Mr. WYDLER. Can you give me an idea how many people are working on it?

Mr. HECHLER. Would the witness identify himself?

Mr. DEUTSCH. My name is George Deutsch. I have just a brief question. I wonder if you are referring to boron as a structural material or as a fuel?

Mr. WYDLER. I meant as a fuel. That is why I was relating it to NERVA.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I presumed you had and I don't have any knowledge of boron as a fuel.

Mr. WYDLER. Is that a dead issue?

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Woodward can help.

Mr. WOODWARD. My name is William Woodward. I am responsible for the space propulsion and power work. The boron-containing fuel had been considered as a rocket fuel. Work has been going on for a number of years at JPL on a diborane material, and the results are showing that it is not panning out as well as we had hoped. It has certain technical problems with it. I would say it is not worth the effort to try and make it work.

(Information requested by Mr. Wydler follows:)

More specifically, thrust chamber durability and depositions on the injector face have plagued the initial efforts to develop an engine using oxygen difluoride and diborane. In carbon ablative chambers a reaction takes place between the products of combustion and the chamber walls causing severe erosion. In the fuel regeneratively cooled mode, the stability of the diborane is questionable. The build-up of deposits on the injector face apparently was caused by the formation of complex boron compounds. Alternative solutions to these problems result in added complexity and/or reduced mission capability to the extent that other propellants possessing nearly as good performance characteristics, without the unfavorable cooling characteristics, are under investigation.

Mr. WYDLER. Are you saying it is dropped?

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes, sir. We are out of business with it.

Mr. HECHLER. So long as we are on the area of nostalgia[Laughter.]

Mr. HECHLER. Whatever happened to the 260-inch solid rocket? [Laughter.]

Mr. HECHLER. Would Mr. Tischler care to say anything on this subject?

This is an area that the committee took a very keen interest in and I personally have witnessed some very successful demonstrations of its utility and capability. Although this question is not related to NERVA, I would be interested in just what has happened.

Mr. TISCHLER. Mr. Hechler, as you are well aware, and I think we have briefed the committee previously of the successes we did have in the solid propellant motor program, the technology of that program indicated a very high prospect of this being a very useful motor.

On the other hand, as time has worn on, we find that the use of an expendable booster system of this sort has been displaced at, least in our planning, by the use of a fully recoverable booster system in connection with the shuttle development, and consequently, in spite of the good progress that was shown in that activity, we have dropped it out of our picture.

Mr. WYDLER. Just to clarify, does that mean you have nothing concerning that program?

59-311 0-71-No. 2, pt. 4- 2

Mr. TISCHLER. In fiscal year 1972, if I am not wrong, there will be practically no activity in that area.

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Goldwater.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Klein, I can see the frustrations you have directed to atomic effort in the budget, and I am happy to see that you have a certain amount of freedom of discretion in determining where these funds will be applied or not applied and in the budget, $5 million for nuclear propulsion research and technology. I notice that this is the same amount that you had last year. I am wondering why with the drastic cut in NERVA, how you can justify this same level of funding, last year and again this year, of course, this year trying to cut other items, but not this item?

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Goldwater, there are two factors that enter into that. One I might mention is that actually there is some work, utilizing that discretion that we referred to a few minutes ago, that we had previously funded in NERVA but we feel we can also fund in the supporting research and technology line. So that we are in 1972 funding some small efforts in the advanced and supporting research line that previously had been funded in NERVA in order to apply more funds directly to the NERVA contract.

In addition to that, however, the amount of work that was in that area was, as the numbers themselves indicate, quite limited right along. That funding had been reduced substantially over the last several years. We believe

Mr. GOLDWATER. Which funding was that?

Mr. KLEIN. The supporting research and advanced technology. It was the same in 1971, I believe, but going back 2 or 3 years, it was substantially more.

I want to emphasize that the $5 million budgeted in this category funds not only NERVA related activities but also the NASA program of research on propulsion concepts beyond NERVA. This research has already been at a minimum level.

We believe that it is essential that we do continue work in these non-NERVA related activities. For the work on advanced concepts. We are budgeting NASA funds of about $1,800,000 in 1972. That is essentially the Nation's only effort on higher performance propulsion. It is being done on a research scale, and at a relatively low level of activity. But we think that it is important to the Nation to continue at least some efforts in these more advanced activities.

Furthermore, entering the funding judgment was the view that even if we were to wipe that area out entirely, it would not really affect in a significant way the availability of NERVA. That is, it would be a small difference in the NERVA situation, and yet we would be wiping out some very valuable work to the Nation.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Well, but I can appreciate your long answer. However, there still is the fact that the NERVA funding took a far more drastic cut from 1971 to 1972 than did the propulsion and research and technology from 1971 and 1972, and from this it seems that in your discretion, to place less emphasis on NERVA, or more on longer range items?

Mr. KLEIN. No; that is not the case at all, Mr. Goldwater. It is a reflection of the fact that the two types of activities are different in nature and that we are trying to use the money we have as best we

can. We are working at the margin in all our activities, in effect, and we must judge where can we get the best return for the next dollar.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Of course, the margin in NERVA is way below.
Mr. KLEIN. It is very low.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Of the $5 million, what part of that would be applicable to NERVA development?

Mr. KLEIN. NERVA support and the related stage activities, as I mentioned before, come to something on the order of $2,500,000 that would be quite closely related to NERVA.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Can you provide for the record perhaps a breakdown of all the line items of these $5 million over a hundred thousand? Mr. KLEIN. Surely.

(Material requested for the record follows:)

Question. Can you provide for the record perhaps a breakdown of all the line items of these $5 million over a hundred thousand.

Answer. The present plan for Fiscal Year 1972 is as follows:

Directly related to the support or growth capability of NERVA :

Engine component research and technology-
Engine materials research and technology.

Propellant properties evaluation; handling techniques__.

Nuclear propulsion application and planning studies__
Reusable nuclear stage technology and design studies_
Miscellaneous

Support of basic propulsion and other:

Application of controlled fusion to propulsion___

Gas core reactor research__.

Advanced solid core nuclear rockets_.
Teleoperators systems technology-

$600,000 600, 000 250,000 125, 000 1, 225, 000 50,000

.500, 000 1,100,000 200,000

350, 000

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Goldwater, if I may, would you suggest that it might be adviseable that we discontinue the advanced nuclear propulsion work in favor of NERVA?

Mr. GOLDWATER. I think, perhaps, that wasn't my implication, but perhaps if you had it on a more equitable basis of ratio. All I am asking for is perhaps an equitable ratio, because it is obvious here your drastic cut in NERVA and you had no cut in the other.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Goldwater, we will explain this in some detail in the record.

Mr. GOLDWATER. In regard to the NERVA development, has there been any change in the contractors, Government organizations for this year over last year?

Mr. KLEIN. There have been no significant changes in the contractors or the way the program is organized; no, sir.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Would it be out of line to request you to indicate who the contractors and what Government organizations are involved in this program?

Mr. JACKSON. We can answer that.

Mr. Klein?

Mr. KLEIN. The principal contractors on NERVA are Aerojet which has a prime Government contract, and Westinghouse which is the subcontractor for the reactor portion of the NERVA engine. In addition, there is the Los Alamos scientific laboratory which provides the basic reactor fuel technology on which NERVA is based. There are support contractors at the nuclear rocket development station, specifically, Pan American and E.G. & G. E. which is an electronics support organization there.

The Government office involved is the Space Nuclear System Office. There are other contractors in various elements of the program, but those are the principal ones.

Mr. GOLDWATER. So it is obvious you had the same in 1971, I suppose, partially in 1970, and yet your reduction in funding is considerable. It seems what you are doing is throwing these people a crumb. You are starting with a little instead of salvaging their greater potential to contribute to the program.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Goldwater, in order to retain a capability, core of capability, we also need to retain our contractor structure. We are very deliberately trying to do that.

Mr. GOLDWATER. It is difficult to do that.

Mr. JACKSON. If we had more funds, we might distribute it in a different way.

Mr. KLEIN. We are trying to concentrate the efforts at these several contractors in a few areas rather than trying to work across the board so we can make the most effective progress possible in each of the organizations involved.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Have you considered consolidation of activities of different agencies for pooling of funds?

Mr. KLEIN. The organization is a completely consolidated one between the two Government agencies involved. The distribution of responsibilities among the contractors is also well defined to avoid any kind of overlapping, so that, say, combining the work of Aerojet and Westinghouse into one contractor, would not significantly change the situation except that, of course, when you do that you stand to lose the capability that you had in the organization that you are phasing out. Mr. JACKSON. We have considered consolidation and the conclusion we come to is that we should not.

Mr. HECHLER. The committee hopes to wind up not only NERVA today, but also tracking and data acquisition.

Mr. Wells, do you have a question on NERVA?

Mr. WELLS. In terms of the alternatives in looking at the future of NERVA, has consideration been given to some kind of stretch out? This would not mean going back to the complete plan as previously outlined, but would make it consistent with the shuttle development in terms of timing which would mean some intermediate position between the past plan and your current rather austere level.

Mr. JACKSON. Yes; we have given consideration to that, Mr. Wells, and will continue to do so. The reason we will continue is that it is not clear yet what the total development schedule will be on the space shuttle program. This is simply because there is no forward projection of this budget item.

Mr. WELLS. I take it this would tie into your estimate you could hold in your present NERVA status for 1 to 2 years before you have to make a decision to cancel or move to a higher level?

Mr. JACKSON. We feel that we can reduce to this level and maintain the capability through fiscal year 1972 and possibly into fiscal year 1973, but if we have to operate at this lower level beyond that, we probably are going to have a difficult time justifying the validity of retaining the capability on a continuing basis.

Mr. WELLS. One last thing you can provide for the record, would you give an estimate of the added incremental cost to the total program which will result from the present curtailment?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes; we will.

(Material requested for the record follows:)

The cost of developing the NERVA engine and qualifying it for flight will depend on the timing for resumption of full development work and on the timing of the need for the initial mission operational capability. A precise estimate of added costs is difficult to make. One of the elements is the cost of bringing personnel up to a high level of expertise in this unique program area. Furthermore, because of the many uncertainties in timing, it is not possible to provide a single simple answer. A rough estimate has been made on the assumption that full development would be resumed in Fiscal Year 1973, in which case the estimated increase in total cost as compared to a program which would assume full development effort in Fiscal Year 1972 is on the order of approximately $100 million. However, if full development were conducted in FY 1972 and as a result engine development were completed several years before the engine is first flown, sustaining costs for the program during that waiting period would have to be added, partially off-setting this increase in development costs.

Mr. HECHLER. If there are no more questions on NERVA, I would like to get a few on basic research.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit some additional questions.

(Material requested for the record follows):

Question 1. I understand that you testified earlier before Congress that the amount of funds you requested of the Agencies (i.e., 58 million from NASA and 56 million from AEC) was greater than the formal request for Fiscal Year 1972 to this Committee. If we were to authorize the funds originally requested of OMB, how would you allocate them among the principal government and contractor participants in the nuclear propulsion program?

Answer. The following table delineates the amount requested by each agency for FY 1972. Also shown is a table reflecting the contractor manpower levels that would have been supported by the requested budget levels.

Question 2. You indicated that the amount you are requesting for the Nuclear Rocket Program will lead to a slowdown in the pace of engine development activities. Assuming you were not constrained by this budget, what are the principle testing milestones (with dates) for a stretched out nuclear rocket engine development program which would phase properly with the space shuttle schedule?

Answer. The program that has been submitted for FY 1972 is such a program and is paced properly with the shuttle program and for missions where the NERVA is considered a prime propulsion candidate. This would reflect a Prelim