« AnteriorContinuar »
Dr. HANDLER. Mr. Teague, if I may hazard a quess as to what Bob Frosch will say, I am sure he will say something to the effect that it is simply too early to make a commitment, that they would like to mount a sensible program to find out whether we can get from here to there. And indeed to some extent they are already doing it. I take it that that is what lies behind the experiments they are doing out at Goldstone, where they are doing microwave beaming over various distances between tracking antenna just to find out what happens.
I take it they are beinning to study the properties of microwave beams for some real reason.
Ms. HUBBARD. I think Dr. Frosch is more dedicated to the idea that we are within limits to a growth situation and psychologically maybe we should stay there because it will reinforce population decrease,
He has mentioned that he personally is not for the concept of a new strong goal in space, and I think it is a personal feeling. People have very different feelings about this personal
Dr. HANDLER. Let's let Bob Frosch speak for himself tomorrow. Mr. TEAGUE. I will.
Barbara, as you know. this resolution has been kicked back and forth from here to there, and back again. But we came up with that paragraph in there about the technology assessment board. My wild guess is that if we go to the technology assessment board, it would be 2 years before we ever get off the ground.
Ms. HUBBARD. I think we could do it much faster.
Mr. TEAGUE. If this committee should decide to put $1 million or $2 million, as Dr. O'Neill suggests in the budget, where do we put it? Who do we say does the work and what do they do? How do we define what that $1 million or $2 million is to do?
Ms. HUBBARD. What I would suggest is that a group be appointed by you to look into that and make a very clear answer to you within the next few weeks. I don't want to hazard a superficial statement, but I think we have people who could make a very good answer to that quickly.
Mr. TEAGUE. I just cannot get away from the feeling that as of right now, the executive branch knows exactly what they would like to do.
And if we go the route of technology assessment, it will be 2 years before we ever get an answer from them. I don't think we should wait that long. [Applause.]
Again, Barbara, my major in college is animal husbandry. [Laughter.]
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?
I majored in agricultural education.
Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, I major in Greek and Latin. [Laughter.]
Ms. HUBBARD. And I majored in political science.
Mr. TEAGUE. But I think we should get some answers tomorrow from Dr. Frosch and Dr. Press. We have a little conflict with the appropriations within the committee, but one or the other or both of them will be before this committee tomorrow. And I just have a feeling that they know right now what they want to do and why they want to do it.
Mr. WATKINS. I hope they do.
Mr. TEAGUE. I have a lot of faith in them, Wes. I have watched them a long time.
Dr. O'NEILL. As Ms. Hubbard has recommended, a few of us ought to get together over the next few weeks and make specific plans. My suggestions would follow those of a letter I wrote to Dr. Frosch at his request last month.
But I would also like to suggest that a group already exists; namely, the University Space Research Association, which has 35 member universities. It has the technical expertise and certainly an interest in this area. USRA should be an interested party in this activity.
Mr. TEAGUE. Barbara, I happen to know there are some people at the top of the NASA organization who very strongly feel we should go ahead on this thing and they have some plans of their own. Ms. HUBBARD. I would be very happy to hear that.
Mr. TEAGUE. We'll have them up here sooner or later.
If there are no other questions, and it being 5:05, the committee will be adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., January 26, 1978.]
FUTURE SPACE PROGRAMS
THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1978
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room. 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Olin E. Teague, presiding. Mr. TEAGUE. The committee will come to order. The rules of the House require committee approval for some TV coverage. If there is no objection, the TV will provide some coverage this morning. I hear no objection.
We have a very full day. We have Dr. Frosch, Administrator of NASA and Dr. Frank Press, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; Gen. Thomas Stafford from California, Commander of the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base.
I am not going to take a lot of time telling people who any of you are, because I'm sure they already know. So, Bob Frosch, I'm going to turn it over to you.
Dr. FROSCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I would like to begin by apologizing to the committee for the fact that after my testimony and the questioning, I would like your permission to leave, only because I have a conflict with another hearing. I am due to appear before the Appropriations Subcommittee on our fiscal year 1979 budget this morning. I believe you will agree that we have a certain need for appropriations in the
Mr. TEAGUE. We would have a hard time operating without them. So we will be glad to have you do whatever you need to do.
Dr. FROSCH. I have submitted to the committee a written statement for the record. With your permission, I would like to offer it to you for such use as the committee wishes to make and speak extemporaneously from notes.
Mr. TEAGUE. Without objection, the statement will be placed in the record.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Robert A. Frosch follows:]
HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL
Dr. Robert A. Frosch
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Committee on Science and Technology
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
In examining the several future directions that the United States space programs can take, and in considering the major goals and objectives that might be selected for those programs, it may be worthwhile to assess the more immediate present in terms of the conditions obtaining today. We appear to be standing on the threshold of several interlocking revolutions in our perceptions of space activity; indeed, in some cases, we are already well into the first phases of such revolutions without, perhaps, having had time to recognize this fact.
The most visible change for which we are preparing is in the basic approach to space flight. For twenty years we have had to reach for the benefits of space in small, expensive, prepackaged increments. Each mission has been such an increment, with its long lead time, one-way transportation system, weight and volume constraint, demands for redundancy, extraordinary test rigors, and conservative failure margins. These first decades of space exploration and application have, in their own right, been extraordinarily successful, but that success has had to be paid for in money and in deferrals of tasks too risky to attempt in the one-way mode of the expendable launch vehicle. In one sense, our first ventures into space may be seen as a necessary primitive beginning needed to lead us toward the recognition that the real values of space require a significant revolution in the way of doing business. The coming advent of the Space Shuttle is already changing that way of doing business, clearly in some visible and direct ways, and also in some more subtle ways. The early Shuttle missions we will see are relatively straightforward evolutionary extensions of present approaches: the Shuttle is a launch vehicle to place carefully designed and constricted payloads into orbit more efficiently than an expendable vehicle.