Most NASA models are displayed at the various Centers, where several million visitors see them each year. In addition, some 468 of the 819 models costing $212.000, are shown in all fifty states as part of the 10,000 mobile space science demonstrations conducted each year for schools and general audiences.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. That is a very good line of questioning, Senator. You developed a lot of information for our record. Senator Weicker, do you have any questions?

Senator WEICKER. Just a very few, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Fletcher, last year I asked for a program plan in solar energy and as I recall, you submitted a funding chart for the record and responded that a plan was being developed and would be submitted.

Dr. FLETCHER. We gave you a preliminary plan, as I recall, and since then we have developed a plan which I do not think we have sent, which we would do if we had the funding for it. I should add that a decision was made in the White House that the funding for solar energy would be primarily the responsibility of the National Science Foundation and money of that order-I do not know whether it is precisely the same of that order has been included in their budget.

Senator WEICKER. $12.2 million in the National Science Foundation budget.

Dr. FLETCHER. Right.

Senator WEICKER. Does this not indicate to you maybe, that NASA is not as aggressive in the applications area as it has been in the Shuttle program?

Dr. FLETCHER. No, I do not think it indicates that. In fact, I think we are very aggressive in the applications area and particularly in the solar energy field. As you recall, last year we indicated that the responsibility for solar energy was shared between ourselves and the National Science Foundation and I do not think it was lack of aggression on our part that made the decision go to the NSF.

DISPOSING OF NUCLEAR WASTE IN SPACE

Senator WEICKER. Now, last year the question came up the question came up of disposing nuclear waste in space, whether this was possible and whether the Shuttle would be needed for such a mission. You answered that it was possible to dispose of nuclear waste in space and this was to be studied further in a joint AEC-NASA study. Has that study been completed and what are the results?

Dr. FETCHER. In the first place, a study has been completed. We still are serious. The AEC has been considering it. I do not know whether you have all of the studies but I will see that you do get them. I do not remember how many of these you have at the moment. We are very serious about that possibility and so is the AEC and it is considered a possible-a very important use of the Shuttle. [Material requested follows:]

The study on the feasibility of the disposal of nuclear waste in space, which the National Aeronautics and Space Administration performed upon request by the Atomic Energy Commission, is essentially completed. The final report, which is to be completed by the end of May 1973, is presently being prepared. The study addresses the problems of packaging nuclear waste for safe launch and the selection of disposal trajectories. It is concluded that the disposal of nuclear waste in space appears to be feasible from the technical and safety aspects and can be done at a nominal increase in electrical power costs to the con

sumers (.01 cents to .1 cents/kwh). However, the study addressed only the transportation aspects of disposal. As only a relatively small part of the nuclear wastes, such as the isotopes with long half lives, would be disposed in space, the cost of separating those istopes from the nuclear waste as it is stored today would have to be added to the transportation costs.

Battelle North West Laboratories is working this problem for the AEC. The total cost of space disposal, together with a comparison of the method with various on Earth storage/disposal methods will be reported by Battelle in their final report in fall 1973.

Copies of these reports will be furnished to you as soon as they become available.

Senator WEICKER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I do not want to indicate either approval or disapproval of this overall budget summary that I see before me. We tear this down step by step, do we not. in subsequent hearings?

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.

Senator WEICKER. So there will be an opportunity to come back to these individual items set forth in the budget.

The CHAIRMAN. Correct. We are going to have individual witnesses on individual programs, and we, of course, will have the Administrator and his team back whenever we have accumulated questions that we want to again pose to him. In other words, we do not have to get it all in today. We will get it bit by bit until we have exhausted as much as we can of the subject.

NASA'S SUCCESS DUE TO EARLY DECISIONS

Senator WEICKER. Fine. Then I only have just a very brief comment to end on, and if Dr. Fletcher cares to respond, he can. In your testimony, you state that the year 1972 was one marked by significant developments for NASA. I am afraid the implication that might be given here is that this was due to the work that we all, both in the Senate and the House and NASA, did last year, but I think you would be delighted to state for the record, would you not, the reason why 1972 was marked by significant developments, and again where you say below, why 1972 was one of the most successful in NASA's history. This was really all established back in the sixties, was it not? Dr. FLETCHER. I would not say all, but certainly substantially. Senator WEICKER. That is when the commitments were made. Dr. FLETCHER. Yes.

Senator WEICKER. So, this is really the culmination of initial investments made 10 years ago. Would that be fair to say?

Dr. FLETCHER. I think I would

Senator WEICKER. We finally reached that degree of perfection on commitments and beginnings that are 10 years old.

Dr. FLETCHER (continuing). I would like to differentiate betweeen two things, the kind of programs that we completed in 1972 and the way they were carried out. The way they were carried out depended very critically on the organization and the team that we have in being in 1972, and that is a credit to that organization. The decisions that were made leading to these events, of course, were made 10 years earlier.

Senator WEICKER. I do not want to appear in any manner, shape, or form to be downgrading individuals who participated in the events of

1972. I just think it is very important for the public to understand how long it takes to reach that degree of success. It is not something that we or you are going to be able to cook up here today and have something to show for it tomorrow.

Point No. 2. I realize that you are in a rough time here and you are defending this budget and you want to keep NASA alive, but do not fall into the pit of accepting less informed judgments as to what is worth while.

For instance, you and I both know that whereas it is absolutely essential that we do direct and focus on practical, down-to-earth benefits, and if that is what we are going to focus on, then really, that is not what we are going to end up with. These benefits come because we shoot considerably higher. If the whole NASA program concentrates on how to build a better eggbeater for this year, you have lost the opportunity to attain the real benefits of space exploration.

MANNED SPACE FLIGHTS NECESSARY

And then lastly, the emphasis on unmanned spacecraft, I know that there are people in the United States that like to deal with the whole thing in an unmanned fashion. It is cheaper. They say the Soviets are better than we are. I do not feel that way. Maybe you have to restructure vour dollar figures. Maybe you have to do that on direction from others. But for heaven's sake, do not go ahead and manipulate the principles, the ideals that guided the organization, and led to these achievements. Do not do that. You do not have to do that for anybody, and that could be far more damaging than any diminution of the budget for this particular year, Dr. Fletcher. And I would like to have your

comments.

Dr. FLETCHER. Well, I think you are absolutely right, Senator Weicker. We try to keep a balanced program, but we change the balance somewhat as priorities shift. I think we have a pretty good balance of exploration, applications, aeronautics; and the manned space program is oriented toward doing down-to-earth functions. But we have never given up the idea of using these same vehicles, these same technologies, for doing whatever the country wants to, and that includes quite a bit. In fact, next week I hope to be able to talk a little bit about some of the things you might expect to come out of the program in the next 10 or 15 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Weicker, for those comments to which I subscribe. We are going to want to hear from General Stafford and Captain Conrad, and they will not be able to come back for future questioning.

Senator Abourezk has not had his opportunity for questions yet. Could you wait until we have heard the astronauts and then reserve any questions you have for the Administrator until that has been done? Senator ABOUREZK. I want to cooperate. How long will it take them to testify?

The CHAIRMAN. I was hoping to put them on at 11:30, which leaves only 5 minutes. They will not be able to return, because of other commitments, so we either hear them today or lose their testimony.

Senator ABOUREZK. I have a particular problem in that the town of Wounded Knee, S. Dak., has been captured by the Indian people out

there. I may have to go out there this afternoon. That is my particular problem. I do not mind at all those people coming in before I ask my questions, but I would hope I get a chance before I leave.

The CHAIRMAN. On the 6th of March, which is our next hearing, we are asking Dr. Fletcher to come up then, and we will specifically reserve to you the questions you want to ask him at that point. Would that be all right?

Senator ABOUREZK. I have another problem because I am chairman of the Indian Affairs Subcommittee. We are having hearings in Arizona that day.

The CHAIRMAN. I regret it. I thought we were going to work the time out just about right, but it has taken a little longer than I expected. Let us see how long it takes. Maybe we can still get them in before we break up the meeting today.

Senator ABOUREZK. Go ahead with the astronauts.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Fletcher. We will ask General Stafford of the Air Force, commander of the crew of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project; and Captain Conrad of the U.S. Navy, commander of the first Skylab mission, to come to the witness table; and each of these gentlemen will brief us on a particular project: General Stafford on Apollo-Soyuz, and Captain Conrad on the first Skylab mission.

General Stafford, in what order do you wish to proceed?
Dr. FLETCHER. I think Pete Conrad expects to go first.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.

THE SKYLAB AND ITS PURPOSE

Captain CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, Senators, good morning. My best understanding of what you would like to hear is a quick rundown basically of Skylab and then perhaps as it concerns us in the day-today operations.

I have here a chart (fig. 1) that roughly runs through the three missions. I think it is not clear to a lot of people that on the 14th of May when we hope to launch this Skylab workshop, that it goes up unmanned, on a Saturn V, and that it is completely supplied with food, oxygen, nitrogen, clothes; that the three crews that will visit over the next 8 months, will need to support themselves.

We will be launched on a Saturn IB 2311⁄2 hours later and rendezvous with Skylab. Our flight-the first one-is 28 days in duration, which has been picked as double the amount of time that we have flown in space. It is the amount of time the doctors will initially let us fly for that duration.

Assuming that our medical data is satisfactory, the next crews each will be okayed to fly for 56 days. Roughly, it takes 8 months. We as the first Skylab crew, are on board 28 days. We leave the Skylab and, by means of the command module, return to Earth. The Skylab is then powered down for approximately 60 days while they look at our medical data, our solar film, et cetera, from the experiments, in order to study what we have experienced and brought back.

Secondly, obviously each flight should be better and more efficient than the last. We are certainly going to learn things up there that we have not anticipated and need to be incorporated.

The second Skylab flight will go for 56 days. That crew will return, and there will be about a 40-day period in between recovery and the launch of the third Skylab mission, which again will go for 56 days. Now, the purpose of Skylab is to serve as a space station in near Earth orbit. We use existing hardware rather than starting from scratch and building a brandnew space station. Skylab, this model [indicating], is in fact the third stage of a Saturn V and is the propellant tanks which we have made into a lab. On top of that, we have an airlock which allows us to go outside in extra-vehicular activ ity in our space suits to tend to the necessary activities that have to be performed on the solar telescope.

On top of that is our docking module which helps our earth resources experiments and also the power distribution and the operation of the environmental control system for the whole lab. It has two docking ports. You see it comes to the forward docking port. There is a docking port that is available. This vehicle with the command module in orbit weighs out at roughly 200,000 pounds. We have a very large amount of cubic footage available to use. It is laid out in this manner: Starting from the bottom, our living quarters and medical experiments area and wardroom; the next upper deck is a large experiment area, which contains a great deal of the stowage equipment, two scientific airlocks, one on either side of the vehicle so that we can extend scientific experiments out into the vacuum of space and operate them, then withdraw them. Our solar telescopes run in a vacuum so that there is no interference between the lenses. The whole solar telescope is actually composed of six instruments, four of which could not gather data unless they are in space because of filtering in the