Mr. STINE. It's been my understanding from American history that it's always been basically the Government's policy to let private enterprise do it-private enterprise can do it or to work closely with private enterprise to help them get it done.

Again, I am not sure that I can precisely answer your question.

Mr. RUDD. I understand, but I hope that this will create some thought and ideas which might make for recommendations so that we better know how to operate.

Mr. SHEFFIELD. The American Astronomical Society has just introduced a thing called user-developer group, and the idea of that is to get industry-not aerospace, I'm talking about Weyerhaeuser and International Paper and the big farm cooperatives-involved into the NASA planning process.

Now, NASA is not represented directly in the group. This is a curious thing. NASA comes along as an observer. And the reason for that is that large segments of the nonaerospace industry regard government as the adversary. If you want to compare the relationship of government and industry in this country with the relationship of government and industry in Japan, it is very illuminating.

In Japan, government and industry are almost the same thing. In this country, quite often they regard each other as natural enemies, or at least industry regards government as its natural enemy.

So what we have sought to do is to form the consortium of industrial interests who are interested in materials processing, or Earth resources, or navigation, or communications, and to have NASA present as observers but not as directors of the group.

This is in its embryonic stages at the moment.

Mr. RUDD. You were right about Japan, but we are talking about the United States here, and we need leaders or leadership and a catalyst to bring these factors together, such as you mentioned Mr. Stine. And how do you do that? Would NASA do it, for example?

Mr. STINE. Can I play NASA Administrator for a moment?
Mr. RUDD. Certainly.

Mr. STINE. If I were a NASA Administrator, I would go out to domestic industry and some of my friends who are presidents of this or that company who were not involved in the aerospace industry at all, and say, "Look, I know you can't let me have one of your best marketing men for a year. You can't stand to lose him that long, but can you let us borrow him for 6 months?"

And I would get a group, good marketing people, perhaps the vice president in charge of research and development, or the corporate research director, and bring them into NASA for 6 months and let them interface with the NASA people that are involved, space industrialization, space processing, communications. This then becomes a hybridization program or a cross-fertilization program.

NASA then finds out what domestic industry's problems really are. They already have this kind of close interface with the aerospace industry, and at the end of the 6 months these industry types go back out to their former jobs, and now they have a very good picture of what NASA is and what the space program is and what capabilities are there, and what the potential is. That's just a start. That would be one of the first things I would do.

I would also put together this interface group that would work between NASA and domestic industry, because NASA and domestic industry speak almost a totally different language, really, in terms of what their goals are, what their policies are, and really in terms even of language itself.

We need a translator in there.

Mr. RUDD. Mr. Jeffs.

Mr. JEFFS. We have grappled with that problem a little bit. We have instituted what we call a user center at Rockwell. We feel that among the aerospace companies, we are awfully close to understanding what it takes to operate in space.

The purpose of that user agency is to try and provide new industries outside the aerospace industry, across the spectrum, a service with respect to trying to identify what might be done in space relative to their products, to try and brainstorm with energy, if you will, to lay out a first order plan as to what it would take to try and pursue some of the possibilities that might derive from that and then to determine how we could provide a service in conjunction with NASA from cradle to grave, if you will, to help those industries accomplish such experimentation and development of new products from space that might be mutually agreed upon, and that they would in fact like for us to work with them on.

We have in mind essentially at later time periods providing the whole kind of services in total potentially. I think that is an interesting possibility, and it is particularly exciting, I think, to small companies. Small companies don't have much in the way of research and yet they have much in the way of ideas. And they would like to participate in space.

Now, the trouble with an experiment is you just don't run out with the shuttle but you have to understand the results and what will you do if the results are positive or negative. And then it has to be continued on to the point where actually some products in space can be produced that would represent a good return in the business sense.

Mr. ROE. At this time, gentlemen, let the Chair intervene. We are running short of time. The full committee will be meeting here at 10 o'clock on other matters and these hearings will reconvene at 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. I think we have about another 10 minutes.

Mr. RUDD. I have taken enough time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROE. One more thing. We would like to forward questions from the members, if there are further questions.

Mr. STINE. Yes.

Mr. DOWNEY. I would just like to say that I found the presentations excellent, with some very practical suggestions and I am chagrinned to learn that one of the new burgeoning areas might be possible space law. We might want liaison with the Trial Lawyers Association.

One of the more practical concerns that I have, that I spoke with Mr. Gore about, is the role of the military in all of this. You have alluded to the fact that there should be some sort of cooperation between the two.

I serve on the Military R. & D. Subcommittee, the authorization committee and we had the opportunity to see some of the people who

are talking about science fiction for the military in the future, and I would hope possibly we could have an opportunity for this committee to sit with the R. & D. Committee and go over some of the priorities. Well, I would really like to know, because I understand that the Space Shuttle is going to be used for military R. & D., a pretty large percentage of it.

How do we determine the priorities of what we want to do in space? I realize that there are satellites that we need for SALT verification and other things which are essential.

I am concerned--and I know Mr. Gore is-I'd be happy to yield to him to ask some questions on this point-that we not turn outer space into another military playground for ourselves.

Mr. Gore's father worked on a treaty that would limit the potential for space to be used for military applications. I am just curious from your own points of view as to how you see the priorities and where we can maybe resolve with some of our defense friends the potential for space becoming another area of military potential.

I leave that open to you. It is a very broad question.

Mr. ROE. Mr. Downey, if I could interrupt you. I don't know if you have noted that on Thursday, January 26, we will have Dr. Press here on the technology policy, which may be helpful.

Mr. DOWNEY. Thank you very much. I would just like to hear from our witnesses, who have already stated that they believe there should be some cooperation. Should there be any prioritizing as to how we use this? Because in the past we have seen that if people have R. & D. projects, sometimes NASA doesn't have to run it, but the Department of Defense does, and we can turn lots of things over to them. And I'm just concerned that we keep space, the final frontier for industrial development and not for military purposes.

Mr. STINE. I will take a crack at that one.

I believe NASA already has a very good relationship with DOD coordinating committees and what-have-you. I am sure that these will continue to function.

However, in the space industrialization study that I was honored to be a part of, we were specifically excluded from any consideration of military applications, and every time we turned around we stepped our foot over one. And it bothers me.

First of all, we didn't have the time to really look deeply into it. Basically, it comes down to this: In the industrial type world, if want it you make it. In the rest of the world you take it.

you

I'm afraid there are going to be some things up there that some people are going to want to take and I think we had better be prepared to defend it.

Mr. DOWNEY. Could you tell me what that means?

Mr. STINE. All right.

Let's suppose that we find a 1-mile diameter nickel iron and we manage to put the effort and move it into near Earth orbit or some other orbit and we start using it for our steel supply; 1 mile down of nickel would supply the United States' entire steel requirements for several hundred years. Do you think that isn't valuable property? Mr. DOWNEY. It leads me to another question, Mr. Stine. One of the things that you seem to be emphasizing with a certain patriotic fervor that I share to a certain extent but I am concerned about in an

other, I believe that our competitive system and our system of government is absolutely the best but with respect to space systems and given the costs that we could obviate the concern for having star wars with the Russians by going up there and maybe exploring space together. It would seem to me that would have collateral benefits far beyond those that industry would reap; in that there is without necessarily giving the Soviets technology that would be detrimental to our our purposes that we would not have to worry about the nickel astroid being fought over if we were going out and looking for it together. Does that strike you as an alien concept?

Mr. STINE. Not at all. I would like to hope that we would be able to do this sort of thing. I would like to hope that we would be able to, but we haven't been able to so far.

Perhaps we may be able to do it in space and have the necessary international cooperation.

Mr. DowNEY. Doesn't it seem strange that people from the same planet will go out in space and try and divide it up? I can see property lawyers having a field day trying to divide the Moon. Who owns the Moon? And who owns, what's north of the sun? I can see real problems there. Can't you?

Mr. STINE. Yes, sir. We have evolved as property-oriented animals. Mr. FORSYTHE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOWNEY. Yes.

Mr. FORSYTHE. I think there are some outstanding examples of international cooperation. At the Princeton Lab, the Forrestal Lab in Princeton, we have had a team of Russians there for a number of years. At least in Antarctica, Russia doesn't seem to be the problem in terms of territory. We have another nation that now has a colony started down there.

Mr. ROE. Mr. Forsythe, do you have any other comments?

Mr. FORSYTHE. No.

Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear Mr. Jeffs' thoughts in this area and specifically I am concerned that the treaty which was put into force between the United States and the Soviet Union to prevent the use of orbiting satellites and other space applications for military purposes is being eroded, to put it mildly with the Space Shuttle and with the Soviet killer satellite. To use Mr. Stine's phrase, this time we ought to do it right.

Maybe it's time for us to reaffirm that treaty. Maybe it's time for us to work with the Soviets to build up the trust necessary to reaffirm it. And I see us moving in the opposite direction with statements like the ones that are made here about going full speed ahead with manned military satellites, making sure we don't overlook any possible military application. I think obviously if the Soviets are going to do that we have to do it too, no question about it.

But I think maybe we ought to pay more attention to trying to prevent that from occurring. And I'd like to get Mr. Jeffs' thoughts on that.

Mr. JEFFS. Well, let me make some comments in about three areas. First off, I will preface it by saying that I did have the privilege of being with the industry portion of the teams that work with NASA in working with the Russians and I found that to be very interesting and a rewarding experience. I also found that this cooperation was

very good among those teams. I also found that the teams appeared to be as a matter of fact the basic of direction appeared to be primarily military, which you can expect, because that's kind of the foundation of the management of the Russian programs.

I think the thing I stated in our suggestion on future space plans was that we do attempt to pursue new developments and possibilities, particularly as they relate to sensor areas. There are some wonderful improving capabilities through the advances in microelectronics in that respect. And I think that is significant because a number of fallouts result from that in the commercial areas and they can be meaningful to us in understanding in fact what is happening in the world, including Russia, which I think is important to maintain in a passive way, at least an understanding of how to attain the balance of power and other things associated therewith.

I think that you have to recognize that there are differences in space. You know, as my neighbor oftentimes says, "Just 100 miles up and the energy problem and the pollution problem goes away; 100 miles straight up is different." It's not like Antarctica. I think it is different from what we could expect as to cooperation in fusion or MHD or otherwise. I think the thing that troubles us about space is that it's new and different. New things may well happen in space, new discoveries and different ways of doing things, that could offer tremendous potentials, unfortunately even in weaponry.

Now, if that's the case, that could rapidly change the balance of power. We've got to understand what those potentials are.

Now, the third part of it is how do you work out such an arrangement with the Russians who have a different mind and who think differently in many ways, certainly, than we do? How do you work out something so that if such an eventuality does occur, that it is properly handled by both sides, particularly when the other side might not know anything about it for a long period of time?

Mr. GORE. That translates into one word: "Fear."

Mr. JEFFS. Fear has made us do an awful lot of things, I guess. It's not fear. It's just not understanding the unknown. And space is the unknown, new processes and new materials and new ways of doing things 100 miles up.

Mr. GORE. Well, do you think that we should reaffirm the treaty in an attempt to do that?

Mr. JEFFS. I think so. I think certainly on every possibility we should work together with the Russians and anybody else who is involved in space.

As a matter of fact, not just the Russians. A lot of people are going to participate in space. I think we should all try and pursue space for obviously useful purposes, and we should try and arrange some ways and techniques of understanding and being able to assess the potentials of discoveries as they come up.

Mr. GORE. I would just like to affirm my support for the basic goals that all three witnesses have outlined. I think we are being extremely shortsighted in this country in not expanding our role in space dramatically.

You mentioned, Mr. Stine, that you can't use the cost-benefit approach-maybe that was you, Mr. Sheffield. Excuse me. I think, to some extent, you can, but even in those areas where you can, I agree