This is an artist concept of our vertical assembly building where the complete assembly and checkout takes place. To handle vehicles of the Saturn C-5 class, we need a hook height inside the VAB of 425 feet with a resulting 480 feet total height of building required. We estimate 8 weeks will be required in the VAB to completely assemble and checkout a Saturn C-5 prior to movement to the pad on the launcher-transporter. (Slide No. 4:)

The launcher-umbilical tower system is shown emplaced at the pad over its flame deflector after having been transported from the VAB by the crawler-transporter over a prepared roadbed. The launcher is lowered by hydraulic jacks in transporter on the foundation shown and the crawler is removed to be used with another launcher some

where else in the operation. The total weight of the launcher-umbilical tower with the empty liquid vehicle on it is estimated at 6 million pounds, with the crawler-transporter itself weighing 4.8 million pounds.

To enumerate the advantage of the mobile launch concept over the present fixed concept, requires that we select a launch rate for purposes of comparison. With 6 bays shown in the VAB, we can launch 36 vehicles a year. This same launch rate would require nine fixed complexes which would mean an investment of $900 million in launch facilities as compared to $450 million estimated for the mobile concept.

Manpower savings are an extremely important factor because of the scarcity of the skills of the type of manpower required. For a launch rate of 36 per year, we have estimated a requirement for 2,200 direct manpower to perform all the operations in the VAB and on the pad. For the same rate with the 9 fixed pads, we would need 3,700 direct manpower. At $12,000 a year salary per person, this would amount to annual reduction in requirement of 1,500 people and $18 million. If we calculate the difference at a lower launch rate of 24 per year, we would need 1,900 direct manpower in the VAB and on the pad versus 2,500 direct manpower for the fixed concept. This would amount to an annual reduction in requirements of 600 people and $7,200,000. These reductions in requirements in manpower are primarily due to the fact that we can now concentrate the lengthy launch preparation efforts and, therefore, make better use of our people.

Another feature that offers potential savings is the flexibility of handling different vehicle configurations. If we have to modify a launch pad today to introduce new ground support equipment for a different stage configuration or entirely new payloads, we have to take the entire facility out of action and deny the use of that pad during the period of modification. With the mobile concept, we can modify one launcher-transporter for the new ground support equipment and still continue to use the pad for launches.

We are presently sizing this facility so that at a later time we can introduce solid first stages for the C-5 class vehicle so that if solids are introduced in our space program in this class vehicle, we will be able to launch from these pads using these launcher-transporters.

There are other advantages, such as the improvement of working conditions, improvement of environmental conditions that this vehicle is exposed to for a prolonged period of time which add to the attractiveness of the mobile launch concept. However, these are greatly overshadowed by the inherent flexibility of handling different vehicle configurations, the ability to greatly increase the launch rate from the same pad areas, and the potential reductions in skilled manpower requirements for high launch rates.

To summarize, we are of the opinion that the steps now being taken to provide this mobile launcher facility for the advanced Saturn program will greatly enhance our launch operations for the space flight program now proposed and provide the capability to exploit the many advances and uses of space, which, although now only in its infancy, will inevitably result from the large investments now being made to assure the future of our country in

space.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Teague, you are studying this problem.

Any questions?

Mr. TEAGUE. Have we ever lost a missile on the pad during checkout, Major?

Major PETRONE. I have not had any personal experience with any during checkout.

Mr. TEAGUE. What is the possibility of assembly building?

Major PETRONE. The chances are remote. explosive hazards.

It is remote from that standpoint, sir.

losing one inside of that

You do not introduce any

Mr. TEAGUE. Our subcommittee went into this to a great extent with Dr. Debus and Major Petrone at Cape Canaveral and the subcommittee came to the conclusion we have to go to this type of operation in using the rendezvous technique. I don't think I have any further questions. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. Glad to have you here, Major.

I think you are a good addition to the program.

How do you arrive at the six bays in the building?

Would you explain that? Why you need a certain number of pads? Major PETRONE. We had sized the pads

Mr. FULTON. Could we have the slide again?

Major PETRONE. Slide No. 2, please.

We had sized the four bays-rather, the four pads-to support the rendezvous operation which would require a vehicle on the pad and a backup.

This was the Earth orbital rendezvous, sir.

Mr. FULTON. Would this complex 39 be available if we went to the Nova, could we launch the Nova rocket from this complex?

Major PETRONE. The specifications of the Nova, in both thrust and dimensions, is not defined, and the question is really not answerable. In terms of compatibility of introducing it, I would say yes, contigent upon thrust level and size.

However, since it appears that the Nova will be not in a sense backup but a next step forward, it will probably have a larger thrust class than 15 to 20 million pounds and therefore not be able to be launched from these specific pads.

Mr. FULTON. You will notice that if you look from the pad furthest away from the shoreline to the pads that are on the shoreline, you have an overflight of three pads.

Does that affect the safety?

Major PETRONE. Sir, this has been analyzed in great detail, the pros and cons, and we have accepted the risk of an overflight from the rearward pad with the understanding that that will primarily be our backup pad.

In any launch program you, unfortunately, have to be prepared for an explosion or disaster on the pad.

That is why we would use this pad primarily as our backup pad.

Mr. FULTON. My final question is, why did you choose the creeper crawler form of transportation instead of the rail and/or the barge form of transportation from the vertical assembly building to the launch pads?

Major PETRONE. I would say our primary reasons were technical, in that the crawler system we have adopted actually will be an inherent design already available.

These large crawlers are today used in stripmining. We studied one in particular at some length. It is actually of a larger size than the one we have here and has many inherent technical features, such as low acceleration rate, minimum sway of the vehicle while moving, and, technically, it was extremely attractive.

Mr. FULTON. Is it lower in cost?

Major PETRONE. On the cost factor, our roadbed per mile for the crawler with the weights we are carrying is more economical than the railbed. Barge would have the cheapest per mile cost. However, in experimental testing we encountered certain difficulties in propelling and stabilizing the barge.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the total weight now of a vehicle? I think you said 6 million pounds.

Major PETRONE. Six million pounds, sir, would be the payload—the launcher system-umbilical tower and vehicle. The crawler transporter is 4.8 million, giving us a total of just under 11 million pounds that must move on this roadbed.

The CHAIRMAN. 5,000 tons.
Major PETRONE. Yes, sir.

Our ground pressure is something in the neighborhood of 50 pounds per square inch.

Mr. TEAGUE. Is the time scheduled on this classified?

Major PETRONE. Time schedule in terms of readiness date, sir?
Mr. TEAGUE. Right.

Major PETRONE. No, sir. We have a readiness date for this facility of approximately April 1965, when we want to be able to launch our first C-5 vehicle.

The CHAIRMAN. Major, this vehicle is 380 feet high, I believe you said.

Major PETRONE. 350.

The CHAIRMAN. You sometimes get pretty heavy winds in this part of the country, don't you?

Major PETRONE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When this is on the crawler, have you designed against wind?

Major PETRONE. Yes. We have designed for a 65-knot gust, which is the level of wind that could come at random. For higher than that, which would be hurricane conditions, rather than designing the transporter and the vehicle to take hurricane loads, we would move it back to the building for hurricane protection.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Pelt.

Mr. VAN PELT. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Karth?

Mr. KARTH. Major, you build the vehicle right on the crawler, don't you?

Major PETRONE. I would say we assemble it, sir.

Mr. KARTH. You would not assemble it on a barge, would you? Major PETRONE. The barge system we investigated, sir, really transported the same portion above the water line. Water was only the means of transport. The barge I referred to-and I did not explain

in detail because Mr. Fulton was familiar with it-the barge, the crawler, and the rail were only means of transporting the launch umbilical tower system shown in my slide.

So the barge there is not to be confused with the barge used to transport the stage from the factory or test site to the cape. Mr. KARTH. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Riehlman.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Major, what would be the length of time for moving one of these missiles from the assembly room to the farthest pad? Major PETRONE. We can move 1 mile per hour. So it would be about 21/2 hours, sir.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. The only thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that I concur with the chairman of the subcommittee that while we were down at Cape Canaveral certainly Major Petrone was most helpful and constructive in his presentation to the committee, I commend him for it, and also for his presentation here today.

Major PETRONE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very happy to know that you recognize Major Petrone.

Mr. Hechler.

Mr. HECHLER. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mosher.

Mr. MOSHER. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Daddario?

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to hear Major Petrone make a presentation on this subject before, as a member of Chairman Teague's subcommittee, and all I want to say is that I am pleased to have him here and to have the full committee see the grasp he has of this subject, and, I think too, probably as important, the dedication he shows to the tasks assigned to him.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree. Mr. Bell.

Mr. BELL. Major Petrone, on one of the advance stages of Saturn, I don't know which, I don't think it has been determined, they are talking about a nuclear vehicle.

Major PETRONE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELL. Would there be a requirement for considerable change in your setup to make this available to the launch?

We

Major PETRONE. Building and transport will be the same. have to add a specific nuclear assembly vehicle to install the reactor into the engine, so it is a specialized facility, as an adjunct to the building.

However, the stage then will be brought into this building, erected on the basic C-5 vehicle, transported to the pad with the transporter and launched from the same pad, sir.

Mr. BELL. That would be considerably more costly, would it not? Major PETRONE. You mean the additional building we must add?

Mr. BELL. Yes.

Major PETRONE. The requirements for the nuclear assembly building are really in their inception of design. Our basic engine is under test in Nevada and we have work underway with the Atomic Energy Commission and the engine designer, so we do not have a cost estimate.

It is primarily a means of vertically handling what we call rift, reactor in flight. The test stage is placed in a vertical position to