have to fund. If we cannot produce ideas that we agree are first-class and important to do that will support a particular level of budget, I will not come forward asking for that level. I want to ask for a level of budget that contains a first-class set of projects and activities.

I believe we will probably find ourselves in a situation where we will have more good ideas than any of us agree are fundable. Then we will present, during budget review process, the program that we think ought to be done. The President and the Congress make the choices. We will have our own ideas. We will come forward with the President's budget, but I know that the Congress has its ideas as well, and we may find ourselves in some very lively discussions with regard to what programs really will be done.

With regard to multiyear authorization, I think the important point is that in setting out a program such as the space program in which every unit of operation takes years to accomplish and where a program plan of the kind we have just been discussing takes many years to carry out, not only NASA, but also the U.S. Government as a whole-all branches-have to find a way to achieve some sense of continuity in the program. If multiyear authorization is a way to do that, it would be very helpful.

I am not sure it is necessary. I think what is necessary is a sense that we are going in some stable, logical direction and that we who have responsibility in the Government understand that there is a plan which may change somewhat, but which still has a thrust and a sense of direction. And we are trying to follow that plan out.

Any means that brings us together on that view would be an effective way of doing it. Multiyear authorization is certainly a way to achieve that.

Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Wydler.

Mr. WYDLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

These hearings have not given me the feeling of confidence that anybody is really trying to push the space programs for the future. I am going to try to illustrate what I just said by this example:

It seems to me that it is fairly obvious that the biggest problem on the public's mind in our country today is energy and the lack of it and a lack of resources in energy. It also seems to me that potentially the most acceptable and the most complete and final solution to that problem would be the future development of a solar power satellite. Now, if it's possible, I am just talking in terms of concepts. We would have achieved what we want, something clean and inexhaustible, using almost no Earth resources at all for its generation.

That's the thing we could really focus the public's attention on, as far as space utilization is concerned. It is at least within the realm of possibility. Yet, we seem to be giving practically no attention to it at all. I would point to your own statement to us today, which practically pushes it out of the way.

What I as a Member of Congress would like to know is what really is this all about? Is this concept so way out that we should forget about it and just let it go? Is it a concept we can do something about and in effect set a goal and a standard and try to start out with a plan to accomplish something to utilize it? I want from you a real honest answer whether this is just one of those things we are going to

play with and throw a little money at to satisfy the people who are promoting it, or is this a concept that really could give us an energy breakthrough in our country in the next 10, 15, or 20 years?

Let me hear somebody who knows something about this really put it on the line to the Congress and the American people. Because I think this is the kind of thing that-if we are serious about all the other things we talk about, which seem to be quite way out-which really could have a significant reaction from the American public.

Dr. FROSCH. I would be happy to respond to that question, and I will tell you precisely what my own views are. In my mind, there is no question that it is technologically feasible. That's not to say that I don't see many engineering problems that have to be solved, some of which may be more severe than I believe. But I think it is technologically feasible to build a major solar electric power system in space, and that we know several engineering means for getting that power down to Earth.

When I say it is technologically feasible, I mean that I see nothing in the physics or the fundamental engineering to preclude the conversion of solar to electrical energy, or the construction of the structures required for significant energy generation in space-which are very large, as you know-or the conversion into some kind of a power beam that comes down to Earth, or the conversion of that power beam to electricity for distribution to users on the ground.

We do not now have in our hands, and won't have, until the Shuttle, the means for really investigating the engineering details of that proposal.

We have a tremendous amount of engineering homework to do before it is technologically correct, and can really be demonstrated. It would not be the first time in history that an engineering approach that looked perfectly feasible was destroyed by several small engineering details that turned up during the attempt to carry it out.

We don't see those problems now. However, there are some problems that need to be solved in terms of what a very large space structure would be like and how it would behave.

There are problems in beaming down energy, with its passage through the atmosphere, which we think we understand, but we need to do more work on. Examples include the safety of its reception on the ground and the safety of its controllability. Those are technological problems. There is a very serious set of economic questions which I believe have been treated somewhat casually by some of the proponents.

We really don't know what the net economics of such an energy system would be or how it would operate to produce global quantities of power. It is a very long way from saying, "I think I know how to build something and I don't know anything that would prevent me from building it," to saying that it is an economic and sensible thing to do.

What are we going to do about these questions? I think we are going to do two kinds of things. One, over the next couple of years-in fact it has already begun, we will be working with the Department of Energy to try to define some of these problems, and to the extent possible, to do so by beginning to understand the economic, control, and

structural questions a little bit better. We will be putting some money into that with the Department of Energy.

Parenthetically, please remember that the fundamental responsibility for energy in the U.S. Government, including the question of whether energy ought to come from space, lies with the Department of Energy.

We have the technological capability and the understanding for energy from space, but they have both the responsibility and, I think, in many ways the capability, much more than we do, to understand the comparisons between a proposed solar energy system and other possible attacks on the problem.

I cannot undertake their responsibilities.

The next thing that will happen must wait until we have the Shuttle for the real experimentation.

Mr. OTTINGER. Would the gentleman yield on the economic question? I wonder whether you want to comment on the JPL study.

Dr. FROSCH. I will make a blunt and very general statement. I do not really believe the numbers in detail of any such economic study. As far as I can tell, the state of that kind of economic prediction is such that we are very hard put to predict the cost of something we are already building in as short a time as 2 or 3 years in the future. That is not to say that such a study doesn't have value. What it does tell us is that a very large investment would be involved. Other parts of the study suggest that there would be a very large return on that investment. But I don't think we know enough in detail to be able to work those numbers yet, particularly since we have never yet tried to build a large structure in space. We don't know how such a structure would behave except in terms of some theoretical computations that are probably correct.

That leads me into the next comment I was going to make. We have been trying for some time, on a relatively modest basis, to evolve the technology for building structures in space and doing that kind of energy technology in space.

When we are operating the Shuttle, we will do engineering experiments to learn what it is like to try to construct these elements in space. This will give us some idea of whether, in the very mundane sense, we can use it for a space station. We need to answer basic questions. How many work-hours it would take to accomplish this? What can one really do with various kinds of machines and structures in space? What are the problems of handling large power in that kind of structure in vacuum and zero G? The amounts of power that we have controlled so far in space have been modest. The one thing we can be certain of is that most of the objects we use to control large quantities of power on the ground won't work in zero G. We have a great deal of new development work that needs to be done. We need to approach that in a sensible engineering and experimental way. We need to study it and keep going in that direction, being prepared to stop if we find some reason why it doesn't work and to run harder if it looks good.

Mr. WYDLER. As an elected representative of the people, my reaction to a program of this type is that it is probably way out and not too good, and unless somebody somewhere comes forward and enthusiastically pushes the program, and does something to be a promoter of it, it is likely to fall by the wayside. Maybe that's the purpose of these

hearings, to try to generate among the people, who are involved in space, some enthusiasm for the projects which have some desirability from the point of view of the American public.

If you people aren't doing it, I don't know who will.

Dr. FROSCH. I can only say that I may be willing to push that very hard in a year or so, but I am not prepared to do it until we understand what is involved better than we do now.'

Mr. TEAGUE. Bob, if I understand it, you are due before another committee in about 10 minutes.

Dr. FROSCH. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE. So the rest of the members, including the chairman, will submit questions in writing, or we will get Dr. Frosch back here at a later date for a hearing.

Dr. FROSCH. I would be happy to testify further, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you for coming this morning, and we will be happy to have you back again.

[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]

Question 1:

Dr. Frosch, the concept of solar power satellites appears to offer an attractive alternative for helping to provide some of our future energy needs. Would you comment on why the NASA and the Department of Energy are not pursuing this program with more enthusiasm?

Answer:

Administration policy is to confine the program to an analytical evaluation in the first phase. If the results of that evaluation are positive, we would expect to be able to proceed with limited development of the needed technology.

Question 2:

There is much criticism of the fact that NASA does not
have a series of long-term goals which would provide for
better planning and more efficient use of resources both
within the government and in industry. Would you comment?

Answer:

NASA has made special efforts to work with organizations in government and industry to establish long-range planning objectives for space and aeronautics and to provide useful descriptive data on specific candidate missions and areas of research. NASA published in 1974 two comprehensive studies Outlook for Space and Outlook for Aeronautics describing the areas for future emphasis in our program. These reports were products of extensive in-house discussion and analysis and consultation with experts representing other government agencies, industry and academia. In 1977, the Agency provided results of our five year planning activities including detailed information on potential new project initiatives and major new thrusts in research. This document was widely distributed to government and industry.

In addition to planning information provided in the cited reports, NASA maintains a continuous mission model planning activity which coordinates among government agencies, commercial and foreign users of space and integrates the projected payloads into a representative flight program over a twelve year planning horizon.