February 1975

2 February: High-speed computer techniques were producing profiles of giant red stars, in a NASA-sponsored research project conducted by California Institute of Technology scientist Dr. Juliana ChristySackmann at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Analyzing high-resolution infrared data on successive star flashes representing from a fraction of a year to a million years in the evolution of a red giant, Dr. Christy-Sackmann found that the violent combustion of helium in the heart of the stars, releasing heat up to 260 million ̊C, produced a predominance of carbon. She stressed the convective role of helium and hydrogen in fueling the stellar fires: A convective tongue of helium was driven through layers of burning shells toward the outer envelope of hydrogen. Hydrogen might also drop down to overlap, giving extra energy to an old star. The release of energy from the interior of the stars varied, apparently because of convective zones that seemed to come and go. Although each flash produced extreme interior disruption, surface changes in most cases were minor.

The length of time required for computation had prevented previous investigators from following and analyzing more than a few of the hundreds of successive flashes occurring in a star; using the new computer technique, Dr. Christy-Sackmann planned to analyze hundreds. (JPL Release, 2 Feb 75)

3 February: President Ford sent a $349.4 billion FY 1976 budget request to Congress, an increase of $45.0 billion over the FY 1975 request. The recommended deficit of $51.9 billion was a peacetime record high designed to help revive the Nation's sagging economy. In his budget message to Congress, the President said that his recommendations provided for fiscal policy actions to increase purchasing power and stimulate economic revival; a major new energy program to hold down energy use, accelerate development of domestic energy resources, and promote energy research and development; an increase in outlays for defense to maintain preparedness and preserve force levels in the face of rising costs; a 1-yr moratorium on new Federal spending programs other than energy; and a temporary 5% ceiling on increases in pay for Federal employees and on individual benefits tied to changes in consumer prices. Proposals included a one-time $16-billion tax cut $12 billion for individual taxpayers and $4 billion for business-to stimulate economic recovery.

Energy: The President specifically requested that no new Federal spending programs be initiated in FY 1976 except in the field of energy, which had a total recommended budget authority set at $2.491 billion. Federal energy functions were divided into three broad categories: general operating programs (analysis and development of energy policy), regulatory programs, and research and development programs. General operating programs, with a recommended budget authority of $548 million, would be administered by the Federal

Energy Administration (FEA), Dept. of the Interior, and the new Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). Federal energy regulation, with a recommended budget authority of $178 million, was managed by FEA, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and Federal Power Commission. Although the new budget called for support from NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) for energy R&D, ERDA would have the major responsibility.

The proposed energy program called for an increased fee on imported oil and an excise tax on domestically produced petroleum and natural gas. The proposal also called for decontrol of oil prices coupled with a windfall profits tax-and deregulation of prices on new natural gas.

The Federal government had further expanded its research and development program to provide new and improved technologies necessary to increase domestic energy resources. Outlays for energy R&D would be $1.7 billion in FY 1976, an increase of 36% over FY 1975 and 102% over 1974. Budget recommendations continued a vigorous nuclear R&D program and accelerated non-nuclear energy R&D, particularly in coal and solar energy.

General Science, Space, and Technology

*Compares with budget authority of $3874 million in 1974 and $4299 million in 1975.

General Science and Technology: Requested funding totaling $4.686 billion for general science, space, and technology-not including energy or Dept. of Defense programs-was highlighted by the buildup in the development and production of the Space Shuttle; continued development of spacecraft to explore the sun, planets, and universe; continued research, development, and experimentation in the application of space technology for surveying natural resources and improving weather forecasting; and increased support for basic science.

Agencies receiving the major portions of the general science, space, and technology funds were NASA, NSF, ERDA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Geological Survey.

Air Transportation and Nonmilitary Aeronautical Research: In the field of transportation, for which the recommended FY 1976 budget authority was $5.568 billion, air transportation accounted for $2.660 billion. The Administration would propose major legislation in aviation development, and revenues providing for continued long-term Federal development of the airway system, substantial restructuring of the airport grant program, and more equitable structuring of airtransportation user fees.

NASA would spend $316 million in FY 1976 on its broad program of research and technology to support civilian and military aeronautical objectives. Major aims of the program: to reduce aircraft noise and exhaust pollution, reduce fuel consumption, and improve aircraft performance, reliability, and safety.

Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation: Total obligational authority of $103 billion for military defense included a $10.236-billion estimate for RDT&E to permit continued engineering development of the B-1 strategic bomber, of the Trident submarine missile system, of long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and of the command, control, and communications of strategic forces. Also funded under the RDT&E function were military astronautics programs to improve space technology for military applications and to develop space vehicles for specific military missions. Efforts would be increased on development of a missile early warning system, communications satellite system, NAVSTAR global positioning system, and uses of NASA's Space Shuttle for launching military space payloads.

Defense Procurement: Out of a total FY 1976 recommended defense procurement budget authority of $24.420 billion, $8.015 billion was designated for aircraft and $3.306 billion was designated for missiles.

(PD, 10 Feb. 75, 128-136; OMB, Budget of the U.S. Govt., FY 1976 and appendixes)

• Dr. James C. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, released the budget statement he had given at 1 Feb. press briefing. The FY 1976 NASA budget called for the authorization of $3.539 billion and net outlays of $3.498 billion for the 12-mo period beginning 1 July, and additional NASA Budget Plan, FY 76

amounts of $958.9 million in authorizations and $905.6 in net outlays for the 3-mo transition period beginning 1 July 1976.

Dr. Fletcher said the new budget was "lean but manageable." For the first time since 1961 the budget provided no new program starts. In accordance with President Ford's request to hold FY 1975 and FY 1976 expenditures to a minimum, NASA, in FY 1975, had deferred obligations of $72 million and outlays of $70 million, reduced civil service employment by 300, and made program adjustments to stay within the total FY 1975 and 1976 budgets. Further adjustments might be necessary if the inflation rate continued to grow.

Although NASA's FY 1976 budget was up $300 million from the previous year, $200 million of this increase was specifically anticipated in last year's budget to carry forward commitments built into programs approved in FY 1975. Therefore, NASA had received an effective increase of only $100 million, or about 3%. This, along with the nation's current 9% inflation rate, was a "good indicator of the leanness of NASA's FY 1976 budget."

The budget would permit NASA to proceed with current major programs as planned: The Space Shuttle, scheduled for a first manned orbital flight in mid-1979, and Landsat-C, scheduled for a fall 1977 launch, would continue on schedule. Reduction of fuel use in aircraft remained a principal focus in NASA's aeronautics research and technology. NASA was also continuing stratospheric studies, including the effects of pollutants on the environment, with significant contributions coming from NASA meteorological and atmospheric satellites, sounding rockets, and balloons and high-flying aircraft.

Although there would be no new starts, NASA would continue its study and advanced technical development for science, applications, and aeronautics projects to be started in future years, including preliminary work for payloads to fly on the Space Shuttle and Spacelab.

The 1975 calendar year launch schedule was one of the most ambitious in U.S. history with 28 launches scheduled, including the joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in July and the two Viking missions to Mars scheduled for August.

Although NASA's legal responsibilities for energy research and development-designated under the Solar Heating and Cooling Act of 1974 had been transferred to the Energy Research and Development Administration, NASA would work closely with ERDA in various aspects of solar research and development.

Dr. George M. Low, NASA Deputy Administrator, said at the press briefing that the largest budget increase was for manned spaceflight, where the increase for the Shuttle was partially offset by reduced spending for the rest of manned spaceflight. The small increase for space science did not tell the whole story: If funds for the Viking program were subtracted, the budget for the rest of science had increased $170 million from FY 1974 to FY 1976. Although applications, aeronautics, and space technology programs each showed small increases, funds for tracking and data acquisition decreased slightly despite increased maintenance costs for tracking stations, because NASA was beginning to close down tracking stations, preparing for the time when tracking and data relay satellites would be available.