Mr. ADAMS. I wanted to comment on NASA and its support of the applications activity. In the past years, the NASA budget, in my view, has been at a level where, after the Space Shuttle has been supported, and after the NASA structure has been supported, there has been a rather restricted amount of funding left over.

I believe that you will find today, with the new organization in NASA, Dr. Calio in charge of the applications activity, an organization which will be very happy to respond to applications and happy to propose programs which will use the technology that we have in the bank.

I think the problem is not going to be one where Dr. Calio and his people do not have the things we should do. The problem is going to be getting budget support from the administration and the OMB, and even getting the programs in here for you to consider.

Mr. WATKINS. At some point we will be able to bring private industry in. Often they accumulate technology, but cannot participate like they should because of the cost. But after that data and technology has been developed, we should work with their ideas and expand their ideas to find feasibility, as well as make the market analysis and build prototypes if necessary to make it work. But we haven't been doing that. And hopefully we can generate that.

Mr. ADAMS. The NASA "Outlook for Space" study is full of ideas on how to apply this space science.

Mr. WATKINS. Is that Dr. Calio?

Mr. ADAMS. He is the gentleman who has recently been appointed to head up the applications activity in NASA.

Mr. WATKINS. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to give a little testimony there on what I think we need to do if we are going to get the space program off high center and have it accepted by the public in this country. I think we can make it more applicable and practical in being utilized to solve a lot of our problems.

Mr. TEAGUE. Dr. O'Neill, do you think from the administration or executive point of view that it is money or technology that stands in our way on this whole thing?

Dr. O'NEILL.

I would like to give the administration time to make clear what its philosophy is. I really don't think it is either technology or money that stands in our way. I think it is philosophy.

Mr. TEAGUE. I will ask that of Dr. Frosch tomorrow, but don't you think they should know what they could do right now if they wanted to?

Dr. O'NEILL. My concern is that the administration may have gotten itself locked into a viewpoint that the resources within the biosphere are the only ones there will ever be. I hope by education we can make clear that the resources in space are far greater, and can be used with far less environmental damage.

I will be seeing Dr. Press tomorrow afternoon and I will certainly make as strong a case as I can that these possibilities should be looked at. Until I have heard an expression of opinion from him I would not like to state what the administration viewpoint is.

Mr. TEAGUE. Dr. Press will be before the committee in the morning, and he will be asked that question.

Dr. HANDLER. Mr. Teague, if I may hazard a quess as to what Bob Frosch will say, I am sure he will say something to the effect that it is simply too early to make a commitment, that they would like to mount a sensible program to find out whether we can get from here to there. And indeed to some extent they are already doing it. I take it that that is what lies behind the experiments they are doing out at Goldstone, where they are doing microwave beaming over various distances between tracking antenna just to find out what happens.

I take it they are beinning to study the properties of microwave beams for some real reason.

MS. HUBBARD. I think Dr. Frosch is more dedicated to the idea that we are within limits to a growth situation and psychologically maybe we should stay there because it will reinforce population decrease,

et cetera.

He has mentioned that he personally is not for the concept of a new strong goal in space, and I think it is a personal feeling. People have very different feelings about this personal

Dr. HANDLER. Let's let Bob Frosch speak for himself tomorrow. Mr. TEAGUE. I will.

Barbara, as you know. this resolution has been kicked back and forth from here to there, and back again. But we came up with that paragraph in there about the technology assessment board. My wild guess is that if we go to the technology assessment board, it would be 2 years before we ever get off the ground.

Ms. HUBBARD. I think we could do it much faster.

Mr. TEAGUE. If this committee should decide to put $1 million or $2 million, as Dr. O'Neill suggests in the budget, where do we put it? Who do we say does the work and what do they do? How do we define what that $1 million or $2 million is to do?

Ms. HUBBARD. What I would suggest is that a group be appointed by you to look into that and make a very clear answer to you within the next few weeks. I don't want to hazard a superficial statement, but I think we have people who could make a very good answer to that quickly.

Mr. TEAGUE. I just cannot get away from the feeling that as of right now, the executive branch knows exactly what they would like to do.

And if we go the route of technology assessment, it will be 2 years before we ever get an answer from them. I don't think we should wait that long. [Applause.]

Again, Barbara, my major in college is animal husbandry. [Laughter.1

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?

I majored in agricultural education.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, I major in Greek and Latin. [Laughter.]

Ms. HUBBARD. And I majored in political science.

Mr. TEAGUE. But I think we should get some answers tomorrow from Dr. Frosch and Dr. Press. We have a little conflict with the appropriations within the committee, but one or the other or both of them will be before this committee tomorrow. And I just have a feeling that they know right now what they want to do and why they want to do it.

Mr. WATKINS. I hope they do.

Mr. TEAGUE. I have a lot of faith in them, Wes. I have watched them a long time.

Dr. O'NEILL. As Ms. Hubbard has recommended, a few of us ought to get together over the next few weeks and make specific plans. My suggestions would follow those of a letter I wrote to Dr. Frosch at his request last month.

But I would also like to suggest that a group already exists; namely, the University Space Research Association, which has 35 member universities. It has the technical expertise and certainly an interest in this area. USRA should be an interested party in this activity.

Mr. TEAGUE. Barbara, I happen to know there are some people at the top of the NASA organization who very strongly feel we should go ahead on this thing and they have some plans of their own. Ms. HUBBARD. I would be very happy to hear that.

Mr. TEAGUE. We'll have them up here sooner or later.

If there are no other questions, and it being 5:05, the committee will be adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., January 26, 1978.]

FUTURE SPACE PROGRAMS

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1978

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Olin E. Teague, presiding. Mr. TEAGUE. The committee will come to order. The rules of the House require committee approval for some TV coverage. If there is no objection, the TV will provide some coverage this morning.

I hear no objection.

We have a very full day. We have Dr. Frosch, Administrator of NASA and Dr. Frank Press, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; Gen. Thomas Stafford from California, Commander of the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base.

I am not going to take a lot of time telling people who any of you are, because I'm sure they already know. So, Bob Frosch, I'm going to turn it over to you.

Dr. FROSCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I would like to begin by apologizing to the committee for the fact that after my testimony and the questioning, I would like your permission to leave, only because I have a conflict with another hearing. I am due to appear before the Appropriations Subcommittee on our fiscal year 1979 budget this morning. I believe you will agree that we have a certain need for appropriations in the

program.

Mr. TEAGUE. We would have a hard time operating without them. So we will be glad to have you do whatever you need to do.

Dr. FROSCH. I have submitted to the committee a written statement for the record. With your permission, I would like to offer it to you for such use as the committee wishes to make and speak extemporaneously from notes.

Mr. TEAGUE. Without objection, the statement will be placed in the

record.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Robert A. Frosch follows:]