Page images

this year; a high-performance fan jet known as the FJR 710; the "YXX," or "nextgeneration" medium-sized commercial airliner; and the RJ-500 engine, a joint project with Rolls-Royce to develop a new commercial fan jet.

Yesterday's announcement from Pratt & Whitney said the technology of the RJ500 will be incorporated into the engine developed by the five-nation consortium. The British-Japanese venture will be responsible for the fan and high-pressure compressor of the new engine, the company said.

In an effort to build up their own expertise and avoid taking losses in developing commercial airliners on speculation, that is, without orders, the Japanese have agreed to emphasize joint development and production efforts with manufacturers in other nations, the report says.

It says that this tactic offers "a means of building up aerospace production capacity, gaining valuable technology expertise and work-force training, creating sales and follow-up networks, and obtaining some protection, through the major partner, from the intense competition in the transport market."

According to this report and others, the Japanese already have acquired extensive technological expertise from their joint production agreements on the Boeing 767, the F15 fighter and the P3 antisubmarine plane, all developed by American companies.

It is far from a foregone conclusion, however, that the Japanese will be able to make themselves competitive in worldwide aerospace development, the report notes. Even if Japan stimulates its aerospace industry by substantially increasing defense spending, as the United States is pressuring it to do, the Japanese face serious constraints in developing commercially competitive products, the Commerce report says. Among the problems are a "minimal domestic market" for commercial jets, a shortage of trained personnel, and a lack of an overseas marketing and servicing network.

Senator GORTON. There are, however, issues which must still be addressed. The most prominent is that of prospects for a fifth orbiter. The proposed fiscal year 1984 budget provides only for the acquisition of structural spare parts for a four-orbiter fleet. The President's science adviser has recently suggested that there is no longer a need for a fifth orbiter.

This committee has considered that a fifth orbiter for the Shuttle fleet is essential and has proposed funding in previous years for procurement of long lead items as well as outyear funding for production.

Another element of interest in the space budget is the provision for research and analysis, which directly supports experimental and theoretical research at universities, as well as conceptual and experimental developments which form the basis of new missions. Research and analysis may lack the glamour of the planetary missions, as an example, but the scientific return on the modest investment can be very large. In fact, it is hard to justify the high cost of collecting this data if that data is not readily accessible and used. As the Space Shuttle becomes operational, attention is turning to the next major space initiative, and a space station appears to be the most logical step. This is an undeniably exciting prospect which raises a number of important issues. Can a major effort such as a space station be undertaken without unbalancing our national space effort? We have, for example, witnessed the pressures on space science and especially planetary exploration as development of the space transportation system required substantial commitments of NASA's resources.

Clearly, these are only some of the issues in which this committee has an interest. We are very pleased, therefore, to welcome Dr. James Beggs, NASA Administrator; Dr. Hans Mark, Deputy Administrator; and Mr. Thomas Newman, NASA Comptroller, to this hearing to address the fiscal year 1984 authorization for NASA.

I also have to apologize to the three witnesses. The Budget Committee begins its markup of the first budget resolution in 15 minutes, and it has the unique no proxy rule. So very shortly after 10 o'clock, I must leave you, and most of your testimony will be heard and the questions asked by my distinguished colleague, Senator Trible.

Before I turn it over to you, Dr. Beggs-Paul, do you have an opening statement?

Senator TRIBLE. No, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Senator GORTON. Senator Heflin has an opening statement.


Senator HEFLIN. Mr. Chairman, I join you in these hearings to consider NASA's budget request for fiscal year 1984. I am particularly pleased to have my new assignment as the ranking Democrat on this subcommittee. In this role I look forward to reviewing NASA programs in the same cooperative, bipartisan spirit that has characterized this subcommittee.

As I look over the specifics of the budget request, I am concerned over whether the overall 3.9-percent increase in NASA's budget will be adequate, particularly when inflation is at least twice that figure. Dr. Keyworth's explanation to me the other day of why it was so low, especially when compared to DOD and NSF, was that the administration was supporting the best talent. Well, I know of few agencies that have done as much and could do even more with proper support.

I am pleased that the budget does allow for some needed efforts. The lower requirements for Shuttle production make some money available for other efforts. While no commitment to a fifth Shuttle Orbiter is made, money is included for spares that could keep the production option open. There are two new starts in space science, continued support for the advanced communications satellite and the initiation of the numerical aerodynamic simulator program so important to advance the testing of aeronautic designs. Mr. Beggs, I must congratulate you and the administration for the progress you've made.

I should be frank; I do have some questions, if not concerns, about other elements of your budget.

To begin with, I welcome at long last the administration's willingness to increase rather than decrease its support of aeronautical research and technology. But I still do not comprehend the inability of the OMB to understand the importance of NASA's high risk technology development efforts that are so crucial to our aviation industry. No individual firm in the industry is able to perform the work, and antitrust laws prevent cooperative ventures. The OMB posture still seems to be contrary to the NASA Act of 1958 that directs NASA to preserve "the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical science * and in the application thereof More to the point, however, this lack of OMB support could set the stage for our highly important aviation industry to follow in the footsteps of certain declining U.S. industries.

* *

* *

[ocr errors]

In the space area, I have a number of questions which I hope the NASA and public witnesses will be able to address. In particular I'm interested in the following areas:

Are we using the Shuttle effectively, and is there anything more we need to be doing to operate it on a sound businesslike basis?

What can we do to encourage priviate sector investments in the space program and generally how do we promote greater efforts in space commercialization?

Why do we fund certain space applications programs at such low levels when the economic potential is so significant? I am particularly referring to the materials processing and communications program.

Space stations-Where do they fit into the Nation's future and the future of NASA? Are we doing enough in this area?

I will have a number of specific questions for our witnesses later. I look forward to hearing the NASA testimony today and the statements by our public witnesses next week.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you on these matters.

Senator GORTON. Thank you very much. At this point, I will enter a statement of Senator Hollings as a part of the opening statements herein.

[The statement follows:]


Today we hold hearings to consider NASA's budget request for fiscal year 1984. Just 25 years ago this agency was born, and it has produced an incredible number of accomplishments. It has totally revolutionized the way we view ourselves and how we live. No agency or institution symbolizes so well America's great history of spirit, excellence and can-do attitude.

We in the United States are very proud of our space program. I have been a long time supporter of the space program. In my new role as Ranking Democrat on the Committee, I believe I will have a greater opportunity to review our space program. I will be working closely with Senators Packwood and Gorton and with the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee, Senator Heflin.

Mr. Beggs, NASA and the nation is fortunate to have yet another able Administrator at the helm. Your Agency is in pretty good hands up here in the Senate as well. I wan't so sure 6 years ago when we reorganized the Senate Committee structure and abolished the old Space Committee. I told Dr. Fletcher then that he'd better watch out, the Senate just demoted NASA to a Subcommittee, and we may lose it altogether.

Fortunately, the Committee has been an active supporter. We nourished the shuttle program along, and 2 years ago you proved that the faith we and others in the country had was not misplaced. You successfully flew the first Shuttle mission in April 1981. I know you've had some new technical problems with the Shuttle, but that can happen in such a complex R&D program.

This month, hopefully you'll fly your 6th mission. I've got a seed company in South Carolina counting on it. They're doing some interesting experiments on the growth of seeds in zero gravity. I must say, when I looked over the intial flight plans for the Shuttle, I was beginning to believe that there would be more space Shuttles in service than there are airline flights from National Airport to Charleston.

It's becoming pretty clear to us in Congress that the OMB has seen to it that you won't fly that much. They're taking away your missions, your orbiters and any real opportunity to make the Shuttle an economic system. It's not hard to understand why they think that way. They think from year to year, and this year we're all looking at a Federal deficit of $200 million. In their view every dollar outlay adds to the deficit. They don't factor in the benefits and revenues generated by that dollar investment.

The 3.9-percent increase that OMB allowed in your budget doesn't even keep up with inflation. DOD's R&D effort is going up 29 percent; NSF is up 18 percent. If

the President really wanted to unleash American ingenuity and maintain our technological leadership-as he claims, he sure missed an opportunity in NASA's budget this year. Maybe I just don't understand. I've always believed in supporting success. Yet the more NASA accomplishes, the less it seems to get in its budget. I've looked over your budget, and it could be worse. It does suffer more in some areas however, and I hope this committee will correct those. Among other things: Now that the Shuttle is moving to an operational status, we need to make sure the program is run on a sound business basis; we need to make firmer commitments in space applications, which at this point is both the most important and the most underfunded of all NASA space efforts; and we need to remedy the lack of emphasis in civilian aeronautics R&D, the prop fan in particular. I just don't understand this Administration's stubbornness. Do they want our nation's aviation industry to follow in the footsteps of our steel, automobile and maritime industries?

The U.S. is still preeminent in space efforts, and we need to make sure this budget maintains our position. As the Office of Technology Assessment reports, we're facing increased competition for that leadership. This Committee must recognize that money is not the only factor to keep the vitality of the Agency alive. We must know where we're going however, and we must also find more ways for private sector participation. On this latter point, I recently introduced S. 560, the Private Satellite Launching Authorization Act, to help stimulate private sector efforts. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to spend a moment looking toward tomorrow, beyond fiscal year 1984. We sometimes lose our perspective when we deal just with an annual authorization.

In just a few years, this country will celebrate its 500th year since discovery. This nation, let alone NASA, may be quite different then. In these hearings, we'll not be able to reflect upon what NASA has done nor where the space program should be headed-is it drifting, what issues does it face. As an effort to focus on the future of the space program, I soon will be introducing a bill to establish a Presidential Commission on Space.

It's time we once again support our creative talent and let our national spirits soar. NASA is not the only place where the drive to succeed exists, but it is a darn good place on which to build. As George Will wrote, "The flight of the Columbia went forward in spite of the country's cheese-paring spirit regarding support of the space program. Perhaps this flight can rekindle the spirit the futures deserves, the spirit of the American past... you ain't seen nothing yet." I agree with that view, and I hope this Committee will work toward that end.

Thank you.


Mr. BEGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a longer written statement that I would like to submit for the record with your permission, and would like to present this brief summary at the hearing this morning.

Senator GORTON. Without objection, your entire written statement will be included in the record.

Mr. BEGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. It is a pleasure for me to appear before this distinguished committee to present President Reagan's budget request for NASA for fiscal year 1984. The total request is $7.1 billion, of which $5.7 billion is research and development, and $150 million for construction of facilities and $1.25 billion for research and program management. A chart summarizing NASA's fiscal year 1984 request is appended to my statement.

I am particularly proud to be at NASA in 1983 to celebrate its 25th anniversary. During the 25 years since the U.S. entered the space age, our space program has grown from the 14 kilogram Explorer launched in January 1958 to a truly reusable space transportation system (STS).

Mr. Chairman, you have before you a small folder which has some of the highlights of the program, and since I have not had the opportunity to address this particular group before, I thought at this time I might run through what we do and where we do it. NASA operates through 10 field installations. It is quite decentralized in its operating philosophy. The centers that we operate are generally divided between the various missions that NASA is responsible for.

NASA is charged by the Congress to do research and development in the aeronautical and space sciences, to do exploratory work in space science and exploration of the solar system and the universe, and to work in the area of manned space flight and the use of equipment in the further exploitation of space for the benefit of man.

The centers are, therefore, divided pretty much in that way with the Langley, Lewis, and Ames Research Centers charged with the aeronautical and space research, the Goddard Space Flight Center and Jet Propulsion Laboratory charged with the science and exploration activities of the agency, and the Johnson, Marshall and Kennedy Space Centers charged with the manned space activities.

The program, as I said, started 25 years ago with the launch of Explorer I. That was the first in a long and distinguished series of Explorers which is ongoing today, and, indeed, we have proposals in the 1984 budget for continuation of that Explorer line. It has been an extremely successful science program and has, I think, shown the way for the rest of the world in the exploitation of space for the expansion of man's knowledge.

The Pioneer series of missions, which started back in the early 1960's, was our first exploration of the solar system, and that has culminated in two Voyager flights which have explored all of the outer primordial planets of the solar system, or will have explored them all because it is on its way to Uranus. That spacecraft will arrive at Uranus in 1986 and then beyond that it will go to Neptune, we hope, because we believe it will live long enough to get to Neptune.

We will have seen, therefore, at close range all of the planets of our solar system with Explorer-type spacecraft by the end of the decade except for Pluto. So it has been a very, very successful program and has added to our knowledge not only of the solar system, but has given us a new insight as to the many mysteries of the uni


The manned program started with Mercury in the early 1960's, proceeded through Project Gemini, which was a necessary step in learning more about the operation of more complex missions including a rendezvous in space, and then proceeded to the very successful Apollo program. In all we landed 12 men on the Moon and there were another dozen that circumnavigated the Moon. It was done in the time that was allotted. President Kennedy stated we should do it within the decade of the 1960's and, indeed, we did. It cost approximately $23.5 billion, which was within the estimates that had been made early on.

After the Apollo, we proceeded to the exploration and exploitation of near space with the Skylab. Skylab spent in three different missions, a total of 167 days in space and it was our first opportuni

19-200 0-83--4

« PreviousContinue »