Conclusions and Recommeni3tion
in
4.1.5
1. Where possible, the decentralized LCU setup with persac:s! living at their working
place is very satisfactory.
,
2. In order to cause the least disturbance to shipboard routine and passengers, it would be
desirable in future operations to mess and quarter the experimenters aboard ship in separat=
quarters or on ships of the MSTStype.
,
3. Communications for experinienters were unsatisfactory when a number of channels hai
to be operated in close quarters, as on shipboard.
4, It is absolutely essential that the number of persons between the experimenter and his
transportation be kept to a minimum. This is largely because of the unpredictable nature of
the transportation requirements.
5. The success of this operation was largely due to the centralization of operational con-
trol on each atoll in one man familiar with the experimental pha-2s of the operation.
4.2
TASK UNIT 2, PRODUCTION
w rhe function of TU-2 during Operation Castle was to produce the necessary,
—
=
” Td fulfill this obligation additiona! personnel,”
were hired. A training program wasinitiated July,1953,atthe facilitiesofHerrickLon:
Johnston, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, to give basic instructions in
during a two-week
period, The training program was then transferred to the plants in the PPG for practical!plant
experience. This program continued until Dec. 15, 1953, and included the making of necessary
plant modifications.
.
The majorityof the plant chanzeseffectedwere designedtopromoteeaseof ooeratinzal
techniques.
4.3
_
'
TASK UNIT 3, SPECIAL MATERIALS AND FACILITIES
wt et wee
The mission of TU-3 for Operation Castle at the PPG was threefold.
Foe
|
(Cambridge Corporation, with field offices in Boulder and Denver, Colo., was re-
sponsible for all TU-3 activities.
TU-3 was under the direction of the Task Unit Commander. To aid in administration,
several groups who were under the direction of group leaders were organized according to
their specific functions.
61