158 MARINE SCIENCE 



Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 

 Burbatik, Calif., September 30, 1959. 

 Hon. Warhen G. Magnuson, 



U.S. Senate, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, New Senate Office 

 Building, Washington, D.C. 

 Sir : Thank you very much for your letter of September 18, 1959, enclosing 

 S. 2692, the proposed Marine Sciences and Research Act of 1959. It is encour- 

 aging to see that you are taking the lead with a strong and constructive interest 

 in our country's need for greater effort in oceanography and related activities. 

 Also, I am delighted to see that Senator Engle of California is a cosponsor of 

 the bill. 



Beyond any question, S. 2692 is a vital and valuable step forward. It is 

 clearly written and seems to cover requirements for the next few years in very 

 adequate fashion. 



My only suggestion would be that perhaps the sum of $250,000 capital outlay 

 for a records center (p. 16, line 23) should be increased to roughly $1 million. 

 Also, the yearly operating figure for the records center (p. 17, line 3) should be 

 raised somewhat. 



Please accept my congratulations on a fine beginning. I only hope that the 

 Senate will consider the bill favorably during the next session. 

 Sincerely yours, 



J. E. LiPP, 

 Corporate Director of D'evelopment Planning. 



GONVAIR, 



A Division of General Dynamics Corp., 



San Diego, Calif., November 12, 1959. 

 Mr. Warren G. Magnuson, 



Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 

 Netv Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 



Dear Mr. Magnuson : Studying the proposed bill S. 2692, Marine Sciences and 

 Research Act of 1959, we find that it agrees closely with the minimum require- 

 ments suggested by National Academy of Sciences as set forth in several reports 

 published by the Committee on Oceanography. 



We agree with the committee's suggestions as far as they go. Accordingly, 

 the bill appears to be a good one. 



One thing must be pointed out. The funds proposed (sec. 8; p. 16, line 23; 

 p. 17, line 3) for creation of a National Oceanogi'aphic Records Center (NORC) 

 are not adequate. If this facility is to constitute more than a gesture the total 

 amount called out in the bill for capital equipment and operation of NORC 

 should have its decimal point moved to the right one place. This would result 

 in minimum acceptable support. 



New methods of data acquisition, processing, and storage are beginning to be 

 used in oceanography. These methods were developed principally for missile 

 and aircraft flight testing, where they have been used successfully for more 

 than a decade. We presently are conducting a study, for Oflice of Naval Re- 

 search, on oceanographic instrumentation to make recommenadtions in this very 

 matter. 



To keep up with these improved methods (and the increased volume of 

 oceanographic data forseen) NORC must be prepared to store data in modern 

 ways. Among these are IBM punched cards, or perhaps Fosdic or magnetic 

 tape. Machines must be available to sort, encode, and file the data, and to 

 search for data automatically. These methods are now being used in various 

 (and not always compatible) ways by the U.S. Weather Bureau, the Bureau of 

 the Census, and many private concerns including our own. 



Experience shows that these methods are expensive. Like mass production 

 and automation the expense is more than offset by the increase in output per 

 dollar spent. 



NORC is much needed. Like everything else worth doing this is worth doing 

 right. It would be unfortunate to create this key facility based exclusively on 

 methods or philosophies that are already 10 or 20 years out of date. 

 Sincerely, 



H. E. Seibert, 

 Flight Test Group Engineer. 



