These cost estimates take into account the impact that a "Skylab B" would have on the ASTP and Shuttle programs and are based upon a launch of the “Skylab B" workshop in July 1976. The first manned mission would occur in September 1976 to permit launch of the Saturn V and Saturn IB's from a single pad (39B) at KSC, thus allowing work to proceed on modifying Pad 39A for Shuttle operations. The second crew would be launched three months after the first, in December. Baseline mission duration would be 56 days. No rescue capability for the second mission would be included in the program, as noted above, since we would have used all the launch vehicles and spacecraft that could economically be brought to flight readiness.

The funding estimates for the "Upgraded Skylab B" would provide for the selective introduction of new or improved experiments to enhance significantly the return that could be expected. Because the details of these improvements would depend on what we learn in Skylab we cannot predict precisely what new experiments would be flown. We have included a total of $150 million in our estimates for this purpose, however, and we believe that this amount would be reasonable to provide for such improvements as the electronic transmission of data from the earth resources multispectral scanner to permit real-time mission replanning; the incorporation of a higher resolution microwave antenna; experiments for studies concerning the remote monitoring of pollution, particularly in the upper atmosphere; and the addition of an ultraviolet telescope to study solar flares during what would be an approaching peak of solar activity. We would also undoubtedly want to conduct new experiments in life sciences, depending upon what we learn in Skylab.

Present funding provides for storage of the hardware mentioned above, but does not provide for refurbishment at a later time. The above estimates are based upon a timetable which assumes a decision by this summer to at least maintain the option of proceeding with a second Skylab. We estimate that a six-month delay in go-ahead (resulting in an end-of-1976 launch date) would increase the total funding requirements by about $100 million.

In closing, let me say again that, in spite of the benefits and values of a second Skylab in 1976, our considered judgment remains that it would be most unwise to allow it to displace or delay the development of the Shuttle or any of the other programs included in our FY 1974 budget submission.

If we can provide additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely,

Senator WEICKER. That is all I have.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici?

SPACE APPLICATIONS

JAMES C. FLETCHER,
Administrator.

Senator DOMENICI. Dr. Fletcher, let me just explore a few ideas with you about your future practical applications. I am somewhat concerned, because it seems that what we are all saying is that what you have been doing is great, but no one appreciates it. It seems to me that your space efforts in the early years had in and of themselves a goal and objective, a sort of package, that was readily visible. It was experimental in a very real sense and produced much of the information that you are now saving has very diverse applications. It would appear to me that in addition to the experimental research that is your responsibility, and is within the jurisdiction of this committee, you have been telling us about applications of which your development is only preliminary to its operational use by someone else. And that you might play a small part or a large part, whether it be in medical areas or education or agriculture or whatever. But ultimately the operational systems must work within an institutional framework that is not necessarily all NASA. It seems to me that this is where we are faltering, we do not have adequate mechanisms to insure that your very promising research will be translated into useful operational systems.

This is my concern today. When you develop the capability to be an integral part of a solution to a human problem, what do you envision as the shortcomings of your not being able to utilize that capability to help solve some of these problems? Should we be considering a project that involves partly your agency and partly other agencies and give it a separate identity and unify it here in Congress, rather than your having to go out and appeal to a number of separate agencies? Should we take the initiative here in Congress to guide multiagency projects, and set goals and dollar figures on these projects, rather than leave that responsibility entirely up to your agency?

Dr. FLETCHER. Well, when I made these forecasts, I made the forecasts on the basis of things that I already know are happening and making the analogies on the basis of weather satellites or communications satellites. So I say if we go along in our natural course, which is following the path that we know of in the case of NOAA in the weather communications and COMSAT and OTP in the communications satellites-we are doing that now. So we are working with these agencies. They are obtaining an awareness of what the potential is. And I think we have that responsibility to transfer always the operational function to other agencies. What we were discussing earlier is that there are probably a lot of things on that forecast that I did not include. So there are large numbers of people, users, commercial, individual, foreign, that I have not forecast, because we are not pressing those applications. And I think this committee could be of help in bringing this to the attention of the people more visibly than perhaps NASA has.

I believe that was the gist of Senator Goldwater's remarks that scientists are notoriously poor salesmen. You could help us with that end of it.

Senator DOMENICI. Let me see if I can be more specific. I still have a concern. You spoke of user agencies. You gave a more specific example when Senator Cannon was talking about diagnostic medical jackets. He asked you about its application. Obviously, that is not your prime responsibility.

You then quickly said HEW was interested in this, if I recall.
Dr. FLETCHER. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. And they are pursuing it. And that working relationship is easy because there are only two agencies involved. Now, what bothers me is that some of the cases you spoke of would seem to me to have many agencies and many interdepartmental applications. My concern is: Will some of these promising projects be greatly delayed because we do not identify specific projects and then give the responsibility for the entire project to one agency as compared to the way our agencies are now organized?

Dr. FLETCHER. I think the programs we are anticipating here in this forecast are not going to be delayed because of these difficulties. We have agreements with, really, every other agency of Government in some way or another. So they are in different stages of knowledge and enthusiasm and development.

In the case of the IMBLMS, this remote medical diagnosis instrument, we have been working with HEW or a portion of HEW on community medicine for several years, and it is beginning to permeate the rest of HEW. So I do not think we have fundamental difficulties in Government itself.

Where we have difficulties, if there are any, is in our match to commercial users or perhaps international users. The others are going fairly well.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

POTENTIAL FOR SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I have one more question.

On January 18, I introduced a Comsat-type bill, S. 454, which would establish a corporation through which Government and industry could accelerate development of new energy resources, including the development of solar energy. There is another bill to establish a national program for research, development, demonstration of fuels and energy, which Senator Jackson will introduce on Wednesday of this week. This bill will also have a section dealing with unconventional sources of fuel such as solar energy and fuel cells. What do you see as the potential for solar energy development if this Nation were to undertake a major effort along this line, and what role should NASA play in such a study?

Dr. FLETCHER. Well, as I tried to indicate, at the present time, NASA and the National Science Foundation have a joint responsibility for this. At the present time, the National Science Foundation has most of the money.

The role that NASA should play is important, especially if we get into the space solar energy, where solar energy is impacting on a space platform, then transmitted down to earth. NASA will have to have the primary responsibility for that. We do not anticipate that happening by 1985. So the emphasis was not on that one; although possibly, in the 1990's, this could come about.

The emphasis right now is to develop solar power on the surface of the earth, and although NASA had planned an active program in this area, it is trimmed down primarily in deference to the large funding in the National Science Foundation.

In that aspect of the problem, we will probably be working very closely with the NSF to decide roles and missions in the development of terrestrial solar power. What actually comes out of that, I am afraid, is not too clear at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. You would suggest that the National Science Foundation take the lead in this and that NASA simply cooperate? Dr. FLETCHER. That seems to be the trend in this last budget goround, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. If the budget were different, you would take a more active part?

Dr. FLETCHER. Yes, we would be happy to take a more active part.

LONG-TERM VERSUS SHORT-TERM BENEFITS OF SPACE PROGRAM

The CHAIRMAN. I have one final question. I think it is something that this committee will need to address in the years ahead.

During the opening day of hearings, the issues of long-term versus short-term benefits of the space program was raised on several occasions. Senator Weicker's concern over the long-term benefits and objectives of space efforts was made quite forcefully, a concern that

was specifically endorsed by Senators Goldwater and Cannon. In a simplified form, our concern was for mortgaging the future and failing to make those investments in research and development today that will have payoffs in the future, even though we cannot say what those benefits will be or precisely in what form they will emerge.

On the other side, this committee is anxious for the Nation to seize opportunities for immediate benefits. Senator Abourezk, for one, emphasized his interest in space applications, and you, yourself, stated that the NASA management has shifted our emphasis to space activities focused on direct, practical, down-to-earth benefits. Obviously, we want our space effort to support both types of objectives-technology development for future building blocks and application efforts to yield specific near-term benefits. It is a question of emphasis and balance.

In connection with the excellent statement you have just given us on the long-term goals and objectives of the space program, I think it would be helpful to the committee if we could have your views on the proper balance and, for the record, a breakdown of what balance is being struck in your fiscal 1974 year budget between, one, programs and activities whose planned end result is better tools, and techniques to be applied to some future need at some future date; two, programs and activities whose planned end result is to contribute practical benefits to meet a specific need in the near term; and three, programs and activities that will support both R. & D. technology development and practical applications.

As this committee proceeds with its deliberation this year and in future years, we should be able to deal not only with the separate projects and activities in the NASA program, but also to consider them in such a way that the overall emphasis and direction of the program is clear to us and, when necessary, adjusted to meet the committee's judgments. Although each project warrants our attention, we do not want to lose the forest in the trees.

Would you please describe NASA's current policy for balancing its program between technology development kinds of work, applications to yield near-term practical benefits, and efforts to provide operating support?

Further, will you describe how this policy, whatever it may be, enters into the formulation of the budgets that this committee must deal with?

I would like to have your comment now if you have one, but I would like you to submit these answers in writing.

Dr. FLETCHER. Well, that is a very comprehensive question, and it requires a rather comprehensive answer, so I would prefer to supply that for the record. It is a very important aspect of what NASA does, and these judgements have to be made every year, future versus now. We would be glad to supply that for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, I would appreciate it. I believe that the responsibility and function of this committee is to observe and weigh these considerations in determining what we do, and it would be very helpful to us to have this in the record from you, Dr. Fletcher. [The information requested appears on p.-]

The CHAIRMAN. We are very appreciative of the presentation this morning. It fulfilled our hopes and desires of getting this sort of

information before us, and, like Senator Goldwater, I would hope that this kind of presentation can be repeated in schools and service clubs and elsewhere, because I think it is important to give the general public and reawaken in their minds a conception of what the space program means overall.

Thank you very much. We will now stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.

[Whereupon, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 7, 1973.]