Page images
PDF
EPUB

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

ng 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 con. tinuing 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 $100 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 areas. 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

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

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
Illinois, University of...
Indiar a U uiversity
Iowa, Slitte 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

6 10

8 10 12 15 10 10 10 10 15 8 4 10

6 12

6 10 6 6 10

8 10

6 12 10 10 12 10 10 10 8

8 8 10 15

8 15 15 8 4 3 6 12 10 10

3 10

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

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, 600 132, 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

10 10

8 10 10 10 12 12 10

4 10 10

[blocks in formation]

(A second part of the sustaining university program is concerned with research facilities to provide reasonably adequate working space at universities heavily engaged in scientific and technical activities for the space program. The need for more research laboratory space in the universities is evident; it obviously will not be possible for the universities to undertake the work of which they are capable and which is required if the national goals in space are to be realized, unless their needs for working space can be satisfied.

Fifteen grants for the construction of such facilities have been made by NASA. These buildings will make over 500,000 square feet of additional space available for scientists now doing research pertinent to our mission.

The present facilities program is summarized in the following table:

[blocks in formation]

An important criterion used in selecting research facilities grantees is the relative importance to the national space program of the particular fields of research for which the facilities are proposed. The urgency of the institution's need for the facilities, based on the extent of its present research and training program supported by NASA, influences the decision to award a grant, as do the demonstrable competence, achievements, and potential for further contribution to the national space program of its scientific staff. Further, the nature or extent of the institution's commitment to work in the space sciences is considered along with the quality of supporting facilities and staff.

A facilities grant is made for dollar amounts, determined by NASA to be appropriate in each instance, up to the full cost of construction of the proposed building. It is made to a qualifying institution for the acquisition of new laboratories devoted primarily to research in space-related science and technology or expansion of existing accommodations. The proposed amount of a facilities grant represents a ceiling above which NASA will not go. An estimated cost is submitted by the grantee for use by NASA in awarding a grant for the building and necessary fixed equipment, but once a grant is made NASA will not augment the funds or cover overruns. On the other hand, if the bids are such that all of the funds are not required for construction of the optimum sized buildings, then NASA recovers the excess funds. During the course of development of final plans and specifications, we are able to ascertain which elements planned for inclusion are essential, and obtain a clear picture of the costs involved. These will become firm figures only when construction bids, based on the final plans and specifications, have been received. Since NASA reviews the final plans and specifications for technical feasibility, reasonableness of costs, and responsiveness to the scientific program, we insure that no frills are included. NASA and the grantee are both interested in obtaining the greatest amount of useful laboratory space possible under the dollar ceiling of the grant. It is a proviso of all NASA facilities grants that the construction contract be awarded on a fixed price basis to the lowest responsible bidder. In these ways we attempt to obtain the greatest value possible for both the universities and the Nation.

In evaluating proposals for research facilities, it is important to keep in mind that this activity is in support of a total NASA operation involving all our program offices to some degree. Proposals received are reviewed throughout the agency, often by several offices. Site visits by interested NASA personnel are made prior to award of a grant. To insure that the program is not conducted in isolation or as a separate and independent effort, our activities are coordinated with other interested agencies.

In its centers, NASA has available a number of skilled engineers, architects, and other personnel engaged in the planning, design, and construction of research laboratories, some of which are unique to the NASA research effort. These personnel participate in planning conferences with university grantees and their architects to review and offer constructive criticism on the plans and specifications as they are developed; to advise us on the adequacy and economies of certain types of construction; to inspect the progress of construction; and to participate in inspections of completed structures.

The statutory authorizations under which NASA supports the construction of research laboratory facilities at the university are explicit with respect to ownership. Under them, title to facilities constructed or purchased with NASA research and development funds shall vest with the United States, unless the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration determines that the interests of the national program of aeronautical and space activities will best be served by vesting title in the grantee. Determination to vest title in the grantee, pursuant to its request, is made by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on an individual case basis at the time the grant is made. Factors which will be considered in making this determination include:

(a) Ownership of the land upon which the facilities are to be placed or constructed. In every grant made to date, NASA has insisted that the grantee own or have the right to control the use of land upon which the proposed facilities are to be constructed. No grant has included allowances for land acquisition.

(6) Feasibility of removal of the facilities without substantial impairment of their value.

(c) Intentions of the grantee respecting its use of the facilities over the 10-year period next following award of the requested grant. The extent of NASA supported research and training will, of course, vary from year to year, as will the number and quality of proposals. However, intentions, as set forth in a memorandum of understanding, are reasonable reflections of the extent of past and present programs.

(d) Intentions and plans of the grantee to accommodate and promote research in space-related science and technology through use of the facilities to be acquired.

(e) Whether ownership by the grantee will enhance its long-range potential to conduct research in space-related science and technology.

(f) Whether funds other than those provided by the Government will be used in connection with the purchase or construction of the facilities. Usually, a grantee, whether its funds are included in the construction effort or not, must make a significant contribution to the total cost.

« PreviousContinue »