Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator TRIBLE. Mr. Beggs, and gentlemen, we thank you for your testimony today, and for your good effort in fashioning the NASA proposals before us.

The chairman and I have many additional questions which we will submit for the record and ask for you to answer in due course, and not prolong your testimony here today.

I thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee meeting was adjourned.]

NASA AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1983

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND

TRANSPORTATION,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m. in room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Slade Gorton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR GORTON

Senator GORTON. This is the last of 3 days of hearings on the part of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space on the NASA authorization for fiscal year 1984.

On the first day, closed hearings were devoted to a review of our national defense activities in aeronautics and space to determine how these are impacted by the proposed NASA program for fiscal year 1984. NASA Administrator James Beggs and his deputy, Dr. Hans Mark presented the proposed fiscal year 1984 programs and budget on the second day of hearings. They reviewed with the subcommittee a number of critical issues including the requirements for a five-orbiter fleet for the space transportation system, planning activities for a permanent manned space facility, better utilization of data in research and analysis activities, and specific programs in aeronautical research and technology.

The last of these issues will be the first addressed at today's hearing. A unique partnership has been established over the last 50 years between the industrial and academic aeronautical communities on the one hand, and NASA and its predecessor, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. This remarkably successful partnership has led to U.S. worldwide preeminence in both the military aircraft and commercial transport markets.

Last November the President's Science Adviser formally acknowledged this partnership and NASA's role in providing basic technology. We welcome and endorse this position. Our interest now is to see that the programs proposed for fiscal year 1984 are consistent with the administration's policy.

Many of our hopes for space depend on the successful commercialization of the unique advantages which this realm provides. More private sector involvement can greatly improve the prospects for successful commercialization. We are now considering what this involvement might be. That is, what responsibilities should or can be assumed by the private sector and which more properly belong

with the Government. The successful commercialization of the Space Shuttle offers the pivotal example of this challenge; one which we will address today.

At the moment, the question of the private sector role is focused on the President's recent decision to transfer the Nation's civil operational land and weather remote sensing satellites to the private sector. Whatever the merits of the decision are, they have been obscured by the regrettable lack of consultation by the administration with those of us in the Congress whose help is needed to secure approval of any transfer.

The President's proposal is not a primary subject of today's hearing, but it will be taken up by the committee in separate hearings in the near future.

Capitalizing on the promise of space also depends on how well we succeed in space science and applications. This committee had concerns in the past that the demands of taking the Space Shuttle from a research program to an operational system put serious stress on NASA's space science and applications programs. The proposed fiscal year 1984 NASA program seems to offer a better balance than that which we have taken up in recent years.

We look forward to examining these programs more closely today. We have with a number of distinguished witnesses, and it is my pleasure to welcome them here today. But before we do that, Senator Trible, did you have an opening statement?

Senator TRIBLE. No, Mr. Chairman, no opening statement, but I will ask some questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Senator GORTON. We have a very distinguished air transport panel with us here this morning. I will ask that a consensus statement on its part be presented by Mr. Hopps. Any formal written statement of the other members will, of course, be included in the record in full, but after Mr. Hopps' statement, those of us who are here present will ask questions and will ask questions for comments by all of the members of the panel.

Mr. Hopps?

STATEMENTS OF RUSSELL HOPPS, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENER-
AL MANAGER, LOCKHEED CALIFORNIA CO.; ROBERT C. HAW-
KINS, GENERAL MANAGER, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY OPER-
ATIONS, GENERAL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT ENGINE GROUP;
ROGER D. SCHAUFELE, VICE
VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING,
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT, MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP.; M. E.
SHANK, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, PRATT & WHITNEY AIR-
CRAFT GROUP, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.; H. W. WITHING-
TON, VICE PRESIDENT, BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE CO.;
JOHN RALPH, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS AND
TECHNICAL SUPPORT, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA

Mr. HOPPS. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Russell Hopps, I am vice president and general manager of engineering and development for the Lockheed California Co. I have been intimately involved in aeronautical research, technology, and aircraft developent for 27 years. I have been asked to be the industry spokesman

by those you requested to testify. They have accompanied me and represent the airframe and engine manufacturing industry in both the military and civil aviation field.

They are Mr. Bob Withington, vice president of Boeing Commercial Airplane Co.; Mr. Roger Schaufele, vice president of engineering for Douglas Aircraft, McDonnell Douglas Corp.; Mr. Bob Hawkins, manager of advanced technology, Aircraft Engine Group, General Electric; Dr. Bud Shank, director, engineering-technical for commercial engineering, Pratt-Whitney Group, United Technologies Corp. And also joining us at the table is Mr. John Ralph, senior vice president of the Air Transport Association.

We welcome the opportunity to speak to you on the subject of the adequacy of the 1984 aeronautics budget. I will paraphrase and editorialize a little the testimony which I have submitted to you. When asked to be the spokesman, I believed it would be difficult to combine all the possible diverse views of the members of our industry into a statement that had unanimous support. Each of us has viewed the NASA programs from a different perspective, and yet, the extent of our agreement is substantial. In fact, I can say for what we are presenting, there is but one point that only one of the companies had a differing opinion.

These common agreements regard the general nature of the industry itself, the need for a strong aeronautical research and technology base, the Government's role in technology development and many of the specific NASA programs. I will make the consensus statement which includes the views of my company, the Lockheed Corp. Two of my colleagues, Mr. Schaufele and Dr. Shank, will then make a short statement on their companies' views which were not contained within the consensus statement. Afterwards, we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

First, we believe it is important to give a brief description of our industry to illustrate its large overall impact on the U.S. economy. Employment in the aerospace industry, which includes aviation, space, missiles, and some nonaerospace products, totals nearly 1.2 million. About 600,000 jobs can be attributed to the production of aircraft engines and parts. Companies in all 50 States contribute to this Nation's aircraft production. Overall, aircraft sales were approximately $34 billion in 1982. Aerospace exports amounted to $15 billion in 1982. The vast majority of this amount, almost $141⁄2 billion, is due to the aeronautics side of our industry. That is, aircraft engines and parts.

In recent years, aviation products have been the biggest single contributor of any manufacturing industry to this Nation's net balance of trade. The aviation industry has produced military and civil aircraft and equipment that are second to none. Aviation is also a prime ingredient to our Nation's security. The vast majority of aeronautic R&T supports both civil and military applications. Continued progress in aviation is vital to our national security, international policies, and to an efficient and reliable air transportation system. A healthy aviation industry is a major contributor to the economy and welfare of the United States.

Last November, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released its reports on national aeronautics. Among its findings it concluded that aeronautics is not a mature industry,

« PreviousContinue »