Recording of Marshall Space Flight Center s Administrative Complex was completed in by the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), part of Heritage Documentation Programs, for NASA s George C. Marshall Space Flight Center It was conducted under the general direction of Richard O Connor, Chief, Heritage Documentation Programs and Melvin Mckinstry, NASA, Thomas Behrens and Mark Schara of Heritage Documentation Programs supervised the project. The recording team consisted of Doug Bacon (Auburn University), Paul Davidson (HABS), Jobie Hill (University of Oregon), and Ryan Pierce (HABS). The large-format photographs were produced by HABS Photographer Renee Bieretz.
Assisting the recording team were Joseph King and Sherry White, NASA, who provided access to the buildings and logistical support; Molly Porter and Mike Wright, NASA, who provided documents, photographs, and research assistance; and the staff of the National Archives and Records Administration-Southeast Region (Atlanta), particularly Shane Bell. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 2) For individual building descriptions and histories, see the following: Central Laboratory and Office (Building HABS No. AL-999-A Engineering and Administration Building (Building HABS No. AL-999-B Project Engineer Office (Building HABS No. AL-999-C Building HABS No. AL-999-D Cooling Tower Screen, HABS No. AL-999-E Cooling Tower Screen, HABS. No. AL-999-F PART I.
HISTORICAL INFORMATION A. Physical History: 1. Dates of erection: The Administrative Complex consists of four office buildings. Building (Central Laboratory and Office) was built in followed by Building (Engineering and Administration Building) in and Building (Project Engineer Office) the following year. Building was the last erected in 2. Architect: The Wyatt C. Hedrick firm of Fort Worth, Texas, under the supervision of the Marshall Space Flight Center s Technical Services Office (reorganized as the Facilities Engineering Office in and then the Facilities and Design Office in designed buildings and Hudgins, Thompson, Ball & Associates of Oklahoma adapted Wyatt C.
Hedrick s design under the direction of the Facilities and Design Office for Building The change in architectural firm was probably due to Hedrick s death in after suffering a heart attack.2 Wyatt C. Hedrick attended Roanoke College in Salem, Virginia, and Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. After working as an engineer for several years with Lane Brothers Construction Company in Altavista, Virginia, he moved to Texas where he worked in Stone & Webster s Dallas Office. In he established Wyatt C. Hedrick Construction Company in Dallas. One of his clients was Sanguinet & Staats, a large and influential architectural firm known for steel-frame construction.
Hedrick soon abandoned his construction company to work for the firm, and by he had become a partner.3 Upon the retirement of partners Charles G. Staats and Marshall R. Sanguinet in and respectively, Hedrick took over the firm and worked under his own name. 1 NASA s standard practice is to refer to center buildings by building number rather than name. That convention will be generally followed in this report.
2 Information about the various iterations of the offices comprising Marshall Space Flight Center s administration comes from a series of organization charts produced annually, including those from April October May and November provided by the History Office, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, (hereafter cited as History Office, 3 The firm had two offices; the one in Houston was called Sanguinet, Staats, Hedrick & Gottlieb, while the Fort Worth office was Sanguinet, Staats & Hedrick. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 3) Wyatt C. Hedrick-Architect and Engineer eventually became the third largest architectural firm in the United States, thanks in part to awards of multi-million dollar government contracts.
The firm s portfolio included a multitude of public, government, and university buildings in an array of architectural styles. Examples of Hedrick s work are the Spanish Revival Fort Worth and Denver South Plains Railway Depot in Lubbock, Texas, and a number of Moderne-style buildings in Fort Worth, Texas, like the Worth and Hollywood theaters and the Will Rogers Memorial Center Industrial and government buildings included a ten-story warehouse and twenty-five-story office building complex for the Katy Park Industrial Development Corporation in Houston and Keflavik Air Base in Iceland. Hedrick is perhaps most known for the Shamrock Hilton Hotel in Houston, funded by oil millionaire Glenn McCarthy.
The 778-room luxury hotel claimed to have the world s largest hotel pool at x as well as a lobby the size of a football field and paneled with wood from one Brazilian mahogany tree. Hedrick referred to the style of the building as Modern Romanesque, but the design was roundly criticized. Frank Lloyd Wright even weighed in on the tragic design, while San Antonio architect O Neil Ford remarked upon seeing the building, I always wondered what the inside of a jukebox looked like. 4 Hudgins, Thompson, Ball & Associates of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, founded in was comprised of G. Ed Hudgins, V. G. Thompson, Ralph M. Ball, Herman E. Smith, and Gene C. Cunningham.
The firm designed Founders Tower, an icon in Oklahoma City, for the United Founders Life Insurance Company in They were also responsible for a mile of the Tulsa Pedestrian Mall, designed in 3. Original and subsequent owners, occupants, uses: NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center has been the sole owner and occupant of the Administrative Complex since its construction. The buildings comprising the complex have always been used as offices and for administrative functions, although the departments and individual offices housed within have changed due to reorganizations and programmatic shifts. 4. Builder, contractor, suppliers: The Wyatt C. Hedrick firm was only contracted to complete the design work; the contracts for construction of the office buildings were separately let.
Electronic and Missile Facilities, Inc. of Valley Stream, New York, won the contract for 4 Gary W. Smith and Sally Abbe, Lubbock Opens the Buddy Holly Center, Texas Architect 50, no. 1 (January- February 15; Charles E. Gallatin, ed., The Shamrock: Another Houston Landmark Says Goodbye? Texas Architect 36, no. 3 (May-June Joel Warren Barna, A Trio of Major New Buildings Adds to the Downtown Dissonance, Texas Architect 39, no. 1 (January-February 11. Biographical information from Deborah M. Liles, Wyatt Cephas Hedrick: Builder of Cities, MA Thesis, University of North Texas, May available at accessed June and Christopher Long, Administrative History of Sanguinet and Staats, and Judith Singer Cohen, Biographical Sketch of Wyatt C.
Hedrick, in Sanguinet, Staats and Hedrick, An Inventory of their Drawings, Photographs, and Records, Alexander Architectural Archive, University of Texas Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin, available at accessed June William M. Freeman, Texas Rancher Has Wide Range, New York Times, November 13, 5 Theater Inflation, Are Buildings Killing the Theater? Progressive Architecture 51 (December 57; News Report-In Progress, Progressive Architecture 57, no. 1 (January 51. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 4) Building while Pearce & Gresham Company of Decatur, Alabama, erected buildings and Korte Construction Company was responsible for Building 5.
Original plans and construction: s administrators wanted the Administrative Complex to represent the center s place at the forefront of exploration of outer space and to reflect its national and worldwide importance. In order to make just such an impression on the high-level officials that would be visiting the complex, Marshall s management determined that the buildings should not be married to standard plans and construction methods used in the past and should utilize modern, lightweight materials and methods. In addition, since NASA itself and the center had been so recently established, it was difficult for administrators to predict future staffing and management needs. Therefore, a flexible and efficient arrangement of interior space was also necessary.6 As the Wyatt C.
Hedrick firm explained in its presentation of the initial design schemes, the complex should reflect the spirit and operation of space, keeping in mind the specific function of the various NASA offices and divisions that would be housed in the new structure. Function, flexibility, maximum usable space, mechanical and electrical requirements, and cost are determining factors in settling the design of these structures. Ease of expansion is another most important factor.
With these factors acting as a guide, the buildings should be of a contemporary design conveying an appropriate atmosphere to a considerable number of officials, both military and civilian, who will be frequent visitors and guests and to the technical people housed therein.7 Curtain walls and steel-frame construction, therefore, provided the best solution to the center s needs because it provided the modern look desired by the agency while also being cost effective. A curtain wall can be broadly defined as the non-load-bearing building envelope that typically hangs like a curtain from a structural frame.
8 The increasingly widespread use of the glass curtain wall in the through the resulted in the ubiquitous glass box that architectural critic Ada Louise Huxtable referred to as the genuine vernacular of the mid-twentieth century when critiquing Mies van der Rohe s work in Yet its development stretched back to the turn of the twentieth century, made possible by innovations in framing, particularly in Chicago where the steel structural frame replaced solid-masonry load-bearing walls, thus allowing a 6 Aden, Chief, Engineering Branch, Memorandum for A-E Selection Board, Subject: A-E Selection, Marshall Space Flight Center Central Lab and Office Building, August 22, in Folder 1d, Central Lab & Engineering in Facilities Central Lab & Engineering Box 30, Record Group National Archives and Records Administration-Southeast Region (Atlanta) (hereafter cited as RG NARA-SE).
7 Wyatt C. Hedrick, Architect-Engineer, Report, Pre-Design Services for a Central Laboratory and Office Building for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, available from Planning & Facilities Utilization Office, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama (hereafter cited as Facilities Office, 8 Scott Murray, Contemporary Curtain Wall Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, Introduction. 9 Murray, 31. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 5) larger fa ade on which to experiment with cladding.10 Additionally, the development of architectural glass helped encourage innovation.
In the drawn-glass process was patented; as opposed to earlier methods of blowing or casting glass to form a sheet, the new process drew a sheet of glass from a vat, which was then passed through rollers until cooled. In tempered glass was developed, a process by which a sheet of glass was heated in a furnace until softened and then quickly cooled on both sides by blowing air on it. Tempered glass was four times stronger than regular (also known as annealed glass), and, if it did happen to shatter, broke into small pieces with dull edges.
The Libby-Owens-Ford Company developed the Thermopane, a prefabricated double-pane insulating glass in Finally, in the Sir Alastair Pilkington of England invented the float process of glass manufacturing in which the raw materials used to make glass were melted and then floated on a bed of molten tin, resulting in an even surface. Once the sheet of glass had somewhat cooled, it was transferred to a conveyor for complete cooling and cutting.11 By the through the widespread use of steel or concrete framing and concrete floors plus innovations in glass manufacturing had encouraged the use of glass walls. Its popularity may also be attributed to cheaper construction costs with high square footages available, thus making it economical.
There was also backlash against its seeming overuse in the mid-twentieth century as the gridded glass-and-metal curtain wall was soon equated with a menacingly anonymous and ubiquitous corporate culture. 12 Early examples of curtain-wall construction in the United States include the Equitable Building (now the Commonwealth Building) in Portland, Oregon Lever House in New York City Seagram Building in New York City and buildings on the Chicago campus of the Illinois Institute of Technology. The curtain wall has been characterized as a system made up of mullions, spandrel or vision panels, and an anchor system. The mullions form the structural framework and are usually extruded aluminum because of the strength/weight ratio.
The panels are either glass (vision) or opaque (spandrel) and are generally held in place with rubber gaskets, silicone seals, or other fittings. This framework infilled with either spandrel or vision panels is then connected to the primary building structure by an anchor system consisting of metal angles or channels bolted to each vertical mullion and to the edge of the floor slab. The anchor system is important because it transfers wind loads and dead loads from the wall system to the building s structural frame. 13 For additional details on the original plans and construction of the buildings comprising the Administrative Complex, see the individual building histories. 6.
Alterations and additions: Various alterations and additions have been made to the buildings, primarily the interiors, to accommodate programmatic changes, as well as necessary 10 Donald Friedman points out in his chapter on curtain walls that the revision of building codes also played a role in promoting the shift from solid masonry walls to steel structural frames and brick/block cavity walls. See Historical Building Construction: Design, Materials & Technology 2d. ed. (New York: Norton & Company, Chapter 9. 11 Murray, Chapter 2. 12 Friedman, quote from Murray, 46. 13 Murray, quotes from 67, 68. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 6) upgrades to the mechanical, fire alarm, and electrical systems to meet present day building codes.
For additional details, see the individual building histories. B. Historical Context: Development of Marshall Space Flight Center14 Marshall s origins can be traced to Peenem nde, Germany, where a group of German scientists, among them one of the most prominent figures in space exploration and rocket development and future center director Wernher von Braun, were developing the V-2 rocket for use in World War II. As the war continued and it became obvious that the German forces would be defeated, von Braun and his colleagues decided to cooperate with the U.S. Army. The United States wanted to obtain the German rocket technology for use in the Army s Hermes Program. Dubbed Project Paperclip or Operation Paperclip, the transfer of these German scientists and their rockets to the U.S.
Army took place in Initially, a handful of them, including von Braun, were transferred in fall to Fort Strong, Massachusetts, and then Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland and set to work processing their documents relating to the rocket technology. They later joined another fifty-five Germans at White Sands Proving Ground in New Mexico and then Fort Bliss in Texas in where they aided the United States efforts to further missile technology. At the end of October the Secretary of the Army approved the transfer of the missile program from Fort Bliss to the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, because the Army s missile program required a central location and improved facilities. 15 The move was due in no small part to the advocacy of Alabama Senator John Sparkman, who convinced Gen.
Holger N. Toftoy, responsible for Operation Paperclip, that the arsenal would be a good site for continuing the development of the Army s missile program. Toftoy effectively took up the cause, and in November 500 military personnel, 130 German scientists, 180 General Electric contractors, and 120 civil service employees moved from Fort Bliss to Redstone. The U.S. Army activated the arsenal on October 6, Encompassing acres, the chemical manufacturing center was actually three installations: the Huntsville Arsenal, the Redstone Ordnance Plant, and the Gulf Chemical Warfare Depot.
The Huntsville Arsenal and the Redstone Ordnance Plant were located adjacent to one another, and the operation of both plants was closely integrated: the arsenal manufactured and loaded chemical ammunition shells, and the ordnance plant assembled the explosives and produced the completed rounds of chemical 14 This synopsis is based on Andrew J. Dunar and Stephen P. Waring, Power to Explore: A History of Marshall Space Flight Center, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, which is a comprehensive administrative history of the center and its activities, as well as David S. Akens, Origins of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Historical Monograph No. 1, Historical Office, Office of Management Services, George C.
Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, Huntsville, Alabama, December and 50 Years of Rockets & Spacecraft: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (Morley, MO: Acclaim Press, 15 Akens, 36. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 7) ammunition. The Gulf Chemical Warfare Depot was at the south end of the site near the Tennessee River to facilitate the transport and storage of the materiel.16 Once settled in Huntsville, the German scientists and others began developing the Redstone, a surface-to-surface missile, under the leadership of General Toftoy. By the Ordnance Missile Laboratories had been established at Redstone Arsenal. Wernher von Braun held the position of chief of the Guided Missile Development Division. Four years later, the U.S.
Army reorganized its missile development program and created the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA), which was responsible for the research and development of the Redstone Missile Program and the Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Program. Von Braun continued his upward trajectory in management by taking on the position of director of ABMA s Development Operations Division. With the launch of Sputnik I by the Russians on October 4, the United States hurried to develop its own satellite. The U.S. Senate authorized a Special Committee on Space and Astronautics and tasked it with writing legislation for a national space exploration program. President Eisenhower signed the resulting National Aeronautics and Space Act on July 29, and NASA was officially established on October 1, with Dr.
Keith T. Glennan as the first administrator. The new agency s mission was conducting scientific exploration of outer space for peaceful purposes. 17 To accomplish this mission, Eisenhower used his authority to transfer related, already- established departments and agencies to NASA. On October 1, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), which had been created in to support the aircraft industry, along with the U.S. Navy s Project Vanguard and 400 Naval Research Laboratory scientists became part of the new agency. The Department of Defense transferred its work on lunar probes, satellites, and engine development to the newly-formed agency as well.
President Eisenhower also ordered the transfer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, created in November from the California Institute of Technology s Rocket Research Center to NASA. The fate of ABMA and the Project Paperclip scientists was initially undecided, because they were effectively contractors to NASA since they were still under Army authority.
On October 21, Eisenhower announced: to strengthen the national space effort and provide for America s changing requirements in this field, I have concluded that the Army Ballistic Missile Agency can best serve the national interest as an integral part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration .As part of this action, the development of super-booster special vehicles will be consolidated in the aeronautical and space administration under the immediate direction of this team.18 On March 14, the agreement to transfer the ABMA s Development Operations Division to NASA was finally approved, and the von Braun team became part of NASA. In addition to the transfer of personnel, a agreement arranged for NASA to lease acres of Redstone 16 David G. Buchanan and John P.
Johnson, Redstone Arsenal, Historic American Engineering Record, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, HAER No. AL-9, 18. 17 Akens, 67. 18 Quoted in Akens, 69. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 8) Arsenal under a 99-year, non-revocable use permit. The land was carved out of the center of the Army s holdings, creating an unusual situation in which the NASA center was surrounded by an Army installation.
The Army also gave up several buildings, including the Computation Library, Aeroballistics Laboratory (with two wind tunnels), Fabrication and Assembly Engineering Laboratory (with two missile assembly shops and Structural Fabrication Building), Guidance and Control Laboratory, Test Laboratory (with blockhouse and Static Test Tower), Research Projects Laboratory, and Missile Firing Laboratory (with facilities at Cape Canaveral, Florida).19 With land, buildings, and personnel in place, Marshall Space Flight Center was formally established on July 1, taking its place at the center of the American space program. 20 The formal transfer ceremonies and official opening took place in July, and on September 8, President Eisenhower and George C.
Marshall participated in a ceremony dedicating the center to George C. Marshall, the fiftieth U.S. Secretary of State and the third Secretary of Defense. Because of its origins in rocket and propulsion systems and the expertise of the German scientists forming the core staff, was initially primarily responsible for designing and developing launch and propulsion systems. As described in the center worked to develop and provide launch vehicle and space transportation systems to meet the space program requirements, as well as directing the Mississippi Test Facility, the Michoud Assembly Facility, and various contractor installations in California.21 This included designing, developing, and testing the Saturn launch vehicles, including the Saturns I, IB, and V.
By the changes in leadership and budgetary constraints caused the center to expand its scope to space science. This resulted in work on Skylab and its Apollo Telescope Mount. With the end of the Skylab program, the center took the lead in the on Spacelab and the Hubble Telescope. This diversification helped expand the Center s expertise to the point that no other NASA field center could match the range of Marshall s experience. 22 Development of the Administrative Complex The development of the physical plant of the center is intimately tied to the projects in which it was involved as buildings were erected or modified to meet both employee workspace needs as well as development of space technologies.
Because of the center s involvement in the Saturn program in the it quickly went from consisting of a collection of donated Army buildings to clusters of buildings servicing various laboratories and programs. Additional acreage was also obtained, so that by the mid-1960s, the center encompassed more than acres. These building campaigns were supported by dramatic budget increases, from million in to billion just two years later. Only a few years after its establishment, the center employed employees and an additional contractors in square feet of building space and another square feet of rental space from the U.S. Army.
The center s buildings created an integrated complex of engineering, laboratory, fabrication and test facilities designed 19 Agreement between the Department of the Army and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for Use of Land and Facilities at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, signed August 10 and 15, copy from History Office, Dunar and Waring, 20 Dunar and Waring , viii. 21 Huntsville & Various Locations Facilities, Volume III, 4th ed., Management Information Office, Executive Staff, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, November 8, available from History Office, 22 Dunar and Waring, MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No.
AL-999 (Page 9) to provide project managers with the technical support necessary for successful vehicle systems engineering and technical evaluation of contractor activities. 23 The center was arranged with the Administrative Complex at the north on Rideout Road (a main thoroughfare) and near one of the center s entrances. Clusters of buildings serviced the various laboratories performing Marshall s work. These included from north to south, Manufacturing Engineering, Quality Assurance, Aeroballistics, Astrionics, Propulsion and Vehicle Engineering, and Computation. The Test area was at the very southern end of the center since a large blast zone was required around the test stands. Support Services were located to the south and east of the administrative complex.
(See Appendix, Figure 1.) As described in the mid-1960s during the height of construction, a visitor driving onto Marshall from the north could see the vast expanse of America s rocket development center stretching out literally for miles. Crowned by the glittering new ten-story Administration Building, dubbed the Von Braun Hilton, visitors could drive for several miles past lab buildings, fabrication complexes, test areas, and support structures. Many observers noted a decidedly industrial look, especially when compared to the campus-like setting of other NASA centers. But Marshall was built to design, test and manufacture rockets; if the look was utilitarian, people knew important development work was taking place there.
24 As programmatic needs have changed, small amounts of acreage have been added to the center, individual buildings have been altered, and additional ones have been erected, but the center s basic organization remains. The December 11, Army-NASA transfer agreement acknowledged there is not sufficient laboratory, engineering and administrative office space on Redstone Arsenal to house both the newly created Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA and the reconstituted Army Ballistic Missile Agency. The agreement proposes that NASA will independently attempt to meet its laboratory and office space requirements. An administration building that could consolidate the various program managers with the director and his staff was needed.
As a result, von Braun requested funds for a Central Laboratory and Office Facility capable of holding people in the fiscal year budget proposal to Congress. Correspondence among center staff reveals their idea that by including laboratory in the building name, there would be a higher likelihood of funding than if it was simply referred to as an office. Despite the name, however, there is no evidence that laboratories were ever located in the building. While waiting for approval of funding for essentially an office building, whatever the terminology used, NASA leased space in buildings and from the Army and rented additional office space in the Huntsville Industrial Center (formerly Lincoln Mills) in downtown Huntsville because of overcrowding.
In NASA rented more space in the Mountain View and Goldenrod motels and Mountain View restaurant for use as offices. NASA deemed these interim arrangements highly unsatisfactory, but represent the best solution available at this time. 25 (See Appendix, Figure 2.) 23 Huntsville & Various Locations Facilities, 9. 24 50 Years, 49. 25 Central Laboratory and Office Facility, budget, in Folder 1d, Facilities-Central Lab & Engineering and Delmar M. Morris, Acting Director, Marshall Space Flight Center, Memorandum for General Ostrander, Subject: Physical Space Requirements at Marshall Space Flight Center, April 27, in Folder 1d, Facilities-Central Lab & Engineering both in Facilities Central Lab & Engineering Box 30, RG NARA-SE; Henry H.
Gorman, Deputy Director, Administrative to Jones, Termination of Leases MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 10) Despite the critical lack of office space, the House of Representatives denied the funding request for the building in Report No. on April 14, on the grounds that it was not essential and that the center could use already-existing buildings. Congressman Thomas stated, Why all this construction when the Army is out of the space business? Tell us why the Army cannot vacate this facility and turn it over to you instead of your going in there and duplicating facility after facility.
26 The center administration retorted that the disapproval of the requested facility would result in the continuation of the above agreements [referring to the lease of Army buildings and office space in Huntsville proper]. This in itself lends to an inefficiency in operations which would have a resultant detrimental impact on the research and development efforts in the area of space exploration. 27 In April deputy director David Newby went to Washington, DC, to represent the center and convince the Senate to put the construction of the Central Laboratory and Office Building back into the Fiscal Year budget. Newby pointed to the results of a General Services Administration (GSA) space study affirming the need for office space to bolster his appeal.28 Sen.
Lister Hill, Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, along with Congressman Robert E. Jones were influential in obtaining the necessary million to fund the building.29 On July 1, the funds were restored to NASA, including those earmarked for the new building, with an approving vote by the House of Representatives.30 With funds finally in place, the center could next focus on finding a site for the complex. Four sites were initially proposed in Option A was north of Martin Road and east of Army Building while Option B was south of Martin Road and between the Structures and Mechanics Lab (Building and the Computations Lab (Building Option C was near Option B but to the west of the Structures and Mechanics Lab.
Finally, Option D was south of Martin Road and west of Building (See Appendix, Figure 3.) The center s administration determined that the only viable option was A, but the Army did not agree and instead proposed an area north of the center s boundaries near Rideout and Neal roads. The advantages of the Army s proposal were that the site was on high ground in a prominent location with a good overall view of the center. It was also removed from the highly traveled Martin Road, where there was a heavy concentration of buildings and staff, and had a good connection to Huntsville for Office Space, March 18, in Folder 1d, Facilities Physical Space, in Office of Director, Director s Files Box 28, RG NARA-SE; Leases Two Hotels to Provide Office Space, Marshall Star 1, no.
42 (July 19, 3; HIC Offices Are Readied for Marshall Star 1, no. 11 (December 7, 1, 4. 26 Morris, Deputy Director for Administration, to Albert F. Siepert, Director, Office of Business Administration, NASA, April 27, in Folder 1d, Central Lab & Engineering in Facilities Central Lab & Engineering Box 30, RG NARA-SE. 27 George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, Fiscal Year 17, from History Office, 28 Trip Report, David H. Newby to Washington, DC, April 27 & 28, in Folder 1d, Central Lab & Engineering in Facilities Central Lab & Engineering Box 30, RG NARA-SE. 29 Committee members included James E. Murray John F. Kennedy (MA), Pat McNamara (MI), Wayne Morse (OR), Ralph Yarborough Joseph S. Clark (PA), Jennings Randolph Harrison A. Williams, Jr.
Barry Goldwater (AZ), John Sherman Cooper Everett McKinley Dirksen (IL), Clifford P. Case Jacob K. Javits and Winston L. Prouty Letter from Lister Hill to Dr. Wernher von Braun, July 7, from History Office, 30 Telegram from Harold C. Ostertag to Dr. Wernher von Braun, July 1, from History Office, MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 11) via Rideout Road and Highway 20. Finally, there was adequate space for expansion. The disadvantage of the site was that it would require utility work, rerouting Neal Road, removal of railroad tracks, and extensive grading.
Nevertheless, the Army s proposed site fulfilled the center s requirements for the complex, and an amendment was quickly completed of the NASA- Army Transfer Plan of to transfer the necessary acreage to NASA.31 The construction of the administrative complex, particularly Building so soon after the establishment of the center and, indeed, NASA itself, meant that the center had little experience with building construction projects. As a result, the Engineering Branch of the center s Technical Services Office was established to oversee the design, development, and construction of center buildings. By it had sixty staff members.
NASA s central administration also developed policies and procedures for centers to follow during building campaigns, such as the NASA Management Manual, which contained instructions on how centers were to acquire Architect-Engineer (A-E) services. NASA s A-E Board would recommend A-E firms that centers could use. Projects costing more than $1 million required NASA headquarters approval, and any project had to be fully funded the year Congress authorized it.32 Following the procedures developed by NASA headquarters, a committee comprised of center staff worked through a list of approved A-E firms, eventually settling on the Wyatt C. Hedrick firm.
Center staff also developed the required design features of the building to be used by the firm in creating the design and floor plans (see individual building histories for more information). By the Administrative Complex had been completed. Located on one of the main roads by which visitors came into the center, Building was the focal point of the complex. Behind Building were the smaller buildings and designed in the same style and with the same materials to complement the main building.
Reflecting the hierarchical organization of the center, the buildings and housed the project offices and support staff who reported to the top level managers and center director and staff housed in Building Marshall Space Flight Center s Administration s management structure has changed regularly throughout the center s history to accommodate changing program needs and goals. Soon after its establishment, the organization was arranged into two branches: Research and Development Operations, comprising the laboratories, and Industrial Operations, encompassing the project offices where the plans, assignments, and budgets for projects were developed. This organizational structure made the laboratory directors and project managers on equal terms.
The following laboratories were under the Research and Development Operations: Aero-Astrodynamics, Astrionics, Computation, Manufacturing Engineering, Propulsion and Vehicle Engineering, Quality and Reliability 31 Wernher von Braun, Director, to Major General Don R. Ostrander, Director, Launch Vehicle Programs, NASA, Reference: letter dated August 26, signed Morris, and Advantages and Disadvantages of North Site in Vicinity in Rideout and Neal Roads, both in Folder 1d, Facilities-Central Lab & Engineering in Facilities Central Lab & Engineering Box 30, RG NARA-SE. 32 Summary of C&E Construction Program, July 1, to July 1, in Folder 1d, Construction of Facilities-Programs Mr. Newby s Working Papers in Office of Director, Director s Files Box 33, RG NARA-SE.
MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 12) Assurance, Research Projects, and Test. The Aero-Astrodynamics Laboratory, originally called the Aeroballistics Laboratory, studied the air flow on rockets and spacecraft and conducted wind tunnel testing. In the Astrionics Laboratory (originally Guidance and Control), guidance, communication, and electric power systems were developed. The Computation Laboratory supported the computers used in the research activities of all the laboratories. The Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory fabricated large-scale prototypes in high-bay structures and machine shops.
The Propulsion and Vehicle Engineering Laboratory (originally Structures and Mechanics) encompassed structural and mechanical design as well as materials analysis and systems engineering. Small components were tested for quality at the aptly-named Quality and Reliability Assurance Laboratory, while the Research Projects Laboratory (later called Space Sciences) provided scientific support and independent scientific research, particularly in the fields of physics, astrophysics, and thermodynamics research. Finally the Test Laboratory utilized test stands to test prototypes. In the Program Development Directorate was added as began to prepare for the end of the Saturn program by looking for other ways to maintain its relevancy within NASA.
The directorate s purpose was finding new work for the center and nurturing new programs in their infancy.33 As the first Center Director from to Wernher von Braun established the work culture that would characterize His management legacy has been described as a blend of techniques applied at Peenem nde and the methods used by the American Army during the ABMA days resulting in a hierarchical, disciplined, and conservative organization.35 While formality and hierarchy were valued, there was also a strong tradition of collaboration since von Braun and his German colleagues had worked together for many years prior to the establishment of Furthermore, von Braun did not adhere to what he referred to as pappy knows best style of management because he believed that pappy could only know best if he consulted his highly trained and expert staff.
project managers were given leeway by von Braun to accomplish their objectives, but he expected them to utilize the technical knowledge available in the laboratories. As von Braun stated, because project management involves a multitude of complex technical considerations and decisions, technical support in depth is required by the project office. It gets this support, not by creating it within its own organization, but by calling upon the technical divisions. 36 Open communication, not just from the top-down, was another significant characteristic of von Braun s management style. Regular meetings were held, and project managers were required to submit weekly summaries of their group s activities to von Braun.
These weekly summaries were then compiled in the weekly notes and disseminated to all 33 Dunar and Waring, 50 Years, 34 Much has been written about the charismatic von Braun. See for example, Ernst Stuhlinger and Frederick I. Ordway III, Wernher von Braun, Crusader for Space: A Biographical Memoir (Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co., and Michael J. Neufeld, Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War (New York: Vintage Books, 35 Dunar and Waring, 36 Memo from Wernher von Braun to Division Directors and Office Chiefs, Subject: Management Policy Statement #1, August 16, in Management Council Meeting, December Folder, in Upper Management Case Files, Management and Administration RG NARA-SE. Pappy knows best from 100 Years of Von Braun: His American Journey exhibit at U.S.
Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama, visited March 24, MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 13) center staff.37 The approach to project management at with its reliance on collaboration with minimal intervention from leadership differed from NASA s preference for systems engineering. As Yasushi Sato writes in his analysis of s organizational culture, systems engineering was not only redundant at Marshall but also fundamentally at odds with the center s values and assumptions. Its analytical, segmenting orientation contradicted the unitary, integrated rocket-building capability of von Braun s team, organically nurtured over many years.
38 Von Braun also adhered to the arsenal system, reflective of the German scientists experiences in Germany as well as with the U.S. Army. This meant that as much of the research, development, and fabrication activities took place onsite at the center s laboratories rather than being done by contractors. staff thought the arsenal system helped reduce costs and resulted in a higher-quality product because it allowed the staff to develop detailed specifications for the contractors and produce accurate cost estimates.39 As von Braun stated in we, of course, feel that the Air Force approach [referring to the use of contractors to carry out design work] is poor and that our in-house capability approach is the only way.
40 In keeping with the arsenal system, the organizational culture of was characterized by dirty hands engineering, even among top-level managers. Von Braun expected the laboratory and project office managers to maintain a high level of technical competence by actually working on projects rather than simply managing them.41 As the center and its projects developed, it became increasingly difficult to maintain all the components in-house, and by the mid-1960s, work was being let to aerospace contractors. The center staff still maintained responsibility for initial design, program management, systems integration, testing, and the oversight of scores of contractor firms who performed final design and production.
The center closely supervised the work of the contractors through a practice known as penetration. This meant the center established a Residential Managers Office in contractor facilities staffed by Marshall personnel to oversee the work of the contractors.42 With von Braun s departure from the center for NASA headquarters in and with budget cuts and even threats of the center s closure, shifted from the original arsenal system. Dr. Rocco A. Petrone, who became center director in removed the administrative functions from the laboratories so that they were no longer self-sufficient, thus effectively upsetting the 37 Dunar and Waring, 38 Yasushi Sato, Local Engineering and Systems Engineering: Cultural Conflict at NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center, Technology and Culture 46, no.
3 (July 39 It should be noted that this system was also in use at other NASA centers in the early years of the agency because there were so few private sector companies at the time with experience in rocket and aerospace technologies. 40 Quote from Manned Space Flight Program Perspective of goals, organization, and method, prepared by Dr. von Braun in Folder: Management Council Meeting, September 21, in Upper Management Case Files, Management and Administration RG NARA-SE, emphasis in original. 41 Memo from Wernher von Braun to Division Directors and Office Chiefs, Subject: Management Policy Statement #1, August 16, in Folder: Management Council Meeting, December in Upper Management Case Files, Management and Administration, RG NARA-SE.
42 50 Years, MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 14) equal footing the project offices and laboratories had enjoyed under von Braun. The laboratories instead supported the project offices while contractors completed the actual work.43 Despite later changes in the management of the center, the basic organizational culture was physically captured in the administrative complex. The center s headquarters (Building occupied a prominent location on a main road through the center and on a slight rise. The hierarchical nature of the center s organization was realized in Building with the center director and staff occupying top floor offices that were more elegantly appointed than those spaces for staff members.
From the top floors, dignitaries, government officials, and other visitors could enjoy the commanding views of the center. To the rear of the main building were the smaller Engineering and Administration Building and Project Engineer Office (buildings and which housed the offices of the various laboratory and program directors and staff. The contemporary buildings surrounded by modern landscaping portrayed the center and NASA as being at the forefront of technological innovation and a leader in space exploration. At the same time, the buildings were not lavishly appointed, reflecting the center s focus on engineering. PART II. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION A.
General Statement: The administrative complex, now comprised of buildings and is surrounded by parking lots and bounded by Marshall Road South, Marshall Road North, and Rideout Road. Buildings and constructed in the using curtain wall construction, form a U with Building as the central administration building fronting Rideout Road. Buildings and are oriented to face each other and extend to the east behind Building Building added in is sited opposite Building at the other end of complex. A courtyard with grass and trees is located between the buildings with sidewalks connecting them. The sidewalks on the outer perimeter of the courtyard are covered with gable-roof canopies.
Although alterations and modifications have been made to the individual buildings and landscaping, the general layout and appearance of the complex remains as originally envisioned. For additional details, see the individual building histories. B. Description of Exterior: See individual histories for building descriptions. C. Description of Interior: See individual histories for building descriptions. D. Site: 1. Historic landscape design: The plans for each building included a landscape design, characterized by geometric beds with minimal plantings and extensive use of rock. Stands of ornamental trees and swathes of lawn were also utilized throughout the complex. For additional details, see the individual building histories.
43 Dunar and Waring, MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX HABS No. AL-999 (Page 15) 2. Outbuildings: Two concrete screens hid the cooling towers servicing the complex. The first was for buildings and while the other served only Building For additional details, see the individual building histories. PART III. SOURCES OF INFORMATION A. Architectural drawings: Engineering Design Services of Marshall Space Flight Center holds all of the as-built drawings, as well as drawings related to every modification, alteration, and addition to the building. Individual drawings used in this report are referenced in the footnotes. B.
Early views: Historic photographs of the building are available from the Planning & Facilities Utilization Office and the History Office of Marshall Space Flight Center. The negatives are now housed at National Archives and Records Administration-Southeast Region (Atlanta). C. Section
Block