In a hearing of this subcommittee on January 29, 1975, it was pointed out that several trace substances in the atmosphere interact in complicated ways with solar radiation and oxygen to regulate concentrations of ozone. The substances of most concern are gaseous compounds of carbon, nitrogen, chlorine, and water and its related free radicals-hydroxyl and perhydroxyl. Except for chlorine, the abundances of the substances are directly regulated by complex global cycles involving portions of the biosphere and the Earth's crust including the oceans and the atmosphere. The importance of these biogeochemical cycles to atmosphere composition can be appreciated in part by noting that they regulate the abundances of oxygen, nitrous oxide, methane, water vapor (and therefore clouds and precipitation), carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide as well as others. All of these except for carbon dioxide are important in regulating ozone abundance in the upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide does, of course, have its own position of importance in the atmosphere as an absorber of infrared radiation and is thus an important climate regulator. Since climate is an important regulator of the biosphere, it is clear that all of the above listed substances are interrelated, albeit through very complex and incompletely understood processes. I stated above that chlorine was not directly regulated by a biogeochemical cycle. However, the principal source of methyl chloride, a major natural chlorine component of the atmosphere, is thought to be from the reaction in sea water of methyl iodide of biospheric origin with abundant chloride ions. So even chlorine in the atmosphere has, in part, a relationship with the biosphere.

There is yet another biogeochemical cycle that influences the atmosphere and climate, namely that of sulfur. Human activities, the burning of fossil fuels, metal ore processing, and petroleum refining contribute significantly to the global sulfur cycle. Gaseous sulfur compounds emitted to the atmosphere by the biosphere and by pollution sources ultimately become oxidized to form sulfate aerosols. Volcanic plumes containing sulfur dioxide and perhaps other gaseous sulfur compounds such as hydrogen sulfide and carbonyl sulfide, when produced with sufficient force and intensity, have been known to produce rather spectacular enhancements of stratospheric aerosols. It has been my thesis for some years that volcanos are the major sources of natural stratospheric aerosols. As such they possibly represent a significant climatic influence.

Sulfur gases from natural and anthropogenic sources are oxidized in the troposphere and the resulting sulfate aerosol is a major component of atmospheric particulate matter even in remote regions such as Antarctica. As pollution sulfur is emitted into the atmosphere in increasingly larger amounts the particulate content of the atmosphere will be enhanced. This in turn will affect two climate related factors, namely radiation and precipitation. The effects on radiation are at present not clearly predictable due to unknown details of distribution in space and time of concentrations and composition. The effects on precipitation will be to alter the distribution and acid contents. The results of such perturbations will have impacts upon agriculture and other plant and animal life. It should be further noted that the oxidation of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere depends upon several factors including water (liquid and gas, content, ammonia concentra

tions, aerosol content (trace metals such as iron and manganese) and sunlight. Thus it can be seen that the sulfur cycle is linked with other cycles including those for nitrogen and water. And in turn all of these cycles have connections to climate which permit mutual interactions. The cycles influence climate and climate influences the cycles.

My purpose in giving the above discussion is to show how the concept of biogeochemical cycles is basic to the understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere, much of which occurs in the stratosphere, and climate. NASA's program in the upper atmosphere and its planned program in climate can be considered as interrelated when due regard is taken of the biogeochemical cycles. It stands to reason that any national programs in these areas, stratosphere and climate, should comprehend a basic research effort including studies of the relevant bioge ochemical cycles about which generally only crudely quantitative knowledge is currently available.

The NASA upper atmosphere research program has undertaken to support research into several aspects of stratospheric chemistry, all of which can, in a general sense, be viewed as contributing to knowledge of biogeochemical cycles. One of the problems common to all programs of this type is that of obtaining what is usually referred to as globally representative quantities In the sorts of model that have been used for simulation of stratospheric chemistry the concentrations of substances, radiation intensities, and atmospheric properties are all supposed to be appropriately globally averaged quantities. The fewer dimensions the model has, the more it strains credulity to suggest that all quantities do indeed fulfill the requirements for being appropriately averaged. The other side of the coin, however, is equally as problematical in that the more dimensions a model has the greater is the computational difficulty, particularly in regard to being able to include explicitly the numerous chemical reactions that one needed to describe stratospheric phenomena.

There is another kind of reciprocity between sampling requirements and model complexity. The more dimensions in a model the less averaging of data is needed. At present, we are confined to use models of one or two spatial dimensions in order to be able to accommodate many chemical reactions. Therefore, we must meet the model/data requirements of globally averaged quantities. This translates into a sampling program that must cover major portions of the globe and with reasonable frequencies of repetition. While many separate and diverse aspects of stratospheric chemistry are presently being actively studied within NASA's upper atmosphere research program, all of which I endorse, relatively little has been done to plan and carry out what I believe is a necessary sampling program. It is true that instruments and techniques must be perfected before they can be developed for a global sampling program. Without a doubt NASA anticipates more than one satellite project to measure stratospheric substances. Indeed SAGE is just such a project to measure aerosols and ozone in the stratosphere.

I suggest that a global scale aircraft sampling program be undertaken using existing operable high-altitude aircraft. NASA has two U-2's and one RB-57F and ERDA uses one RB-57F in their airstream program. The ability of the agencies to operate and maintain. these aircraft has always remained in jeopardy because of high costs

Airstream is the remnant of a successful and much larger project of the Department of Defense known as the high altitude sampling program which mainly studied the behavior of radioactive debris from nuclear weapons testing. The operating cost per aircraft per mission is about $16,000. A marginally adequate but necessary, in my view, sampling program would use four aircraft, each flying two 8-hour missions per week for at least 2 years. With careful planning and management something approximating global-pole to pole-coverage could be accomplished twice per year. The Northern Hemisphere could be more intensively studied, and with the aid of balloons launched from sites in the United States, localized areas could be studied to uncover short-term fluctuations in the measured quantities. The concept of determining fluctuations over all of the important time and space scales is fundamental to any study of biogeochemical cycles in general and of atmospheric phenomena in particular. The estimated total cost for operating such a minimal program as I have suggested is about $6.5 million per year, excluding costs of analysis and interpretation. This might be compared with the costs of a satellite project of the order of $75 to $100 million.

Without belaboring the details of what measurements can be or should be made on each type of platform, I would like to list the advantages of an aircraft program to NASA and thus to the country and the scientific community.

Various interchangeable instrument packages can be used throughout the period of observation. Such flexibility cannot and subjects I have discussed.

Thank you for your attention and for affording me this opportunity. Senator SCHMITT. Thank you very much. I agree with you about the aircraft program. I have a feeling NASA will, too.

Prof. FRIEND. I hope so.

Senator SCHMITT. But the question is, just what level of funding we are going to be able to

Prof. FRIEND. Yes; I think that is clearly the overriding consideration. The upper atmosphere program is funded to the tune of about $10 million per year now. It's been essentially level funding. I think, as I indicated, that the aircraft program is really essential, that if it isn't put into effect in at least this minimal way, that there will be significant gaps which we'll never fill in. This is my conviction.

Senator SCHMITT. Thank you very much. We are going to have to move on. Our next witness is Mr. James J. Harford. Is that correct?

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. HARFORD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. JERRY GREY, ADMINISTRATOR FOR PUBLIC POLICY

Mr. HARFORD. That's right, Senator.

Senator SCHMITT. Executive Secretary of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Mr. HARFORD. Coals to Newcastle, Senator.

Senator SCHMITT. No. There are a lot of cities using this coal, I hope.

Mr. HARFORD. Dr. Grey and I work for 25,000 areospace engineers and scientists and students who belong to AIAA, including you

Senator SCHMITT. Which category am I in?

Mr. HARFORD. Well, you are one of my bosses.

Senator SCHMITT. Student.

Mr. HARFORD. OK. I assume you are a scientist/engineer.

Senator SCHMITT. Still a student, I hope. If you would summarize as much as possible.

Mr. HARFORD. I will, Senator.

In fact, what I'd like to tell you is what I was going to tell Senator Stevenson, who is perhaps not as familiar with this program as you, and what I hope we will get a chance to tell Senator Stevenson this afternoon. I am going to try to meet with him.

We are concerned about the NASA budget, deeply concerned. There are a number of programs that we think are not getting the attention they deserve.

NASA does not have a level budget. You know, we hear this "level budget" expression continually. In fact, if you look back 10 years, the 1966 NASA budget, which was of the order of $5.9 billion, and you apply inflation to that, we are talking about perhaps one-third of the amount of usable money in fiscal year 1978 as there was 10 years ago. So it isn't a level budget.

Now, I quote Senator Stevenson's opening remarks to these hearings, "***the agency (NASA) and this subcommittee should be prepared to cast off any shackles from the past-inertia and habit-and examine new ideas." I was going to tell the Senator I liked that statement. In fact, we are going to use it in our magazine. Let's start with a shackle that this subcommittee seems to have. It is supposed to be concerned with the NASA. Where is "aeronautics" in the subcommittee name, to begin with? You seem to be institutionalizing a problem. There isn't enough aeronautical R. & D. going on in this country, and here you are even giving it a nonmention. in your subcommittee name.

It's the fourth year in a row we come to this Congress and say there isn't a single new airplane being developed in the United States. This is a country, Senator, that boasts of having built 90 percent. of the airplanes flying in the free world. We are not developing a single airplane.

At our annual meeting, John Casey of Braniff said, "we're not. developing subsonic aircraft, supersonic aircraft, or airports."

Jack Steiner of Boeing said, "We are in the longest dry spell in the history of commercial aviation. There hasn't been a new commercial transport in 9 years."

So, we suggest to Senator Stevenson that an aeronautical shackle be dropped.

You have heard testimony in this committee about concepts for new aircraft that would give something like a 30-percent improvement in efficiency by 1990 and 50 percent by 2000.

The technology concepts are in hand for those aircraft. We have a book here, "The Technical Basis for a National Civil Aviation R.T. & D. Policy," which reviews an AIAA workshop held last year that documents the kind of research and development we'd like to do but can't. The money is not there.

The NASA aeronautical technology storehouse, is getting empty. As Prof. Authur Bryson of Stanford told one of the other congressional committees, in 1955 there were 5,000 engineers working on aeronautics in NASA. The figure dropped to 1,500 in 1960, and the best guess is that it's of the order of 1,200 now.

Something like 5 percent of NASA's $4 billion budget-around $200 million-goes for aeronautical R. & D. "Hooray, hallelujah, it's up 20 percent. That's a big number, and we are glad to see it. But relative to the effort needed to do the kind of things that are needed, it's not enough.

Here we are talking about an air transportation industry which is the best in the world. From a citizen's standpoint, Senator, the air fares are 40 percent lower than they were 40 years ago. We have to get people who are not in this business to realize the value of this to the country.

We don't even like NASA's 5-year projection. It was lambasted by one of NASA's own committees as being too conservative. It's characteristic of the kind of inwardness that NASA and aeronautics have been forced into.

Senator SCHMITT. May I interrupt you at that point and say that within the name of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, obviously I personally, and I know others on the committee, will assure you that technology includes aeronautics, if that reassures you at all.

Mr. HARFORD. It helps.

Senator SCHMITT. I wouldn't back away from your discussion.

Mr. HARFORD. It helps, but it really kind of fascinates me, recognizing that aerospace is, I believe, the second largest employer in the country-and air transport sales have produced a $7 billion positive trade balance-this is the Commerce Committee we're talking tothat the subcommittee concerned with that field doesn't even mention the name.

And now, astronautics. Senator Stevenson said he'd like to see a greater contribution by agencies of industry and government for the immense benefits bestowed on them by NASA and the taxpayer. Right on the mark. We don't think the agencies of Government have taken advantage of what is, in fact, available. We have worked long and hard with our technical committees, Senator, to put a new book out. It isn't even off the press yet. Here are the galley proofs. It's called Space: A Resource for Earth, and it's page after page of communications satellites, Landsats, and new directions in those fields, new public service communication satellites that HEW ought to be looking into deeply right now-and putting money into.

We are delighted that Senator Ford has introduced a bill to bring Landsat from what is essentially a demonstration to an operational program. I understand that bill comes to this committee. For heaven's sake, move it. We have got to make the kind of Federal commitment to keep Landsat images coming. Landsat's problem is that its versatility is also its problem. The customers are so diffuse that it's hard to get anyone to take the lead. I hope this committee links those Federal agencies that need to get their noses rubbed into what can be done in space, and believe me, there is an awful lot.