do

go ahead and develop them, and that's much more expensive. We pay out hard currency where we could be earning it.

Mr. SCHEUER. Dr. Handler.

Dr. HANDLER. I didn't know whether your question was about science generally, space science in particular, or the particular set of subsciences my colleagues have been talking about.

Mr. SCHEUER. Certainly the kinds of programs you have been dealing with, Dr. Handler, I would ask that question. But let us say the whole area of space sciences as a totality.

Dr. HANDLER. Well, the first response is like Mr. O'Neill's. We didn't leave any dollars on the Moon or on Mars. Every nickel of that is spent, well spent, in the United States and had all the multipliers you get from any such activity. It created jobs all over the country. At the height of the Apollo program, there were about 400,000 people employed one way or another.

Today it is 150,000. That money ripples through the society.

Second, I guess you have to live with our articles of faith. They have worked so far. By in large the fact that—not for all of those folks in New York, some of whom are in great difficulty-but for 80 percent of all Americans we live better than human being have ever lived anywhere at any time before, and we owe that very largely to the backdrop of science and the technology.

If you don't believe that process will continue, I don't know how to prove it.

Mr. SCHEUER. I think we do believe and it is perfectly obvious that that is true in terms of R. & D. directly applied to producing things and machines and manufacturing services and facilities and projects. Dr. HANDLER. But as to space science specifically, that kind of space science in which we want to put up a large space telescope and see what we can learn about the future of the cosmos, there are two answers: The first of these is, we will have to find our return in pure intellectual satisfaction, in terms of the information to be gotten. Meanwhile, it. is the most profound single challenge the Shuttle has and it will force the edge of Shuttle capability, what we can do with the Shuttle and what we can make man do with space. One cannot predict the consequences of thus forcing a new technology. Those are two aspects of that program.

The studies which have been done of the Earth's immediate environment have had real payoff. If it hadn't been for the space science undertaken to understand that near Earth environment, few of our satellites that are working would be useful to us; not the communications ones, not the Landsat ones, not the ones that we use for both military and civilian purposes, not the weather satellites. None of those would be working today successfully if we had not conducted this previous program of space science. That came as a surprise. We didn't know that these applications were in store at the time. We didn't know what we had to learn and we were very fortunate to have lucked out and gathered the right information so that it could be transferred. That is a very big bonus.

If nothing ever happens but successful 1-week weather forecasts routinely, that would be a huge bonus to the United States. What it would do for American agriculture alone is stupendous.

If we had longer term forecasts which were meaningful-the real goal of the NASA Climate program-then New York might have had

warning last winter of what was coming up and that would have made a great deal of difference both economically and in terms of human suffering.

Mr. SCHEUER. The city might have been deserted by the time it happened.

Dr. HANDLER. Well, that's one solution. [Laughter.]

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Adams.

Mr. ADAMS. I, like my colleagués, can't come up with a space application that is directly applicable to solving an urban problem. I do believe that all the citizens of the city of New York, however, if you look at the things they have available to them because of the space program from its inception, you would find that it plays a large part in their lives.

I guess it came home to me the most the first time I watched the Olympics, I think, from Japan, on television. I believe every citizen of New York participates in that sort of thing, and the weather forecasting and what have you.

But for the life of me, I cannot think of one which is of direct help to the urban problem.

Dr. HANDLER. The other thing we cannot do is to promise that there will be technical spinoffs that will be applicable elsewhere. They happen, but we can't say that the reason we are going to do research is because we are going to be lucky.

Ms. HUBBARD. I would like to add something that Thomas Paine suggested to me in terms of public works jobs for young people. He said, let's say they are rebuilding the city and they're learning some skills. There could be a way of those being credentials for them later on to enter into more complex building programs that would be related to space so that instead of those unemployment-type public jobs, seeming to be deadend, with a little bit of imagination doing the same work, you could say you are going to school to learn to build something more in the future.

And once those jobs become openended, psychologically the motivation changes, and then you can in an indirect way relate that to crime. Probably the biggest cause of crime is hopelessness. So the intangibles are enormous.

We can read off all the specifics, but in my opinion the intangibles are greater, the sense of hope, direction and purpose, and the fact that your life can be better.

Dr. HANDLER. One of the young people in the room said that to me while we were in recess.

Mr. SCHEUER. Thank you very much.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Watkins.

Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And also I would like to thank my colleague from New York for setting the stage for what I want to say here at this time.

Interwoven in all your testimony in my opinion is a problem that we have to correct. I have talked to NASA about it. We are really going to have to get the public involved and committed to a space program in this country for the future. Now, Mr. O'Neill stated as a pure scientist:

Yet I believe that efforts of pure science, with no practical application for many decades. must be accompanied by the immediate application of science wherever possible to humanity's urgent problems.

24-215 O-78-14

We have not been able to transfer that.

Ms. Hubbard, you said that 91 percent of the public said they thought that some of the problems would be solved by scientific research. But the next statement you have in your paper says:

The technological genius and industrial knowhow are considered a key by 80 percent.

We are building a mountain of technology that has not been fully utilized. Now, if we go on over to Dr. Handler's statement-maybe I should stop at Mr. Adams here, because he makes a statement that those who oppose adequate funding for space frequently suggest that the public or somebody out there is opposed. And he goes on to say that perhaps we have not adequately made our case. And I agree with that, because I don't think we have maximized the use of the technology that has been developed in space. I think, Dr. Handler, you stated it even strongerin shortening some of my comments so they won't be too long-when "Advanced new technology does not simply find its way into use."

And, Mr. Chairman, that is where we have been failing. Advanced new technology does not simply find its way into use. We have not been doing a thing to generate the use of that technology into the practical aspects for your neighbors and friends and loved ones, and mine, out here in order to meet as Jim said, these urban and other problems that we have today.

I could quote other comments all through Dr. Handler's statement here that point this out, the need for doing this. I think as a pure scientist that research and scientific work has to be done. But then what do we do? Do we shelve it or do we make it applicable?

Now, moving back to Mr. Adams, he being an industrialist-and I'm also a businessman, I might say-I'd like to move to the other statement you make over here, and I hope this is so true. "The Administrator of NASA has stated his commitment to a strong applications program."

I am just a first termer here, but in my studying and reviewing, we have not had that. To a certain degree, yes. But, we have not made a strong application of the technology that we have gained for 20 years, which I think has been pointed out in one of the other papers. In 20 years of gaining this technology, we haven't utilized it.

And also quoting from your paper, it says, "Additional complexity is gathering and processing" [Mr. Watkins reading from statement]. "But NASA must provide the game plan and be the quarterback." I think this is what we have to recognize. We have not had a game plan and we have not had a quarterback in making sure we are able to utilize the application of this technology. I have proposed to NASA what I call an economic block, because I am from a very low economic area of southeast Oklahoma, where 24 percent of the people have $3,000 of income and the median family income is about $6,700. I feel so strongly about utilizing this technology, that I think we can actually build products and build the economic base in that part of the country. I have provided an economic block. I have presented it to economists, and many have been very excited about it and others have said it's kind of intriguing.

As President Carter said the other night, it is time for our Government and business and industrial leaders to become partners. And this

economic block I propose to NASA for my part of the country would do that. But I think this is why we have the problem.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is because we haven't-yes, to a certain extent we have-but we have not to the fullest extent. Through all of this gigantic technology we have developed in sending man to the Moon, it has not been utilized on a practical basis, just being very pragmatic about it. Yes; we have done something communicationswise, and in some other areas, but we have not done it to a great extent. I would like comments on that.

Ms. HUBBARD. One of the things I think is necessary in our next phase, whatever major goal is chosen, is that it be built into the goal itself that the applications and spinoffs be thought through and applied as the program develops.

With the Apollo program, it had a great and idealistic goal, but it was not built into it thoughtfully, and I think part of the study OTA could do would be ways in which each incremental step, the benefits could be applied thoughtfully across the board by society. The employment could be distributed where most needed. There is no reason for those benefits not to be better built in. I do agree with you that it has not been thoughtfully done.

Mr. WATKINS. One of our witnesses yesterday, Mr. Jeffs, from Rockwell International, stated that we could expect a real growth of something like 5 percent, and I think if we really sat down and planned this within the space industrialization area that we could probably double that in real growth, which would probably pay for every dime of our program, not only in direct utilization of space industrializaton but industrialization here on Earth.

Dr. HANDLER. I commented on that a little bit in my paper.

But the transfer mechanism has not been worked out well. We are very uncomfortable. We are repeating the history we had with the Atomic Energy Commission, where the AEC was charged with doing whatever it could for the development of the power reactor, but it wasn't quite clear what was to happen when they did. And we are in somewhat the same position in this case. The role of NASA as broker in the handling off of its own technologies into the rest of the society, technologies developed by its own activities, remains rather ambiguous. It isn't quite clear what they are supposed to do. And in our society the only way technology finds real application and benefit to the citizens is by being transferred into the private setcor.

Mr. WATKINS. Amen. I agree with you.

Dr. HANDLER. We have not figured out how to make that happen. Mr. WATKINS. I hope I have presented a proposal on how to help do that, because I agree with you. We are sitting stagnant. I think this is maybe why we don't have the public support to demand that this take place.

You know, when we discovered the West, so to speak, one of the greatest selling points was the economic benefits, the growth. And we have not even structured this within our direction of space in this country.

Dr. O'NEILL. You are getting right at the basic thrust that is within the High Frontier idea, by likening it to the opening of a new West, a new source of wealth.

As to who will benefit most, the people at the bottom end of the economic scale are the ones who benefit most by any new opportunity. In a static society, the people already at the top stay at the top. And the people who are at the bottom don't have much of a chance.

In realizing the potential of the High Frontier for the generation of new wealth and new economic opportunity, there can unfortunately also be conflicts, in which I find myself as a scientist seeing the merits of both sides.

Much of my career has been spent in measuring fundamental properties like the size of the electron. There is a great intellectual thrill, and I hope an enlargement of the total human spirit, in basic research of that kind. But I don't claim for a moment that it will fill any grocery baskets.

In our free society, our Western tradition, much of the great strength of our science has come from insistence that it has intrinsic value and should be supported for its own sake, whether or not it will have applications. Unfortunately, though, some of us fall so much into the habit of defending that principle that we go overboard on it, and rule out fine opportunities to combine in a mutually reinforcive way excellent basic science and near-term practical application.

However, if you go one step further and say also, "I will not corrupt my pure science by taking any information which might be of practical benefit," then you are going too far. I think in some cases we have been in danger of taking that extra step. One example is a debate within the scientific community over a possible unmanned probe to sample and analyse one or more asteroids. Most of these objects are so far away that they could not become a useful materials resource for near-term use by manufacturing facilities in space. It happens that there is a special class, the Apollo-Amors, whose orbits approach the Earth. Those could become a major resource, saving billions of dollars in a space-industry program. Unfortunately, the debate so far has been managed by scientists who want planetary science to remain rigidly separated from applications-so they have ruled out the Apollo-Amors as possible targets for the probe mission.

Another scientific opportunity with the potential not only for very good pure science but for returning hard, practical, useful data is the lunar polar orbiter. That could locate element-concentrations needed in any program of using lunar materials for construction of power stations or other large products in space. I hope the lunar polar orbiter will be supported, and that when the mission is flown we design it to get the useful materials-resource information, without compromising the pure-science data.

Mr. WATKINS. I can appreciate that, but as to the support of pure science, when it becomes applicable and is used, one can support even greater pure science.

When you take a page out of the history of what we have done in space, every time we bring someone back from the Moon, the first thing we do is take them in and actually interrogate them, so to speak, to find out what they have learned and put everything down.

We should take another step and ask, "How can that be applicable to the present-day problems?" With all of these things we have been doing, we have not done that. We have shelved it. We have not made it applicable to the people trying to solve the problems of New York, that Jim has to confront.