SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACTS CENTER MAN-YEAR EQUIVALENTS BY APPROPRIATION FISCAL YEARS

THE CHAIRMAN. Dr. Fletcher, would you please provide for the record an estimate of the future annual funding (appropriations and expenditures) required for Shuttle research, development, test, and evaluation, breaking it down by appropriation categories?

Answer. The Shuttle research, development, test and evaluation requirements are applicable only to the R. & D. appropriation. These requirements originally projected at $5.150 billion in 1971 dollars continue to be correct. This original estimate has been escalated by 5% for inflation which occurred between 1971 and 1972. The runout estimates in 1972 dollars results in a revised total of $5.394 billion. The current R.D.T. & E. estimate by year is as follows:

The above research, development, test and evaluation estimates include the fabrication of two orbiter vehicles for use in the test program.

To achieve the Shuttle's planned low earth orbital operational capability and to accommodate the anticipated total payload traffic requires an initial fleet of five orbiter vehicles and facilities for development, test and an initial launch capability. The initial orbiter fleet would be established by refurbishing the two orbiter test vehicles and the procurement by NASA and/or DOD of three additional orbiters estimated at $250 million per orbiter. In addition, it would be necessary to procure the solid rocket boosters and external tanks required for the initial missions. The cost of these items, however, has been included in the estimated recurring costs per mission. The facilities required as part of attaining initial operational status are estimated at about $300 million in 1971 dollars. The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Fletcher, in the draft bill which you sent to the Congress, you have added a clause to section 1-C which would authorize to be appropriated to NASA “such additional or supplementary amounts as may be necessary for salary pay, retirement, or other employee benefits authorized by law." This being a new clause, would you please discuss for the committee the need for it?

Answer. The substance of the new clause to which reference is made was furnished to NASA by the Office of Management and Budget with the suggestion that it be incorporated into the text of the proposed NASA Authorization Act, 1974. The clause is intended to obviate the need for separate authorizing legis

lation for this agency in the event a supplemental appropriation covering employee salary or benefit increases should be enacted before the end of the fiscal year 1974.

In the past when there has been an increase in the amount required for personnel compensation and related expenses due to a duly authorized Federal salary increase, we have construed the various supplemental appropriation acts as serving the same purpose the new clause is designed to serve. Thus, if the language contained in a future supplemental appropriation act is substantively similar to those affecting NASA appropriations in the past, the addition to section 1 (c) would probably not be necessary.

However, it is NASA's understanding that some difficulties have been encountered by other agencies whose appropriations, like those of NASA, are required to be previously authorized by legislation. It is also understood that language substantively similar to that under discussion has been recommended to those other agencies for inclusion in their proposed authorization acts.

Under the circumstances, therefore, it was deemed prudent to adopt the suggestion offered by the Office of Management and Budget. While the new clause may in the final analysis prove to be unnecessary, it is felt that it would have no negative impact on NASA operations, and possibly, could have the salutary effect of minimizing the chance of disrupting agency activities in the event a supplemental appropriation for NASA covering personnel and related expenses were deleted on a point of order under the Rules of either House due to an asserted absence of the requisite underlying authorization to appropriate. THE CHAIRMAN. Dr. Fletcher, would you please provide for the record a chart, or set of charts, summarizing U.S. and U.S.S.R. space activities annually through 1972 in terms of the number of spacecraft launched and number of spacecraft successfully launched?

Please include for the U.S. the NASA, DOD, and other satellites launched by the United States.

Answer. The attached charts summarize the U.S. and U.S.S.R. space activities on an annual basis from 1958 through 1972:

Chart I is the cumulative comparison of the numbers of vehicles launched (figure 4).

Chart II is the cumulative comparison of the number of payloads launched (figure 5, page 242).

Chart III is a summary of the successful U.S. and announced U.S.S.R. payloads. It also includes the U.S. unsuccessful payloads or missions (figure 6, page 242).

Since the Soviets never announce whether a space mission is classified as a success or failure, NASA cannot respond to this part of the question.

1957 | 1958 | 1959 | 1960 | 1961 | 1962 | 1963 | 1964 | 1965 | 1966 | 1967 | 1968 | 1969 | 1970 | 1971 |
SOURCE:

CALENDAR YEAR

POCKET STATISTICS HISTORY, PROGRAM AND SPECIAL REPORTS DIVISION, EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS DR. CHARLES S. SHELDON II

FIGURE 5

(891

133

SUMMARY OF USA SUCCESSFUL PAYLOADS & USSR ANNOUNCED PAYLOADS

CHART II

SENATOR CANNON. Dr. Fletcher, is the $5.15 billion Research and Development cost for the shuttle going to give NASA an operational capability? If not, what additional items and what additional costs will be required to provide an operational capability?

Answer. The $5.15 billion R&D research, development, test and evaluation estimate includes the fabrication of two orbiter vehicles for use in the test program. To achieve the Shuttle's planned low earth orbital operational capability and to accommodate the anticipated total payload traffic requires an initial fleet of five orbiter vehicles and facilities for development, test and an initial launch capability. The initial orbiter fleet would be established by refurbishing the two orbiter test vehicles and the procurement by NASA and/or DOD of three additional orbiters estimated at $250 million per orbiter. In addition, it would be necessary to procure the solid rocket boosters and external tanks required for the initial missions. The cost of these items, however, has been included in the estimated recurring costs per mission. The facilities required as part of attaining initial operational status are estimated at about $300 million in 1971 dollars.

SENATOR CANNON. Dr. Fletcher, in your statement you state, “In some of the reductions we have made in fiscal year 1978 and fiscal year 1974 we may have gone too far."

How much too far in gross numbers do you mean to imply you may have gone n fiscal year 1973 and in fiscal year 1974?

In what specific programs and projects are you suggesting that you may have made too great reductions and what is the impact on those items of having made too deep a cut?

Answer. The program we have presented for your consideration is, we believe, a well-balanced plan that will assure significant progress in space and aeronautics during the coming years. We have sought to provide immediate applications for our capabilities in space, to continue important scientific research projects, and to lay the foundation for the long-range benefits and economies essential to a more effective use of space.

But to help hold national spending within established limits for FY 1973 and FY 1974, we have had to make drastic reductions to our programs. These reductions, as we have noted, required the termination of several important projects, delays and postponements in several others, and marked revisions in the scope of several more.

Because we firmly believe in the importance of space for America's future well-being, we are naturally concerned that many opportunities within our reach have had to be set aside because of financial limitations. Were additional funds available, we might contribute far more and accomplish our goals much sooner-in making new discoveries and in applying the skills we have already developed.

On the other hand, there can be no question of the importance of economy in our national budget, and we have worked diligently to meet the goal of fiscal responsibility set for all government agencies. We feel that we have selected those programs which offer the greatest return available from such a reduced budget.

SENATOR CANNON. Dr. Fletcher, are the Plum Brook facilities you are closing limited to nuclear work, or do they have other capabilities?

Answer. The Plum Brook facilities are not limited to nuclear work. In addition to the Reactor Facility, other major facilities are as follows:

Rocket Dynamics and Control Facility;

High Energy Rocket Engine Research Facility;

Hypersonic Tunnel Facility;

Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility;

Space Power Facility.

SENATOR CANNON. Are you making efforts to find other users of Plum Brook? Answer. We are making efforts, and have been in direct contact with a number of prospective users, one of which, for example, is the Electric Research Council who, as we understand it, anticipates the establishment of an Electric Power Research Institute in the near future which will be funded by a charge on all privately owned participating utilities.

The Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Institute, Mr. William Meese, Detroit Edison, and the Director of the new Institute, Dr. Chauncey Starr, UCLA, have both been contacted with regard to exploring the feasibility of establishing the Institute at either the Cleveland or Plum Brook site.

The Lewis Research Center, through the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, has been in touch with the Business and Employment Council of the Governor of Ohio regarding a council recommendation to establish a statefunded Ohio Development Center. It is the understanding of Lewis that this proposed Center may be funded at a $5 million level over the next 2 years. Conceivably, the Plum Brook Station might be a potential location for such a Center.

With regard to the Reactor Facility at Plum Brook, the Station is presently making a cost study to determine if the reactor might be efficiently utilized for environmental research. In this proposed application, the reactor would he operated at power levels below 10 megawatts to irradiate various types of environmental samples (biological, atmospheric, fuels, etc.) for the purpose of determining trace elements contained therein. This work, if performed, would be done for the Environmental Protection Agency. Small scale efforts of this nature have been conducted previously in the reactor. In a similar vein, the reactor has also been used for performing various irradiation programs for the Atomic Energy Commission. This work involved the irradiation of uranium carbide fuel sample for possible use in land-based power generation plants.