Imágenes de páginas

Shuttle capability for applications, science, and our national security interests. Further, our space effort must be balanced with other scientific and technological objectives the overall investment in basic research, energy research and development, health and human nutrition, defense science and technology, and so on.

This year's budgetary review process-just completed-gives some indication of this administration's movement and commitment to space exploration.

You might consider it a progress report in our development of the administration's space policy.

You will have full opportunity to review the budget during NASA authorization hearings. I am convinced it is a good budget. We are proposing to establish a two-coast Shuttle launch capability with four orbiters, with the option to buy an additional orbiter later. Two new science missions are included in the 1979 budget, along with other vigorous increases in sciences. The Solar, Polar mission will investigate the Sun's polar regions for the first time, a cooperative two-spacecraft activity with the European space organization.

The Solar Mesopheric Explorer will study the effect of solar radiation on the Earth's ozone layer, contributing to an overall accelerated effort of research aimed at a better understanding of longer term climate changes, short-term climate fluctuations, and the impact of human activity on the environment. Our rethinking concerning the role of applications is expressed in the decision to include the multispectral scanner (MSS) for Landsat-D, together with the new development, the Thematic Mapper. This assures continuity in the existing data stream through 1985 and allows for development of more advanced technology at the same time.

The President has been deeply involved throughout our discussions of both a policy nature and the budget review. His commitment to science and technology as important components of our national effort is strong and is expressed in both his state of the Union and budget messages. Among those science and technology components, space applications and science figure prominently. His budget contains increases for space science of 27 percent, space applications 17 percent, space research and technology 10 percent, space basic research of 11 percent, aeronautics research and technology 16 percent. The President is keenly aware, too, of the promise that space applications hold for the benefit of all nations and in the developing dialog of cooperation between the industrial and developing nations. With this strong commitment and interest, and those of committees such as the House Science and Technology Committee, and the American people, I believe that together we will be able to develop a sound and imaginative space policy that will carry us into the 1980's and beyond. We will remain the world leaders in space exploration and technology. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you, Mr. Press.

There will also be questions submitted to you in writing.

Mr. Roe.

Mr. ROE. No question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Winn.

Mr. WINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't quite know how to say this without sounding rude, and I don't mean it that way, but

most of us on this committee are really excited about the space program and about our accomplishments. After listening to the testimony of you two gentlemen, you leave us very bored. I think it is obvious by the lack of attendance that we're not learning anything. You are not bringing us any new challenges. You are not telling us what you want us to do and what you want us to think about in the future.

As a matter of fact, both of your testimonies have been sort of a review of what we have been a part of.

The last few words, Doctor, you said something like "we intend to tell you what the President is going to do"-I don't mean to sound rude, but actually I have been sitting here for 1 hour and I haven't learned a thing that's new. And I'll tell you, if we wait for this type of thinking in the space program to solve some of our energy problems that Dr. Frosch referred to and I believe you did once, a combination of DOE and NASA to solve some of our energy problems, we'd better sell the Saudi Arabians their F-15's tomorrow, because we're going to need their help.

I'm sort of jumping on you for some of the things I was going to talk to Dr. Frosch about. He did say that they were going to carry on in the weather and the climate field, which a great many of the members of this committee are deeply interested in. He also mentioned that we're on the verge of developing an information delivery system. I have been on this committee 12 years and we've been talking to NASA about developing an information delivery system for at least those 12 years or longer. I still hear we're on the verge of developing that system.

I don't know what Dr. Frosch had in mind, but in all due respect for my good friend Tom Stafford, I hope the press reports are not true that we are considering another joint mission with the Russians. To me the Apollo/Soyuz was a waste of time and money. It was a good political move to show that we can get along in space with the Russians, but I think it was a waste of time. Is that in the White House planning?

Dr. PRESS. To respond to your last question first, we will study it very carefully before we go ahead. We will want to see that we get as much out of it as we put into it. We have no commitment to do anything more than to study the proposals that will be brought to us. I can assure you that if it represents a one-sided flow of technology, that we will not go ahead. So the justification for that proposal will be very closely examined.

With respect to your earlier comments, I have been a space buff since the beginnings of the space program. I have been a dreamer as much as everybody else. I have been professionally involved as a scientist in the space program. You could not find a more sympathic representative in my position, but I think you have the wrong impression about a lack of imagination and a lack of commitment. The space science budget will go from about $400 million to $500 million. That is a 25percent increase. The applications budget will go up 17 percent. We have the world's most advanced space transportation system. No other nation will be able to touch us for decades in our ability and capacity to use the shuttle to do extraordinary things.

And we will be doing those things. We will be learning how to do those things and how to retrieve satellites and fix them and put them together to make bigger ones. The future, I think, is extremely bright.

Dr. Frosch has outlined a procedure for coming back to you with the kinds of things you want to hear about, the options for advanced applications and concepts in space. I think America has always valued dreamers, those who are far ahead of all of us and who paint the future for us as it might be. Some do this in the form of writing science fiction. And others, as you have heard, make detailed calculations. We support this kind of look into the future.

But at this time, to make the kind of commitment you are implying, I think we simply don't know enough. After a few years of experience with the shuttle, so that we know what it's like to work out there, and what the costs are likely to be, then we can come back with studies and proposals that are well documented, the economics of which we understand, and we can come in with responsibile proposals. So we dream like everybody else. We would like to reach these goals. But I think where we come out is that we would like to know more about the problems before we come to the Congress and the American people and ask for large sums of money.

With respect to solar power we will spend $16 million in the next 3 years to investigate as far as we have what the environmental aspects are and what the technological aspects are, and also some more studies of the cost-benefit analysis.

But until we do some of these preliminary experiments with the shuttle and how to build things in space, we can never come in with a document that convinces everybody that solar power is the way to go economically.

I think this is the most responsive response statement I can make. Mr. WINN. I appreciate your remarks and I appreciate the clarification. Maybe the title of the hearings is a little misleading to those of us on the committee, because it is called future space programs, and we didn't hear much about future space programs from the Administrator, Dr. Frosch.

You were talking about the applications, putting more money in there, and I commend you for that. That is one of the most encouraging things I have seen in the budget.

The part that is discouraging to me is that you are dropping from a $7.5 million expenditure on energy technology to $3 million from 1978 to 1979 respectively. However, Dr. Frosch just sat here and told us that one of the main priorities of the administration was going to be additional work in energy.

Now, how can you do it by making a cut like that?

Dr. PRESS. I think the main support for that is not in the Department of Energy. As I recall, the increase in the DOE budget for total electric is 23 percent.

Mr. WINN. I would have to check theirs. I haven't gotten into that and it may be. Of course, I'd like to see NASA get their share of the pie. They are operating and they have a proven track record. We have another team just coming on the field, and if we go through the same experience we did with ERDA, we have a couple more years of waiting.

Mr. FUQUA. Will you yield?

Mr. WINN. Yes.

Mr. FUQUA. I think the point Mr. Winn is making concerns me also. You mentioned the 27 percent increase in space science. That is primarily for the JOP startup money.

So when you look at it on the curve, it is going-out-of-business curve. There is nothing down the road, when you talk about the eighties and so forth. That's what we wanted to hear.

What are you talking about for the future? The administration was able to get along for a while saying "We are new and we're trying to formulate our policy." We are into the fourth quarter now and almost at the 2-minute warning, and we need to be getting on with the program of what are we going to be doing down the road.

I realize the restraints that are put on the administration witnesses, but what is going to be down the road? What are some of the things that can expand our own minds as to some of the options we can be doing? That is what we are trying to find out and I think it is what Mr. Winn is referring to.

Mr. WINN. That's right. Dr. Frosch mentioned a long list that they're compiling down there of long-range ideas, I don't know how much notice they've had on this hearing, but that's what I wanted to hear the ideas not just to be told they had a list.

Mr. LLOYD. I think the gentleman for yielding. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman and the points that he makes.

I remember, and I said this 2 or 3 years ago when we had similar hearings. The point I made then is exactly the same point that needs to be made now. Many of us up here, maybe most of us, are incapable of having the visionary aspects mixed with the pragmatics for the potential capability. Simply stated, you tell us where you would like to go. We know what all the limitations are. I know where the money stands. I know what the attitudes of the public are, but I need a vision, and I don't have the capability of creating that myself. I think that is where we are frustrated. We want the vision from you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think possibly we haven't listened as carefully as we should to the statements of Dr. Frosch and Dr. Press with regard to the potentials in space. I frankly am thrilled and excited by the possibilities here. I think we are at a point at least comparable to that 15 years ago when President Kennedy announced the exciting space goal of placing a man on the Moon. I think the possibilities today from the standpoint of benefit on Earth are even greater and more exciting than that goal which was announced at that time. It is admittedly difficult for a committee to formulate a vision or to do anything else. It is much easier for one inspired individual and hopefully the President, or Dr. Press or Dr. Frosch can be that inspired individual.

But I am particularly struck by the revolution and prospect in space communication, the prospect of space sensing.

I would like very much to help produce some shape to this, both in terms of content and budgetary constraints that will allow us to take advantage of this new technological capability that we have.

Let me just quote briefly from Dr. Frosch's written statement to indicate what I am talking about. He says, "What is clear is that we have at hand an incredibly sophisticated set of tools for understanding the earth and its environment." And he points out that these go beyond the bounds of NASA or any other one department. It extends through agriculture, energy, and all branches of the Government.

He says, "The challenge we face is integrating this extraordinarily rich flow of data in the discrete and useful sets of information that can be acted upon to respond to (Mr. Brown reading from statement) ... and these are basic information goals that we can set for ourselves." He mentions other things.

We have, complementing this, a report from the National Academy on remote sensors in space, which indicates there is a tremendous potential in this area.

What I am concerned with is, as some of the other committee members have expressed, and that is how we can bring this together into an understandable set of goals that we can sell to the American people and build the political support for and use as a basis for the continued expansion of this tremendous resource we have created here in this committee. I am particularly interested from the standpoint of the environment, because we are on the verge now of being able to put into place a capability to sense from space many of the important environmental factors that we need to have. Weather is a part of the environment, but we can sense the content of the atmosphere. We can sense temperatures of the ocean surface and the land surface and even below the surface and above the surface, incidentally, information which is very badly needed to understand the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, for example, which relates to one of our main environmental concerns with regard to the development of our energy resources. So these are the things which are at hand and which we need to formulate into a comprehensive program.

I think Dr. Press understands that and how all-encompassing it is. Dr. Frosch points out that the ideological distinction between science and applications, between experimental and operational and between one agency's data responsibilities and those of another are artificial and even trivial.

And yet, despite the fact that they are artificial and trivial, I understand that this may be one of the main areas that you are having to explore at the present time; that is, the different agency roles, in order to get some sort of a comprehensive program off the ground.

So these are the potentials that I think we have here, and they are global. They involve international cooperation. They allow this country, I think, for the first time to realistically offer to the rest of the world a capability which they are badly in need of much more so than the United States, as a matter of fact, in terms of determining the resources of the underdeveloped world and helping them to understand and to assist them in their own development, as a matter of fact. These are things which have an international implication and which have a bearing upon the role we will play in the whole world system and our leadership in the world.

I am not at all discouraged. I think some of the remarks have indicated that we would like to see this more neatly packaged and defined,

« AnteriorContinuar »