has attracted such interest that it is frequently unable to handle the crowds wishing to get in. The most successful box office film attractions in recent years (maybe ever) are "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." The Viking landings on Mars were universally acclaimed by our people. Literally hundreds of editorials were written in newspapers ranging from country weeklys to The New York Times, noting the event with satisfaction and pride even though it represented a very large dollar expenditure. I submit that if the space program is less innovative, less imaginative, it is not because the space planners don't have innovative and imaginative ideas. Nor is it because of lack of support from the people. But, good ideas and public support don't in themselves justify increased expenditures. I believe a commitment to increased spending would afford NASA greater flexibility to broaden its horizons and propose more programs for Congressional consideration. This would tend to re-stimulate Government/ industry investment in R&D with attendant payoff in technological advancement. Secondly, an adequately funded space activity would assure realization of an appropriate return on a very significant national investment. For 20 years we have been accumulating knowledge and the technical wherewithal to use space technology in many different ways. Almost in hand is a cost efficient space transportation system which can make manned and unmanned exploration, science, and applications operations routine and, by past standards, relatively inexpensive. We will soon have space laboratories, provided by our friends in Europe, for our scientists and engineers to perform many investigations which once would have required both dedicated spacecraft and a dedicated launch vehicle to perform. We will have existing and improved ground and space-based tracking, data relay and data processing facilities and, of course, we will have the shuttle launch facilities on both the East and West Coasts. The technology and tools to exploit space on a widely expanded scale are essentially paid for. An experienced and highly efficient Government/industry team is in place and ready to go. All that is lacking is the resolve to move forward and the long term continuity of resource commitment that would enable NASA to implement a cost efficient plan of steady progress. Efficiency can be achieved only with a continuing long term resource commitment, similar in concept to the multiyear or fully funded approach to major DOD programs. Our experience from past space expenditures convinces me that the nation would benefit, and probably to a degree that none of us can now foresee or comprehend. Of course, Congress and the administration cannot be expected to authorize or appropriate a long term commitment of adequate resource without a very logical and convincing long term plan against which to justify their consideration. This, I believe, is the crux of your concern and represents the basis for holding these hearings. With regard to this issue, I do not present myself to the Committee as an expert witness. However, much thoughtful work has been accomplished in studies and hearings initiated by this Committee, by the recent NASA Over the years NASA and industry have demonstrated that, given adequate time and resource, they can accomplish almost anything that appears within the realm of feasibility. As I mentioned at the outset, we do not lack for proposals of what to do. Our problem revolves around too many choices, which in the aggregate require too much money. I do not believe that we are in a position at this time to adequately justify a hard start on a major new national goal in terms of a specific effort such as solar power stations, lunar bases, space colonies, and inter-stellar exploration. These are all excellent candidates for future thrusts. However, much homework still needs to be done to demonstrate feasibility from both a financial and technical standpoint and to better articulate the probable benefits. This need is recognized in the resolution recently sponsored by this Committee. Now is the time, I believe, to capitalize on our past investments and to lay the groundwork for future major thrusts. This implies a reasonably balanced program which selects the most potentially rewarding objectives from each of the major space areas. The risk in this approach, which I believe to be a problem in our current mode, is that nothing gets funded adequately and progress lags on all fronts. Under my proposal, a commitment to adequate funding levels in each area is mandatory. What, then, is the makeup of such a balanced program? The Administrator of NASA has stated his commitment to a strong applications program. Such a program should address earth resources, advanced communications, experiments in climate prediction and control, and many more related applications. Toward this end, the challenge for the agency and Congress is an extremely complicated mix of multi-agency, multi-national and public sector implications which must be addressed and resolved. An additional complexity is the gathering, processing and rapid distribution of meaningful and useful data to the many and varied users of applications programs. Industry can contribute significantly to this arena, but NASA must provide the game plan and be the quarterback. Exploration in the area of Physical and Life Science should continue. I am pleased with progress now underway to refine and define the Physical and Life Science Programs which will utilize the Spacelab System. The Shuttle and Spacelab combination offer many new and unusually economical opportunities to gather science on a frequent and systematic basis. The investment in new science instruments and experiments will be significant in the beginning as we try to develop a full complement, but should taper off as missions become routine and instruments are reflown. Therefore, adequate front end funding is required to assure that the capability to use space as a true laboratory has been achieved. Planetary exploration and associated science is, in my mind, the most exciting and, in many ways, demanding portion of the total NASA effort. While the benefits are less tangible than NASA's effort in applications or aeronautics and propulsion, the intangible aspects are extremely rewarding to the public. The appeal is to the imagination, curiosity, the passion for exploration and the pride in the deed and its successful accomplishment. I touched on the response to Viking earlier. In my opinion, the NASA Planetary program has a sound and relatively modest plan of systematic and sequential exploration of the solar system and beyond. I am hopeful that the Administration and Congress will continue to support this plan adequately and with the consistency required for the exceptionally long lead time entailed in meeting launch opportunity windows. You might find it interesting to know that, from an industry viewpoint, the planetary effort is probably the most technologically demanding, yet relatively modest in terms of new business and profits. Programs are limited and seldom lead to follow-on business. Yet the technical challenge stimulates our engineers and often results in state-of-the-art improvements, if not breakthroughs, which are applicable to other areas of private and national interest. It is unfortunate that, while we may yet someday return to Mars and return a sample of soil for analysis on Earth, the timing of such a program is so uncertain that we (as a company with good Mars credentials) cannot justify the expense of doing the usual studies and research and development necessary to lay the groundwork for such a mission, as we did on the Viking program in the mid-1960's. I believe it is imperative that our research and development budgeting process reinstitute the encouragement for industry to perform this kind of work at a modest level. I mentioned previously that we should be using a part of our resource to lay the groundwork for possible future major thrusts. An example is in increasing the operating time capability of the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle and its Spacelab offer much improved and cost attractive opportunities to conduct science and applications in low earth orbit. But right now the Shuttle stay time in orbit is limited to roughly a week--a constraint which limits our ability to exploit the full potential of Spacelab. It seems logical to supplement the orbiter's power supply, the primary stay time constraint, with a small space power module which generates power from the sun through solar arrays. The first power module would be relatively small (25KW), but could be enlarged or replaced as more power requirements are identified with a module capable of generating 100-250KW. With this capability, we have many options to pursue. For example, if our Skylab space station is still in orbit in this time period, the small power module could be attached to it and Skylab itself could be rehabilitated to provide an interim space way station until a more optimum space station requirement becomes evident. Some sort of interim space habitat seems, in my mind, appropriate and desirable whether Skylab survives or not. With a space habitat and storage facility available, the development and demonstration of large erectable space structures can be accelerated. These are common in concept to the needs of the immense solar power stations, direct broadcast antennas and space colonies that are envisioned. In addition, solar power generation and transmission by microwave to the earth can be demonstrated on a scaled basis, and the effects of prolonged periods of man living and working in space could be evaluated in greater depth. In parallel, new propulsion systems, the ion engine as an example, can be developed and refined to provide not only the ability to move large structures from low earth orbit to higher geostationary orbit, but also to propel planetary or comet rendezvous spacecraft. we have an efficient low earth orbit transportation system, we need companion low cost systems to take us from low to high orbits and beyond. Now that This approach is, of course, not original with me. But it does make eminently good sense to me. The logic of taking small steps forward on a methodical and economical basis to develop and demonstrate the tools and technology required for multiple rather than single major objectives seems clear. I believe that Congress and the Administration will understand that such technology programs do not always require the substantiation of a specific end product prior to approval, even though the technology programs are themselves ambitious. To this point, I have discussed our capabilities, our varied choices, the need for balance without undue compromise and the benefit of resource continuity on a long term basis. We need also to address how, with so many choic es matched with so many constraints, we go about the process of selecting individual programs within the framework of a total affordable program. My criteria for our future space program is relatively uncomplicated and probably offers little that is new to this Committee or to NASA. It would center on three basic questions: Are the programs straightforward extensions of concepts which Are the technology initiatives broad enough to serve a variety, Are the programs in the aggregate affordable now and in the With respect to where we proceed, it seems to me that NASA has the broad outline of a logical plan that can carry us for some years to come in the form of the "Outlook For Space" study. I suggest that this Committee ask that the study be reviewed, updated and refined to reflect a basic roadmap for NASA activity during the next five to ten years. Once prepared, perhaps in time for next year's budget cycle, NASA could present its plan to the Office of Management and Budget and Congress to whatever depth is required to achieve tacit agreement on not only FY 80, but the thrust through at least the next five years or so. Obviously, there will be changes in both approach and resource availability year by year, but the fundamental plan will exist and 24-215 O 78 - 11 its implications will be understood. Such an approach would tend to give the space program a continuity of content and direction, with few surprises to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, and, hopefully, few reversals of planned new starts. I believe we would all benefit significantly. And I believe this Committee has the stature, insight, and knowledge to bring it about. Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. ### |