Mr. NELSON. Mr. Perkins.

Mr. PERKINS. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. NELSON. OK. We still have not heard from Dr. Ballhaus, and so you will have ample opportunity.

Mr. Walker.

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to pursue for a moment the line of questioning that Mr. Brown was talking about a few minutes ago with regard to the relative priority between the SP-100 program, and then look at the priority provided for the solar dynamics function.

If I understood you correctly, the reason why we feel it necessary to upgrade the amount of NASA funding for SP-100 is because we see a utilization of that technology as a part of our solar exploration program; is that right?

Dr. BALLHAUS. That's correct.

Mr. WALKER. And when would we get the benefit of that in the NASA programs, what timeframe?

Dr. BALLHAUS. With an engineering demonstration in 1992, that would give us information that could be useful in helping to baseline some of the designs for the exploration mission.

Mr. WALKER. But when would we be flying vehicles that would make use of the actual technology?

Dr. BALLHAUS. In an operational sense?

Mr. WALKER. In an operational sense.

Dr. BALLHAUS. Sometime after the end of the century, shortly after the end of the century.

Mr. WALKER. So we're talking at least a decade, perhaps more, before we see actual utilization of the funding that we're putting into that program right now.

Dr. BALLHAUS. In terms of space qualifying it and baselining it into an operational system and actually going through the development, that's correct.

Mr. WALKER. Would SDI be making use of it before then?

Dr. BALLHAUS. I can't answer that question, Congressman. I'm not an expert on SDI.

Mr. WALKER. I understand. But I mean, the concern, I think, that some of us have is that the upgrade of funding is being done, so that SDI will have earlier access to the program, whereas our need for the program does seem to be further down the pike. And I compare that with what we are doing in solar dynamics, where we have relatively modest increases in funding. As a matter of fact, after fiscal year 1989, it's $6.2 million. Fiscal year 1990 calls for a $5.8 million function.

That particular technology is something that many of us believe might be able to be used on the Space Station in the mid-1990's, and yet we seem to be deemphasizing that as an energy source for space usage at the same time that we're emphasizing SP-100, that would appear to have relatively limited NASA usage for at least 12, 15 years.

Where am I wrong in that analysis?

Dr. BALLHAUS. Well, I'm not sure you're wrong, Congressman. I think solar dynamics certainly is an important technology, and we're working that. We see that as a follow-on to be incorporated

in an evolutionary Space Station. Certainly, it would be an important power source.

We also see the nuclear power source as essential for the things we want to do in the future. Frankly, we don't see any other way to get it at this point than to participate in this program. The technologies that have to be put in place are expensive, and they take a long time to develop.

If, for example, the NASA funding were not appropriated and the program had to be terminated, then at some point in the future, we would have to initiate the program and bear a substantial fraction of the cost ourselves.

Mr. WALKER. And that priority is so intensely felt that it should absorb one-third of all the Pathfinder monies for this fiscal year? Dr. BALLHAUS. Well, that's a judgment call, Congressman, and I've only been in town 3 weeks. I've come up to speed as quickly as I can, but I haven't had a chance to thoroughly investigate that. Mr. WALKER. I guess I just end up with a question. I mean, when I look at the relative priorities of energy sources, and then I look at the emphasis that Pathfinder has for defining the future of our space program, and then I look-and I happen to think SP-100 is an important concept, too; I've been supportive of it-but when I see that one-third of all the monies that we're going to spend for Pathfinder in this new fiscal year are going to go into that one project, I have to wonder whether or not that kind of prioritization is, in fact, in keeping with what we are attempting to achieve.

Dr. BALLHAUS. Sir, SP-100 is an ongoing program, and so we have to make a decision as to what our participation level is going to be.

My concern is, if we scale back our participation, say, for example, to 10 percent of the Pathfinder funding, that the program would be in danger of termination.

Mr. VOLKMER. Would the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. WALKER. Sure, I'd be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. VOLKMER. If you scale it back to $20 million instead of $30 million, you still have $60 million from DOE, and right now $10 million from DOD. You mean you'd have to quit it?

Dr. BALLHAUS. I really can't answer that question, Congressman. I'd have to look at the work breakdown structure and see what the hard points are in the program. I know that there are fuels that have to be purchased, and there's a certain length of time that the test has to be run, which has already been cut down. It's been cut in half.

I don't know what the cutoff point is at which it would make no sense to continue the program.

Perhaps Dr. Rosen would care to offer a comment.

Dr. ROSEN. Congressman, this program has been cut back several times, and in fact we are getting very close to the point where it doesn't make sense to continue the program that we currently envision. Now whether that's $20 million or $25 million, we're a little bit soft on. But we are very, very close to the point where the program, as we know it now, would just have to be terminated, and if we were to continue a nuclear program, it would take a different form.

I'd also like to add one other thing to what Dr. Ballhaus said in response to your question. The reason it will take until the beginning of the next century to utilize this source is not because we couldn't have an application for it. It's because it will take that long for the technology to be ready. The driver here is not the application. It's how long it will take to get a nuclear source prepared.

So it isn't that we're putting our large investment into something we don't need until way out. It's that we're putting our large investment into something that we'd better do now, because it's going to take that long.

Mr. WALKER. OK. I guess I understand that, except that there are a lot of things that we need to do in order to make Pathfinder successful, and Pathfinder becomes the nucleus of the entire program that this nation is going to pursue in space.

And what you seem to be telling me is that we're going to devote one-third of everything we put into Pathfinder this year for this program that gets us something that, you know, we define as being a need in the year 2000, but meantime, I guess, from my perspective, what are we losing? Are we losing, for instance, the resources necessary for solar dynamics?

For 5 or 6 years, ÑASA has told us that it's absolutely essential to have solar dynamics in order to bring down life cycle costs of the Space Station. Now all of a sudden that is relegated to the backseat while we push one-third of all the funding for Pathfinder into a program that has a payoff sometime at the turn of the century.

What I'm questioning is the way that that kind of prioritization is being presented to this committee for our decision process, and it doesn't strike me as being too cohesive.

Dr. ROSEN. The reason that we have to put the $30 million into SP-100 is because it's an ongoing program. We are starting up a lot-

Mr. WALKER. So is solar dynamics, though. Solar dynamics is an ongoing program.

Dr. ROSEN. And solar dynamics is being funded at about the rate we had funded it in the past. Now we plan in 1989 to increase the amount of money we have in solar dynamics in the CSTI area. So it's funded out of a different area, but, in fact, the funding in solar dynamics will increase in 1989 as a result of-

Mr. WALKER. And in 1990?

Dr. ROSEN. And in 1990. And let me point out also that we envision the funding level in the SP-100 level to remain constant at the $30 million. So while Pathfinder grows in the future, as we expect it to grow, the relative percentage will be shrinking. But we feel we need to put the original investment in now because it's an ongoing program.

Mr. WALKER. Well, the committee has been very generous of the time. But I would just say to you, Pathfinder is going to either be made or broken this year. Pathfinder, as a concept, is a concept of this administration, and next year you're going to have a new administration and so on. Either we define Pathfinder properly, so that everybody understands what it's doing this year, or we don't. And we're left floundering until a new administration comes up with its concept of what a space program should look like.

I would suggest that with one-third of the money going for this one project in a program that will be made or broken this year, and where there are questions on this committee as to whether or not that's an appropriate priority, we may, in fact, have a problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. NELSON. Dr. Ballhaus, why don't you proceed with your statement, and then we can finish up our questions to both of you.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM F. BALLHAUS, JR., ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ROBERT ROSEN, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY; FRED POVINELLI, DIRECTOR FOR SPACE; AND EDMUND SANCHEZ, DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT

Dr. BALLHAUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor for me to be here today to present to you and to the subcommittee what I think is a truly exciting space research and technology program. Before I begin, I'd like to introduce several people here and start with myself. I come from the Ames Research Center, and I'm here temporarily to help out. I expect to return as Director of the Ames Research Center. My term is made possible by Ray Colladay moving over to DARPA temporarily.

On my right is Dr. Bob Rosen. He's the Deputy Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Technology. During the last year, Fred Povinelli was appointed the Director for Space and Mr. Edmund Sanchez has been appointed the Director for Resources and Management.

You know key people are the key in any organization. They are what makes an organization productive, and I'm very happy to have these people here for OAST today.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit written testimony for the record and then summarize verbally.

As you know, this is the year this Nation has an opportunity to set a new course in space, one that will assure U.S. leadership as we move into the 21st century. That course for space leadership is embodied in the U.S. space policy and in the President's strong commitment to that policy as exemplified in his fiscal year 1989 budget submission to this Congress.

This is the year we will return the Space Shuttle to safe operation. My office and the research centers for which I have institutional responsibility have diligently supported this recovery. They have been using their expertise derived from previous investments in the space technology program.

This is a crucial year also for moving ahead with Space Station. Space Station is the stepping stone to extending human presence and activity into the solar system, and it is also the key to exploiting this Nation's opportunities in low Earth orbit. The space technology program has provided key technologies for Space Station, and it will continue to provide technologies to enhance the Space Station's productivity and its utility.

This is the year a new space policy has established a long-range civil space goal and mandates the focused development of critical technologies that will allow the United States to act with confidence in choosing new directions in space.

In response, we are requesting a budget augmentation to initiate the Pathfinder program, which is the next step in the revitalization of the Nation's civil space technology base. This need for a revitalization has been consistently identified by a number of senior advisory groups and is echoed by a broad national consensus of experts. You led off this morning, Mr. Chairman, by listing some of those advisory groups, and I recall during Dr. Fletcher's testimony, you referred to this investment as "seed corn." And I'm one generation removed from the farm, but I certainly understand what seed corn is and the importance of making an investment in the future.

Space technology investments represent a significant revenue producing element of the budget, and I think that's often overlooked. If you look at the entire Federal budget, it's actually a very small part that is revenue producing. I think the aeronautics program and the space technology program are two of the principal wealth-producing parts of the Federal budget. The benefits accrue not just to the space program, but to many other sectors of the Nation's economy as well.

We spoke of this needed revitalization last year, and you responded favorably with your support for the Civil Space Technology Initiative, CSTI. CSTI addresses critical technology gaps in our ability to get from Earth to orbit and also operate in low Earth orbit, as well as in the support of science missions.

CSTI alone, however, cannot address the broad range of technologies required to prepare this Nation for missions that look outward to the Moon and beyond or inward to examine the planet Earth on a global scale.

Growing out of the recommendations of the National Commission on Space and Dr. Ride's report, the Pathfinder program was formulated to capitalize on innovative concepts and ideas and to translate them into proven, high-leverage technologies that will provide the needed capabilities to respond in an efficient, cost-effective manner to our future as a space-faring nation. I think that's an important point to emphasize, that the technologies that we're dealing with in Pathfinder you might refer to as the "long poles in the tent."

We've all observed projects that are schedule-driven, and very often in those projects, you get into technology problems where, for example, the technology was not on the shelf at the time you started that major development. Then, what happens is, in order to maintain the schedule, you incur significant costs and enormous overruns. This results from trying to get the technology in hand as you're also paying the marching army costs.

What we're trying to do in the Pathfinder program is find the long poles in the technology tent and work those cost effectively in advance before we start the marching army costs. I think it's a sensible way to proceed.

Pathfinder is not focused on any specific mission, but is organized around four major thrusts: exploration, operation, humans in space, and transfer vehicles.