« AnteriorContinuar »
ucts from the new manufacturing environment that is available in space in terms of zero gravity and controlled environment there. There are other advances that could be made.
[Slide.] Let me go on to say that there are certain clear criteria that the choice of any of these programs must satisfy.
First, in the general program area I think in general the first criteria is that they should be providing substantial benefit at least in one or more of the areas noted.
Then having established that if you do it, it is of value, you must then assess whether it is a practical and feasible approach.
In thinking about individual programs there is another level of criteria which can be applied. We found that this helps us in thinking about our internal programs. And they are listed there. Something with high technology content will more likely produce important applications. If it is something which stimulates commercial interest, then there can be clear fallouts into the civilian economy. Use of the Shuttle is clear. That is a great capability. And to build on it the next point, a logical evolution is necessary.
Next in terms of flexibility the programs that are structured to accept variations in requirements, like orbital conditions, number of operators and time in orbit, will probably be successful programs.
Conditions change over the long term in terms of priorities and budgets, et cetera. The program must be adaptable to that, and that is most easily done in terms of both adaptation and growth potential, if a modular growth is planned and emphasized from the beginning. Of course, there is the final criteria of affordability.
[Slide.] The next point is that we think a logical evolutionary program does exist building on the Spacelab and the Shuttle. The most important requirement in any of the programs proposed for the future is the ability to have more power in orbit, more electrical power. We must develop that power module. Once you have that capability you can then begin to consider a free-flying Spacelab for the various experiments that it can carry out for you.
The next logical evolution and these can of course tend to be in parallel depending upon the funding provided. Most of the things that are considered in the future for many of the areas require large structures. We must learn both how to plan and do that and make them work.
Once you have those basic three elements, then many of the applications that I have previously noted can be accomplished.
[Slide.] So in summary the points I have made and which are covered in more detail in the statement-we feel that the Space Shuttle must quickly be brought into operational readiness with whatever funds that takes. And then the evolutionary approach I have noted for structures and power and various payloads must be thought of and brought along so they are ready for the Shuttle. In each of those cases there are proof of concept demonstrations that can be shown along the way to be sure that progress is being made toward either original or changed goals, and that will probably take increased funding. In general, that is good.
With that we'd have faith that there will be many beneficial fallouts to result.
That covers the points I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you, Bob.
Mr. Brown. May I inquire if you see any problems from your standpoint in industry with proceeding with the kind of program that at least is hinted at in Dr. Frosch's statement? I think he is primarily looking at beneficial near-Earth applications involving great breakthroughs in both communications and in resource and environmental sensing from space, coupled with greatly enhanced data handling and data management capabilities.
Are there insurmountable problems in moving in this direction so that man can begin to make this almost order of magnitude breakthrough in his handling of Earth problems?
Mr. Johnson. I don't see any problems in doing that, having chosen the programs and using the criteria noted. If you recognize— perhaps not all of them will come to fruition for whatever reason, but there will be enough of them. I see no reason why that evolutionary approach won't work. The technology is clear.
Mr. Brown. Do you perceive any international implications-let me cite just one kind of an example. We had some, I thought, fairly successful experiences in using satellites for direct television transmission into India, for purposes of bringing help, agricultural and other kinds of information to Indian villages. Are there insurmountable international problems in deploying the capability and cooperating with other countries, possibly underdeveloping countries, in making this kind of technology much more available around the world and probably creating a considerable market for it?
Mr. Johnson. I would say that in working with the underdeveloped or Third World countries that in general one is going to find it very difficult to transfer the technologies so they can do it for themselves any time in the near future.
But to do it for them and the provision of the launch satellite for the purposes that you note, certainly that has been done and I don't see any reason why it can't continue. The question will arise as to who
Mr. Brown. There are very expensive, high technology aspects of that, the space part particularly, but equally important to these countries is the ground based infrastructure which they probably would want under their control and to deploy themselves. That is not in the same category as the space aspect.
Mr. Johnson. Capitalizing upon the presence of the satellite is probably by far the most difficult part of the problem.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Dornan.
Mr. TEAGUE. Bob, I don't know whether I see more than other people as the chairman of the committee or not. But the input from the public on the interest in space rather fascinates and amazes me. I think most people think that to a degree we are dragging our feet. Does your company ever make any checks or try to get a feel for what is going on in our country as far as the space program is concerned?
Mr. Johnson. Certainly not through any polls or anything of that nature, Mr. Chairman. We follow very closely both the industrial
pays for it.
press and the general press. I share with the feeling that there is great interest in doing something that would be "worthwhile," and I suspect that is where you begin to generate the various arguments.
Mr. TEAGUE. Without objection of any member of the committee, I think we have some 40 different papers that have come in since this Congress started that I would like to put into the record on this subject.
And, Bob, thank you very much for coming in from California. I would assume that the weather in California is better than it is here.
Mr. Johnson. You assume correctly.
Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you very much. The committee stands adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 1 p.m. the hearings were adjourned.]