astronomy, and chairman of the astronomy department, Harvard University; Associate Director for Planetary Science, Center for Astrophysics.

If you get paid for your titles, you are a pretty well-paid individual aren't you?

STATEMENT OF PROF. A. G. W. CAMERON, HARVARD COLLEGE OBSERVATORY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

Mr. CAMERON. Well, sir, I can't complain.

Senator FORD. You can't complain. You don't have to testify any more. You have made my day.

You may proceed, Professor.

Mr. CAMERON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Space Science Board is an advisory body of the National Academy of Sciences. It counsels the Federal Government on the maintenance of excellence in the space science program. With due respect for fiscal constraints, the Board formulates general strategies for space science investigations, and gives advice on specific proposals for new initiatives. Six disciplinary committees report to the Board.

In my prepared statement for the record I have quoted some of the policy recommendations published by the Board during the last 3 years. I have time now only to summarize a few of these recommendations. The context in which the Board statements appear and the reasoning behind them can be found in the documents attached as appendices to the prepared statement.

One major thrust in NASA at present is the preparation for the use for the Space Shuttle. This Space Transportation System will carry large payloads into low Earth orbit, including major scientific experiments. Among space science disciplines, physics and astronomy will particularly benefit from this new capability. However, in order to fly first-rate experiments on the Shuttle, a considerable amount of preparatory work is needed. The present budget submission to Congress contains funds for starting these activities. The Board views this funding as important to assure that high quality experiments will be developed for flight. The Board is also aware that existing launch facilities will be phased out; including the major boosters which have been essential to the success of planetary missions. The spedific capabilities of the Intermediate Upper Stage on the Shuttle have not yet been fully determined. The modular concept adopted by NASA has a launch capability that just accommodates the needs of the Jupiter Orbiter with probe mission. The Board considers it very important that the capability of the Intermediate Upper Stage should not fall short of this NASA concept.

One of the most important expected uses of the Shuttle will be for launching, maintenance, and periodic refurbishment and upgrading of the space telescope. This telescope will be the first true astronomical observatory in space. It will give images 10 times sharper, and be able to observe star-like objects up to 100 times fainter, than are routinely obtainable from the ground with a large telescope. The space telescope will also operate in a very wide wavelength region,_from the far ultraviolet to the far infrared. For several years the Board has considered this space telescope to be the highest priority among

candidate new starts in space science. The Board welcomes the inclusion of funds for this project in the budget submission to Congress. We expect the space telescope to return scientific data of the highest importance about objects inside and outside of the solar system. A large number of observational astronomers will be able to use it to carry out their research. The instrument is therefore central for the future health of observational astronomy.

The American people have taken great pride in the success of the Viking mission to Mars, demonstrating great public enthusiasm for the continuing exploration of the solar system. Planetary missions take a long time to prepare. Complex scientific experiments must be conceived, designed, built, tested, modified, and finally incorporated in the spacecraft. Several experimental concepts should be explored through the bread board stage before a final selection of experiments is made for flight. The success of Viking was achieved with experiments that were technologically obsolete by one decade when the Viking spacecraft arrived at Mars.

The planetary exploration pipeline is nearly dry. Following the launch of the Pioneer Venus and the Mariner Jupiter Saturn missions, the pipeline will really be dry unless we commence new planetary missions now. The Board believes that planetary exploration will be an area of major scientific importance over the next decade and that vigorous activity should continue in this field. Unless there is a major reversal in recent budgetary trends, the United States will soon be upon the verge of relinquishing its role as a leader in deep space exploration.

The current budget submission contains one major new start in planetary exploration, the Jupiter Orbiter with probe mission. The Board considers this proposed mission to be an important major step in exploration of the outer solar system. Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system and exhibits a wide range of dynamical and physical behavior which makes it a primary object for study. The JOP mission is designed to determine the chemical composition and physical state of the Jovian atmosphere and of the satellites, and to map the magnetic field and energetic particle fluxes in the Jupiter system. This mission has the full support of the Board.

As I have already noted, Viking arrived at Mars with obsolete technology. A mission designed today to carry out measurements on the surface of Mars, or from orbit, could use much superior technology and would obtain results of much higher quality. The Board believes that each step in planetary exploration should be a distinct advance over that achieved in the preceding step.

In 1974 the Space Science Board recommended as a long-term goal of planetary exploration the return of a Martian sample. With knowledge of the Viking results, the Board has reaffirmed this goal. The Board believes that the next mission to Mars should respond to the scientific opportunities that lie before us. To prepare for an intelligent selection of samples to be brought to the Earth, precursor investigations should explore the diversity of Martian terrains on global and local scales. These investigations should employ analytical techniques and manipulative skills much advanced over those used on Viking, but without attempting to duplicate an Earth laboratory. New generations of instruments must be conceived, designed, and breadboarded,

taking fullest advantage of modern technology. The capabilities of a lander roving about the surface of Mars and of penetrators inserted into the surface at widely diverse places must be evaluated. Industrial participation is vital for obtaining good system definition studies and for the development of the technology of a roving lander. It is particularly important to start immediate long leadtime funding for new scientific instrumentation. Progress in this area is vital if a new Mars mission is to fulfill its great scientific potential, as has been repeatedly emphasized by the Board.

The Board is currently formulating longer range strategies for space exploration, looking ahead over the next decade. This perspective should average over fluctuations of emphasis which occur in annual budget submissions. The Board considers that the reconnaissance mode of study in the inner solar system is now completed and a new generation of exploratory studies should begin. Global measurements of the physical and chemical properties of Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon are of high general scientific importance. Among these bodies, the Board places the greatest strategic importance upon the comparative study of Venus, Mars, and the Earth. We can best appreciate the global features of our Earth and understand how they developed by making these planetological comparisons. The Board recommends that NASA establish a program of Venusian exploration, coordinated with the U.S.S.R. which optimizes contributions in areas where U.S. technical skills are preeminent. The Board also recommends that a program for the geochemical and geophysical mapping of the Moon, Mars, and Mercury, using remote sensing instruments in orbit should be started in the near future. A mission that would carry out these objectives for the Moon has been well studied by NASA and would be of moderate cost. This is the Lunar Polar Orbiter.

The Board expects within the next year to publish reports of new strategic studies in the areas of physics, astronomy, and space biology and medicine. New opportunities in these areas are strongly shuttle oriented, and I anticipate that the Board will recommend a number of new initiatives in these areas.

Supporting activities, which are required before the initiation of a mission, and which must continue after the termination of a mission. in order to exploit the returned data, are vital to the health of space science but have been inadequately funded. The Board has repeatedly expressed the need for greater funding for supporting research and technology. Nevertheless, this funding has not grown to offset inflation, let alone to respond to the many new demands continually being imposed upon it. The Board believes it to be a matter of urgency that funding should be increased in this area.

Mr. Chairman, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 expresses noble ideals which have served as an inspirational guide to NASA in carrying out its activities, including the expansion of human knowledge of atmospheric and space phenomena for peaceful and scientific purposes and for the benefit of all mankind. New starts are an important measure of continuity of support, which is essential to scientific productivity. The space science portion of the national program needs to be supported on a growing scale if we are to achieve the goals envisaged when NASA was founded.

Senator FORD. Thank you very much, Professor. I have a couple of questions, and maybe the Senator from New Mexico will have some others.

I have heard the discussions of the possibility of sending a mobile device to the surface of Mars, and I understand that its total cost could run up to $2 billion. There is a policy of keeping the NASA budget relatively level. We have been very proud of that progress that has been made in the level of spending. Therefore, a Martian Rover, I guess, would absorb most of the planetary science funds for several years.

Is this a good idea?

Professor CAMERON. Sir, the Board believes in advancing in space science across a broad front, and therefore we would not be able to support a program in which nearly all of the resources are focused on one major project at the expense of other very important projects that should be done.

Senator FORD. In your judgment and that of the Space Science Board, will the Space Shuttle stimulate good space science?

Professor CAMERON. Sir, I think it's bound to do that. There certainly is opportunity, in terms of time and people, for doing a great deal. The important thing is that NASA will need to make it easier for people to put good experiments on the pallets that go up in shuttles by means of cutting down the documentation, making simpler hardware interfaces, and that kind of thing, and also funding the development of good instruments; because unless the instruments which are developed under these opportunities can really take advantage of the growing advances in technology-and right now we are in the midst of an absolutely fantastic revolution in digital electronics, for example-then we will not be doing the good space science that we should be doing.

We really need to concentrate on funding good experiments for people to take up, if we are to take advantage of the opportunities that are opened up this way, and if we do that, I am quite sure that we will get very good space science done.

Senator FORD. Professor, NASA's fiscal year 1978 budget request has, I believe, somewhere between $80 and $90 million for investigating Spacelab payloads, according to NASA.

Is this about the right amount, do you think? Are we in the ball park? Is this sufficient?

Professor CAMERON. Well, sir, I think that the members of the Board are not prepared, in a managerial style, to say that so many dollars is enough or isn't enough, because all we can say is what should be achieved, and doing that is a NASA managerial task.

I think the important thing is that we really have a large infusion of new funds into that area for the first time, and they are needed now to start developing the kind of instrumentation that I described.

But I am not prepared to address the issue as to whether that's too much or too little, because I don't know in detail what NASA will do with that money.

Senator FORD. There is some public opinion that states that we don't need to send machines to outer space to try to take pictures of purple people; we need to stay down here and try to take care of our own problems.

Is there anything that we can do that we are not doing to help and encourage the general public to understand this fantastic area in which we are working?

You know, Congress is the political end, and they listen to their constituents, and their constituents are saying certain things: unemployment, inflation, and these sort of things.

So we do need some advice as to how to express to them the advantages that might be developed as a result of some of these expenditures. Professor CAMERON. I think, sir, that the real issue is that in the space sciences, in the astronomical area, generally, we are carrying on those aspects of science which are among those which catch the public's imagination most, and in pushing developments in this area and doing things that the public can be enthusiastic about, we are, in an important way, insuring the health of the entire scientific and technical enterprise in this country. I think it's the younger people that are most stimulated, most attracted by the excitement of new science that is being done, and we need to stimulate the imagination and enthusiasm of younger people so that some suitably proportionate number of the brighter of them will go into science and technology, not necessarily into space sciences, but into science and engineering generally throughout our country. I believe that to be absolutely vital for the health of our society and our security.

Senator FORD. I might just make a final comment. You stated, I believe in your statement here, that the space telescope is of the highest priority.

Professor CAMERON. Yes, sir.

Senator FORD. You will find many of those that agree with you, and hopefully this will be one of the new ventures.

You indicated that the pipeline was dry and we needed to keep it at least at even flow.

Senator, do you have any questions?

Senator SCHMITT. Just a couple. I appreciate your testimony very much, Doctor, and I hope to have even more involvement with you and the Space Science Board in the not-too-distant future.

Professor CAMERON. Thank you, sir.

Senator SCHMITT. Do you feel that the general level of NASA's spending which, as Senator Ford has indicated, has been held relatively constant, at an adequate level? We are looking now at about a little less than 1 percent of the total Federal budget going into NASA.

Professor CAMERON. Well, sir, what I see is that keeping the budget level has meant a diminished amount of activity, because inflation is eating up much of the money that is available, and people sometimes say that keeping a level budget is in fact a good way to go out of business in an inflationary era.

So I cannot help but feel that unless we at least offset inflation, we are not in fact keeping a level program. And I would also say that in order to take advantage of the opportunities in the shuttle, we really ought to increase the level of support, because the shuttle makes possible many very exciting scientific adventures, particularly in new types of observatories. The space telescope is the most vital and important of those, but also there are important opportunities in other wavelength areas.