Page images
PDF
EPUB

DESCRIPTION OF OBLIGATIONS TO UNIVERSITIES

[ocr errors]

a

Dr. SMULL. These figures do not include funds made available to the California Institute of Technology for the operation of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It should be noted that, in the foregoing table, the item entitled “Research Support” includes all the project-type research underway in the universities in support of NASA's on-going programs and the research portion of the sustaining university program.

The Apollo guidance system has been listed separately because of the size of the effort, and because it is to a large degree a unique university activity. Conducted in the instrumentation laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it represents a followon by this group of their highly successful endeavor in the development of the Polaris guidance system.

Funds devoted to the development of research instrumentation flown aboard satellites have also been listed separately. While these research instruments are integral parts of a scientist's experiment, the rigorous environment to which they are subjected and the necessity to withstand the forces and vibration of rocket launching and still be able to operate satisfactorily in gravity-free space, make their construction and testing an extremely complex and difficult task. The design and fabrication of su table instruments often is beyond the limited technological capability of a university. Yet it is essential that the scientist be intimately involved in the development of his instrumentation, so this phase of the work is, in many instances, subcontracted to specialized industries.

The item “Tracking and data acquisition" represents in large measure a service type of activity provided by universities in the operation of tracking stations, data reduction, or support of range activities.

The support shown for research facilities and training in space science and technology are parts of the sustaining university program and will be discussed in detail in a moment.

The item entitled “Career Employee Training, represents university programs designed to provide for continued professional development of NASA's staff.

The balance of my statement goes into the details of the training, where the program is being carried on, the universities participating, and the same for the facilities program. I believe you have introduced for the record a statement of where these facilities are, the criteria upon which these grants are based, and also a listing of the special type research activity that has been carried on under the sustaining university program.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Thomas L. K. Smull follows:)

[ocr errors]

STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS L. K. SMULL, DIRECTOR, GRANTS AND RESEARCH

CONTRACTS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Mr. Webb and Dr. Newell have discussed with you the reasons why it is so important for NASA to have a broad, yet close, working relationship with the Nation's colleges and universities. I would like to describe this program and its management in some detail.

From the beginning of NASA in 1958, it has been recognized that dealings with universities and nonprofit research organizations require special consideration. The business relationships and methods of administration of research differ considerably from those of the vendor-customer system, driven by the profit

26-4604-64-7

motive, that forms the basis of our commercial and industrial economy. NASA'S parent organization, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, had been sponsoring research in educational institutions since 1918. During the past 20 years it and other mission-oriented agencies within the Federal Government, such as the military departments, have demonstrated the desirability of separate organizational units designed to deal specifically with this area of activity. The Office of Naval Research was the original venture in this direction, the success of which pointed the way to the establishment of the Office of Scientific Research in the Air Force, and the Army Research Office. Similarly, NASA maintains within its organizational structure a group which serves as the focal point for relationships with nonprofit scientific and educational institutions. Under NASA's current organizational arrangement this group has been designated the Grants and Research Contracts Division of the Office of Space Science and Applications. It is responsible for establishing policies and procedures for NASA's dealings with these organizations and for administering those segments of the university program that emanate from NASA headquarters.

Although organizationally located within the Office of Space Science and Applications, its responsibilities are agencywide. Thus it serves all of NASA, including the Office of Manned Space Flight and the Office of Advanced Research anil Technology in administering those phases of their programmatic activities that are carried on in nonprofit scientific and educational institutions. These activities are mainly what we term “project research," and they are either an integral part of or in direct support of rather specific requirements of on-going NASA programs. Examples are Van Allen's experiments that have been flown on several of the NASA Explorer satellites, research in energy conversion directed at improving fuel cells, or basic studies of high strength metals that might be suitable for use in supersonic transports.

In 1961, when the landing of an American on the moon in this decade was defined as a national goal, NASA reviewed the scope of its university activities. During that summer a group of university consultants was assembled by NASA to examine our relationships with universities and the scientific community. In general, the group represented the various echelons of management within universities, the principal scientific disciplines in which NASA is interested, and a reasonable geographical distribution of the institutions already involved in NASA programs. It emphasized the fact that NASA, to achieve established goals, must take steps to stimulate the training of Ph. D.'s in the space-related sciences and technology which were already in short supply and for which the need was increasing, assist in alleviating the critical shortage of research laboratory facilities in the universities, and seek ways to broaden the base of research participation by universities in the NASA program. Considerations of the recommendations of this group, as well as numerous discussions, both within and outside the Federal Government, gave rise to NASA's sustaining university program. This is the name that has been given to the program characterized in the fiscal year 1994 budget as “training, facilities, and research grants."

This program was initiated in fiscal 1962 with training grants to 10 universities at a total cost of $2 million for 10 predoctoral trainees at each ; 6 facilities grants for the construction of about 175,000 gross square feet of research laboratory space at a total cost of $6.6 million; and approximately $3.5 million was expended for research of a unique nature designed to improve and expand the base of university research capability in space related science and technology.

During fiscal year 1963, $30.6 million were allocated to this program; approximately $14 million of which was for training, $11 million for facilities, and the balance for special purpose research.

Before going into detail on the management of the sustaining university program, I would like to give you an idea of NASA's total involvement with the Nation's universities. The following table summarizes the funds that were obligated to some 130 universities by NASA during fiscal year 1963.

Summary of NASA fiscal year 1963 obligations to universities (See chart on p. 92.)

It should be noted that, in the foregoing table, the item entitled “Research Support” includes all the project type research underway in the universities in support of NASA's on-going programs and the research portion of the sustaining university program.

Apollo guidance system has been listed separately because of the size of the effort, and because it is, to a large degree, a unique university activity. Conducted in the instrumentation laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it represents a follow-on by this group of their highly successful endeavor in the development of the Polaris guidance system.

The funds devoted to the development of research instrumentation flown aboard satellites has also been listed separately. While these research instruments are: integral parts of a scientist's experiment, the rigorous environment to which they are subjected and the necessity to withstand the forces and vibration of rocket launching and still be able to operate satisfactorily in gravity-free space make their construction and testing an extremely complex and difficult task. The design and fabrication of suitable instruments often is beyond the limited technological capability of a university. Yet it is essential that the scientist be intimately involved in the development of his instrumentation, so this phase of the work is, in many instances, subcontracted to specialized industries.

The item “Tracking and data acquisition” represents, in large measure, a service type of activity provided by universities in the operation of tracking stations, data reduction or support of certain range activities.

The support shown for research facilities and training in space science and technology are parts of the sustaining university program and will be discussed. in detail in a moment.

The item entitled “Career employee training” represents university programs designed to provide for continued professional development of NASA's staff.

The sustaining university program is an integrated program of training, facilities, and research. In its implementation, first priority was given to development of the training portion, because of the fundamental axiom that highly trained scientists and engineers cannot be produced on a crash basis. As Dr. Wiesner pointed out so carefully, there is a shortage of highly trained scientific and technical manpower in the United States today. The space program faces a continuing crisis if that shortage persists, and NASA is prepared to devote significant resources to improving the situation in disciplines relevant to our mission.

The NASA predoctoral training program was designed to accelerate the production of Ph. D. degrees in space-related science and engineering while being structured in a manner aimed to strengthen the universities' graduate capabilities.

Universities interested in participating must submit proposals which are evaluated on their own merits, in competition with proposals from other universities and in light of the total funds available for this purpose. The major selection criteria utilized in determining the universities to participate in this program include accreditation ratings, resources, demonstrated competence, suitability of disciplines with approved doctoral programs, location and regional relationships, and need for assistance in fully utilizing existing capabilities.

Grants are made to universities rather than to individual students, thus diminishing the excessive drift of able students to universities with long-established and well-publicized reputations. When an award is made directly to an individual, who is then free to move to any institution which will accept him, a large percentage of the students end up attending a few universities.

The responsibility for day-to-day administration, including selection of trainees, rests with the university, which is in the best position to evaluate an applicant's interests, qualifications, and need.

Trainees must be either already engaged in a course of study leading to the doctorate or graduate students about to undertake such a course of study. Selection by the university involves consideration of each candidate's academic record, personal qualifications, faculty recommendations, graduate record examinations, and his research and study plan for the training period. Every effort is made to choose individuals of unusual promise with an interest in spacerelated science and engineering. It is felt that the objectives of this program and the national interest are well served when they engage in research and teaching in science or engineering following completion of their training, and they are encouraged to do so.

Continuity of support is an essential ingredient of this program, and training grants are made for 3-year periods. Although performance is reviewed each year by the institution and awarded to the individuals for 1 year of graduate study, it is anticipated that a student who qualifies as a NASA trainee may look forward to renewal of his traineeship for a second and third year if he maintains a satisfactory record. Only in exceptional cases and after approval by NASA may an award be made to the same individual for more than 3 years. If graduate work is pursued on a full-time basis, it is hoped that many trainees may be able to complete a doctorate within 3 to 4 years. Carmichael, in his book, "Graduate Education," reported that the average time spent between a B.A. and a Ph. D. ranges from 7 to 12 years in most disciplines. For a capable student with an acceptable thesis topic to be required to spend 6 years preparing a dissertation makes little sense. We believe it to be a luxury we cannot afford, and we therefore strongly urge study on a full-year basis. The trainee's stipend is reduced proportionately if he works only a 9-month year. The amount of the stipend should cover living expenses and also should be comparable to amounts available under other Federal programs of a similar nature. The basic stipend of the NASA predoctoral training program was set at $2.400 for a full year of study. By comparison, under the NSF cooperative graduate programs, a fellow receives a basic stipend of $2,400 for a calendar year; and under the National Defense Education Act, a fellow receives $2,000 to $2,400 for the academic year.

Recognizing differences in the capabilities and personal responsibilities among trainees, we make available an allowance of up to $1,000 per student per year, principally for dependents and escalation. This allowance is included in the grant to the university, but the amount allocated to each student is determined by the university in accordance with its established policy. No trainee may receive a total annual amount (basic stipend plus student allowance) in excess of $3,400. The university has considerable flexibility in administering this type of arrangement and can keep it in line with other graduate opportunities on its campus. NSF provides a dependency allowance of $500 for each dependent; National Defense Education Act provides $400 each.

In addition to the stipends, a training grant includes an allowance to the university with which it can strengthen its graduate program in space-related areas of science and technology. It has been our feeling that this allowance may appropriately differ from university to university and for this reason, we have chosen to negotiate the amount in each case. It need not be identified on a per capita basis with the individual trainees and is not viewed as a "cost of training" allowance as such. Rather, it is hoped that the universities will be imaginative in applying the allowance to strengthen their programs in the most needed

It may include such items as small amounts for minor specialized equipment, a modest amount for course content improvement, an appropriate share of special faculty augmentation, as well as similar items normally covered by income from tuition and fees.

Other Government programs have chosen to allow the universities a fixed amount per student. Under the National Defense Education Act program, the university received $2.500 per student to cover that portion of the cost of the approved program which is reasonably attributable to the fellow. Under the NSF, the institution receives $2,500 for each fellow in attendance for 9 or 12 months to aid in covering the costs of his education.

Even though the university allowance under the NASA program is a negotiated amount for specialized purposes, it still averages out, on a per student basis, about the same as in other Federal programs. In fiscal year 1963, the university allowance averaged $2,508 per student per year.

The program began in the spring of 1962 at the following 10 universities : University of California, at Los Angeles University of Michigan University of Chicago

University of Minnesota Georgia Institute of Technology

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute State University of Iowa

Rice University University of Maryland

Texas A. & M. University

areas.

In fiscal year 1963, NASA continued the program with grants to 88 institutions for the training of 786 students at a cost of approximately $14 million. The 88 institutions participating are:

University

Trainees

Amount

10

10

8 10 12 15 10 10 10 10 15

రసం 60006-0606

10

12

Alabama, University of..
Arizona State University
Arizona, University of..
Arkansas, University of.
Auburn University..
Brooklyn, Polytechnic Institute of..
California Institute of Technology..
California, University of, at Los Angeles.
Carnegie Institute of Technology.
Case Institute of Technology.
Catholic University -
Chicago, University of..
Cincinnati, University of..
Clemson College...
Colorado, University of
Colorado State University.
Columbia University-
Connecticut, University of.
Cornell University -
Delaware, University of.
Denver, University of..
Duke University-
Florida State University -
Florida, University of..
George Washington University.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Houston, University of...
Illinois Institute of Technology-
Hlinois, University of...
Indiar a U iiversity
Iowa, Slible University-
Iowa State University.
Johns Hopkins University-
Kansas State University.
Kansas, University of.
Kent State University
Lehigh University --
Louisiana State University.
Maryland, University of..
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Michigan State University.
Michigan, University of..
Minnesota, University of.
Missouri, University of...
Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy.
Nevada, University of....
New Mexico, University of.
New York University.
North Carolina, University of..
North Carolina State College..
Northeastern University.
Northwestern University-
Notre Dame, University of..
Ohio State University--
Oklahoma State University
Oklahoma, University of.
Oregon State University.
Pennsylvania State University.
Pennsylvania, University of.
Pittsburgh, University of.
Princeton University-
Purdue University...
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Rhode Island, University of..
Rice University..
Rochester, University of.
Saint Louis University
Southern California, University of..
Stanford University.
Stevens Institute of Technology
Syracuse University Research Institute..
Tennessee, University of.
Texas, Agricultural and Mechanical College.
Texas, Technological College..
Texas, University of...
Tulane University...

$192, 000

79, 200 177,000 144, 000 147, 600 216,000 268, 900 128, 700 169, 500 203, 700 165, 900 310, 500 141, 100

75, 600 176, 600

91, 800 228, 000 106. 900 177, 000 109, 600 100, 800 177,000 131, 200 177, 000 109, 800 230, 400 177,000 188, 700 212, 400 143, 000 175, 500 1.1.000 156,000 142, 200 143, 300

10 6 6 10

8 10

6 12 10 10 12 10 10 10 8

8 2 8 8 10 15

8 15 15 8 4 3 6 12 10 10

3 10 8 8 10 10

8 10 10 10 12 12 10

4 10 10 8 8 12

25 500 153, 600 131, 500 192,000 310, 500 144,000 265, 500 288, 000 152, 900 76, 400 40, 600 113, 900 220, 6C0 132, OCO 142,000

50, 900 187. 200 153, 600 122, 000 120,000 177,000 149, 400 177.000 192. OCO 180,000 230, 400 223, 200 192, 000

70, 800 192, 000 183,000 140, 400 152, 400 230, 800 108,000 141, 600 141, 600 192, 000 101, 600 132, 000 158, 400

8 8 10

6000

10 8

« PreviousContinue »