[106] The Launch Vehicle Panel, AACB

During the years 1963 through 1967, the Launch Vehicle Panel of the AACB was quite active as the principal coordination mechanism in the field of launch vehicles. It was the only panel of the AACB on which Defense Affairs was directly represented. The Panel met about four times a year and considered major interagency matters in the areas of space propulsion systems, including the coordinated development and use of launch vehicles.

During this period, the Chairman of the Panel was Dr. Alexander H. Flax, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Research and Development. The principal Air Force members were Mr. Joe Jones (Deputy to Dr. Flax), Mr. H. J. Weigand (Scientific Advisor, DCS/R&D), Col. R. Nudenberg (ADC for Space, AFSC), and Col. James Fitzpatrick, (DCS/R&D).

The Vice Chairman was Mr. M. W. Rosen, Senior Scientist, Office of Defense Affairs. Principal NASA members were Mr. V. L. Johnson (OSSA), John Sloop (OART), and Mr. A. O. Tischler (OART).

The Panel Secretaries were Maj. Roman C. Fruge, USAF, for the DOD, and Mr. Alfred Nelson, Program Plans and Analysis, for NASA.

1963

During this year, the Panel reviewed the activities of the Air Force in the field of high-energy propulsion, including upper stages that were prospective users of high-energy propellants. The propellant combinations of interest were liquid oxygen and hydrogen, fluorine and hydrogen, fluorine and hydrazine, and the acid-hybaline combination. In addition, the Panel monitored activities in the large, solid-rocket program and the development of the Titan II for Gemini.

 

1964

The Panel continued its review of high-energy, liquid rocket propulsion. During this period there was considerable interest in NASA in the use of Flox (mixtures of liquid fluorine and liquid oxygen).

 

Also during this year there was a major joint study of NASA and DOD launch vehicle requirements and costs. The DOD was pressing hard at this time for NASA to use the Titan family of boosters for NASA missions. The study examined launch vehicles currently in use and those projected for use in the ten-year period 1965 through 1974.

 

[107] 1965

During this year, the Air Force became active in the development of a solid-propellant' guided, upper stage called Burner II and reported their progress -to the Launch Vehicle Panel. The Panel also reviewed studies of reusable launch vehicles. (Some of the techniques proposed at that time were later to be considered in the conceptual and preliminary design phases of the space shuttle project.)

In addition, the large, solid-rocket motor program was active and was kept under review by the Panel. The Air Force was developing the segmented 120-inch-diameter motor and NASA was developing the monolithic 260-inch diameter motor.

 

1966

The major activity undertaken by the Panel in 1966 was the up-dating and reissuance of the National Launch Vehicle Summary, the principal publication of the Panel. In addition, the Panel continued to monitor the Air Force and NASA programs in high-energy liquid propulsion and in large, solid-rocket motor development.

 

1967

At this time, the Air Force was active in developing advanced versions of the Titan family of launch vehicles, the Titan III-D for larger unmanned payloads and the Titan III-M for their MOL. The Air Force urged and NASA considered the possible use of Titan for NASA missions. This consideration led eventually to the planned use of Titan by NASA for planetary missions (Titan III-D Centaur) and for unmanned payloads such as the Applications Technology Satellites and the High Energy Orbiting Observatory.

Over a period of several years (1964 through 1967), the Panel coordinated the introduction and use of more advanced versions of the Thor family of launch vehicles, the Long-Tank Thor and the Thor-Augmented Thor. In addition, the Panel coordinated the introduction of the Thor-Delta at the Western Test Range and the use of this range for NASA Thor-based launches.

[108] NASA-DOD Agreement on the Thrust-Augmented Thor-Delta, Thrust-Augmented Thor-Agena, and Launch Facilities

During 1963 and 1964, the Launch Vehicle Panel laid the ground work for three formal NASA-DOD agreements concerning new launch vehicle combinations (reference DOD-NASA agreement concerning the maintenance of a National Launch Vehicle Program, of February 23, 1961).

(1) NASA and the DOD agreed (August 22, 1963) that the development by NASA of a Thrust-Augmented Thor Delta launch vehicle was consistent with the objectives of the National Launch Vehicle Program.

 

(2) The DOD and NASA agreed (September 27, 1963) that the development of a Thrust-Augmented Thor-Agena combination by the Air Force was also consistent with the objectives of the National Launch Vehicle Program.

 

(3) The substance of a DOD-NASA Memorandum of Agreement dated December 28, 1964, was as follows:

 

a. NASA would be responsible for the development of an improved configuration of the Delta launch vehicle for use at ETR and WTR. When the improved Delta had been proof tested, DOD would phase out the use of the Thor-Abelstar and replace it with the Delta.

 

b. USAF would be responsible for the Thor (SLV-2) first stage.

 

c. NASA would be responsible for the Delta upper stage.

 

d. NASA would be responsible for the adaptation of Delta to satisfy all launch missions and for payload integration with the launch vehicles.

 

e. Each Agency would be responsible for the overall mission direction of its missions.

 

f. NASA and USAF would share the use of a launch pad and blockhouse at WTR for Delta launches.

 

g. The cost of establishing a Delta capability at WTR would be shared by NASA and DOD on an estimated user ratio basis.

 

[109] h. USAF would contract for all Thor booster services; NASA would contract for all Delta stage services. Each Agency would reimburse the other for the contractor-supplied services it used.

 

i. NASA would exercise launch vehicle control over all WTR Delta launches; DOD reserved the right to renegotiate this clause if desired.

 

[110] Coordination of Study Efforts in the Area of Reusable Boosters and Hypersonic Flight

In the summer of 1964, I became increasingly concerned about the proliferation of studies on reusable boosters and the closely related area of hypersonic flight, as sponsored by both NASA and the DOD. It appeared that the two Agencies might in some cases be funding very similar studies in this field by the same contractor so that, in effect, a contractor might be receiving double pay for essentially a single study effort. There also seemed to be some duplication of studies, both in-house and contractor, sponsored by NASA Headquarters and NASA Centers.

To reduce unnecessary duplication, if in fact it did exist, and to place whatever future effort was needed on a coordinated basis, I took the initiative in arranging for a joint NASA-AFSC review of the studies in this area which had been completed, were underway, or planned. Accompanied by Colonel Ebbeler, I discussed the matter with General Ritland, Colonel Coulter, and two other of Ritland's assistants at a meeting on August 19, 1964. We agreed on the plan of action outlined in the attachment (Attachment IX), which was carried into effect. The general short-term result was to shift the emphasis from conceptual studies to coordinated efforts to develop the more advanced technology which was identified as being commonly prerequisite to any reusable booster system.

Growing out of this review, initiated by Defense Affairs, the Supporting Space Research and Technology (SSR&T) Panel of the AACB, at its meeting on April 26, 1965, discussed ways of accomplishing detailed coordination in the technological domain of reusable space boosters and hypersonic flight, having been requested by the Co-chairmen, AACB, to examine the need for establishing a sub-panel under the SSRT Panel for this purpose.

At the AACB meeting on August 24, 1965, Dr. Eggers of NASA presented the recommendation of the SSRT Panel that an "Ad Hoc Sub-Panel on Reusable Launch Vehicle Technology" be established. Proposed terms of reference, specifying that the charter of the sub-panel would expire on July 1, 1966, were submitted and approved by the Co-chairmen. The Sub- panel was authorized and directed to accomplish the following:

a. Review technology areas supporting reusable launch vehicles within NASA and the DOD to insure that effective planning and coordination exists, to avoid undesirable duplication, and to achieve efficient utilization of available resources;

 

b Identify those critical supporting technologies limiting the development of reusable vehicles which can provide means of delivering payloads to space and can be used for ballistic payload development and test purposes.

 

[111] c. Determine the importance of the technologies involved to the various reusable launch vehicle configurations and operating modes of greatest interest and establish where possible realistic environmental boundary conditions and recommend priorities within which the technologies should be advanced;

 

d. Assess ongoing research and technology projects as to their effectiveness in providing substantive advances in the crucial technologies;

 

e. Recommend changes, as appropriate, which would enhance the value or effectiveness of current programs;

 

f. Identify areas of effort where insufficient resources are currently being placed and recommend specific additional investigations which should be undertaken;

 

g. Through the minutes of its meetings and final reports, record the NASA-DOD coordination in reusable launch vehicle R&D accomplished by the Ad Hoc Sub-panel.

The Sub-panel of twelve members was chaired by Mr. Milton B. Ames, Jr., OART, with Mr. Howard P. Barfield, DDR&E, as Vice-chairman. Joint Working Groups were organized to deal with the areas of (1) Mission Analysis and Concepts, (2) Structures and Materials, (3) Aerodynamics, Including Reentry, (4) Rocket Propulsion, and (5) Air Breathing Propulsion.

The review and assessment of concepts, technology, and economic factors conducted by the Sub-panel was wide in scope and thorough. The Sub-panel heard briefings from some eight offices and laboratories over the following six months.

The final report of the Sub-panel was signed on September 22, 1966. The SSRT Panel agreed with the summary conclusions and general recommendations of the Sub-panel, but felt that an economic study in depth was required to provide more specific guidelines for developing the most meaningful technology to yield the greatest payoff.

A comprehensive presentation of the results of the study was given to the AACB on September 22, 1966. The conclusions and recommendations were very general in nature and dealt primarily with a further coordinated program of system studies and experimental projects as a basis for future evaluations of the practicability and benefits of reusable boosters. The Sub-panel found ample reasons to be encouraged by the prospects or reusable boosters as a means of reducing the cost per pound of space payloads.

[112] The Co-chairmen of the AACB, in complimenting the Sub-panel on its work, expressed the view that systems studies and realignment of existing technology studies should be the principal initial steps toward implementation of the recommendations of the report.

[113] Offer of Excess Minuteman Missiles to NASA

By letter dated December 18, 1964, the DOD inquired whether NASA could make use of excess (outdated) Minuteman missiles in its R&D programs. After a comprehensive review made by OSSA, NASA advised the DOD on August 16, 1965, that NASA could not use excess Minuteman missiles to advantage in any of its programs, but kept open the option of requesting the allocation of a limited number of these boosters should a possible use develop in the future.

[114] Attachment IX. NASA/AFSC Coordination of Reusable Booster Studies.

---