K. andCanada satellites will be the first.

Under a major new agreement withIndia, NASA will make available itsATS-F satellite for a one-year Indianinstructional television experiment.Villages equipped with augmented TVreceivers will receive programs on pop-

87

88

ulation control and agricultural pro-ductivity while the technical feasibilityof satellite TV direct broadcast istested in an operational setting.

NASA's efforts in the weather satel-lite and rocket field have been stronglyinfluenced by international concerns.Meteorological satellites now routinelydeployed have been designed so thatnations everywhere can use inexpen-sive (or easy-to-build) Automatic Pic-ture Transmission (APT) sets to obtaindaily weather prospects directly fromU.S. satellites. These sets are in use insome 50 countries. And regular, coor-dinated weather rocket soundings on aNorth-South line in the Western Hemi-sphere have been undertaken in anInter-American Experimental Meteoro-logical Rocket Network (EXAMET-NET). Since inception in 1966 ourpartners in Argentina and Brazil havelaunched more than 100 rockets,synchronized with similar launchingsfrom various U.S. sites.

NASA is also engaged with Francein a cooperative meteorological satel-lite and balloon project, EOLE, to testthe feasibility of such a system fortracking global winds. Balloon andsatellite launchings are scheduled forlate this year. Cooperation in anadvanced synchronous weather satel-lite project is under discussion withFrance.

Earth Resources Surveys (ERS).Pre-satellite emphasis in the ERS areahas been on actions to inform theinternational community about theevolving U.S. program, to provide ori-entation and training, and mount air-craft-based programs in preparationfor the use of later satellite data.Cooperative aircraft programs withBrazil and Mexico are proceeding andremote sensing techniques are beingmade available to India for the identif-ication of areas of coconut palm blightin Kerala state. In addition, the U.S. iscooperating with Canada in the devel-

871

opment of sensors, NASA's fellowshipprogram is being extended to coverremote sensing-related disciplines, andbriefings have been arranged for inter-national groups, such as the UN OuterSpace Committee.

III. SPACE OPERATIONSSUPPORT

The tasks of tracking, communica-ting with and acquiring data from themultitude of NASA's manned andautomated spacecraft have requiredthe extensive and intimate partic-ipation of 21 countries. Some 25stations around the world are at pre-sent operated with active support, andoften direct staffing, by nationals ofthe host countries. In several locations,the costs of operating the stations areborne by the host countries. NASAmaintains close ties with the ESROand French tracking networks, andspecific project support exchangearrangements are increasing in number.

Extensive operational arrangementshave been made with dozens of coun-tries in Africa, Asia and South Amer-ica for the staging and overflight ofU.S. aircraft in conjunction with con-tingency assistance operations for theMercury, Gemini and Apollo pro-grams.

COOPERATIVE INTERNATIONALAERONAUTICS RESEARCH

France

NASA and ONERA, the Frenchcivilian aeronautics research agency,are conducting a cooperative windtunnel research project to test rigidand flexible tilt rotors for V/STOLaircraft. The rotors are being testedwith various distributions of twist andcamber, simulating the effect of aero-elasticity on blade shape. This researchwill contribute to rotor-prop designstate-of-the-art. High speed tests

(approximately 200-500 knots) arebeing conducted in ONERA's S-1 windtunnel, and low speed tests (0-200knots) in the Ames 40' x 80' tunnel.NASA is providing the rotors.ONERA's conducting the S-1 windtunnel tests at no charge to NASA.Data resulting from the program willbe shared.

NASA has contracted with LTV(subcontract with the Giravions-Dorand Company of France) to lookinto the most promising applicationsof the Jet-Flap Rotor, which wasdesigned and developed by Giravions-Dorand.

In 1966 NASA contracted for 20hours of flight time on the Breguet941 STOL aircraft. This aircraft wasrecently used by Eastern and American Airlines to study the possibleapplication of a STOL aircraft forcommercial short-haul transport use inthe Northeast Corridor.

Germany

NASA and BMBW (German Min-istry for Education and Sciences) haveagreed to two cooperative efforts re-lated to the Do-31 aircraft, a uniqueadvanced jet V/STOL transport. Inthe first, the stability, control, andhandling qualities of the Do-31 havebeen studied during landing, transitionand descent phases of flight on theNASA/Ames 60-of-freedom simulator.In the second, NASA pilots will fly theDo-31 for approximately 121/2 hours.The purpose of the flight program is toexamine the handling qualities and theperformance limitations of the Do-31under various VTOL and STOL descent and ascent conditions. Terminalarea operating problems of the aircraftwill also be studied. NASA's contribu-tion is to take the form of a $700,000contract with Dornier, the Do-31 de-veloper. Do-31 development wasfunded by the German Government at

8,889

90

COOPERATIVE PROJECTS :9

5

Jz0

0

L,46

NASA

INTERNATI NA).

.ACTIVITIES SUMMARYft MI 1,11,1 II) ISM SRI WO

LOCATION

PROIECTSLIGHT

z.r: =WE

L'lt±i

Y

Se,92

F.4

1

;;4'94.414t31C5sig.9.

GROUNDPROIECT

=J-

2'jnUn

480

BASEDroR:

iI

tig

i

PERSONNELEXCHANGES--,--,--,w6r.n,..2L.,

3'ii§Z1=85

55RAn

'''t5j

0P

i'l'P

ut29

ARGENTINA 0 0 0 0AUSTRALIA 0AUSTRIA 0BAHRAIN

BELGIUM 0BOLIVIA 0BRAZIL 0BURMA 0CANADA 0CEYLON

I

CHAD

CHILE 0 oCHINA, REPUBLIC OF

COLOMBIA 0 0 0COSTA RICA 0CYPRUS

I ICZECHOSLOVAKIA 0DENMARK

GREENLAND

ECUADOR

EL SALVADOR

ETHIOPIA

ESRO 2/ 0FINLAND

FRANCE 0 0GUADELOUPE

TAHITI

GERMANY, FED. REP. OF 0 0GHANA

GREECE 0 0HUNGARY

_ ICELAND 0 IINDIA

INDONESIA 0(SAN o oIRAQ 0IRELAND

ISRAEL 0ITALY 0JAMAICA 0 0JAPAN 0KENYA

KOREA 0MADAGASCAR

MALAYSIA

MALDIVL ISLANDS

MAURITIUS 0MEXICO 0 0NETHERLANDS 0 0 0 0 0

COOPERATIVE PROJECTS,,,

c2z

VA46Z,

N A

INTERNA ONALACTIVITIES SUMMARY

1 sn , ,,,,, Ill ,Z.., . ,,,,,

LOCATION

P OEs 7.58MORD

r..-

<O

ti

PERSONNELEXCHANGES

r,=,

u<Z i

EE',,U.t.-Et.4....<z.:It9,2?...i

65,

915171815r.ca=1;2:::172,,F,

3

o

0

e,

R Por.ti;tt<;11gori5H zr4

i,t,u2s,d,-'4

NEW ZEALAND I 0 0NIGERIA 0NORWAY 0 0 0PAKISTAN o 0PERU oPHILIPPINES

POLAND

PORTUGAL 0ANGOLA IP

IMOZAMBIQUE 0I QATAR 0

SENEGAL 0NGAPORE

SOUTH AFRICA 0 0 0SOUTHERN RHODESIA

SOUTHERN YEMEN 0SPAIN

SUDAN 0SWEDEN 0 0 0 0

SWITZERLAND 0TANZANIA 0THAILAND 0TURKEY

UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC 0UNITED KINGDOM 0

ANTIGUA

ASCENSION ISLAND

BERMUDA 0CANTON ISLAND 0FIJI ISLANDS

GRAND BAHAMA

HONG KONG

URUGUAY 0USSR V

VENEZUELA 0ZAMBIA

TOTAL PARTICIPATION 6 5 V 16 42 14 66 13 3 4 37 20 21 26

CURRENT 0 COMPLETED PROJECT OR DISCONTINUED ACTIVITY

a EUROPEAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION (BELGIUM, DENMARK, FED. REP. OF GERMANY,FRANCE, ITALY, NETHERLANDS, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, UNITED KINGDOM),

Y AGREEMENTS PROVIDE FOR:

(I) COOPERATIVE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE EXPERIMENTS VIA ECHO,

(2) COORDINATED LAUNCHINGS OF NATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL SATELLITES ANDDATA EXCHANGE,

(3) LAUNCHINGS OF NATIONAL SATELLITES EQUIPPED FOR MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTSAND EXCHANGE OF PROCESSED DATA, AND

(4) JOINT REVIEW OF SPACE BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE.

.21 INCLUDES EARLY CORRELATED GROUND DATA AND CURRENT APT USE.

1/FOREIGN VISITORS TO NASA FACILITIES,

VINCLUDES ELECTRONIC AND OPTICAL (SAO) STATIONS.

;Dijt.:'

a cost of over $40 million. The presentflight test program is being funded bythe Germans at a level of approxi-mately $6 million.

United Kingdom

NASA and the U.K. Ministry ofTechnology (Mintech) are cooperatingin testing the British Hunting-126 Jet-Flap STOL aircraft in the Amos40' x 80' wind tunnel.

NASA and Mintech cooperated inconducting runway tire traction testsat Wallops Station in June 1968. Forthese studies the British provided aHeavy Load Friction Trailer and as-sociated equipment. Follow-up tests asan extension of this program wereconducted in the U.K. during thesummer of 1969.

The University of Southampton'sInstitute of Sound and Vibration Re-search is one of the foremost researchlaboratories in the world on aircraftnoise problems. NASA has contractedwith the Institute for noise researchand two Langley engineers are pur-suing graduate level research at theUniversity.

In 1966, Defense Dept., transferredto NASA two Hawker-Siddeley P-1127aircraft for NASA to study the vec-tored thrust VTOL characteristics ofthe aircraft under visual and simulatedIFR conditions. This program is toextend until 1971 with the intentionof accumulating about 125 flighthours.

In 1966 and 1967 the then Ministryof Aviation (now part of Mintech) andNASA cooperated in conducting re-search on disturbances associated withsevere thunderstorms, mountainwaves, and tropical storms. BothBritish and U.S. aircraft were used.

Canada

NASA and the Canadian aeronauti-cal research and development authori-

ties are conducting a wind tunnelresearch project to study the "aug-mentor wing" concept, a promisingwing configuration for STOL aircraftthat originated with the De HavillandCompany of Canada. A second phaseof this project, involving the testing ofthe concept on a small research ve-hicle, is presently under discussion.

4-90

A

91

taAC

ttlA'

"; te

a

. t

.°.;3

'P 4/0t1

1% 00 0

0 oC t

11

, Nottl :4P.t, s

92 91

t

CSi

OFFICE OF TRACKING & DATA ACQUISITION AMAINTAINS LIFELINES TO SPACE MISSIONS /ItInterview with H. R, BrockettDeputy Associate Administrator for Tracking and Data Acquisition

NASA's three specialized communications networks around the world provide the vital linksbetween Earth and spacecraft, to render mission support and gather space data

NASA's Office of Tracking andData Acquisition is in business pri-marily to perform a support function.We don't operate to conduct experi-ments, but conduct experiments onlyto improve our operations. And in theprocess of providing the vital commun-ications link for complex space mis-sions we do our best not to contributeto complexity and become "a part ofthe problem."

Tracking and Data Acquisition tech-niques have come of age with theevolution of the space program. InProject Mercury we had a flight con-troller at each of our 16 groundstations; we now have centralized mis-sion control from the Manned Space-craft Center in Houston. Also, whereasearlier we could only depend on some-times-reliable High Frequency com-munications with our distant trackingstations, we now have a combinationof several more reliable modes ofcommunication available. With theoperational capability provided by theIntelsat II global communication satel-lites system (January, 1967), we havehad satellite, cable, or a combinationof both modes of communicationsavailable for the Apollo missions. Also,while we were able to maintain con-tact with the Mercury spacecraft,which was in low Earth orbit, for only15% of mission duration, now oncethe Apollo spacecraft reaches an alti-tude of about 8000 miles we are ableto cover these missions 100%. Asevidenced during the Apollo 13 mis-sion, continuous coverage of missionprogress may provide a life-line out ofcontingencies. This type of experiencewill figure in our consideration of datarelay stations which I will discuss later.

A first-order breakdown of thefunctions of the Office of Trackingand Data Acquisition is reflected inFig. 1, and a breakdown of our FY1971 budget request is illustrated inpie-chart form in Fig. 2. As implied bythe apportionment of funding in this

"Nothing in the universe is in a static state, therefore we need to observe and record changingphenomena over extended periods, in order to determine trends."

chart, network operations constitutethe major sector of our current activi-ties, and the principal activities withinthis area are the operation of threemajor tracking and data acquisitionnetworks. These networks are oper-ated to meet the needs of the threebasic classes of NASA flight missions.Thus we have: (a) the Manned SpaceFlight Network which, of course, sup-ports the Manned Flight Program; (b)the Satellite Network which supportsunmanned scientific and applicationssatellites; and (c) the Deep SpaceNetwork which supports unmannedlunar and planetary missions.

Manned Flight Network

This network consists of 12 land-based stations located between plus or

32

minus 32° latitude, and an instru-mented ship and four aircraft forcovering special portions of mannedmissions. Because of the visible role ofthis network in manned missions, itsfunction is in general well understood.The many years of experience gainedduring the support of the Mercury,Gemini, and early Apollo missionscontributed greatly to the mannedexploration of the moon. In the pro-cess, from lift-off to splashdown thenetwork provided the means for theworld to share the sounds and sights ofman's epic journey beyond the Earth.

This network is currently support-ing the Apollo Lunar Surface Experi-ments Package (ALSEP) left on themoon's surface by the Apollo 12astronauts. All the ALSEP data, now

93

FUNCTIONS

NASA OFFICE.OF TRACKING AND DATA ACQUISITION

Development, installation & operation

Instrumentation, systems & facilities

Acquire, record, process & transmit

Operational & scientific data

NASA programs

Management of NASA's global communications network (NASCOM)

Coordination & management of NASA-wide automated data processing.. ....

Support of NASA's administrative communications network

Fig. 1

Frequency rnanagernent for NASA

94 t- 93

GIDA R&D, BUDGET REQUESTFISCAL YEAR 101

TOTAL $298 MILLION

SUSTAINING -

EQUIPMENT

SUPPORTINGRESEARCH & TECH.

NEW FLIGHT PROJECTS'REQUIREMENTS

Fig. 2

,} 94

transmitted from the moon 24-hoursper day, will continue to be recordedover the entire two-year lifetime of theexperiments.

The network also serves to supporta considerable number of unmannedmissions of NASA and other govern-ment agencies through selected sta-tions; it provides support also to pri-vate industry COMSAT during theearly launch phase of its satellites.

Satellite Network

This network consists of facilities at10 United States and foreign locations;we consider this as our workhorsenetwork because it is currently sup-porting close to 50 active satellites.The Goddard Space Flight Center, atGreenbelt, Maryland is the nerve cen-ter for this network. The support ofthis network extends to all of theunmanned Applications satellites andScientific satellites of NASA andESSA (Environmental Science ServicesAdministration), the scientific and re-search satellites of various DOD agen-cies, and the satellites of cooperativeprograms with other countries. Thenetwork provides support also to pri-vate industry COMSAT.

In addition to performing its normalsupport functions, the Satellite Net-work is at times called upon to copewith various mission exigencies. TheOrbiting Solar Observatory (050-6)and the Applications Technology Sat-ellite (ATS-5), both launched last year,were provided such support throughthe network's near-real-time commandcapability. As a result the scientificdata return was increased significantlyfrom the 050-6 mission, and a prob-able mission failure was averted in thecase of the ATS-5.

This network will continue to sup-port, through FY 1971, many of thesatellites presently in operation, aswell as ten new spacecraft scheduledfor launch in this period. We shall

95

96

continue to make adjustments in sup-port priorities and make greater use ofexisting equipment to meet the pro-jected workload. And to improve theutilization of existing equipment, inthe Satellite Network, we are planningto incorporate Station Technical Oper-ations Control (STOC) consoles, whichwere deferred by funding constraintsin prior years. The STOC system willaugment network capability by cen-tralizing many routine station func-tions and allowing rapid check-out ofelectronic systems; it will also permitthe station equipment to be madeavailable more quickly to support suc-cessive satellite passes. During thisFiscal Year we shall also completemost of the network augmentationrequired for the Earth Resources Tech-nology Satellite (ERTS). This includesthe procurement of control centercomputer peripherals, display and con-trol equipment, and wideband re-corders at the stations, to handle bothPulse Code Modulation and video sig-nals.

Requirements for gathering and pro-cessing satellite data have continued toincrease steadily with newer applica-tions. As a result, the network hasreached the point where it has thecapacity to support only a portion ofthe spacecraft passes, and a high levelof equipment reliability has becomeessential. Many of the electronic sys-tems at the stations are six or moreyears old, and they have been operat-ing continuously since they were in-stalled. Consequently, we are nowapproaching a common dilemmathat of the man who not only needs tospend more and more time and moneyto keep his vintage car operable, butalso has difficulty finding replacementparts for it.

Regarding the need to gather satel-lite data over extended spans of time,we are sometimes asked why it isnecessary to continue gathering the"same" data, over and over, for

95

months or years. The answer is thatthe data being gathered are seldom thesame. Nothing in the universe is in astatic state, and we need to observeand record changing phenomena overextended periods, in order to deter-mine trends.

Deep Space Network

NASA's extremely long-distancemissions, the planetary missions, aresupported by this network which to-gether with the Manned Space FlightNetwork supports also the Apollo mis-sions.

This network consists of groundstations with 85-foot diameter anten-m-spaced--appfoximately 120° apartin longitude around the world. Wehave a 210-foot antenna at Goldstone,California, and are installing additionalones in Spain and Australia, for opera-tion in 1973.

The major planetary flight programsupported last year by this networkwas the highly successful Mariner '69mission our first dual-flight sci-entific exploration of another planet.

A new high data rate telemetrysystem 16,200 bits per second, al-most 2,000 times greater than that ofMariner 4 and 5 aboard the Marinerspacecraft and the use of the 210 -foot- diameter antenna at Goldstoneallowed for the acquisition of a largenumber of approach, or far-encounterpictures. The Mariner 6 spacecrafttook 50 such 'pictures, providing fullplanet views during two rotations ofMars. Mariner 7 sent back 93 far-encounter pictures, showing the chang-ing view of Mars during three rotationsof the planet. As the twin spacecraftneared the planet, 57 high andmedium-resolution pictures of selectedMartian surface areas were obtainedand later transmitted to the Goldstonestation. All 200 television picturesacquired from the two Mariners weredisplayed on TV monitors in the con-

"The degree to which various countries participate in tracking activities varies widely,depending on the availability of skilled labor in each host country."

trol center at the Jet Propulsion Labo-ratory, as they were received from thespacecraft. This immediate display wasmade possible by the high-rate telem-etry system, the 210-foot-diameter an-tenna, and a microwave link fromGoldstone to J PL.

Four on-going Pioneer missions, andMariner 6 and 7 spacecraft are receiv-ing support in the extended missionphase during FY 1971, Substantialengineering effort is being undertakento ready the Deep Space Network forsupport of the Mariner '71 mission andto provide multi-mission capability forsuch approved, future programs asPioneer F and G, Mariner/Mercury '73and the German-NASA cooperativeHELIOS project in 1974 and 1975.When the new 210-foot antenna sites

in Australia and Spain become opera-tional in 1973, together with the oneat Goldstone they shall provide athree-station network capable of sup-porting the planetary missions to Jupi-ter which is over 400 million milesfrom Earth. It is interesting to notethat for such distances the round-triptravel time for radio signals whithtravel at the speed of light would be80 minutes.

International Cooperation

During the past year, the operationsof the two Deep Space Network sta-tions at Madrid, Spain, were assumedby the Spanish. Prior to that time, thestations' operating staffs were a com-bination of U.S. contractor personnel

96

and Spanish personnel from the Insti-tute Nacional de Tecnica Aeroespacial(INTA). As at other overseas locations,and in accordance with the inter-governmental agreements, we en-courage the host countries to partici-pate in the NASA program by furnish-ing operating personnel at the trackingstations. The degree to which thevarious countries participate varieswidely, depending on the availabilityof skilled labor within the host coun-try. The planned changeover in Spainhas benefitted both nations, and asevidenced by the stations' perform-ance in support of recent missions, hasbeen very successful.

In June 1969, the Government ofSpain and the United States extendedthe agreement under which NASA'stracking facilities near Madrid wereestablished and are operated. The orig-inal agreement, signed in January1964, for a term of ten years, wasextended for another ten years, to1984.

Arrangements were made also, inJune 1970, for mutual satellite track-ing support by the French CentreNational d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES)and NASA, whereby each agency willgive positive consideration to requestsfrom the other for network support intracking, data acquisition and com-mand activities of space vehicles whenthe workload permits. Tracking sup-port will be provided without chargeexcept where a request is made forreimbursement for additional costs di-rectly attributable to the support fur-nished.

This arrangement will be applicableto support by the French trackingstations in the Canary Islands, UpperVolta, Congo, South Africa, FrenchGuiana and France. NASA stationsinvolved will be primarily those of theSpace Tracking and Data AcquisitionNetwork (STADAN) in Australia,Madagascar, South Africa, Ecuador,Chile, England and the United States.

97

"Intergovernmental agreements provide our first-level working interfaces through the StateDepartment; then in some cases we have second-level interagency agreements betweenccuntries; and finally, as in most instances, we have a third-tier working interface a

contractual document."

Cooperation of this nature was madepossible through the design of Frenchequipment compatible with that of theUnited States tracking stations.

We have had a gratifying experienceworking with the scientists, engineersand technicians who man the trackingstations overseas. Intergovernmentalagreements provide our first-levelworking interfaces through the StateDepartment; then in some cases wehave second-level interagency agree-ments between countires; and finally,in most instances, we have a third-tierworking interface a contractualdocument.

Additional Support Services

We also provide instrumentationsupport for aeronautical flight research

98

programs conducted at the LangleyResearch Center, Hampton, Virginia,and at the Aerodynamics Test Rangeof the Flight Research Center,Edwards, California. Our role atLangley consists of telemetry supportto their collision avoidance and noiseabatement projects; while at the FlightResearch Center, which consists ofstations at Edwards, California, andEly, Nevada, we provide communica-tions, telemetry, tracking, and com-puting support to high-performanceaircraft and lifting-body projects.

In this category of short-durationsupport come also our tracking anddata acquisition services for the sound-ing rockets launched from WallopsStation, Virginia, where ground instru-mentation systems such as radar and

97

optical systems are operated and main-tained. By virtue of the equipment andexpertise available here, the WallopsStation has been another hub of in-ternational cooperative projects.

The Sounding Rocket Program hasbeen providing opportunities for co-operative efforts whereby both theexpenses and the acquired scientificdata are shared on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. Wallops also maintains a"lending library" of mobile radarsavailable for training foreign personneltoward cooperative projects. Argen-tina, Brazil, India, Pakistan, and Spainhave made use of this equipment.

Global Communications Network

Another function of the NASA Of-fice of Tracking and Data Acquisitionis the management of a worldwidecommunications network for coordi-nating activities among all stations. Wegather data, often in real time andsimultaneously from a variety ofspacecraft, and transmit these datafrom the network stations to theproject control centers. The NASACommunications System (NASCOM)provides this capability by linking to-gether the foreign and domestic track-ing stations, launch areas, test sites,and mission control centers. For thispurpose various combinations ofleased underseas cable circuits andmicrowave systems are utilized, as wellas satellite service from the Communi-cations Satellite Corporation(COMSAT).

Data Processing Function

In addition to facilities which gatherand transmit spacecraft data, we alsomaintain and operate large-scale, cen-tralized data processing facilities at theGoddard Space Flight Center. Thedata obtained from flight projectsmust be processed and presented in a

useable form to interested scientificinvestigators. This requires the filteringof noise from the data, determinationof the trajectory and attitude of thevehicle in space, and correlation of theexperiment data with other observa-tions. The objective of this process isto reduce the data to a form that canbe understood and interpreted by in-vestigators throughout the world.

Looking at Future Needs

This fast-expanding field of datamanagement activities including therequirements for initial acquisition,processing to suit users' needs, analysisby the users, and the utilization ofthese data presents our cluster ofchallenges for the Seventies. For ex-ample, in deep space telecommunica-tions we shall need the following: toprovide spacecraft telemetry at higherrates and at greater distances than nowpossible; to receive planetary landerdata directly from the lander space-craft; to be capable of the simultane-ous operation of several spacecraft;and to devise techniques for obtaininggreater tracking accuracies for ad-vanced planetary missions.

To increase the efficiency of ournetwork stations toward future re-quirements we expect to automate ourstation activities from the standpointof checkout, setup, and of minimizingturnaround time.

With the advent of extended capa-bility in communications satellites, weexpect to utilize more and more wide-band communications transmissionsfrom our network stations. This wouldmake it possible to eliminate the com-plex data processing equipment atremote stations, to simplify the opera-tion of such stations, to reduce costs,and to place the processing function inthe control center for more effectivemanagement.

We have also been studying require-ments for data relay satellites, for

providing continuous wideband com-munications suitable for missions suchas the Space Station and the EarthResources Satellite. With increasedcomputer capabilities aboard theSpace Station, and relay satellites, itshould be possible to send mission-data directly to the control center on amore or less continuous basis. Byhaving almost continuous coveragethrough the data relay satellite systemthe requirements for many of theground stations now needed for loworbiting satellites would be eliminated.

In another related area, that of theSpace Shuttle, we expect to see theclassical kinds of ground support to beminimized through heavy-emphasis onon-board guidance and navigation. Butwe expect to see some requirementsfor ground support for the missionphase between launch and orbital in-sertion. At any rate, such missionrequirements and many others shallcontinue to evolve with the progress ofthe Space Station and Shuttle defini-tion efforts. Also, before the conceptsof the Space Station and Shuttle mate-rialize we shall have the opportunityto test new data acquisition ap-proaches with the Skylab. We areconsidering, for example, methods ofcompressing telemetry data by filter-ing out O.K. conditions and acquiringanomalies only. This would, however,require the use of an on-site computer.

Lastly, with view of improving sup-port to deep space missions we areinvestigating the use of ever higherfrequencies (X-band systems), largerantenna apertures versus arrays ofsmaller structures, Laser communica-tions that may reduce antenna-sizerequirements for spacecraft, etc.

Viewing the rapid evolution of thetracking and data acquisition tech-nology we reach the obvious conclu-sion that communications techniquesin general are becoming morereliable and less expensive.

98

"We have had a gratifying experience work-ing with the scientists, engineers and tech-nicians who man NASA's tracking stationsoverseas."

99

I

100

99

MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVES ON 70'S NEEDS APROJECT TREND OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES IIIInterview with Bernard Moritz*Acting Associate Administrator for Organization and Management

High selectivity in choosing goals and management tools, sharper focus on system objectives andrequirements characterize NASA's austere approach to the Seventies

We are undergoing a period of re-ordered priorities. It is obvious that wewill have to operate in the earlySeventies with considerably lowerfunding that we did in the mid andlate-Sixties. Planning for future sys-tems will be a major effort in the earlySeventies, with follow-on large-scaledevelopment activity being dependentupon the availability of resources.

During the Seventies NASA will alsoemphasize effort toward space applica-tions based on the sound technologi-cal foundation established during theSixties. To benefit from the experi-ence accumulated during the Sixtieswe shall maintain the basic organiza-tion which has been responsibIc forthe f.",Iccesses of the Apollo; but at thesame time we should guard against atendency to meet the challenges of theSeventies with the success formulas ofthe Sixties. So organizational implica-tions are that changes will undoubted-ly take place, but these will be evolu-tionary in nature.

As far as managerial centralizationversus decentralization is concerned,we have always had some of both inNASA, and I don't foresee any drasticchanges one way or the other duringthe Seventies. This should apply alsoto program management aspects inNASA-contractor relationships; in gen-eral, our contractors have been quitesophisticated and have served theAgency well during the last decade, soI don't anticipate any changes in ourrelationships during this decade.

More Integrated Planning

If there are any changes to beexpected in NASA's decision-makingprocess for the future, these changeswill be directed mostly to the integra-tion of basic research pertinent to theSpace Shuttle. We shall have more

*Presently, Deputy Associate Administrator for Or-ganization and Management.

"A national challenge of a different nature in this decade may turn out to be the maintenanceof vitality in our science and technology, in the blare of social and ecological problemsimpinging on us from all sides."

4100 101

102

AlgtMard.

"Selectivity Is the keynote for the Seventies be it in the choosing of NASA goals, or in theassignment of our national priorities. Actually, the articulation of new goals for anorganization, or for a society, is one of its major managerial challenges. This is the kind ofdecision-making that promotes revitalization."

1 0 I

integration in our planning process forthe future, for one implication ofreduced resources is the need forgreater centralization to assure theapplication of these scarce resources tothe order of priorities. Nevertheless,the decision-making on research pro-jects will permit flexibility so as toretain a r.ormal measure of decentrali-zation.

Management Latitude for Centers

From a functional viewpoint, wehave always provided the Centers withroom for flexibility. We feel theCenters need management latitude tobe able to cultivate the spirit ofinnovation as a vital resource. We can'talways know the right answers toeverything here at Headquarters ...In the case of the Apollo Program wehad the Apollo Management Officelocated here in Washington; perhapswe could have been just as successful ifthe Apollo Management Office hadbeen at one of the Centers. We all havea natural tendency to repeat the pat-terns of our experience that have ledto success. Program requirements andneeds are seldom identical, however,so we must tailor our managementapproach to the peculiar needs of eachprogram or project. This is basicallythe way in which NASA managementviews most managerial tools and pro-cedures applied at the NASA-industryinterface.

For example, when we use a partic-ular structure of Phased Project Plan-ning approach to a project, this is notmeant to imply that it is the only wayto manage all NASA projects. Wedon't phase all projects the same way:at times we have merged "A" and "B"phases, and at others "B" and "C".These phases often overlap consider-ably. So we tend to bring these phasestogether to use resources as effectivelyas possible, without definite breakpoints. The important thing is to have

a continuous process of program/project evaluation. In essence, there-fore, we use Phased Project Planning asa general guideline; we don't apply itautomatically. This also characterizesour attitude toward Incentive Con-tracting in general. Because of thenature of our contracts we have neverused incentives to the extent thatDOD has and found them useful onlarge contracts. As our Director ofProcurement Mr. George j. Vecchiettihas often pointed out, we use incen-tives selectively on contract featuresthat are really significant, and want toguard against any procedures or tech-niques becoming ends in themselves.

Incentives of New Goals

Speaking in a broader sense, selec-tivity is the keynote for the Seventies

be it in the choosing of NASAgoals, or in the assignment of ournational priorities. Actually, the artic-ulation of new goals for an organiza-tion, or for a society, is one of itsmajor mil.nagerial challenges. This isthe kind of decision-making that pro-motes revitalization.

I believe one underlying reason forNASA's successes in the Sixties wasthe astuteness with which an entirehierarchy of attainable goals were se-lected in the first place; and many ofthese were founded on the scientificand technological concepts accumu-lated through the Fifties. ! also believethat it was in keeping with the conceptof near-term attainable objectives thatno spectacular space goals were pro-nounced by the President, earlier thisyear, when he announced our SpaceProgram for the Seventies.

Progress is Incremental

A national challenge of a differentnature in this decade may turn out tobe the maintenance of vitality in our

science and technology, in the blare ofsocial and ecological problems imping-ing on us from all sides. The pressuresof these problems may tend to erodepublic interest and support of sci-entific and technological endeavor ingeneral. But if such problems areconsidered important enough to de-serve national attention, they shouldalso merit translation into a hierarchyof lesser but attainable objectives, inthe true scientific tradition.

NASA's Space Applications pro-gram is actually paced by projects thatconstitute discrete, attainable objec-tives oriented at least to some of ourplanet's urgent problems; there arecertainly many other challenges, out-side NASA's domain, worthy of en-gaging the energy and idealism of ourarticulate youth sensitive to the socialissues of our times. But the phenom-enon of progress be it individual,social, scientific, or of any other kind

is an incremental process; whichmakes the establishment of incremen-tal, attainable goals the rational Aapproach to difficult objectives.

102 103

"ECONOMY THROUGH CONSCIENTIOUS HOMEWORK"Interview with William E. LillyAssistant Administrator for Administration

104

"The scarcity of funds in the 70s increases the importance of early investment in programdefinition, design, and necessary technological efforts that will pay cost saving dividends in thelong run."

103

We are continually challenged todevelop improvements in the manage-ment of NASA's programs which willmake the most of our resources in thecurrent period of rising cost andshrinking budgets.

Since we seldom procure systems inlarge quantities, the economies ob-tained by mass production are nottypical. Secondly, even though thework force has been decreasing, thecost of its maintenance and that of ourfacilities has been creeping up withinflation. Our studies indicate thatcosts in the aerospace sector haveincreased by approximately 6.5% peryear since 1965. We have accom-plished significant adjustments to ourprograms, which are funded in FY1971 at a level several billion lowerthan our peak year of 1966. To be

perfectly frank, we have no magictricks nor esoteric formulas to reveal;and I don't think we are unique infacing this dilemma today, be it ingovernment or in industry. One thingwe strive to do, however, is to be moreconscientious in preparing our "home-work" before committing sizeable re-sources to new space initiatives.

Former Administrator's Advice

Dr. Paine had a plain piece of advicefor anyone tempted to prognosticateprogram capabilities and costs basedmore on desire than definition. Hiscounsel was: "let's say less until weknow more." The normal decision-making cycle frorh the initiation ofearly studies to program commitmenttakes some 18 to 24 months. Duringthis period, intensive efforts are ap-plied on program definition and pointdesigns, in order to gain an earlyunderstanding of technology readinessand the major technical characteristicsof the program; in addition, the first"hard" estimates of schedules and costare made. When industry learns that acertain sum has been allocated to anew program or project, the first thingit wants to know is whether thisallocation can be construed as a defi-nite commitment or not. However,this seemingly simple question is al-ways asked prematurely and it is al-most impossible to answer until theseinitial study results are obtained. Thescarcity of funds in the 1970's in-creases the importance of early invest-ment in program definition, design,and the necessary technological effortsthat will pay cost saving dividends inthe long run.

Program Perspective is Vital

The perspective viewpoint in pro-gram management is in effect anotherrequisite toward cost control. In

periods of austerity there will alwaysbe a tendency to get enticed by thethought of near-term savings by pro-gram stretchouts or other stopgapmeasures. We were able to keep goodcost control in the crucial develop-ment phases of the Gemini and Apolloprograms by maintaining a properpace. I think these two programsdemonstrated that adequate programdefinition is needed also to set acost-effective pace for a program.Then the attainment of predeterminedmilestones on a firm time-schedulebecomes an effective indicator of prog-ress versus dollars. Otherwise, year-by-year decisions to re-adjust the pace ofa program can play havoc with thetotal cost of attaining that objective.Actually, what costs money is peopleon the payroll, 4nd obviously thelonger they remain on a project, themore it will cost.

A further notion that is often nur-tured in conjunction with thoughts oneconomy is the concept of consolida-Lion. There seems to exist a popularbelief that when several operations areconsolidated, they can be supported atless cost than before. This notionpresupposes the existence of duplica-tion of effort in the first place, and toa certain extent matches in va'idity acertain theory articulated on occasionin support of marriage, which main-tains that "two people can live ascheaply as one ... " The primary areaof NASA activity to be studied forpossible consolidation in the futurewill be that of certain support func-tions at the Kennedy Space Center,with the Air Force.

Balance and Economy

I n viewing various cost-savingsaspects in a fragmented way we shouldnot lose sight of the fact that NASA'stotal budget for FY 1971 i:, character-ized not only be economy, but also bya balanced overall program content.

10 el

"Year-by-year decisions to readjust the paceof a program can play havoc with the totalcost of attaining that program's objective."

This is the lowest budget we have hadsince FY 1962, and has meant substan-tial cutbacks and deferrals in a numberof programs. As a result, the totalnationwide employment on NASAwork which was once 410,000people will be reaching a new low ofabout 143,000 people by next sum-mer.

Here are the principal actions wehad to take, based on the decisions inthe FY 1971 budget:

Reduced our operational base,which included the closure of theElectronics Research Center andthe cancellation of our SustainingUniversity program.Suspended the production ofSaturn V launch vehicles beyondthe basic buy of 15 vehicles forthe Apollo program.Stretched out the Apollo lunar

105

WM,

"We were able to keep good cost control in the crucial development phases of the Gemini andApollo programs by maintaining a proper pace. I think these two programs demonstrated thatadequate program definition is needed also to set a cost-effective pace for a program. Then theattainment of predetermined milestones on a firm time-schedule becomes an effective indicatorof progress versus dollars."

106 105

missions to essentially two peryear with a complete gap dur-ing the period of Apollo Applica-tions program (now identified asSkylab) operations, during thelast part of 1972 and all of 1973.Deferred the Skylab program byabout four months.Postponed the Viking mission toMars from the 1973 opportunityto 1975 opportunity.Deferred the Appl;cationsTechnology Satellite flights F andG from 1972 to 1973.And lastly, reduced the numberof remaining lunar missions fromsix to four.

Some Positive Aspects

As to the positive aspects of FY1971, these include increased work inaeronautics and cooperative interna-tional ventures, as well as the start ofSpace Station/Space Shuttle designstudies and technology effort. OurSpace Shuttle work throughout thisyear will consist of design verificationto make certain that we have thetechnology needed to support the pro-gram. This will give us a base for thestart of detailed design activity (PhaseC) in calendar year 1972.

The main consideration behind theconcept of the reusable Space Shuttleis of course, the reduction of the costof space operations. Therefore, we'llconduct extensive cost-benefit analy-ses similar to those used to help makedecisions on commercial aircraft devel-opments. The ease of maintainabilityand the multi-use capability arefeatures which make the Shuttle aneconomical space transport systemthat could revolutionize the way manutilizes spare. The Space Station isanother significant new developmentwith similar features of commonalityand reusability. which in conjunctionwith the Shuttle form the key el- pements in future space operations. Its

"REVITALIZING NASA'S MANPOWER RESOURCES"Interview with Grove WebsterPersonnel Division Director, Office of Administration

Viewing NASA's challenges for theSeventies from the standpoint of man-power, the maintenance of continuedrevitalization looms as the principalsource of concern.

Oddly enough, this is not a problemcreated by the lack of any talent orcompetence within NASA or outside,but the result of approaching middle-age maturity as an organization, andthe constraint of a Civil Service em-ployment ceiling. Our rate of attritionover the years has remained at a low of6% for professional employees; as aresult the age average in NASA hasbeen increasing about eight-tenths of ayear each year. And our total numberof personnel for the Agency has beenreduced to 31,223 as of June 30,1970. While this situation may notconstitute a serious near-term prob-lem, it does raise a question in the longrun of how NASA may manage toinfuse new blood into its organization,to maintain its vigor of the Sixties.

In context of prevailing manpowerconstraints, for programs as well as forthe Agency as a whole, no overallsolution looks likely for the immediatefuture. We are, however, consideringseveral possibilities for partial solu-tions, while we continue to revitalizeour manpower resources through edu-cational opportunities under the Gov-ernment Employees Training Act(Public Law 85-507).

One of the recent government pro-grams that will assist toward the infu-sion of new blood into the executivearteries of NASA is the ExecutiveInterchange Program, launched onSeptember 30, 1969, by the Presi-dent's Commission on Personnel Inter-change. The purpose of this Program isto provide talented young executivesat mid-career levels in industry andgovernment with first-hand operatingexperience in the practices, problems,objectives, and philosophies of theother sector. It is hoped that this

/W.

Ir

-CEP".4111111ier..

"Since we are operationally specialized and decentralized as an agency, our educationalprograms are likewise decentralized, and tailored to the needs of our Centers."

Program will help to promote individ-ual understanding and a more effectiveworking relationship between govern-ment and industry, and encourage theinterchange of management practices.

Participants to this program willserve in bona fide operating positionsfrom a year to eighteen months, onleave-of-absence from their parentorganizations, but will remain on thepayrolls of those organizations. Aninitial number of business and govern-ment organizations were invited earlierthis year to nominate young men andwomen for participation in the firstinterchange which began this pastsummer.

Decentralized Educational Programs

Since we are operationally special-ized and decentralized as an agency,our educational programs are likewisedecentralized, and tailored to the

106107

108

"During NASA's peak years of growth in manpower, 1961 to 1964, our training programs wereprimarily oriented to science and technology; with the leveling-off of growth in recent years wehave turned more toward educational programs to enhance the supervisory and managerial skillsof our personnel."

107

needs of our Centers. When we de-velop a program here at Headquarters,it is mostly to serve as a prototype forthe Centers to adapt according to theirparticular needs.

During NASA's peak years ofgrowth in manpower, 1961 to 1964,our training programs were primarilyoriented to science and technology;with the leveling-off of growth inrecent years we have turned moretoward educational programs to en-hance the supervisory and managerialskills of our personnel. An overview ofthe scope and diversity of NASA'semployee development program maybe gained from the following outlineof educational opportunities and sta-tistics of participation from FY 1970.

Graduate and Undergraduate Stud-ies NASA encourages job-relatedacademic study at the undergraduatelevel. However, the Agency considersholders of undergraduate degrees to beonly partially trained to meet therequirements for its mission. There-fore, emphasis is placed on the devel-opment, of individual competencethrough continuing education at thegraduate level.

Participation in FY 1970Medical, Scientific, Engineering,Legal and related fields 4140Technical 329Administration, Management andSupervision 1109Other 103

Total 5681

Cooperative Education ThisWork-Study Program combines resi-dent academic study in a school, withalternating periods of work, at aNASA Center, which is closely moni-tored by the school as part of theeducational process.

Participation in FY 1970 829(with 136 graduations)

Specialized Training NASA pro-vides seminars and non-credit shortcourses, conducted by universities, re-search institutions, private industry,and other government agencies to as-sist employees in maintaining compe-tence in a wide range of specialties.

Participation in FY 1970Medical, Scientific, EnginF;ering,Legal and related fields 6750Technical 4165Administration, Management andSupervision 3495Other 3852

Total 18,262

Apprentice Training Through or-ganized on-the-job and related class-room training, NASA's ApprenticeTraining Program prepares qualifiedpersonnel to become journeymen inskilled trades which have particularapplication to the Agency's needs orthose which are in short supply.

Participation in FY 1970 237(with 82 graduations)

Many of these educational programswere established on the basis of studiesmade in the early Sixties, to determinethe professional requirements for sci-entists and engineers; by the end ofthis year we shall have completed astudy to determine also the skill re-quirements needed to support researchwork, and shall develop an overallskills inventory to keep managementfully informed on the Agency's humanresources.

Lastly, we also provide counsellingtoward retirement which in effectmight be considered as another formof preparation toward the future. Foreven after an individual reaches thevarious optional or mandatory con-ditions for retirement, the skills andcompetence he has acquired througha lifetime remain as valuable com- Aponents of our national resources. m

108

"NASA emphasizes the development ofindividual competence through continuingeducation at the graduate level."

109

jr',:,,i,...";:',' u .. \ . ,w4,,,

.firi:, :1-''''....'.'. .1)''.. .

, 4)...-..,,..

.1 .4,,.., -) k;

.1 i 41 ,:,1 1 i Ay

ft-14' "Apc421:ti

In

.(P.V1 r.

k_ik".

r**e.

-; if

11111 I I I I

111111111111111

1/RIF air it

.4 elb:P.21

NASA'S MULTIPLE INTERAGENCY INTERFACES

BLEND KNOW-HOW TOWARD COMPLEX PROGRAMS snInterview with General Jacob E. Smart, USAF (Ret.)Assistant Administrator for DOD and Interagency Affairs

Extensive experience in integrating efforts and resources needed for managing complexendeavors, provides useful insights for coping with coming challenges

During its relatively brief span ofexistence, the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration has carriedout programs of extreme complexity.It has achieved goals never beforeattained by man: it has succeeded insending four American astronauts tothe moon, in placing scientific equip-ment there, and in bringing to Earthlunar samples for study; it has suc-ceeded also in probing the space en-vironment beyond the orbit of Marsby automated spacecraft..

We now have instruments aboardsatellites continually observing theEarth, its oceans and atmosphere, andreporting conditions to scientists inlaboratories, and to weather stationsthroughout the world. We have alsolearned to place space vehicles at theservice of man in other very practicalways to improve communicationand navigation, and to survey thisplanet's finite resources.

Through these achievements wehave gained a new perspective of ourbenign planet: almost insignificant inthe vastness of the universe that sur-rounds it, yet infinitely important tothose who inhabit it. We now sense,far better than we understand, ourneed to learn more about the universe;our solar system; Sun-Earth relation-ships; the interaction between landmasses, the oceans and the atmo-sphere; and of course the role of manand his wastes in the precariouslybalanced environment of this planet.

Confidence from New Knowledge

It is in the nature of the expansivemind of man that each 'ew discovery,which pushes back the frontiers of hisignoi ince, reveals further aspects ofreality to engage his mind. And fueledby the confidence gained from eachachievement, and new knowledge, mandares to tackle tasks of greater com-plexity.

We have become greatly aware of

"We now sense, far better than we understand, our need to learn more about the universe; oursolar system; Sun-Earth relationships; the interaction between land masses, the oceans and theatmosphere; and of course the role of man and his wastes in the precariously balancedenvironment of this planet."

111

112

"We have become greatly aware of the needto come to grips with the conditions thatdeny the quality of life to which we aspire."

the need to come to grips with theconditions that deny the quality of lifeto which we aspire. It is highly signifi-cant that this awareness has becomeparticularly pronounced in the era ofspace exploration. We are only begin-ning to appreciate the complexities inthe way of achieving such a goal, andbeginning to size up the scale ofnational commitment needed both inhuman and material resources.

Methods and Experience Exist

In the conduct of the nation's non-military space endeavors, NASA hasacquired the methodology and mana-gerial experience characteristic of thatrequired for other national endeavors.Certain facets of this methodology andexperience can be utilized profitablytoward the study of our major socialand economic problems. By this I donot mean to imply that the esoterictools developed in the aerospace fieldcan always be readily fitted to thecomplexities of other fields. Regard-less of how complex they might be,programs addressed primarily to tech-

1

nological challenges are essentiallysimpler than programs involving socialand economic issues. Also, a majordifficulty in the instance of social,economic, and particularly ecologicalproblems is that they are cumulative innature. They are not problems whichhave suddenly materialized today;they are the results of conditions thathave evolved through the painfullyslow and often faltering steps of manto this point in time. And since man'shabits and institutions are slow tochange, the solutions to the problemshe has created are likely to be equallyslow in gaining acceptance. Neverthe-less, since the underlying characteristicof all endeavors of national dimensionsis immense complexity, the managerialexperience from comparable previousprograms offers aspects worth con-sidering.

Managerial Competence Evolves

The managerial competence dis-played by NASA in the conduct of thespace program, and by the Departmentof Defense in the Manhattan Project,the ICBM programs, and in othermajor developmental endeavors, is aproduct of evolutionary processes. TheApollo program benefited in manyways from the programs that precededit, as well as from the talents of themen who made the earlier programssuccessful.

Commitment to the Apollo programbrought the realization that the re-sources of the nation had to be mar-shaled. No single agency not eventhe office of the President is en-dowed with the responsibilities, au-thorities, or resources required to pur-sue to completion a relatively simpleprogram as the Apollo. The authoritiesand the responsibilities required forApollo include those that are vested inthe President, the Congress, otherfederal agencies, the various states,

universities, multiple technical andsocial institutions, and of course thosethat remain the province of the Ameri-can people. All of these contributetoward the achievement of success.Think how much more widely spreadare the authorities required, for ex-ample, for the conduct of .a nationalprogram to control pollution of ourwater or atmosphere, or for the dis-posal of human and industrial waste.

A second realization, from the ex-perience of launching programs ofnational dimensions, has been thatinstead of creating new institutions,the capabilities of existing ones shouldbe put to use. The Apollo programutilized the competence of industry,business, university, and government.Some 90% of all dollars appropriatedto NASA were spent through otheragencies. A corollary to this tenet isthat participating institutions shouldbe strengthened rather than drained ofstrength by virtue of their associationwith the endeavor. NASA made aparticular effort to utilize universitiesfor research, new and broadened con-cepts, and strengths of lasting valuethat would enable the universities toperform their primary and continuingrole more effectively.

Third, new knowledge and the de-velopment of new technological com-petence are indispensable ingredientsfor achieving far-advanced goals. High-ly competent scientists and engineers

specialists who need long lead-timesfor education and training must bereadily available and willing to focustheir talents upon identified problemareas; and managers must maintain theflexibility to capitalize upon unex-pected breakthroughs of far-reachingsignificance. New knowledge and newcompetence that are derived frommany fields constitute the significantby-products of major national en-deavors such as the space program.

Fourth, centralized leadership andcontrol must be exercised by men who

3

3,0

-41M111111111111=011110103-

"NASA has made a particular effort to utilize universities in a manner that would develop newknowledge and competence, new facilities for research, new and broadened concepts, andstrengths of lasting value that would enable the universities to perform their primary andcontinuing ;vie more effectively."

1i2113

114

,E

"In pursuit of our national aspirations toimprove the quality of life, we shall un-doubtedly encounter a greater need to meldefforts from multiple institutions."

3

can organize and direct the strengthsof individuals and institutions. Leader-ship is an elusive but essential quality.The more complex the endeavor, thegreater is the requirement for the kindof personal leadership which can per-suade and inspire groups of divergentorientation to work toward a commongoal. A major national program issuccessful only to the extent that itgains and maintains the support ofmultiple independent agencies thatcontrol the authorities, responsibili-ties, and resources required for thepursuit of that program. This necessi-tates a continuing commitment by thesupporting agencies, and this in turnrequires mechanisms for keeping theinterfaces viable and mutually bene-ficial. The adjacent NASA Head-quarters organization chart reflects theinterfaces that the agency needs tooperate effectively. Note that theNASA Headquarters staff includes thefollowing:

Office of DOD and InteragencyAffairsOffice of Industry AffairsOffice of International AffairsOffice of Legislative AffairsOffice of Management DevelopmentOffice of Public AffairsOffice of University Affairs

Each of these offices is concerned withspecific facets of activity which enableNASA to conduct its programs intouch with and in context of therealities of its environment.

Proclicts of NASA's Endeavors

A number of other agencies are alsointerested in the products of NASA'sendeavors. Business, industry, univer-sities, and government are interested innew technology. Universities are inter-ested in new technology, new mate-rials, new concepts. Various govern-mental departments frequently requirehelp in coping with specific problems.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OFGENERAL

COUNSEL

GENERAL COUNSEL

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

ADMINISTRATORDEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOREXECUTIVE OFFICER

DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR(PLANNING)

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FORPLANNING

OFFICE OFPOLICY

ASS'T ADMINISTRATOR

EXECUTIVE

SECRETARIAT

OFFICE OFMANAGEMENTDEVELOPMENT

ASS'T ADMINISTRATOR

AEROSPACESAFETY

ADVISORYPANEL

OFFICE OFORGANIZATION

AND MANAGEMENT

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

OFFICE OFADMINISTRATION

ASST ADMINISTRATOR

I---_OFFICE OFINDUSTRYAFFAIRS

I ASST ADMINISTRATOR

L

OFFICE OFTECHNOLOGYUTILIZATION

ASST ADMINISTRATOR

Combined as of November 2,1970_J

OFFICE OFUNIVERSITY

AFFAIRS

ASS'T ADMINISTRATOR

PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENTREVIEW

COMMITTEE

ASSOCIATEDEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR

NAT'LACADEMIES

SCIENCES

ENGINEERINGPUBLIC ADMIN.

OFFICE OFDOD &

INTERAGENCYAFFAIRS

OFFICE OFINTERNATIONAL

AFFAIRS

OFFICE OFLEGISLATIVE

AFFAIRS

OFFICE OFPUBLICAFFAIRS

ASS'T ADMINISTRATOR ASS'T ADMINISTRATOR ASS'T ADMINISTRATOR ASS'T ADMINISTRATOR

OFFICE OFMANNED

SPACE FLIGHT

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

GEORGE C. MARSHALLSPACE FLIGHT CENTER

Huntsville, Ala.

MANNEDSPACECRAFT CENTER

Houston, Tex.

JOHN F. KENNEDYSPACE CENTER

Kennedy Space Center,Fla.

OFFICE OFSPACE SCIENLI

AND APPLICATIONS

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

GODDARDSPACE FLIGHT CENTER

Greenbelt, Md.

UT PROPULSIONLABORATORY

(Contractor Operated)Pasadena, Calif.

WAL OPSSTATION

Wallops Island, Va.

114

OFFICE OFTRACKING AND

DATA ACQUISITION

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

OFFICE OFADVANCED RESEARCHAND TECHNOLOGY

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

AMES

RESEARCH CENTER

Moffell Field, Calif.

RIGHTRESEARCH CENTER

Edwards, Calif.

LANGLEYRESEARCH CENTER

Hamplun, Va.

LEWIS

RESEARCH CENTER

Cleveland, Ohio

ELECT ONICSRESEARCH CENTER

Cambrid e, Mass.

115

a%

P

Ott

"A major national program is successcid only to the extent that it gains and maintains thesupport of multiple independent agencies that control the authorities, responsibilities, andresources required for the pursuit of that program."

ix0A0varonCoi....4..4.41,

116

1.1

The Department of Transportation,for example, seeks help in coping withthe problems of jet aircraft noise andnoise control in general, in air trafficcontrol, and in improved altimetry.The Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment seeks knowledge of newmaterials and newly discovered proper-ties of old materials of fire causesand fireproof and fire-resistant mate-rials, waste disposal, safety, etc.

Another aspect of NASA Head-quarters organization, as reflected inthe adjacent chart, is the fact thatNASA directs effort also to providingproducts and support to other agenciesand institutions. Such activities areconducted through the following staffoffices:

Office of International AffairsOffice of Technology UtilizationOffice of University Affairs

High-Level Advisory Bodies

The interdependence of the variousagencies of government and the work-ing relationships between the govern-ment, industry, universities, and othersocial institutions, have necessitatedthe establishment of high-level ad-visory bodies. Mechanisms to achievecoordination and cooperation havebeen established by the Congress andby Executive Order. Among the majorones that influence NU ..A's objectivesand the means and methods by whichwe pursue them are the following:

National Aeronautics and SpaceCouncil has the responsibility to adviseand assist the President on policies,plans, and programsin aeronautics andspace. Membership is comprised of theVice President of the United States asChairman, the Secretary of State, theSecretary of Defense, the Administra-tor of the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration, and the Chair-man of the Atomic Energy Commis-sion.

Council on Environmental Qualityevaluates existng and proposed poli-cies and activities of the FederalGovernment directed to the control ofpollution and the enhancement of theenvironment, and it advises and assiststhe President as a staff in this cate-gory.

Federal Council for Science andTechnology (FCST) was established byPresident Eisenhower in 1959. Theagencies it represents are:

Atomic Energy CommissionDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of CommerceDepartment of DefenseDepartment of Health, Education,and WelfareDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopmentDepartment of the InteriorDepartment of StateDepartment of TransportationNational Aeronautics and SpaceAdministrationNational Science FoundationOffice of Science and Technology

The following agencies are representedat Council meetings by official ob-servers:

Arms Control and DisarmamentAgencyBureau of the BudpetCouncil of Economic AdvisersDepartment of justiceOffice of Economic OpportunitySmithsonian InstitutionVeterans Administration)

Purpo61 of the FCST is to promotecooperation in planning Federal R&Dprograms by the agencies, and to assistin advancing and strengthening thescientific efforts of the U.S, The FCSTis advisory to the President and to theheads of the agencies represented.

President's Science Advisory Com-rti!tte, (SAC) advises the President onmatters studied at his request and onmatters studied on its own initiative. It

plays a role in blending governmentaland non-governmental views to achievea total approach to problems involvingscience and technology.

National Academy of Sciences(NAS) is a private society of distin-guished scholars in sscience and en-zineering, dedicated to furthering thegeneral welfare. It serves the Govern-ment by making studies under grantsand contracts.

National Academy of Engineering(NAE) is a parallel organization to theNAS. It is composed of distinguishedengineers and is alltonomous in itsadministration. It shares with the NASits responsibility for advising the Fed-eral Government.

National Research Council (NRC) isthe operational arm of the NASthe NAE. Members of the NRC areselected as required from universities,industry, ant: the Federal Government.

Converting Vision to Reality

This brief discussion has touched ona number of co ganizational roles and.,vorking interfaces; hopefully, it hasprovided an overview of the inter-agency mechanisms by which the au-thorities and resources vested in vari-ous national institutions can be coordi-nated for coping with major programsof national significance.

In pursuit of our national aspira-tions to improve the quality of life, weshall undoubtedly encounter greaterneed to meld efforts from multipleinstitutions; we shall also face an acuteneed for men endowed with vision andcompetence to match the complexitiesin the way of fulfilling these aspira-tions.

On numerous occasions in the pastwe have marshaled the strengths of themaim to convert vision to reality.What we have learned in the processshouid provide valuable clues for deal-ing with the challengesof this new decade. MtA

116

"On numerous occasions in the past we havemarshaled the strengths of the nation. toconvert vision to reality. What we havelearned in the process sho ild provide valu-able clues for dealing with the challenges ofthis new decade."

117

L!'

NASA'S OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION* AFEEDS USEFUL CONCEPTS TO PUBLIC SECTOR AIInterview with Melvin S. DayActing Assistant Administrator for Technology tltilization, NASA Headquarters

Wide variety of specialized publications and information centers make findingstrom space-oriented technology accessible to commercially-oriented entreprene'urs

A peculiar property of most labels isthat they stick to the things theyidentify as if by epoxy glue. Andthat's the way it has been with theterm "Space Technology" some-what of a misnomer. Space Technol-ogy is in reality U.S. industrial tech-nology used for space purposes, butalso very useful here on Earth.

The distilling and transmittal of newknowledge gained from NASA's aero-space oriented work to the Americanpublic, the industrial medical and aca-demic communities is the function ofNASA's Office of Technology Utiliza-tion. Normally, it takes :About seven toten years to put a newly-inventedprocess or tool into widespread use;we are involved in accelerating thisprocess. New technological concepts

developed within NASA or underNASA contracts are harvested bythe Technology Utilization Offices ofall the NASA Centers and installations,and concepts with commercial poten-tial are announced through severalcategories of publications. These publi-cations, which are sold singly or bysubscription, are as follows:

Tech Briefs: Terse one or two-pagebulletins describing new solutions toold problems, or novel solutions tounusual problems. Readers may obtainmore detail information such as testdata, drawings and specifications bywriting to an indicated Technical Utili-zation Officer. Tech Briefs cover inno-vations of the following categories:Eectrical (electronic), Physical Sci-ences (energy sources), Materials(chemistry), Life Sciences, Mechanical,and Computer Programs. Tech Briefsmay be obtained from the Clearing-

*subsequent to this interview the Office of Tech-nology Utilization and the Office of Industry A:-fairs were combined, as of November 2, 1970, intothe Office of Industry Affairs and TechnologyUtilization headed by Daniel J Harnett. Melvin S.Day is presently Deputy Assistant Administrator forTechnology Utilization, and George J. Vecchiettithe Deputy Assistant Administrator for IndustryAffairs,

house for Federal Scientific and Tech-nical Information; Attention Code410.19, Springfield, Va. 22151.

Another category of publicationsfrom the Technology Utilization Pro-gram is identified as Special Publica-tions. These explain new concepts,designs, techniques, materials, andequipment. Some constitute surveys ofbroad fields; others are detailed ac-counts of especially significant devel-opments. There are several kinds ofSpecial Publications:

Technology Utilization Compila-tions: Collections of closely-relatedincremental advances in the state of agiven art. Examples: Machine ShopMeasurement; Tools, Fixtures, andTest Equipment for Flat ConductorCables, etc.

Technology Utilization Reports:Descriptions of innovations of specialsignificance or complexity. These aremore detailed announcements than

Tech Briefs, and bear such titles as:Selected Casting Techniques; JoiningCeramics and Graphite to Other Mate-rials; Adhesive Bonding of StainlessSteels, etc.

Technology Surveys: Consolida-tions of the results of NASA-sponsored R&D efforts that have ad-vanced whole areas of technology.Written by noted authorities in spe-cific fields, these "guidebooks" maycover: Solid Lubricants; MagneticTape Recording; Thermal InsulationSystems, etc.

Conference Proceedings: Publica-tions covering NASA-sponsored meet-ings for particular industries andgroups. At such conferences scientistsand engineers who have made majorcontributions to technology reviewtheir work. A pamphlet describingNASA's Special Publications can beobtained from any of NASA's Tech-nology Utilization Offices, and theSe

"Technology transfer to the biological and medical fields is not a rapid process because it oftenrequires extensive testing by the medical community before acceptance and general use."

119

##1

"Space Technology is in reality U.S. Indus-trial technology used for space purposes,but also very useful here on Earth."

publications may be purchased eitherfrom the Clearinghouse or from theU.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C. 20402.

Computer Program Abstracts: Anindexed, quarterly abstract journal list-ing documented computer programsdeveloped by or for NASA, DOD,AEC. These abstracts may be pur-chased through NASA-sponsoredRegional Dissemination Centers andthe Computer Software Managementand Information Center (COSMIC).These Centers are discussed later inthis article.

International Aerospace Abstracts:An abstracting and indexing servicecovering the world's published litera-ture on aeronautics and space scienceand technology. Publications coveredin these semimonthly abstracts in-clude: periodicals (including govern-ment-sponsored journals) and books;meeting papers and conference pro-

120

ceedings issued by professional socie-ties and academic organizations; trans-lations of journals and journal articles.

Scientific and Technical AerospaceReports (STAR): A comprehensiveabstracting and indexing journal,STAR covers current worldwide reportliterature on the science and technol-ogy of space and aeronautics. Publica-tions abstracted in STAR include sci-entific and technical reports issued byNASA and its contractors, other U.S.Government agencies, and corpora-tions, universities, and research organi-zations throughout the world. Infor-mation on STAR and on the availabil-ity of the International AerospaceAbstracts to organizations having con-tractual arrangements with NASA maybe obtained from: National Aero-nautics and Space Administration, Sci-entific and Technical InformationDivision; Attention: Code USI; Wash-ington, D.C. 20546.

Regional Dissemination Centers

As the history of industrial evolu-tion attests, new knowledge isacquired in bits and pieces more oftenthan in ready-to-use packages. To solvea problem in one context, informationacquired for a number of other pur-poses often must be pulled together,applied to the specific situation, andpossibly expanded by further study ofindividual requirements. To prchideso-called packages of new technology

oriented to individual needsNASA has established six RegionalDissemination Centers. No two ofthese Centers are alike; each one,however, is based at a university ornot-for-profit research institute, andstaffed with professional personnelskilled in the use of computer search-and-retrieval techniques to assembleinformation. Addresses of theseCenters are as follows:

AEROSPACE RESEARCH APPLI-

CATIONS CENTER Indiana Univer.sity Foundation, Bloomington, Ind.47405. Phone: 812 337-7970.

KNOWLEDGE AVAILABILITYSYSTEMS CENTER University ofPittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213.Phone:412 621-3500, ext. 6352.

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONCENTER University of New Mexi-co, Box 185, Albuquerque, N. Mex.87106. Phone: 505 277-3118.

NEW ENGLAND RESEARCH AP-PLICATION CENTER University ofConnecticut, Storrs, Conn. 06268.Phone: 203 429-6616.

NORTH CAROLINA SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCHCENTER Post Office Box 12235,Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709.Phone 919 834-7357 or 549-8291.

WESTERN RESEARCH APPLICA-TIONS CENTER University ofSouthern California, Los Angeles,Calif. 90007. Phone 213 746-6133.

Since each of these Regional Dis-semination Centers is set up to beresponsive to a specific geographic andeconomic environment their servicesand fees vary somewhat. These Centersprovide the following types of serv-ices:

Current Awareness Searches: Com-puter tapes bearing some 6000 newcitations of scientific and technicalreports are searched each month foritems of likely value to each client.This is done by machine-matching a"customized interest profile" of theciient's objectives, problems, needs,and desires against indexed descrip-tions of aerospace researchers' find-ings. Specialists then screen the cita-tions thus obtained, for relevance andquickly forward the results to theclient. He then may request and re-ceive full copies of whichever docu-ments among those cited, that hedecides may be useful to him.

Retrospective Searches: Morethorough searches are made in re-

"Through a cooperative agreement between NASA and the Small Business Administration(SBA), small businesses are referred by the SBA to Regional Dissemination Centers, and given alimited number of searches for information at a special rate."

sponse to clients' specific questions.Computer tapes bearing over 500,000citations of previous as well as themost recent additions to the aerospacelibrary are machine-searched. The out-put is evaluated by the Center's ex-perts and sent to the company orperson who posed the iuestion. Copiesof the documents located in this man-ner are also sent when requested.

Standard Interest Profiles: Thesemay be obtained from Centers bycompanies or individuals who requireinformation in somewhat broader cate-gories for current awareness purposes.

The Regional Dissemination Centerssend the previosuly described Techni-cal Utilization publications to theirclients each week and also supplybackup data.

Data bases available at these Region-al Centers are being steadily aug-mented. We have added DOD unclassi-fied data and reports, material from

the Chemical Abstracts Service of theAmerican Chemical Society, and databases in electronics and plastics fromEngineering Index, Inc.

Computer Program Services

We have also made govern ment-generated computer "software" a partof the total mix of services offered bythe Centers. The Computer Softwareand Management Information Center(COSMIC) is located at the Universityof Georgia. This Center collects, evalu-ates and distributes tapes, card decks,machine.run instructions and listingsfrom NASA, AEC and DOD computerprograms. To date over 18,000 ordershave been filled by COSMIC. All theRegional Dissemination Centers andCOSMIC sell software at prices basedon the costs of reproduction anddistribution. Further informationabout this service is available from an

121

of the Regional Dissemination Centers,or from: Director, COSMIC, Univer-sity of Georgia Computer Center,Athens, Ga. 30601. The NASA Officeof Technology Utilization also issuesthe quarterly journal entitled "Com-puter Program Abstracts", availablefrom. the Government Printing Officeon an annual subscription basis.

Technology Transfer to Biomedicine

Another activity of NASA's Tech-nology Utilization Program is directedto the identification and communica-tion of space technology conceptswhich may provide solutions to medi-cal or biological problems. This workis done by three Biomedical Applica-tion Teams of multidisciplinary mem-bership from both the aerospace andbiomedical communities. "MedicalProblem Abstracts" prepared by theseteams are used (1) to search NASA'scomputerized information bank forrelevant discoveries and innovations,and (2) to solicit guidance and sugges-tions for aerospace scientists and tech-nicians for biomedical specialists.Technology Utilization Officers assistthese teams to tap the resources ofNASA's field installations. More infor-mation about these teams' activitiesmay be obtained from the Director,Biomedical Application Team, at anyof the following three research insti-tutes:

MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTI-TUTE 425 Volker Boulevard, KanasCity, Mo. 64110.

SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTI-TUTE 8500 Culebra Road, SanAntonio, Texas 78206.

RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTI-TUTE Post Office Box 12194,Durham, N.C. 27709.

With regard to biomedicine, theTechnology Utilization Program servestwo purposes: (1) it seeks answersfrom aerospace knowledge for sped-

122

fled medical questions, and (2) itidentifies aerospace technology thatappears to have potential medicalvalue., then searches for biomedicalobjectives that this technology mayhelp to meet. The Office of Tech-nology Utilization has a cooperativepilot effort with the Vocational Re-habilitation Administration (VRA)aimed in particular at the problems ofthe four million adults of the countrywho have physical or mental disabili-ties.

Vocation rehabilitation scientists atfour VRA-supported university re-search centers specify their unsolvedproblems in restoring the disabled toproductive life. NASA then seeks outinformation resulting from aerospaceresearch that appears to be applicableto the problems of the handicapped.This information is relayed to theVRA for evaluation, applicationthrough adaptive engineering, demon-stration of the resulting devices andprocedures, and encouragement ofcommercial introduction of the newproducts and services.

Other Interagency Interactions

The VRA-NASA efforts are part ofa wider interaction between NASAand other gover ment agencies toestablish informational exchanges andworking relationships. Such relation-ships have been established with bene-ficial results, also v.ith federal andstate agencies concerned with the ap-plication of engineering and manage-.ment technology to mine safety, pollu-tion control, law enforcement, andtransportation. These cooperative ef-forts are being assisted by two rela-tively new Technology ApplicationTeams, located,as follows:

ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECH -NOLGGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE,10 W. 35th Street, Chicago, III. 60616.

STANFORD RESEARCH INSTI,TUTE, Menlo Park, Calif. 94025.

21

Both teams are composed of indi-viduals from a variety of scientific andengineering disciplines. Their assign-ment is to transfer aerospace tech-nology to areas of concern in thepublic sector, through an interdisci-plinary approach to problem solving.

The user agencies with which wehave worked on the Federal levelinclude the Law Enforcement Assist-ance Administration (in the Depart-ment of Justice); The Bureau of Recla-mation, Bureau of Mines, and theFederal Water Pollution Control Ad-ministration (in the Department ofInterior); the Bureau of. Solid WasteManagement and the National Air Pol-lution Control Administration (in theDepartment of Health, Education and'Welfare); the Department of Transpor-tation; and the Department of Housingand Urban Development. Public agen-

"Technology transfer is a slow process,requires interdisciplinary creativIty which isalways in .short supply, and requires. re-sources."

:cies. on the. state' and..lOca level. withwhich wel'haVe..Worked. fo date includethe Los Angeles, :Seattle, NeW York,

. and: Chicagd.Oolice Departments; theI linoiS State.: Crime. Com-

missions'and'the New. York Office ofCriene.Control Flawing; the.Bay Area,.LOs..ArigeleS...and Seattle Air Pollution

:.ContrOl DiStricts,-plus other local air-'PollUtron.authorities; the Los Angelesand Bay Rapid-TranSit Authorities;and the Chicago, Boston, . and LosAngeleS Fire Departments.

:These cooperative problem-solvingefforts have begun to pay off. Amongrecent transfers are a compact, self-

: powered, easily portable. device for;monitoring dust particles in coalmines; a .sensor. for the measurementof low-velocity air flow in coal mines;

:a scanning. instrument for the detec-tiOn and recovery:of indented writingin .criminal laboratories; an instrumentto determine the sensitivity of auto-mobile drivers to various air pollu-tants; the application of NASA massspectrometers for monitoring air pollu-tion; and the development of a port-able life-support system for use by.firemen.

In .context of interagency activities,I would like to cite also' our .associa-tion with the Small Business Admini-stration (SBA). A vital communicationfunctiOn is 'performed by the SBA in.:.bringing the benefits of: government-Sponsored R&D to the attention ofsmall manufacturers and companies aspotential .users. Through a.cooperativeagreement between NASA and SBA,small businesses are referred by theSBA to the Regional DisseminationCenters; and given a limited number ofsearches for information at a specialclient-free rate. Cooperative activitiesbetween NASA and the SBA extend toseminars, workshops, publications, andvarious other experimental data-dis-semination efforts. We are particularlypleased' to sponsor one program that

has become a landmark experiment intechnology transfer to small business.The TECHNOLOGY USE STUDIESCENTER, Southeastern State College,Durant, Oklahoma, has worked forover six years with small businesses ina non-urban region of 19 counties inSoutheastern Oklahoma. The eco-nomic impact of this operation .hasbeen significant.

Contributions to Education

The location of Regional Dissemina-tion Centers within university com-munities often contributes to viewingeprl? Center also as a major on-campusit iurce. For the documents repre-sented by the RDC information baseoutnumber the library holdings ofmany of our colleges a.nd universities.

We are also testing ways of accelera-ting the infusion of new scientific andtechnical knowledge from aerospaceR&D into graduate and advancedundergraduate engineering curricula.To this end Oklahoma State Univer-sity, under contract to NASA, selectssource material from NASA R&D re-ports from which texts are written inan educational format for use on atrial basis, as supplementary teachingaids. Over one hundred universitieshave requested monographs for reviewand classroom use, and a number ofindustrial concerns. have found themuseful for their continuing educationprograms. We hope that eventuallyanother institution will sponsor fur-ther development of this concept, as ameans for enhancing the quality offormal engineering education.

Often Asked Questions

We are often asked why the resultsof aerospace research do not swiftlybecome translated into commercialbenefits to the public. One reason forthis, as I said earlier, is that most newadvances are incremental in nature,

122 123

124

NEW TECHNOLOGY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

All Government contracts concerning scientific and technical

development contain clauses defining the responsibilities of con-

tractors with regard to the disclosure of inventions develooed

under contract, and with regard to the status of patent rights of

these inventions. Further, under the provisions of the Space Act

of 1958, Congress has Jirected NASA to insure that developments

resulting from scientific and technological programs are retrieved

and made available to the maximum benefit of the Nation's

industrial effort in the 'shortest possible time This direction has

resulted in the placement of a New Technology Clause in most

NASA contracts, which requires contractors to separately identify

resulting inventions or innovations and to report them promptiy.

This clause provides for a penalty, in the form of substantial

payment withholdings, for noncompliance. Other Government

agencies, such as DOD, AEC, HEW, etc., have similar require-

ments for reporting inventions and innovations developed under

their contracts.

123

NASA'S INFORMATION SYSTEM

In compliance with the Space Act of 1958, which established

NASA and stipulated that it should "provide for the widest prac-

ticable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning

its activities and the results thereof," NASA created, its. Office of

Technology Utilization. Two of its divisions prov;de the follow-

ing informatonal assets and services:

1...Scientific and Technical ..InformatiOn: Division provides a

stockpile of readily-tapped knowledge from doineStic and foreign

aerOspace sources - presently more than 500,000 scientific and

technical documents, announced in abstract journals,

computer tapeS, and distributed in printed copies and on4-bY76

inch rectangles of microfilm, called Microfiche..The..stOckpile is

increased by reports and articlesapproximatelY 75,000.ayear at

the current ratefrom NASA's research centers and.field'offices;

from its contractors and grantees, from other branches Of,:the'

Government that produce technological information, from aero-

space activities in more than 40 foreign -Countries around the .,

world. Among. the more than 6,000 .research' reports added .,to

this accumulation in an average n4orith. are about 500 .

scienceS and biotechnology..

2. The Technology Utililation Division sel'ects from the com-

puter-indexed stockpile, and from on -going research and de-

velopment project's, those discoveries, inventions, ideas, and

new technique's that have possible use in the non-aerospace

communityincluding the biomedical field. This division alsoseeks out useful new ideas resulting from NASA work not other-

wise reported in the scientific literature.

124

and not in the form of major develop-ments. Secondly, these new conceptsmust be pulled out of one context andapplied to a problem in a totallyunrelated area. This is a time-consum-ing process, requires interdisciplinarycreativity which is always in shorts u pp I y and requires resources.Therefore, uniess a new concept looksimmediately promising from a com-mercial viewpoint, companies don'tseem inclined to invest toward itsd evelopment. Technology transferwithin the public sector is relativelyeasier, where a need exists, becausefederal, state and local governmentscan adopt a useful concept if itrelates to public health or safetywithout concern over commercial re-turns.

Technology transfer to the bio-logical and medical fields is not a rapidprocess because it often requires ex-tensive testing by the medical com-munity before acceptance and generaluse. For this reason, we work closelywith the medical community, pointingout the biomedical applications thatlook promising, and leave their testingand development for use to the medi-cal community.

The profit motive is, of course, apowerful accelc. :tor of technologytransfer, but we are as a nation alsofacing more and more the pressures ofour greater problems that are beggingfor new solutions. For example, theregenerative wastt. management ',.;ys-terns for spacecraft may point the wayfor our growing waste disposal prob-lems here on "Spacecraft Earth". Atthe rate we are generating refuse to-day, the old concept of "disposal"seems destined for replacement by theconcept of "recycling". This may, inturn, all for a revamping of materials,manufacturing, packaging, and perhapsmay even lead to the rise of a newbreed of technologists in our societythe "BiodegradabilitySpecialists. . . "

125,

PATENTS AND LICENSING POLICYInterview with Gayle ParkerPatent Attorney, Office of General Counsel

44.

"Since the time of the passage of the Space Act of 1958, our patent policy has been evolvingmore toward government-wide uniformity in the allocation of rights to inventions arising fromgovernment-funded R&D to the government."

NASA activities centering on pat-ents and licensing are closely reLtted tothe process of technology transfer.Patents and licenses serve to stimulateinvention and provide incentives fortranslating new concepts into productsand processes of broad commercialusefulness.

126

A patent is, of course, a governmentgrant to an inventor, for a term of 17years, of the right to exclude othersfrom making, using, or selling theinvention. What NASA produces themost is a mass of new knowledge,which as such is not patentable. But aconsiderable number of individual

1 Z5

NASA inventions have commercial ap-plications, and are patentable. Con-gress recognized this in the Space Actof 1958 by stating that:

"Whenever any invention is made inthe performance of any work underany contract of the Administra-tion ... such invention shall be theexclusive property of the UnitedStates, and if such invention is patent-able a patent therefore shall be issuedto the United States upon applicationmade by the Administrator, unless theAdministrator waives all or any part ofthe rights of the United States ... andthe Administrator shall promulgatelicensing regulations upon which li-censes will be granted for the practiceof any invention for which the Admin-istrator holds a patent on behalf of theUnited States."

In our Technology Utilization ef-forts we may come across individualconcepts of potential usefulness, or anentire family of inventions like fire-resistant materials, inorganic com-pounds, etc.; each separate and dis-tinct invention in such a family mustbe patented separately.

Government policies regarding thedisposition of invention rights wererevamped considerably during the last"twenty years. These changes evolved asa result of the shifting of the govern-ment's research and development workfrom federal arsenals to private indus-try after WW II. Since the time of thepassage of the Space Act of 1958, ourpatent policy has been evolving moretoward government-wide uniformity inthe allocation of rights to inventionarising from government-funded R&Dto the government.

Memorandum On Patent Policy

A significant Executive action inthis area was President Kennedy'sMemorandum and Statement ofGovcrnnient Patent Policy issued

"r77:'97:11:171Memrormremo........

October 10, 1963, for the Heads ofExecutive Departments and Agencies.Here are the prinripal considerationshighlighted by this Presidential Memo-randum:

"It is not feasible to have com-plete uniformity of practice (in thedisposition of rights to inventionsmade under contracts with outsideorganizations) throughout the Govern-ment in view of the differing missionsand statutory responsibilities of theseveral departments and agencies en-gaged in R&D. Nevertheless, there isneed for greater consistency in agencypractices in order to further the gov-ernmental and public interests in pro-moting the utilization of Federally-financed inventions and to avoid diffi-culties caused by different approaches.

"A single presumption of owner-ship does not provide a satisfactorybasis for Government-wide policy onthe allocation of rights to inventions.Another common ground of under-standing is that the Government has aresponsibility to foster the fullest ex-ploitation of the inventions for thepublic benefit.

"This policy seeks to protect thepublic interest by encouraging tieGovernment to acquire the principalrights to inventions in situations wherethe nature of the work to be under-taken or the Government's past invest-ment in the field of work favors fullpublic access to resulting inventions.

"The public interest might alsobe served by according exclusive com-mercial rights to the contractor insituations where the contractor has anestablished nongovernmental commer-cial position arid where there is greaterlikelihood that the invention would beworked and put into civilian use ratherthan would be the case if the inventionwere made more freely available.

"Wherever the contractor retainsmore than nonexclusive license, thepolicy would guard against failure to

practice the invention by requiringthat the contractor take effective stepswithin three years after the patentissues, to bring the invention to thepoint of practical application, or tomake it available for licensing onreasonable terms.

"The Government would alsohave the right to insist on the grantingof a license to others, to the extentthat the invention is required forpublic use by Government regulationsor to fulfill a health need, irrespectiveof the purpose of the contract."

It should also be noted that thePresident's statement of GovernmentPatent Policy calls for the preparationof a report, at least annually, by aninteragency Federal Council for Sci-ence and Technology, in consultationwith the Department of Justice. Thepurpose of this report is to analyze theeffectiveness of the policy, and tomake recommendations for revisionsor modification as believed neces-sary in light of the practices of theGovernment agencies under the policy.Recently, the Federal Council for Sci-ence and Technology recommended toPresident Nixon that the PresidentialPolicy Statement be modified by add-ing language that would encourageGovernment agencies to grant exclu-sive licenses on Government-ownedpatents under their administration topromote commercial utilization ...similar to NASA's patent licensiogprogram.

Contribution to Public Interest

The top-management recognition ofand the consequent impetus providedto the Technology Utilization Programare among the original contributionsmade by our former AdministratorJames Webb. He had a unique under-standing of the contribution of inven-tions to the public interest, and gavethis matter top priority. Exclusive

126 127

128

'NASA may Ivaive all 'r any part of the rights in an invention to the contractor who made itif the Administrator determines the waiver is in the public interest."

127

rights to NASA inventions were grant-ed starting in 1963, and NASA becamethe first agency with a progressivelicensing program a necessary func-tion for stimulating the transfer oftechnology; recently, the AEC, HEWand the Department of Agriculturehave also expanded their patent licens-ing programs.

Search for Commercial Potential

Our inventions are derived fromNASA's in-house research, or contrac-tor efforts. Of the approximately 5000inventions identified each year, about350 come from our in-house work.When a new concept is identified, theTechnology Utilization Officer of theNASA field center involved sendscopies of the concept description tothe resident Patent Counsel, for patentaction. The Technology Utilization Of-fice evaluates new concepts primarilyfor commercial potential; if such apotential is evident, the idea is sent toa not-for-profit research contractor toevaluate further, and to determine thecommercial potential. Concepts withcommercial potential are documentedand published as Tech Briefs (dis-cussed in the preceding article) anddistributed to subscribers. Some 3600invention concepts have been dissem-inated to date, via Tech Briefs, to ourindustrial community.

Inventions are studied at our NASAfield centers, for technical significanceand patentability. For selected patent-able inventions, patent applications arefiled in the U.S. and a few are chosenfor foreign patents. Such inventionsbecome NASA's exclusive propertyand are made available for licensing.

Waiver Option

However, NASA 'may waive all orany part of the rights in the inventionto the contractor who made it if theA d m in istrator determines that a

s.

waiver would be in the public interest.Nevertheless, the government alwaysreserves the right to use such inven-tions for its own purposes. There aresome categories of invention, such asthose involving public health, in whichwaivers are usually not granted. Atypical case of this nature, whichinvolved public health, was for a medi-cal electrode that could be attached tothe human body to sense the heart-beat rate. NASA Tech Briefs indicatewhether a patent has been applied forthat invention, or not, and thus alertcommercial companies which may beinteresteti in applying for license.

To r:acourage the earliest possiblecommercial use, all inventions, ownedby NASA for which patent applica-tions have been filed, or that haveWiden patented on behalf of NASA, areavailable for royalty-free licensing toAmerican firms; licensees of foreignpatent rights are required to pay royal-ties.

If an invention is not reduced tocommercial form within two yearsafter a patent has been issued, thenNASA makes the invention availableon an exclusive basis in order tostimulate interest in using it commer-cially. In other words, we grant ex-clusivity to justify investment towarddevelopment.

Accounting Necessary

In the case of non-government com-mercial licensing agreements, an ac-counting must be made for royalties.In the government licensing programs,for example, the licensee may be askedwhat he is doing to develop andpromote the invention, how much isbeing spent to these ends, and howmany units have been sold. We needsuch data for our evaluation of theTechnology Utilization Program andfor reporting to Congress, also for theFederal Council for Science and Tech-nology.

To date the number of patentsissued to NASA is about 1050, andthere are some 650 patent applicationspending. This is a harvest resultingfrom the evaluation of approximately22,000 since 1958. As a referencefigure, the total number of patentsowned by the government is about20,000.

The only sector of technology wehaven't been much involved in, by ourpatent and licensing activities, hasbeen that of computer programs. Thisis because until recently software hadnot been considered as patentable.Lately, though, court decisions havesomewhat modified the ban againstthe patenting of software. As ex-plained in the previous article, we havedeveloped a considerable library ofsoftware packages and we sell these atcost.

Opportunities Lie Dormant

A significant aspect of technologyutilization and licensing is that NASAhas recognized the possibilities thatexist to make do; ant opportunitiescome to life and pay off. The transferof technology between governmentagencies continues to be relativelyeasy, particularly for inventions whichbear on public welfare or safety, or arerequired for use by government regula-tion. A so-called cross-fertilization ofconcepts continues to take place alsothrough the normal transfer of indi-viduals from one government agencyto another.

Reluctance to Investigate

Technology utilization faces twoproblems. The first is the so-calledNIH (not invented here) factor whichreflects partly a natural mistrust of theunfamiliar (and possibly only partiallyunderstood) and partly hesitancy torely as fully on the work of a stranger,

130

"To encourage earliest possible commercial use, all inventions owned by NASA To, whichpatent applications have been filed, or that have been patented on behalf of NASA, areavailable for royalty-free licensing to American firms."

as on the better known work of a closeassociate. This attitude, however, ap-pears to be diminishing as a result ofsuccessful -;xperience with new tech-nology harvested from the work ofothers. The second problem stemsfrom the fact that large companieswhich usually have marketing organi-zations and production equipmentaimed primarily at their existing pro-ducts can undertake to add to ormodify their marketing organizationsand production equipment only forinventions which promise large salesvolume. Small companies, which maynot have capital already committed insuch ways, can naturally be moreaggressive toward opportunities forgrowth.

Obviously, government ownershipof patents on inventions made underNASA contracts is undesirable to thecontractors who would otherwise own

129

them. The benefit of such a policy isthat NASA freely publishes the infor-mation these inventions contain, andoffers free licenses to use the inven-tions. The managements of privatecompanies are not equally free topublish or license, without charge,inventions which may constitute avaluable part of the property of theirstockholders. Since NASA is not aprivate concern, it can keep its wareson display and encour-age their free use. /ItA

Inquiries concerning NASA patentpolicy and the licensing of NASA-owned inventions may be directed tothe NASA Patent Counsel at anyNASA field installation, or to theAssistant General Counsel for PatentMatters, NASA, Washington, D.C.20546.