Question 4:

-

Dr. Frosch, two years ago NASA completed an Outlook for
Space study and this Committee published a report
Future Space Programs 1975 based on hearings by the
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications.

Have you reviewed the recommendations of these two activities?

Would you comment on the applicability of these two reports for establishing some long-term space goals?

Answer:

The Outlook for Space, the Outlook for Aeronautics and the excellent report, Future Space Programs 1975 prepared by this Committee helped me formulate the long-range goals and objectives of NASA which we will use to develop the aeronautical and space flight programs for NASA for the next several years. The Outlook for Space strongly emphasized the importance of applying space technology to accurately and rapidly gather the global information required to do a good job of housekeeping down here on Earth. The Outlook for Aeronautics emphasized the need to pursue a number of specific aeronautical technology advances and to rejuvenate basic aeronautical research in this country in order to strengthen the competitive capabilities of our aircraft industry particularly in areas which will provide more energy efficient and quieter aircraft at lower cost. Many of the recommendations in these documents have been incorporated into NASA's program.

Question 5:

Is the U.S. in danger of losing its lead in space
communications technology?

Answer:

Although the United States space communications
industry continues to dominate competition,
progress abroad, fueled by heavy government
subsidy, is impressive. In the most recent
Intelsat procurement, Intelsat V, for example,
participation by foreign industry as sub-
contractors to the U.S. prime contractor is the
most extensive of any such procurement to date.
The foreign participation is not limited to
manufacture to U.S. design but features foreign
design and manufacture to a U.S. specification.
Beyond this, the European Space Agency and the
National Space Development Agency of Japan are
pursuing active programs in communications
satellites at the systems level. This is
apparently to accelerate the achievement of a
systems capability approaching that of U.S. industry.
As a consequence, if the situation remains as it
is, it appears inevitable that U.S. industry's
commanding lead will be either lost or, at least,
seriously diminished.

Question 6:

European countries appear to be placing great emphasis on materials science/space processing research and encouraging industrial participation through cooperative government/industry programs.

A. Is the U.S. placing a comparable emphasis on this area of research?

B.

C.

Are cooperative government/industry programs contem-
plated by NASA?

Is there a meaningful way of measuring emphasis,
progress, and competitive edge in space processing
between Europe, Japan, the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.?

Answer:

A.

In terms of money invested and total activity, NASA's program on materials science and processing in space is approximately equivalent to the current total of all foreign effort in this field. The emphasis that the European space agencies place on space processing compared to other areas of science and applications tends to be higher than ours because the Europeans view Spacelab utilization as a major objective of their programs and space processing as a primary utilization mode.

B. We believe that government/industry cooperative projects are the only really practical means of introducing significant industrial activity into space processing early in the development. Therefore, we are planning to initiate cooperative projects with selected industrial organizations as early as possible. Issues of risk, leadtime, and proprietary and patent protection are being studied.

C. The emphasis placed on space processing in different
countries can be measured by directly comparing their
respective levels of effort. On the other hand, the
comparison of progress and competitive edge is basically a
technical question that has to be evaluated by scientists
and engineers with expertise in the field. At present,
the U.S. unquestionably has the lead in space processing
because we have been at work longer; our apparatus
technology is more highly developed than the Europeans'
because we have several flight projects and about ten
years of hardware work behind us, and we shall be doing
more sophisticated experiments on the early STS missions

because we have a larger base of space data to build on. On the other hand, the lead could pass to some other country or group of countries in the next five years if they work harder on their science and technology than we do.

1

Question 7:

ESA has a significant stake in the development of manned space systems
through the Spacelab Project. ESA has a Spacelab Utilization Program
to facilitate access to the Spacelab by European users and to promote
a rapid extension of the Spacelab use. ESA has stated, "that a balance
must be established between development and subsequent utilization --
the future of Europe's presence in manned space systems is critically
dependent on this".

. Q. Does NASA have a comparable Spacelab utilization Program? Is one planned?

Q. Does NASA take a comparable view of the Spacelab as critical to U.S. presence in manned space systems?

Q. Does NASA view ESA's and the Federal Republic of Germany's emphasis on the use of Spacelab in application oriented disciplines as a potential competitive threat to the U.S.?

Answer:

Yes, NASA has a comparable spacelab utilization program. It is aggressive in four major areas: Physics and Astronomy, Life Sciences, Earth Applications, and Space Technology. Other non-NASA civil Spacelab utilization is projected for commercial applications. In all, roughly 70 percent of the payloads in NASA's 12-year projections are related to Spacelab type applications.

Yes, the Spacelab is the only reasonable near term procedure for man to do useful operations in space with the Space Shuttle. While the Shuttle itself can provide a degree of support for manned involvement, Spacelab is essential to provide the habitability and work environment for continued expansion of manned presence in space.

A well conceived U.S. Spacelab program should be ample hedge against unfavorable foreign competition in view of the projected traffic. Of the non-NASA participants in Spacelab applications, the U.S. commercial involvement amounts to about one-fourth of the total. The rest is comprised of ESA and West Germany. It is anticipated the Europeans will get an early start in Spacelab applications principally because of their development involvement; however, in the latter 1980's, the U.S. commercial involvement is anticipated to reach about one-third of the total non-NASA Spacelab traffic. Taken as a whole, U.S. Spacelab involvement (NASA and U.S. commercial) is projected to approach 90 percent of all Spacelab activity.