sibility to the community and to the CRA. We have tried to go beyond any contract obligations we might have, as Dr. Paine has explained, in trying to find an alternative use of the facility that would be satisfactory to the community as well as meeting the needs of the Federal Government.

Dr. PAINE. I might add, Senator Curtis, that the question of finding Government uses for the facility is not the primary question. There is no doubt that we can indeed find Federal Government activities in Boston which will be delighted to utilize this very impressive new $36 million facility, but the city of Cambridge is particularly anxious to have research and development type of activities which might serve as a magnet to draw other new firms into the surrounding community; and to the very best of our ability, we are attempting to work with them to see whether we can indeed keep at least some of this sort of activity in the facilities.

Senator CURTIS. Has there been any indication of other Government activities logically and feasibly and economically being placed there?

Dr. PAINE. There are indications and we are working very closely with the other departments. I have sent a letter to every Cabinet member, to every agency head in Washington, giving them full information on the facility. In addition to that, Dr. DuBridge has looked through the entire Federal science budget to find applications. At the present time we are looking to see whether another use can be found. I would think, if such a use is practicable, that it should be established within the next several weeks, but we cannot say at the present time that a use has been found.

Senator CURTIS. You are closing it as rapidly as possible.

Dr. PAINE. Yes, sir. Closing by the June 30 date, we feel, is moving as rapidly as possible, but at the same time, with the maximum regard to the employees that work there to give them the best possible opportunity to find other suitable work.

Senator CURTIS. Would there be any saving in moving any faster? Dr. PAINE. No. We feel in order to stabilize the research and make sure we terminate in an orderly way and get the maximum Government value from this, that this is the correct date.

Senator CURTIs. My attention has been called to the fact that ERC is still letting contracts. On January 29, Space Business Daily stated that ERC was opening contracts for a program to study and design a traffic control terminal to be used for the proposed North Atlantic Navigation/Air Traffic Control Communications Satellite. If the center is scheduled to close why is it proceeding with such activity?

Dr. PAINE. We have put an embargo on the letting of all contracts from ERC with the sole exception of the supplies that are required in the actual phase-down period, but we do have several contracts which have been primarily associated with other NASA centers which ERC was working jointly with, and in this case, the North Atlantic traffic control satellite study is one of these which will be continued in NASA in another center at the end of this time. In that particular case we proceeded to get that out simply because we had gone so far on it.

Senator CURTIS. Does NASA have any plan for closing down any NASA center other than the ERC in Boston?

Dr. PAINE. None whatsoever. The other centers will continue, and I have discussed the future of the employment status of NASA em-. ployees with the President and he and I are both anxious to maintain the experience of NASA to the greatest degree possible within this very tightly restricted budget. We feel with the budget which we are submitting that this allows for the continuation of the other NASA centers and indeed their healthy operation.

Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I have a few more questions but I shall pass..

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Senator CURTIS. That is all right. I will yield to the other members.... The CHAIRMAN. Senator Young?

Senator YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cannon?

REASONS FOR CLOSING ERC

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Doctor, on that one point, it seems rather odd to me that here we have just gotten through this exercise of being told how important the center in Cambridge was. We were told we should go ahead with a strong program for development of it, and yet within such a short period of time, we now are told that this is going to be shut down. What is the rationale for that? Was it not anticipated at the time that this was programed that if there was a cutback in funds, that this might be one of the first facilities to suffer?

Dr. PAINE. Senator Cannon, the spectacle that I was forced to undergo, appearing in a brand new auditorium with the paint still wet and announcing that the facility was being shut down after the Government invested $36 million, certainly is one that very properly raises this question. The answer is that when the Cambridge Electronic Research Center was established some years ago, we did not at that time have any idea that we would be operating the space agency at budgets as low as we are.

We would have kept the Cambridge operation in action at budget levels above the $4 billion level, perhaps at budget levels even below $4 billion to some extent, but faced with the necessity for the retrenchments that we now face to carry out a broad electronics research program is something that we simply could not afford to do at these levels. One of the hard choices we had to make but the best possible choice was to shut down the entire center, maintaining at the same time strong electronics research activity, but activity specifically in support of our NASA missions in other centers rather than having one center exclusively devoted to electronics research.

PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS

Senator CANNON. Well, now, you pointed out in your statement that you were reducing to 144,000 personnel by the end of the year, from a high of 420,000. I believe the high was along around June of 1965 or

thereabouts, the summer of 1965. What is the personnel level at the beginning of this year?

Mr. LILLY. Our estimate as of the first of this calendar year was approximately 195,000. We are estimating that that will be down to about 167,000 by the first of July and then down to 144,000 by July of the following year.

Senator CANNON. I see. So, you will have a total reduction, then, during the remainder of this fiscal year and the coming fiscal year of about 51,000 people.

Dr. PAINE. That is correct.

Senator CANNON. Now, those obviously are principally contractor people. Are they highly specialized people, that it is going to be very difficult for them to find other employment out in industry circles?

Dr. PAINE. They are highly specialized people but the kind of specialties which they represent and the general excellence of this cadre of people is such that we feel that although there will be difficulties and it will not be easy-these people will all indeed be able to find other employment. It does represent, of course, a great change in their lives and the employment might not always be as forwardlooking for the Nation as the employment has been on the NASA programs, but we believe that they will all find employment.

Senator CANNON. Of course, if they find employment and find it in some other industry that is maintaining a status quo or a relatively stable level, they are going to replace somebody else, then.

Dr. PAINE. That is correct.

Senator CANNON. They are either going to have to do that or try to find an industry that is expanding. But if our economy is remaining at about the same level, the chances are if they go into another industry, that they will have to replace somebody that is already working. Is this not a fair statement?

Dr. PAINE. That is correct. However, in the case of some of these people, some of the civilian aeronautics programs, such as the air bus, will probably pick them up and we feel the prospects of employment for the majority of these people are reasonably bright.

AERONAUTICAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1971

Senator CANNON. Now, how much of the fiscal year 1971 budget is allocated to aeronautics? I had a difficult time following your figures there. Aeronautical vehicles, for example, you had going from 75.9 up to 87.1 as I recall, but what is the total aeronautics part of your budget?

Mr. LILLY. That amount, Senator Cannon, was $185.5 million in total.

Senator CANNON. So that, then, was a little less than last year's figures, is that correct?

Mr. LILLY. It is less to the extent that there is no construction. It is more in R. & D., since it goes from $96 million to $102 million, an increase of $6 million. The research and program management, our own in-house civil service work goes from $85 million down to $83 million. We had $186 million in 1970 and $185 million in 1971; but

in 1970 there is a facility of almost $5 million, so there is a net increase of about $4 million.

Senator CANNON. Well, now, in this aeronautics vehicles items that you define, the $11 million increase, what does that represent?

Dr. PAINE, I would like to ask Mr. Harper, who handles our aeronautics program, to comment on that, Senator Cannon.

Mr. HARPER. Senator Cannon, the $11 million represents three major activities. About $2.5 million of it is the continuation of the quiet engine program that started at Lewis Research Center last year, and moving now into the hardware phase. This was planned in prior years. About $3 million of it is to support a joint Air Force-NASA research program using the two YF-12 aircraft that the Air Force has had in storage for some years. This is particularly an effort to transfer from that program to the supersonic program the technical experience gained in the past.

Senator CANNON. Does that include the noise problem?

Mr. HARPER. No. The YF-12 program is an operational, aerodynamics and propulsion system research program not specifically directed at noise. The third element, about $5.5 million, relates to our effort to concentrate on near-term V/STOL technology. This is in direct response to urging we have had from the Department of Transportation to see if we can accelerate the implementation of such vehicles. They have asked us to examine follow-on vehicles for the helicopter that would make the inner city service viable, to look at the kind of aircraft that Eastern and American Airlines are interested in developing for such service as the shuttle, and to examine an advanced aircraft to provide improved service of the type represented by the de Haviland Otter now serving small communities. We are moving then from rather small-scale tests of typical aircraft of this type into more expensive hardware elements. Realistic rotors, for example, rather than wind tunnel models or rotors. This activity represents the third major element, the increase of $52 million.

Senator CANNON. Now, Dr. Paine, do you think much of the slack in this aerospace industry that we are talking about will be taken up by the production of commercial aircraft? I ask that in light of the fact that Boeing-and they are one of the big producers-has just announced a big layoff program themselves.

Dr. PAINE. That is right. In fact, we discussed this with the Boeing people, and understand that there will not be a large pickup up here but there still is some hiring activity in some companies there.

SATELLITE USE FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

Senator CANNON. Now, recently there has been an interest in using satellites for an air traffic control system in the United States. Is NASA investigating this application of space technology? Dr. PAINE. Yes, sir.

Senator CANNON. And what is your relationship with DOT or the FAA on air traffic control problem? Are you working with them at the present time on a possible system?

Dr. PAINE. Yes. We are working closely with them. In fact, we had a meeting just this week with Under Secretary Beggs on this question of the future requirements-what frequencies would be optimum, and

how these could be phased into a North Atlantic air traffic control system so that we would be able to handle both the North Atlantic traffic and in a manner in which that would phase into the continental U.S. traffic control.

Senator CANNON. Now, is this of some research work being done at Cambridge?

Dr. PAINE. Some of this was being done at Cambridge. However, it was primarily being done in cooperation with other NASA centers. So we will be able to continue that.

Senator CANNON. So, you will transfer that work out. The work will not suffer then as a result of your shutting down?

Dr. PAINE. It will not be as effectively done as perhaps it would have been had we kept ERC, but we can still cover that work.

DOMESTIC COMMUNICATION SATELLITES

Senator CANNON. Now, the administration has just announced a new policy on domestic communication satellites and there is no mention of NASA in the announcement. Was NASA consulted in the preparation of that new policy?

Dr. PAINE. Yes. I would ask Mr. Shapley to give you some details on that, Senator Cannon.

Mr. SHAPLEY. Yes, Senator. NASA along with other Government agencies, participated in the discussions leading to that decision.

Senator CANNON. Would you furnish to us for the record, a brief summary of NASA's involvement in launching communication satellites for reimbursement and the authority whereby that is done. Mr. SHAPLEY. Yes, sir. We will be glad to.

(The material submitted for the record follows:)

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITES LAUNCHED OR SCHEDULED FOR LAUNCHING BY NASA FOR NON-NASA USERS, ON A REIMBURSABLE BASIS

1. For the American Telephone and Telegraph Co.:'

Telstar I and Telstar II were launched in July, 1962 and May, 1963.

2. For the Communications Satellite Corporation (Comsat):

a. Intelsat I (Early-Bird)-launched in April, 1965.

b. Intelsat II Series: Four satellites were launched between October, 1966 and September, 1967.

c. Intelsat III Series: Six satellites were launched between September, 1968 and January, 1970. A seventh launch is tentatively scheduled for April, 1970. Comsat also has an option to call for an eighth launch.

d. Intelsat IV Series: The first two launches in this series are tentatively planned for the first quarter of CY 1971, and not later than the 2d quarter of 3. For the U.S. Air Force (USAF):

(a) Skynet-A, a United Kingdom communications satellite, was launched, under arrangements made through the USAF, in November, 1969, Skynet-B is scheduled for launching in August, 1970.

(b) NATO-A, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization communications satellite is scheduled for launching in March 1970, under arrangements made through the USAF. NATO-B is scheduled for launching in June, 1970.

4. For Telstat Canada:

The first Telesat Canada communications satellite is tentatively scheduled for launching in the first half of calendar year 1972. Telesat will also have options to call for additional launches, which NASA will furnish on a best efforts basis, without limit in number.