As I said earlier, I am quite supportive of a competitive bid process. And-unless there is an overriding reason not to do so. And I think this is probably a case where the sole-source does make some sense. I am a little mind-boggled by some of the figures and costs involved, and come from a municipality-albeit the eighth largest in the country-where we deal in terms of tens of thousands of dollars, and maybe even millions from time to time. Back here it is hundreds of millions, and billions. And after a while, it starts adding up to a lot of money, real fast. And the more defined we can deal with the situation, probably, the better control we will have on those costs. The entire space program has been expensive, but I think if we look at the spinoffs, and we look at the technological superiority edge that we have, that has really been, I think, the saving grace of this country. It is well worth it. Certainly, wherever we can tighten up on management controls to keep those costs under control, then the far better. And to the experience of where you are now, maybe the decisions and recommendations of a year ago before this committee would have been a bit different, and a good deal of savings could have been achieved in the process. I just don't want us to be here one year from now, going back over the same ground. Dr. LOVELACE. Mr. Lowery, I certainly hope that we are not back here 1 year from now going over the same ground. These are difficult decisions to make, and large amounts of money are involved. I think we would work very hard to seek the best alternative solution to this. I also think it is very appropriate for this subommittee to examine carefully the course of action that we are recommending, and that we maintain good management and good configuration control as we proceed with that. Mr. FLIPPO. Dr. Lovelace, a recently completed NASA project management study by Dr. Don Hearth concluded that inadequate definition prior to contract commitments was the major reason for cost overruns in recent NASA programs. This committee sincerely hopes that there is not an inadequate definition of the problems to be confronted. And we would hope that this Hearth study would be carefully looked at in connection with this very difficult decision. Thank you very much. Dr. LOVELACE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here. Your reminding us of the Hearth study is certainly appropriate, considering that both the results of that study and this decision were almost simultaneous. You must be assured that that was uppermost in our mind. In fact, the concern about proceeding with other options that are less defined on this tight schedule, I think, caused us to recommend the sole-source integration of the Centaur. Mr. FLIPPO. As a concluding question, I did have one other point I wanted to run by you. Can an option for the Halley Intercept Mission be kept open until 1983? Is a Halley Mission in 1985 in concert with delays of Galileo until 1987, thus allowing an opportunity for an upper stage competition, and a viable plan? And if not, why not? Dr. LOVELACE. If money were no consideration in this matter, then one could start, and one would have to start immediately, on the development of a Halley Intercept Mission in order to meet the next apparition of Halley's Comet. One would have to be prepared, also, to pay the additional cost for the delay in the Galileo pro gram. Mr. FLIPPO. That is subject to quantification. Dr. LOVELACE. I think that a good estimate of it today is that the minimum cost of that delay would be $100 million. But within the budget constraints that we have in the current budget and the outyear budgets, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to package 15 pounds in a 10-pound bag. Mr. FLIPPO. But the benefit of an ISPM and a Halley's and a VOIR would be hard to quantify, too, wouldn't it? Dr. LOVELACE. It would be hard to quantify. Mr. FLIPPO. It might even exceed $100 million. Dr. LOVELACE. I am sure you do not want me to hyperventilate on all of the options that are available to us, that, given that the budget was not a problem, we might pursue. Mr. FLIPPO. Thank you, Doctor. The committee stands adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair. [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 1981 brings to a close a momentous two decades of the history of exploration. We have completed a preliminary exploration of, a first look at, all the planets known before the invention of the telescope. We humans have landed exquisite robot spacecraft on Mars and Venus and orbited both planets. We have flown by Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn. We have discovered the broiling surface of Venus, the windswept valleys of Mars, the sulfur rivers of Io, the great polychrome storm systems of Jupiter. We have discovered new moons, new ring systems, puzzling markings, enigmatic pyramids and have searched for life. Never again will the planets be mere wandering points of light. Because of the effort of the last two decades they will forever after be worlds crying out for exploration, discovery, and eventually, a careful and scientific human utilization. These memorable achievements resulted from plans and preparations made a decade earlier. Ironically, while reaping the fruits of that planning, we neglected to schedule follow-up missions. Now we will have at least five years with no planetary encounters the longest gap since the beginning of the space age and indeed the first time since 1962 that even a year will pass without a visit to another celestial body. This represents an ominous turning away from the future. Consider what was rejected in this time period: A Mars rover wandering over that ancient terrain, searching for clues on our origin and evolution; a Lunar Polar Orbiter searching for water and minerals on our natural satellite, to bring nearer the day when we can utilize extraterrestrial resources; a unique chance to rendezvous with the most famous celestial visitor in all of human history Halley's - Comet; and a Venus orbiter to provide the first broad and detailed views of its surface. - - If we back off from the enterprise of the planets, we will be losing on many different levels simultaneously. By examining other worlds their weather, their climate, their geology, their organic chemistry, the possibility of life - we calibrate our own world. We learn better how to understand and control and cherish the Earth. Planetary exploration is an activity involving high technology which has many important applications to the national and global economy robotics and computer systems being two of many examples. It uses aerospace technology in an enterprise which harms no one and which is a credit to our nation, our species and our epoch. And planetary exploration is an adventure of historic proportions. A thousand years from now, when the causes of contemporary political disputes will be as obscure as the origin of the War of the Austrian Succession is to us now, our age will be remembered because this was the moment when we first set sail for the planets and the stars. These arguments are widely accepted, and yet when a specific planetary mission is being considered by the Executive Office of the President or by the appropriate Congressional Committees, planetary scientists hear another story. We are told that it is expensive although a vigorous program of unmanned planetary exploration would cost about a tenth of a percent of the federal budget; the Voyager spacecraft, when they are finished with their explorations, will have cost about a penny a world for every inhabitant of the planet Earth. But mainly we are told that, although the arguments for planetary exploration are widely understood in government, they are not supported by the people. We are told that spending money on planetary exploration on the discovery of where we are, who we are, what our history and fate may be is unpopular, that it is a political liability to support such ventures. - Yet, there is evidence of enormous support and enthusiasm for the exploration of the planets. We can see it in the popularity of motion pictures and television programs on planetary themes; in the topics discussed in the burgeoning set of science fact magazines, and in the success with which books on this subject have recently been greeted. And, I am pleased to note, we now see it in the phenomenal response and growth in The Planetary Society, a non-profit public membership organization that my scientific and non-scientific colleagues and I began organizing last year. In five months of membership solicitation we have grown to more than 30,000 members, making us already one of the fastest growing membership organizations in the world. The growth rate is still increasing. We have recently begun a mail solicitation to 2.2 million Americans. The breadth of membership is as noteworthy as our numbers, and I hope our existence now provides effective testimony to the popular interest space exploration serves. As we look to the next decade, we see three planetary missions immediately confronting us: Galileo, the Venus Orbital Imaging Radar (VOIR) and a Halley Comet intercept mission. Beyond that we must plant seeds for the next decade of exploration. This Committee deserves great credit for its support of the Galileo mission. This mission, not unlike its namesake, continues to be buffeted by political winds (as well as continued delays in the availability of new launch configurations to replace the Titan/Centaur which launched the Voyagers and the Vikings.) It has been twice delayed. Indeed, even cancellation (despite an investment of now two hundred million dollars) has been several times threatened. Yet it is the only new effort in deep space exploration which has been approved. The Galileo work underway at two NASA Centers, in industry and in Europe is at the cutting edge of technology. Your continued support for Galileo, with the earliest possible launch date, 1985, is, in my opinion, the most important immediate action you can take in support of planetary exploration. VOIR continues to slip its planned launch date at the awkward rate of 19 months per year (a launch to Venus is possible only once every 19 months). First planned for 1983, it now appears destined for 1988 at the earliest. Venus, in several respects, is a planet like the Earth which somehow took a wrong turn. There may be important environmental lessons for us there. The importance of a first global look at the Venus surface cannot be over-emphasized. History is replete with important surprises from such first looks. The VOIR synthetic aperture radar technology has significance far beyond the mission itself. The deferral of VOIR, in light of budget pressures, is perhaps unavoidable; but this Committee, and its counterpart in the Senate, can ensure that further delays do not occur. Finally, I must address the subject of a mission to Halley's Comet: no mission decision before you has more poignancy or immediacy This is the most famous comet in history. When it last approached the Earth, in 1910, it mesmerized people all over the world. After its 1986 apparition, it will not return until 2062. No comet has ever before been examined close-up by spacecraft. An understanding of comets promises new insights into the early history of the solar system and the origin of life. Who in the 1970's would have predicted that the United States would ignore the coming of Halley's Comet, especially when all the other space faring nations (the Soviet Union, France, Japan and the European Space Agency) flew to it? The proposed American mission developed at JPL for NASA has an observatory phase. Unlike the missions of other nations, it is capable of extended observations of the comet's development as it flies around the sun. Its |