would leave NASA particularly vulnerable to a loss of an orbiter or to critical spare parts?

Dr. ROSEN. Sir, I think the clear answer to that question has to be yes. There is justifiable concern that without a continuing ELV backup, you may run into some problems in providing launch services to the varied user communities. I think we all recognize that the decision to phase out ELV's at any point in time is based primarily on what we can afford to buy, not on what we would like to have. So the answer has to be yes.

Senator TRIBLE. All right, gentlemen, I have a series of additional questions. What I would like to do is propound some of those to you later for the record.

I thank you very much for being here today.

Dr. Willis Shapley and Dr. Thomas Donahue are invited to come forward. And this panel will present testimony on space sciences and applications. And you are welcome, gentlemen. Good morning, gentlemen. Your testimony will be made a part of the record. So you are invited to summarize that testimony or perhaps propound additional thoughts or observations. We are pleased that you are here today.

STATEMENTS OF DR. WILLIS H. SHAPLEY, SPACE APPLICATION BOARD, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL; AND DR. THOMAS M. DONAHUE, CHAIRMAN, SPACE SCIENCE BOARD, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Dr. SHAPLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Willis Shapley, and I am here today as the representative of the Space Applications Board of the National Research Council. I was formerly the Associate Deputy Administrator at NASA and am now a private consultant. We appreciate very much the opportunity and the invitation to present the views of the Space Applications Board on NASA and related programs for civil space applications. I am substituting for our chairman, Mr. George Harter, who regrets he is not able to be here today.

As you suggested, in the interest of time I will present only the highlights of the prepared statement you have before you.

With respect to the NASA budget, we recognize that the 1984 budget is an improvement over the budgets presented to Congress in recent previous years. The complete moratorium on new starts has ended. The administration has now given its approval to the advanced communication satellite technology program which this subcommittee and the Congress approved last year.

There seems to be a green light for moving ahead with UARS, the upper atmosphere research satellite, which has applications as well as scientific significance. However, several matters concern us. And we feel that some adjustments by Congress could result in a better program for the Nation.

In land remote sensing, the 1984 budgets of NASA and NOAA appear to be premised on the rapid success in transfering the Nation's civil operational remote sensing satellites to the private sector. A Presidential decision was finally made a few days ago on the approach the administration proposes be taken in effecting this transfer.

However, the administration has not yet come forward with details of its recommendations on crucial matters such as, one, the terms and conditions on which bids from prospective contractors will be requested; second, the degree of Federal subsidy that will be considered acceptable; third, the implementing legislation Congress will be asked to enact; fourth, the plans for the transition from Government to commerical operations; and finally, the changes necessary in the fiscal year 1983 and 1984 budgets.

Until these details become known, the administration's commercialization proposal cannot be judged and the adequacy of the NASA and NOAA 1984 budgets for remote sensing now before Congress cannot be properly assessed.

The Space Applications Board has endorsed the movement toward commercialization of at least some parts of the U.S. civil remote sensing enterprise. We have emphasized that a major market for remotely sensed data will not develop without speedy data handling and assurance of continuity of data.

We have recommended that the Federal Government should proceed with a transfer of a data reduction and data handling parts of the Landsat program to the private sector as quickly as economically possible but should defer attempts to transfer to the private enterprise the space portion of the Landsat system.

We have also recommended that the Federal Government conduct a vigorous program of experiments and other technology transfer activities to assist the private sector in realizing the potential benefits of civil remote sensing and should also pursue an aggressive R&D program on remote sensing technology applicable to civil purposes.

Mr. Chairman, we have had reservations on the desirability and feasibility of attempting to transfer both space and ground segments to the private sector as the administration is now proposing. But we would certainly not want to prejudge the administration's proposals. I am sure the Space Applications Board and, of course, this subcommittee will give them careful consideration when they are spelled out in more detail.

In its consideration of the thorny questions relating to commercialization, we would hope that the subcommittee would give specific attention to assuring that the NASA and NOAA budgets contain adequate provisions for maintaining continuity of both operations and research and development in land remote sensing.

Leadtimes for replacement of Landsat satellites are running out, if indeed they have not already done so. If a commercialization plan is approved, we feel that contingency provisions should be made in the budget for preserving continuity in the event that negotiations for commercialization fall through, as well they might, or are subject to further delay, which is perhaps even more probable. Mr. Chairman, we should not lose our civil remote sensing capabilities and benefits by default.

In the meteorological satellite area, the principal concern of the Space Applications Board is that there does not appear to be any provision in either the NASA or the NOAA budgets for continued development and tests of improved environmental sensors for meteorological satellites. We would hope that the subcommittee would examine this situation carefully and see what should be done.

There is also doubt, Mr. Chairman, whether the NOAA budget provides for adequate continuity in procurement and operation of operational civil weather satellites, especially in the event that the proposed handover to the private sector takes longer than the administration expects or does not take place.

While again not wishing to prejudge the merits of the administration's proposals before the details are known, I must state that the Space Applications Board has questioned the advisability of commercializing meteorological satellites, a service for which the Federal Government itself is the principal customer.

In communications satellites, Mr. Chairman, we are pleased that the ACTS advanced communication technology satellite program is included in the fiscal year 1984 budget and hope that Congress will continue to support it. We believe that NASA should also be sponsoring communications technology development in some other high-risk areas. Some suggestions are noted in my prepared state

ment.

In materials processing, the Space Applications Board endorses the NASA program as now oriented, but has some concern that as presently funded it may not make adequate provision for flight experiments on the Space Shuttle.

The board sees great potential in ocean remote sensing for both applications and scientific purposes. We would hope that an ocean remote sensing satellite will be given a high priority for a future new start.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress three points: first, the importance of maintaining a strong level of funding for research and analysis in the applications area. While this is not as glamorous as the major hardware projects, these activities are essential to support the progress in the overall space applications program.

Second, it is especially important that NASA's programs include studies and experiments directly involving the potential users of space applications. NASA's development of new technologies for space applications must be guided by a realistical practical understanding of the needs and problems of prospective users. Conversely, potential users need to be made more aware of the possible ways in which space applications technology can contribute to their needs and interests.

Finally, I want to stress the Board's strong belief that space applications is a key area of NASA's activities. It plays an essential role in insuring that the Nation actually receives practical civil benefits from our tremendous and continuing investments in space technology. In many areas, such as land remote sensing and communications, it has become clear that Government action through NASA, NOAA or other agencies can make the difference between the realization of benefits or their loss, either to a foreign competitor or altogether.

In these areas, we must all work together to find ways for the Government, jointly with the private sector where feasible, to protect the broader national interest and preserve a leadership position for the United States.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

19-200 0-83--13

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIS H. SHAPLEY, MEMBER, SPACE APPLICATIONS BOARD,

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the chairman and members of the National Research Council's Space Applications Board, I want to thank you for your invitation to present the views of the Board on the nation's programs directed at practical uses of space systems by the civil community.

Mr. George Harter, chairman of the Space Applications Board, regrets that he is not able to be here today. He and the Board have asked me to appear here in his stead. My statement has been prepared in collaboration with him and is intended to present the consensus of the Board.

The Space Applications Board was formed by the National Academy of Engineering in 1972, and is now a part of the National Research Council, the operating organization of the National Academies of Science and Engineering. The Board's functions are to help formulate the nation's program for practical applications of space systems, to give independent advice to NASA and other agencies, and to assist in broadening the interest and understanding of industry, universities, government, and the public in practical applications of space technology.

Mr. Chairman, as you requested in your letter, I will comment briefly on the fiscal year 1984 budget request for NASA's space applications activities and address some areas that are of concern to the Space Applications Board.

The Board was briefed on NASA's fiscal year 1984 space applications budget at its last meeting on February 16, 1983. While we have not reviewed the budget in detail, I can give you the Board's reaction to the decisions reflected in the budget.

First, we recognize that the fiscal year 1984 budget is an improvement over the budgets presented to Congress in recent previous years. The complete moratorium on new starts has ended. The administration has now given its approval to the advanced communications satellite technology program which this Subcommittee and the Congress approved last year. There seems to be a green light for moving ahead with UARS—the upper atmosphere research satellite—which has applications as well as scientific significance.

However, several matters concern us. We are not in a position to make specific recommendations on the budget but would like to bring to your attention some questions which we believe you should address and take apppropriate action on in your own review. We recognize the need for constraints on the total budget but feel that, as in previous years, some fine tuning adjustments by the Congress could result in a better program for the nation.

I will comment, in order, on the land remote sensing (Landsat) and meteorological satellite areas, then on communications satellites, materials processing in space, and remote sensing of the oceans. In conclusion I will offer some general observations on the space applications program.

LAND REMOTE SENSING

In land remote sensing, the fiscal year 1984 budgets of NASA and NOAA appear to be premised on rapid success in transferring the nation's civil operational remote sensing satellites to the private sector. A Presidential decision was finally made, a few days ago, on the approach the administration proposes be taken in effecting this transfer. However, the administration has not yet come forward, as far as we know, with details of its recommendations on crucial matters such as the terms and conditions on which bids from prospective contractors will be requested, the degree of federal subsidy that will be considered acceptable, the implementing legislation Congress will be asked to enact, the plans for the transition from government to commercial operations, and the changes necessary in the fiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1984 budgets. Until these details become known, the administration's commercialization proposal cannot be judged and the adequacy of the NASA and NOAA fiscal year 1984 budgets for remote sensing now before Congress cannot be assessed.

As the Subcommittee is well aware, the commercialization of civil remote sensing raises many controversial and difficult questions that have been the subject of seemingly endless study and discussion for many years. Now, however, lead-times for maintaining continuity of service after Landsats D and D-prime are running out, if they have not already done so. Our foreign competitors-France and Japan-are continuing to move ahead. It is essential therefore, that clear decisions be made at this session of Congress either (1) to proceed with a commercialization plan that both protects our national interests and provides a workable framework for attracting effective private participation or (2) to make appropriate adjustments in the 1984 budget of NASA and NOAA to ensure that the U.S. does not forego the benefits of civil remote sensing from space nor abandon to foreign competitors our lead

ership in this field-in which we have invested so much and have had so much technical success.

The Space Applications Board has been active since its establishment in studying and reviewing the problems of civil land remote sensing. In our reports and testimony we have endorsed the movement toward commercialization of at least some parts of the U.S. civil remote sensing enterprise. Last year, for example, we emphasized in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications that a major market for remotely sensed data could not develop without speedy data handling and assurance of continuity of data. We recommended that the federal government should proceed with the transfer of the data reduction and data handling parts of the Landsat program to the private sector as quickly as economically possible, but should defer attempts to transfer to private enterprise the space portion of the Landsat system. We also recommended that the federal government conduct a vigorous program of experiments and other technology transfer activites to assist the private sector, in realizing the potential benefits of civil remote sensing and also pursue an aggressive R&D program on remote sensing technology applicable to civil purposes.

We hope that these views will be taken into consideration in Congressional deliberations and note that similar views were expressed in the report of the Secretary of Commerce's Land Remote Sensing Satellite Advisory Committee, chaired by Michael Halbouty, released last fall. While we have had reservations on the desirability and feasibility of attempting to transfer both space and ground segments to the private sector as the administration is now proposing, we would certainly not want to prejudge the administration's proposals. I am sure the Space Applications Board will give them careful consideration when they are spelled out in more detail.

In its consideration of the thorny questions relating to commercialization, we would hope that the Subcommittee would give specific attention to assuring that the NASA and NOAA budgets contain adequate provision for maintaining continuity of both operations and R&D in land remote sensing. If a commercialization plan is approved, we feel that contigency provisions should be made in the budget for preserving continuity in the event that negotiations for commercialization fall through or are subject to further delay.

A final point on land remote sensing. We note that the fiscal year 1984 Budget proposes eliminating the NASA contribution to Agristars, the triagency (Agriculture, NOAA and NASA) program, for using Landsat data in surveying and forecasting production of selected crops. The success of this program depends on the collaboration of all three of the agencies, each providing essential special capabilities. In previous years each agency, including NASA, has provided its share of the funding required, in accordance with an inter-agency agreement. We believe that the Subcommittee should assure itself that the total funding provided for Agristars in fiscal year 1984 is sufficient for continued progress in the program and that any change in the funding pattern does not serve to undercut what appears to be an effective inter-agency working arrangement.

METEOROLOGICAL SATELLITES

In the meteorological area, the principal concern of the Space Applications Board is that there does not appear to be provision in either the NASA or the NOAA budgets for continued development and test of improved environmental sensors for meteorological satellites. The dislocations forced by the reductions in the NASA and NOAA fiscal year 1982 and fiscal year 1983 budgets have had the unfortunate effect of terminating—or suspending the excellent partnership arrangement in research and development on meterological satellites that had existed between the two agencies for over 15 years. We would hope that the Subcommittee would examine this situation carefully and take such action as it finds necessary.

There is also doubt whether the NOAA budget provides for adequate continuity in operational civil weather satellites, especially in the event that the proposed handover to the private sector takes longer than the administration expects-or does not take place. While still not wishing to prejudge the merits of the administration's proposals before the details are known, I must state that the Board has questioned the advisability of "commercializing" meteorological satellites, a service for which the federal government itself is the principal customer.

COMMUNICATIONS

As I have already indicated, the Space Applications Board is especially pleased that the President's budget has endorsed ACTS, the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite. In a 1977 report "Federal Research and Development for Sat