Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. We hope to solve the automobile problem by specifying that auto emissions will meet a specification by a certain date. Is something like that being considered for commercial jet engines?

Is thought being given to a noise standard recognizing regional differences even if its application is far in the future.

Mr. JACKSON. I would have to say at the moment, the answer to your question is more no than yes. It just is not possible to give a definite answer. We are working with the EPA in respect to their new responsibilities and on policy considerations like you were just referring to, and hopefully, from something like that, the right thing will come forward.

Senator DOMENICI. In your summary, you mention in fiscal year 1974, your space R. & D. includes $4 million for continuing nuclear research. Could you tell me what that is?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes; $1 million of it is to continue the work of using isotope nuclear sources as a primary energy element and the adaptation, then, of those kinds of nuclear sources to spacecraft power. That scheme has been used on a number of spacecraft to date. It was used for some of the experiments that are operating on the surface of the Moon today.

Now, we would like to develop a scheme whereby we can dynamically convert that power, that kind of basic energy, through what we call a Brayton cycle and part of that $4 million is to continue that kind of work.

Then we plan to spend about $3 million of the $4 million in what we call basic research to significantly improve methods of making use of nuclear energy. We will therefore be carrying on the basic research for advancements during the interval of time we will not be using the current technology.

Senator DOMENICI. Returning to the problem of lack of advance noise standards for the construction of the jet engine, is part of the budget you have just described-$48 million, I think-being spent in this area?

Mr. JACKSON. $35 million.

Senator DOMENICI. Are we using any part of that $35 million to fix commercial engines or is it R. & D. only?

Mr. JACKSON. Using it to what?

Senator DOMENICI. To actually reequip commercial engines?
Mr. JACKSON. No; this is technology only.

Senator DOMENICI. Is there any Government money involved in making commercial engines less noisy?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, the refan program is close to being the development of operational hardware for tooling changes.

Senator DOMENICI. Who is paying for working on the engines so there will be less noise?

Dr. Low. The Government will not, Senator. Perhaps I had better explain this in a slightly different way.

Our purpose here in the technology program is to bring the develop ment to the point where the FAA would have sufficient information to make the rules to decide whether this should be incorporated into the fleet and where the airlines and the aircraft manufacturers could

take over to develop an engine that can then be certified and built and put into the fleet. The actual cost beyond the technology that we now have, the actual cost of equipping each airplane specifically, will be borne by the airlines and I assume ultimately by the passenger.

Senator DOMENICI. There are no plans for the Government to pay for any part of that activity?

Dr. Low. No. In fact, the discussions that we had with the OMB are just the opposite. There is a specific prohibition for NASA, certainly, paying for any aspect.

Senator DOMENICI. So technology is getting to a point where we could set standards, and you will be able to tell Congress and the industry that it can be done?

Dr. Low. Yes; that it can be done, and we know how much it costs to be done.

Mr. JACKSON. And what the effect will be on aircraft performance, the whole viability from an economic viewpoint.

NOISE REDUCTION DEMONSTRATION

The CHAIRMAN. I believe you have a tape of the sound?
Mr. JACKSON. Yes, we do.

The CHAIRMAN. We would like to have that demonstrated for us.
Mr. JACKSON. We would like to show you a chart (fig. 442). This is a

diagram of the refan engine on the lower half [pointing], below the split line, and the engine in its present configuration above. So you can see the kinds of changes we are making. First of all, there is a single stage fan here indicated by this red blade compared to the two-stage

92-229 073 pt. 2 43

1234

fan here. You see spacing between the fan and these guide vanes. You see acoustic treatment. You see a larger increment of air passing around the engine, not passing through the compressor and the turbine, and you see mixing up back here in a way to reduce the noise, both back here and up here.

Now, here I have a diagram of the Washington area [pointing] (fig. 443) the Washington National Airport specifically. The diagram shows

contours at the 95 EPNdB level. That is a level of noise wherein at the rate of operations out of the National Airport, people become annoyed. So along this contour, with the airplanes in their present configuration, the noise is at the 95 EPNdB level. We have on the tape a full noise measurement from a position on the ground of an existing airplane taking off and you can experience that when we turn the tape

on.

Now, following that, we have a noise level for a refanned airplane that a person would experience while being any place along the original contour. This [pointing] is a measure now of how much smaller the 95 EPNdB contour would be if the airplane engine were refanned. This footprint is about 15 percent of the larger footprint. So you can see how the geographic area reduces.

Now, we will turn it on. Just assume you are someplace along that contour line. Let me assume you are down here on the approach part of the path, somewhere along this part. You will experience the approach noise and then we move up to here someplace and you will experience the takeoff noise.

Then we will repeat, you are down here again with the airplane refan, then you are up here, again in takeoff with the airplane refan. Then you will hear short bursts of the peak levels of those noises in order to tune your ear again.

You are right here someplace, with the engine in its present configuration.

[Tape is played.]

Mr. JACKSON. I am sorry, that was refan on landing approach. I had it down here. Now you hear two short bursts.

[Tape is played.]

The CHAIRMAN. That is quite dramatic and with the Senator's questions on noise, I thought it would be well to hear that and see what the refanning has accomplished that you have been telling us about.

FUTURE PLANS FOR ENGINE QUIETING

What is the administration's position on the President's Aviation Advisory Commission recommendation to stop all refan work and concentrate on new quiet engines for the 1980's?

Dr. Low. Mr. Chairman, we in NASA-I do not know whether it is the administration's position-but in NASA, we disagree with that recommendation. We believe it was based on incomplete information. In fact, some of the members on the Commission even disagreed with that recommendation. Based on the information that we have and we presented here this morning, we certainly cannot agree with the Commission's recommendation.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, is that because you feel the research indicates you can quiet the present engines enough that we should not concentrate on a new engine that would be quiet?

Dr. Low. We think we should do both and we are doing both, but we believe that the existing engines will be in the fleet for a long enough period of time, as Mr. Jackson pointed out on one of his charts, that it would appear to be worthwhile to do something about the existing engines, again with the qualifications that we mentioned before of looking at the noise as well as the economy of doing it.

We do have in our quiet engine program, of course, a great deal of work also on future generations of engines. Mr. Jackson might add to that?

Mr. JACKSON. No; I have nothing more to add.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not recall approximately how long the present engines remain active in our transport fleet. How long a life do they have?

Mr. JACKSON. Fifteen to 20 years, so new airplanes coming on line now will be in the fleet, it is expected they will be in the fleet, for up to 20 years. Many of the existing aircraft are of very recent origin, so

a very large number of today's commercial fleet will be with us from 1985 into 1990.

Dr. Low. I might point out here that the time scale on the chart that Mr. Jackson used takes us out into 1985 and beyond. The new aircraft are bringing the level down to this level; the refanning, if it were incorporated, could bring you all the way down to here [indicating on chart].

ADVANCED SUPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY PLANS

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jackson, in your opinion, what would be the effect on the United States if NASA is not allowed to continue with its research work in advanced supersonic technology?

Mr. JACKSON. I believe that the disservice to this Nation would be enormous. We need that technology-we, the Nation-need that technology for military considerations as well as civil consideration. The civil considerations are that there is in fact an airplane in production in Western Europe, there is an airplane in production in Russia that are supersonic aircraft and they are operating. There is great question about their economic viability; there is very little question about the continuation of those programs. One day, there are going to be supersonic aircraft flying in the world fleet. Technology will advance, somebody will advance it, and if this Nation does not face the fact that the potential of its leadership position in the manufacture and sale of civil aircraft can be eroded away by ignoring the advancement of technology, then I think we would be doing simply what I said at the beginning, an enormous disservice to ourselves.

The CHAIRMAN. How much of the aeronautics budget recommended by NASA to OMB was originally for supersonic technology programs? What was it you originally asked for?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, the $28 million that was in the budget is the original number that was submitted to OMB as an item for consideration, but was not included in the NASA minimum recommended budget.

The CHAIRMAN. So OMB did not cut the supersonic request any? Mr. JACKSON. No.

The CHAIRMAN. And how did you arrive at the $28 million? Mr. JACKSON. We have projected a technology program that is based on technology being ready in 1978 so that this country could, at that time, have the technical option of making a decision to proceed into development. When I say this country, this Nation, I use the word very generally. I am not implying that that is the Government or industry or some combination. I just say this Nation.

The program that projects toward 1978 is the program that calls for $28 million in fiscal year 1974. One of the long leadtime elements of such a program is an experimental, quiet, supersonic, variable-cycle engine. Our present thinking is that in order for technology to be properly ready, we will need to have an experimental variable-cycle engine operating much like today's quiet engine is in operation at Lewis. If that should drop out of the picture, it would shorten the leadtime. We will know more about the requirement as we proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you expect now that vour budget level will remain at about $28 million for fiscal year 1975 and beyond?