They were commenting, I believe, on the entire space program. In aeronautics we had been doing a fairly good job in keeping our technology high because most of the technology in aeronautics you'll find on all military planes in this nation and most commercial planes in this nation and abroad, too.

But in space, we noticed that we were falling behind in terms of developing that technology, and we began to address that problem in the fiscal 1988 budget with the CSTI, as we call it, the Civil Space Technology Initiative, and began to address the main ingredients of technology. That will be a continuing program. It has a significant amount of dollars in the fiscal 1989 budget.

In addition to that, though, the purpose of the Pathfinder program that is now started for the first time this year, fiscal 1989, begins to address some of the technologies that are needed for the out years, the advanced Space Station. Some of it is required for just doing things on the Space Station that are important to moving human presence, and so forth. So, the Pathfinder and CSTI are starts in the direction. They're not going to solve the problem, but over the years we'll begin to address that problem.

Mr. LUJAN. Just a follow-up, and I don't want to take a lot of time. Probably my time is up.

But if in fact the 3 percent is correct, do you see it moving up and do you have a percentage figure or anything like that on what the budget is now?

Dr. FLETCHER. I think we can get that for the record, but we'd have to add to the CSTI and Pathfinder the technology that's going on in various other programs. But we could get that for you, Mr. Lujan.

[Material provided by NASA as requested by Mr. Lujan follows:] NASA supports the basic recommendations of the NRC report concerning the need for increased funding for Space Research and Technology and has requested substantial increases (almost doubling between FY 1987 and the current budget year) to the Space Research and Technology funding levels with the Civil Space Technology Initiative in 1988 and the Pathfinder in 1989. Also in a broader context, there have been substantial increases in related space technology basic research activities such as the transatmospheric technology activities, a significant proportion of which are space related, and Research and Program Management funding for civil service personnel involved in space technology research activities. The major thrust of the NRC report was on space technology activities which is the focus of a concerted effort on the part of NASA to stimulate increased research that will ensure the advancement of enabling technologies for future missions.

The 3-percent figure they arrived at was derived somehow and we probably have the data on which that was based, somewhere. Mr. LUJAN. Thank you, Dr. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. NELSON. Mr. Lujan, you've made some excellent points. I'd like to just follow up briefly.

Dr. Fletcher, you are coming to us in this budget and asking for no funding for the ACTS program. Is that correct?

Dr. FLETCHER. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. NELSON. You're asking for no funding in spite of the President's articulated policy that says that there should be research and development in the communication area?

Dr. FLETCHER. I don't remember the exact statement of the policy, but, as you know, the ACTS program has always been the concern of the OMB particularly and the White House and they

have felt that the communications industry ought to fund that program because it is designed to help the communications industry. I think it's a very good program and it does fit the President's policy. But this particular one, the folks at OMB felt, as a policy decision, that it was improper to fund something that the industry could fund.

Mr. NELSON. Well, I think it underscores the fact of another part of OMB proposing for the White House an unrealistic budget. The Congress has authorized and appropriated and the President has signed into law appropriations totaling over $300 million for the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite System over the course of the last 4 years.

And the Federal Government, having spent over $300 million in promising technology-it does not seem to be a good stewardship of what has been spent, then to suddenly terminate the program. And yet, a budget that is submitted omitting what otherwise will have to be spent, about $73 million in this particular year, it underscores, again, the rather unrealistic approach.

And I understand the difficulty that you're in, Dr. Fletcher.

Let me also amplify what Mr. Lujan said on the funding for advanced research. I have here the NRC report, entitled Space Technology to Meet Future Needs. In the NRC report, on page 129, they're saying at minimum in this year there ought to be a spending of $530 million for research and technology. They said, actually what ought to be spent for our future research needs in this particular year ought to be $970 million. And in the budget that is proposed, the proposal is only $390 million.

Could you comment to us on that, Dr. Fletcher?

Dr. FLETCHER. Well, I'm going to ask Mr. Campbell to comment on the exact figures, but-

Mr. NELSON. Well, the figures are basically right. What I need is the policy.

Dr. FLETCHER. The perception that you indicate is pretty much on track and I think in a tight budget year we had to cut where we could and the result is what you see.

Now, Tommy, are those figures-they're pretty accurate, are they not?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, we would-it's a matter of categorization, I think. We categorize basic research as probably being in the neighborhood of $1.4 billion in this budget, including the research done in R&PM by the civil servants at the Centers and grouping aeronautics research in with the space research.

Mr. NELSON. Well, I wish that were shared by everybody, including these folks.

Dr. FLETCHER. Could we supply the details that Mr. Campbell just mentioned for the record, Mr. Chairman, because sometimes there are accounting differences and we may account for things slightly different than the way it was done in the National Research Council Report.

NASA also has substantial funding in science activities (about $800 million out of the $1.8 billion budget total in the FY 1989 OSSA budget request) that supports basic research in Astronomy, Life Science, Planetary and Applications areas that were not included in the NRC review.

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to note that we do have civil service people in our various laboratories doing research work and they often don't get counted in these summaries. I think that clarification might be in order.

Mr. CAMPBELL. We'll give an inventory of the value that we have.

Mr. NELSON. Well, I understand that.

I think the point that Mr. Lujan was making, and I would draw an analogy to my life as a child growing up on a farm. A farmer always sets aside some of his corn as seed corn so that he can plant it to produce future crops. And at the point at which the farmer and his family start consuming the seed corn is to start setting the destruction of his agricultural program for the future because he is consuming his very existence in the future.

And I think that is the policy question that we need to discuss and address here with the nation's future space program. The research and the development, the technology, the research and technology is our seed corn which we must plant for the future of this space program for the next 25 years.

And instead of us consuming that by taking these dollars and allocating them elsewhere, is a major policy question that needs to be addressed, and as you say, it's very difficult in tight times.

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on that. I know you didn't ask for a comment, but

Mr. NELSON. I wish you would.

Dr. FLETCHER. I've never been▬▬

Mr. NELSON. Your comments-that's what this whole hearing is about, for your comments.

Dr. FLETCHER. I'm not familiar with the agriculture business, but I am familiar with the way high technology business is done, and the analogy fits.

We really should not destroy our seed corn in times of stress because that is the future, not just of NASA, but of this country. We're talking about technology that has an impact throughout the whole economy, not just space, not just aeronautics, but the whole

economy.

And this increase in NASA is accompanied by an increase in the science program and the technology program across the board. The National Science Foundation has been getting an increase.

So, now is not the time to short-change our future by cutting back on this technology that we're developing, particularly on the space technology that you're referring to. Now, we are moving up a little bit on the advanced technology and that's what you're really referring to, but the whole space program is technology being developed, not only for space, but for the whole economy.

We've made a lot of studies on that and the economy does indeed benefit by something like a factor of five for every dollar invested in the space program. Another estimate was $7. I'll take the lower estimate. That's still an enormous return on investment.

This is not the time to cut your seed corn. I like the analogy even though that's not my background. The analogy is a good one.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Packard.

Mr. PACKARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Have you, Dr. Fletcher, developed a priority budget where if, in fact, you don't get the 26-percent increase that the President is recommending but even as low as the level funding of last year or 10-, or 12-, 15-percent increase, have you determined what would have to go out of your proposed-or out of the President's proposed budget?

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Packard, we really haven't done that, but a 10 or 15 percent increase over last year would set the space program back for a large number of years. We took a quick look at it and threw up our hands and said, look, that would be a disaster worse than the Challenger in terms of the long-range impact on the space program.

So, we didn't look at levels that low, and we will, I guess, if we have to, but it will be devastating. That's about all I can say at this point.

Mr. PACKARD. We won't pursue that further.

In your budget, I see no funding for ELV's. What is your policy on the long-term with the ELV's and are we now back to concentrating our full efforts on the Shuttle?

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Packard, we have a plan which I think this Committee is aware of, of purchasing services for ELV's. When you purchase commercial services you have to begin to make the money available in the early years, and we are right on that plan. I think the money for fiscal 1989 in that plan is of the order of $220 million, thereabouts, which is significantly higher than last year. Well, it's of the order of $200 million. And that is the plan that we presented to this Committee, and we're on that plan.

Mr. PACKARD. And when will we see, then, ELV's become an important-play an important role in our payload launch?

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Packard, actually, we are launching ELV's now. The ELV's that were left over, shall we say, from our ownership are being used primarily for SDI launches and things of that sort.

The first civil launch of an ELV, I believe, is the COBE, is it not, and that will be launched in 1989. You already provided money in the fiscal 1988 budget to do that, and then we'll continue on down that path, the EUVE, for example. I've forgotten the date that that's to be launched.

Mr. PACKARD. 1991.

Dr. FLETCHER. 1991. And, we're on a path of using ELV's primarily, the smaller ones, the Delta class, but not exclusively, for primarily scientific missions, and we're on that track. We'll be launching regularly starting in 1989.

Mr. PACKARD. In your statement, you indicated efforts to move more and more toward privatization and yet in your budget I see where you-one of your new starts is government-owned facilities for the advanced rocket motor.

What is the rationale there, what are your plans there, and would it be cheaper or what is the cost benefit ratio relative to that, government-owned facilities versus private-owned facilities?

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Packard, that's a pretty fundamental question that we're addressing right now. On the one hand, if they're privately developed facilities you do, in some ways, allow the contrac

tor to make the decision on what's the most cost effective and so forth.

On the other hand, if you have government-owned facilities, you can get more competition into the picture because if the government owns it and the contractor is not doing well, you can change contractors at some point in time. Much easier than if the facilities are owned by the contractors.

In addition to that, you have better quality control of the facility because these are modernized facilities. Now, of course, if the contractor builds a facility to your specifications then you get the same quality in principle.

And so, we haven't made that decision, but those are a quick cut at the pros and cons.

Do you want to comment further, Dick, on that, the pros and cons of government-owned?

Admiral TRULY. No, sir. I think you

Dr. FLETCHER. But we'll make that decision shortly.

It's a difficult decision and we're not going to make it lightly. Mr. PACKARD. Cost-wise, have you done any calculations as to whether it would be less expensive to have the private sector put up the facilities and the government, of course, would have to pay for some of the cost in doing so and up-grade their facilities to the level of what the government would build their own?

There has got to be some facilities already existing and up-grading must have some savings over building new facilities.

Dr. FLETCHER. I think that we are pretty well committed to building new facilities. Now, those new facilities could be on company property, as opposed to some other place. This solid rocket motor is not an easy thing to build, and for quality control reasons, we do think a new facility is required one place or another.

With regard to the first part of your question, cost is a major consideration in our deliberations. That will be dealt with as we come to the decision process.

Mr. PACKARD. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. Walker.

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me go over some figures that we have here from OMB with regard to the spend-out rates that begin this year with the $11.56 billion that they've talked about.

As I understand it, their plans show us increasing the NASA budget out through 1993 to the point that in 1993 dollars we would be at $14.96 billion, about a $15 billion level. Is that your understanding of

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Walker, that's approximately correct, but, of course, that has built into it the required 5 percent per year inflation increase. If you look at it in constant dollars, it doesn't go up much from the 11.5.

Mr. WALKER. Yes, that's right. In constant dollars, as I understand it, we would be at about $12.7 billion dollars by fiscal year 1993. Is that

Dr. FLETCHER. No, I think $11.7 is what our figures show, Mr. Walker, but we can straighten that our for the record.

[Material provided by NASA as requested by Mr. Walker follows:]