is-because appropriations for NERVA are being cut in the proposed budget for 1972.

I wonder first of all if we could establish what space program is most likely to require the NERVA for successful operation, what would be the earliest one?

Mr. JACKSON. It is very difficult to be specific in answering your question as to which program. One of the applications would be continued manned exploration of the moon. Another application would be a sizable planetary exploration such as an unmanned exploration of Mars. A third application is deep space probes. A fourth is for earth orbital operations-moving out from a low earth orbit to a high earth orbit with large payloads.

In the space program, at the present time, those missions are without commitment because they are the kind of missions that will occur quite a few years ahead. We do not make commitments to missions that far in advance.

If several years from now, for example, the country's space program does move in the direction of continuing manned exploration of the moon, then the NERVA would very definitely be needed.

That is a long answer to the specific question of which mission is most likely. I am sorry that it is so long, but maybe we can now continue to build on your question.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Jackson, I suppose by way of a frame of reference here, just the time line, the schedules for the various space programs vis-a-vis the NERVA, what I am trying to get at, how much damage are we doing to these proposals by delaying the development work on NERVA at this time?

Mr. JACKSON. Let me see if I can speak to that point.

We visualize that the NERVA system as an engine and as a stage most likely will be carried into earth orbit by the shuttle. That is our present thinking. This means that we need the shuttle first.

Now, what mission it would be applied to once it can be carried into earth orbit, it again a projection. I think that what you are getting at is this: Will the NERVA really be ready for the missions that need it at the time that we need it?

Mr. McCORMACK. Yes; that is fine.

Mr. JACKSON. By our present projections we believe that NERVA will be ready in time, including the delay associated with the reduced funding.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Jackson, when do you anticipate putting down a sizable payload on Mars,, other than a very small lander? Mr. JACKSON. We would have to answer that as sometime in the eighties, possibly the mid eighties.

Mr. McCORMACK. This would mean we would have to go back to work on NERVA by fiscal year 1973 or 1974 in order to be ready for that sort of a schedule?

Mr. JACKSON. Generally speaking; yes.

Mr: MCCORMACK. Is this the first application that you could foresee which would be of which the present use of NERVA would be critical?

Mr. JACKSON. No; not necessarily the first one. As best we can project, the early to mid-1980's is about the first time we will need the NERVA.

Mr. WYDLER. Would you yield to me? I think it would be helpful. It might be helpful if you could establish facts. One, is there any current contemplated use for NERVA in NASA?

Mr. JACKSON. Contemplated; yes.

Mr. WYDLER. What is it?

Mr. JACKSON. Those are the several missions I spoke to.

Mr. WYDLER. So you really haven't programed anything for NERVA, have you, in NASA?

Mr. JACKSON. No specific mission; that is, an authorized mission for NERVA.

Mr. WYDLER. If I were to ask you what is the first mission you were to need NERVA for, you really can't answer that question?

Mr. JACKSON. That is correct. It would be one of those four by our present projection.

Mr. WYDLER. What your answer amounts to is there may be one sometime in the eighties?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

Mr. WYDLER. If the Nation subsequently decides to perform some mission that could utilize the NERVA?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you.

Mr. WYDLER. I don't know if that helps.

Mr. McCORMACK. Yes; it does. I just want to make a point. I believe we must be very careful about postponing NERVA too long and we certainly are going to be in a terrible disadvantage if we run up to the mid-seventies without having done any further development on NERVA, and then want someone to perform some space mission at a later date and find ourselves

Mr. HECHLER. The gentleman from Washington has the floor if he wants to pursue this line of questioning with Mr. Klein or any of the other gentlemen.

Mr. McCORMACK. I have no other questions.

Mr. KLEIN. I would just like to amplify Mr. Jackson's comment with respect to the leadtime of missions versus the leadtime, particularly of propulsion and other advanced technology, needed to achieve the missions. The leadtimes on advanced propulsion systems tend to be substantially longer than the mission leadtimes.

I might also point out that the approved missions that we have within NASA at this point only go out to, say, the mid or latter part of the seventies in any event. The grand tour, for example, which is proposed as a start in fiscal 1972, is the latter part of the seventies type of mission.

We believe that a logically evolving space program in these several areas that Mr. Jackson pointed out, namely continued exploration of the moon with men, or larger unmanned activities to the planets, will be logical activities of the eighties following on what are contemplated for the seventies. All of these types of evolutionary paths are ones in which NERVA provides significant advantages. Therefore, NERVA is viewed by NASA as a part of the space transportation system for moving substantial payloads beyond lower earth orbit for the classes of missions that are referred to.

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Klein, what is the actual situation, and could you give us a more precise indication of what the future is so far as

layoffs are concerned in this NERVA area, and their effect on the development of NERVA? We have heard a great deal of comment concerning the disbandment of teams that might result from budgetary reductions. Just give us a straight story on what is likely to happen, and what is the future of the development of NERVA with respect to professional personnel that are working on its development.

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, we are initiating layoffs of a substantial nature in the NERVA program.

Mr. HECHLER. What does this mean?

Mr. KLEIN. As of the end of January, there were engaged in the NERVA, and NERVA related activities, something like 2,500 people. When the layoffs are finished, which will be in the next several months, we will be down to a level of approximately 800 to 850 people.

So it is a marked reduction, a reduction of about two-thirds in the staffing. We do expect, however, to retain a core of capability working on critical long lead components of the NERVA engine, making progress in these limited areas and also providing a basis, a core on which it is possible to build when full development can be resumed.

Mr. HECHLER. Would it be correct to say these layoffs are not of a character that you couldn't recapture the necessary competence when you are funded fully? Is that a fair statement?

Mr. KLEIN. We believe that this core of capability will permit us to build on to full development. Obviously, it will require training new people in that process. But it does provide a basis for resuming full development.

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

Mr. HECHLER. You are recognized, Mr. Wydler.

Mr. WYDLER. Suppose you were to keep going on NERVA now full blast, NERVA program, if we were to keep it going, when would you have the program ready for use, if you were to do that?

Mr. KLEIN. The program we had been on in fiscal 1971 would have led to a first flight of NERVA in the 1978-79 time period. Allowing a couple of years for flight testing and full qualification in flight, we have estimated that it would have been available for full operational use in the very early 1980's.

Mr. WYDLER. You are figuring a time frame, as of about 9 years? Mr. KLEIN. About 9 to 10 years for full operational capability; yes, sir.

Mr. WYDLER. Thank you.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman.

Will your present staff that you contemplate of 850 or so people for fiscal 1972 continue at that level, will the leadtime change or will it still remain at 10 years from the time you are funded?

Mr. KLEIN. Of course by reducing the effort in 1972 we will add to the calendar time at which NERVA will be available.

Mr. McCORMACK. Will you be reducing the leadtime from any specific date in the future from 850 people?

Mr. KLEIN. We have estimated that we will add something more than a year, if just to pick an example, if we were to move out into full development in fiscal 1973, we estimate that the system would be available something more than a year beyond the dates I mentioned in response to Mr. Wydler's question. This occurs because of the need to train people and bring them to a fully productive state. Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you.

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Klein, what is the relationship between the NASA expenditure and AEC expenditure in NERVA in the event that more funds are authorized for NASA on NERVA? What would the relationship between the development of the program in AEC be in the event that we should put some funds in for speedier development of NERVA?

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, as you know the program is partially funded by AEC and, therefore, we try to maintain a balance in terms of the progress being made by the work funded by NASA and the work funded by AEC. Therefore, if we were to try to speed up, say, the NASA funded work, there would have to be a corresponding speedup in the AEC funded work.

Mr. HECHLER. Well, can you again be a little more specific on that point? What effect would this have if there were no funds put into AEC and what effect would this have on the manner in which your parallel development proceeds?

Mr. KLEIN. În terms of time of availability, then, under those circumstances, one would have to say that the pace would be limited by what the AEC funded effort would permit.

Mr. JACKSON. We would end up with an unbalanced program in 1972 if more funds were put into the NASA side without new funds on the AEC side.

Mr. HECHLER. Any other questions on this or other issues?

Mr. Goldwater.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I would like to follow along with your question, Mr. Hechler, in regard to NERVA. I understand that AEC and NASA, a total, I would like to know what discretion you have in putting this money directly into the NERVA project?

Mr. KLEIN. Between the two agencies?

Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes; part of this actually goes into NERVA?

Mr. KLEIN. Well, in the NASA funded activities, $9.9 million goes directly into the NERVA line. There is in addition to that $100,000 for the base operations of the test station, NRDS, which is directly in support of NERVA and in further addition to that, in the remaining $5 million, a substantial portion of that is in either direct or indirect support of NERVA.

For example, stage technology, the technology of the stage that will be propelled by NERVA is funded in that $5 million. Other activities that will provide for the ultimate growth capability of NERVA is funded in that, so on the NASA funded work I would judge something like perhaps 12.5 is pretty closely related to NERVA directly or indirectly.

Mr. GOLDWATER. $12.5 million?

Mr. KLEIN. Something like that, Mr. Goldwater. It is of that order. On the AEC funded activity, the NERVA line item is $7.5 million. The other $7.5 million is essentially all work at the Los Alamos Laboratory. A good part of that again relates to the basic technology of NERVA, particularly in the fuel element area which provides the potential for the longer endurance or higher specific impulse of NERVA.

Again it is largely related to NERVA there as well.

Mr. GOLDWATER. You say 12.5 NASA and 7.5 for AEC?

Mr. KLEIN. I would say again in the AEC side it is probably in the order of 12.5 to 13, which is related to NERVA.

Mr. GOLDWATER. What about the freedom of distribution of the NASA-AEC funds, do you have assigned priorities to the NERVA program?

Mr. KLEIN. I have a fair amount of freedom. Of course, the budget is established by these line items, so the amount for NERVA is $9.9 million. The amount for the so-called supporting and advanced technology is $5 million on the NASA side. Similarly on the AEC side for NERVA there is $7.5 million and $7.5 million for advanced technology. I have some freedom as to how that is spent, but I do have to live with those basic lines.

Mr. JACKSON. There is another constraint. The AEC funds go to the reactor and the NASA funds go to the nonnuclear part of the system.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Did you originally set these line items?

Mr. KLEIN. Do you mean what is spent-what kinds of activities are spent in the line items?

Mr. GOLDWATER. Yes; and how much.

Mr. KLEIN. The kinds of activities that are funded by the various line items were established generally by interagency agreement. The amount in the budget for the various line items resulted from the complete budget process in which many people participated.

Mr. JACKSON. Including Mr. Klein and me.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I can see you are having to consolidate your activities to some degree because of the cut in the budget. Do you have the authority to change these priorities around or these line items around to reflect the strains on the NASA money?

Mr. KLEIN. I have a fair amount of authority and flexibility of that nature, Mr. Goldwater. And I believe the way in which the funds are to be spent in 1972 within the total limitations are reasonable allocations among the various priorities.

Mr. GOLDWATER. In regard to the AEC money, though, do you have authority

Mr. KLEIN. I have similar authority there; yes, sir.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, what is our next procedure?

Mr. HECHLER. I thought we would continue on NERVA, if there are any other questions, in order to preserve continuity. Do any members of the committee have questions which relate to NERVA.

Mr. WYDLER. This is sort of a related question.

Whatever happened to boron? [Laughter.]

Mr. KLEIN. I cannot comment.

Mr. JACKSON. May I comment? We are continuing technology work with boron for application to both spacecraft structures and aircraft structures. We are also doing work on graphite composite structures. Boron is one scheme, graphite is another scheme. At the present time, the potential for these two different composites is about equal. Both have a good deal of utility for structural application.

Mr. WYDLER. Can you give me some idea, Mr. Jackson, as to what we are spending on them right now?

Mr. JACKSON. I don't have those figures-George, are you able to give something specific?

We can for the record.