Dr. O'NEILL. It is a delicate question, sir, and perhaps I could turn it back to you by suggesting that since Dr. Frosch is going to be here tomorrow morning, it would be more appropriate if you were to ask him directly.

But my understanding from conversations with Dr. Frosch during meetings with several people present is that he came into office rather a convinced believer in the limits to growth, and was not very interested in ways out of it or around it.

We are trying to give him all possible information so he will have a factual basis for changing his mind if he chooses to do so.

Mr. TEAGUE. What kind of money are we talking about? Starting from now this year, what would you people like this committee to do?

Dr. O'NEILL. I would say we could go ahead almost full steam at a level of $1 to $2 million during this next year. That would also be enough time for a number of people to plan a proper program over the next 3 years.

Mr. TEAGUE. I understand that the other people are to come back to the witness table to be available for questions.

Mr. FUQUA. Yes; Dr. Handler and Mr. Adams and Ms. Hubbard. Mr. TEAGUE. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I have a question for Dr. Handler.

Could he return to his testimony for a moment. On page 3, he said, "Today there is more good science to be done in space than NASA can afford to do." I wonder what you mean by that

Dr. HANDLER. There is a long laundry list of proposed experiments available to be done and all we can do now is schedule them into the future.

Ms. MIKULSKI. What is that laundry list?

Dr. HANDLER. Both studies of the planets and studies of the Earth's atmosphere, and the surface and studies related to distant cosmology. Ms. MIKULSKI. On page 6 of your testimony, you say "that the task of the Space Science Board is to advise NASA in making choices among competing alternatives, all of which are attractive and important."

Could you tell me what criteria you use?

Dr. HANDLER. I think it would be easier if we provided you with a set of reports in which we have done this and you could see it in operation. I will ask Mr. Rosen, if you will allow it, to just give a report on a few of those.

Specifically, they were scientific criteria.

MS. MIKULSKI. The reason I ask that is that Congress has to set priorities, and I think one of the things I am interested in is the way you set priorities and if some of your criteria would be applicable for us

to use.

Dr. HANDLER. I don't think there's any conflict in the setting of priorities.

MS. MIKULSKI. I am not implying that there is conflict.

Dr. HANDLER. When shall you go to Mars, then when shall you go to Venus, and when should you set out the Jupiter probe? When would we be ready to build the space telescope? That is the sense of priorities. MS. MIKULSKI. That is exactly the type of criteria because these are the types of things we have to ask ourselves. And the criteria that use may be the criteria we could also use.

you

Dr. HANDLER. I am sure you can and indeed you have.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will you be submitting this to the chairman?
Dr. HANDLER. Submitting what?

Ms. MIKULSKI. This criteria.

Dr. HANDLER. Let me send you an extract of the actual way this has been done.

MS. MIKULSKI. Thank you. I only have one more question because I know other members of the committee are interested.

Ms. Hubbard, we hear a lot, really, from expert testimony-the three others who spoke were scientists and there seems to be an institutional establishment connected with space, either made up of aerospace manufacturers or scientists. You represent a grassroots organization and as we talk about the future of the space program, could you tell me what contribution you think the grassroots organization could make, No. 1. And, No. 2, do you think the general public has any role in this, or should we leave it to this institutional establishment?

Ms. HUBBARD. I think that in the setting of any new long-range goals in a democracy that the people have to express their opinion.

I don't think that the President or even Congress can do it without an expression of opinion from the people. I believe that the constituency is there and it is latent because it has not been given anything concrete since the Apollo program. NASA has not stated new objectives and neither have Presidents of the United States.

Therefore, the importance of the grassroots is to express their opinion and the importance of Congress is to give some set of pragmatic possible goals for the people to start expressing their opinions about. They cannot do it in a vacuum.

I think once those dynamics get into action, that we will find about every major sector of our society has some reason to be for an expanded goal in space, whether it be jobs or international cooperation or new energy sources or simply new adventure and motivation for life.

Therefore, I think we should stimulate it in every way we can. The second part of your question was, How will it be of importance to us?

Ms. MIKULSKI. No. I sit on another committee involved in DNA experimentation, and when I wanted to include grassroots representation in a local biohazards committee, I received an outcry from the scientific community saying that you really cannot trust them in scientific research-in other words, it is incompatible with grassroots involvement and consultation, et cetera.

Ms. HUBBARD. I believe that the study OTA undertakes should include citizen participation from all sectors of our society, because it is important that we learn to bring public decisionmaking into the process early on. Otherwise, these goals will be established by the technological elite and democracy will be threatened.

When the design of the study is undertaken, I would strongly suggest that people be brought into it from the beginning.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you.

Mr. TEAGUE. Dr. Handler, I apologize. I have not been here for all of the testimony, but has it been asked what type of organization or so-called, if you will, "think tank" there is in the Federal Government to determine priorities and how priorities are determined? Has that question been covered in any of the testimony?

Dr. HANDLER. Not as such, Mr. Teague, and I don't think there is such a thing.

Mr. TEAGUE. I know at one time we had a think tank within NASA looking as far into the future as you can imagine.

Dr. HANDLER. NASA has turned to us to do it and OMB has done it, and every executive branch agency does it for itself, but you don't see the reports by which that's done.

Mr. TEAGUE. I hope you aren't saying that each individual agency makes their own determination of priorities of what to put their money into.

Dr. HANDLER. I hope they do that first before they come to the White House and then they present that to the Congress, indicating how they establish their priorities.

But every agency has to establish what it thinks is important and bring it to the Congress for approval.

Mr. TEAGUE. Surely. But in the end I am sure our committee can be presented with a list of priorities from the top down.

Ďr, HANDLER. Why not? We have done ours with NASA out in the

open.

Mr. Rosen, would you bring up that little library that you have with you?

Mr. Teague, it is a collection of reports which we have done.
Mr. TEAGUE. That is to the National Academy of Sciences?

Dr. HANDLER. Yes, but for example, they report on space science, 1975. This is a list of all the opportunities anyone could imagine and it says these are the things to do first and why.

This report is called, Opportunities and Choices in Space Sciences, 1974.

Chapter 4 is called, Rationale for Assignment of Priorities.

It states how we have gone about doing this and to the best of my knowledge, NASA accepts this general way of looking at its part of the U.S. Government.

Mr. TEAGUE. Do you foresee the time when the civilian population will be as involved in space as they are in aerospace today? Or is that time not going to come?

Dr. HANDLER. My crystal ball is more cloudy than that. I don't think I can project that far into the future.

For the moment, the kinds of proposals which Ms. Hubbard and Mr. O'Neill have put before you have a great ring of idealism and optimism and hope in them.

I don't know whether the underlying technology is realistic or not realistic. And I think it is absolutely incumbent on the Space Agency to find out for us.

This is one time where I don't think we should make a commitment to an end state. I think we ought to go slowly first and ask what do you have to know in order to establish whether you can do this.

For example, at this moment there is genuine reason to worry about the fact that we don't seem to quite know enough about the biological consequencies of the flux of microwaves in which we all now live.

The side lobes on those microwaves that will be coming down from that solar space station might be serious. I don't know. I am not say

ing they are serious and I'm not afraid of them. But for the moment, before we make the commitment to the end state, we ought to understand.

Mr. FUQUA. Will the Chairman yield?

Mr. TEAGUE. Yes.

Mr. FUQUA. The point I think that many of us have been trying to make, Dr. Handler, is how are we ever going to answer those questions, and they are serious, until we do, by the building block method, in fact try to build a demonstration or further expand our knowledge in those areas so that those questions can be answered. If in fact we find that they are hazardous, either we build around it or else we junk the whole thing.

But, I think until we can explore and answer the questions, just because we run into what might be a wall doesn't mean that we have to turn and walk away.

I do that every day. I think those of us who have been advocating that we move on with solar satellite power are trying to do it in a building-block and systematic method, so questions can be answered prior to the time of erecting a large solar array in space.

Dr. HANDLER. It seems to me that the point is, at the moment, not to make the commitment to ask and ascertain the answers to the important questions that you must have answered before you make the commitment. I think the space agency would be quite willing to undertake that if you would ask.

Mr. FUQUA. I think the old Chinese proverb that a trip of 1,000 miles begins with one step is true in this case.

Dr. HANDLER. I think we started taking the steps back in the Middle Ages and we have been taking them ever since.

Mr. FUQUA. We still are and we fall down every now and then. Mr. FREY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to further comment on this, because I think over the last number of years we have seen basically that there really is no great push in this country for science and technology. We talk about how wonderful it is and how everybody is up about it, but as a percentage of the budget it goes down and down. I wish it was doing lousy and maybe we would get some more money. But the facts are that it isn't and it goes in the other direction.

We heard testimony from Dr. Schlesinger this morning talking about the solar budget, and we find we get less this year in authorization than we did last.

Now, if that is a step in the right direction, I'm confused. It is just not this administration or any, but I think this has been a trend we have had. I guess the frustration I feel personally is that I have heard this before. Ten years ago I was told we were going to figure out where to go, and it's the same story year after year after year.

As in the energy world, as this story comes up, we have managed to increase our imports to $41 billion. Now, it wasn't easy but we did. it. We're looking at the stuff in the face, and you gentlemen and ladies are concerned. I think we all are, but I don't see the sense of urgency or the sense of national purpose. I don't really see the commitment, I guess.

I am not locked into a solar powered space station. If it works, great. I would like to know if the thing is going to work or not. We have been talking about it long enough.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fuqua and I were out on the west coast with Doctor Kraft Ehricke years ago talking about the same thing. I would like to say one thing in conclusion:

Mr. Chairman, I think all of us are deeply appreciative of everything you have done in this area. Without your pushing, we wouldn't be where we are. It is not where we want to be, but it is a lot better than it would have been. I think we really all thank you for it and we appreciate it.

[Applause.]

Mr. FLIPPO. I think that comes close to expressing our feelings. I would like to follow up on what has been said so far. The thing that bothers me is that the administration is not requesting enough.

Dr. O'Neill, you said something that was rather astounding to me. You said, "With $1 million, we could proceed." But the things that have to be answered are of a building-block nature, such as the solar-powered generation and transmission problems and microwave problems that were mentioned. All of these things have to be answered. And yet in the budget we were presented with by DOE today, there are only $4 or $5 million included.

Are you telling me that $1 million is sufficient to answer those questions that we need answered before we are ready to see whether or not we need to commit the Nation to a national program on solarpowered satellites?

Dr. O'NEILL. My answer was to Mr. Teague's specific question as to the research funding necessary for this next year alone on the "High Frontier" concept; the concept represented by House Concurrent Resolution 451. That is, beginning to use for human benefit the resources available beyond the biosphere.

[Material referred to above follows:]