« PreviousContinue »
Before Dr. Haworth took over the directorship of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Waterman was the director. Dr. Waterman, Dr. Seaborg, the Commissioner of Education, Mr. Keppel, and I were meeting, sometimes as much as once a month to consider the total relationships of our programs. This, in addition to these other coordinating procedures that I have described.
Further, we have testified before a number of committees of Congress in association with the heads of the other agencies as to the programs put forward for consideration by those committees.
So we have had a quite careful effort to keep these programs together. But NASA itself has pushed forward, as we have described this morning, with the programs necessary to do our job in accordance with the 1958 act.
Dr. Newell has one addition, if you would permit him.
Dr. NEWELL. I might add, Senator Smith, Dr. Smull and I meet periodically, about once every 2 months, with our counterparts in the National Science Foundation and the Atomic Energy Commission. In those meetings, we compared notes on our policies and plans for supporting facilities in universities and also compare notes on our research and training programs.
Senator SMITH. Would you include the Defense Department with the AEC and National Science Foundation?
Dr. NEWELL. We have not included the Defense Department in these periodic meetings, but we do keep in touch with them.
COORDINATION ON MATERIALS RESEARCH WITH DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Mr. WEBB. Could I add one statement there, Senator Smith? In connection with the Department of Defense, the materials research problem is the most important common one to us in connection with the financing of university research. We are financing 2 materials research centers, the Department of Defense 12, the Atomic Energy Commission 2.
We are in close coordination in this very important field and these universities financed by the Government, are also in very close coordination.
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
Senator SMITH. Mr. Webb or Dr. Newell, whoever wants to answer, what is the nature and scope of educational projects carried on by NASA's Office of International Programs?
Dr. NEWELL. NASA's international program supports the training of people from other countries as part of our cooperative program.
Now, this training may be carried out in our Centers by having participants in the program visit and stay at our centers for periods varying from a few days to perhaps as much as a year or more.
In addition, we have about 90 to 100 universities assisting in the training of people in this program.
In this training effort at the universities, the participant works on research in the space area. We provide the university with the funds to support the tuition of that trainee. We also provide the cost of travel of that trainee within the United States. The cooperating country provides the subsistence, any salary or support of that sort, for the trainee and provides the travel expense to bring the trainee from his country to the United States and to take him back.
INDUSTRY WILL BE STRENGTHENED BY NASA'S PROGRAMS
Senator Smith. We hear the criticism that too many scientists and engineers are being diverted into the space field. Do you think that NĂSA's solicited and unsolicited support of education will result in such diversion, or do you think the basic training and education is such that the results will be applicable to the nonspace field?
Mr. WEBB. On the contrary, Senator Smith, we are convinced that our program will not only add substantially to the scientific and technological base of the country in the universities, but as I mentioned in our statement, through a closer relationship with industry will lead to a general strengthening of the ability of industry throughout the country to take advantage of the latest advances, particularly in technology.
Now, the university program here is handled to strengthen the university, not only by requiring that the scholars who want to do the research be financed directly as in other cases, but that the university itself wishes this work done and undertakes an obligation to apply the resources of the university to it. That is, the multidisciplinary resources. We are in no way bargaining with individual scholars to come and do a specific job for us, regardless of what the university
Then we couple this with another important provision wherever facilities are granted, and we try to get the idea across even if no facilities are involved.
That very important provision is contained in a memorandum of understanding which indicates that the university will, in what we describe as an energetic and organized manner, work closely with industrial and other community leaders to determine the benefits of this research and the utilization of it to solve whatever problems may exist, whether it is unemployment in Pennsylvania or the development of a new welding process for an industry in Indiana. We intend that the universities work closely with industrial people and indeed, bring in men from industry to participate with them in this kind of research and find out how the benefit of this program can be applied in the area where the university, as we say in the agreement, normally has close relations. We do not ask them to look at some State 1,000 miles away, but we ask them to take a leadership position in determining how this multidisciplinary effort can be used in their own area, and particularly in conjunction with industry, to modernize its processes and avoid technological obsolescence.
So I think there will be a very substantial strengthening of American industry through this program, rather than a weakening. As I mentioned earlier to the chairman, the questions that he asked and others asked yesterday about personnel show that our personnel requirements are quite substantially less. These provisions and programs for university work actually add substantially to the total available in the Nation and upgrade the competence of many, who otherwise would not have an opportunity to go through this upgrading.
PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN NASA'S PROGRAMS
Senator SMITH. Mr. Webb, have you done anything to specifically encourage women to participate in the NASA program, offering opportunities for research?
Mr. WEBB. I think it is extremely important to note that we have hat I think is perhaps one of the most active and interested and productive group of women in very advanced fields of research that any nation has anywhere.
There are some 200 of them in this program. They are doing very advanced work in mathematics, they are doing very advanced work in fields like astronomy, and we are asking the fullest participation of women as well as men on a completely nondiscriminatory basis.
We could give you a description of the activities of the women in our agency if you wished it.
Senator SMITH. I think it would be well for the record if we could have a more complete statement.
Mr. WEBB. The policy is to get the ablest person we can find, man or woman.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Webb, that is a statement well made, in my opinion.
(The statement referred to is as follows:) As of November 30, 1963, there were on record 367 women throughout NASA occupying scientific and technical positions. Of this group, 88 are classified in engineering; 261 in aeronautical and space sciences; and 18 in the life sciences. In addition, 323 women occupy administrative and management type positions ranging from cade GS-5 to GS-14. The scientific and technical position grades range predominantly from GS-7 to GS-15 with one person occupying a NASA excepted position.
Since the Federal Woman's Award was established 3 years ago, NASA has submitted several nominations each year and for the past 2 years one of the winners was a NASA employee.
Dr. Nancy Roman earned the Federal Woman's Award in 1962 for "her high ability and strong leadership in developing a progressive national space program in astronomy and astrophysics."
In 1963, Miss Eleanor Pressly received the Federal Woman's Award "in recognition of her pioneer work in the development of sounding rockets for upper atmospheric research, and of her organizational and administrative ability in successfully managing the complex sounding rocket program of Goddard Space Flight Center.”
We have submitted nominations for the 1964 award and are hopeful that again we will have one of our outstanding women recognized.
In February 1962, Mr. Webb issued a statement for distribution to all employees endorsing the provisions of Executive Order 10980, which established the President's Commission on the Status of Women.
In the area of training, our records show that during calendar year 1961–no current figures available 51 women employees throughout the Agency participated in courses of instruction involving scientific and technical subjects. For example, at one installation alone 19 women attended courses in advanced engineering mathematics and related higher mathematics courses (Langley Research Center). Other courses in which women participated included advanced nuclear physics, astrodynamics, and theory of servo mechanisms, to cite just a few.
Senator SMITH. I have several other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I shall now defer until someone else has an opportunity to ask questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Senator Young?
FURTHER DISCUSSION OF U.N. RESOLUTION
Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Webb, to get back to this problem of the U.N. resolution, I want to be sure that I am clear in my own mind as to what you said. Now, you said the resolution is binding on us. That is binding only insofar as the matter of intention; is it not?
Mr. WEBB. Insofar as the language of the resolution, which clearly states it is intention.
Senator CANNON. And it would require beyond that point either a treaty or agreements between countries to actually carry out in detail; would it not?
Mr. WEBB. That is correct; all the cooperative arrangements are in the form of agreements.
Senator CANNON. And of course, if any treaties are to be negotiated, they would be subject to ratification by the Senate. Nr. WEBB. If it is a treaty; yes,
sir. Senator Cannon. Now, I raise this question because there are two or three areas there that I think need further exploration in connection with the resolution. For example, the problem of liability for occurrences to another country seems to be absolute liability in the resolution on the face of it. Yet, pursuant to agreements, I believe it is the Geneva Conference at the present time, in the aviation industry, we have specifically limited siability due to accidents arising involving aircraft, personnel, damage to property, and so on. It seems entirely unrealistic to me that we would impose a limit in the atmospheric portion of the area above us and then say, when you get beyond the atmosphere into outer space that we have absolute liability. I do not see the reason for the distinction and I know that Mr. Johnson is listening to this, because I worked with him before on this overall subject. And I would certainly hope that some of these items would be clarified before any final agreements are arrived at, even though in principle I agree with Mrs. Smith that this is a good resolution and I think it is a very important step forward.
That actually recognizes some important concessions on the part of the Russians to go as far as they have in connection with this resolution, and serving with Mrs. Smith as one of the two Senate advisers to the Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space at the U.N., I am very happy to see that it has gotten along as far as it has.
Nr. WEBB. Thank you, Senator. We are much appreciative of the great work that you and Senator Smith have done in this field. Now, it does happen that back in the 1930's, when I lived in New York, I was a member of a committee that had the longest name of any committee, I think. It was the advisory committee to the American section of the International Technical Committee of Aerial Legal Experts. This was the committee that dealt with this question of expanding aviation on an international basis and laying the groundwork so that the risk would not prohibit the expansion.
Now, it was in this general period, by this group, under the ICAO setup that negotiated agreements limiting liability for any one accident or the death of any one person so as to prevent the liability from being so uncertain that a nation would not participate in international aviation.
Fortunately, today, we are not quite in this position. There is an area of international law that imposes on any nation sending things outward beyond its own borders to accept either the maritime law of the open sea or other systems of liability for what it does. There is no way a nation can take an action beyond its own borders and not accumulate some element of liability for what it does.
Now, what we have done here, I think, and Mr. Johnson may wish to correct me, is to discuss with other nations the situation with respect to liability at this time and to state it quite clearly as a basis for anything else that we may do that will be necessary.
Now, there is also a distinct difference between aviation and space here, because through the development in the space field, space is like the system of free use of the oceans than aviation is. A nation asserts sovereignty up through the atmosphere where satellites fly, but sovereignty has not been asserted above this. So, here we are dealing with vehicles that travel above the area in which nations have asserted sovereignty.
If you want Mr. Johnson to go further on this or correct me, this might be a good time.
RESOLUTION IMPOSES NO NEW LEGAL LIABILITY
Senator CANNON. I think so long as the record is clear that this general liability will have to be extended by virtue of an agreement of some sort, either to fix limits or to say that we have unlimited liability in this area, before it imposes a legal liability on our country or any other country.
Mr. WEBB. The resolution imposes no new legal liability that we did not have before the resolution was passed, as I understand it. Mr. Johnson is here.
Senator Cannon. I think it would be helpful if we heard now from Mr. Johnson on this point.
The CHAIRMAN. As I said the other day, those of us who are not lawyers comment much more easily on this than lawyers.
Mr. WEBB. This is Mr. Johnson, general counsel of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, prior to that general counsel to the Air Force, so he is well versed in these matters.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. JOHNSON, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. JOHNSON. I know you have been very interested in this subject for quite some time, Senator Cannon. We have worked and consulted together before on it. I would like to say something in a preliminary
The only agency that can speak authoritatively on behalf of the \.S. Government concerning the effect of a General Assembly resolution is the Department of State. They will, I am sure, in due course clarify their interpretation of this draft if it does become a resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. However, I do think that I can say something about this as an expression of my own views.