This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized

by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the

information in books and make it universally accessible.

https://books.google.com
YU . Ae8 : 22 1032 - A
1041
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SURVEY AND
APPLICATIONS ACT

B 551086 DUPL 03

AND IT
Seet JOI
JO IN
NTT HEARINGS
ODOTATO
BEFORE THE
ESTOS 20D

COMMITTEE ON USTAVO

AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES

AND THE

I COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY- THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
Бат- леген,оиск
ON WAY
CHAWO
S. 2495 JOBS
TO AMEND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT viste
ART
OF 1958 TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL AG
EXPERTISE OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION TO THE SOLUTION OF DOMESTIC PROB
LEMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MARCH 11 AND 21, 1974

The University
of Michigan
Reference
Branite
B.Seoses
ertan instala FEB 12 1975

od Printed for the use of the

Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

32-205 O WASHINGTON : 1974

For sale by the Superint endentof Documents, U.S. Governm entPrintingOffice

D S TE D r THE ICA
ES
UNITDEEPO
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $ 1.40
STIAT OF AMER
YU .
TE

AT

T
CС
E

32–20
 103 ) A *
ҮЧ , Aef:Тә 10 difu
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SURVEY AND
APPLICATIONS ACT

B 551086 DUPL

JOINT HEARINGS
BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES AND THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON

S. 2495
TO AMEND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT
OF 1958 TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL
EXPERTISE OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION TO THE SOLUTION OF DOMESTIC PROB
LEMS , AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MARCH 11 AND 21, 1974

The University
of Michigan
Reference

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

32-205 O WASHINGTON : 1974

ED OS ITTEESD ICA
Price UNITDEPPrinting
For sale by the Superintendent of ,Documents, -U.S.Government STA officer
OF THE
AMER
 COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES
FRANK E. MOSS , Utah , Chairman
WARREN G. MAGNUSON , Washington BARRY GOLDWATER , Arizona
STUART SYMINGTON , Missouri CARL T. CURTIS , Nebraska
JOHN C. STENNIS , Mississippi LOWELL P. WEICKER , JR. , Connecticut
HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada DEWEY F. BARTLETT , Oklahoma
JAMES ABOUREZK , South Dakota JESSE A. HELMS, North Carolina
FLOYD K. HASKELL , Colorado PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM , Ohio
ROBERT F. ALLNUTT, Staff Director
JAMES J. GEHRIG, Professional Staj Member
GILBERT W. KEYES , Professional Staff Member
H. GERALD STAUB , Professional Staff Member
CRAIG VOORHEES , Professional Staff Member
DR. GLEN P. WILSON , Professional Staf Member
RALPH E. VANDERVORT, Jr. , A88istant Chief Clerk
CHARLES F. LOMBARD, Minority Counsel

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, Chairman
JOHN O. PASTORE, Rhode Island NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire
VANCE HARTKE, Indiana JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
PHILIP A. HART, Michigan ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan
HOWARD W. CANNON , Nevada HOWARD H. BAKER, JR. , Tennessee
RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana MARLOW W. COOK , Kentucky
FRANK E. MOSS , Utah TED STEVENS , Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina J. GLENN BEALL, JR. , Maryland
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
JOHN V. TUNNEY, California
ADLAI E. STEVENSON III , Illinois
FREDERICK J. LORDAN , Staff Director
MICHAEL PERTSCHUK , Chief Counsel
BARRY I. HYMAN, Staff Engineer
ARTHUR PANKOPF, Jr. , Minority Staff Director
MALCOLM B. STERRETT, Minority Staff Counsel
( II )
 CONTENTS

Monday, March 11, 1974 : Page

Opening statement, Senator Frank E. Moss, chairman . 1
Working draft, S. 2495_ 2
S. 2495 15
Statement of Hon . Warren G. Magnuson , a U.S. Senator from the State
of Washington 25
Excerpts from a speech of Senator Frank E. Moss ( Democrat, Utah )
before the American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Janu
ary 30 , 1974 .. 26
Statement of Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Director, National Science Foun
dation , and Science Adviser to the President, accompanied by Dr.
Raymond L. Bisplinghoff, Deputy Director, National Science
Foundation 29
Statement of Dr. James C. Fletcher, Administrator, National Aero
nautics and Space Administration, accompanied by Edward Z. Gray,
Assistant Administrator for Industry Affairs and Technology Utili
zation 40
Excerpts from " Technology Utilization Program Report ”. 42
Statement of Dr. Philip Handler, President, National Academy of
Sciences 54
List of National Academy of Sciences members.-. 56
Statement of Dr. Robert N. Faiman, National Society of Professional
Engineers 66
Outline of statement on behalf of the National Society of Profes
sional Engineers by Robert N. Faiman, P.E- 68
Statement of Dr. Bernard S. Friedman , president, American Chemical
Society, accompanied by Dr. Alan C. Nixon, immediate past presi
dent, and Dr. Stephen T. Quigley, director, Department of Chemis
try & Public Affairs of the American Chemical Society --- 74
Prepared statement of Dr. Bernard S. Friedman, President, Ameri
can Chemical Society -- 81
Thursday, March 21, 1974 :
Opening remarks of Senator Frank E. Moss ... 87
Opening remarks of Senator John V. Tunney - 87
Statement of Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr. , president, National Academy
of Engineering, Washington, D.C--- 88
Statement of William D. Carey , vice president, Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
Washington, D.C ---- 102
Statement of George Sprugel, Jr. , chief, Illinois State National History
Survey, and president, American Institute of Biological sciences--- 112
Statements submitted for the record :
Dr. George Sprugel, Jr. 113
American Institute of Biological Sciences. 115
Statement of Arthur F. Hartford, chairman, Engineering Manpower
Commission 119
Appendix : Correspondence received from professional ieti educators,
industry , and others on S. 2495. 125
( III)
HEARING ON TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SURVEY AND
APPLICATIONS ACT

MONDAY, MARCH 11 , 1974

U.S. SENATE ,
COMMITTEE AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCE
AND COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE ,
Washington, D.O.
The Joint Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in room
235, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Frank E. Moss (chair
man ) presiding.
Present : Senators Moss, Magnuson ( chairman, Commerce Commit
tee ) , and Domenici.
Also present : Robert F. Allnutt, staff director ; James J. Gehrig,
Glen P. Wilson, Craig Voorhees, Jerry Staub, and Gil Keyes, profes
sional staff members; Mary Rita Robbins, clerical assistant ; Charles
Lombard,
assistant
minority counsel; and Anne Kalland, minority clerical
.

OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN . The hearing will come to order.
This is a joint hearing this morning with the Committee on Aero
nautical and Space Sciences and the Commerce Committee. Senator
Magnuson, chairman of the Commerce Committee, and also a member
of this committee, will be here, but he has been delayed briefly and
we will start the hearing .
I welcome the opportunity to open these hearings on S. 2495, the
TechnologyResources Survey and Application Act.
[ The working draft and billS. 2495 follows :]
(1)
 2

[ WORKING DRAFT ]
JANUARY 18, 1974

93D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S. 2495

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1973
Mr. MAGNUSON ( for himself, Mr. Moss, and Mr. TUNNEY ) introduced the fol
lowing bill; which was read twice and, by unanimous consent, referred
jointly
Commerce
to the Committees on Aeronautical and Space Sciences and

[ Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic)

A BILL
To amend the National Aeronauties and Space Act of 1958 to
apply the seientifie and technological expertise of the Nit
tional Aeronauties and Space Administration to the solution
of domestie problems, provide for the more effective utiliza
tion of the scientific and technological resources of the United
States in the solution of critical domestic problems, to amend
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, and for
other purposes .

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled ,
3 That this Act may be cited as the “ Science and Technology
4 Resources Survey and Applications Act of 1974 ”.
 3

1 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY

2 SEC . 2. (a ) The Congress hereby finds and declares

3 that

4 ( 1 ) The scientific and technological resources of the

5 United States can and should be used more effectively and
6 efficiently to solve critical domestic problems.
7 ( 2 ) Such scientific and technological resources, if prop

8 erly applied and directed, could effectively meet many major

9 public needs.
10 ( 3 ) It is the responsibility of the Federal Government
11 to insure the full and efficient use of such scientific and tech

12 nological resources.
13 (4 ) A more systematic approach to analyzing and plan
14 ning for the resolution of critical domestic problems is es
15 sential to achieving such full and efficient use of the Nation's
16 scientific and technological resources.

17 (5) A comprehensive long -range scientific and tech

18 nological resources survey is a prerequisite to the more ef
19 fective utilization of seientifie and teehnelegient resources in
20 the resolution of critical domestic problems.

21 (b ) Therefore, it is hereby declared by the Congress

22 to be the policy of the United States that the Federal Gov
23 ernment shall henceforth be responsible for Aplying the
24 foster the application of scientific and technological resources
 4

1 of the United States to in the resolution of critical domestic

2 problems, and to that end shall prepare and maintain a com

3 prehensive national scientific and technological survey.
4 SEC . 3. fat Seetion 102( 4 ) of the National Aeronauties
5 And Space Act of 1958 142 H.S.C. 24514 ) is hereby
6 Amended te rend as follows:

7 447 The Congress declares that the capability demon

8 strated by the aeronautieal and space activities of the United
9 States and the expertise developed by the National Aeronatt
10 ties and Space Administration in research and in the de

11 velopment of new and advanced teehnology to solve complex

12 problems shall be made available and be used in the resolit
13 Hien of eritient domestie problems of the United States te the
14 extent not inconsistent with sueh aeronautical and space he
15 #vity funetiens." .
16 that Section 102 Af suel Aet is further Amended by add
17 ing at the end thereof the following Her subsection :
18 tet. It is the purpose of this Aet te eniff ent and effee
19 mate the policies declared in subsections fat, fots fet, and
20 th of this seetion ." .
21 SEC . 4. The National Aeronauties and Space Aet of
22 1958 is Amended by adding at the end thereof the following
23 new title :
 5

1 " TITLE H TITLE I - NATIONAL SCIENCE AND

2 TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES PLANNING AND

3 COORDINATION

4 “ THE NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

5 COUNCIL

6 " SEC , 401 101. ft There is established in the Execu

7 tive Office of the President the National Science and Tech

8 nology Resources Council (hereafter in this title referred to

9 as the ‘Council' ) which shall be composed of the
10 " 417 Viee President;
11 " 427 Secretary of Commerce ;
12 " 437 Secretary of Health , Etreation, and Welfare ;
13 " 447 Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop
14 ment ;
15
" 57 Seeretary of Transportation ;
16 464 Administratop of the National Aeronautics
17 And Space Administratiott ;
18

477 Director of the National Science Foundation ;

19 487 Chairman of the Atonie Energy Commission ;
20 97 Chairman of the Council on Environmental
21
Quality;
22 " 4197 Administrator of the Environmental Protee
23 tion Agenev , and
24 " 4414 Secretary of the Interior
25 " At The Viee President shall be the Chairman of the
 6

1 Couneil. The President shall from time to time designate one

2 of the other members of the Council to serve as Acting Chair
3 mon during the absence, disability, or unavailability of the
4 Chairman

5 " fet Each member of the Council may duly designate

6 in writing # qualified officer of employee of his office, de
7 partment, or agency to serve as his representative on the
8 Council in his absence .

9 “ 41 Ench person designated under subsection fet of

10 this seetion as the representative of a member of the Council
11 shall be designated to serve as much by and with the advice
12 and consent of the Senate and shall appear before appio

13 priate committees of the Congress upon request relevant to

14 the setivities of the Council.

15 ( a ) The members of the Federal Council for Science and

16 Technology as established by Executive Order 10807 of
17 March 13, 1959, and amended by Executive Order 11381
18 of November 8, 1967 ;
19 (b) A representative designated by the National Gov
20 ernors Conference; a representative designated by the Na
21 tional Association of Counties ; and a representative jointly
22 designated by the National League of Cities and the United
23 States Conference of Mayors who shall be voting ex -officio
24 members of the Council.
 7

1 " FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL

2 " SEC. 402. tat It shall be the function of the Council
3. to prepare a technology resources survey in accordance with
4 section 403 of this title and to advise and assist the Presi

5 Hent with respeet to other technology resource matters.

6 47 SEC. 102. The Council shall

7 " +17 (a) develop and supervise # prepare an an

8 nual science and technology resources survey, in accord
9 ance with section 403 103 of this title ;
10 127 (6) develop a comprehensive program to
11 identify in advance scientific and technological resources,
12 including manpower, which are available for the res
13 olution of critical domestic problems but which are not
14 being fully utilized for such purposes ;
15 “ 437 review and evaluate the activities of Federal
16 departments and agencies engaged in programs which
17 are recommended by the technology resouree survey and
18

similar activities of State and local publie agencies;

19 " 447 (c) make recommendations to the President
20

who may assign any critical domestic problem which is

21 identified by the science and technology resource survey
22
to the Office of Technology Applications of the National
23 Aeronautics and Space Administration or any more ap
24 propriate Federal agency ;
 8

1 “ tot ( d ) review and evaluate the progress in solv

2 ing problems assigned by the Council President to the
3 Office of Technology Application of the National Aero
4 nautics and Space Administration and to other Federal
5 agencies ; and
6 " 467 (e) prepare and submit a report to the Con
7 gress at least once in each fiscal year on the activities of
8 the Council during the preceding fiscal year, and in
9 clude in such report any recommendations for legislative
10 action as it deems advisable .

11 “ SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SURVEY

12 “ Sec. 403 103. ( a ) The Council shall prepare and

13 transmit a Science and Technology Resources Survey to the
14 President and to the Congress at the earliest practicable date,
15 but in any event not later than September 1 , 1975 # teeh
16 nology resourees survey. Such survey shall identify the ex
17 isting and projected scientific engineering and technological
18 activities, capabilities, programs, and resources and the means
19 by which each might be applied and used to practical ad
20 vantage in the resolution of the Nation's critical domestic
21 problems. The survey shall include, but is not limited to,
22 making
23 “ ( 1) an inventory of the Nation's scientific and
24 technological resources and a 10 -year projection thereof ;
 9

1
“ ( 2) an inventory and projection of critical do
2 mestic problems which may be susceptible of resolution
3 by the application of science and technology ; and
4 “ ( 3) recommendations for programs which will
5 strengthen the economy and contribute to the resolu
6 tion of such critical domestic problems, and recommenda
7 tions for the assignment of such problems to an appro
8 priate Federal agency.
9 “ (b) Such technology resources survey Science and
10 Technology Resources Survey shall be reviewed and revised
11 annually by the Council. The survey Survey and each such
12 annual revision shall contain a full explanation of the deter
13 minations, and recommendations of the Council together with
14
reasons therefor. The survey Survey and each such annual
15 revision shall be printed and made available as a public doc
16
ument and published in the Federal Register.
17 “ ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
18
“ SEC. 404 104. ( a ) The Council is authorized to employ
19 a staff which shall be headed by an executive director. The
20 executive director with the approval of the Council is au
21 thorized to the extent necessary to
22
“ ( 1) appoint, assign the duties, and fix the compen
23
sation of personnel without regard to the provisions of
24 title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in
 10

9-

1 the competitive service, and without regard to the

2 provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter
3 53 of such title, relating to classification and General
4 Schedule pay rates, at rates not in excess of the maxi
5 mum rate for GS - 18 of the General Schedule under

6 section 5332 of such title ; and

7 “ (2 ) procure temporary and intermittent services
8 to the same extent as is authorized by section 3109 of
9 title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed
10 $ 100 a day for individuals.
11 ( b ) The Council shall, to the fullest extent possible,
12 use the services, facilities, and information, including statis
13 tical information, of other governmental agencies as well as
14 private research agencies. Each department, agency, and
15 instrumentality of the executive branch of the Government,
16 including any independent agency, is authorized and directed
17 to furnish the Council, upon request made by the executive
18 director with the approval of the Council, such information
19 as the Council deems necessary to carry out its functions
20 under this title.

21 " (c) The Council is authorized to establish advisory

22 committees and may shall consult with such representatives
23 of State and local governments and with such groups, orga
24 nizations, and individuals as it may deem advisable.
 11

10

1 " THE OFFIOR OF TECHNOLOGY APPLOATON

2 "TITLE 11 - THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY
3 APPLICATION

4 “ SEC . 405 201. ( a ) The Administrator of the National

5 Aeronautics and Space Administration shall establish within
6 the Administration an Office of Technology Application te
7 be composed of the Office of Applieations and the Office of
8 fechnology Utilization in the Administration , and other
9 suelt offices and agencies to the Administrator determines
10 have funetions which primarily relate te the duties assigned
11 by this section .
12 “ (b ) In order to carry out the purpose purposes of this
13 Act, the Administrator, through the Office of Technology
14 Application shall utilize the resources of the National Aero
15 nautics and Space Administration to the fullest extent con
16 sistent with its areas of scientific and technological competence
17 and shall

18 “ (1 ) upon request, furnish technical assistance to

19 the Council in the preparation of the science and tech
20

nology resources survey ;

21 “ ( 2 ) upon request, furnish technical assistance to
22
the Council in deciding what critical domestic problem
23
may be resolved by applying scientific and technologi
24 cal resources ;
 12

11

1 “ ( 3 ) upon direction of the Council President, ac

2 cept responsibility for specific domestic problems which
3 may be susceptible of resolution by the application of
4 scientific and technological resources ; and
5

“ ( 4 ) conduct research and development projects to

6 demonstrate the feasibility of potential solutions of critical
7 domestic problems; and
8 " 447 ( 5 ) utilize aerospace firms and other scientific
9 organizations in the private sector on a contract basis
10 to assist in developing seientifie strategies for the res
11 olution of developing and demonstrating capabilities for
12 resolving critical domestic problems to which it has been
13 assigned .
66
14 ' (c) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the Ad
15 ministrator shall, in carrying out its functions under this
16 title, have the same powers and authority it has under Hitle
17 II of His Act. ” . the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
18 1958." .

19 SEC. 202. ( a) Section 102 ( d ) of the National Aero

20 nautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451 (d) ) is
21 hereby amended to read as follows :
22 " ( d) The Congress declares that the capability demon
23 strated by the aeronautical and space activities of the United
24 States and the expertise developed by the National Aeronau
 13

12

1 tics and Space Administration in research and in the de

2 velopment of new and advanced technology to solve complex
3 problems in the conduct of aeronautical and space activities
4 shall in addition be made available and be used in the resolu
5 tion of critical domestic problems of the United States to the
6 extent not inconsistent with or in diminution of such aero
7 nautical and space activities."
8 (b) Section 102 of such Act is further amended by add
9 ing atthe end thereof the following new subsection :
10 “ ( e) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out and effec
11 tuate the policies declared in subsections (a) , (b) , (c) , and
12 (d) of this section ." .

13 SEC. 5 203. Section 5316 of title 5, United States Code,

14 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
15 paragraphs paragraph :
16 " 11327 ( 134 ) Executive Director, the National
17 Science and Technology Resources Council.
18 “ 41337 Assistant Administrator for He Office of
19 Technology Application, National Aeronauties and Space
20 Administration .” .

21 SEC. 6 204. (a ) There are hereby authorized to be ap

22 propriated to the National Science and Technology Resources
23 Council $ 10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30 ,
24 1974 , and the fiscal year ending June 30 , 1975,

32 -205 O - 74 - 2
 14

13

1 to carry out its functions under title w of the National

2 Aeronauties and Space Aet of 1958 this Act.

3
(b) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to
4 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration $ 200,
5 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, to carry
6 out its functions under title IV of the National Aere

7 Hauties and Space Aet of 1958 this Act. The provisions of

8 section 4 of the Act of June 15 , 1959 (73 Stat. 75, 42 U.S.C.
9 2460 ) , shall apply to authorizations of appropriations to the
10 Administration for carrying out such title IV for fiscal years
11 commencing July 1 , 1975 .
 15

93D CONGRESS
18r SESSION
S. 2495

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1973
Mr. MAGNUSON (for himself, Mr. Moss, and Mr. TUNNEY ) introduced the fol
lowing bill ; which was read twice and, by unanimous consent, referred
jointly to the Committees on Aeronautical and Space Sciences and
Commerce

A BILL
To amend the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to
apply the scientific and technological expertise of the Na
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration to the solution
of domestic problems, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the “Technology Resources
4 Survey and Applications Act ” .
5 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY
6
SEC. 2. ( a ) The Congress hereby finds and declares
7that

8
( 1 ) The scientific and technological resources of the
II
 16

Untied States can and should be used more effectively and

1
2 efficiently to solve critical domestic problems.
3 (2 ) Such scientific and technological resources, if prop
4 erly applied and directed, could effectively meet many major
5 public needs .
6
(3 ) It is the responsibility of the Federal Government
7 to insure the full and efficient use of such scientific and tech

8 nological resources .
9
(4) A more systematic approach to analyzing and plan
10 ning for the resolution of critical domestic problems is es
11 sential to achieving such full and efficient use of the Nation's
12 scientific and technological resources .

13
(5) A comprehensive long -range technological resources
14 survey is a prerequisite to the more effective utilization of
15 scientific and technological resources in the resolution of
16 critical domestic problems.
17 (b) Therefore, it is hereby declared by the Congress
18 to be the policy of the United States that the Federal Gov
19 ernment shall hencefortlı be responsible for applying the
20 technological resources of the United States to the resolution
21 of critical domestic problems, and shall prepare and main
22 tain a comprehensive national technological survey.
23
Sec. 3. (a) Section 102 (d) of the National Aeronautics
24 and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451 (d) ) is hereby
25 amended to read as follows :
 17

1 “ (d) The Congress declares that the capability demon

2 strated by the aeronautical and space activities of the United
3 States and the expertise developed by the National Aeronau
4 tics and Space Administration in research and in the de
5 velopment of new and advanced technology to solve complex
6 problems shall be made available and be used in the resolu
7 tion of critical domestic problems of the United States to the
8 extent not inconsistent with such aeronautical and space ac
9 tivity functions. " .
10 (b ) Section 102 of such Act is further amended by add
11 ing at the end thereof the following new subsection :
12 “ (e) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out and effec
13 tuate the policies declared in subsections ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) , and
14 ( d ) of this section ." .
15 SEC. 4. The National Aeronautics and Space Act of
16 1958 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
17 new title :

18 “ TITLE IV - NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

19 PLANNING AND COORDINATION
20 “ THE NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES COUNCIL

21 “ SEC. 401. ( a ) There is established in the Executive

22 Office of the President the National Technology Resources
23 Council (hereafter in this title referred to as the Council')
24 which shall be composed of the
25 “ ( 1 ) Vice President;
 18

1 ' (2 ) Secretary of Commerce ;

2 “ ( 3 ) Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare;
3 " (4 ) Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop
4 ment ;

5 ' (5 ) Secretary of Transportation ;

6 “ (6 ) Administrator of the National Aeronautics
7 and Space Administration ;
8 “ ( 7 ) Director of the National Science Foundation ;
9 “ (8 ) Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission ;
10 “( 9) Chairman of the Council on Environmental
11 Quality ;
12 " (10 ) Administrator of the Environmental Protec
13 tion Agency ; and
14 " (11) Secretary of the Interior .
15 “ (b ) The Vice President shall be the Chairman of the
16 Council. The President shall from time to time designate one
17 of the other members of the Council to serve as Acting Chair
18 man during the absence, disability, or unavailability of the
19 Chairman .

20 "( c) Each member of the Council may duly designate

21 in writing a qualified officer or employee of his office, de
22 partment, or agency to serve as his representative on the
23 Council in his absence.
24 " (d) Each person designated under subsection (c ) of
25 this section as the representative of a member of the Council
 19

1 shall be designated to serve as such by and with the advice

2 and consent of the Senate and shall appear before appro
3 priate committees of the Congress upon request relevant to
4 the activities of the Council.

5 " FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL

6 " SEC. 402. ( a ) It shall be the function of the Council

7 to prepare a technology resources survey in accordance with
8 section 403 of this title and to advise and assist the Presi

9 dent with respect to other technology resource matters.

10 “ (b ) The Council shall—
11 “ ( 1) develop and supervise a technology resources
12

survey, in accordance with section 403 of this title ;

13 “ (2) develop a comprehensive program to identify
14 in advance scientific and technological resources , in
15 cluding manpower, which are available for the resolution
16 of critical domestic problems but which are not being
17 fully utilized for such purposes ;
18 “ ( 3 ) review and evaluate the activities of Federal
19 departments and agencies engaged in programs which
20 are recommended by the technology resource survey and
21 similar activities of State and local public agencies ;
22 “ (4 ) make recommendations to the President who
23 may assign any critical domestic problem which is iden
24 tified by the technology resource survey to the Office
 20

1 of Technology Applications of the National Aeronau

2 tics and Space Administration or any more appropriate
3 Federal agency ;

4 “ (5 ) review and evaluate the progress in solving

5 problems assigned by the Council to the Office of Tech
6 nology Application of the National Aeronautics and
7 Space Administration and to other Federal agencies;
8 and

9 “ (6) prepare and submit a report to the Congress at

10 least once in cach fiscal year on the activities of the
11 Council during the preceding fiscal year.
12 " TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SURVEY

13 "Suc. 403. ( a) The Council shall prepare and transmit

14 to the President and to the Congress at the earliest practi
15 cable date a technology resources survey. Such survey shall
16 identify the existing scientific engineering and technological
17 activities, capabilities, programs, and resources and the means
18 by which each might be applied and used to practical ad
19 vantage in the resolution of the Nation's critical domestic
20 problems. The survey shall include, but is not limited to,
21 making
22 " ( 1) an inventory of the Nation's scientific and
23
technological resources ;
24 “ ( 2) an inventory of critical domestic problems
 21

7.

1 which may be susceptible of resolution by the applica

2 tion of science and technology ; and
66
3 ' ( 3) recommendations for programs which will
4 strengthen the economy and contribute to the resolu
5 tion of such critical domestic problems.
6 “ (b) Such technology resources survey shall be re
7 viewed and revised annually by the Council. The survey and
8 each such annual revision shall contain a full explanation of
9 the determinations, and recommendations of the Council to
10 gether with reasons therefor. The survey and each such an
11 nual revision shall be printed and made available as a public
12 document and published in the Federal Register.
13 “ ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

14 " SEC. 404. ( a ) The Council is authorized to employ a

15 staff which shall be headed by an executive director. The
16 executive director with the approval of the Council is
17 authorized to the extent necessary to
18
“ ( 1) appoint, assign the duties, and fix the compen
19
sation of personnel without regard to the provisions of
20
title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in
21
the competitive service, and without regard to the
22
provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter
23
53 of such title, relating to classification and General
24
Schedule pay rates, at rates not in excess of the maxi
 22

1
mum rate for GS - 18 of the General Schedule under

2 section 5332 of such title ; and

3 ' (2 ) procure temporary and intermittent services

4 to the same extent as is authorized by section 3109 of

5 title 5 , United States Code, but at rates not to exceed

6 $ 100 a day for individuals .

7 “ (b ) The Council shall, to the fullest extent possible,
8 use the services, facilities, and information, including statis
9 tical information , of other governmental agencies as well as
10 private research agencies. Each department, agency, and
11 instrumentality of the executive branch of the Government,
12 including any independent agency , is authorized and directed
13 to furnish the Council, upon request made by the executive
14 director with the approval of the Council, such information
15 as the Council deems necessary to carry out its functions
16 under this title,
17 " (c) The Council is authorized to establish advisory
18 committees and may consult with such representatives of
19 State and local governments and with such groups, organi
20 zations, and individuals as it may deem advisable .
21 " THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION

22 " SEC. 405. ( a) The Administrator of the National

23 Aeronautics and Space Administration shall establish within
24 the Administration an Office of Technology Application to
25 be composed of the Office of Applications and the Office of
 23

1 Technology Utilization in the Administration, and other

2 such offices and agencies as the Administrator determines
3 have functions which primarily relate to the duties assigned
4 by this section.
5 “ (b) In order to carry out the purpose of this Act, the
6 Administrator, through the Office of Technology Applica
7 tion, shall
8 “ ( 1) upon request, furnish technical assistance to
9 the Council in the preparation of the technology re
10 sources survey ;
11

" ( 2) upon request, furnish technical assistance to

12 the Council in deciding what critical domestic problem
13 may be resolved by applying scientific and technologi
14 cal resources ;
15
“ ( 3 ) upon direction of the Council, accept responsi
16
bility for specific domestic problems which may be
17
susceptible of resolution by the application of scientific
18
and technological resources ; and
19 “ (4) utilize aerospace firms and other scientific
20
organizations in the private sector on a contract basis to
21
assist in developing scientific strategies for the resolu
22 tion of critical domestic problems.
23
" (c) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the Ad
24 ministrator shall, in carrying out its functions under this title,
 24

10

1 have the same powers and authority it has under title II of

2 this Act.”.

3 SEC . 5. Section 5316 of title 5, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
5 paragraphs :
6 “ ( 132 ) Executive Director, the National Tech
7 nology Resources Council.

8 “ ( 133 ) Assistant Administrator for the Office of

9 Technology Application, National Aeronautics and
10 Space Administration ." .
11 SEC. 6. ( a ) There are hereby authorized to be appro
12 priated to the National Technology Resources Council $ 10 ,
13 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and the
14 fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, to carry out its functions
15 under title IV of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
16 1958 .

17 ( b ) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to

18 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration $ 200 ,
19 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, to carry
20 out its functions under title IV of the National Aeronautics

21 and Space Act of 1958.

 25

The CHAIRMAN. Beyond question, we need to substitute planning

for the somewhat chaotic use of Federal R. & D. funds and we need
better advanced predictions of domestic problems. These are the ob
jectives of S. 2495.
As Senator Magnuson has pointed out, the bill as originally sub
mitted was regarded as a working paper. Many comments have been
received on theoriginal bill and I have had the staff prepare a working
draft based on these comments. We will look forward today to com
ments on both theoriginal bill and the working draft.
Before I call the witnesses, I would like to read into the record a
very brief statement that Senator Magnuson prepared. When he gets
here a little later he may have additional comment .
This is the statement of Senator Magnuson.

STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON , A U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

This morning the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences

and the Committee on Commerce begin joint consideration of S. 2495,
the Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act. I introduced
this bill together with Senators Moss and Tunney last fall, and the
bill was referred jointy to the two committees. Senator Moss, in addi
tion to being chairman of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space
Sciences, is a key member of the Commerce Committee and chairman
of its Consumer Subcommittee; and I, in addition to being chairman
of the Commerce Committee, am ranking majority member of the
Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee. Therefore, it is quite ap
propriate that consideration of this legislation is initiated by the joint
hearing of the two committees which we are holding this morning.
One of the main objectives of S. 2495 is to develop a more systematic
approach to analysis of critical domestic problems while employing
the full and efficient use of the country's scientific and technological
resources to the solution of these problems. Except for relatively iso
lated exceptions, this country hasnever had the foresight to develop
long-range plans in science and technology. As a result, the engineering
and scientific community periodically suffer unstable employment sit
uations. The aerospace industry in particular suffered severe setbacks
recently as a result of cutbacks in defense and space spending which
were not coordinated with increases in funding for research and devel
opment in areas such as environmental protection, health sciences, mass
transit, and energy development. There is no question in my mind that
those severe disruptions could have been almost totally avoided and
much more progress made in these newer areas if adequate planning
had been made to coordinate such a shift in the country's priorities.
The prospects are nonexistent for the current administration taking
steps to prevent the recurrence of such periodic dislocations resulting
from inadequate planning. In fact, the administration by abolishing
the Office of Science and Technology in the White House, and rele
gating the functions of Presidential science adviser to a part -time.
activity of the Director of the National Science Foundation, has in
fact downgraded whatever little high level science and technology
planning we had had in the past.
!

26

In S. 2495, we are attempting to find a mechanism to identify exist

ing and potential problems that are amenable tosolution through the
application of science and technology; to identify the scientific and
technological resources that are available for application to such prob
lems; and to plan, develop and execute those programs which can
match the resources to the needs. The bill, as introduced, spells out
a specific mechanism for achieving these objectives. Recognizing that
the problem is a very complex one, and realizing that there may be
alternative ways to organize such an effort, I asked the staff to develop
modifications to the bill as introduced.A working draft of a modified
version of S. 2495 was circulated in January to a large number of
interested parties for comment. This morning we hope to hear the views
of many distinguished witnesses on both the original bill and the staff
working draft. We would also encourage witnesses to bring forth their
own proposals for institutional mechanisms to do this long -range plan
ning. I am sure that both committees are going to be open -minded on
thissubject and that all the suggestions broughtforth atthese hearings
will be examined carefully as we work to develop the most effective
planning process possible .
The Chairman . That completes Senator Magnuson's opening state
ment.
We have an outstanding group of witnesses today whose testimony
should contribute greatly to ourefforts. The witnesses are H. Guyford
Stever, Director of the National Science Foundation and Science Ad
viser to the President; Dr. James C. Fletcher, Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ; Dr. Philip Handler,
president of the National Academy of Science; Dr. Robert N. Faiman,
vice provost, research, special programs, University of New Hamp
shire, representing the National Society of Professional Engineers;
and Dr. Bernard S. Friedman, president of the American Chemical
Society. I see that if you are not a Ph. D. you do not get on the list this
morning
In the interest of time, and without objection, I will insert in the
record at this point, more comprehensive comments of my own on the
bill .
[Excerpts from a speech by Senator Moss follows :]
EXCERPTS FROM A SPEECH OF SENATOR FRANK E. Moss ( D-UTAH ) BEFORE THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS JANUARY 30, 1974
SUBJECT : MEETING THE NEEDS OF SPACESHIP EARTH

Let me start by summarizing three main points :

1. Our current drift toward becoming a " status quo ” nation is not merely a
threat to the employment security of scientists and engineers , it is a very real
threat to the livelihood of every American.
2. Asa Nation, we must do a far better job of predicting the occurrence of
critical domestic problems and providing the resources - often scientific and tech
mological— to solve them.
3. Those who view NASA as an agency in search of a mission not only have
the shoe on the wrong foot, they are dead wrong.
To take these three points one at a time, l’il begin with the dangers of what
I willcall " creeping status-quoism .” In recent years, we have seen a flurry of
rebellions against rapid societal and technological change, and repeated calls for
return to the " good old days,” even though a wag tells us " nostalgia ain't what it
used to be."
Perhaps in part because of these forces, and certainly in large measure because
of well -warranted revulsion at some of our mistakes, there is I believe an in
 27

Ey exi creasing trend toward wanting to hold on to what we've got, to stay about where
we are, in every important aspect of American life.
ught Increasingly one sees our foreign policy referred to in the press as that of a
ificar " status quo" power. And perhaps that is what " balance of power" diplomacy is
h pro all about.
10h Other nations, which once marveled at “ American ingenuity" , seem increasing
ly more ready, willing and able than we to seize technological opportunity in
lls od every field from heavy machine tools to hand calculators, from internal combus
angthe tion engines to high performance aircraft.
And in less tangible areas, opinion polls show that many of us feel our societal
erela reforms are moving “ too far, too fast."
odici Without getting too deeply immersed in national psychoanalysis, let me say
that we need to remind ourselves of some basic truisms.
berd We cannot turn back the clock , or even stop its hands. No person , no society,
de1787 and no nation has ever succeeded in standing pat for very long. Every person in
best this room knows of the great, perhaps almost fatal, mistake we made in the 1950's
of assuming we would always far exceed the Russians in technological prowess.
And we have learned in recent months how wrong those of us were who assumed ,
ce is against all available evidence, an inexhaustible supply of cheap fossil fuel.
dede As Wernher von Braun testified before my Committee last Fall , and I quote,
" World leadership and technological leadership are inseparable. A third -rate tech
aring nological nation is a third - rate power, politically, economically and socially .
ectir Whether we like it or not, ours is a technological civilization . If we lose our na
tional resolve to keep our position on the pinnacle of technology the historical
state role of the United States can only go downhill."
I fully agree. Change is, after all, inevitable. And only those who move ahead
of the bow wave of change will avoid being submerged in history.
timor Now to my second point. We must get to work to improve our ways and means
of anticipating problems that science and technology can solve.
Here comes the plug I warned you about, so listen closely. In case I forget to
ce !! mention it later, the number of the bill is S. 2495. It was introduced by Senator
Magnuson, with Senator Tunney and me as cosponsors. My good friend Tiger
ndler Teague has introduced it in the House as H.R. 10807 .
aima As I said, the Federal Government does an inadequate job of identifying in
advance and moving to meet critical domestic problems.
Ham However severe you may feel the energy crisis is today or will be in the years
eens ahead, I believe you will agree with me that we should not be in our current
status of considering hastily a plethora of emergency measures to cope with it.
stthe It's not that no one saw what was coming. Even a casual review of the liter
ature will surface numerous examples of warnings five, ten , even thirty years ago.
In a peak of frustration in 1969, one industry association asked, “ Is anybody
listening ?"
on the Yes, the warning signals were clear, but there was no single Federal organiza
tion - no centralized early warning system — to galvanize us into timely action.
As David Rose suggests in this month's Scientific American, our present energy
difficulties “ were largely caused not by ignorance but by irresponsibility .” I sug
RE THE gest that it is our responsibility now to better prepare for the next crisis . For the
energy crisis will not be our last crisis. In reality, the term “ energy crisis” is a
1974 catchall phrase for many shortages and problems we face. Already we are being
warned of a materials crisis looming on the horizon . And water, always short in
my home state, threatens soon to become in short supply in other areas.
Just as we must work harder to sort out and predict these problems we need
relsi to do a better job of planning he utilization of our vast national scientific and
technological resources.
IT 14 The ups and downs, the stops and starts, that have plagued Federal research
oncer
t and development efforts ever since we embarked on Federal support for R. & D.
d tact have created a continuing state of chaos and uncertainty. Facilities are built and
closed, scientists and engineers are trained , employed and laid off, all with little
apparent foresight.
har I needn't remind you that a few short years ago we were simultaneously rush
f what ing thousands
headlong toward an energy crisis and laying off engineers and scientists by
the .
ITT A It is time for us to bring these two shortcomings — poor planning and poor use
ills for
That it of resources — into focus together, to examine them, and to do something about
them .
e
car
an it
 28
1
That's what S. 2495 is all about. The two versions of the bill we have sent to
numerous organizations, including AIAA, for comment, have this primary thrust.
We want to establish within the Executive Branch of the Government an im 1
proved mechanism, an improved climate, and improved funding for making pro 1
jections of critical domestic problems which may be susceptible to scientific and
technological solutions in whole or in part. And we want to bring into that process 1
careful consideration of the projected availability of the necessary scientific (
and technological resources to apply to those problems before they become of 0
crisis proportion . r
.
And that brings us to my final point. 1
.

We seem, so far as NASA is concerned, to be developing a national blind spot. 1

There she sits, like the proverbial girl next door, while we roam around town t
looking for someone to work on technological problems.
No one here or abroad has developed a greater capability than NASA and its
partners in industry and universities for defining problems, devising solutions, 1
and demonstrating those solutions.
But we have a curious penchant to ignore this proven resource. This is not to
say that NASA should be thrown into the fray every time a problem emerges.
There are many problems ahead that NASA is ill-equipped to solve. But where
we need a systematic approach to a complex problem with high technological 1

content, why should we studiously avoid our strongest asset ?

Let me emphasize one point. We are not in any way suggesting that NASA 1
lacks a mission in aeronautics and space. Support for that mission, as I have 1
4

said, should not be diminished — it should be enlarged . What we are suggesting

in S. 2495 is that NASA and its partners should also be authorized to tackle
other missions upon assignment by the President and approval by the Congress.
NASA is not, as some gossips suggest, an agency in search of a mission. There
are missions in search of a NASA .
To summarize, we should devise an institutional arrangement, with adequate A
I
funding, to contemplate our collective futures and identify the likely problems
that science and technology can alleviate. At the same time, this organization
should be projecting, over the coming ten years, what our scientific and tech
nological resource shortages and overcapabilities will be, and how we should
be moving to strengthen and apply them .
Over idealistic ? Perhaps. But worth the try ? That it surely is.
The CHAIRMAN. When these hearings were announced earlier, we
indicated that one of the witnesses was to be Dr. Daniel Drucker,
president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Un
fortunately, Dr. Drucker is ill and cannot appear this morning. We
hope, however, to receive his testimony at a later date.
The Senator from New Mexico, do you have any opening remarks
you would like to make ?
Senator DOMENICI. Just a quick observation, Mr. Chairman.
As a member of the Space Committee, I am delighted with the pros
pects of the Senate giving some real in - depth hearings to the con
cepts involved in S. 2495. I am certain there is no specific pride of
authorship, but there is a pride in the concept of doing a better job
in applying technology. I welcome the opportunity to sit with you
and to listen to those who are far better informed than I to tell us
what theythink about how we can better equip America to stay in a
good position where science and applied technology are concerned .
Thank you , Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate that very much.
Our first witness will be Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Director of the
National Science Foundation and Science Adviser to the President.
Dr. Stever, we are very glad to have you before the committee once
again . We look forward to hearing your testimony.
[ Biographical sketch of Dr. Stever follows :]
 29

BIOGRAPHY OF DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. H. Guyford Stever assumed the post of Director of the National Science
Foundation on February 1, 1972. In addition to his duties as NSF Director, he
has been named Science Adviser and Chairman of the Federal Council for
Science and Technology by the President. He also serves as Chairman of the
Energy R&D Advisory Council ; Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee
on Research and Development, National Power Survey, Federal Power Commis
sion ; U.S. Chairman of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Joint Commission on Scientific and
Technical Cooperation ; and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S.
Israel Binational Science Foundation. He serves on a number of additional com
mittees, including the National Science Board and the President's Committee on
the National Medal of Science .
Born in Corning, New York in 1916 , Dr. Stever received his A.B. from Colgate
University in 1938 and his Ph. D. in Physics from California Institute of Tech
nology in 1941. He has received 12 honorary degrees and other honors, including
the President's Certificate of Merit in 1948 .
Prior to his appointment as NSF Director, Dr. Stever had served as President
of Carnegie-Mellon University and, before that, Carnegie Institute of Technology ,
since 1965. During his presidency , Carnegie Tech merged with Mellon Institute
to form Carnegie-Mellon University, with a total endowment of almost $ 120,000 ,
000. Before going to Carnegie Tech , Dr. Stever served on the MIT faculty for
more than 20 years , including the positions of Head of the Departments of
Mechanical Engineering, Naval Architecture, and Marine Engineering. He is an
internationally known expert on aeronautical engineering and space technology,
Among other organizations, Dr. Stever is a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering , Institute of Aeronautical Sciences,
American Physical Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
and Phi Beta Kappa. He is married to the former Louise Risley Floyd and has
four children .

STATEMENT OF DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

SCIENCE FOUNDATION, AND SCIENCE ADVISER TO THE PRESI
DENT, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. RAYMOND L. BISPLINGHOFF, DEP
UTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. STEVER. Senator Moss, gentlemen , and members of the commit
tee, thank you very much .
I have with metoday Dr. Raymond Bisplinghoff, the Deputy Direc
tor of the National Science Foundation .
The CHAIRMAN . We welcome you , sir..
Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee :
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present today the views of
the National Science Foundation on S. 2495, the " Technology Re
sources Survey and Applications Act ." My testimony today is on the
working draft of S. 2495, dated January 18, 1974, which I understand
is the latest version of the bill .
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to testify on a bill that is aimed at
improving the Nation's capability to bring science and technology to
bear on domestic problems. It is important that we take full advantage
of the Nation's science and technology resources in addressing these
problems. Mr. Chairman , I know that you and the members of the
Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee and the Commerce Com
mittee who are meeting jointly here today appreciate the urgency of
this task. And I would like to add to my remarks, Mr. Chairman, that
Senator Magnuson, in the years immediately following World War
II, was a focal point for congressional efforts carrying forward the

32-205 0.74 - 3
 30

National Science Foundation . He worked for many years in develop

ing the Foundation's enabling legislation and we at the National
Science Foundation would like to express our gratitude to him and to
his co-workers at that time. I am delighted that you arejoining with
him in taking a fresh look at some of the problems of science and
technology. The administration also recognizes the importance to the
Nation of making wise use of its science and technology capabilities.
Since we share this common goal, I believe we can work together to
upgrade and strengthen science and technology coordinating and plan
ning capabilities at the national level so that we :
Will take full advantage of all existing Federal science and tech
nology resources in efforts to resolve domestic problems;
Will recognize the growing partnership between Federal and State
and local government units as well as private sector in research and
development;
Will exploit science and technology in the solution of societal prob
lems, but with the realization that technology will be thwarted in its
application to many problems unless other factors, for example, pre
vailing market conditions, the role of private investment, and institu
tionalbarriers,and so on, are also taken into account.
It is my understanding that S. 2495 would establish a National
Science and Technology Resources Council with the present Federal
Council on Science and Technology forming the nucleus of the new
Council. The Council is given a number of specific responsibilities
( that is, the new Council), including the preparation of an annual
Science and Technology Resources Survey, which is to be transmitted
to the President and the Congress.
The bill would modify the National Aeronautics and Space Act and
would also establish an Office of Technology Applications within
NASA. This new office would be authorized to conduct R. & D. projects
to demonstrate potential solutions to domestic problems. It would also
have authority to accept responsibility for specific domestic problems
upon direction of the President.
Mr. Chairman , I have a number of suggestions to offer on various
provisions of the bill, but before listing these, Iwould like to state the
Foundation's overall position on the thrust of S. 2495.
First, the Foundation favors the strengthening of Federal science
and technology coordination and planning analysis capabilities. We
favor the proposal to include State and local government representa
tives in the Council. We believe this can be effectively accomplished by
augmenting membership of the present Federal Council for Science
and Technology and its subgroups.
Second , the Foundation believes that some of the specific survey
responsibilities assigned to the proposed National Council may be
overly ambitious, in terms of the broad scope of the surveys to be
undertaken and the size of the community to be surveyed. It is our
experience that it is more appropriate to focus surveysand studies on
specific major problems within the wide range of possible science and
technology applications facing the Nation. In such surveys, ad hoc
groups of FCST members and special study teams utilizing appro
priate expert consultants can examine issues and report results of their
findings relatively quickly. Further, these findings will be reported
in relation to the specific policy issues that may at a given moment be
ofconcern to the President, theagencies, the Congress, and the public.
Mr. Chairman, in making that second point, I am not trying to
 31

downgrade the importance of the broad range of issues which have

been addressed by the committee, but just to say that quite often ,
instead of lumping them altogether into one massive operation, one
can accomplish more things more quickly by pointing at specifics than
by adding them together.
Third , theFoundation believes that NASA has great technological
resources which can be employed in the solution of domestic problems.
It is essential, however, that the mission agencies must continue to be
held accountable for problem solving in areas of their responsibility.
At the same time, it isappropriate for mission agenciesto use the tech
nological capabilities ofNASA where they believe NASA can make an
effective contribution. The mission agencies have the necessary long
experience in dealing with domestic user communities includingindus
try, agriculture, financial institutions, and others.
Again , Mr. Chairman, let me interject something here. Since World
War II and even before that, a standard acceptable operating policy
of science and technology in the United States has been to give to the
mission agencies the required strength in science and engineering and
technology and so on , to handle the missions. We must remember we
have hadtremendous successes. The Agriculture Department is close to
the farmers and to the agricultural industry, and the Department of
Defense is close to defense industries. HEWis close to the doctorsand
the health workers, and so on. You must keep in mind that that is a
long-established policy, to give mission agencies responsibility and
hold them to that responsibility. And I believe thatwhatever your
considerations bring forth, you must continue to recognize this.
Mr. Chairman, our suggestion for meeting the objectives of S. 2495
is to expand the membership of the FCST and its subcommittees to
include , where appropriate, representation from industry and labor,
as well as the local government representation that you mentioned,
in order to expand its national base .
It should be pointed out that the administration's recent Reorgani
zation Plan No. 1 of 1973 shifted science and technology coordination
and advisory responsibilities out of the White House and into the per
forming science and technology agencies. I believe this move was con
sistentwith today's need to integrate more fully science and technol
ogy advisory processes into decisionmaking at all levels of govern
ment. One of the attractive features of the Council proposed by your
bill would be to broaden the input into these decision processes. The
administration believes that the new procedures provided for by Re
organization Plan No. 1 can also give this broadened input a fair trial
through the expansion of the FCST.
With respect to the establishment of the Office of Technology Ap
plications within_NASA, I would like to make the following com
ments, and here I would prefer to have Dr. Fletcher's testimony be
overriding
I do not believe additional authority is necessary to enable the tech
nological capabilities of NASA to be utilized by mission agenciesin
solving problems within their responsibilities. There are significant
examples of mission agencies utilizing the NASA capabilities.In fact,
NSF is utilizing NASA's technological capabilities on several proj
ects, wind energy research among others, and mission agencies such as
DOT and HUD are also utilizing NASA's technological and manage
rial capabilities.
 32

a
Mr. Chairman, since this bill deals with coordination and plan bi
ning support for science and technology, at the national level,
and parts of it parallel the National Science Foundation's pro S
gram of research applied to national needs, I would like to take afew
minutes to comment on responsibilities I have in this area. First, as
many of you know , I serve as chairman of the Federal Council on
Science and Technology. The Council is currently charged with the
responsibility of promoting closer cooperation among Federal agen
cies to facilitate resolution of common problems and to improve plan $
ning and management in science and technology, and also advising
and assisting the President regarding Federal programs affecting tu
more than one agency . S
The members of the Federal Council include the Administrator of
NASA , the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, senior
agencyofficials responsible for science and technology from ourmajor
domestic mission agencies and departments, and myself. The Council
operates a number of science policy and technology oriented commit
tees, including committees on atmospheric sciences, marine science,
patent policy, energy research and development goals, utilization of
Federal laboratories, water resources, ecological research, and others.
Some of the current suggestions under consideration include the es n

tablishment of new committees to address emerging national prob D

lems, as appears to be the intent of the proposed legislation.
As I mentioned earlier , parts of S. 2495 suggest that a look at the 8
Foundation's RANN program would reveal experience useful in S
carrying forward the intent of the bill . RANN supports basic and ti
applied research on selected national problems that either :
( 1 ) Fall between or outside the areas of responsibility of other 1
agencies;
(2 ) Span the areas of responsibility of other agencies;
( 3 ) Relate to meeting longer range and special requirements of other
agrncies ; or
(4 ) Are uniquely suited to solution by NSF -supported teams com
prised of university and industry scientists, working with national
Îaboratories and nonprofit organizations.
At the point where programs reach the stage of demonstration and
commercial design, their management is properly done by the ap
propriate mission agency or user group , such as private industry.
Typical examples of RANN spinoff's to industry include: ( 1 ) A mer
cury detector for industrial pollution, (2 ) a magnetic separator to
remove impurities from clay, and ( 3 ) a computerized beam-bending
machine which has direct application in the shipbuilding industry.
These RANN - supported technologies are now in the hand of in
dustry for evaluation as to their potential for entry into the com
mercial marketplace.
Let me elaborate on just one of these from a much longer list. The
magnetic separator to remove impurities from clay is the one I choose.
This separator has great potential for removing impurities from the
clay marl found in Georgia. This will be of great advantage in sepa
rating out the white clays which are important in the production of
slick paper, ceramics and so on . This magnetic separator promises to
increase the usability of that by 50 percent. It is also being studied to
improve the removal of semi-magnetic iron from the taconite ores
 33

and to greatly improve the availability of iron in this country . It is

being used to investigate the possibilities of magnetic purification of
water and other purposes. These examples have great economic
significance .
A part of the task of advancing technology in industry requires
involving industry in the design and performance of this research. It
is extremely important to bring industry as well as universities and
national laboratories together in these efforts, and we are doing this
in the RANN program. I would note that a large part of RANN re
search is not related to technology development but focuses on the
social, economic, legal, and institutional barriers to the utilization of
technology and on policy or decision related research. We find that this
soft research is vitally important to the difficult problem of achiev
ing technology utilization.
As an example of spin -offs to other agencies for demonstration and
further development, the RANN program recently transferred its
fire safety program to the Department of Commerce. Programs related
to subterrenetunneling and use of super -conductivity for under
ground high -voltage lines have been handed off to the Atomic Energy
Commission. Other energy projects will be transferred to the energy
agencies or to ERDA, when they reach the demonstration phase .
These agencies will carry on from the NSF through development and
major demonstration.
NSF expects to play an increasing role in carrying scientific re
search through the proof of concept state in an effort to bring the re
sults of this research to bear on national problems. It is the Founda
tion's policy not to undertake large-scale demonstration, but to rely
upon mission agencies such as NASA and user groups in industry and
local governments for this activity .
Mr. Chairman , there are urgent domestic needs and problems in
areas where civil science and technology can contribute. The admin
istration has, with the strong backing of Congress, shifted national
R. & D. priorities to the civilian sector. It is significant to note that
Federal funding for civilian R. & D. has been increased from $3.6
billion in fiscal year 1969 to $6.8 billion in fiscal year 1975. This repre
sents a 90 percent increase, and I might add that the fiscal year 1975
budget request for civilian R. & D. is 17 percent above the fiscal year
1974 level. The administration is giving high priority to science and
technology projects directed at domestic problems, and the efforts of
Congress to enhance the Federal Government's capabilities in this area
are much appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, we need a council with broader rep
resentation and we also need better assessment capabilities. We are
making some progress in this area .
Recently the NationalScience Board issued its latest annual report
which provided a large volume of statistical data on trends in science
support, available resources, and related information which is per
tinent to the types of information that are envisioned in S. 2495.
Under the authority of reorganization plan No. 1, in my role as
science adviser, I have adequate authority to initiate the types of
assessment visualized in this bill, and I have the resources to make a
start on accomplishing these tasks through the Science and Tech
nology Policy Office, which I recently established.
 34

The Congress now has available the resources of its Office of Tech
nology Assessment. However, much remains to be done and we should
explore all promising ideas that can strengthen the Nation's capabili
ties in this area.
This concludes my formal statement. I have tried, Mr. Chairman, to
present some constructive views on this measure and I will be glad to
answer any questionsyou may have.
The CHAIRMAN . Thank you very much Dr. Stever, for your state
ment. We are glad to have it. Your position, I believe, gives you
special insight into the things we are trying to develop bythis act.
In your statement you say you favor strengthening Federal science
and technology coordinating, planning and planning analysis capabili
ties. Do you think, S. 2495 or some modification of it can accomplish
this purpose ?
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir, I do. I think , Mr. Chairman, that the com
mittees addressing this problem are addressing a very timely issue.
You are going to discover that there are many differing kindsof sug
gestions that you will get. But I personally think that it is high time
that we address these issues directly, forthrightly and that we recog
nize thatour future depends verystrongly on our ability tostrengthen
our capabilities in this area. As I said in my testimony today, within
the responsibilities that I have been assigned in the last year, we are
moving as aggressively as we can, within our manpower and funding
and so on, to begin to strengthen our capability to focus and coordinate
science and technology on domestic problems.
The CHAIRMAN. You talked about the mission -oriented departments.
Don't many of them have a rather narrow view associated with
their mission, rather than the ability to look clear across the spectrum ?
Dr. STEVER. Yes. I think that is true, or at least it is partially true.
You know , there are lots of ways to coordinate and get together the
power of the Federal Government to tackle problems. Sometimes in
stead of doing it with an all -powerful single central agency, it is better
to have a couple of mission agencies work together on the programs.
The council that was established between the Department of Defense
and NASA to handle aeronautics and astronautic problems was, I
think , a very effective mechanism by getting right to the point where
the decisions and the work were being done. So,I favor kind of a mix
ture of these two, when the problem isvery broadly spread, it should
be looked at by a centralized effort. And when it is just between a
couple of agencies, they should get together and handle it themselves.
The CHAIRMAN . You indicated that the Administration's reorga
nization plan No. 1 of 1973 shifted science and technology coordination
and advisory responsibilities out of the White House and into the
performing science and technology agencies. Some of our later wit
nesses, I am sure, will view this as a step in the wrong direction . How
does it improve Federal science policy operations?
Dr. STEVER. Well, I think, as I said before, I believe that regarding
the mission agencies, we should strengthen them and continue to
strengthen them in their areas and let them also participate in this
coordination and top level planning. We do have the Federal Council
on Science and Technology (FCST) . It is at work in handling some of
this coordination , and some of the subcommittees of FCST are ex
tremely successful in some areas. Also some leave something to be
 35

desired. We are working to strengthen them . I believe we can tackle

the problems effectively that way .
The CHAIRMAN . Your suggestion of focusing surveys on specific
major problems, using ad hoc groups and study teams, is the approach
now used, I take it. How will that make utilization of technological
resources more efficient and help avoid future crises like the energy
crisis ?
Dr. STEVER. Well, I think it depends entirely on whether we can sen
sitize our whole society to these emerging issues.
Mr. Chairman, I think you should look at what happened with re
spect to science advice in the energy crisis very carefully as you study
this. It is a good study. If you look, you willdiscover thatthecurrent
system , the Federal Council and the Office of Science and Technology
worked together and in 1966 put out a very good study of the ap
proaching energy problems. If you read it, you will think that you
arereading something written in 1974 instead of 1966. In spite of the
fact that the energy problem was well reported, action was not taken
on it. If you will continue your study of the energy problem , you will
discover that around 1969 and 1970 ,the FCST actually came back to
the energy problem again and put together a number of energy com
mittees. These committees, in fact, played an important rolein the
work that we are now doing. The DixyLee Ray study draws heavily
upon the studies that were done by FCST. The people that were in
volved in these previous study efforts who are in NASA, DOD and
NSF and AEC, and so on , have played key roles in the development
ofthe Federal energy program which is being considered by Congress.
What we really have todo is sensitize oursociety to listen to what
some of our experts are saying.
When I was appointed science adviser, I recognized that we were
going to be inundated by problems on energy, and so, as science ad
viser, I established a separate Energy Office R. & D. This office was in
addition to the Science and Technology Policy Office (STPO ) ,which
I also established to support me in my role as science adviser. I
wanted these offices to be free to concentrate on these growing problems
of the future and not be burdened with other matters .We have selected
two areas — food and materials science along with a number of other
areas, such as technology distribution and spin -off, and we have tried
to bring the Federal Council on Science andTechnology along todeal
with future problems as opposed to past, and we are going to keep
right on doing that as long as we have the responsibility .Wewill
bring
state .
those problems to you when we have got them in a chewable
The CHAIRMAN. What do we need to do to get an awareness and an
appreciation of this ? What should we have had in 1966 when the book
came out on energy problems?
Dr. STEVER. Well, I wish I knew the answer to that. It is very clear
that society — and you know I am not blaming anyone, because every
one was in that state — was not very sensitive to its emerging future
problems at that time. It took the arrival of the problems, and a few
continuing studies - studies on the limits to growth contributed to it
because they related to energy — and a number of people began to pick
up speed. So maybe it took the 1966 exercise.
 36

I would say , Mr. Chairman , you asked what you could do. I would
say, give us a big shove in FCST, and listen when we come out with
something. That is the best way to say it.
The CHAIRMAN. Maybe that is what we are undertaking right now.
Dr. STEVER. Of course, it is, and I am delighted , frankly . I think
the science and technology world needs this.
Chairman Moss. In your statement you say you favor State and
local government representation. And you further say industry and
labor representation is needed on the proposed Science and Technology
Resources Council . Would you or your counsel be willing to advise the
committee as to how the language of this section can be amended to
accomplish the augmentation you are suggesting ?
Dr. STEVER. Yes, we certainlywill. I would like to make this point.
I think the Federal Council onScience and Technology has something
of what I would call completely inside work ; that is, within the Fed
eral Government, and that should not be lost. It is a good mechanism
to conduct some of that work . But I also think that in the civil science
area it should be augmented, so it may be that we will have to have a
double level approach. But they should be very close together, so that
one does not lose contact with the other. We will try tohelp you , Mr.
Chairman , on that .
And let me tell you why I put those in. I think all of the mission
agencies are discovering that, as I said in the testimony, that on the
civil problem it isnot simply the high technology that wins the game.
It is high technology properly married with a whole host of other
things : economic , political, social issues. And if you look at some of
theproblemsthat have come to the Congress in recent years from the
civil sector of technology, and look at the factors which you havehad
to integrate, you will recognize this need for broadening consideration.
I think every agency that had to face a major civilian problem ,
whether it is HUD or Transportation , has had to take these factors
into account. In the RANN program , we learned very early when we
worked with local government that we were not working with them c

just with the fruits of pure science. We had to go and involve lawyers,
and so on . And I think in your bill you will want very strongly to make I

sure that this factor is fully recognized . It is a sign of our times , and
I think it is going tobe a sign of the times for some time to come.
The CHAIRMAN . You express concern about the proposed survey.
Would you give us your suggestions as to how this section might be
modified to make it more workable?
Dr. STEVER. Yes. We will be glad to work with you on that, Mr.
Chairman. And again , it is not to cut down the magnitude, but to go
at it in bite size pieces, in sufficient size that you can do the job in a
reasonable time, and then go on to a different one. That, I think, is my
point. We will certainly be glad to help you.
The CHAIRMAN . Thank you.
The Senator from New Mexico ?
Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Stever, I find your testimony today in this matter to be much
the same as it was when we spoke of solar energy. You seem to favor
the concept, but when you get right down to it you do not favor the
bill . Let me ask you, do you not conceive of a national effort at survey
ing and assessing as described in the policy thrust of this bill as being a
mission ?
 37

Dr. STEVER. I think that in some sense, of course, it is a mission . It is

an important end object. We ought to get this done better ; yes.
Senator DOMENICI. Well, it seems to me that what we have been
doing in the pastis taking this mission and fragmenting it. I find the
concept in this bill to be intriguing, because we are so diffused right
now in surveying our scientific capability and application. I almost
perceive of it as being a national mission to put that in shape once and
for all. I wonder if it is not in order to consider an agency such as
NASA ? I am not completely and totally stuck with it, but should we
not consider someone with broad institutional capacity and assign the
mission ?
Dr. STEVER. Well, I still think that NASA can contribute very
greatly, but I honestly believe it has got to go much more broadly
than NASA to include very important inputs from those Federal
agencies which are directly in contact with the people and organiza
tions having the problems.I believe, in fact, thatby strengthening the
FCST you can go at this problem you are talking about. But I think
FCST should be strengthened not just from the standpoint of its
capabilities to do the job ; it should also be strengthened in its capabil
ity to communicate with the Congress and the rest of the administra
tion. That is an important feature ; yes.
Senator DOMENICI. Then you do not find fault with the thrust of
the bill wherein it tries to put people,suchas the Secretary of Com
merce, the Vice President, Chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality, that kind of person, on its Board of Directors in a more con
ventional use of the word ?
Dr. STEVER. Mr. Senator, I was addressing the working draft and ,
as I understand it, that provision has been changed in the working
draft. Obviously, that is a powerful group, but I believe that much
of the work would still be done by the science and technology people
who are essentially what the FCST is now made up of. In other words,
you are calling on the same people with a somewhat slightly different
arrangement.
Senator DOMENICI. But what disturbs me, Doctor,is that we end up
making these assessments and making these evaluations, much as you
described in the 1966 episode.
Dr. STEVER. No one listens.
Senator DOMENICI. They are put on the shelf because nobody with a
broad enough base of national interest was charged with either prepar
ing them or recommending their implementation. I like to look at the
job as a 2 -year job or a 2-year mission to get it into a form from which
Congress and the President can decide what they are going to do with
it. And I hate to tell you that I do not believe the ad hoc approach we
are using is going to do it for a number of reasons.
First of all, I think it is very fragmented. I think it is completely
loaded on the executive side. I just do not perceive it relating strongly
enough
ask
with Congress in terms of what we do next. We call you in and
you what you were doing and yourelate to the great ad hoc efforts
thatare going on, on the other side of Washington. We do not accept
them , becausethey do not appear to be ours. Now , would you address
yourself to that for a moment ?
Dr. STEVER. Yes. Although you are talking about the relation of this
to Congress, I amnot sure that the bill relates it much differentlythan
 38

it is now related to Congress. I think therelationship to Congress will

depend directly on the amount of attention the Congress gives to the
people in the administration doing this work. You know, ifyou keep
your spotlight on it, that will be the necessary prod tomakethings
move. If you pass a bill, or strengthen FCST, or do anything else and
forget about it, then it will not have the effect you desire. You have to
spend time with it.
Senator DOMENICI. I totally agree. Ido not want you to think I am 1
saying you are the only ones guilty. We had an excellent experience
this morning with a $5 million solar energy bill. The present situation
in the U.S. Senate requires that it go fromhere to four other standing
committees of the U.S. Senate. That would be the case if it were $50
million, $500 million, or$ 5 million. And so, we are guilty right along
with you of not being able to focus on the problem until too late.
I thank you for your testimony, Doctor.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Stever. I do appreciate
your coming and appreciate yourappearance here today. Thank you.
Our next witness will be Dr. James C. Fletcher, Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We are glad to
have you appear this morning, Dr. Fletcher, and we look forward to
yourtestimony.
[ The biographical sketches of Dr. Fletcher and Mr. Gray follow :]
BIOGRAPHY OF JAMES CHIPMAN FLETCHER
Dr. James C. Metcher was sworn in as Administrator of the National Aero
nautics and Space Administration in a White House ceremony in the President's
office on April 27, 1971.
President Nixon announced Dr. Fletcher's nomination as NASA Administrator
on Feb. 27, 1971 and the appointment was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March
11 , 1971 .
Dr. Fletcher became President of the University of Utah in 1964 after two dec
ades of leadership in industry , government and military activities.
He was born June 5, 1919 in Millburn, New Jersey, attended high school in
Flushing, New York and graduated from Bayside High School, Bayside, New
York. He received a B.A. degree in physics with a minor in mathematics from
Columbia University in 1940 .
After graduation, Dr. Fletcher served as a research physicist with the U.S.
Navy Bureau of Ordnance, at Port Townsend , Washington, studying the problems
of degaussing ships as protection against inagnetic mines.
In 1941 he became a special research associate at the Cruft Laboratory of
Harvard University . He went to Princeton University in 1942 as a teaching fellow
and later was an instructor and research physicist.
At the end of World War II, he began work on a doctorate in physics at the
California Institute of Technology under a teaching assistantship and an East
man Kodak Fellowship . After receiving his Ph . D. degree in 1948, Dr. Fletcher
joined Hughes Aircraft Co. , Culver City, California , as director of the Theory and
Analysis Laboratory in the Electronics Division . Six years later this division
instrumental in developing the Falcon air- to -air missile and the F - 102 all
weather interceptor - had grown from 120 to 25,600 employees.
In 1954 , Dr. Fletcher joined the Ramo-Wooldridge Corp. as an Associate Di
rector and soon became Director of Electronics in the Guided Missile Research
Division. Later the Guided Missile Division became Space Technology Labora
tories, a subsidiary of Ramo-Wooldridge, with technical responsibility for all
United States intercontinental ballistic missiles ( Atlas, Titan and Minuteman ),
as well as the Thor intermediate range ballistic missile. The laboratories also
initiated Pioneer 4, the nation's first space probe.
In July 1958, Dr. Fletcher organized and was first president of the Space Elec
tronics Corp. , at Glendale, California , with his associate, Frank W. Lehan .
Space Electronics Corp. developed and produced the Able Star stage of the
Thor-Able space carrier and had grown to 300 employees by 1960 when control
ling interest was sold to Aerojet General Corp.
 39

A year later, Space Electronics Corp. was merged with the spacecraft division
of Aerojet to form the Space General Corp. Dr. Fletcher was responsible for the
formation of this new corporation and was its first president. He later became
Chairman of the Board of Space General and Systems Vice President of Aero
jet General Corp. He served in this dual capacity until July 1, 1964 when he re
signed to become the eighth president of the University of Utah .
In his career as a research scientist, Dr. Fletcher developed patents in areas
as diverse as sonar devices and missile guidance systems. He continues his inter
est in science through national committee work , having served on more than 50
national committees and as chairman of 10.
In March 1967, Dr. Fletcher, after serving as a consultant since its inception
in 1958, was appointed by President Johnson to membership on the President's
Science Advisory Committee,on which he served for several years.
He was a member of the President's Committee on the National Medal of Sci
ence ; and of several Presidential Task Forces, the most recent being the Task
Force on Higher Education.
He is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, an
Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Theodore von Karman Memorial
Foundation . He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and
of the American Astronautical Society, a member of the Cosmos Club and a mem
ber of the Board of Governors of the National Space Club .
He received the first Distinguished Alumni Award to be given by California
Institute of Technology and an Honorary Doctor of Science Degree from the
University of Ttah. Dr. Fletcher served higher education as a member of the
Executive Committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land
Grant Colleges .
He is the fourth man to head the nation's civilian space agency which came
into being October 1, 1958. The first Administrator was Dr. T. Keith Glennan,
then president of Case Institute of Technology , Cleveland. He was succeeded
in 1961 Mr. James E. Webb, a former Director of the Bureau of the Budget
and Under Secretary of State, who served until 1968. Dr. Fletcher's immediate
predecessor was Dr. Thomas 0. Paine, who resigned September 15, 1970, to
return to the General Electric Company after heading NASA since October 1968.
Dr. Fletcher is married to the former Fay Lee of Brigham City, Utah, and they
are the parents of four children , three girls and a boy : Virginia Lee, Mary Susan,
James Stephen, and Barbara Jo. The Fletchers reside at 7721 Falstaff Road,
McLean , Virginia .
BIOGRAPHY OF EDWARD Z. GRAY
Edward Z. Gray is Assistant Administrator for Industry Affairs and Tech
nology Utilization . In this role Mr, Gray provides liaison between NASA and
the top management of its contractors to facilitate the continuing improvement
and effectiveness of NASA's business relationships. He performs a senior man
agement role in the areas of : cost evaluation to determine ways to achieve
significant space hardware and operational cost savings : developing and main
taining the extensive NASA-wide scientific and technical information dissemina
tion system ; granting patent waivers and licenses ; and granting awards for in
ventions and other scientific and technical contributions related to NASA's
mission. Mr. Gray is also responsible for NASA's Technology Utilization Program ,
the purpose of which is to actively seek out non-aerospace applications for aero
space technology both in industry and in other areas of government responsi
bility. In addition , he participates in Source Evaluation Board presentations to
the Administrator and debriefings of contractors evaluated in these proceedings.
He also participates in the development of policies regarding the provision of
reimbursable launch vehicle services to other government and industrial
organizations.
Prior to his appointment with NASA Mr. Gray served since 1967 with the
Grumman Aerospace Corporation as Assistant to the President and as Director
of Special Projects in theOffice of the President. Prior to working for Grumman,
he was with NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight for four years where he served
as Director of Advanced Missions. He also held several management positions
with the Boeing Company from 1940 to 1963.
Mr. Gray has a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Oregon
State College , and has taken post-graduate work at the University of Washing
ton and the Harvard School of Business. He is an Associate Fellow of the Ameri
can Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
 40
211
Mr. Gray is married to Faith Brown, formerly of Tacoma, Washington . They
m
have two children, Captain Edward Gray, Jr., United States Army, and Mrs.
Theresa Low, Roseville, Minnesota. TT

SE
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES C. FLETCHER, ADMINISTRATOR , NA ca

TIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPA

NIED BY EDWARD Z. GRAY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
INDUSTRY AFFAIRS AND TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
87

Dr. FLETCHER, Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici, I do greatly ap a

preciate the opportunity to present today the views of NASA on S.

2495, the “ Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act.”
I have here with me atthe table, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ed Gray, Assist
ant Administrator for Industry Affairs and Technology Utilization,
who will assist me in this testimony.
The CHAIRMAN . We welcome you, too, Mr. Gray.
Dr. FLETCHER. Let me preface my comments on the specific provi
sions of S. 2495 with some observations on what I believe are the two
underlying premises of the bill. As I see it, the bill is founded first
upon a conviction that science and technology, when properly and
carefully applied , can make a significant contribution to the solution
of critical domestic problems facing the United States. I personally
share that conviction .
I recognize, of course , that many of the problems and challenges
we face are essentially political or economic or societal or institutional
in character, and as such are not susceptible to purely technological
solutions, as Dr. Stever was mentioning earlier. At thesame time, it is
difficult to identify a " critical domestic problem ” —to use the phrase
of S. 2495 — that cannot at least be alleviated by scientific and techno
logical advances, properly conceived and properly applied. I would
like to point out that the appropriate mission agencies must continue
to take the lead in defining the Government role in their designated
areas of responsibility. Those involved in planning our Nation's re
search and development programs must in these " social" areas direct
equal attention to the institutional and other nontechnical arrange
ments required to accommodate the solutions which science and tech
nology can make possible. That is perhaps their greatest challenge, but
it is one thatmust continue to be met.
The second underlying premise of the bill, as I see it, is that we must
continually strive to do the best job possible in matching the Nation's
R. & D. capabilities with national needs and technological opportu
nities. This, too,is a view that I strongly endorse.
Thus, in this sense, NASA supports the broad objectives of S. 2495.
The reservations we have on the specific mechanisms which would be
established by the bill should be considered in the light of our appre
ciation of these overall objectives.
Let me now turn to S. 2495 itself. Essentially, this bill would do
three things :
First, it would establish a “ National Technology Resources Council”
within the Executive Office of the President. This Council would be
chaired by the Vice President and be composed of 10 Federal depart
ments and agency heads (or their designees). Now , I think it is im
portant to point out that these remarksare addressed to the bill itself
 41

and not the working draft bill. There may be a little confusion, but
my remarks at thispoint concern mostly the bill itself. The Council
would be required to develop and supervise a “ technology resources
survey" to identify the existing scientific, engineering, and technologi
calresources of the Nation ,and further to identify the means by which
each might be applied and used to practical advantage in the resolu
tion of the Nation's "critical domestic problems."
Second, the bill would require the establishmentwithin NASA of
an Office of Technology Applications which would provide technical
assistance to the Council.
And third , the bill would require the Council to " make recommenda
tions to the President, who may assign any critical domestic problem
which is identified by the technology resource survey ” to NASA's
Office of Technology Applications or to “any other appropriate Fed
eral agency ."
The bill would authorize $10 million to the Council and $200 million
to NASA , for fiscal year 1975, to carry out their respective functions
under the act.
One of the specific provisions in the bill is the declaration that the
capability demonstrated by the aeronautical and space activities of
NASA in the development of new and advanced technology be made
available and used "in the resolution of critical domestic problems of
the United States to the extent not inconsistent with such aeronautical
and space * * * functions."
NASA has developed -- in industry and universities and in NASA's
field centers — a national resource of scientific and technological ca
pacity that is being vigorously applied in our national spaceand aero
nautics programs, and to some degree in assistance to other agencies.
In addition, under existing law NASA has a statutory obligation to
foster widespread dissemination and utilization of the technology
resulting from NASA mainline aeronautics and space programs. In
meeting that obligation, we seek to structure NASA's technology
utilization program so as to maximize the return to the taxpayer on
the resources invested in NASA . This program includes not only the
publication of technical innovations, but also, and perhaps more pro
ductively, focused efforts to match publicly significant problems with
potential aerospace solutions. In that aspect of the NASA technology
utilization program ,teams composed of technical specialists concen
trate on public problems— in medicine, environment, transportation,
housing and the general concerns of local governments-- in the adapta
tion of aerospace capabilities to public sector uses.
The accomplishments of those "applications teams” as we call them
are documented in the program report on technology utilization
( NASA SP -5119) which we have provided to this committee. You
may wish to include portions of that report in the record of these
hearings.
Chairman Moss. We will include a portion of it in this record . Thank
you.
[ The excerpts from " Technology Utilization Program Report ”
follows :]
 42

..... Ten Years at a Glance

Phase A Phase B Phase C

if
0

Dissemination of Technical Information P

st
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 .
IZ
Figure 1

b
0
ei
Our Customers sector institutions at the Federal , state ,
Over the past ten years the number and local levels have benefited by the P
of technology transfer contacts with nationwide interactive association car SE
non - aerospace organizations has been ried on through the NASA Technology 1
estimated to approach the 1,000,000 Utilization Program . The aggregate
mark . Private industrial firms , trade distribution of those customers served
associations, universities, professional via NASA's technology transfer efforts 1
societies as well as numerous public is shown below:
$

MONT

N. DAK F
OREG IDAHO

WIS

WYO S. DAK

NEV .
IOWA
UTAM NEOR

KANS

N. MEX
OKLA
TEX TENN

MISS ALA

ALASKA co
n Less than 4,000 15,000 to 30,000

22833 4,000 to 15,000 Over 30,000

MARAN
---
 43
NASA's Technology Utilization Program :
The Transfer of Aerospace Technology
As the cases immediately below will
illustrate , technology transfer often
occurs through a " natural diffusion ”
process, yet there is a clear need for
structured, conscious efforts to organ
ize , stimulate and accelerate the applica
tion of new technology to purposes
beyond those for which the new technol
ogy was originally designed . This is
especially true of the nation's aerospace
programs . The high costs of developing
the technology at public expense under
score the need to extract maximum and
repeated benefits irom the public invest
ment .
The stimulation and organization of
this transfer of technology from aero
space programs to the nonaerospace
public and private sectors is the prime
mission of the NASA Technology Util
ization Program . In this effort NASA
is meeting the requirement in the Space
Act of 1958 that technology emerging
from aerospace programs be dissem
inated as widely as possible in the public
interest .
“ Natural Diffusion ”
Before tracing the various elements
of the Technology Utilization Program ,
it is useful, by way of illustration , to
provide some examples of the “ natural
diffusion” process -- since the structured
approaches of Technology Utilization
complement the natural diffusion pro
cess in the wide field of technology
transfer.
9
Two Examples of “ Natural Diffusion ”
Between 1958 and 1961 , Pratt and
Whitney Aircraft , a division of United
Aircraft Corporation in Connecticut ,
was trying to develop commercial fuel
cells with its own funds . But, by the
end of 1960, the company was about to
drop the project because developmental
problems appeared too complex for
economical solutions. Then , the com
pany received a NASA contract to
build a 250- watt demonstration fuel cell
for aerospace purposes. Later, in 1962,
Pratt and Whitney was awarded a con
tract from the NASA Manned Space
craft Center to develop and manufacture
fuel cells for the Apollo spacecraft pro
gram .
This extended the company's fuel cell
work for five years and spurred the
construction of a production plant with
more than 300 workers .
The fuel cells used pure oxygen and
hydrogen . Unfortunately, these fuels are
not available at economical prices for
ground -power uses . So, some $70
million have been invested since 1962
in work on technology that would make
possible the use of standard gas and
liquid fuels with oxygen from ambient
air. Nearly one-half of this money was
provided by a group of 28 gas and
gas/electric utility companies through a
joint program set up with Pratt and
Whitney .
The program is called TARGET
(Team to Advance Research for Gas
Energy Transformation) . As a result,
12.5 Kilowatt fuel cell- modules pro
duced in the program have operated
nearly 100,000 hours at 20 sites around
the country .
Recently, Pratt and Whitney devel
oped a much smaller version of the unit ,
but with the same electrical rating, which
is now on the market . Further refine
ment is necessary . But it is likely that
eventually the fuel cell , spurred by
 44
aerospace requirements and then adapt
ed for ground-power uses, will become
economical for the mass market .
The Pratt and Whitney experience
might be called mission -oriented natural
diffusion . But, there are other ways
technology is naturally diffused .
For example, technology can also be
transferred through the medium of the
professional technical community . This
is illustrated by the application of
NASA - developed stress- measurement
techniques to nonaerospace tasks, Here
is how a case in this category pro
ceeded .
NASA's concern with minimizing the
weight of flight systems had led to the
extensive use of high - strength materials
which are often extremely sensitive to
flaws .
The NASA Lewis Research Center
developed a plane - strain fracture
toughness test to define this sensitivity .
The test allowed engineers, for the first
time , to measure the weakening influ
ence of cracks in selected structural
materials .
This test is now embodied in Amer
ican Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM ) test standards, by way of en
couraging designers of critical structures
to adapt the NASA test procedure as
part of their best practice . Westing
house has already applied the NASA test
method to its power-generating equip
ment. And, producers of primary me
tals , including Alcoa and U.S. Steel,
have noted that a large number of their
customers are demanding these tests ..
This clearly indicates that natural diffu
sion of an important technical innova
tion occurred .
There are many other examples and
styles of natural diffusion of aerospace
technology that could be brought to
those who would normally not have
access through a structured program .
The Need for Structured , Organized
Technology Transfer
NASA recognized early that the
rather informal and sometimes seren con
dipitous process of natural diffusion had stin
to be enhanced and accelerated through
the development of an organized 70.
technology program ; hence, the estab
Lai
lishment of the Technology Utilization
Program back in 1962. pre
After ten years of evolution , the ing
all
Technology Utilization program now
uses three basic and complementary alt
att
technology -transfer mechanisms: Publi
cation , Technical Assistance Dissemina per
CO
tion , and Application Demonstrations.
mi
Publications lin
Each of NASA's Field installations th
has a Technology Utilization Officer. Te
His assignment is to identify, document de
and evaluate new technology generated Or
re
by NASA and its contractors. In addi
a
tion , he is also charged with assuring
that such technology is rapidly available SU
to potential users in and out of the
aerospace com minity. These Officers de
administer a special clause in NASA Sy
contracts with private firms . The clause ar
requires contractors to report to NASA N
any new technology developed in the pa
course of their work . And , such new
technology -- when it is deemed to have H
commerical potential -- is announced to 00
business and industry through various
media .
The Tech Brief
The NASA Tech Brief is probably
the most widely known announcement
medium . It is a technical description
of an innovation , with straight-forward
explanations of basic concepts and prin
ciples . The Tech Brief reader can obtain
more detailed information from a
NASA Technical Support Package
( TSP ) . The TSP includes test data ,
drawings , specifications, and it is avail
able by writing to the Technology Util
ization Officer whose address is provided
in the original Tech Brief. While
obviously innovations often need to be
modified for new applications, the
record indicates high interest and

considerable technology transfer
stimulated by Tech Briefs and TSPs.
For example , NASA Tech Brief
70-10520 , which describes a NASA
Langley Research Center flowchart ,
provided an ordered test sequence allow
ing quick identification of metals and
alloys and attracted major industry
attention . The accompanying TSP
attracted requests by more than 1,000
people. Using the NASA system , even
complex alloys can be identified in 30
minutes or less by workers with very
little training The test requires only
the application of standard chemical
reagents to metal surfaces, spot -plate
depressions, or on filter paper. Colors
or specific reactions produced by the
reagents allow identification , and only
a minute amount of the metal is de
stroyed .
Many of the people who inquired for
details have found applications for the
system . And , the Institute of Scrap Iron
and Steel has distributed copies of the
NASA Tech Brief to its member com
panies .
Here are some examples of applications
of the NASA spot-test technique :
.
The Houston Branch of the Rock
well Manufacturing Company , a
producer of offshore oil rig
equipment, uses the spot
as a standard procedure
process customer complaints on mal
functioning equipment. Such mal
functions often result from using
incorrect alloys in a given component .
An industrial hygiene chemist with
the New York State Department of
Labor is using the spot test to help
identify health hazards associated
with metal fabrication . He is espe
cially interested in alloys using
beryllium and cadmium .
32-205 O - 74 - 4
45
Another example of Tech Brief spurred
technology transfer:
.
The Boeing Company, under con
tract to NASA Marshall Space Flight
Center, invented a portable, electri
cally -powered ultrasonic hand tool
for rapid scanning of spot- weld
discontinuities in small and inac -
cessible places. The unit includes
an ultrasonic search unit attached to
a solenoid in a housing assembly that
includes the scanning motor. The
solenoid is fitted with a recording
stylus in contact with pressure
sensitive paper to provide a read
out of results . The front end of the
scanner is placed on the area being
examined . The spiral scanning mo
tion of the ultrasonic search unit is
recorded as a spiral pattern on the
pressure-sensitive paper. Weld dis
continuities appear as breaks in the
spiral pattern .
The Moragne Machine and Manufactur
ing Corporation in Texas is using several
copies of this hand tool , built on its
premises , to inspect welds on equipment
produced by Moragne for industrial
uses. The Company's president has used
the original NASA TSP and other TSPs
in an extensive investigation of ultrason
ics. Those investigations have produced
inventions : a patented ultrasonic precip
itator to clean the air in the Houston
Astrodome , a carbon- and fire - brick
test plant ; and a welding method in which
to the work piece is vibrated ultrasonically
to produce a superior weld. The com
pany president credits NASA technol
ogy-transfer for some $ 3.5 million worth
of new sales .
Another major source of information
to industry on NASA innovations that
may lend themselves to adaptation is the
Technology Utilization Compilation .
These are collections of a number of
related ideas into a single book, covering
a general technical subject. These books
are generously illustrated, and serve as
workbooks on a practical level .
 46
Some recent examples of Technology
Utilization Compilation Volumes:
Biomedicine
Solid State Technology
Chemistry Technology
Electronic Control Circuits
. Computer Programs, Mechanical
and Structural Design Criteria
The scope of the Tech Brief and
allied dissemination efforts is illustrated
by the fact that nearly 6,000 Tech
Briefs -- and 84 Compilations , have been
published since 1964.
And , during 1973 alone, more than
68,000 requests for detailed Technical
Support Packages were received by
NASA from American industry . Such a
heartening response demonstrates the
continued viability of this proven
technology transfer mechanism .
Dissemination and Technical Assistance
Dissemination of technological in
formation is crucial to orderly technol
ogy transfer, and the Technology Utili
zation Offices at the various NASA field
centers play a major role in this function .
Not only do they respond to inquiries
stimulated by the publications programs
and to inquiries of a more general
nature, but they also conduct periodic
conferences on specific technological
subjects such as fire safety, ion plating ,
as well as the convening of technical
conferences for specific user groups such
as electric power producers.
Also, the Technology Utilization Pro
gram operates a network of Regional
Dissemination Centers (RDC's) which
provide access to aerospace technology
for the industrial sector of the economy .
Specially structured Biomedical and
Technology Application Teams offer
technical solutions to problems in the
public sector. The overall concept is link
age that is, the Technology Utilization
Program is geared to the conviction that
basic
only through direct contact with potential
users can transfer of aerospace techno forn
sear
logy be successful beyond the normal Cove
groups that have access to it. That means
proE
a continuing effort to work with poten
tial users to define problems that might be that
data
amenable to aerospace -derived solutions
and then to actively assist in problem por
artic
solving efforts with the customers for
such technology . clie
On
and
eng
The RDC's
NASA's Regional Dissemination illu
Centers are a major element in this Cer
effort . They provide available technol 3.1
ogy in response to specifically stated OVE
technical problems and information nur
needs of users ranging from small busi by
ness to the largest companies . Firms Spa
subscribing to RDC services cover a
broad spectrum of the U.S. business REE
community . The Centers also serve
university faculties and students at the 0
RDC locations, many national, state and
local organizations , and government
units at all levels .
A telecommunication network con
necting the Centers permits RDC cus
tomers in any part of the country to
reach through the Center most con
venient to them the full technical
resources of all the centers, and to avail
themselves of the full range of data
available in the total network . These
include technical contributions, research
findings and related material assembled
by NASA's Scientific and Technical
Information Office, as well as compar
able information from other sources on
advanced research and development .
The RDC's through their working rela
tionships and people-to -people contact
with NASA field centers , act as constant
catalysts to bring industry closer to
problems and needs closer to NASA's
technical experiences and capabilities,
The Centers serve as professional
technical -assistance consultants to cli P
ents in the major industrial regions in
which they are located , providing two
 47
basic kinds of service: technical in
formation gathered by retrospective
search of the NASA data bank to un
cover all information relevant to a given
problem and 'current awareness' service
that informs clients of innovations . The
data includes abstracts , research re
ports, full -text printouts of technical
articles, and other documents . Also ,
clients can receive technical assistance
on specific problems from RDC staffs
and from NASA research scientists and
engineers .
The response to the RDC service is
illustrated by the fact that last year the
Centers provided service to more than
3,100 industrial clients, a 50% increase
over 1972. The RDC's also aided a
number of state and local governments
by providing access to advanced aero
space technology.
Regional Dissemination Centers:
Aerospace Research Applications
Center (ARAC), Indiana University,
Bloomington, Indiana 47401
Knowledge Availability Systems
Center (KASC) University of Pitts
burgh , Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania
15260
.
New England Research Application
Center (NERAC) The University of
Connecticut , Storrs , Connecticut
06268
North Carolina Science and Technol
ogy Research Center (NC -STRC ),
Research Triangle Park , North Car
olina 27709
.
Technology Application Center
(TAC) The University of New Mex
ico , Albuquerque , New Mexico
87106
Western Research Application Cen
ter (WESRAC ) University of South
ern California, Los Angeles, Cali
fornia 90007
The NASA Technology Utilization
Program leadership is convinced that
many of the discoveries emerging from
the nation's aerospace program have
potential nonaerospace applications.
And , the RDC's have already devel
oped a strong record of participation in
successful technology transfer along
these very lines .
One recent example : A Regional
Dissemination Center recently assisted a
company that was looking for a way to
remove bacterial organisms that were
contaminating large vats used in the
production of antibiotics . An RDC
search of NASA data sources revealed
chemical methods that had long been
used to clean NASA space rocket fuel
tanks . The aerospace solution made it
possible for the company to solve its
problem without diverting expensive
technical manpower from their regular
work .
Most often , companies call on RDC's
for information on a specific problem .
For example, Pyronetics, a company in
California, was developing a portable,
low-cost multi-purpose welding torch.
But , the company faced the technical
problem of a bulky high-pressure oxygen
supply . Pyronetics asked for an RDC
search of NASA data for information
on chlorate candles . These candles are
unique in that they generate oxygen
while they burn . The Western Research
Application Center at the University of
Southern California provided informa
tion on chlorate - candle composition ,
hazards, applications and manufacturing
and shipping regulations. The data was
crucial to the development of Pyronetic's
final market product which weighs
only seven pounds. By the end of 1972,
more than 20,000 units had been sold .
Another very typical example .Owens
Corning Fiberglas in Texas is supplying
the insulation for the Alaskan pipeline .
Unique thermal stresses and concern
with environmental considerations re
quired the company to analyze the
mechanical-thermal stresses on the insu
lation , which was to be made of a
jacketed rigid foam . An RDC data bank
search identified a NASA report dating
 48

back to 1965 that offered the basis for Management Information Center UNI
the required analysis. (COSMIC ), located at the University of
Another example of RDC contribu Georgia. This Center collects, evaluates, tech
tions: The ILC Company in California and distributes computer tapes, cards,
produces pulse lamps and continuous decks, program listings and machine-run NAS
wave devices and communication equip instructions. COSMIC and all Regional
ment . This firm asked the Western Dissemination Centers sell “ software " to tion,
Research Applications Center to prepare potential users at prices based on cost the
a state- of-the-art search on arc-lamp of reproduction and distribution . purg
cathode technology . Using the data from Mant
the search , the firm introduced several COSMIC serves as a central clearing pote
innovations into their arc- lamp product house and dissemination outlet for
line . ILC says that the RDC service computer programs and related data men
saved them $ 25,000 and improved their developed by NASA and its contrac med
competitive position . tors, as well as those developed by the farn
An example , in the field of archaeol Department of Defense. The Center is tion
ogy: The Department of Anthropology now established as a locus of support
at the University of New Mexico has for the industrial , educational and busi used
been working with the Department of ness communities. It has already dis you
the Interior's National Park Service in seminated nearly 20,000 items .
the search for and identification of an Pro
New items are constantly being
important Indian ruin in the Chaco added to the COSMIC program
cons
Canyon (New Mexico ) . To aid this inventory and nearly 1,000 complete fro
important scientific effort, the Technol programs are now available . lab
ogy Application Center at the University One example of technology transfer
of New Mexico has been providing in the computer program field is the
remote-sensing mapping assistance . The NASTRAN (NASA Structural Analysis Tea
Chaco area is estimated to be as large Program). NASTRAN is a general pur garn
as the well-known ruins in the Mesa ose digital-computer program originally tron
Verde National Park . Through the use devloped to analyze static and dynamic gam
of remote -sensing maps provided by the behavior of elastic structures. The pro
Size
RDC, the original identification of the gram was originally and is still used , by
quit
site from the ground has been expanded NASA and aerospace companies, to tor
from ten to 200 miles . Ancient roads analyze aircraft fuselages, wings and tail Тоог
have been identified in the 200 -mile area assemblies, space vehicles Viking and psyc
mapped . Researchers believe that further Skylab) and related launch facilities and
study of remote sensing data will estab turbine engines. of a
lish an interconnecting road between the Because of its versatility, this compu
ing
Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon com ter program is now widely used by scores
munities that existed some 3000 years of firms including the Ford Motor the =
ago .
Company ( to assure quality of auto fire
frames). More than 200 companies have COOP
COSMIC purchased the NA STRAN program . of
Ford , one of the most well-known users,
The U. S. space program has spurred says it is saving $ 12 million a year with
and
major advances in computer technology NA
mmmu

and NASA's Technology Utilization this computer program . of

Program has provided access to these
software benefits to the Nation'scompu
ter users . Thus , an important compon Application Teams lize
此

ent in the technology transfer effort is Nationally significant public pro City
, 航

NASA's Computer Software and blems are the focus of the Technology who
 49
Utilization Program's applications
teams. These teams, composed of NASA
technical specialists and technology
transfer agents under contract to
NASA , concentrate on public problems,
in medicine, environment , transporta
tion, housing and general concerns of
the state and local level . Their basic
purpose is to work with publicly signifi
cant problems and match them with
potential aerospace solutions.
Some of the most dramatic achieve
ments of this effort have been in the
medical field . A biological isolation
garment now being used by the Na
tional Cancer Institute (NCI) is a case
in point. One of the techniques being
used by the NCI to treat leukemia in
young children requires that they be
protected from infection and they must
be kept in a sterile environment . This
consideration has prevented the children
from leaving the sterile room either for
lab tests in other portions of the hospital
or for recreation. Working with ' NCI ,
the NASA Biomedical Application
Team identified the biological isolation
garment developed for the Apollo as
tronauts and arranged for the loan of a
garment to NCI . The NCI had a child
size version built and has found it to be
quite successful, permitting the children
to readilý leave the isolation of the sterile
rooms and providing a considerable
psychological boost.
A second example is the development
of a lightweight, longer duration breath
ing apparatus for firefighters. NASA's
attention to this problem originated in
the strongly expressed need ofmunicipal
fire departments for such devices. In
cooperation with the National Bureau
of Standards Fire Technology Division
and Public Technology, Incorporated ,
NASA initiated an effort in the spring
of 1971 to develop improved equipment .
An interesting aspect of the program is
a User Requirements Committee organ
ized by PTI consisting of fire chiefs, a
city manager and union representatives
who have met periodically with NASA
engineers to review the program . These
meetings have assisted NASA in under
standing and meeting fire service needs .
Twenty prototype breathing apparatus
units will be released for field tests by
fire departments in the spring of 1974.
This program is described in greater
detail in the body of this report .
The Application Teams , through
working partnerships with the NAŠA
Field Centers and in consultation with
potential users of NASA technology ,
facilitate the process of adaptation of
aerospace technology to public-sector
uses. The program is planned so that
adaptive design and prototype fabrication
can be performed when necessary on
high priority projects. Field testing by
mission -oriented user organization's
follows the hardware development pro
gram .
This problem - solution matching
process and its attendant prototype
development and testing phases are
especially geared to extracting a second
round of benefits for taxpayers who have
already invested in aerospace technol
ogy .
Technology Sharing
The Technology Utilization Program
has placed special emphasis in dis
semination and offering technological
assistance to small minority business and
sharing the space technology invest
ments with state and local jurisdic
tions . These initiatives were directed
through the NASA Technology Utiliza
tion Offices, the Regional Dissemination
Centers and the Applications Teams. In
fact, 50 % of the RDC clients are small
businesses and many of the applications
team clients are state and local govern
ments. These activities were augmented
by some specific experiments :
.
An interchange of personnel with the
State of Texas assesses the technical
needs of a very large state and deter
mines the optimum mechanism to
meet them ;
he addition of a representative of
 50

$
Dr. FLETCHER. In a somewhat broader context, I believe that the ad
ministration fully appreciates the capability that NASA and its con F
tractors represent, and plans increasingly to utilize it in nonaerospace
fields. In recentyears, the Executive Office of the President has en
couraged other Federal agencies to take advantage of NASA's capa
bilities through cooperative interagency projects, often on a reim
bursable basis. Some examples of these types of cooperative arrange
ments are detailed in the recent report to the Committee on Aero e
nautical and Space Sciences on NASA's Energy -Related Research and a
Development. Copies of that report, I believe, are before you. a
The administration does not recommend that NASA's charter or
be
mission be expanded, as is contemplated in S. 2495, but rather it is
considered preferable that the level and direction of research and de
velopment addressed to critical problems be determined by the respon L
sible mission agencies, forexample, the Department of Housingand
Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and so on,
that are close to the specific problems to be dealt with . We at NASA
believe, as I have stated, that aerospace technical and management a
approaches have been and will continue to be brought to bear pro t
ductively in a number ofspecific problem areas.
With respect to the National Technology Resources Council pro
posed in S. 2495, NASA believes that such a council would duplicate
or at least greatly overlap existing structures within the Executive
be
Office of the President for overall domestic policymaking and coordi &
nation. This would be especially true with respect to the Domestic C
Council, established by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970. For exam
ple, among the specific functions of the Domestic Council are :
defining nationalgoals and objectives, f
identifying alternative ways of achieving these objectives and a
recommending consistent, integrated sets of policy choices, t
providing rapid response to Presidential needs for policy advice
on pressing domestic issues,
V
coordinating the establishment of national priorities for the
allocation of available resources, and a

S
maintaining a continuous review of the conduct of on-going
domestic programs. n

These functions are essentially the same as those proposed in S. 2495

for the " National Technology Resources Service Council," and there t

fore I strongly believe it is preferable to rely upon this existing on T

going policy arm of the President to conduct the " Technology Re
sources Survey," if Congress determines that such a survey would be
useful. In this way, the application of scientific and technological re
sources could be considered in the full context of overall domestic
policymaking. As you may recall in the previous testimony, Dr. Stever 1
mentioned that many of our difficulties are institutional and political
in nature. And it seems to me, the handiest way to handle that kind
of a problem is with a council that is set up to do just that. The Domes
tic Council, of course, may call upon all department and agency ex
perts and the staff of the OMB to assure that maximum top-level
input from the mission -oriented agencies is taken into account in
developing national domestic policy and recommendations.
With respect to the scope of the proposed technology resources sur
veys, NASA believes that rather than requiring that each survey en
compass an inventory of all critical domestic problems which may be
 51

susceptible of resolution by the application of science and technology,

flexibility to focus initially on specific discrete areas may be more
productive.
The suggestions I have mentioned are based on NASA's understand
ing that what is intended to be accomplished by S. 2495 is broader
than merely insuring that ongoing Federal research and development
programs are fullycoordinated. Mechanisms for achieving that ob
jective already exist, and this is the coordination function in the Fed
eral Council for Science and Technology, of which I am a member,
and other coordinating groups such as the DOD-NASA Aeronautics
and Astronautics Coordinating Board. Now, that was also mentioned
by Dr. Stever as the mechanism
for coordinating with the Department
of Defense. We call it the AACB.
Mr. Chairman , in conclusion let me repeat that NASA supports the
broad objectives of S. 2495. We do not feel, however, that NASA re
quires additional authority in order to insure that NASA's tech
nological capabilities are effectively utilized. We believe that science
and technology will continue to yield solutions to, or at least serve to
alleviate, manyof our pressing domestic problems. And we believe
that however effective we are in applying this national resource today
we can always dobetter, and that must beour continuing goal.
We do not, however,recommend enactment of S. 2495 in view of the
reservations I have mentioned. Wedo welcome these hearings on that
bill — and the widespread interest in and discussions concerning it
as a way to draw attention to the role science and technology must
continue to play in our advanced society .
Messrs. Chairmen, this concludes myprepared statement.
The CHAIRMAN . Thank you , Dr. Fletcher, for your statement, and
for bringing these two studies to the attention of the committee. We
are glad to have them and we will place at least some parts of them in
the record.
You say that NASA supports the broad objectives of S. 2495 and
we appreciate that support, even though you do not recommend en
actment of the bill. Could you support the bill if we deleted the re
sources council and gave the responsibility for the survey to the Do
mestic Council ?
Dr. FLETCHER. I think I could give more support to it in that form
than I could in its current form.
The CHAIRMAN. Is your reservation largely based on what you
would think would be an overlap with the Domestic Council ?
Dr. FLETCHER. Well, in thefirst place, Mr.Chairman, we have to
talk about whether you are referring to the bill or the draft.
The CHAIRMAN . Yes.
Dr. FLETCHER. In the case of the bill, it would set up a brand new
council, and I am generally opposed to setting up brandnew organiza
tionswithout knowing what they are going to be, what kind of person
nel they are going to have, and where they are to report to, and so
on. So,I have some
reservations about that.
The second point is that I think the Domestic Council does have the
problem of strengthening out domestic programs between agencies.
It is represented by most of the Cabinet departments and it has the
job of pulling together science and applying it to domestic problems
as well as any other resources that the Nation may have. And I think
these institutional problems are our biggest problems in getting tech
 52

nology used. The Domestic Council, I think, can go a long way to

solving that.
TheCHAIRMAN. Wehave received a number of suggestions as to
who should be responsible for a scientific and technological resources
survey . You suggest the Domestic Council and Dr. Stever the FCST.

ma 坏
There are someothers that have been suggested, and I would ask for
your reaction. Doctor Handler will suggest a council in the Executive

的 。
Office like the Council on Economic Advisers, and the Council on OF
Environmental Quality.
Dr. FLETCHER . Well, not having reviewed that, I cannot say that
this is bad or good. But, I do not quite see how that differs from the at
proposal in the original bill. It depends on what the representation is 1
on that council, what kind of a staff it is going to have and so forth.
But, it would, in effect, set up a new council in the executive branch st
which I understand the bill proposes. 8
The CHAIRMAN . How about a separate office in the OMB itself ?
Dr. FLETCHER. I think there is much to be said for that, because
the OMB, after all, is the controller of the budget and that is a power I
ful controllingdevice. And so, I would not oppose setting up acouncil
within theOMB. I thinkthat the problem there is, would OMB then
be required to work closely with the Congress in this capacity and if
that were the case, as the bill tries to imply, I think that mightbe quite
an acceptable mechanism .
The CHAIRMAN. Robert Sarnoff recently suggested a permanent be
national commission with members serving perhaps 10 -year terms.
Does that have any appeal to you ?
Dr. FLETCHER. I would be a little worried about a commission set up a

outside of the Federal Government, because such commissions have

given difficulties in the past in two ways: One is that there sometimes
are parochial interests served and that comes out in many of the dis
cussions of such groups. And I served on one for 4 years. And the
second is that quite often they donot,I will say, plug into the Federal
Government structure. They will make a report and then the report
floats around, but it is never implemented . I think that was partof
the problem with the Federal Council on Science and Technology Re
port on energysome years ago. It was issued , but it did not go any
where. In fact, I am not even sure it was published until recently.
The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from New Mexico ?
Senator DOMENICI. Well, I just want to make one observation . You
do not clear your throat too often , but when you got to the power of
OMB , I noticed that vou did.
Let me say, Dr. Fletcher, first, I greatly appreciate having your
testimony on this bill. I believe you are quite forthright. It is obvi
ous that one need not search around for what your views are. You
do not favor the bill in its totality. You stated a very specific reason
for it. And, I personally thank you for that approach .
It seems to me that the whole area of assessment is generally accom
plished in a veryad hoc manner. Wereally have notcome up with a
continuing, broad -based thrust. I have spoken to you before about
that, as it applies to our great institutions, laboratories. There are
peaks and vallevs in funding an effort. And we never peak again until
we have somebody pushing us with a Sputnik, an atomic bomb, or
right now the energy crisis. And I have heard scientists tell groups
 53

att of leaders from Washington, every time you need us to try to turn the
faucet back on . Now, you want to spur all of us to solve yourenergy
as to problems. But, for 5 or 6 years science was one of the valleys. Do you
urces have any ideas on how we might solve the groping ?
OST. Dr. FLETCHER. Well, I think we certainly have a problem in smooth
fore ingoutthesepeaksand valleys. No technical person would argue with
utive that point.We need a steadying hand atthe tiller, but with the public
il on opinion ebbing and flowing it is difficult to see how you can actually
get that steadying hand.
that What the bill is suggesting is that a council be set up to try to allevi
the ate some of these fluctuations. And I support the general idea of that.
ON I think that is a good thing to do.
orth What we are discussing now is where that steadying hand is, where
urch should it be located and who should it consist of. I think that Dr.
Stever suggested that the Federal council be augmented to perform
? that function. And what I am suggesting is the Domestic Council do it.
ause But, it would have to be augmented to be able toserve inthis capacity.
wer I think I would not object to a similar council being set up in OMB,
neil but I would prefer the Domestic Council.
hen Senator DOMENICI. Do you believe that technology developed by
dil NASA is given adequate attention ! Could the present interagency
uite system be improved ?
Dr. FLETCHER. Well, Senator Domenici, the mechanism for NASA
ent becoming involvedin nonspace and aeronautic affairs is not through
ms the Federal council at the present time but through the Congress or
through the OMB, or through other government, what we call, user
up agencies. The Federal council's role at the present time is primarily
ave one of coordination, as I understand it, and it is very rare, in fact, I
don't think it has ever occurred that they havemade arecommendation
IS that NASA do this or NASA do that. So, in its present form it could
he notserve inthat function , I do not believe.
ma] Senator DOMENICI. Could you conceive of a council that you have
It been describing as performing that kind of a function for your agency
of and others ?
Dr. FLETCHER. Yes. I think such a council would be helpful. I think
that any council would have to be augmented in terms of its staff and
in terms of what it did, because the Council has certain functions as
proposed in your bill and I think I am sympathetic with most of those
functions. Any existing council would have to be enlarged in scope
to perform some of those functions.
Senator DOMENICI. Thank you , Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you , Dr.Fletcher andMr. Gray. We appreciate your coming
very much .
Our next witness is Dr. Philip Handler, president of the National
Academy of Sciences. Dr. Handler, we look forward to having you, sir.
[ The biography of Mr. Philip Handler follows :]
BIOGRAPHY OF PHILIP HANDLER
Born : August 13, 1917, New York City ; wife : Lucille M.; sons : Mark, Eric
Paul.
Ph. D. University of Illinois , 1939.
National Academy of Sciences, President ( 1969– ).
 54

National Science Board, National Science Foundation, Chairman ( 1966-1970 ) ;

Member ( 1962– ). 1121

Duke University School of Medicine, Instructor through ranks to Chairman ,

Department of Biochemistry ( 1939–1969 ) ; James B. Duke Professor of Bio do
chemistry ( on leave ) .
Memberships : Johns Hopkins University, Visiting Committee on the Biological
Sciences ; University of Notre Dame, Visiting Committee on the Life Sciences ;
Nova University, Scientific Advisory Board ; Rockefeller University, Board of
Trustees ; Yale University, Visiting Committee for the Graduate School ; Insti po
tute for Cancer Research, Scientific Advisory Committee ; Kettering Institute,
Scientific Advisory Committee ; Scripps Metabolic Clinic and Research Founda of
tion, Scientific Advisory Committee ( 1963–73 ) ; American Academy of Arts and
Sciences ; American Association for the Advancement of Science ; American Chem ter
ical Society ; American Institute of Nutrition ; American Philosophical Society ;
American Society of Biological Chemists, President ( 1962–1963 ) ; Chairman,
Publications Committee ( 1969– ) ; Biochemical Society ( United Kingdom ) ; IL
Cosmos Club ; Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
Chairman of the Board ( 1959–1965 ) ; Foundation for Advancement of the Sci
ences ; German Academy of Natural Sciences, Leopoldina ; National Academy of de
Sciences, President ( 1969– ) ; New York Academy of Sciences, Fellow ; Presi
dent's Science Advisory Committee ( 1964–1968 ) ; (1969–1972 ) ; and Royal So
ciety for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce, Benjamin th
Franklin Fellow.
Published works : 200 technical papers in biochemical journals ; diverse F
speeches, etc.; coauthor of textbook, Principles of Biochemistry, McGraw -Hill ;
ac
and editor, Biology and the Future of Man, Oxford University Press.
Honors : C. B. Mayer Award, New York Academy of Medicine ( 1943 ) ; Town
send Harris Medal, City College of New York ( 1964 ) ; Stevens Honor Award, a
Stevens Institute of Technology ( 1969 ) ; Annual Award for Distinguished Con
tributions to Medical Sciences, American Medical Association ( 1969) ; North F
Carolina Award for Science ( 1970 ) ; and University of Illinois Alumni Achieve
ment Award ( 1972 ) . PT
D.Sc. : Case Western Reserve University ( 1968 ) .
LL.D.: Emory University ( 1969 ).
D.Sc. : Colorado State University ( 1970 ) .
D.Sc. : Carnegie -Mellon University ( 1970 ) .
D.Sc. : University of North Carolina ( 1971).
D.Sc. : New York Medical College ( 1971 ) .
D.Sc. : Yeshiva University , New York City ( 1971 ) .
Ph. D. : Hon. Causa , Hebrew University , Israel ( 1971 ) .
D.Sc.: Temple University ( 1972 ).
D.Sc. : Medical College of Wisconsin ( 1972 ) .
LL.D.: City College of City University of New York ( 1972 ) .
Litt.D .: Nova University ( 1972 ) .
D.Sc. : George Washington University ( 1973 ).
STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP HANDLER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Dr. HANDLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman . I am very pleased to

have the opportunity to appear before this joint hearing of the Com
mittees on Aeronautic and Space Sciences, and Commerce, to com
ment upon S. 2495, the proposed “ Science and Technology Resources
Survey and Applications Act of 1974."
This bill would declare Federal policy with respect to the utiliza
tion of the Nation's scientific and technological resources in solving
critical domestic problems. It would establish a National Science and
Technology Resources Council with responsibility ( a ) for preparing
an annual survey of science and technology resources and of critical
domestic problems which may be susceptible of resolution by the ap
plication of science and technology and ( 6 ) for recommending cor
responding programs to the President and their assignment to an
propriate Federal agencies. The proposed measure also would estab
 55

lish an Office of Technology Application within the National Aero

nautics and Space Administration (NASA ) to assist the Council, to
conduct research to demonstrate the feasibility of solutions of various
domestic problems, and to utilize the expertise of NASA and private
organizations in solving these problems.
Mr. Chairman, the provisions of S. 2495, as set forth in the provi
sions of this measure have significant implications fornational science
policy. The measure would create a mechanism in the Executive Office
of the President with responsibility for planning and implementing
programs for insuring more effective use of the Nation's scientific and
technical resources. Second, it would designate an existing independ
ent agency , outside of the Executive Office, as the chosen administrative
instrument for supporting the Council ' in the performance of its
responsibilities.
The central question, in my view, is how best to assure the healthy
development and more effective use of the Nation's scientific and tech
nological resources in achieving our national purposes. I would urge,
therefore, that the committee give careful consideration to the broader
implications of this measure and to alternative approaches for shaping
Federal science and technology policies, institutions and programs in
accord with overall national needs.
The introduction of this measure, last year, followed on the heels of
a substantial reshaping by the executive branch of its institutional
mechanisms concerned with the formulationand implementation of
Federal policy for science and technology. I refer to actions taken
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973 whereby the Office of
Science and Technology was abolished and its civilian functions trans
ferred to the individual who is Director of the National Science
Foundation but not to that agency or its Board. The scientific advisory
structure within the White House was further dismantled by the ter
mination of the post of Presidential science adviser and the disband
ing of the President's Science Advisory Committee. The Director of
NSF was given the title of science adviser, and in this capacity, reports
to the President through the counselor to the President who, at this
time is also Secretary of the Treasury,
These joint hearings provide a timely opportunity forthe Congress
to gain a better perspective and understanding of these changes in the
course of exploring alternative arrangements for more purposefully
relating the Nation's scientific and technical resources to our domestic
needs. It is with this background in mind that I suggest that delibera
tion on the provisions of S. 2495 should be considered in a broader
Federal policy context.
In myview , the recent changes made in the overall Federal structure
for science and technology, a structure that had its inception during
the term of President Eisenhower, were initiatedwithout an adequate
assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the established mech
anisms for generation and implementation of science and technology
policy or of the longer term implications of these changes. Under
those circumstances, I consider that a thoughtful and objective ap
praisal of past performance and future needs is essential to guide the
creation of an effective substitute.
As an indication of this concern, the Council of the National Acad
emy of Sciences authorized me to convene a committee to look broadly
 56

at the relationship between science and technology and government

with a view to assuring the best use of scientific and technical judgment 10

in the development of public policy and in the planning and manage TE

ment of Federal research and development. This committee is headed
by Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., honorary chairman of the corporation Ca
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. You may recall that Dr.
Killian served as the first special assistant to the President for science
and technology in 1957. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to include in the record with my testimony a statement issued by
the Academy listing the members of this committee and stating the th
purposeof their mission in some detail . W
The CHAIRMAN. That may be submitted and will be made a part of ta
the record.
SU
[ The information listing Academymembers follows :] 08
[ News release from the National Academy of Sciences ]
JAMES R. KILLIAN , JR., TO HEAD STUDY OF SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENT
21
WASHINGTON—The following statement was issued today by the National a
Academy of Sciences : 8
The Council of the National Academy of Sciences has convened an ad hoc com 0
mittee to look broadly at the relationships between science and technology and
government with a view to assuring the best use of scientific and technical judg
ments in the development of public policy and in the planning and management
of federal research and development. The chairman of the committee is Dr.
James R. Killian, Jr., Honoary Chairman of the Corporation of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology .
Science and science-based technologies are relevant to virtually all agencies of
the Federal Government and to the work of most committees of Congress. The C

mechanisms whereby policies and programs in these areas are planned, coordi (
nated, and monitored at the Presidential level have evolved continually since
1957 when Dr. Killian was appointed by President Eisenhower as the first
Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. A year ago the C
President's Science Advisory Committee was terminated , and on July 1, 1973, the
civilian functions of the White House Office of Science and Technology were
transferred to the Director of the National Science Foundation, who has since
been named Science Adviser to the President,
The ad hoc committee will evaluate these changing relationships between
science and technology and government, examine the new requirements born
of changes in national priorities and objectives, and draw on the experience of
past and present arrangements. The principal objective of this study is to suggest
means whereby the unique contributions of science and technology can most
effectively be incorporated in the policy-making process so that their full poten
tial for benefit to our national well-being and future progress can be realized.
The membership of the ad hoc committee given on the attached list, although
not complete, includes persons with varied experience in the problems of science
and government, drawn largely from industry and the universities with back
grounds in the social, engineering, medical, and natural sciences. It is contem
plated that the report and recommendations of the committee may be avail
able to the Council of the Academy within four to six months.
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Graham T. Allison, Public Policy Program, Kennedy School of Government,

Harvard University.
Ivan L. Bennett, Jr. , Director, New York University Medical Center.
Harold Brown, President, California Instiute of Technology .
James B. Fisk, Chairman of the Board, Bell Telephone Laboratories.
Robert C. Gunness, President , Standard Oil Company ( Indiana ).
James R. Killian, Jr., Chairman , Honorary Chairman of the Corporation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology .
Edwin H. Land, President, Polaroid Corporation .
 57

Franklin A. Long, Department of Chemistry and Program on Science, Tech

nology and Society , Cornell University .
Emanuel R. Piore, Vice Chairman , Retired Vice President and Chief Scientist,
IBM, New York, N.Y.
Kenneth S. Pitzer, Vice Chairman, Department of Chemistry, University of
California , Berkeley .
Donald B. President, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
James Tobin , Department of Economics, Yale University .
Charles H. Townes, Department of Physics, Univeristy of California, Berkeley.
David Beckler, NAS Staff Officer .
Dr. HANDLER. Thank you, sir. It is my expectation , Mr. Chairman,
that the committee will complete its deliberations by midsummer,
when their observations and recommendations will be made available
toboth the executive branch and the Congress. We hope that the re
sults of this study can be of use in governmental deliberations con
cerned with building adequate scientific and technical underpinnings
for Government policiesand programs, and with establishinga policy
framework and mechanisms to guide those within Government who
are concerned with the management and uses of the Nation's scientific
and technological resources. The views I offer this morning,therefore,
are my own and not necessarily those of Dr. Killian's committee or
of the academy membership .
Meanwhile, in the absence of any clearly understood functioning
central office charged with consideration of Federal organization and
policy for science and technology, diverse pieces and aspects of such
questions are being raised in different formsand forums. For example,
in addition to S. 2495 , there are bills such as S. 2819, which would
create a Solar Energy Research Council to coordinate research and
development in that area. Another proposed measure, now under con
sideration by a Senate committee would place a Biomedical Research
Panel in the Office of the President. I also understand that the House
Science and Astronautics Committee plans to continue the hearings
of last summer on Federal Policy, Plans, and Operations for Science
Technology
and .
Accordingly, I am particularly concerned lest a piecemeal approach
violate the essential need for an integrated approach to policy and
program development.
There are certainly noteworthy aspects of S. 2495 which should be
considered in any major legislative formulation of revised national
science and technology policy. I should like to comment on some of
the current provisions of s. 2495 and to suggest for your considera
tion other alternative approaches for making more effective use of
Government's technological resources, such as those of NASA, in
facilitating the search for solutions to domestic problems.
I find particularly commendable the declaration ofpolicy contained
in section 2 of S. 2495 concerning Federal responsibility to foster the
application of the Nation's scientific and technical resources to the res
olution of our domestic ills. Its enactment would represent one of the
more significant efforts by Congress to define a Federal strategy for
applying scientific and technical knowledge to national societal prob
lems. In the past, Federal support for research and development has
usually been justified in terms of departmental or agency missions
such as support for agriculture, the development and application of
nuclear energy, the space program and the national defense.
 58

sa
S. 2495 on the other hand, deals with the more generic issue of com $0
prehensively relating our national scientific and technological re
sources to the resolution of critical domestic problems perceived with fo
in a 10-year time frame. This is particularly important since many of
our most pressing societal problemsare of such character that they are
not readily addressed or managed by traditional lines of Federal
agency responsibilities. This circumstance, in turn, demands that there
be authoritative leadership to knit together agency interests and ca un
pabilities within a framework of coherent national programs and su
plans. COC
To provide a more balanced policy in terms of national capabilities no
and needs, may I suggest the following additional thoughts for your
consideration :
SUT
First, I believe it is important that such a significant policy state he
ment recognize that decisions concerning the uses of the Nation's sci W
ence and technology resources should be made in a pluralistic environ of
ment involving allsectorsof our society - private industry,the univer an
sities, government at all levels, and the public at large. It would be
both misleading and undesirable to infer that controlof the Nation's
scientific and technical resources is primarily in the hands of the Gov an
ernment, or that the public sector can operate as a closed system in the Dee
formulation of policy and programs. The measure as presently drafted
appears to be deficient in thisrespect, both in terms of the proposed 101
membership of the National Science andTechnology Resources Coun Re
cil and in its failure to recognize the need for a variety of cooperative
arrangements with industry and local governments and for incentives era
to private investment. ТО
Second, it is essential to recognize, as a matter of policy, that science fos
and technology are but tools to be used in the solution of domestic
rep
problems; these tools must be related to the economic, social,political, tie
financial and institutional measures needed to provide realistic options
and to carry the results of research and development through demon ter
stration and the diffusion of innovation. National technology policy ap
must embrace such questions as the relative roles of Government and fo
aoE

private industry in research and innovation and the incentives needed

to draw forth the best capabilities and the concerted efforts of all who as
can contribute to this end. I would like to underscore the importance
of section 2 ( a) (4) of S. 2495, the finding that a more systematic ap bi
proach to analyzing and planning for the resolution of critical dom
OC
estic problems is essential to achieving full and efficient use of the fo
Nation's scientific and technological resources. In short, one must
avoid the notion of a " technological fix ” for our domestic problems.
Overemphasis on the identification and exploitation of scientific and
technological opportunities without recognizing the necessity for more
comprehensive approaches to national problem solving carries with it
the seeds of overexpectation and disappointment. t
Third, the declaration of policy should recognize that the effective 0
ness of our scientific and technological resources in solving domestic t
problems critically depends on the maintenance of a strong national a
base of ever-expanding knowledge in science andadvanced technology I
made possible by the continuing activity of a sufficient body of highly C
qualified scientists and engineers. Policies for the continuing renewal {
andselective strengthening of this base are fully asimportant as those (
aimed at realizing the potential for short-term application. And in
 59

COM
saying that I think I am simply supporting what Senator Domenici
ne
said a little while ago.
with There must be national resolve to pursue policies, particularly those
Tof forresearch and development, intended to prevent rather than cope
ane with crises. For example , the scientific community, specifically the
era?
Academy and the PSAC /OST in the White House,gave ample warn
here ing of the appearance, on the horizon, of the environmental and energy
Ica crises. But the political machinery could not be moved accordingly
and until every visitor arrivingat National Airport could see the boiling
suds and the immense algal bloom in the Potomac and until the Arabs
ities corked their wells and quadrupled the price of petroleum . We badly
Four
require a national attitude toward civilian R. & D. more like that for
military R. & D .; viz,a willingness to commit substantial sums to
tate support research addressed to scenarios considered to be possible, but
sci notnecessarily probable, a decade or more in the future , including a
ron willingness to explore multiple paths without concern for the bugaboo
Ter of "overlap andduplication” and in the hope that one will succeed
d be and the certain knowledge that some of the effort will, in retrospect,
on's
seem to have been wasted.
Jor In considering options for Government organization for science
the and technology,one mustask whether, and the extent to which, there is
fted need for a central capability to analyze and relate policies for science
osed
and technology to the other components of national policies. Section
oun
101 of S. 2495 would establish the NationalScience and Technology
Resources Council within the Executive Office of the President, but
tive
ires with a much more limited mandate than the foregoing policy consid
erations imply. The Council according to the second version of S. 2495,
ence
would be composed ofthe membersof the existing Federal Council
estic for Science and Technology, as established by Executive order, plus
ical,
representatives of three associations representing the States, coun
cions
ties,and cities respectively.
non
The responsibility assigned to the Council, to survey science and
licy technology resources and to recommend agency assignments for the
and application of such resources to domestic problems, suggests the need
for a differently structured decisionmaking organization and process.
eded
Teho The membership of the Federal Council for Science and Technology,
ance
as presently constituted by Executive order, would in my view be a
ap
cumbersome and inappropriate body for performing the responsi
bilities assigned to them by S. 2495. Over the years, FCST has en
70m countered difficulties in carrying out its minimum interagency role
Ethe for coordination of Government activities. There is an awkward
must
ems
problem inherent in asking these designated Federal officials to sit
and in judgment on the distribution of program assignments among their
more own agencies and of evaluating progress that they are making in solv
th it ing assigned problems. The bill before you makes no explicit state
ment concerning the Chairman of the proposed Council. In the absence
tive
thereof, I can only assume that the Chairman would be the Chairman
estie of the FCST, presently the Director ofthe National Science Founda
onal
tion in his role as science adviser. Quite apart from the great cap
abilities of the present incumbent in that office, I find such an ar
7097 rangement a decided awkwardness since it places on the head of one
ch ] operating agency the burden of responsibility and authority for co
evral
hose ordinating
other and,
agencies.
in some degree, designating the working programs of
od in
 60

I suggest that the limited operational responsibilities set forth in plov

S. 2495 probably could be more effectively administered by a smaller TOU

council somewhat paralleling the membership of the Council of Eco POTE

nomic Advisors or the Council on Environmental Quality. A smaller 0
statutory council composed of full-time and publicly identified in
dividuals could have, as an adjunct, an advisory body,or bodies, com dep
posed of individuals from outside Government whose collective pro thet
fessional training and competence would provide invaluable assistance thg

to the Council in making objective and evaluative judgments in the area

performance of its assigned responsibilities. They could alert the Gov I

ernment to problems and opportunities, suggest alternative approaches
to problemsolving and bring to Government current knowledge con CODE
cerning techological change and innovation. spa
Such advisory groups would meet my earlier stated concerns about fun
assuring broader technical and professional involvement of the private Cust
sector at this policy level. The advisory structure would necessarily pre
reflect the multifaceted nature of domestic problems and would draw T
upon qualified experienced persons from a broad range of disciplines der
and backgrounds within and outside of Government and it would be Tak
important to involve representatives of State and local governments
from the standpoint of problem identification and the introduction POLE
and diffusion of innovation .
In my view, the requirement in the bill that the proposed Council ects
prepare an annual science and technology resources survey as defined dor
in S. 2495, needs further consideration and clarification. I question the
feasibility and desirability of attempting to inventory all of the pot
Nation's scientific and technological resources in a 10 -year time frame. to
This might be done in relation to the inventory and projection of in and
dividual critical domestic problems called for in section 103 (a ) ( 2 ) . nat
However, responsibility for the latter inventory would appear to be
more appropriate for å top policy level mechanism which can bring 121

to bear broader points of view and assessments of the heads of the

Federal departments and agencies concerned with domestic problems. mit
The process, as described, seems rather awkward . I would think it l'es
necessary first to define specific domestic problems and objectives and the
then for each identify and evaluate thescientific and technological are
resources which can usefully be engaged or which must beinvented. S.
Incidentally, I might note that a congressional charge to the National of
Science Foundation to undertake and maintain the overall resources Ins

survey , if such be desirable, would seem to me to be eminently logical

and suitable. That agency is even now, the primary source ofdata me
concerning diverse other aspects of the national research and develop Tai
ment enterprise and one could readily imagine that responsibility be sta

ing expanded in this regard. In turn, these data could be utilized by

agencies and by any central coordinating or policymaking body. In
the future, the Office of Technology Assessment of the Congress may
Ta
also find it necessary and desirable to engage in related survey activity
and seek such a capability.
Title II of S. 2495 would closely link NASA to the proposed National te)
Science and Technology Resources Council and, in effect, designate
NASA as the chosen institutional instrument for assisting the Coun an

cil and carrying out assigned programsthrough the proposed Office (mi
of Technology Application. Title II would authorize NASA to em fu
 61

ploy its resources in the resolution of critical domestic problems and

would authorize $ 200 million for fiscal year 1975 for NASA to sup
port this function.
One obvious question is whether the additional financial resources
authorized by this measure should be diffused through the Federal
departments or agencies into the technological community or whether
they be held intact as centrally allocated resources available for apply
ing science and technology to problem solving in domestic program
areas.

It is not necessarily true that because NASA has been hugely success
ful in achieving the space program goals , it can do equally well in
coping with other national problems of different character. In the
space program , the Federal Government has been the sole source of
funding, has set the performance requirements and has been the only
customer for the resulting products.Entirely different circumstances
prevail with respect to critical domestic problems.
The system of setting performance requirements for technological
developments and delivering the products and services for use by the
public involves a different set of relationships between the Federal
agencies and outside organizations and institutions. From this stand
point, the open -ended authority for NASA, as contained in section
201 (b ) (4) of the revised version of S. 2495, to conduct R. & D.proj
ects to demonstrate the feasibility of potential solutions of critical
domestic problems raises serious questions in my mind.
On the other hand, I do believe that NASA's experience and its
potentials for assistance in making scientific and technology transfers
to domestic problemsin such fields as communication, transportation,
and computer technology can and should be available to assist the
national effort in solving relevant domestic problems. NASA also has
outstanding skills for managing the development of complex hard
ware systems which could serve as an important supplement to the
technical capabilities of other departments and agencies concerned
with domestic problems.Other agencies with significant technological
resources, particularly the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC ) and
the National Science Foundation (NSF ) , also have capabilities that
are well suited to assist in seeking solutions to domestic problems. Thus
S. 2495 seems to place undue emphasis on the technological resources
of NASA and the aerospace industry. The real issue is how best to
institutionalize the entireFederal science and technological effort.
The approach set forth in S. 2495 raises a serious problem of frag
mentation in program missions atthe Federal level. In making obser
vations concerning a similar set of problems, Alvin M. Weinberg once
stated that :
... coherent doctrines are framed only in coherent institutions : if the institu
tion becomes a collection of separate, precariously supported pieces, there is little
likelihood that it will develop a coherent anything either doctrine or hard
ware !

This potential difficulty suggests that the committee consider an al

ternative approach. Instead of providing direct authorization to
NASA, a similar amount could be made available to the President or to
an institutionalized council such as that I mentioned earlier. The Coun
cil, or the President acting on advice of the Council, could allocate these
funds to specific mission departments with the proviso that they call
32-205-74-45
 62

upon the expertise of NASA or some other appropriate Federal agen

cy for dealing with individual problems. This option offers severalad
vantages. With the user departmentor agency defining the needs in the
context of its overall resources and objectives, the integrity of mis
sion is maintained. At the same time, the resources and expertise of
NASA and other science and technology based agencies aremade avail
able and used in the resolution of critical domestic problems. To be
effective, there would need to be close communicationbetween the co
operating agencies, since the maintenance of an effective dialog is
critical to the process of problem formulation, technology transfer and
utilization .
This underscores the need for upgrading the technical and manag
erial capabilities of mission -oriented agencies so that they may intel
ligently communicate with NASA and other science and technology
agencies on equal footing in undertaking cooperative ventures to trans
fer technological experience and know -how .
A particularly attractive feature of this approach is the provision
of a sourceof funding outside of the regular budget of a department as
a means of overcoming bureaucratic inertia and resistance to change
which may be present in an agency with limited technological horizons.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to expressmy support of
the general objectives of S. 2495, as amended, although I cannot sup
port various of its specific provisions. I share with the authors of that
measure the conviction that our Nation's scientific and technological
resources could be more effectively utilized in meeting our domestic
problems— not only those that we perceive as critical today but, even
more important, in anticipating and providing options and the flexibil
ity to mitigate in advance some of the critical problemscertain to arise
tomorrow .
There are great scientific and technological resources available
throughout the agencies of the executive branch and throughout the
private sector of our society. But we lack an adequate framework of
policy and an appropriate management mechanism to bring those re
sources to bear in consonance with the other resources required for
societal problem solving.
S. 2495 proposes one approach to meet this challenge. It appropri
ately recognizes the need for a central mechanism to provide overview
and guidance.
It also provides a financialincentive to stimulate the domestic-prob
lem -oriented departments and agencies to utilize the capabilities of the
science and technology based agencies, such as NASA . On the other
hand, it does not sufficiently recognize that scientific and technological
solutions or opportunities must be evaluated in the context of specific
domestic problems as viewed by agencies with mission responsibility
for transferring results into the public and private marketplace.
I hope, sir, that the suggestions I have made will be helpful to the
committee. There are still other options worthy of your consideration,
options which would establish some mechanism in the Executive Office
of the President with a broad responsibility to formulate policies for
the development and use of science and technology as an integral com
ponent of Presidential policy and program formulation.
Itis this broad question to which the current academy study is
addressed. However, the views I have here expressed should not be
interpreted as those of Dr. Killian's committee which are unknown to
 63
:

me at this time ; their work is still underway and they will report in
due course.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of ap
pearingat these joint committee hearings.
The CHAIRMAN . Thank you, Dr. Handler, for your very fine state
ment, your analysis of the bill, and your recommendations. I appreciate
your calling our attention to Dr. Killian's study. I wish you would
please send copies to the committee when it has been completed, and
tell us how Dr. Killian's recommended mechanism might operate to
resolve some of the problems outlined in S. 2495.
Dr. HANDLER. Wewill be very pleased to do so, sir.
The CHAIRMAN . It would be fair to say, I suppose, that you are not
in total agreement with the decision to abolish the Office of Science and
Technology and the President's Scie nce Advisory Committee. Do you
think that through the mechanism g
proposed in S. 2495 or somethin
akin to that,we might restore the situation we hadearlier ?
Dr. HANDLER. Well, that, sir, was the general thrust of my remarks.
I think we mightimprove upon the original version but I think it isa
mistake to go backward, rather than forward .
The CHAIRMAN. You recognized the objective we seek in this bill.
You, of course, have suggested some modifications that you think are
desirable, and we appreciate that. As Senator Magnuson said in his
opening statement, and as I tried to repeat, we have started out with
a working paper and concept and we are trying to gather all of the
comment wecan, both critical and constructive. I think you have pro
vided this in good measure for us here today.
Dr. HANDLER. I was aware of what you were trying to do, Senator
Moss, and it was for that reason that I provided what otherwise would
have been a decidedly overlong statement.
The CHAIRMAN . It is very helpful and we are very glad to have it.
I am pleased that Chairman Magnuson is now present and I will ask
him if he has any questionsof Dr.Handler.
Senator MAGNUSON. Well , first of all , Mr. Chairman , I want to apol
ogize for being late, but I had a personal matter that I had to take
care of. Did you put my statement in the record ?
The CHAIRMAN . I read it orally, so they heard it.
Senator MAGNUSON. Well, you did not need to do that. Phil , I appre
ciate what you had to say here. The
agony of trying to move into this
field legislatively is something you and I have gone through before .
Dr. HANDLER. Yes, sir.
Senator MAGNUSON. Many, many times, and I appreciate your ad
vice. What we are trying to do, and why we need help and advice, is
to fill the vacuum that appears to have gradually developed. It became
a vacuum because we were not paying enough attention to the matter,
and then we decided to do something about it. Hence, the bill . But, I,
too, was a little concerned as to just how you created this council, who
should be on it, how far should you go. I do not want it to become just
an interagency operation.
Dr. HANDLER. That is what I was taking exception to, sir.
Senator MAGNUSON . I have had too many bad experiences with that.
In the field of oceanography, we had that going on for a long, long
time. It is still going on. But,we tried to attack that. Now all of these
new developments have shown up , such as the energy crisis and many
 64

D
other complicated issues in our society. It is not as pure an issue as
when we established the National Science Foundation . That was appe
created to fill a vacuum that existed at the time. And it has done a Se
good job. ago
Now , I thoroughly agree with you. How do you bring in allof these NUE

people and get acohesion, so that decisions will not always be just gov molo
D
ernmental? In the Academy of Sciences we made it independent, so
called independent, yes, but we attempted to make it independent. S
thoi
Now , we are open to all kinds of suggestions and changes in the bill
but it seems to me we are making this too much of an interagency Tel
matter. There ought to be some people from the outside. The Academy Pero

of Sciences can establish advisory committees. They still have them, do grai
thei
they not ?
Dr. HANDLER. Yes. Tou
Senator MAGNUSON . In different fields ? D
Dr. HANDLER. They still exist. S
Senator MAGNUSON. And I think they are paid attention to. At one
time, the science adviser to the President had many advisory commit W
tees and worked with them. They came from the outside. They are not ness
just governmental people, although they worked with the Govern ence
ment agencies. So, what we are trying to do here is to put this to SCHE
gether and to make a beginning so that we can attack these problems,
as you so eloquently mentioned in your statement. You suggested a I
broadeningof the membership of the proposed technology council Dr.
and the staff is working on a draft. We didput in representatives of Hoi
the States, the counties, and local government. S
I would like your suggestion on how we broaden this beyond what )
is suggested here. I do not want to be — I am thinking out loud - but
I think the Academy of Sciences ought to be one of them because you On
have many advisory committees that deal with some important sub pul
jects that this council is going to have to deal with . And your sugges 1
tions are, I think, excellent.
Dr. HANDLER. I hope, Senator Magnuson , that when Dr. Killian's Тоа

committee reports that will constitute a somewhat definitive and con mis
structive assist for what your committee is trying to do. not
Senator MAGNUSON . I just do not know how we go about it except to JOL
draw in as many as we can. Do you agree with me? We have got to
start with a base such as this Council , is that correct ?
Dr. HANDLER. That is correct.
Senator MAGNUSON . You have to start with that, ree
Dr. HANDLER . With the Federal Council as it exists ?
Senator MAGNUSON . Yes. ve
Dr. HANDLER . No , sir .
Senator MAGNUSON . I mean the one we have in the bill.
Dr. HANDLER. Well, that starts with the Federal Council.
Senator MAGNUSON . With which you do not agree ?
Dr. HANDLER . No , sir.
Senator MAGNUSON . What would be your suggestion ? N
Dr. HANDLER. I think it should be an independent body ; that is to ū
say, independent, individuals who are placed on the Council in their
own rights, rather than asrepresentativesof the agencies. There should 09

be liaison from the agencies and designated liaison representatives. a

Senator MAGNUSON. Would that be comparable to the Science Foun

dation ?
 65

Dr. HANDLER. No, sir, except, yes, in the sense the Science Board is
appointed inthat way, if that is what you meant.
Senator MAGNUSON . And it may bethat weare going to have to take
a good long look at that, because I find and I think what you say is the
issue is how best to institutionalize the entire Federal science and tech
nological effort.
Dr. HANDLER. Yes, sir.
Senator MAGNUSON. How can we do that ? Now, I am not naive
enough to suggest that if you had basically just the Council, itself, as
we propose in the bill , and then you started to come up here with some
recommendations for appropriations to carry out, some of these pro
grams, that I would have to hear at least 11 witnesses that all have
their own version of who should get the money. Each one of them
would have their own version .
Dr. HANDLER . Yes, sir.
Senator MAGNUSON. Which may delay the thing. They may get to
gether on some things, but normally that is what happens.
Well, I appreciate what you had to say. I understand the first wit
ness testified earlier this morning thatthe reorganization of the Sci
ence Policy Office under President Nixon strengthened the role of
science and technology in the mission -oriented agencies. Do you agree
with that ?
Dr. HANDLER. I do not think it actually did happen, sir, no . What
Dr. Stever was saying was that essentially by removing the White
House Office as such, it placed the burden back in those agencies.
Senator MAGNUSON . That is Dr. Stever I am talking about ; true.
Dr. HANDLER . And that is true.
Senator MAGNUSON. Well, I have no further questions. We could go
on here a long time in this whole field , and it all gets down to how you
pull ittogether, zero in and get the results.
Dr. HANDLER. Yes , sir.
Senator MAGNUSON. And it all gets down to you cannot have too
many people involved in so many things and have their own particular
mission. We are lucky if it works out for the whole, but it usually does
not. The purpose of this bill is to try to put it together, and I appreciate
your support and your testimony.
Dr. HANDLER. Thank you very much .
The CHAIRMAN . Thank you very much , Dr. Handler.
We will now hear from Dr. Robert N. Faiman, vice provost for
research and special programs at the University of New Hampshire,
representing the National Society of Professional Engineers. We are
very pleased to have you , sir.
[The biography of Dr.Faiman follows :]
BIOGRAPHY OF DR. ROBERT N. FAIMAN

Dr. Faiman is a professional engineer who currently serves as Vice Provost

of Research and Special Programs at the University of New Hampshire,Durham ,
New Hampshire. He holds degrees from North Dakota State University
(B.S.E.E. 1947), the University of Washington ( M.S.E.E. 1948 ) , and Purdue
University Ph. D. 1955 ) .
He has served on the facility of North Dakota State University, the University
of Washington , Purdue University , and George Washington University. He was
an engineer on the staff of the Engineering Sciences Program of the National
Science Foundation (1957-1959) and went to the University of New Hampshire
as Dean of the College of Technology and Director of the Engineering Experi
ment Station in 1959.
 66

He has been active in engineering research and education organizations and

侧
has served as a member and Chairman of the American Insitute of Electrical tot

肌
Engineers Research Committee , a member of the Engineering Foundation Re infc

赋
search Committee, and as a member and Chairman of several committees of the
Engineering College Research Council of the American Society for Engineering glo?
Education.

加
He is a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers, past Chair tech

侧
man of the Society's Professional Engineers in Education Practice Section, and

姚
past member of its Executive Committee. He has been a member of the Com

训
mittee on Technology Utilization of the National Association of State Univer
sities and Land Grant Colleges since 1962, and currently serves as Chairman of ther

姻
this Committee.

的
能 例如
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT N. FAIMAN, NATIONAL SOCIETY OF or
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Shir
hati
Dr. FAIMAN. Thank you, Chairman Moss and Chairman Magnuson. and
It is a genuine pleasure for me to represent the National Society of be a
Professional Engineers, a national organization representing some NICI
thing close to 70,000 professional engineers. of t
I also wear another hat, which I am afraid might get into my thes
testimony. I serve as chairman of the technology utilization committee the
of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant I
Colleges. I am sure you recognize that your State institutions have othe
been in this technology transfer business and technology utilization for pro:
quite some time. I am a professional engineer, formerly a dean and Whi
a director of an experiment station in New Hampshire working on the erat
State technical services program, both on a State and regional basis, Was
having been the chairman of the coordinating group for the NewEng. trol
land States. So, in a sense, I suppose I am talking from a viewpoint of mer

working in the vineyardsand alittle bit less from the global point of alo
view. thes
I must apologize to you, and particularly the reporter, for present CODE

ing only an outline. I was asked to assumethis responsibility only late

last week, and if you will forgive me I shall try to talk around the out 18 a
line a bit and perhaps offer somemore pragmatic observations as may tat

befit a representative of the working group this morning. act

In looking at the proposed legislation, we indicated we see essentially seri
two parts, as has been pointed out before, technological problem iden T
tification and assessment and, of course, the resources associated with
the possible solution thereof; and, second, a technological problem
solution process
age
. eve
With respect to the National Science and Technology Resources IN
Council, I would like to make my remarks very brief. While the previ DUN
ous speakers have addressed that in considerable detail, the objectives,
I think I would say from my point of view, are laudable ones. I think Org
we would be basically concerned with the ratherlimited, in eitherthe viel
original bill or the amended version, representation ofresources. Now,
I am simply suggesting, and perhaps this is heresay in Washington,
but all of the knowledge and ability does not reside in the Federal
agencies, nor even in the great city of Washington, itself. I would bro
like to suggest that there be a broader representation in some manner ens
from the various professional societies, engineering groups and, in be
fact, in all probability the privatesector as well. Par
Iwould like to deal particularly with title II,because the collection
of data information , the analysis ofproblems ona high levelis, of
 67

course, a difficult task. In a sense it is a relatively simple onecompared

to the effective utilization and application of someof the technological
information which we already have before us. The big problem is a
global problem . When defined, it providesa framework but,basically,
what I think we are all concerned with is how we effectively bring
technological information to practical problem solutions. In many
cases, back in my own State technological services days, we used to
talk about people who had problems and, in fact, did not know that
they had the problems. Thiskind of a relationship between these peo
ple on the firing line who are attempting to improve the quality of
life, improve governmental processes,utilize technology, they will see ,
or may or may not see, that they have a problem . But their relation
ship with their problems, with the big national problems, ones of
national scope in the vernacular, does not compute. So I would suggest,
and I think that the society would suggest very strongly, that there
be a maximum inclusion of appropriate representatives of technical
societies, of State and local governments, all in the process, not only
of the solution to the problem , but intermittent to identify some of
these problems as they exist in the form in which they should exist in
the first place.
I have in my briefcase this morning, and I am going to do a little
other work this afternoon,a very interesting document. It is a so-called
program operating plan for an urban technology system experiment
which is being funded under the National Science Foundation, and op
erated through an organization called Public Technology Inc. here in
Washington . The purpose of it is to perform a very carefully con
trolled experiment involving 27 randomly selected cities and govern
mental units within the United States to help these cities identify on
a local basis the technological problems which they have; to bring to
these cities backup resources from private industry, from engineering
consulting firms and from the universities.
Again , as an illustration in the broad sense, environmental pollution
is an obvious national problem . It comes down then to air pollution,
water pollution, and solid waste disposal. When one gets down to the
actual working level, take for example, solid waste, there are a whole
series of optionsand possibilities. But, we have some data.
We may need other data and information and techniques on how
this can be brought effectively in this particular case, with the man
agement structure, within these individual cities or counties, or what
ever local governing unit we propose to deal with. So, in that context,
in dealingwith title II, I thinkwe would like to particularly address
ourselves, if I can go down the line here, to section 201 ( b ) (5), which
calls at the present time for use of aerospace firms and other scientific
organizations in the private sector on a contract basis to assist in de
veloping and demonstrating capabilities, and resolving the critical
domestic problems for which it has been designed. I would like to sug
gest — I would like to urge — that the wording of this particular sec
tion, assuming this is the basic form and structure that is going to be
brought forward, specifically include references to engineering firms,
engineering and scientifically oriented firms, as well as universities. I
believe that all of these groups must be brought integrally into this
particuar process.
I indicated that I have a sense of wearing two hats this morning. I
have a strong interest through the Technology Utilization Committee
 68

of the Land Grant Association in the development of a more effective

mechanism for the transfer and utilization of knowledge,obviously, in
this particular case involving universities, although the universities (PL

recognize the need to involve the private sector and governmental units
as well. I have taken the liberty of attaching to my statement outline,
a summary position paper which the National Association of State
1
Universities and Land Grant Colleges has prepared with respect to ane

it, entitled “ A University Delivery System for Research and Knowl

edge Resources.” I will not go into detail at this time but I would sim TOI
ply say that this is the thrust which the association is attempting to At
develop. We hope to be working with you, sir, and other representatives TO
here on the Hill in the not too distant future, and we thought this
might be an opportunity to give you a little preview of some of our est

thinking
[Dr. Faiman's outline summary and attachment thereto follow :] 1
tig
OUTLINE OF STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS BY ROBERT N. FAIMAN, P.E.
The proposed legislation deals with two logical and interrelated activities :
1. Technological problem identification and assessment
2. Technological problem solution str
The concept of a National Science and Technology Resources Council as out tie
lined is logical and reasonable. Its proposed role in problem and solution resource res
identification could well fill an important existing semivoid — from the viewpoint
of an outsider, although both the National Science Foundation in its newly ang
assigned science advisory role and the Congress' Office of Technology Assessment
appear to be working in these vineyards, the results have not been particularly
cogent or coherent. A formal regime of analysis and reporting of problems and an
solution resources on a regular time schedule would be of significant value.
However, while such data and information is defined for the Council's output
is critically important, its amassing is relatively a simple task as compared to
doing something tangible in response. The “ big picture” must be reduced to spe lea
cific definiable subelements before in fact effective solutions can be obtained. In mo
many cases, the relationship between the technological interests and capabilities W
of individuals or organizations and broadly defined national problems is not
clearly evident. There must be coupling mechanisms which actively involve im
individuals and organizations at all levels from national to local in the analysis TI
of problems and definition of solution directions. In this context, then, profes of
sional/technical societies such as the National Society of Professional Engi
neers, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, American Society of Civil ins
Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, etc. can be important links
between the national government and technological and scientific organizations
and individuals.
I would also be derelict if I did not emphasize the existing and potential role ha
ofuniversities in this process. While not directly germane to this legislation ,I a
would like to call the Committee's attention to the efforts of the National Asso
di
ciation of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges to generate interest in a tre
more effective national information and knowledge transfer system . A copy of Se
the Association's position paper on this is attached. It outlines in some detail in
the background, needs, policies and procedures as seen through the eyes of the DE
state universities.
ME
With respect to the wording of the bill itself, I would suggest the following: al
1. Section 101 ( b ) -include the National Legislative Conference as an orga
nization to designate a representative.
2. Section 104 ( C ) -- the changing of “may” to “ shall ” is important, but "as it DE
TE
may deem advisable ” still allows for a possible loophole. I would urge wording le
which will assure that such consultation take place. ar
3. Section 201(b ) (5 ) —include by specific reference engineering firms and uni
versities as organizations which may be utilized. ca
 69

A UNIVERSITY DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES

(Policy and Position Paper of the National Association of State Universities

and Land-Grant Colleges )
CONFERENCE RESOLUTION

Institutions of higher education having resources and capabilities, both social

and technological and which are potentially and actively of value in the solu
tion of national problems, have a responsibility to serve the public welfare be
yond on - campus teaching and research. To enable these resources and capa
bilities to be more effectively utilized, institutions must relate productively to
external groups and agency organizations and associations to provide service.
To this end, institutions of higher education, their organizations and associations
must develop effective leadership and procedures for themselves as well as
establish effective liaison with external groups and agencies. The National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges is urged to take the
initiative in organizing this effort.
Unanimously endorsed by the Conference on Institutions of Higher Educa
tion As A Resource In the Solution of National Problems.
I. THE NEED AND CHALLENGE

Institutions of higher education of all kinds, particularly state and land-grant

universities, have a long history of public service — the making available of in
struction and problem - solving support and assistance to individuals, public agen
cies, governmental units, and industry - in addition to on -campus instruction and
research activities .
Universities are a special resource. They have a unique function to assemble
and disseminate knowledge from all fields. While the resources of colleges and
universities have been recognized and utilized, most efforts have been on the
basis of short-term, ad-hoc and categorical projects lacking continuity of effort
and support either by the institution or by those looking to it for problem
solving assistance .
A recognition that the resources now assembled in institutions of higher
education exist as a result of broad public support over a long period of time,
leads to a conclusion that such institutions have a responsibility to establish
more effectively, and on a continuing basis, a working partnership with the
world outside the formal campus.
There have been numerous recent experiments on the national scene for
improving the delivery and utilization of research and technology findings.
These efforts, for the most part, have been inadequate. The mounting backlog
of research and the general expansion of the knowledge base has consistently
outdistanced the national ability to put these resources to use . A government
investment in research and development, estimated at 18 billion dollars, has been
matched by an investment of less than 50 million ( excluding agricultural
extension ) for application .
Recent specific efforts to insure that application kept pace with generation also
have been inadequately funded and have faltered or failed because of lack of
a " critical mass” for producing sufficiently demonstrable effects. In part too the
difficulty has been a result of an assumption of the computer age that knowledge
transfer is a mechanical process involving only scientific and technological re
search findings with four simple steps, generation, storage, retrieval and dissem
ination. The critical knowledge base is not confined to the physical sciences , the
physical and biological sciences combined , or even technology in the broadest
sense. Effective utilization of scientific and technical information must include
and /or be included in the humanities and social sciences as well.
Basically, the ability to use knowledge is dependent on human factors and the
primary step in knowledge transfer and utilization is the existence of a state of
readiness and the will to use knowledge productively. Any transfer process must
recognize the critical importance of this primary step both as a precursor to and
an integral part of the system.
Despite the so-called knowledge explosion, our problem solving and utilization
capability has not increased in proportion. Failure to effectively apply knowledge
 70

stems from years of neglect and can be traced to many causes. It is now obvious,
however, that the nation must fully mobilize its resources if urgent problems at
home and overseas are to be effectively solved. Such a mobilization must include
( 1 ) development of an awareness of the need, ( 2 ) a willingness to undertake
solutions, and, ( 3 ) a capacity (procedure) to use all knowledge sources effectively
in the generation and evaluation of alternative solutions. A commitment to the
development of a system to utilize existent and new knowledge both to solve
immediate problems and anticipate the needs of the future is urgently required.
II. POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR A PROBLEM SOLVING - KNOWLEDGE
DELIVERY - SYSTEM

Certain policies must exist and requirements met if a problem solving — knowl
edge delivery - system is to function effectively. These include :
1. Recognition that the purpose of the system is to help people solve real and
important problems and not the delivery of knowledge or research results per se.
2. Close ties between the research and transfer utilization functions. - Con
ceptually borrowed from , and in many cases integrated with the existing system
of the Cooperative Extension Services, an effective delivery system is a continuous
multistage process. The effective use of knowledge requires first the definition of
the problem and an evaluation of the existing or required knowledge necessary
for a solution. An interpretation and application of the required knowledge in
volving translation and interpretation must be followed by feedback to determine
the effectiveness of the effort in terms of the originally defined objectives. The
whole may be viewed as a circular process with continuous interaction among all
elements. ( The most successful examples of funds under the State Technical
Services Act, for example, were those in which the user of knowledge helped
define a problem which was in turn fed back to a university through a field staff
member involving the development or determination of needed information by a
faculty or professional staff member which again in turn was translated by the
field staff to the user and the success level determined to further refine the
process .)
3. A commitment and involvement of all levels of government, federal, state,
and locals.- The commitment must be made by the involvement of all three levels,
both in the planning and implementation of transfer programs and also in the
funding.
4. Related goals at the national, state and local levels. - A program to promote
the effective use of the findings and competencies of science and technology must
begin with a statement of national purposes jointly determined at federal, state
and local levels, a set of state and local purposes related to the national pur
poses, and state and local plan of work for their accomplishment.
5. Allocation of funds on a continuing basis. - Continuity of an effective effort
requires a reasonable assurance of continuity of funding. Categorical or project
related support is necessary to deal with specific problem areas, but a steady
state level of funding to maintain an ongoing basic staff and administrative
support effort is mandatory if categorical projects results are to be optimized.
Such support must be on a cooperative national-state -local formula basis.
The entitlement of formula allocations would be based on presentation of
acceptable plans of work and on accountability for exepnditure but should avoid
the pitfalls of the numerous federal programs that have been based on the
erroneous assumption that the role of the federal government is to provide seed
money and then to withdraw from funding as state and/or local agencies assume
total responsibility.
6. A balance between research and transfer expenditures. There has been
little consideration give overall to the ratio of expenditures to promote transfer
and utilization as opposed to the amount that should be sent for generation of
new research data. Experience provides a base for determining what this ratio
should be and such a ratio should be made national policy . Futhermore, on the
transfer side the emphasis should be pragmatic, using demonstrations and people
to -people technical assistance rather than over-investing in the relatively mechan
ical functions of storage and retrieval.
7. Involvement of students.-- The growing recognition of the need to relate
learning to life can be served well be systematic involvement of students. Such
involvement strengthens the on -campus educational experience, provides an addi
tional resource to the system , and prepares graduates for effective ongoing par
ticipation in the process after leaving school, thus further strengthening the
system .
 71

III. OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Those familar with the delivery system for the utilization of agricultural re
search findings will recognize that the criteria described above relate closely to
the provisions of the Smith -Lever Act and the general structure of the Coopera
tive Extension Service. This is the most successful large scale program in utiliza
tion of research and technology that has ever developed. There are, however,
ways in which this model, both as a function of time and a special mission for
agriculture requires adaption to the broader mission of improved utilization of
science and technology in a larger theater of operations. For example, it is recog
nized that a number of other public institutions and many private institutions
have research and public service outputs and must be included. However, since
the Land-Grant and State Universities represent a major - in many cases the
major - research and public service base in the several states, and do constitute
the only national system for research and public service they serve as the logical
focal point of a system for contacts with and coordination of other institutions
not only within the state but nationally and internationally.
Specifically, implementation of policies and satisfaction of requirements de
mands the following :
1. Responsibility — it is evident that some single institution of higher educa
tion within a state must be held accountable, butequally evident that a variety
of agencies and institutions must be partners in the enterprise. - Involvement of
all qualified and interested public and private institutions must be assured
through the development of a state ( and/or regional) plan prior to funding.
2. Local-state involvement the design of the system at the state and local level
must recognize the existence of differences and currently existing effective struc
tures and arrangements.-- State and local organization and administration must
be determined at these levels subject only to preparation and an evaluation of
a comprehensive plan which will assure optimum results for a given situation .
For exampleexisting effective efforts of the Cooperative Extension Service or
other research and /or public service programs (i.e., continuing education pro
grams of colleges and universities, Title I, Sea Grant) would not be subsumed ;
the program envisaged would complement and strengthen ongoing efforts.
3. The Federal role - coordination of the national program across agency lines
as well as responsibility for Federal funding must be the responsibility of a
single agency. It is obvious that interagency coordination at the Federal level
must be accomplished to ensure the effective interrelationship of research and
other program efforts is applicable to the system. It is also mandatory that a
single Federal agency be responsible for the coordination and development of
effective state (and /or regional) plans and programs. Optimally, an independent
agency should be established for this purpose ; however to avoid bureaucratic
proliferation , a unit within the National Science Foundation might well be the
logical basis for such an effort.
4. Research to transfer expenditure ratio - the present ratio one to two percent
of transfer to research expenditure is clearly inadequate . - Experience with the
Cooperative Extension Service programs suggests a ratio of one-third to one-half
of research expenditures are required for optimum transfer effect. Further study
is required to establish a more precise level for a general program .
The CHAIRMAN . Very good.
Dr. FAIMAN . I have offered in my outline some simple suggestions
with respect to the wording. But, obviously, there is not going to be
much more in theway of discussion of wording of this bill, particu
larly, on section 101 (b ) , if we are talking about broadening the repre
sentation from other than the Federal sector, that the National Legis
lative Conference as well as the National Governors Conference be in
volved. I had a very pleasant opportunity recently to work with their
science and technology committee, and that group is making a sig
nificant contribution at the State legislative level.
In section 104 ( c ) , you already changed "may" to " shall. ” In the light
of my previous suggestions and concern, which I thinkhave already
been referred to much more eloquently by some of the previous speak
ers, the necessity to involve not only the in - group within the Federal
 72

structure, but broad representation from outside this particular area, I

think is critical. And I would hope that whatever language the statute
might finally assume,it would make it very clear that not only is that
the intent,but it must be accomplished.
And I have referred already to section 201 (b ) (5 ). I would urgethe
inclusion of engineering firms and universities as specific items within
that portion.
3
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. If you have
any questions, I will be pleased to attempt to answer them .
The CHAIRMAN. We are delighted to have you here and receive your of
comments. The outline and documents submitted will appear in the Co
record in full.
I agree with you most heartily that one thing we must do in this type
of legislation is to reach out beyond the simple Federal representa as

tion . The working paper does this in talking about the cities, States, t0
li
and other local governments. The idea of having the professional so
cieties represented is one thing that I have dwelled on for some time. fo:
We need to have great scientific talent and a great desire for the serv PC
ices of the engineering and scientific organizations. We ought to utilize of
them , not only as representatives but to attack various technological ас
fr
problems. They are a repository of our technological expertise. As
you point out, our universities , including those connected with the MI
land -grant colleges, have great expertisethat should be tapped. It ought Si
to be done on a structured and planned basis. I know we draw on the 0
universities to a great extent now , but we do not do it on the carefully Of
planned, structured way that we ought to. I believe the ideas you have
put into our record strengthen that idea and are going to be very help
ful to us. We are going tohave to do a lot of work on the bill . It started
out as a concept and we are now trying to polish it and get it to where
it is both manageable and yet achieves the objectives that we had in
mind.
F
I appreciate your testimony, and we would hope that we could t
keep in contact with you.
Dr. FAIMAN . I would be honored and pleased. Incidentally, appar
ently I am an absent-minded professor. My colleague with me is Mr.
Robert Doyle who is legislative counsel for the society.
The CHAIRMAN. Very good. We are glad to have you, Mr. Doyle.
We appreciate your coming here. As Senator Magnuson said, I wish
we had all day for each witness, instead of just a few minutes.
Thank you .
Dr. FAIMAN. Thank you very much , sir.
The CHAIRMAN . Dr. Bernard Friedman, president of the American
Chemical Society, will be our concluding witness this morning.
[The biographies of Dr. Friedman, Dr. Nixon, and Dr. Quigley fol
low : 1
BIOGRAPHY OF DR. BERNARD S. FRIEDMAN , 1974 PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
CHEMICAL SOCIETY

Dr. Bernard S. Friedman , recently retired professorial lecturer at the Univer

sity of Chicago and a member of the Chicago Board of Education, is the 1974
President of the 110,000 -member American Chemical Society.
An expert in petroleum and catalysis chemistry, Dr. Friedman was associated
for 21 years with the Sinclair Research Laboratory, now the Harvey Research
Center of the Atlantic-Richfield Corporation, in suburban Chicago. After retire
ment as a research associate in 1969, he joined the chemistry department at the
 73

University of Chicago. He has been a member of the Chicago Board of Educa

tion since 1962 and a trustee of the Teachers Pension Plan since 1970.
Nominated for ACS president by member petition, Dr. Friedman won the
election on the basis of his platform favoring greater involvement of the Society
in the professional and economic well-being of its members.
During the past year, he served on the ACS Executive Committee as pres
ident-elect and was chairman of both the Professional Enhancement Program
Steering Commitee and the Manpower Policy Commitee. In 1973 he was a
member of national ACS committees on Public, Professional and Member Rela
tions ; Education and Students ; and Investments.
Dr. Friedman has been an active member of the ACS since 1936. He was chair
man of the Chicago section of the Society in 1959 and has been a councilor of the
section continuously since that year. In addition to serving on many committees
of the Chicago section , he was appointed in 1960 to a five -year term on the ACS
Committee on Professional Relations and Status.
Born in Chicago and reared in Streator, Ill . , Dr. Friedman received the A.B.
in 1930 and the Ph.D. in 1936 from the University of Illinois at Urbana. After
three years of teaching in Streator High School and an additional three years
as an assistant instructor at the University of Illinois, Dr. Friedman turned
industrial research . For nine years, until 1945, he was a research chemist with
Universal Oil Products Company, in suburban Chicago.
In 1948, after directing chemical laboratories in industry and government
for three years, he began his long association with Sinclair Research Laboratories.
For eleven years he was associate director of the organic research laboratories
of the oil company, and in 1959 the became a research associate. In 1969 he
accepted a position at the University of Chicago, where he was in charge of
freshmen and sophomore chemistry laboratories . He retired in July, 1973.
Dr. Friedman's honors include election to Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma XI, the
Merit Award of the Chicago Technical Societies Council in 1963, and the Honor
Scroll of the American Institute of Chemists in 1959.
Author of 40 patents and 20 scientific articles, he was chairman of the
Chicago chapter of the American Institute of Chemists and president in 1953
of the Chicago Technical Societies Council. He is also a member of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science .

BIOGRAPHY OF DR. ALAN C. NIXON, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Dr. Alan C. Nixon , chemical consultant of Berkeley, California, is Immediate
Past President of the American Chemical Soicety. An expert on plastics applica
tions, paper chemicals, and fuels for hypersonic airplanes, Dr. Nixon was a
research chemist for the Shell Development Company, Emeryville, California ,
from 1937 to 1954 , when he was named research supervisor. He left the com
pany in 1970 to become a consultant.
Dr. Nixon has been an active member of the ACS since 1940, particularly in
the California Section of the Society and the ACS Division of Petroleum Chem
istry. A Director of the ACS, he is a member of the ACS Committeeon Chemistry
and Public Affairs and Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Education and
Employment of the Disadvantaged (PROJECT SEED ). He previously served
for seven years on the ACS Committee on Membership Affairs and was Chairman
of its Subcommittee on Economic Status in 1967–68 .
A naturalized U.S. citizen, Dr. Nixon was born in Workington, England, in
1908 and lived in Saskatoon , Canada, from 1911 to 1931. He received the B.Sc.
in 1929 and the M.Sc. in 1931 from the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.
After obtaining the Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley , he re
mained there as an instructor until he joined the Shell Company. Dr. Nixon is
Chairman ( for the second year ) of the Committee of Scientific Society Presi
dents, and a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Sci
ence, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Combustion
Institute,
Club
the Catalyst Society, the American Institute of Chemists and the Sierra
.
 70

stems from years of neglect and can be traced to many causes. It is now obvious,
however, that the nation must fully mobilize its resources if urgent problems at TH
home and overseas are to be effectively solved. Such a mobilization must include IN
( 1) development of an awareness of the need, (2) a willingness to undertake
solutions, and, ( 3 ) a capacity ( procedure ) to use all knowledge sources effectively ie
in the generation and evaluation of alternative solutions. A commitment to the
development of a system to utilize existent and new knowledge both to solve UE
immediate problems and anticipate the needs of the future is urgently required. TIE

II. POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR A PROBLEM SOLVING - KNOWLEDGE

DELIVERY - SYSTEM
TE

Certain policies must exist and requirements met if a problem solving — knowl
edge delivery — system is to function effectively. These include : lic
1. Recognition that the purpose of the system is to help people solve real and 20
important problems and not the delivery of knowledge or research results per se.
2. Close ties between the research and transfer utilization functions.--Con t
ceptually borrowed from, and in many cases integrated with the existing system S
of the Cooperative Extension Services, an effective delivery systemis a continuous MO

multistage process. The effective use of knowledge requires first the definition of lo
the problem and an evaluation of the existing or required knowledge necessary
for a solution. An interpretation and application of the required knowledge in 90

volving translation and interpretation must be followed by feedback to determine 0

the effectiveness of the effort in terms of the originally defined objectives. The 01
whole may be viewed as a circular process with continuous interaction among all
elements. ( The most successful examples of funds under the State Technical 81
Services Act, for example, were those in which the user of knowledge helped es
define a problem which was in turn fed back to a university through a field staff de
member involving the development or determination of needed information by a or
.
faculty or professional staff member which again in turn was translated by the
field staff to the user and the success level determined to further refine the er

process . ) mi
3. A commitment and involvement of all levels of government, federal,state,
and locals.—The commitment must be made by the involvement of all three levels,
both in the planning and implementation of transfer programs and also in the
funding. llo
4. Related goals at the national, state and local levels . - A program to promote ST

the effective use of the findings and competencies of science and technology must r

begin with a statement of national purposes jointly determined at federal, state ile
and local levels, a set of state and local purposes related to the national pur CE
poses, and state and local plan of work for their accomplishment. 00

5. Allocation of funds on a continuing basis . - Continuity of an effective effort .it

requires a reasonable assurance of continuity of funding. Categorical or project ca

related support is necessary to deal with specific problem areas, but a steady
state level of funding to maintain an ongoing basic staff and administrative mi
support effort is mandatory if categorical projects results are to be optimized.
Such support must be on a cooperative national-state -local formula basis. es
The entitlement of formula allocations would be based on presentation of ?
acceptable plans of work and on accountability for exepnditure but should avoid
the pitfalls of the numerous federal programs that have been based on the th
erroneous assumption that the role of the federal government is to provide seed hi
money and then to withdraw from funding as state and/or local agencies assume h
total responsibility.
6. A balance between research and transfer expenditures. There has been
little consideration give overall to the ratio of expenditures to promote transfer V
and utilization as opposed to the amount that should be sent for generation of 2
new research data. Experience provides a base for determining what this ratio 1
should be and such a ratio should be made national policy . Futhermore, on the it
transfer side the emphasis should be pragmatic, using demonstrations and people
to -people technical assistance rather than over-investing in the relatively mechan n
ical functions of storage and retrieval.
7. Involvement of students. — The growing recognition of the need to relate 2
learning to life can be served well be systematic involvement of students. Such n
involvement strengthens the on -campus educational experience, provides an addi
tional resource to the system , and prepares graduates for effective ongoing par 1
ticipation in the process after leaving school, thus further strengthening the
system.
 71

28 III. OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

ai
de Those familar with the delivery system for the utilization of agricultural re
search fiindings will recognize that the criteria described above relate closely to
the provisions of the Smith -Lever Act and the general structure of the Coopera
tive Extension Service. This is the most successful large scale program in utiliza
Tre tion of research and technology that has ever developed. There are, however,
ed. ways in which this model, both as a function of time and a special mission for
agriculture requires adaption to the broader mission of improved utilization of
science and technology in a larger theater of operations. For example, it is recog
nized that a number of other public institutions and many private institutions
have research and public service outputs and must be included . However, since
171 the Land-Grant and State Universities represent a major - in many cases the
major - research and public service base in the several states, and do constitute
and the only national system for research and public service they serve as the logical
-8. focal point of a system for contacts with and coordination of other institutions
01: not only within the state but nationally and internationally.
tem Specifically, implementation of policies and satisfaction of requirements de
OUS mands the following :
of 1. Responsibility — it is evident that some single institution of higher educa
ary tion within a state must be held accountable, but equally evident that a variety
il of agencies and institutions must be partners in the enterprise . — Involvement of
bine all qualified and interested public and private institutions must be assured
The through the development of a state ( and/or regional) plan prior to funding.
all 2. Local- state involvement the design of the system at the state and local level
ical must recognize the existence of differences and currently existing effective struc
red tures and arrangements. - State and local organization and administration must
tafi be determined at these levels subject only to preparation and an evaluation of
ora a comprehensive plan which will assure optimum results for a given situation .
the For example existing effective efforts of the Cooperative Extension Service or
other research and/or public service programs ( i.e., continuing education pro
grams of colleges and universities, Title I, Sea Grant ) would not be subsumed ;
the program envisaged would complement and strengthen ongoing efforts.
Tels 3. The Federal role - coordination of the national program across agency lines
as well as responsibility for Federal funding must be the responsibility of a
single agency. It is obvious that interagency coordination at the Federal level
77012 must be accomplished to ensure the effective interrelationship of research and
must other program efforts is applicable to the system. It is also mandatory that a
tate single Federal agency be responsible for the coordination and development of
pur effective state ( and / or regional) plans and programs. Optimally, an independent
agency should be established for this purpose ; however to avoid bureaucratic
fort proliferation , a unit within the National Science Foundation might well be the
ject logical basis for such an effort.
eads 4. Research to transfer expenditure ratio — the present ratio one to two percent
tire of transfer to research expenditure is clearly inadequate. — Experience with the
ized. Cooperative Extension Service programs suggests a ratio of one-third to one-half
asi of research expenditures are required for optimum transfer effect. Further study
no is required to establish a more precise level for a general program .
roid
the
The CHAIRMAN . Very good .
speed Dr. FAIMAN. I have offered in my outline some simple suggestions
summe
with respect to the wording. But, obviously, there is not going to be
liepen
much more in theway of discussion of wording of this bill, particu
nsfer larly, on section 101(b ), if we are talking about broadening the repre
on di sentation from other than the Federal sector, that theNational Legis
ratio lative Conference as well as the National Governors Conference be in
1 the
volved. I had a very pleasant opportunity recently to work with their
ople science and technology committee, and that group is making a sig
har
nificant contribution at the State legislative level.
olate In section 104 (c ), you alreadychanged "may " to "shall.” In the light
Suci of my previous suggestions and concern , which I think have already
addi
been referred to much more eloquently by some of the previous speak
th
e
ers, the necessity to involve not only the in -group within the Federal
 72

山 噸 V
structure , but broad representation from outside this particular area, I
think is critical. And I wouldhope that whatever language the statute
might finally assume,it would make it very clear that not only is that D
the intent,but it must be accomplished. ider
And I have referred already to section 201 (b ) ( 5 ) . I would urge the
inclusion of engineering firms and universities as specific items within
that portion. tion
D
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. If you have war
any questions, I will be pleased to attempt to answer them . Mt
The CHAIRMAN. We are delighted to have you here and receive your oft
comments. The outline and documents submitted will appear in the Com
record in full . B
in 1
I agree with you most heartily that one thing we must do in this type
of legislation is to reach out beyond the simple Federal representa asa

tion.The working paper does this in talking about the cities, States,
and other local governments. The idea of having the professional so
In
cieties represented is one thing that I have dwelled on for some time. fort
We need to have great scientific talent and a great desire for the serv For
ices of the engineering and scientific organizations. We ought toutilize
them , not only as representatives but to attack various technological acce
fres)
problems. They are a repository of our technological expertise. As D
you point out, our universities, including those connected with the Meri
land-grant colleges, have great expertise that should be tapped. It ought STO
to be done on a structured and planned basis. I know we draw on the A1
Chic
universities to a great extent now, but we do not do it on the carefully of th
planned, structured way that we ought to. I believe the ideas you have
put into our record strengthen that idea and are going to be very help
ful to us. We are going to have to do a lot of work on the bill. It started
out as a concept and we are now trying to polish it and get it to where
it is both manageable and yet achieves the objectives that we had in
mind. D
Pas
I appreciate your testimony , and we would hope that we could tio
keep in contact with you . Tese
Dr. FAIMAN. I would be honored and pleased . Incidentally, appar fro
ently I am an absent -minded professor. My colleague with me is Mr.
D
Robert Doyle who is legislative counsel for the society. the
The CHAIRMAN. Very good. We are glad to have you, Mr. Doyle.
Weappreciate your coming here. As Senator Magnusonsaid, I wish and
we had all day for each witness, instead of just a few minutes. Em
Thank you.
Dr. FAIMAN . Thank you very much , sir. 4
The CHAIRMAN . Dr.Bernard Friedman, president of the American 191
Chemical Society, will be our concluding witness this morning. in
Alft
[ The biographies of Dr. Friedman, Dr. Nixon, and Dr. Quigley fol
low :]
de
BIOGRAPHY OF DR. BERNARD S. FRIEDMAN, 1974 PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
CHEMICAL SOCIETY

Dr. Bernard S. Friedman, recently retired professorial lecturer at the Univer

sity of Chicago and a member of the Chicago Board of Education, is the 1974
President of the 110,000-member American Chemical Society.
An expert in petroleum and catalysis chemistry, Dr. Friedman was associated
for 21 years with the Sinclair Research Laboratory , now the Harvey Research
Center of the Atlantic-Richfield Corporation, in suburban Chicago. After retire
ment as a research associate in 1969, he joined the chemistry department at the
 73

University of Chicago. He has been a member of the Chicago Board of Educa

tion since 1962 and a trustee of the Teachers Pension Plan since 1970.
Nominated for ACS president by member petition, Dr. Friedman won the
election on the basis of his platform favoring greater involvement of the Society
in the professional and economic well-being of its members.
During the past year, he served on the ACS Executive Committee as pres
ident-elect and was chairman of both the Professional Enhancement Program
Steering Commitee and the Manpower Policy Commitee. In 1973 he was a
member of national ACS committees on Public, Professional and Member Rela
tions ; Education and Students ; and Investments.
Dr. Friedman has been an active member of the ACS since 1936. He was chair
man of the Chicago section of the Society in 1959 and has been a councilor of the
section continuously since that year. In addition to serving on many committees
of the Chicago section, he was appointed in 1960 to a five -year term on the ACS
Committee on Professional Relations and Status.
Born in Chicago and reared in Streator, Ill., Dr. Friedman received the A.B.
in 1930 and the Ph.D. in 1936 from the University of Illinois at Urbana. After
three years of teaching in Streator High School and an additional three years
as an assistant instructor at the University of Illinois, Dr. Friedman turned
to industrial research. For nine years, until 1945 , he was a research chemist with
Universal Oil Products Company, in suburban Chicago.
In 1948, after directing chemical laboratories in industry and government
for three years, he began his long association with Sinclair Research Laboratories .
For eleven years he was associate director of the organic research: laboratories
of the oil company, and in 1959 the became a research associate. In 1969 he
accepted a position at the University of Chicago, where he was in charge of
freshmen and sophomore chemistry laboratories. He retired in July, 1973 .
Dr. Friedman's honors include election to Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma XI, the
Merit Award of the Chicago Technical Societies Council in 1963, and the Honor
Scroll of the American Institute of Chemists in 1959.
Author of 40 patents and 20 scientific articles, he was chairman of the
Chicago chapter of the American Institute of Chemists and president in 1953
of the Chicago Technical Societies Council. He is also a member of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science .

BIOGRAPHY OF DR. ALAN C. NIXON, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Dr. Alan C. Nixon , chemical consultant of Berkeley, California, is Immediate
Past President of the American Chemical Soicety. An expert on plastics applica
tions, paper chemicals, and fuels for hypersonic airplanes, Dr. Nixon was a
research chemist for the Shell Development Company, Emeryville, California,
from 1937 to 1954 , when he was named research supervisor. He left the com
pany in 1970 to become a consultant.
Dr. Nixon has been an active member of the ACS since 1940, particularly in
the California Section of the Society and the ACS Division of Petroleum Chem
istry. A Director of theACS, he is a member of the ACS Committeeon Chemistry
and Public Affairs and Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Education and
Employment of the Disadvantaged ( PROJECT SEED ) . He previously served
for seven years on the ACS Committee on Membership Affairs and was Chairman
of its Subcommittee on Economic Status in 1967–68 .
A naturalized U.S. citizen, Dr. Nixon was born in Workington, England, in
1908 and lived in Saskatoon, Canada, from 1911 to 1931. He received the B.Sc.
in 1929 and the M.Sc. in 1931 from the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.
After obtaining thePh.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, he re
mained there as an instructor until he joined the Shell Company. Dr. Nixon is
Chairman ( for the second year) of the Committee of Scientific Society Presi
dents, and a member ofthe American Association for the Advancement of Sci
ence, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Combustion
Institute,
Club .
the Catalyst Society,the American Institute of Chemists and theSierra
 74

BIOGRAPHY OF DR. STEPHEN T. QUIGLEY, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY The

AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY Dr.
Dr. Stephen T. Quigley is director of the American Chemical Society's De
partment of Chemistry and Public Affairs. This department administers the urtej
following governmental and other public affairs activities : ( 1 ) Study projects Mieno

on public issues or problems ; (2 ) Technical or socio -economic-educational ac approj

tion programs ; (3 ) Attitude or policy formulation and determination ; and (4 ) DEPOSE
Advisory and supportive programs for other ACS units.
A native of Wabasha, Minnesota , Dr. Quigley received the B.S. degree in time?
1942 from the College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota ; the M.S. in 1950 from ince
the University of Detroit ; and the Ph.D. in 1959 from the University of Mary made
land.
He served in the U.S. Navy in the South Pacific and Far East from 1943 to
public
1948 and again from 1951 to 1955, and now holds the rank of Captain in the U.S. indust
Naval Reserve. Following his second tour of duty with the Navy, he was a Na jeople
tional Cancer Institute research fellow in 1955–57. He joined the Goodyear Fow
Tire and Rubber Company, Akron, in 1957, as a senior research chemist, and
in act
was named a research supervisor in 1959. He became a senior research chemist
at the 3M Company, St. Paul, in 1959. 11011
Dr. Quigley was appointed Commissioner of Administration of the State of forsknin
Minnesota by Governor Karl F. Rolvaag in 1963 and was reappointed in 1965. He
joined the ACS staff in Washington in 1966. percen
He was appointed to the U.S. Department of Commerce Technical Advisory
Board by the Secretary of Commerce in 1965 and served through 1970. He serves braca
on the Board of Trustees of the Midwest Research Institute. He also was a mem
ber of the joint National Academy of Science - National Academy of Engineering The
committee which has published a study report on “ The Impact of Science and tion 21
Technology on Regional Economic Development."
Dr. Quigley has been amember of the American Chemical Society since 1950. of vita
He is also a member of the American Association for the Advancement of the pri
Science, the American Meteorological Society, the New York Academy of Sci One
ences, American Society of Public Administration, the National Air Pollution has fo
Control Association, Sigma Xi, Phi Kappa Phi , and Alpha Chi Sigma.
telop
The CHAIRMAN. Since the time has more or less escaped us this ations
morning, if you can summarize in any way or hit the highlights, we molog
would appreciate that, sir. major
short
STATEMENT OF DR. BERNARD S. FRIEDMAN , PRESIDENT, AMERI belier
CAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY ; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ALAN C. NIXON, Chem
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, AND DR. STEPHEN T. QUIGLEY,
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS Aft
OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Dr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman . App
The CHAIRMAN. Your statement in full will be made a part of the to the
record.. neffec
Dr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Chairman Moss. I did intend doing that enice

in the interest of saving time. met

My name is Bernard $ .Friedman, president of the American Chem Omy
ical Society for 1974. And with the authorization of its board of di
rectors, I appear before you today topresent the society's statement. In
Accompanying me today is Dr. Alan C. Nixon, to my right, immediate from
past president of the society, and currently chairman of the commit to be
tee of scientific society presidents. Some 23 societies are represented resou
on that committee. And on my further rightisDr. Stephen T. Quig Eo
ley, director of the department of chemistry and public affairs of the depo
American Chemical Society.
gred
 75

STRE The CHAIRMAN . We welcome you, Dr. Nixon and Dr. Quigley.
Dr. FRIEDMAN. First, I want to express our appreciation for the op
IM portunity to comment on the features of the Technology Resources
tbt Survey and Applications Act, S. 2495, and its working draft, the
Science and Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act. It is
appropriate that we give this testimony since our national charter
imposes an obligation on the society to provide assistance to the Gov
e in ernment in matters of national concern related to its areas of compe
art
tence and also the obligation to work for the advancement, in the
broadest and most liberal manner, of chemistry, “ thereby fostering
3 to public welfare and education , aiding the developmentof our country's
CS industries, and adding to the material prosperity and happiness of our
Na people."
Tear
and ) Founded in 1876, the American Chemical Society was chartered by
emis an act of Congress, which was signed into law on August 25, 1937, as
a nonprofit, scientific, and educational organization. Current mém
e of
H
bershipin the society is about 110,000 individual chemists and chemi
cal engineers. The society has no corporate memberships. About 70
percent of our members are employed by industry, about 20 percent
TTES by academic institutions, and 10percent by government and nonprofit
PI institutions.
Ting
and
The society recognizes these issues as fundamental to the formula
tion and implementation of national scienceand technology policy and
971
of
of vital significance to theability of our Nation to resolve many of
the problems which confront it.
Sci One of these issues which has been a major concern in recent years
tion
has focused on fluctuations in Federal spending for research and de
his
velopment and the manpower dislocations accompanying these fluctu
Те
ations. Another focal point has been on the role of science and tech
nology in the solution of prioritynational problems, especially the
major research and development effort designed to resolve the energy
31 shortage through " Project Independence" and other programs. We
believe that the views on these issues presented by the American
Chemical Society represent a consensus of the chemical science com
CY, munity.
RS After reviewing S. 2495, the Technology Resources Survey and
Applications Act, and the January 18, 1974 , working draft of S.
2495, entitled the "Science and Technology Resources Survey and
Applications Actof 1974 ,” the society prefers to address its comments
he to the provisions of the latter, since its survey aspects appear to us to
reflect more realistically the complex interrelationship between sci
at ence and technology. This interrelationship is chronicled in the so
ciety's recently published report entitled " Chemistry in the Econ
omy" -published October 1973 — which surveyed the impact of the
discipline of chemistry on the total economy.
I In fact, many of the recommendations for further study arising
from the “ Chemistry in the Economy” report relate to matters likely
to be part of a survey of the Nation's scientific and technological
resources.

For example, it includes a comprehensive manpower accounting sys

tem , includingmoredetailed and timely information on enrollments,
degrees granted , and otheraspects of education ; it deals with thein
gredients, relationships, decisions, and principles involved in the pro
 76

gression from science to processes, goods, and services ; it deals also

with the relation of technology to productivity ; and others.
The society offers its support for a survey of scientific and techno
logical resources and stands ready to fulfill its role as a scientific and
engineering society in the survey. As you probably know, tlre Ameri
can Chemical Society administered that portion of the National Reg
ister of Scientific and Technical Personnel relatingto chemistry which
had been funded by the National Science Foundation until it was
discontinued in 1970. In addition , you may also be aware of the
society's report on the chemical sciences and technology of environ
mental improvement which was published in 1969, “ Cleaning Our
Environment – The Chemical Basis for Action ." This is the book here.
A supplement to it, published in 1971, refined the recommendations for
action in order of highest priority and indicated who should be re
sponsible for implementing them .
The society believes the National Science and Technology Resources
Council as established by section 101 of S. 2495 is a reasonable organi
zation to prepare an annual survey of science and technology resources
and, conceivably, also an organization to develop a program to identify
resources that are not being utilized but are available for the solution
of critical domestic problems. However, the Council's position in the
Federal Government would have to be strengthened so that its recom
mendations to the President on those critical domestic problems iden
tified by the survey could be fully effective. Changes in emphasis of the
programs from periodic evaluation of the progress in the solution
of these domestic problems would be difficult, if not impossible, with
out access to the highest levels of the Federal Government. As we know ,
science today advances with such speed that it is prudent to assure suf
ficient flexibility to take advantage of the progress.
The society recognizes that the portion ofthe Federal budget which
is not set by statutes is more subject to continuing guidance and direc
tion from the President. This portion of the Federal budget is, as you
know, considerably larger than the amounts allocated to the support
of research and development activities, which it includes. However,
much of the allocations which are subject to the President's discre
tion have substantial technological aspects, and consequently, a large
fraction of high -level Federal administrative personnel are involved
in the formulation and implementation of national science and tech
nology policy. Presently, this responsibility has been delegated to too
many policy -making individuals who are inexperienced in scientific
and technical fields, though highly successful in other pursuits.
The society firmly believes that establishment of a strong overall
focus at the highest level in the Federal Government is necessary to
coordinate and stabilize national science and technology policy. Based
on this conviction , we feel that any legislative approach should have.
as its major objective, the streamlining of the existing administrative
structures affecting science and technology policy as opposed to
establishing parallel administrative structures with limited authority.
A management focus as represented by the Chairman or Head of
the National Science and Technology Resource Council, we believe,
should have Cabinet status. The Chairman or Head also should be a
regular participant in the deliberations of the National Security Coun
cil . To guarantee the proper management focus in the National
 77

ale Science and Technology Resource Council, its status in the executive
branch should be provided by law .
In a statement on the National Science Policy and Priorities Act
am presented to the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development
Bieri of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics on Ocotober 3,
1972, the American Chemical Society suggested an administrative ar
rangement whereby the Office of Science and Technology ( now dis
solved ) and the Office of Management and Budget would coordinate
: the research and development programs in the existing executive agencies
11ON: and would be responsible for overseeing the smooth flow of scientific
Our knowledge from research, through stages of development and demon
her stration, to practical application. Now , some of our other earlier rec
s for ommendations in this area are described on page 6. I will not read
PM them .
I would say, however, the President's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of
imes 1973, in effect, negates the society's prior recommendations for admin
istering science andtechnology policy from the highest levels in the
IlCPS White House. The elimination of the White House science apparatus,
ntify the challenge of the current energy emergency and the prospect of
tion future problems whose solution involves a technological component
the prompted a reexamination of the society's recommendation for the
Com
1
management of the country's scientific and technical activities.
Elen Our present view of the need for highly placed management focus
Ethe is more accurately reflected in the President's message on science and
tion technology of March 16, 1972, which states that:
Lith We must appreciate that the scientific and technological progress we seek re
2017. quires a new partnership in science and technology - one which brings together
suf the Federal Government, private enterprise, State and local governments, and our
universities and research centers in a coordinated, cooperative effort to serve the
national interest Only if this happens, only if our new partnership thrives,
id can we be sure that our scientific and technological resources will be used
rar effectively as possible in meeting our priority national needs.
TON Implicit in the President's message is the fact that, at a time of
mort
increasing demands on limited resources, coordinated national science
rer. and technology policy is vitally necessary.
10
However, more isimplied by the coordination of national science
and technology policy than mangement at the Federal level . We rec
ted ognize the intent tobroaden the proposed National Science and Tech
och nology Resources Council by the inclusion of section 101 ( b ) of title
too
illie
I of S.2495 adding representation of the NationalGovernors Confer
ence, the National Association of Counties, the National League of
Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors to the existing Federal
all Council on Science and Technology. The American Chemical Society
to
believes, however, that this added representation does not assure that
sed
State and local governments will participate in any substantial way
TP. in the formulation of national science and technology policy.
ire Rather, we recommend an administrative structure be formed simi
lar to that outlined in title II of S. 1686, the Civilian Science and
Str. Technology Policy Act. Such a structure is a more viable means of
disseminating information and coordinating policy at the State and
T'
local governmental levels. Responsibility for science and technology
P! policy formulation and implementation at the State and local govern
W
mental levels can hardly be viewed as practical unless incentives to
1:22
32-205-74 -6
 78

establish mechanisms for policy implementation are integrated effec Che

tively into national policies. OUL
Also, we suggest that the functions of the National Science and
Technology Resources Council would be reinforced by inclusion of a tec
third paragraph ( c ) in section 101 of title I of S. 2495 to provide for
ex officio representation of the Nation's federally chartered scientific o
and engineering societies. fr
In reference to title IIof S. 2495 , it is the opinion of the American UM
Chemical Society that the Office of Technology Application in the al
National Aeronautics and Space Administration could not beexpected T
to assume the overall administrative responsibility for applying the the
Nation's scientific and technological resources to critical problems as ind
assigned by section 201 (b) ( 3) and (4 ). However, the success of the B
National Aeronautics and Space Administration in developing the iet
necessary technology to set foot on the Moon and to conduct other
nus
space projects argues strongly for delegating to it new responsibilities he
in the overall program of technology policy formulation and imple .250
mentation, so that the Nation will not lose the technological capabil ter
ities and expertise developed by NASA . Similarly, the capabilities of for
any of the mission -oriented agencies should be adapted to new national DUS
needs following the accomplishment of its primary mission. ell
Obviously, the implementation of the provisions of S. 2495, should lee
it be enacted, wouldrequire substantial increases in Federal funding. Ta
Yet, the society notes that the amountofFederal support for research 1.6
and development, which supplies the bulk of university -based science ene
funding as well as substantial funding for scientific and techno nel
logical activitiesin industrial, government, and nonprofit labora Ve
tories, was virtually level from 1969 to 1973. In fact financial support
for scientific and technological activities has been eroded steadily. pe
Inflation, the elimination of programs previously supported by the
mission agencies, and the increasing costs of more complicated equip les
ment and facilities have all contributed to this erosion . im
Comparatively, the increase in R. & D. funding requested in fiscal lee
year 1975 for the Department of Defense amounted to nearly half of le
the total increase in the Federal R. & D. budget. R. & D. spending in cee
areas other than defense does not appear sufficient to match our techni Dus
cal ability to deal forcefully and effectively with problems of high ha
domestic priority. Thepending increasesin funding of energy R. & D. do
offer some hope of real increase in R. & D. funding although there is SCL
evidence that they may be accompanied by decreases in other areas,
such as agriculture. The American Chemical Society, therefore, be Sci
lieves that some shift in funding from defense to civilian -oriented An
research is imperative if scientific and technological resources are to of
contribute effectively to the solutions of critical national problems. TE
As we stated, reorganizing the scientificand technical management or
apparatus to reflect more broadly the technological base of modern tic
society is needed to stabilize national policy. The society believes that spo
stable national science and technology policy should control and pos CI
sibly eliminate the gross fluctuationsin Federal support for scientific do
and technological activities, while accommodating the shifts in pri G
orities of national concerns. The maintenance of a “ healthy ” atmos de
phere for research and development requires the avoidance of abrupt IZ
and unexpected shifts in Federal R. & D. funding and the associated 06
unemployment of skilled technical manpower. Thus, the American
 79

Chemical Society, while recognizing that manpower dislocations will

occur as a result of shifting priorities, urges that concern for the
si stability of employment be an integralpart of national science and
technology policy , and that this concern be reflected in the adoption
of a policy of stable funding for R. & D. perhaps geared to the ĜNP.
Our recommendation for employment stability takes into account,
can
from the society's perspective, thedamaging effect of the recent and
the
current unfavorable employment situations for chemists and chemi
cal engineers.
ted
The pertinent statistics for this begin at the bottom of page 10 of
the written statement and continue on the top of page 11. ( See pp. 84
S as and 85. )
the
Regarding future manpower resources, the American Chemical So
ther
cietybelieves that the Nation's scientific and technological manpower
ite
must be viewed as one of the Nation's most critical resources. To meet
the challenge of the energy crisis, the Nation must depend on these
resources as it did to meet the challenge of landing on the Moon . How
ever, recent figures from the NSF indicate that first - year enrollment
8of for chemistry graduate students fell 9 percent in 1972 from the previ
na!
ous year, and the number of full-time graduate students in chemistry
UN fell 7 percent. The Engineering Manpower Commission of the Engi
ing
neers Joint Council conducted asurvey which showed that total under
rch
graduate enrollment in 1972 in engineering programs was down by
ence
7.6 percent from 1971 , with chemical engineering down by 11.8 per
hno
cent (incidentally, the largest drops in enrollments were in the fresh
JOIN
men and sophomore years, 22 percent and 19 percent, respectively ).
We believe that these decrases are related to the changes in Federal
ort spending for R. & D. and to the high rate ofscientific unemployment
dilr. among scientists and engineering on the other hand.
the
Fouror five years hence, some decreases might have turned out to be
qui desirable, givena greatly diminished demand for manpower geared to
a normal industrial economy; but in light of our probable national
om needs, the changes in enrollment are much too abrupt. As a result, the
ifd demand for technically skilled manpower will in all probability ex
hui
ceed the supply, and the shortage could very well be so severe as to seri
high
ously retard technological progress in a number of areas.We believe
that a policy of stable Federal funding which we recommend would
&:D! do much to permit planning to bring the supply and demand for
re scientificmanpower into balance.
reas
he
In anticipating the likely effects of a substantial program to apply
ite
d scientific and technological resources to critical national problems,the
American Chemical Society wishes to caution against the generation
le to
of entirely new highly specialized curricula at the undergraduate or
graduatelevels reflectingone or another of the transient national pri
del ority problems. The society considers of questionable merit the incep
den tion of a college undergraduate curriculum to educate environmental
that
specialists and yet another to educate energy resource experts. Theso
ciety recognizes the legitimate concern forrelevance in education, but
ntiti does not approveof overspecializationat too earlya stage of education.
p?A Graduate degree programs could be developed which are truly inter
M
departmental. The core disciplines would be kept intact with special
un ized courses and seminars being provided as part of the programs. One
iata of the society's basic recommendations continues to be that the major
ICA
 80

emphasis should be to retain scientists and engineers already in the

manpower pool rather than train new entrants for work in the areas of
need .
An effect of any large undertaking to meet the challenge of the
present energy situation, and other future challenges, is that an al
ready mobilescientific and technical community will experience even
greater mobility as progress is made in one area and attention is fo
cused on another. The American Chemical Society believes that an
important safeguard which should be incorporated into the policies
for stabilizing employment levels is the protection of the earned pen
sion rights of scientists and engineers from any forfeiture both in the
major Government contract industries and in other civilian industrial
sectors. If the pension reform legislation recently passed by the Senate
andthe House becomes law, it is a major first steptoward establishing
this safeguard .
Now awordabout technology transfer programs. These could be a
means of stabilizing employment levels for scientists and engineers.
They will serve to aid temporarily displaced scientific and manage
ment manpower, and at the same time to make full use of such re
sources and manpower on behalf of the Nation. We all recognize that
the movement ofhighly experienced personnel into and out of different
technological environments creates problems, but yet it is an impetus
to innovative thinking and resourcefulness.
In summary, we feel the central theme of this proposed legislation
isa soundone, and our commentsare made in the spirit of cooperation
with the Congress in developing the optimum mechanism to achieve its
objectives. A large component of our domestic problemsandactivities
have scientific or technological aspects. We are as convinced as you
are that if well managed and fully utilized, scientists and engineers
will contribute substantially to thedomestic well-being of our Nation
and to a favorable balance of trade with foreign nations.
In conclusion , the American Chemical Society strongly supports the
need for an ongoing survey of scientific and technological resources
of the Nation. The society urges that a major Federal effort be under
taken to apply scientific and technological resources to the solution
of critical national problems based on the findings of the survey. To
accomplish such a major effort and to stabilize national employment
and funding policies, we recommend that the organization to effectuate
the programs be a strong Federal focus for all national science and
technology policy.
Thank you, Mr. Chariman, for the opportunity to present the views
of the American Chemical Society.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you , Dr. Friedman. I appreciate your very
fine statement, and I am basically in accord withyou. I particularly
agree that the Nation's scientific and technological manpower mustbe
viewed as one of the Nation's most critical resources. The thrust of this
bill, in general, is to find some way to regularize the program for
scientific and technological research . We need a level ongoing program
without the peaks and valleys,the emergency crash programs, and the
periods of layoffs. You pointed out, when you were giving the school
enrollment and employment figures, that this drop back has been felt
through all of the scientific community. You were relating to the
chemical engineers and chemists, but they are just one of that tech
 81
n the
nological and scientific group that now are decreasing in numbers be
cause of the low demand. This lag is going to be felt 6or 7 years from
now when wechemical
might engineers
be in anothercrisis and looking all over for
chemists and .
erez
is for I am pleased that thesociety endorses the objectives of the bill. You
have given us some good detailed comment on it, and we wouldhope we
could continue to rely on you for suggestions and comments. As I said
earlier toone of the other witnesses, Ithink , we ought to be relying
- pen more greatly on the professional societies such as you represent. You
n the
not only have the personal involvement of your members, but you are
NALP
the repository of great manpower and intelligence that we need if we
ILITA
are to solve our national and local problems by the use of technology
and science. This is the basic thesis we have in the bill before us,
bes
I wanttothank you and tell you that it has been very helpful to us.
70N
I thank Dr. Nixon and Dr. Quigley, too, for their presence.
10018

1902
Dr. FRIEDMAN. In response to your remarks, which I did appreciate
hr
sovery much, may I say we are engaged nowin devloping a more defi
nitive set of policy recommendations for the Nation's management
Prent
of science and technology, and we hope to have an opportunity to
etus
present these to you at a later day.
The CHAIRMAN. We would appreciate it very much , and if it is ready
tion
before our record goes to print,we would like it included in the record.
In any event, we would like to have it for the committee's considera
tici tion.
eline
itle
[ Dr. Friedman's complete statement follows : ]
TOT STATEMENT OF DR. BERNARD S. FRIEDMAN , PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
ation Mr. Chairman and members of the Committees : My name is Bernard S. Fried
man. I am President of the American Chemical Society for 1974, and with the
sth authorization of its Board of Directors, I appear before you today to present
INS
the Society's statement. Accompanying me today are Dr. Alan C. Nixon,
Immediate Past President of the Society, and Dr. Stephen T. Quigley of the
der Department of Chemistry and Public Affairs of the American Society .
tion Consideration of the Issues
1 We appreciate being given this opportunity to comment on the features of the
ien Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act, S. 2495, and its working
uate draft, the Science and Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act. It
and is appropriate that we give this testimony since our National Charter imposes
an obligation on the Society to provide assistance to the Government in matters
of national concern related to its areas of competence and also to work for the
jeni advancement, in the broadest and most liberal manner, of chemistry, " thereby
fostering public welfare and education, aiding the development of our country's
e industries, and adding tothe material prosperity and happiness of our people.
Founded in 1876, the American Chemical Society was chartered by an act
ardi of Congress, which was signed into law on August 25, 1937, as a non-profit, scien
itbe tific and educational organization. Current membershipin the Society is about
110,000 individual chemists and chemical engineers. The Society has no cor
for porate memberships. The membership reflects a broad spectrum of engagement in
Tam
academic, governmental, and industrial professional pursuits. About 70 % of our
members are employed by industry, about 20 % by academic institutions, and
the 10% by government and non -profit institutions.
The American Chemical Society, primarily through its Joint Committee on
Chemistry and PublicAffairs of the Board of Directors and Council, has fostered
the an ongoing debate on the issues addressed by this legislation. The Society recog
nizes these issues as fundamental to the formulation and implementation of
national science and technology policy and of vital significance to the ability
of our nation to resolve many of the problems which confront -it.
 82

One of these issues which has been a major concern in recent years has focused
on fluctuations in federal spending for research and development and the man
power dislocations accompanying these fluctuations. Another focal point has
been on the role of science and technology in the solution of priority national
problems, especially the major research and development effort designed to re
solve the energy shortage through “ Project Independence ” and other programs.
We believe that the views on these issues presented by the American Chemical
Society represent a consensus of the chemical science community.
Survey of Scientific and Technological Resources
After reviewing S. 2495, the Technology Resources Survey and Applications
Act, and the January 18, 1974, working draft of S. 2495, entitled the Science and
Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act of 1974, the Society prefers to
address its comments to the provisions of the latter, since its survey aspects
appear to us to reflect more realistically the complex inter-relationship between
science and technology. This inter-relationship is chronicled in the So
ciety's recently published report entitled “ Chemistry In the Economy” (pub
lished October 1973 ) which surveyed the impact of the discipline of chemistry
on the total economy.
In fact, most of the recommendations for further study arising from the
“ Chemistry In The Economy ” report relate to matters likely to be part of a
survey of the nation's scientific and technological resources :
--a comprehensive manpower accounting system, including more detailed and
timely information on enrollments, degrees granted and other aspects of
education ;
-the ingredients, relationships, decisions, and principles involved in the pro
gression from science to processes, goods, and services ;
-the relation of technology to productivity ; and others.
The Society offers its support for a survey of scientific and technological re
sources and stands ready to fulfill its role as a scientific and engineering society
in the survey. As you probably know, the American Chemical Society admin
istered that portion of the National Register of Scientific and Technical Per
sonnel relating to chemistry which had been funded by the National Science
Foundation until it was discontinued in 1970. In addition , you may also be
aware of the Society's report on the chemical science and technology of environ
mental improvement which was published in 1969. A supplement to it, published
in 1971, refined the recommendations for action in order of highest priority
and indicated who should be responsible for implementing them .
Management Focus
The Society believes the National Science and Technology Resources Council
as established by Section 101 of S. 2495 is a reasonable organization to prepare
an annual survey of science and technology resources and , conceivably, also an
organization to develop a program to identify resources that are not being
utilized but are available for the solution of critical domestic problems. However,
the Council's position in the federal government would have to be strengthened
so that its recommendations to the President on those critical domestic problems
identified by the survey could be fully effective. Changes in emphasis of the pro
grams from period evaluation of the progress in the solution of these domestic
problems would be difficult, if not impossible, without access to the highest levels
of the federal government. Science today advances with such speed that it is
prudent to assure sufficient flexibility to take advantage of its progress.
The Society recognizes that the portion of the federalbudget which is not set by
statutes is more subject to continuing guidance and direction from the President.
This portion of the federal budget is considerably larger than the amounts allo
cated to the support of research and development activities, which it includes.
However, much of the allocations which are subject to the President's discretion
have substantial technological aspects, and consequently, a large fraction of high
level federal administrative personnel are involved in the formulation and imple
mentation of national science and technology policy. Presently, this responsibility
has been delegated to too many policymaking individuals who are inexperienced
in scientific and technical fields, though highly successful in other pursuits.
The Society firmly believes that establishments of a strong overall focus at
the highest level in the federal government is necessary tocoordinate and sta
bilize national science and technology policy.Basedon this conviction, we feel
that any legislative approach should have, as its major objective, the stream
 83

facere
E MAE
lining of the existing administrative structures affecting science and technology
policy as opposed to establishing parallel administrative structures with limited
authority.
itions]
to I
A management focus as represented by the Chairman or Head of the National
Science and Technology Resources Council, we believe, should have Cabinet
emical
status. The Chairman or head also should be a regular participant in the
deliberations of the National Security Council. To quarantee the proper manage
ment focus in the National Science and Technology Resources Council, its status
in the executive branch should be provided by law .
rations In a statement on the National Science Policy and Priorities Act presented
Pari to the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the House Com
feri
mittee on Science and Astronautics on October 3, 1972, the Society suggested an
administrative arrangement whereby the Office of Science and Technology ( now
tera dissolved ) and the Office of Management and Budget would coordinate research
e
and development programs in the existing executive agencies and would be
pal responsible for overseeing the smooth flow of scientific knowledge from research ,
mistr through stages of development and demonstration , to practical application. In
fact ,the Society has a fairly long history of support for a highly placed federal
2the unit to administer science and technology policy. The Society supported establish
: of ment of the Office of the Special Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology and upgrading the Science Advisory Committee to become the Pres
dand ident's Science Advisory Committee in 1957 ; and in 1958 the Society supported
the creation of the Federal Council of Science and Technology.The Society also
strongly supported the establishment in 1962 of a mechanism for scientific and
technical advice at the highest level in the executive branch and welcomed
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 establishing the White House Office of Science
and Technology .
l te However, the President's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973, in effect, negates
wiet the Society's prior recommendations for administering science and technology
imir policy from the highest levels in the White House. The elemination of the White
House science apparatus, the challenge of the current energy emergency and
jene the prospect of future problems whose solution involves a technological compo
an be nent prompted a re- examination of the Society's recommendation for the man
iron agement of the country's scientific and technical activities.
shed Our present view of the need for highly placed management focus is more
ority accurately reflected in the President's message on science and technology of
March 16, 1972 which states that :
we must appreciate that the [scientific and technological] progress
we seek requires a new partnership in science and technology — one which
ncil brings together the Federal Government, private enterprise, State and local
1??
governments, and our universities and research centers in a coordinated,
cooperative effort to serve the national interests .... Only if this happens,
vers only if our new partnership thrives, can we be sure that our scientific and
erer technological resources will be used effectively as possible in meeting our
Piel priority national needs."
Jens Implicit in the President's message is the fact that, at a time of increasing de
mands on limited resources , coordinated national science and technology policy
vitally necessary
is .
Management at State and Local Levels
However, more is implied by the coordination of national science and technol
ogy policy than management at the federal level. We recognize the intent to
lent
broaden the proposed National Science and Technology Resources Council by
allo
the inclusion of Section 101 (b ) of Title I of S. 2495 adding representation of
the National overnors Confere ce, the National Association of Counties, the
National League of Cities, and the United States Conference of Mayors to the
existing Federal Council on Science and Technology. The American Chemical
Society believes, however, that this added representation does not assure that
state and local governments will participate in any substantial way in the
formulation and implementation of national science and technology policy.
Rather, we recommend an administrative structure be formed similar to that
S
outlined in Title II of S. 1686, the Civilian Science and Technology Policy Act.
Such a structure is a more viable means of disseminating information and co
ordinating policy at the state and local governmental levels. Responsibility for
science and technology policy formulation and implementation at the state and
local governmental levels can hardly be viewed as practical unless incentivesto
 84

establish mechanisms for policy implementation are integrated effectively into

national policies.
Also, we suggest that the functions of the National Science and Technology
Resources Council would be reinforced by inclusion of a third paragraph, ( c ) ,
in Section 101 of Title I of S. 2495 to provide for ex officio representation of the
nation's federally chartered scientific and engineering societies.
Office of Technology Application
In reference to Title II of S. 2495, it is the opinion of the American Chemical
Society that the Office of Technology Application in the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration could not be expected to assume the overall admin
istrative responsibility for applying the nation's scientific and technological
resources to critical problems as assigned by Section 201 ( b ) ( 3 ) and (4 ). How
ever, the success of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in
developing the necessary technology to set foot on the moon and to conduct
other space projects argues strongly for delegating to it new responsibilites in
the overall program of technology policy formulation and implementation, so
that the nation will not lose the technological capabilities and expertise de
veloped by NASA. Similarly , the capabilities of any of the mission oriented
agencies should be adapted to new national needs following the accomplishment
of its primary mission .
R. & D. Funding
Obviously, the implementation of the provisions of S. 2495, should it be en
acted , would require substantial increases in federal funding. Yet, the Society
notes that the amount of federal support for research and development, which
supplies the bulk of university-based science funding as well as substantial fund
ing for scientific and technological activities in industrial, governmental, and
non -profit laboratories, was virtually level from 1969–1973. Additionally, fi
nancial support for scientific and technological activities has been eroded
steadily. Inflation, the elimination of programs previously supported by the
mission agencies, and the increasing costs of more complicated equipment and
facilities have all contributed to this erosion.
Comparatively , the increase in R&D funding requested in FY 1975 for the
Department of Defense amounted to nearly half of the total increase in the
federal R&D budget. R&D spending in areas other than defense does not ap
pear sufficient to match our technical ability to deal forcefully and effectively
with problems of high domestic priority. The pending increases in funding of
energy R&D offer some hope of real increase in R&D funding although there is
evidence that they may be accompanied by decreases in other areas, such as agri
culture. The American Chemical Society, therefore, believes that some shift in
funding from defense to civilian-oriented research is imperative if scientific and
technology resources are to contribute effectively to the solutions of critical
national problems.
Employment Stabilization
As we stated, recognizing the scientific and technical management apparatus
to reflect more broadly the technological base of modern society is needed to
stabilize national policy . The Society believes that stable national science and
technology policy should control and possibly eliminate the gross fluctuations in
federal support for scientific and technological activities, which accommodate
the shifts in priorities of national concerns. The maintenance of a " healthy”
atmosphere for research and development requires the avoidance of abrupt and
unexpected shifts in federal R&D funding and the associated unemployment of
skilled technical manpower. Thus, the American Chemical Society, while recog
nizing that manpower dislocations will occur as a result of shifting priorities,
urges that concern for the stability of employment be an integral part of national
science and technology policy, and that this concern be reflected in the adoption
of a policy of stable funding for R&D, perhaps geared to the GNP.
Our recommendation for employment stability takes into account, from the
Society's perspective, the damaging effects of the recent and current unfavorable
employment situation for chemists and chemical engineers. In a previous state
ment developed in 1972, the Society noted a deteriorating employment situation.
A survey of ACS members has revealed that, as of March 1972, 7.2% were un.
employed or were employed in temporary or part-time jobs (" subprofessional”
positions which do not fully use a person's education or training). Especially
important was the unemployment of 23.7% of Society members aged 25 or under,
 85

indicating that new graduates were having a particularly difficult time finding
jobs. More recent figures indicate an improved employment situation for chemists
and chemical engineers ; as of March 1973, the survey of the membership of the
087 Society showed that 5.0% were unemployed or were in the temporary or part-time
cl employed category, and only 2.7 % of those members aged 25 or under were un
the employed.
However, part of the large drop in the under 25, unemployed category since
1972 is attributable to the fact that, among ACS members in particular, there is
a drift out of the field of chemistry and into non -scientific careers. Others leave
sal thefield of chemistry to join closely allied scientific fieldsand in many instances
ics could return to chemical occupations without substantial retraining. In the
American Chemical Society's " 1973 Report of Chemists Salaries and Employment
cal Status, ” it is concluded that, if a 1 % unemployment rate for chemists is ac
il
ceptable as a " full ” employment situation ( some professionals do not seek full
time employment) , then between 3,700 and 4,000 chemists are in an unsatis
uct
factory employment situation .
♡ Future Manpower Resources
de The American Chemical Society believes that the nation's scientific and tech
atel nological manpower must be viewed as one of the nation's most critical re
ent sources. To meet the challenge of the energy crisis the nation must depend on
these resources as it did to meet the challenge of landing on the moon. However,
recent figures from the NSF indicate that first -year enrollment for chemistry
graduate students fell 9% in 1972 from the previous year, and the number of
ell
full-time graduate students in chemistry fell 7 % . The Engineering Manpower
ets Commission of the Engineers Joint Council conducted a survey which showed that
ich total undergraduate enrollment in 1972 in engineering programs was down by
and 7.6% from 1971, with chemical engineering down by 11.8% ( the largest drops
and in enrollements were in the freshmen and sophomore years, 22 % and 19 % ,
f respectively ). We believe that these decreases are related to the changes in fed
del eral spending for R&D and to the high rate of scientific unemployment.
the Four or five years hence, some decreases might have turned out to be de
and sirable, given a greatly diminished demand for manpower geared to a normal
industrial economy, but in light of our probable national needs, the changes in
the enrollment are much too abrupt. As a result, the demand for technically skilled
the manpower will in all probability exceed the supply and the shortage could very
well be so severe as to seriously retard technological progress in a number of
areas. We believe that a policy of stable federal funding which we recommend
z of would do much to permit planning to bring the supply and demand for scientific
manpower into balance.
In anticipating the likely effects of a substantial program to apply scientific
and technological resources to critical national problems, the American Chemical
Society wishes to caution against the generation of entirely new highly special
ical ized curricula at the undergraduate or graduate levels reflecting one or another
of the transient national priority problems. The Society considers of question
able merit the inception of a college undergraduate curriculum to educate en
vironmental specialists and yet another to educate energy resource experts. The
itus
Society recognizes the legitimate concern for relevance in education, but does
not approve of over-specialization at too early a stage of education.
and
3in
Training for work in one or another problem area could involve courses at
academic institutions. The major emphasis should be to retrain scientists and
bor"
engineers already in the manpower pool rather than to train new entrants for
nd
work in areas of need. For those entering graduate school, degree programs could
ini
be developed which are truly interdepartmental. The core disciplines would be
kept intact and specialized courses and seminars provided as part of the pro
grams. The Master and Doctor of Philosophy degrees granted under such pro
1121
grams would be more relevant in terms of our national problems while provid
jon
ing a sound general scientific or engineering base.
Protection for a Mobile Work Force
the An effect of any large undertaking to meet the challenge of the present energy
bile situation, and other future challenges, is that an already mobile scientific and
technical community will experience even greater mobility as progress is made
in one area and attention is focused on another. The American Chemical So
ciety believes that an important safeguard which should be incorporated into
the policies for stabilizing employment levels is the protection of the earned
pension rights of scientists and engineers from any forfeiture both in the major
 86

Government contract industries and in other civilian industrial sectors. If the

pension reform legislation recently passed by the Senate and the Houses be
comes law, it is a major first step toward establishing this safeguard .
Other means for stabilizing employment levels for scientists and engineers
could be established by technology transfer programs to aid temporarily dis
placed scientific and technological manpower and at the same time to use the
intellectual resources of such manpower on behalf of the nation. The movement
of highly experienced personnel into and out of differing technological environ
ments is an impetus to innovative thinking and resourcefulness.
We feel the central theme of this proposed legislation is a sound one, and our
comments are made in the spirit of cooperation with the Congress in developing
the optimum mechanism to achieve its objectives. A large component of our
domestic problems and activities have scientific or technological aspects. If well
managed and fully utilized, scientists and engineers will contribute substantially
to the domestic well-being of our nation and to a favorable balance of trade
with foreign nations.
In conclusion, the American Chemical Society strongly supports the need for
an ongoing survey of scientific and technological resources of the nation. The So
ciety urges that a major federal effort be undertaken to apply scientific and
technological resources to the solution of critical national problems based on
the findings of the survey. To accomplish such a major effort and to stabilize
national employment and funding policies, we recommend that the organization
to effectuate the programs be a strong federal focus for all national science
and technology policy.
The CHAIRMAN.Thank you very much, gentlemen .
The hearing will now stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned .]
 f the
is be

Deens
dis
e the
ment
iron HEARING ON TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SURVEY AND
lour
APPLICATIONS ACT
oping
OUT

ially THURSDAY , MARCH 21 , 1974

rade
U.S. SENATE ,
I for
Sot
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
and AND COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENNCES ,
i on Washington ,D.C.
ilize
ition The joint hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce and
ence the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences met at
10:07 a.m., in room 235 of the Russell Senate Office Building, Hon.
John V.Tunney (presiding ).
Senator Moss. The hearing will come to order. This is a joint hear
ing before the Commerce Committee and the Aeronautics and Space
Sciences Committee. Today Senator Tunney will be chairing the sec
ond day of hearings on S.2495, which he, Senator Magnuson , and I
originally cosponsoredlast fall.
The opening joint hearing 10 days ago in which I occupied the
chair, developed a good deal of useful testimony and numerous sug
gestions for improvements of this legislation. I appreciate very much
Senator Tunney's willingness to chair this hearing today, and we are
pleased to make the Aeronautics and Space Sciences hearing room
available for this purpose.
Since the three of us introduced the original bill, Senators Gold
water, Symington, Domenici, Stevens, Chiles, and Abourezk have
joined us as cosponsors.
This bill replaces the catch -as-catch -can approach to utilization
of Federal research and development funds with better planning and
efficiency. It proposes a system with which we can begin to developa
strategy to use our scientific and technological capability to provide
theAmerican people with a better future.
I regret that I must go to participate in the markup of a bill in an
other committee. As soon as I can be free of that duty, I want to come
and join in this hearing. I am most pleased that my colleague, Senator
Tunney, will be chairing the hearing, and I assure him he has today
some very outstanding and important witnesses to hear, beginning
with our good friend Dr. Seamans. Senator Tunney, you may have
opening remarks.
Senator TUNNEY. Thank you, Senator Moss. I certainly appreciate
your gracious statements and I hope you can get back quickly from
your markup session, because this bill, drafted by Senator Magnuson
and you as well as myself is most important, and the information
thatwas elicited in the first day of hearings that you chaired points
out the need for legislation of this kind.
( 87 )
 88

The bill which we introduced is the subject, as you have indicated,

of joint hearings by our two committees. S. 2495 isdesigned to provide
for more effective utilization of scientific and technological resources
of the United States in the solution of critical domestic problems. In
particular, the bill provides for a framework to conduct long-range
planning in science and technology.
This long-range planning includes a technology resources survey
and projections of resources as well as identification of critical domes
tic problems which may be susceptible to resolution by the applica
tion of science and technology.
At the first day of hearings every single witness endorsed the need
for such a survey, and many suggestions were forthcoming as to the
manner in which it should be conducted. The original bill as intro
duced called for theestablishment of a Technology Resources Council
consisting of the Vice President, five Cabinet members, and various
agencies. In the staff working draft, it is proposed that the Federal
Council of Science and Technology be expanded to include represent
atives of local and State governments serving as the body responsible
for conducting the survey.
Witnesses at the hearings of March 11 made other suggestions in
cluding the establishment of a Council patterned after the Council of
Environmental Quality or the Council of Economic Advisers. We also
heard suggestions from members of professional engineering and sci
entific societies. Today we will hear from very distinguished represent
atives of the science and engineering profession. I hopethey will avail
themselves of the opportunity to suggest other mechanisms for carry
ing out the purposes of S. 2495.
I realizethat the task of coordinating science and technology ac
tivities is an extremely complicated one, and I am actively searching
for the advice of engineers and scientists in the development of this
legislation. As the witnesses know, because this is a joint effort by the
two committees, there will be a substantially larger participation than
is normal by Senators in the committee markup process : so before the
legislation gets to the floor of the Senate, we will have a consensus that
will include a very broad spectrum of thinking in the Senate as a
whole.
That is why these hearings, it seems to me, are particularly impor
tant. Dr. Seamans, it is our pleasure to welcome you to the hearing,
and I want to thankyou for having made available to the committees
vour statement in advance. I have had an opportunity to briefly look
through it. It is excellent, but I would prefer you read it at this time
and then I will have questions for you.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT C. SEAMANS, JR. , PRESIDENT, NA
TIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. SEAMAN . Mr. Chairman , and members of the Committee on
Commerce and the Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee, I
have reviewed the January 18 working draft of S. 2495, the proposed
Science and Technology Resources StudySurvey and Applications
Act of 1974, and I am happy to appear before this joint hearing and
share with you some of my thoughts.
In general, I applaud the goals and purposes of this proposed
legislation, especially as described in section 2, the “ Statement of
 89

licatel Findings and Declaration of Policy ," but I have reservations with
DIOT respect to some of the details of its implementation.
Sound In particular, I agree that “ the scientific and technical resources of
ms 2 the United States can and should be used more effectively and effi
12
TUS ciently to solve critical domestic problems.” To achieve this goal, as
your committees know full well, will require a blending of the many
SUITET disciplines and professions; the private and public sectors; business
Homes and labor; universities and research laboratories; consumer and pub
place lic interest groups. And we will have to combine our understanding of
the way we bring technological and service innovations into the mar
e need ketplace, with an understanding of our pluralistic and dynamic econ
to the omy and institutions.
Then we mustanalyze all of these in the light of political and policy
ound? and decisionmaking processes, and with sensitive appreciation of
zrious evolving public needs, priorities and values.
dera? Last week ,Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Dr. Philip Handler, presi
resent dent of the National Academy of Sciences, testified before you. I had
sible the opportunity to discuss this legislation with him and his staff
beforehand and, after reading his excellent statement, I find that we
7s in are essentially in agreement.
cil of Rather than burdening you with extensive reiteration, therefore,
I
eaki propose to expand on certain points which may contribute to your
1 501 further deliberation, without subjecting the committees to a section
sent by -section analysis.
wal The legislation has identified , and attempts to cope with the fol
arry:
lowing, important,interrelatedissues:
1. How can we identify and achieve consensus on critical domestic
Ta
problems ?
hing 2. How can we isolate and rank those problems whose solutions
involve an important measure of scientific and technological resources
and talent ?
o the
than 3. How can we assess or survey both the short- and long-term
p the scientific and technological resources, including human resources,
that and which are now , and may be in the future, required to resolve such
251
problems ?
4. How should we begin to apply such resources to the resolution
of these domestic problems?
por 5. And when I say " How can we " do these things I recognize the
Heer inherent question these
complishment
: What is the Federal role with respect to the ac
objectives
of ?
Jook
If I have captured the intent of this bill in these questions, then
I believe that both the answers to the questions and the adequacy of
the draft legislation depend upon clarifying and, indeed, separating
the policymaking function fromthat of implementation. I believe that
I can illustrate the distinction by reference to the Apollo program,.
The point of the analogy is simply that NASA did not make the
decision to go to the Moon , but it did implement that policy decision,
M
31
In 1961 the scientific and technological advice, from NASA and
ised other sources including the White House science policy apparatus,
persuaded President Kennedy that we could put a man on the moon
within a decade.
und
President Kennedy, in turn, decided that we should do so and the
Congress, by providing the financial resources, decided that we would
do so .
of
 90

While the organizational capabilities of NASA were then strength

ened and expanded for the specific undertaking, capable personneland HO
extensive research facilities were already in place, in most part trans
fers from the NACA and components of theDepartment of Defense. net
The key policy decision was made in 1957 — to organize a civilian F
agency for the peaceful use of space for all mankind . This action per
mitted a meaningful 1961 policy decision for the lunar landing and
return within thedecade. Then came the implementation of the deci abl
sion, whereby NASA organized and engineered the Earth to Moon
transportation system .
S. 2495 addresses both the policymakingand implementation sys
tems, utilizing the sources survey as a “bridge” which might inform
each system :The proposed Council would conduct an annual survey,
both of resources and critical problems, and would recommend priori ma!
ties to the President who, in turn, would assign responsibility for TE
implementation to NASA's proposed Office of Technology Applica ate
tions, “or any other more appropriate Federal Agency ."
The Council would then update the survey annually, review and
evaluate the implementation projects ; and provide an annual public 1
report to the Congress.
Funds would be provided to the Council and to NASA, both for
implementing projects and to provide technical assistance to the Coun A
cilin its preparation of the resources survey and its description of men
critical domestic problems. and
PO hit me, Mr. Chairman ,to address the proposed policymaking 125
apparatus, the “bridging” mechanism of the resources survey , and the tech
project implementation provision, in turn . ast
1. How do we now identify and achieve consensus on the critical
domestic problems to be addressed by the Federal Government ? Ulti DIO
mately, of course, we do it through the budgetary appropriations
process. The annual budget, as modified by appropriations acts, con
stitutes the definitive description of current Federal priorities. the
This process is triggered , on occasion, by ad hoc reaction to crisis: thoi
for example, sputnik ,civil rights, poverty, environmental degradation, ing
imbalance of trade, and now,energy. What we do best is react and play age
" catchup.” We do not plan ahead in a systematic way as section 2 ( a)
of S. 2495 points out.
The mere identification of critical problem areas presents little diffi
culty in my opinion. I am thinking in terms of broad areas.
One could prepare an almost inexhaustible list of writers, legisla T
tors, public officials, panels, commissions, symposia , interagency com dec
mittees, White House conferences - all' having identified national
needs, goals, and priorities. the
The resulting "shopping lists" over the past quarter century or more we
have hardly varied : health care delivery, education, welfare, crime
and violence, poverty, hunger, housing, urban transportation, the tat
delivery of municipal services, consumersafety, andthe durability or
efficacy ofgoods, foods, and drugs. of
Economic growth and productivity versus conservation of food qu
and materials and the preservation of the environment and other (
qualities of life are also recurring topics for priority consideration. the
What is critical, however, is the organizational mechanism for mak fut
ing specific program choices among competing priorities and recom
mendations for solution.
 91

The device proposed in S. 2495 is the Council to study and make

recommendations to the President who, in turn , will decide and dele
gate responsibility. Here, it seems to me, a distinction should be drawn
t.
an
between policymaking and interagency coordination .
Historically, the Federal Council on Science and Technology
21
nd
(FCST) , which provides the nucleus for the proposed Council, has,
ci
in the main , performed in the coordinating role.While knowledge
MON
able concerning the R. & D. activities of their respective departments
and agencies, many of the members of FSCT have generaìly lacked
either broad program policy jurisdiction or the authority to commit
TS their respective agencies to program and budget decisions.
I'M Atmost, it has provided an information and coordination capability
Tier
011
and,in some cases, a bargaining forum — but not a Federal-wide policy
making or science and technology management instrumentality.
for
. It seems to me, therefore, that a different body is required to evalu
IC ate and rank critical domestic problems in light of their science and
technology components and then recommend program assignments to
and the various departments and agencies for implementation.
illik In those instances where neither departmental nor agency capabil
ity exists for the conduct of a program , organizational changes must
I for be implemented before the program can be initiated.
oun Anumber of possible models are worthy ofreview. One which im
in of mediately comes to mind is the recent Council on Marine Resources
and Engineering Development, together with its parallel public ad
king visory committee. While that Council had a more limited science and
the technology policy objective, it confronted many of the same challenges
as those envisioned in S. 2495 .
Its organizational structure, you will recall , was similar to those
Uti proposed in the first draft of the bill — a Cabinet-level council chaired
tions by the Vice President. This might well be considered an interim or
(011 ganization . Another model, worthy of consideration, is to build on
the existing operational capabilities of the National Science Founda
TIISIS tion for the gathering and analysis of survey information, while plac
ation ing the public and decisionmaking authority in an Executive Office
kr agency such as the Domestic Council.
2281 My personal inclinations, however, run toward a more compact
organizational structure : a Council on Science and Technology, pos
sibly modeled after the Council of Economic Advisers or the Council
on Environmental Quality, much as Dr. Handler has suggested.
2. What is clearly needed is an alternative to crisis -based reactive
CU decisionmaking. Our public schools and universities entered the 1960's
unprepared to cope with a classroom shortage wholly predictable from
the "baby boom " in the 1940's. The environmental and energy crises
7'MOLT were equally predictable years ago, and we have not yet responded
Com with
e tation .national policymaking mechanisms nor means for implemen
1. th
litros It would be difficult to find a more crisp, two-paragraph description
of the need for national energy planning , than the following
f foot quotation :
a Our energy resources are not inexhaustible, yet we are permitting waste in
atin their use and production. In some instances, to achieve apparent economies today
future generations will be forced to carry the burden of unnecessarily high costs
and to substitute inferior fuels for particular purposes.
 92

National policies concerning these vital resources must recognize the avail
ability of all of them ; the location of each with respect to its markets ; the
costs of transporting them ; the technological developments which will increase
the efficiency of their production and use ; the use of the lower grade coals, and
the relationships between the increased use of energy and the general economic
development of the country.
It is difficult in the long run to envisage a national coal policy or a national
petroleum policy or a national water power policy without also in time a national
policy directed toward all of these energy producers—that is, a national energy
resources policy. Such a broader and integrated policy toward the problems of
coal, petroleum, natural gas and water power cannot be evolved overnight.
This quotation is from the President's energy message to the Con
gress - President Roosevelt; that is, of February 1939 , in which he
transmitted the study and report of Harold Ickes National Resources
Committee.
While the interdependencies of the various components of our so
ciety andeconomy may have become more complex overthe past three
decades, I believe our ability to understand and monitor the inter
acting activities and trends has also grown.
What is lacking is the organizational capacity for national planning
from the standpoint of all aspects of theissues - economic, scientific,
technical, sociological, and political.
With a domestic and economic council already in place, there is yet
a need for a third council for science and technology. All three coun
cils would be concerned with national goals and policy issues. What
ever the ultimate model might be, the lessons learned from the alter
tives mentioned above provide certain criteria for the effective per
formance of such a council :
I treat these now somewhat individually.
( a ) The answers to critical domestic problems involve much more
than the scientific and technical disciplines. They also involve the
State and local governments as well as industry, the academic com
munity, labor, and public interest groups.
All relevant disciplines are necessary for an adequate analysis of
potential means for resolving societal problems; and all ofthe sectors
of society are necessary to focus effectively on the policy questions
concerning the social ends of research. The involvement of these dis
ciplines and sectors, either through membership on , or as advisers
to, such a council is an indispensible ingredient of the organizational
structure.
( 6 ) A strong, activist chairman, who is both neutral to the inter
agency or intersectoral interests, and who is close to the exercise of
Presidential authority is also necessary.
The leadership could be vested in the Vice President or the Director
of OMB. My own preference, however, would be a full-time chairman
for science and technology, appointed by and responsible to the
President.
( c ) A very senior policy research staff is also necessary. Preferably,
it should be led by a director, also appointed by the President, and
should include senior policy specialists whoare independentof all
agency and private interests .
( d ) Finally, such a council should have a statutory reporting re
quirement. Provision for annual reporting to the Congress and the
publicis, I believe,crucial.
This council should not be a mere extension of the President's staff;
and its report should provide a basis for congressional review of a
 93

coordinated research and development agenda for the future, as well

as an accounting of past accomplishments to be measured against
kg, 27
previous agendas.
While I recognize that S. 2495 does not encompass the issue, and
other committees ofCongress are now doing so, I would note, paren
thetically, that the Congress also needs machinery to review national
goals and policies. It is thought by some that in Government the exec
ens e utive branch largely assumesthe initiative, while the Congress plays
essentially an overview role. On the contrary, however, there is ample
evidence that programmatic initiatives often come from the Congress
仰

rather than the executive branch .

SUNCES 2. I have described the proposed survey as a device which could
provide a “bridge” betweenpolicymaking and implementation . Other
Il
witnesses have conveyed their concern that a comprehensive inven
tory of all scientific and technical resources, including manpower
.
l'esources, is likely to prove an unmanageable, if not unachievable
goal.
! I agree that such reports could be too detailed, but I am gratified
titis toseethe recognition of the need in such planning and analysis to take
into account scientific and technological manpower resources. I under
Tr
stand, parenthetically, that the drafters of this bill were mindful of
Oul
the recommendations to this effect in the NAE's recent report on engi
neering manpower policy.
lter An even more important question in my view, however, is the utility
of such a general, all-purpose survey. To be sure, as I have already in
je dicated, baseline data and information , including state-of-the -art
analyses, should be strengthened with NSF and perhaps collected from
the other relevant agencies.
Toli
the But a general understanding of the state of science and technology
COM
cannot adequately inform the policy analyst concerned with any one
of the many problem areas to which I referred at the beginning of my
statement.
301
tor
The scientific, technical, and manpower resources required to con
012 front energy supply and demand are quite different than those which
dis must be developed in grappling with, say, the health delivery system ,
the efficient provision of municipal services or the resolution of pov
erty or urban decay .
12
In this connection, I commend to your attention an examination of
the way in which our Committee on Public Engineering Policy
o (COPEP) approached a similar task of organizing broadlyrepre
sentative,multidisciplinary task forces for each offive broadareas
T01 of critical domestic problems in pursuit of their study for the RANN
program .
212
the The report of the study is entitled " Priorities for Research Applica
ble to National Needs”—1973. This was, of necessity, a modest short
term study, compared to the task envisioned by S. 2495. Nevertheless,
there are similiarities of scope and purpose.
3. These similarities occur because the implementation mission of
the RANN program and that proposed in this bill for NASA have
much in common. The RANN program isstill new , Mr. Chairman,but
7개
it is beginning, in my judgment, to justify its creation .
As S. 2495 fully recognizes, the task ofsupporting and performing
interdisciplinary basic and applied research directed at critical
32–205-74-47
 86

Government contract industries and in other civilian industrial sectors. If the

pension reform legislation recently passed by the Senate and the Houses be
comes law, it is a major first step toward establishing this safeguard.
Other means for stabilizing employment levels for scientists and engineers
could be established by technology transfer programs to aid temporarily dis
placed scientific and technological manpower and at the same time to use the
intellectual resources of such manpower on behalf of the nation . The movement
of highly experienced personnel into and out of differing technological environ HE
ments is an impetus to innovative thinking and resourcefulness.
We feel the central theme of this proposed legislation is a sound one, and our
comments are made in the spirit of cooperation with the Congress in developing
the optimum mechanism to achieve its objectives. A large component of our
domestic problems and activities have scientific or technological aspects. If well
managed and fully utilized, scientists and engineers will contribute substantially
to the domestic well-being of our nation and to a favorable balance of trade
with foreign nations.
In conclusion, the American Chemical Society strongly supports the need for
an ongoing survey of scientific and technological resources of the nation. The So
ciety urges that a major federal effort be undertaken to apply scientific and
technological resources to the solution of critical national problems based on
the findings of the survey. To accomplish such a major effort and to stabilize T
national employment and funding policies, we recommend that the organization
to effectuate the programs be a strong federal focus for all national science the
and technology policy.
The CHAIRMAN . Thank you very much, gentlemen. Toh
The hearing will now stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
ond
org
I
cha

Se
ple
I ';

ra
20

of
ef
St
th
01

21

T
86

y
T
 3

‫܀‬
e
10

1 HEARING ON TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SURVEY AND

IT APPLICATIONS ACT
8

1
THURSDAY, MARCH 21 , 1974
le
U.S. SENATE ,
I
0
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
id AND COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES,
D
ze
Washington ,D.C.
OD The joint hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce and
(e the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences met at
10:07 a.m., in room 235 of the Russell Senate Office Building, Hon .
John V. Tunney ( presiding ).
Senator Moss. The hearing will come to order. This is a joint hear
ing before the Commerce Committee and the Aeronauticsand Space
Sciences Committee. Today Senator Tunney will be chairing the sec
ond day of hearings on s . 2495, which he, Senator Magnuson, and I
originally cosponsoredlast fall.
The opening joint hearing 10 days ago in which I occupied the
chair, developed a good deal of useful testimony and numerous sug
gestions for improvements of this legislation. I appreciate very much
Senator Tunney's willingness to chair this hearing today, and we are
pleased to make the Aeronautics and Space Sciences hearing room
available for this purpose .
Since the three of us introduced the original bill, Senators Gold
water, Symington, Domenici, Stevens, Chiles, and Abourezk have
joined us as cosponsors.
This bill replaces the catch -as-catch -can approach to utilization
of Federal research and development funds with better planning and
efficiency. It proposes a systemwith which we can begin to develop a
strategy to use our scientific and technological capability to provide
the American people with a better future.
I regret that I must go to participate in the markup of a bill in an
other committee. As soon as I can be free of that duty, I want to come
and join in this hearing. I am most pleased that my colleague, Senator
Tunney, will be chairing the hearing, and I assure him he has today
some very outstanding and important witnesses to hear, beginning
with our good friend Dr. Seamans. Senator Tunney, you may have
opening remarks.
Senator TUNNEY. Thank you , Senator Moss. I certainly appreciate
your gracious statements and I hope you can get back quickly from
your markup session, because this bill, draftedby Senator Magnuson
and you as well as myself is most important, and the information
that was elicited in the first day of hearings that you chaired points
out the need for legislation of this kind.
( 87 )
 88

The bill which we introduced is the subject, as you have indicated,

of joint hearings by our two committees. S.2495 is designed to provide
for more effective utilization of scientific and technological resources
of the United States in the solution of critical domestic problems. In
particular, the bill provides for a framework to conduct long-range
planning in science and technology.
This long-range planning includes a technology resources survey
and projections of resources as well as identification of critical domes
tic problems which may be susceptible to resolution by the applica
tion of science and technology.
At the first day of hearings every single witness endorsed the need
for such a survey, and many suggestions were forthcoming as to the
manner in which it should be conducted. The original bill as intro
duced called for the establishment of a Technology Resources Council
consisting of the Vice President, five Cabinet members, and various
agencies. In the staff working draft, it is proposed that the Federal
Council of Science and Technology be expanded to include represent
atives of local and State governments serving as the body responsible
for conducting the survey .
Witnesses at the hearings of March 11 made other suggestions in
cluding the establishment of a Council patterned after the Councilof
Environmental Quality or the Council of Economic Advisers. We also
heard suggestions from members of professional engineering and sci
entific societies. Today we will hear from very distinguished represent
atives of the science and engineering profession. I hope they will avail
themselves of the opportunity to suggest other mechanisms for carry
ing out the purposes of S. 2495.
I realize that the task of coordinating science and technology ac
tivities is an extremely complicated one, and I am actively searching
for the advice of engineers and scientists in the development of this
legislation. As the witnesses know, because this is a joint effort by the
two committees, there will be a substantially larger participation than
is normal by Senators in the committee markup process : so before the
legislation gets to the floor of the Senate, we will have a consensus that
will include a very broad spectrum of thinking in the Senate as a
whole.
That is why these hearings, it seems to me, are particularly impor
tant. Dr. Seamans, it is our pleasure to welcome you to the hearing,
and I want to thank you for having made available to the committees
your statement in advance. I have had an opportunity to briefly look
through it. It is excellent, but I would prefer you read it at this time
and then I will have questions for you.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT C. SEAMANS, JR., PRESIDENT, NA
TIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, WASHINGTON , D.C.
Dr. SEAMAN . Mr. Chairman , and members of the Committee on
Commerce and the Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee, I
have reviewed the January18 working draft of S. 2495 ,theproposed
Science and Technology Resources Study Survey and Applications
Act of 1974, and I am happy to appear before this joint hearing and
share with you some of my thoughts.
In general, I applaud the goals and purposes of this proposed
legislation, especially as described in section 2, the “Statement of
 89

Findings and Declaration of Policy," but I have reservations with

respect to some of the details of its implementation.
In particular,I agree that "the scientific and technical resources of
In the United States can and should be used more effectively and effi
ciently to solve critical domestic problems.” To achieve this goal, as
your committees know full well, will require a blending of the many
disciplines and professions; the private and public sectors; business
and labor; universities and research laboratories; consumer and pub
lic interest groups. And we will have to combine our understanding of
the way we bring technological and service innovations into the mar
und ketplace, with an understanding of our pluralistic and dynamic econ
the omy and institutions.
Then we must analyze all of these in the light of political and policy
and decisionmaking processes, and with sensitive appreciation of
evolving public needs, priorities and values.
ra]
dent
Last week , Mr. Chairman,
the National Academymyofcolleague,
Sciences, Dr. Philipbefore
testified Handler,
you. presi
I had
nt
ble the opportunity to discuss this legislation with him and his staff
beforehandand, after reading his excellent statement, I find that we
in are essentially in agreement .
of
I
Rather than burdening you with extensive reiteration, therefore,
propose to expand on certain points which may contribute to your
cl further deliberation, without subjecting the committees to a section
it by-section analysis.
ai The legislation has identified, and attempts to cope with the fol
IT lowing, important,interrelated issues:
1. How can we identify and achieve consensus on critical domestic
E36
problems!
2. How can we isolate and rank those problems whose solutions
involve an important measure of scientific and technological resources
and talent ?
che
All 3. How can we assess or survey both the short- and long -term
the scientific and technological resources, including human resources,
lat and which are now, and may be in the future, required to resolve such
5
problems ?
4. How should we begin to apply such resources to the resolution
of these domestic problems?
5. And when I say " How can we" do these things I recognize the
es inherent question : What is the Federal role with respect to the ac
complishment of these objectives ?
me If I have captured the intent of this bill in these questions, then
I believe that both the answers to the questions and the adequacy of
the draft legislation depend upon clarifying and, indeed , separating
the policymaking function from that of implementation. I believe that
I can illustrate the distinction by reference to the Apollo program .
The point of the analogy is simply that NASA did not make the
decision to go to the Moon, but it did implement that policy decision.
,1 In 1961 the scientific and technological advice, from NASA and
sed other sources including the White House science policy apparatus,
persuaded President Kennedy that we could put a man on the moon
within decade
a .
nd
President Kennedy, in turn, decided that we should do so and the
sed Congress,
do so. by providing thefinancial resources, decided that wewould
01
 90

While the organizational capabilities of NASA were then strength

ened and expanded for the specific undertaking, capable personneland
extensive research facilitieswere already in place , in most part trans
fers from the NACA and components of theDepartment of Defense.
The key policy decision was made in 1957 — to organize a civilian
agency for the peaceful use of space for all mankind.This action per
mitted a meaningful 1961policy decision for the lunar landing and
return within the decade. Then came the implementation of the deci
sion, whereby NASA organized and engineered the Earth to Moon
transportation system .
S. 2495addresses both the policymaking and implementation sys
tems, utilizing the sourcessurvey as a "bridge ” which might inform
each system :The proposed Council would conduct an annual survey,
both of resources and critical problems, and would recommend priori
ties to the President who, in turn, would assign responsibility for
implementation to NASA's proposed Office of Technology Applica
tions, “ or any other more appropriate Federal Agency. "
The Council would then update the surveyannually, review and
evaluate the implementation projects ; and provide an annual public
report to the Congress.
Funds would be provided to the Council and to NASA, both for
implementing projects and to provide technical assistance to the Coun
cilin its preparation of the resources survey and its description of
critical domestic problems.
Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to address the proposed policymaking
apparatus, the " bridging" mechanism of the resources survey, and the
project implementation provision, in turn .
1. How do we now identify and achieve consensus on the critical
domestic problems to be addressed by the Federal Government? Ulti
mately, of course, we do it through the budgetary appropriations
process. The annual budget, as modified by appropriations acts, con
stitutes the definitive description of current Federal priorities.
This process is triggered, on occasion, by ad hoc reaction to crisis :
for example, sputnik, civil rights, poverty, environmental degradation,
imbalance of trade, and now , energy. What we do best is react and play
" catchup." We do not plan ahead in a systematic way as section 2 (a)
of S. 2495 points out.
The mere identification of critical problem areas presents little diffi
culty in my opinion. I am thinking in termsofbroad areas.
One could prepare an almost inexhaustible list of writers, legisla
tors, public officials, panels, commissions, symposia ,interagency com
mittees, White House conferences — all having identified national
needs, goals, and priorities.
The resulting " shopping lists" overthe pastquarter century or more
have hardly varied : health care delivery, education, welfare, crime
and violence, poverty, hunger, housing, urban transportation, the
delivery of municipal services, consumer safety, and the durability or
efficacy of goods, foods, and drugs.
Economic growth and productivity versus conservation of food
and materials and the preservation of the environment and other
qualities of life are also recurring topics for priority consideration.
What is critical, however, is the organizationalmechanism for mak
ing specific program choices among competing priorities and recom
mendations for solution .
 91

od
The device proposed in S. 2495 is the Council to study and make
recommendations to the President who , in turn , will decide and dele
IS gate responsibility. Here, it seems to me, a distinction should be drawn
21
between policymaking and interagency coordination.
Historically , the Federal Council on Science and Technology
mi (FCST), which provides the nucleusfor the proposed Council, has,
CI
inthe main , performed in the coordinating role.While knowledge
able concerning the R. & D. activities of their respective departments
mon
and agencies, many of the members of FSCT have generally lacked
ETS
either broadprogram policy jurisdiction or the authority to commit
their respective agencies to program and budget decisions.
I'm Atmost, it has provided an information and coordination capability
cov.
and,in some cases, a bargaining forum — but not a Federal-wide policy
Il making or science and technology management instrumentality,
for It seems to me, therefore, that a different body is required to evalu
ica ate and rank critical domestic problems in light of their science and
und
technology components and then recommend program assignments to
the various departments and agencies for implementation.
blic In those instances where neither departmental nor agency capabil
ity exists for the conduct of a program, organizational changes must
for be implemented before the program can be initiated.
il Anumber of possible models are worthy ofreview. One which im
of mediately comes to mind isthe recent Council on Marine Resources
and Engineering Development, together with its parallel public ad
ing visory committee. While that Council had a more limited science and
the technology policy objective, it confronted many of the same challenges
as those envisioned in S. 2495.
ica? Its organizational structure, you will recall, was similarto those
proposed in the first draft of the bill — a Cabinet-level council chaired
cjons by the Vice President. This might well be considered an interim or
CON ganization. Another model, worthy of consideration, is to build on
ISAN
the existing operational capabilities of the National Science Founda
tion for the gathering and analysis of survey information, while plac
JON. ing the public and decisionmaking authority in an Executive Office
plar agency such as the Domestic Council.
2a personal inclinations, however, run toward a more compact
organizational structure : a Council on Science and Technology, pos
cliff sibly modeledafter the Council of Economic Advisers or the Council
on Environmental Quality, much as Dr. Handler has suggested .
What is clearly needed is an alternative to crisis-based reactive
On decisionmaking. Our public schools and universities entered the 1960's
073/ unprepared tocope with a classroom shortage wholly predictable from
the “babyboom"in the 1940's. The environmental and energy crises
NOT were equally predictable years ago, and we have not yet responded
rime with national policymaking mechanisms nor means for implemen
the tation .
TO" It would be difficult to find a more crisp, two-paragraph description
of the need for national energy planning, than the following
foni quotation :
ther Our energy resources are not inexhaustible, yet we are permitting waste in
tior . their use and production. In some instances, to achieve apparent economies today
1994 future generations will be forced to carry the burden of unnecessarily high costs
and to substitute inferior fuels for particular purposes.
 92

National policies concerning these vital resources must recognize the avail
ability of all of them ; the location of each with respect to its markets ; the
costs of transporting them ; the technological developments which will increase
the efficiency of their production and use ; the use of the lower grade coals, and
the relationships between the increased use of energy and the general economic
development of the country.
It is difficult in the long run to envisage a national coal policy or a national
petroleum policy or a national water power policy without also in time a national
policy directed toward all of these energy producers — that is, a national energy
resources policy. Such a broader and integrated policy toward the problems of
coal, petroleum , natural gas and water power cannot be eyolved overnight.
This quotation is from the President's energy message to the Con
gress - President Roosevelt; that is, of February 1939, in which he
transmitted the study and report of Harold Ickes National Resources
Committee.
7
While the interdependencies of the various components of our so
cietyandeconomy may have become more complex over the past three 1
decades, I believe our ability to understand and monitor the inter
acting activities and trends has also grown,
What is lacking is the organizational capacity for national planning 1

from the standpoint of all aspects of theissues - economic, scientific,

technical, sociological, and political.
With a domestic and economic council already in place, there is yet 1
a need for a third council for science and technology. All three coun
cils would be concerned with national goals and policy issues. What
ever the ultimate model might be, the lessons learned from the alter
natives mentioned above provide certain criteria for the effective per
formance of such a council :
I treat these now somewhat individually.
( a) The answers to critical domestic problems involve much more )

than the scientific and technical disciplines. They also involve the >

State and local governments as well as industry, the academic com

munity, labor, and public interest groups.
All relevant disciplines are necessary for an adequate analysis of
potential means for resolving societal problems ; and allof the sectors
of society are necessary to focus effectively on the policy questions
concerning the social ends of research. The involvement of these dis
ciplines and sectors, either through membership on, or as advisers
to, such a council is an indispensible ingredient of the organizational
structure .
( 6 ) A strong, activist chairman, who is both neutral to the inter
agency or intersectoral interests, and who is close to the exercise of
Presidential authority is also necessary.
The leadership could be vested in the Vice President or the Director
of OMB. My own preference, however, would be a full-time chairman
for science and technology , appointed by and responsible to the
President .
( c) A very senior policy research staff is also necessary. Preferably,
it should be led by a director, also appointed by the President, and
should include senior policy specialists who are independent of all
agency and private interests.
(d ) Finally, such a council should have a statutory reporting re
quirement. Provision for annual reporting to the Congress and the
publicis, I believe, crucial .
This council should not be a mere extension of the President's staff;
and its report should provide a basis for congressional review of a
 93

mail coordinated research and development agenda for the future, as well
the
Pase
as an accounting of past accomplishments to be measured against
previous agendas.
While I recognize that S. 2495 does not encompassthe issue, and
other committees of Congress are now doing so, I would note, paren
onal
onal
thetically, that the Congress also needs machinery to review national
Prg
goals and policies. It is thought by some that in Government the exec
s of utive branch largely assumes the initiative, while the Congress plays
essentially an overview role. On the contrary, however, there is ample
2011 evidence that programmatic initiatives often come from the Congress
rather than theexecutive branch .
he
rces 2. I have described the proposed survey as a device which could
provide a "bridge” betweenpolicymaking and implementation. Other
witnesses have conveyed their concern that a comprehensive inven
iree
tory of all scientific and technical resources, including manpower
ter
l'esources, is likely to prove an unmanageable, if not unachievable
goal.
Link I agree that such reports could be too detailed, but I am gratified
ific to see the recognition of the need in such planning and analysis to take
into account scientific and technological manpowerresources. I under
ret stand, parenthetically, that the drafters of this bill were mindful of
111
the recommendations to this effect in the NAE's recent report on engi
pat
neering manpower policy.
ter An even more important question in myview, however, is the utility
hel
of such ageneral, ail-purpose survey. To be sure, as I have already in
dicated, baseline data and information, including state -of-the-art
analyses, should be strengthened with NSF and perhaps collected from
the other relevant agencies.
pore
the But a general understanding of the state of science andtechnology
Om
cannot adequately inform the policy analyst concerned with any one
of the many problem areas to which I referred at the beginning of my
statement.
sof
tors The scientific, technical, and manpower resources required to con
front energy supply
ons
and demand are quite different than those which
dis must be developed in grappling with, say, the health delivery system ,
sens the efficient provisionof municipal services or the resolution of pov
na?
erty or urban decay.
In this connection, I commend to your attention an examination of
ter
the way in which our Committee on Public Engineering Policy
e of (COPEP) approached a similar task of organizing broadly repre
sentative, multidisciplinary task forces for each offive broad areas
00 "
of critical domestic problems in pursuit of their study for the RANN
program .
1:1!
the
The report ofthe study is entitled “Priorities for Research Applica
ble to National Needs” _-1973. This was, of necessity, a modest short
dr. term study, compared to the task envisioned by S. 2495. Nevertheless,
there are similiarities of scope and purpose.
nd
al
3. These similarities occur because the implementation mission of
the RANN program and that proposed in this bill for NASA have
I
much in common. The RANN program isstill new , Mr. Chairman, but
the it is beginning,inmy judgment, to justify its creation .
As S. 2495 fully recognizes, the task ofsupporting and performing
at
interdisciplinary basic and applied research directed at critical
32-205-74 -7
f
 94

domestic problems is still largely experimental. Our successes in de INI

fense, space and agriculture, while impressive, are characteristically

different for obvious reasons, principally involving the identity of the
performer, sponsor and ultimate consumer as well as the largely
technical nature of the problems involved.
Difficult as its task may prove to be, there is a certain genius in the for
idea of RANN , which conducts problem -oriented, applied and policy 1
research into broad problem areas that either span the missions of the
established agencies, fill gaps between them, or respond to unserved
constituencies — and then transfers responsibility for implementing
research , development and practice to the ultimate user, either in the
Government or the privatesector, once the concept has been proven
out. tho
The proposed implementation portion of S. 2495 raises a broader
issue, of course. There have long been those, especially in the Congress, in
who favor the concept of a centralized Department of Science, or
Science and Technology -the centralization of research capability:
For my part,however , I favor a more pluralistic approach mirroring lo
the essential pluralism of our society. As distinguished from policy of a
research , I question the viability of problem -oriented implementing ΠΟΥ
research and development conducted apart from the mission agencies tech
whose knowledge. of, and responsibility to, the problem and its con VE
stituency is direct and long standing. pliec
Development activities should be tied as closely as possible to the pro
user . Forexample, NASA has responsibility for space operations and exal

manages its supportingresearch and development programs. The same der

is true for Defense and other major agencies and departments. In
Since the country's needs, and hence its priorities, changefrom time S. 2
to time, the organizational structure of the executive branch must, of que
course, be of sufficient flexibility to accommodate new objectives. Today app
an energy research and development agency is needed to manage the
proposed $2-billion-a-year effort. This agency should make use of II
existing laboratories where appropriate.
Following the concept that developer and user should be coordinated The
as closely as possible, what should be the relationship between this sion
research and development agency, other Government agencies, and the poli
various industries involved inextraction, processing, and distribution Jan
of energy in its various forms! I
Here it should be recognized that energy delivery, unlike space scie
exploration , is primarily in the province of the private sector. The Den
private sector, working within guidelines and regulations prescribed as
by the Government, can utilize the results of Government research and of
development where economically viable. sciel
But, how are we to direct the Government effort toward this goal? ofs
Clearly, the agency must be sensitive to these issues, but, in turn, T
close coordinationis necessary with regulatory agencies, and oversight be,
bysome form of Science and Technology Council appears essential. orie
The technical and management resources of NASA exist today and poli
should be utilized in theresolution of critical societal problems where T
NASA's capability matches the need. or
Here I am addressing the question of whether or not NASA should It
inte
have a general, all-purpose technology application group within it.
From what I have said ,I think you can see that I feel it should not be
 95

vested in NASA. At the same time, I want to stress NASA's capability

and the importance of using this capability,
Indeed, those capabilities are already being called upon in many
ways by many agencies. And the same can be said for DOD, NSF,
AÈC, the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Standards, and so
forth .
With regard to the utilization of NASA capabilities, I would offer
the following observations :
(a) As already stated , NASA has considerable capability vested in
its laboratories and these should be utilized by other agencies for as
sistance wherever appropriate.
-1 (6 ) If and when reductions are made in the NASA organization ,
thought should be given to the transfer ofappropriate NASA labora
tories to other agencies. The embryonic Electronics Research Center
ES in Cambridge, Mass., for example , has now become an important ad
OT junct of the Department of Transportation and carries out important
studies related to the efficiency of surface and air vehicles.
ng ( c) The Lewis Center in Cleveland, Ohio, is preeminent in the field
of air breathing and space propulsion systems. Activities there include
work on auxiliary power units, pumps, compressors, and combustion
108 technology.
Many of the individuals and facilities of this Center could be ap
plied effectively to the projected energy research and development
the program . The mechanism for bringing this about should be further
nd examined by NASA and those responsible for energy research and
me development.
In conclusion , Mr. Chairman, I believe that the introduction of
ime S. 2495 permits thoughtful consideration of a very important set of
Of questions about science and technology policy and management. I
dar appreciate the opportunity you have provided me to reflect on the
implications of those questions. They are notsimple ones.
In fact, as you know, they have bedeviled us all for many decades,
and certainly I don't come before you feeling I have all the answers.
ted They are the subject of deep and intense deliberations in many profes
sional societies and within the academies as well, not only in public
policy committees, but also in the special task force chaired by Dr.
jon James Killian, to which Dr. Handler referred in his testimony.
I believe that our future hinges, to a great extent, on how we use
science and technology - for good or ill. Therefore, it is heavily de
照

The pendent upon 'how we integrate scientific and technical information,

bed as well as resources and opportunities, into the definition andplanning
of broader national goals, priorities and programs. Furthermore,
眼

science and technologypolicy must be considered in relation to issues

al ' of social, environmental, economic, tax, fiscal, and foreign policies.
III The organizational structure for such national policymaking must
ch be, I believe, distinguished from , but connected to, both the mission
oriented implementing agencies and the supporting data collection,
21 policy research and analysis activities.
2017 The policymaking body, whether a science and technology council
or some alternativeinstrumentality, must orchestrate theactivities.
ould It must have the characteristics of professional independence and
‫ܐ‬ interagency neutralitythatIhave already described and it also must
 96

have an understanding of public and private capabilities if it is to take

an important role in supporting Presidential decisionmaking.
I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that these two distinguished commit
tees might viewthese hearings as an important beginning step toward
resolving such broad policy questions.There is an opportunity here
to create a sound mechanism for broad policy planning and for inte
grating considerations of science and technology into such planning.
There will beno easy " quick fix ” for this challenge any more than there
is for the critical problems of society which such an organizational
mechanism will have to confront. I believe that with patience and
continued deliberation you have an opportunity to respond to these
questions with thoughtful and urgently needed solutions.
Mr. Chairman, thisconcludes my prepared remarks.
Senator TUNNEY. Thank you, Dr. Seamans.
I am very interested in your suggestion that we develop a new
council that would report directly to the President for purposes of
coordinating policy and implementation ofpolicy. We hear repeatedly
of the dangers involved in the proliferation of agencies in Wash
ington . In some quarters, it is deemed inadvisable to create another
White House Council which reports directly to the President, when
the President, as a manager, is incapable of managing all the indi
viduals and agencies that report to him directly now . I wonder if
you could address yourself to that particular aspect of the problem .
It is a nettle whichI think is goingto have to begrasped if we should
create such a council in our legislation.
Can you make any suggestion, just from a pure management policy
standpoint, why you feel this would be advisable. As a man who has
a great deal of management experience, perhaps you could give us
some insights that would be very valuable to our record.
Dr. SEAMANS. Well, first, I fully recognize that the manner in which
agencies, departments, commissions, councils, and so on, have expanded
in numbers presents an almost insurmountable management job for
any President.
However, this is the manner in which we have set up the executive
branch. I would agree that some consolidation would be in order from
a management standpoint, looking at it broadly.
At the same time, I am thinking of my recommendation within the
existing framework, and feel that there needs to be a highly visible
position for science and technology.
I didn't address the issue of the whole staff relationships within the
President's Office and the possibility for, in some manner, tying
together the various councilsthat I referred to. Certainly, there is no
reason tohave, for example, each one of the councilsputting together
its own plans and recommendations for the Nation. There ought to be
some way of doing it together, as an entity.
At the same time, I think you have to take a number of crosscuts
at the issues that we face, and I believe that the issue of how we use
ourscience and technology will determine whether we are a viable
nation in the future.
I think that the way the country goes in the future hinges very
dramatically and very closely on our use of science and technology.
Therefore, it does concern methat today wedo not have the Office
of Science and Technology. Its functions have been vested in a some
what different form in the National Science Foundation .
 97
je
I believe that it needs to be elevated to a point where it can interact
ito
dosely with the President and, admittedly, it is up to the President
whether he uses it or not, as well as with the Office of Management
and Budget, as well as all the users.
re
8
To me,one of the important elements, particularly for management
reasons, is the report that will be made to the Congress on an annual
Dip2, ಸ

basis. It seems to me that it brings the word of the proposed Council

೩

out into daylight. I think that gives it an additional power, if you will,
the knowledge that this group is going to do this, is bound to be
se
known by those who work with the Council. It is very good discipline
for the Council to know that this is something ithas on its docket each
year, and it has to account for what has happened in the past and make
projections into the future .
m
So, I admit to your management concern, but I think it is a much
of broader issue than just the issue of this one proposed Council for
Science and Technology .
Senator TUNNEY . How do you envision that this Council would
Ler
differ from the old Office of Science and Technology, other than in its
-en
requirement for reporting regularly to Congress?
di
Dr. SEAMANS. I put quite a bit of emphasis on the Research to be
Applied for National Needs, the RANN program, which is carried
out now by the National Science Foundation.
id
I think that what is done by that activity is important. I think it
is necessary to do more than sit around a table and discuss objec
tives. I think you have to get into some preliminary conceptual work.
CY I would see this activity,what we now call the ŘANN activity, as
nas the overall responsibility of a new Council for Science and Tech
US
nology, even though I would recommend implenting it, doing the
actual work, within the National Science Foundation .
ch I would say that some manner of holding hearings withgroups out
ed
For
side of the Government would provide some essential differences be
tween what is proposed here and the previous Office of Science and
Technology .
Te SenatorTUNNEY. Would you envision that they would be holding
‫נע‬ public hearings ?
Dr. SEAMANS. Yes, I believe that. I haven't thought itthrough fully,
he but I did say in my statement that the proposed Council must be cog
nizant not just of what the Federal Government is doing ; it must be
cognizant of what is going on in the private sector, and it is particu
larly importantin areas such as energy, where so much of the research
and development is going to be done - unless we change our institutions
around —within the private sector.
er So how can we plan an overall Government program unless we prop
be erlv interface it with what is going on outside of the Government ?
There hasto be some way for this Council to become knowledgeable
of, and for the public to become knowledgeable of, work that is going
on outside the Government.
Senator TUNNEY. What do you envision the interface would be be
tween the Council and the National Science Foundation ?
1 Dr. SEAMANS. I see the National Science Foundation as an imple
menter. It is implementing in broad areas of science and technology.
Usually it is preliminary advance research work . Oftentimes it is of
à disciplinary nature , where the work has not proceeded and the
 98

knowledge has not developed to the point where it can be taken on by

an agency such as NASA, or DOD , or Commerce, or Interior.
Also, as you know, the NSF is heavily involved in scholarships SE

and fellowships in support of scientific and technical education . I

would see the role of NSF continuing in the way it is today, with ch
additional responsibility for the actual management of the RANN
program. all
Senator TUNNEY. The role of the President's Science Adviser is 2

presently a part-time responsibility of the Director of the National th

Science Foundation . Would that function in essence, be abolished as en

a responsibility for the Director ?

Dr. SEAMANS. That is correct. I have worked with Dr. Stever for ne

many years. We were on the faculty together at MIT in the 1940's. LE

If anybody can assume these dual responsibilities, it is he. I believe he
is mentally engaged in doing a very tough job. I personally think it Dr.
puts him in a difficult role, because, on theone hand, he is a proponent liv
of his own foundation work, which amounts to roughly $750 million. he
On the other, he is thinking in terms of the total science and tech
nology effort for the Federal Government, and I think it is difficult to
keep in mind which hat he has on.
I would think it would be best if he had only one hat. Discussing this
with him on one occasion , he said, well , in his Science Foundation role,
he had to go before Congress, and in going before Congress with his
budget he learned a great deal about the national concerns, and he got lam
important feedback as a result of his own testimony.
That is one reason that I stressed the need for the Chairman of this 11
new Council,if such a council is formed , to appear publicly and dis er
cuss publicly his views and his recommendations .
Senator TUNNEY. In your statement you state that our environmental
and energy crises and the classrom shortage were predictable.Why did
the Office of Science and Technology and the President's Science
Advisory Committee, that were in place in the 1960's, fail to focus
the Government on this problem and help change policy so that we el

could have prevented crises from arising ? S

Dr. SEAMANS. That is certainly a very significant question. In talk n
ing to Dr. Handler and others about it, they are quick to saythat they DO

didn't always have perfect forward vision, and 20/20 hindsight is al 31

ways a great deal easier.
I think no matter what apparatus we put together, we will always la
be shortsighted. However, recommendations were made to expand hi
certain activities. I can't be too specific about what the PSAC rec na
ommendations were in the energy field.
In this connection, I must stress that was the lack of visibility. It is
one thing to have a report put together by a technical group that goes
to a number of different government people who, if they have a little ne
time, may read through it. st
It is another thing to have to come forward in a fairly limited pe ”
riod of time, as testimony is bound to be, and forced to single out what in

are the important issues and the recommendations for addressing those
issues. P
Senator TUNNEY. And you just feel that the science advisory to the n
President and the other organizations in being in the 1960's just did o
not have the ear of the Congress, the public, or the President to a

prevent the crises in the classroom and in energy from developing ?

 99

Dr. SEAMANS. Yes, I believe so, although in my statement I included

a perceptive view of the Nation's energy needs dating back to 1939–
ps
I
so itstretches over quite a period of time. The statement I quoted was
th
actually ina report that went to the Congress. This is something to
which we all have to pay moreattention .
V
It is not just a question of changing the mechanisms. It is a question
is
for all those involved in policy and planning determinations to put
more time on it, to think about it more. This includes the President
al and the Congress and all those involved .
as
Senator TUNNEY. You urged in your statement that the policy
making function be separated organizationally from the task of im
or
plementation. Are you also suggesting that the data collection func
is tion, such as the surveys envisioned in thelegislation, also be divorced
organizationally from the policymaking role ?
it Dr. Seamans. First, let me say , when I talk about separation, I
nt realize this is somewhat simplistic. I realize that you can't make policy
1.
h
without knowingwhat the programs are, as of a given time,andwith
to
out getting the views of thoseinvolved who are bound to bethinking
about what more could be done. There has to be an exchange of
information .
LIS Similarly, in obtaining data that would be required in a survey or
de report, it is essential that the implementing groups be involved in the
LIS gathering of the data. I look at this as an audit. I look at this as some
10t what analogous to the kind of work that GAO - gathering data from
a wide variety of sources, but if it believes the data is inadequate, it
will put its own staffto work on the problem and they will have the
overall responsibility for collating, for evaluation and for making
recommendations. I feel this should be done at the top level of the
tal scientific and technological organizational structure.
Senator TUNNEY. So you feel that the Council ought to be surveying ?
ce Dr. SEAMANS. I feelthe Council should be responsible for it, with
Us the assistance of the various agencies and foundations and depart
Те
ments of the Government, and from outside the Government as well.
Senator TUNNEY. In your statement, you emphasize that the crucial
link was “organization mechanisms for making specific program
choices among the competing priorities and recommendations for
solutions."
When you served in the executive branch in very high level policy
making positions, did the Office of Science and Technology provide
that mechanism ? 'How did you organize your R. & D. priorities, and
0 make those decisions ?
Dr. SEAMANS. Well,the process is, as you know , a complex one. Each
individual agency and department has within it mechanisms for mak
ing specific choices, balancing the need for new programs against the
need to continue existing programs, recognizing overall budget con
straints. The mechanism in , say, NASA was to put together such a
po
program which would then be reviewed by the Bureau of the Budget
in those days and now the OMB.
* OMB was extremely competent at using what I call the ratchet
principle oneday taking us on programmatically and questioning the
need for a program and maybe the next daysaying the program is fine
but you ought to be able to do it at less cash, and you would go back
and forth on this kind of a give and take.
 100

It is a very, very healthy exercise, you might say.

Now, in carrying out this process, the President's Adviser and OST
as well as the Space Council were brought in for advice, and normally
it was advice to the Bureau of the Budget.
As to the action mechanism in theExecutive Office for doing this,
I am not the best witness that you have. I would recommend you
address that kind of question to Mr. Carey, who is going to follow later
in the morning
But I think they performed, from what I could see, a useful role in
explaining the need for developing, say, a new sensor or a new system
for weather forecasting.
Senator TUNNEY. You are talking about the Office of Science and
Technology ?
Dr. SEAMANS. Yes.
Senator TUNNEY. Presumably a council would have a much more
important central role than just coming in to give advice to OMB and
to the line agencies at the appropriate time?
Dr. SEAMANS. I think it would. I think it is important that it should .
Senator TUNNEY. You point out that the existing Federal Council
on Science and Technology is not well suited for the policymaking role,
and you explained that in some detail in your statement.
Suppose a new policy oriented council were established ; should it
also have responsibility for coordinating activities to be performed
by FCST ?
Dr. SEAMANS. I think there should be a coordinating mechanism
similar to the present coordinating council , but the manner in which
that would be carried out is one I haven't given very much thought
to. It could be carried out the way it is now , with the Director of the
National Science Foundation as the Chairman of that council. The new
council, if it is formed as the Council on Science and Technology,
should receive reports and be at these meetings. Whether it should be
its role to organize the meetings and to run the meetings, I'm not quite
sure.
I think we want to be careful that we don't load the domestic coun
cil with too many day -to -day assignments. On the one hand, if you do,
they won't see the forest for the trees; and, on the other, you have got
to be careful that it doesn't get to be too large.
Senator TUNNEY. The S. 2495 bill attempts to provide for systematic
long -range science and technology planning in the executive branch.
With regard to the Congress, do you feel the new Office of Technology
Assessment has the potential of providing the opportunity for long
range planning ?
Dr. SEAMANS. I think it is bound to provide insight to what the needs
of the country are and what the scientific and technical issues are, and
in that way provide understanding and information that are valuable
for planning. Whether it will have a planning role or be primarily
advisory to the various committees in the House and Senate, I am not
quite clear.
It seems to me, though, that the Office of Technology Assessment
will be extremely important to those who are reviewing whatever long
range programs comein from the executive branch.
Senator TUNNEY. One of the things I am aware of since I started
representing the State of California in the Senate was the incredible
potential ofscience and technology to solve many of our societal prob
 101

lems. Yet, I am aware of the difficulties involved in attempting to pro

T mote science and technology in the Congress, and in using the budget
making process as an instrumentality for change and for meeting
many of our societal goals.
Do you have any suggestion, other than what you have stated to
Ou day, as to how we can develop a greater national commitment to
er promoting science and technology within the political realities that
we are faced with ? How can we get more money for long-range plan
ning, research, and development, so that we can use the great potential
that exists in this country ?
em
We certainly have thewherewithal to meet those problems.
und Dr. SEAMANS. That is an excellent question , and one that we have
thought about in the Academy of Engineering.
Just to emphasize the needfor this, I referto a manpower study that
re We carried out which was completed last summer, which pointed out
nd the great concern that we have for the reduction in thenumber of
freshmen going into engineering. It was pointed out there has been a
ad drop of about 30 percent in 4 years, which will lead, in another couple
il of years, to a situation in which the number that we are graduating
le. will not be sufficient to keep our engineering manpower atits present
level, much less to take care of the increased needs that I believe exist
it for additional scientific and technical work .
Ad The question of what to do about it, in part, I believe, hinges on
having a better idea of what the future is going to be like, or what the
needsof the future are going to be. It is not just a question, ofcourse,
ch of having more scientists and more engineers.They have to be educated
ht for more specific roles.
che A chemical engineer is not interchangeable immediately with a
em structural designer in the aeronautical industry, for example.
TT, I would believe that with better projections of what the needs are
be and, in turn, how those needs reflect the need for increased scientific
ite and technical capability, that could have a real impact on those who
are going into universities.
1.11 Iam sure the dramatic drop in enrollment of 30 percent was related
de to the fact that there was from 5- to 10 -percent unemployment in dif
got ferent fields of engineering. Of course, that unemployment does not
exist today, exceptin very special areas.
tic Now, as to developing abetter overall understanding on the part of
명당

the country at large, I think in part that can be developed through our
political processes here as between theexecutive branch and the
Congress.
I think it has got to be related to whether scientists and engineers
are truly responsible and are viewed to be responsible in the decisions
they are making. I think in the long run it is going to depend on what
theaudit shows, whether scientistsand engineers have been truly suc
cessful in helping out in areas where people perceive that there is a
real need .
Senator TUNNEY. Well, in certain areas such as mass transit, you
have got to have money in order to beable to prove anything. Wethen
get back to that old problem of which comesfirst, the chicken or the
egg. How do you prove something unless you havethe money to prove
ted it,and I suppose you have got to have some success to be able toget the
money .
 102

But I think that maybe we are beginning to turn around in think

ing in some of these areas, such as mass transit.
Dr. Seamans, I certainly appreciate your thoughts today and yours
excellent statement. It has been a real contribution to our deliberation .
Dr. SEAMANS. It is my pleasure to be here, and I wish you all suc C
cess in these hearings.
Senator TUNNEY. Thank you.
Our next witness will be Mr. William Carey, vice president of I
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. CAREY, VICE PRESIDENT, ARTHUR D.
LITTLE, INC., WASHINGTON , D.C.
Mr. CAREY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman . N
Senator TUNNEY. Good morning.
I wanted to have you follow Dr. Seamans, Dr.Carey, because I have
read your statement, and maybe you could address yourself to some
of those problems that we discussed with Dr. Seamans, the interfaces
and interrelationships between the various policymaking and imple 1

mentation agencies of the government.

Mr. CAREY. I will be glad to try, Senator.
Would you like me to proceed ?
Senator TUNNEY. Please.
Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
give you my viewson S. 2495 .
This bill is headed in the right direction, and I am glad to see the
Senate taking initiative to seewhere we stand in our use of scientific
and technological resources .
Although Iam neither a scientist nor an engineer I have had reasons
to be rather deeply involved in both public policy and budgeting for
science and technology.
The premises of this bill are, in brief, that the Federal Government
should be doing considerably more thanit is now doing to focus avail
able science and technology on national problems. I agree with that
objective.
I have said, in other hearing rooms, that our technological poten
tial far exceeds our technological performance, and that I wished we
had the information to demonstrate that proposition .
Your bill would make a good start toward distinguishing the facts
from the myths as far as our technological capabilities go.
I do not think that the problem is the need for a shot in the arm in
the form of a crash R. & D. spending program . I suspect that we are |
making out reasonably well in fostering scientific research, and one
indication ofthis is the prediction by OECD that the output of scien
tific and technical information could increase by sevenfold in the E

next several years. 1

The problem seems, at least to me, to be one of risk taking, getting

more of this elegant knowledge out of the R. & D. pipelineand into
applications, and removing barriers to the marketing and utilization
of what we already know .
I don't think we can afford, as a highly advanced nation whose con (

tinued growth and competitiveness depends in an important way (

upon technological vitality, to stand by and let that vitality slow

down to something like half speed.
 103

I have been greatly encouraged to see theNational Science Board,

1
the governing body of the National Science Foundation, begin to dig
formeasures of R.& D. strength and productivity.
The NSF has still a long way to go before it provides us with solid
indicators but it is on its way .
The problem , of course, is to translate such information into effec
st
tive public and private policy.
Your bill begins to address that problem , and I think that the most
encouraging development is not necessarily S. 2495, but the fact that
D.
these committees are moving to do something about a problem that has
had inadequate attention.
If I may, Mr. Chairman , I should like to make a few points about
S.2495 and to offer a suggestion or two that might strengthen it.
First of all I have the feeling that the bill is focused only upon
Ге
applicationsof Government-heldtechnology and that its principal aim
is to channel that technology to the problems of Federal, State, and
be local governments.
es
le
I agree that intergovernmental technology transfer is a problem
We have not yet solved very effectively ; but I would hope that the
legislation would not stop there but would address the assessment of
private as well as public technologicalcapacity and resource utiliza
tion, together with the development of national policies to get tech
nology moving again .
to
It seems that our public policies in this respect are always at one
extreme or the other of the feast-or-famine spectrum, and that when
he we get sufficiently alarmed we invariably resort to a crash program
fie to spend vast amounts of money on faith - the crisis response.
After 30 years of experience with science and technology on a large
ns scale, we ought to have found better ways of getting things done.
For As one example, the President's budget message this year says
that a standby economic package will be prepared in case the eco
16 nomic indicators go seriously sour and I am sure that the Quadriad
i1 staff — Treasury, OMB, CEA and the Fed— are hard at work pre
L21 paring countercyclical fixes.
But I am also very sure that nowhere in this planning is there a
11
component of economic strategy which proposes the stimulation of
те technological investment as an identifiable mover and shaper of
national economy
the .
15 I happen to think this omission is shortsighted.
My point is that if you are going to try to establish a new insti
1 tutional focus in the Executive Office of the President it should have
a broader mission and a different complexion than the Resources
de Council proposed in your bill.
1 An annual report on scientific and technical resources would be
ne useful, but not nearly as useful as it could be with different arrange
ments.
I Let me be more specific. The bill upgrades the present Federal
Council for Science and Technology to statutory rank, puts it into
7 the Executive Office family, and changes its name.
The members of the FCST would become the members of the new
Council, and additional members would be seconded from the Na
tional Governors Conference, the National Association of Counties,
the League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
 104

In the first place, the upgrading of a feeble interagency committee

like the FCST is questionable. FCST has its uses, but science and
technology policymaking is beyond its reach. TE
It candeal with the housekeeping chores of administration, but thic
it has no record of clout or effectiveness to speak of, and no audience 10
except its chairman who also wears two hats as the President's Science
Adviser and head of NSF.
The members are agency employees and their first allegiance is to ar
their parent agencies, and their orientation is toward low-profile
issues.
To ask this group for an annual report on scientific and technical
resources, much less for policy recommendations, of significance, is to
miscalculate its capabilities and its stature.
Moreover, the bill makes no provision for industry participation
despite the fact that industrial performers account for the bulk of CON
expenditures in research, development, and application of science and
technology . has
You need to know what resources and capabilities exist in the in I
dustry sector, how they are being used or not used, and what barriers
stand in the way of coupling Government's and industry's resources in
addressing national problems of job creation, full employment, hous
ing supply, transportation, energy, export competitiveness, and other add
matters of high priority.
What is missing in the way the United States approaches technology B
and innovation, I believe, is the capacity to assemble all the impor ried
tant factors into a system that knows what it is doing and what is treg
expected of it . forn
My third difficulty with the bill is that it requires Presidential
referral of problems to NASA or to other agencies. COM )
While it is tempting to invoke the President's weight on behalf of inth
science and technology, in real life we know that a President's plate I
is always full, and getting his attention and response is always a this
question of competing priorities. I
I don't believe this provision has much chance of really working, Se
and I think it would be better to give the Council the authority to D
either go directly to the action agencies or to go through the Presi thon
dent's Science Adviser to them .
and
Mr. Chairman , my reactions to the bill do not raise objections to agen
what it is proposed to be done, but to how it can be done with some In
chance of being effective.
I have long held a view that the Federal Government is engaged in forth
a great deal of action in science and technology, but that it has almost
nothing in the way of perspectives. hoBual
Your bill calls for a 10 -year projection of resources, which cer Mr
tainly adds up to perspective. Sei
We need more. We need a much clearer understanding of how sci Yo
ence and technology interact with domestic goals, with the ins and the
outs of the national economy, with alternative futures, with produc
tivity and price stability, with our ability to achieve increasing inde
一當 隻

pendence in our access to critical resources. this

1
Most of these questions have no good answers today. We even lack
meaningful information on what kinds of technology are stranded in there
the pipelines of industry and government, and on what incentives are
needed to move them along.
 105

I have urged unsuccessfully in the past the — as others have

creation in the Office of the President of a Council of Science and
Technology Advisers with responsibilities and roles comparable to
those of the Council of Economic Advisers and the Council on Envi
ronmental Quality to furnish perspectives and strategies.
And I have also urged that we attack the current problems of
technological lag the way we did at the outset of World War II with
a mechanism like the Office of Scientific Research and Development
OSRD — capable of identifying priority opportunities for technologi
cal effort and breaking redtape to get moving.
In short, I think we must scale up the intensity and priority of our
approach to these matters, and I hope very much that this committee
will extend its work and its interests in some of these directions.
f
As to S. 2495, by way of concluding, I suggest that the committee
consider the suggestions made in thesehearings to strengthen the bill,
and that it use this opportunity to go into the larger issues which it
1
has brought to light.
You might give some thought to the alternative of separating the
IS
survey of scientific resources from the survey of technological re
21
G
sources, for both practical and definitional reasons, and make separate
assignments to NASA and to NSF, thus avoiding the problems of
er adding marginal structure to the Executive Office at a time when it is
a doubtfulseason to intrude more machinery there.
But if the committee believes that these functions can only be car
ried out at the superagency levels in the executive branch, I would
urge strongly that you take more time, evaluate the past year's per
12 formance in science and technology policy leadership by Dr. Stever
and the NSF, and then devise a better vehicle than an interagency
of committee with responsibilities going beyond those now enumerated
in the bill.
ate
I hope these remarks are responsive to your invitation to appear
this morning. Once again, I appreciate theopportunity to be here.
I will be gladto take your questions, sir.
n! Senator TUNNEY. Thank you.
Dr. Carey, you address a problem which I questioned Dr. Seamans
about, and that was the advisability of creating yet another agency
and whether or not we should have either an upgrading of an existing
agency to manage these policy matters.
your statementyou mention the possibility of separating surveys
i
of scientific resources from surveys of technological resources and so
forth .
Based upon your experience, as a person who was in OMB for
how long?
Mr.CAREY. Twenty -six years, sir.
Senator TUNNEY. Twenty - six years.
You have as good an understanding, I would say, as any one of
and the interrelationships between the various agencies in the Govern
Pune ment.
I just wonder, should we establish a new council or should we have
thisresponsibility envisioned in the legislation for the survey and
hack for policy implementation vested in an existing agency ?I suppose
there aresome that would say that the National Science Foundation
is perfectly capable of doing it. What do you think ? We on the com
 106

mittee will have to make decisions at some point, but I would like
to know whatyou think to help me determine what I think .
Mr. CAREY. Senator, let me see what I can do with it .
I thinkin the first place I am not very much troubled by placing
additional responsibilities and units in the Office of the President. I
think the question is what are you going to do it for ; why are you
going to do it; will it work ; and is it necessary ? 1
I,asan aside, although not entirely an aside, I was quite interested
in Richard Goodwin's article in last Sunday's Post in which he in (
veighed very strongly against the outsize structure that has grown up
around the Office of the President, the fact that the President didn't
h
know who was there or what they were doing, the power accrued by le
virtue of position and place and having the best address in town and
so forth, and that one of the cures to all of our current troubles would
t
be swingingaway a lot of the excess machinery, as he put it, in the
Executive Office.
I don't buy that, Senator. I think that the Office of the President of of
the United States I worked for five of them - has changed. It has
changed in my lifetime and in my professional career in Government, IC

and since I leftGovernment 5 years ago, and it is my observation that

the problems of the Government of the United States, and the Presi li
dent of the United States have increased enormously in order of
magnitude, in terms of scale, in terms of risks, in terms of shorten
ing reaction times.
I think a President has to have troops, and I think he has got to have
information , and I think he has got to be able to run the system , and
alter its directions on short order Y
. ou can't do this out of your hat. TE

Now , so much for Dick Goodwin, an old friend, I might say. It is

one thing to be an expert paragrapher for two Presidents, but you
should learn something about their job, too. h
I think that if the Congress has a clear idea as to what it wants is
the machineryto do, things will work out. When I say in my testimony CE

that you might split the survey into two parts, one part going to
NASA, which knows technology, and the other part going to theSci DE

ence Foundation, which knowsscience, what I am saying is that the

explicit work of running these studies, these surveys, of capturing
the information , of sorting it, of arraying it, is in a sense an opera d
tional assignment for which we now have machinery which I believe is
adequate. he
What we don't have adequate machinery for is in the field of
policymaking and policy planning with regard to the uses of science i
and technology in the future scenarios of American development.
We had some perspectives in the past when we had the President's U
Science Advisory Committee, and science adviser and the OST. It IT
worked reasonably well, with many imperfections. It did provide DA
some perspectives. I regretted seeing it dismantled, because I think
we are poorer for havingit dismantled .
Now , where I feel we are very, very weak is in the comprehension 0
of science and technology in its roles, in its effects, in its possibilities,
not just as science and technology, but in terms of the intersection, the
intersections between science and technology and the other things that DO
this country has got to do. es

We havea very severe blind spot. We have been accustomed to think

ing of research and development in very narrow terms. We have been
 107

inclined to look at it historically, and it is a brief history, Senator, a

very brief history, but we have been inclined to look at it historicallyas
something you whistle up when you are in trouble. When you arenot
mo introuble, and when you think you are not in trouble, you lay it down.
LI There is no continuity; there is no consistency ; there is no view of
Cou science and technology as national investment which, of course,means
a long -run view thatis always associated with investment, and these
ed elements are missing, and that is why I feel so very strongly that we
n. do need a unit, andI think it must be at the Office of thePresident,
for a deliberate process, an analytic process, a forecasting process.
I would view , for example, asmall council which, very much like
the Council of Economic Advisers, does deal with perspectives; it does
deal with forecasting ; it does deal with trying to comprehend the be
ld havior of the national economy and to consider public and private
he strategies in concert to deal with contingencies orobjectives that are
in the future, and that is the type of role that I would see in a council
of of scientific and technological advisers in the White House.
as I agree very much with Bob Seamans that such a group must have
nt, accountability. The Council of Economic Advisers has accountability.
at It marches up here every year; it defends its thesis, if you will, its
dissertation, its annual report, its assessmentof the economy and what
of might happen. We have to be accountable. Similarly with CDQ. It is
211 accountable.
The question is, who is the new council going to talk to, and who is
Te going to listen to it ?
nd There, you get into an area that neither you nor I can control very
well, Senator. If a President doesn't choose to listen, then you have got
is a problem .
011 I think that you have to have not only a sense in the Congress asto
the necessity for the additional increment to be built into policy analy
nts sis and decisionmaking. You also have to have a sensitivity inthe Ex
ecutive thatit is necessary and that he will use it, and if that is not
to present, if there is resistance, if there is reluctance, then it doesn't
matter what kind of machinery we have. It is not going to work.
he So, I think there must be some coming together and meeting of the
mind between the President and the Congress in order to make this
I'll idea fly. I think it is very important idea. I think, Senator, since my
answer has been so long,I had better cease and see whether I am on
the same track .
of Senator TUNNEY. I would like, as a footnote to what you said, men
30e tion that I remember reading anarticle a number of years ago by C. P.
Snow , in which he articulated the view that it was important to wed
humanistic goals with scientific goals, and that the problem with mod
11 ern society is that we are operating on a dual track system in which
there is not a wedding of the capabilities of the philosopher and the
scientists.
I agree completely, which would seem to argue that perhaps you
101 would notwantto have just scientists on this council.
Mr. CAREY. I would agree, Senator.
the On that point, I used to, in the Bureau of the Budget,have some re
sponsibilities for science and technology, and frequently it was very
clear that in some of the recommendations that came to us from the
2 scientific or technological communitis, as it might be, there were no
components, for example, of economics in the information that we got
 108

and recommendations that we got. Our "two-cultures” problem , Sena

tor, isn't all the fault of the humanists, who resist tyrannies of tech
nology. The blind spot can also be on the scientists side and on the
engineers' side, and I think your point that you do need a mix of peo
ple and perspectives is exactly right, and I would view a council, for 11
example, of about five people, rotated considerably, with a large source 0

of people from manysectorsto be calledin on particular questions,

issues,plans, proposals, and the like, and I think it has got to be very
much an open process,and a pluralistic process, but I think we have got th
to begin, and just as the CEA began in a small way with some optimism ,
and developed soundly over a good many years to become a critical 0]
and useful part of our policymaking machinery, I have to hope that
this councilwill have the same kind of history. ti
Senator TUNNEY. What about the relationships of the council to 'n
OMB ! One of the problems we have is that OMB is concerned about
a budget on a year-to-year basis. Hopefully this council would be reach ir
ing out many years in the future in identifying problems and trying I
to analyze ways of solving those problems by the use of science and .
technology
What, from your 26 years' experience in the Bureau of the Budget, T
would be the best type of relationship ? 10
I suppose that if they are going to be talking in terms of commit C2
ting resources to research and development programs, that OMB is ac
going to have, in effect, a veto and OMB's annual operating budget n

priorities will dominate.

Do you have any thoughts on that ?
ta
Mr.CAREY. Senator, let me try it again. t
I think it is very true that OMB each year prepares a budget that er
focuses on the short term .
On the other hand, I think that it can fairly be said that OMB is ta
just as unhappy being in that predicament as you are with the way f
they perform .I think if you look at the development of the budgeting 0
process, and if you look at the character of recent budgets which have
TE
come up ,largely,I would say, under President Nixon ,youwillsee re
the beginnings of change in OMB's point of view. e
For example, you will now see something we could never get Presi
dent Johnson or President Kennedy to do , which was to disclose the
5-year implications of current decisions. §
07
Now, while you and I might have some disagreement on the quality at
of the current decisions, I think we would both tend to applaud the )
disclosure of the 5 years' implications of those decisions, and if you no
look at the 1975 budget, if I remember the numbers correctly, theysay De
that in fiscal 1979,, outlays will have increased about $150 billion over
the fiscal 1975 level, andthat Government receipts will have increased
by roughly a similar magnitude.
ta:
Now, the question thenbecomes , "What do you do with that kind of
growth in your output and in your intake ?” T
No.
I think it is at the juncture of that kind of analysis and thinking
and planning that we could begin to get a handle on the kind of prob
lem that this bill deals with .
TY
We plainly are going to have some problems with an approach like ta
that. There are, as you know very well, sir, political discontinuities 1
that upset good, orderly, systematic planning and decisionmaking, m
preemptingflexibility and so forth . We are going to have lurches in
 109

the economy that are going to change the numbers as to what we can
expect to take in .
le
.
And yet, these disturbances and perturbations, I think, should not
OT
discourage us from seeing the possibilities that are now before us. I
Le
think that in the effort that OMB is now making to stretch its vision,
LS
Congress vision, and the country's vision in terms of priorities and
ET
public investment, leaving plenty of room for argument about the
ot
quality of those decisions,we have something that I wish we had had
when I was around there.
),
So, I think we have some improvement that we can countupon . I
21
don't really feel that there would be difficulties in terms of family
relationships in the ExecutiveOffice between OMB and the Council.
to
Ithink it is very true that OMB dominates the Executive Office ofthe
President. They are the President's troops; they have the depth ; they
ch
have the experience and the history, and the institutional memory to
carry the ball.
But I think certainly in most of the time that I served there, with
some exceptions, OMB — or the Bureau of the Budget was open to
et,
inputs from sisteragencies in the Executive Office of the President. I
think that it was most open to the Council of Economic Advisers in
Lit
those days, but I think that it worked quite constructively with the
is
science
ha
adviser and the Office of Science and Technology, because it
d to .
et The Bureau of the Budget doesn't have any Nobel Prize winners.
It has generalists. It has versatile people who think their job is doing
staff work for the President and coming up with a sensible agendum .
hat
It is strongly influenced by the people immediately around the Presi
dent. There is no question about it.
But I reallydo feel that the Office of Science and Technology, for
tar
example, added amplitude and depth to the capacities of the Bureau
ing
of the Budget to cope with problems of choice in science and tech
care
nology, and Ithink it is going to be very tough for OMB, given the
Sep
present situation and balkanization of science and technology in the
executive branch, with no focal point in the Executive Office,to do as
well in the future as it has in the past unless some remedy is provided ,
such as the one we are discussing.
Senator TUNNEY. Your statement contains the underlying theme of
how the Federal Government can provide incentive for private inno
vation and technological development. That is of very great interest
to me as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Science , Technology,
and Commerce, and I hope to be able to draw upon your expertise in
3 the future .
Mr. CAREY. I would be very glad to, Senator.
Senator TUNNEY. I was interested in your statement, where you
state that
of
The problem seems to be one of risk taking , of getting more of this elegant
knowledge out of the research and development pipeline into applications and
ing removing barriers to the marketing and utilization of what we already know .
The President has stated that the experimental technology incen
tive program in the Department of Commerceand the NSF should
examine these problems. Do you believe theseactivities are adequate
in light of the fact that thebudget cut for ETIP in NSF was from $ 12
million to $1 million in fiscal year 1975 ?
32–205-74 8
 110

Mr. CAREY . Senator, I have to quote “ Carey's Law .” Carey's law Jon
is that the half-life of an experimental program in the Federal Gov ter.
ernment is about two and a half appropriation cycles. sud
I was around when the experimental technology centers programs
were invented. I know something about the circumstances in which e ha
they came to be. You will remember that Mr. Magruder had been con Fonda
ducting a sweep to find technological opportunities, largely in response
to the balance of trade problem , where Boretski's work in the Com VAN

merce Department had indicated with some cogency that the United mer

States was losing very rapidly its position in exports of high tech steri
nology products,and that this threatened the entire international pay Thes
ments balance.
So, Mr. Magruder was assigned to find ways to hit back. I don't Then
think he had enough time. I don't think the homework was done very pover
well. The quality of the ideas was somewhat shabby, and when my old
friends back in the Bureau of the Budget and some new friends in the
Domestic Council got hold of the product, it crumbled in their fingers. fare
On the other hand, there was the President committed, in his pre
vious state of the Union message, to deal with the problems of U.S. LACON
technology . Th
The question was what should be done, and out of it, I think, came some
the idea that the Government should have a limited risk -oriented ef of a
Pow
fort to try to test the new ways of accelerating the movement of pres
ent technology through the pipelines, and I guess if the truth were 110
told , I had something to do with that.
Now, I think what went wrong was the way the program was an cent
nounced without very much prior thought, the way the $40 million, fou
more or less, was identified , the way it was divided overnight between and
the Commerce Department and the Science Foundation, the arrange Se
ments were, let us say , not exactly a model of good management and
decisionmaking. The arrangements for linking and coupling were not
very good . be !
So, you tended to hąve competing activities. There was a great deal crea
of uncertainty as to what incentives were. There was a great deal of It
confusion as to what barriers existed in the pipeline, and time went terf
byin both cases without anything really being done. S101
So, you came into a cycle, cycle No. 2, and you began to come very 1
closeto Carey's law. In cycle No. 2, we had a sort of pressureon both talk
programs for quick results, not for experiments, which would be multi the
year, or which would be scaled up so that they would demonstrate tas

something about their effectiveness. There was a tendency toward seal

microprojects, and it troubled me, as a spectator at a distance; and 0
then in the fiscal 1975 budget, ofcourse, you had the fruition of Carey's I
law in the liquidation, for all practicalpurposes, of the Science stat
Foundation component of that program . Now we have to look to the que
Commerce Department and the last time I looked, the program and
its incentives had $7 million to work with . I don't think that is very It
much of a program . tio
I think that in order to deal with this problem which I am talking FO
about, you need to understand and have very good information on
the problems that face industrial investment and risk taking. You ta]
need to be able to identify technologieswhich,if they were pushed of
off the breakthrough line, could have a potential of creatinga new
market, creating new jobs, or making a difference. th
 111

.
Now, what the barriers are, that would be a very long story, Sen
To
ator. I may say that I had something to do a year or so ago with a
study which attempted to identify barriers to technological inno
NS vation, and if Mr. Hyman wants to see a copy of that study, I will
ch be happy to provide it, or he can get it from the National Science
M Foundation .
use The problems are diverse. They deal with uncertainties which busi
m
ness enterprises face. There are economic uncertainties, regulatory
ed uncertainties; there are uncertainties about markets, and it is char
ch acteristic that if a firm has a certain amount of money to invest and
11. it has choices and it looks at its cash position and makes caluclations
on this, and looks at externalities, these are some of the problems.
ont When I look frankly at the difference between Japan, Inc., where
BIT
old
government and industry are not in an adversarial relationship, but
in a cooperative relationship in risk taking, in the use of technology,
the in the creation of new markets, in the promotion of exports, and com
୧IS. pare it with the disassembled, fragmented, and highly adversarial
IPC relationship between understandable
government and business in this country, it
TS. becomes more or less that there are gaps appearing.
This is why I feel that this type of problem has to be treated with
ime
some considerable scale, with some sophistication, with a recognition
ef of a policy choice that is here. If I were in the National Science
res Foundation or on the Bureau of Standards, or echelons down inthe
here Commerce Department running these experimental programs, I think
I would be a little careful, too, of biting into an experiment with in
all centives where the risks were very high and where, for example, I
Hon. found myself dealing with the patent system , antitrust regulations,
Teen and various other problems of that kind.
Top
Senator TUNNEY. One final question I have for you , Mr. Carey,
and and that is the relationship of this Council, assuming it to be created,
110 to the National Science Foundation. Do you feel that there should
be hostility on the part of the National Science Foundation to the
es? creation of this concept, and if not, why not ?
lof If so, how do you envision a structure being developed as an in
TER terface between thetwo agencies which would ameliorate any ten
sions orconflicts that mightarise ?
TET Mr. CAREY. I guess it would depend on whatkind of council we are
Toth talking about. If we are talking about the Council spelled out in
ult the bill, I can see where the Science Foundation might testify that it
rald wasn't necessary, that they have the capabilities in their policy re
IN Search work, in the statistical work, in their technology assessment
and work to produce much of the data that we are talking about here.
ri
But if we are talking about acouncil comparable in importance and
21 stature and role to the Council of Economic Advisers, I think the
question would become very different. I think that it would be very
ani difficult for the Science Foundation to oppose it with any serious logič.
ATT I think that the benefits of such a council to the objectives of the Na
tional Science Foundation, to the achievement of the National Science
Foundation Act, would be obvious. I see no competition.
IN I think if it were a problem of feeling upstaged, that no one should
take that seriously, and I really can't believe that would bethe attitude
ofthe Director of the present National Science Foundation.
I might say to you, Senator, that I was in the delivery room when
the National Science Foundation Act was born , and we wrote into the
 112

law a provision, or provisions for policy analysis, for national policy

development for science and technology . It was really for science,not
so much for technology. We assigned the Foundation the responsibility
to evaluate the ongoing programs of the Government in research, and
in all the years that I had anything to do with the Foundation, these
were the last things the Foundation wanted to touch.
I don't really believe that an independent agency like a National
Science Foundation can address problems of this kind effectively,
sir. I think that they have a mission ; it isa legitimate mission, and an
important mission , and I think on the whole they are carrying out their
primary job extremely well.
What we are talking about here is not their primary job, and I really
can see noreason for any difficulties. Ithink that the way thingsshould
work is that the National Science Foundation would be the backup
system for an executive council on science and technology, and in
that kind of relationship could hit the ground running.
Senator TUNNEY. How much would such a council cost, the one you
envision , the latter one, rather than the one in the bill ?
Mr. CAREY. I think it would have a budget comparable to that for the
Council of Economic Advisers.
In these days, I don'tdare guess what CEA's budget is, but I would
estimate in the range of $1 to $3 million a year. Probably in order to
carry out the responsibilities of the Council, it would be advisable
to appropriate additional funds, perhaps to the National Science
Foundation, perhaps to NASA. But the main thing is not how much
money it appropriates, it is the quality of the people; it is the way they
see their job, it is a question of how much interest they have in it, and
the audience or the constituency for which they work - to whom they
talk. I think those are the critical things.
Senator TUNNEY. Well, I appreciate your statement very much, Mr.
Carey. It is very informative.
Mr. CAREY. Thank you , sir,
Senator TUNNEY. Iwant to thank you so much. We will be in touch
with you.
Our next witness is Dr. George Sprugel, Jr. , President of the Ameri
can Institute of Biological Sciences.
E
STATEMENT OF GEORGE SPRUGEL , JR. , CHIEF, ILLINOIS STATE
NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY, AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTI F

TUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Dr. SPUGEL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Senator TUNNEY. Good morning.
• Dr. SPRUGEL. The American Institute of Biological Sciences was
pleased to have this opportunity to comment on S.2495 .
As you may know, the American Institute of Biological Sciences
has quite a sizable number of adherent societies and some 11,000 indi
vidual members. Therefore, we have a little difficulty in obtaining a
consensus of opinion on short notice. We are working on that now, 1

however, and a formal statement of the institute will be forthcoming

within a couple of weeks. ( See p. 115. )
In the meantime, I would like to offer my personal observations on
the provisions of this bill .
 113

As I sat here this morning and listened to the two witnesses who
preceded me, I was fascinated bytheir testimony.
I am surprised that this country boy from Illinois has arrived at
general conclusions quite similar to those reached by these two gentle
men whose insight to the problem is far greater than mine.
In the interest of saving time, I willsummarize the contents of my
statement.
Senator TUNNEY. Your statement and the formal statement of the
institute will be included in the record.
[The statements follow :]
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE SPRUGEL, JR. , CHIEF, ILLINOIS STATE NATURAL HISTORY
SURVEY AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the American Institute of
Biological Sciences was delighted to receive your invitation to comment on the
two versions of S. 2495.
7
Representing, as it does, some 38 societies of professional biologists and more
than 11,000 additional personal members from the community of biological scien
tists, the AIBS is developing a formal statement that will hopefully reflect
a reasonable consensus of the oft divergent views of its constituency. In the
meantime, I should like to present my own rather hastily consolidated personal
views of the proposed legislation.
d Many biological scientists share grave concern relative to the near void in
50 communications which often seems to obtain between the scientist community
le and the higher echelons of our government. While biologists may differ in their
re views concerning mechanisms for resolving the communications difficulty and for
ch applying existing information to the solution of domestic problems, they surely
join in applauding the intent of S. 2495. Although the situpation seems particu
larly desperate at the present time, our government has long needed a more
effective mechanism for identifying potential national domestic problems and
es for dealing with them in a meaningful manner before they reach crisis propor
tions. Evidently, even the earlier Federal Council for Science and Technology,
Office of Science and Technology, and the President's Science Advisory Com
LE mittee did not always seem to function well in this respect. The Office of Tech
nology Assessment is only now being established and, thus, its performance as a
true early warning system is difficult to predict. Should interpretation of its
ch activities be such as to discourage maximum cooperation in efforts of the Legis
lative and Executive sectors to resolve major domestic problems, the anticipated
effectiveness of the OTA might be diminished .
Information of developing domestic problems frequently becomes known early
at some point within the Federal establishment. However, it is often most diffi
cult to obtain an early and unbiased evaluation of such threats at those levels of
the government with sufficient influence to initiate remedial measures. As exam
13 ples, clues to developing environmental quality and energy supply problemswere
1 already well recognized by scientists of the Office of Naval Research , National
Science Foundation, and other agencies in the early 1950's. Scientists in the
universities called attention to these potential problems at an even earlier time.
Nevertheless, efforts to convince higher echelons in the government structure of .
the credibility and seriousness of the threats were unsuccessful until the prob
lems reached crisis proportions.
23 The working draft of S. 2495, in particular, appears to be a thoughtful effort
to involve the nation's scientific and technical resources more directly in the
solution of domestic problems. Certainly , one can find little fault with the State
ment of Findings and Declaration of Policy. One wonders, however, if the com
position of the Council as proposed in either Title IV of the original version of
S. 2495 or in Title I ofthe working draft will be any more effective than was the
earlier Federal Committee for Science and Technology. The proposed Councils
would be composed essentially of Federal department heads or representatives
!!! of State or local governance - oriented groups, each with his own organization's
interests to protect or promote and, in many instances, each with allegiance to
01 established policies of the Executive Branch . The possibility of a clearly unbiased
and unrestricted evaluation being made of domestic problems under these condi
tions seems rather improbable. While the proposed Council is required to report
 114

te
on its activities to the Congress and include recommendations for possible legis S
lative action , the Council with the memberships proposed, must still be largely a TV
child of and reflect the partisan interests of the President's Office. th
Perhaps the sponsors of S. 2495 might be willing to consider modifying the 11
structure of the proposed National Science and Technology Council or National n
Technology Resources Council to provide more input from the Congress and fe
scientists in the private sector, as well as representation from the Executive l
Branch. Suppose a Federal Council for Science and Technology and another
group somewhat similar to the earlier President's Science Advisory Committee
were reestablished by statute in the Executive Branch as coequals with a Chair
man in common whose reporting responsibilities are to a National Science and
Technology Resources Council proposed by S. 2495 ( working draft ) for inclusion ']
in the Executive Branch as well. The committees, representing the input of both 1a
the Federal establishment and the non-Federal scientific and engineering com On
munity, might have investigative responsibilities similar to those assigned them 10
in earlier Administrations. Provision might be made for these committees to work .
in concert on appropriate issues. D
Suppose, as well, the membership of the proposed National Science and Tech cik
nology Resources Council was modified to include the Vice President ( Chairman ) , 19
the Speaker of the House of Representatives ( Vice Chairman ), individual senior Or
scientists from outside of the Federal sector to represent the Biological Sciences, OL
Medical Sciences, Physical Sciences and the Social Sciences, a representative of fe
the engineering professions , a representative of industry, the Director of the 20
Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman or Director of the OTA , the I
Chairmen of the Councils of Environmental Quality and Economic Advisors, and,
5
perhaps ex officio, the Chairman in common of FCST and PSAC. The non -gov (
ernment members might be appointed on a non -partisan basis by the President
and confirmed by the Senate for staggered terms of 5 or 6 years to provide certain Irg n

continuity of input from the private sector. Many of the individuals from govern di
ment proposed for membership on the Council are extremely busy people, but io
perhaps the potential importance of the Council's responsibilities justify their ici:
participation in its deliberations. ISE
Such an organizational structure, operating within the context of pertinent ha
functional and administrative provisions of S. 2495 ( working draft ) and sup
ported by a variety of subcommittees advisory to the FCST and the PSAC,
might provide an effective, through elaborate, mechanism by which current and
5
anticipated domestic problems can be identified , evaluated and their solutions ca
initiated and developed . With access to so much scientific talent in the govern th
ment and private sectors, the development of a Science and Technology Survey si
should not be a difficult problem . Might not such a Council have the “ clout"
ae
necessary to assure attention to its recommendations at the highest levels of
government ?
ai
My remaining comments pertain to the working draft of S. 2495 which, in my 21
judgment, is the most suitable of the two existing versions. One might wish to CU
modify “ Functions of the Council ” such that page 6, line 13, expresses the sense
of “ . . . critical existing and potential domestic problem and page 6, lines 22 8.
through 24 , assigns any critical domestic problem to “ . the most appropriate
te
Federal agency or combination of Federal agencies for solution, with authoriza is
tion to draw upon necessary talents or skills available within the government or
private sectors ." Perhaps page 7, lines 6 and 7, might be modified to read g
submit a common report to the President and to the Congress ..." .
The deadline date of September 1, 1975, on page 7, line 15 may be somewhat
impractical in terms of achieving a meaningful, indepth Survey. Possibly Sep
tember 1, 1976 , would be more realistic. In the same paragraph , page 7 , line 20,
one might wish to suggest " . Nation's critical existing and anticipated domestic
C
problems.” Perhaps Sec. 103, page 8, line 3, might be changed to read “ . . . appli
cation of existing science and technology or the conduct of necessary additional
research ; ..." and page 8, line 6, to include " ... critical existing and anticipated
domestic problems,
In my judgment, Title II – The Office of Technology Application, Sections 201,
202 and 204 (b ) should be deleted from the bill and the provisions of Sec. 201
( b-1 ) through ( b - 5 ) be applied to any Federal agency, considered appropriate
to carry out the requests and recommendations of theCouncil. Specification of
a particular type of firm in page 11, line 8, is, perhaps, unnecessary and un
desirable because firms of a variety of specializations could do the work equally
well. My basis for these suggestions is that, while NASA has, indeed, performed
engineering miracles in applying technology to the solution of problems asso
 115

; ciated with space travel, there are those in the scientific community who believe
2 the solutions to many of our existing and impending domestic problems require
a greater breadth of scientific and other talents and skills than may be found
e in the existing NASA organization . While few would question the NASA estab
lishment's capability to make an outstanding contribution to the solution of cer
d. tain domestic problems, a number of other Federal agencies have substantially
e different inhouse scientific and research capabilities which may be more appli
cable to a number of these problems.
e

d
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES,
ni
Washington, D.C. , April 17, 1974.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
1
}
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, and
Hon. FRANK E. MOSS,
m
k
Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, Washington , D.C.
1: DEAR SENATORS MAGNUSON AND Moss : The American Institute of Biological
), Sciences ( AIBS ) is pleased to have been invited to comment on Senate Bill s.
IT 2495, “ Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act.” As a short introduc
S tion, the AIBS was chartered in 1947 and is a nonprofit, scientific and educa
of tional organization for individuals working or interested in all disciplines of the
де life sciences. The Institute is an " individual member" organization, as well as a
e
federation of 38 Adherent biological societies.
The Institute agrees, in general, with the comments made on 21 March 1974
by Dr. George Sprugel, Jr., Chief of the Illinois State Natural History Survey
at and the President of the AIBS. The following brief statement summarizes the
2
Organization's position on S. 2495.
1.
The American Institute of Biological Sciences is in full agreement with the
it
admirable goals of the “ Science and Technology Resources Survey and Applica
ir tions Act of 1974 " as they are stated in the working draft of the Bill : That " the
scientific and technological resources of the United States can and should be
at used more effectively and efficiently to solve critical domestic problems,” and
that “ it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to insure the full and
efficient use of such scientific and technological resources. "
However, NASA does not seem to be the proper agency to lead a new effort to
2S
guide the science and technology capabilities of the Nation in the solution of criti.
cal domestic problems. In contrast with NASA's sharply focused effort in space,
er
the application of technology to critical problems seems to be an unfocused mis
sion that could result in the duplication of much that now goes on in other federal
agencies.
af
The Bill S. 2495 is particularly unclear with regard to the areas of research
and development to be included under its umbrella . Would all federal research
T
DO
and development, from life science to astrophysics, be included ? It would be diffi
cult for one agency to gather the expertiseto administer such a broad-based pro
E
gram , and it is easy to imagine the situation getting worse rather than better.
FC
The Bill fails to recognize the fundamental differences between research and
technology. Experience shows that scientific research is most productive when it
is diversified. In contrast, technological development applies existing knowledge
generated by a diversified research effort to the solution of a particular problem.
In view of NASA's strong technological orientation , AIBS fears that basic scien
t
tific research would suffer. This legislation also proposes the establishment of a
National Science and Technology Resources Council in the Executive Office of
1
the President. Like NASA, the proposed Council does not seem to adequately
represent all the segments of the scientific community that would contribute to
solutions of pressing national problems.
11
Since the President's Scientific Advisory Council and the Office of Science and
Technology were dismantled last year, there have been numerous suggestions for
restoring science to a place of prominence at the White House level. Like other
members of the scientific community, the American Institute of Biological Sci
1 ences is cognizant of the need for changes in science administration . But the ma
1
jor overhaul that is needed would not be accomplished by a patchwork attempt to
te
of
broaden the powers of NASA and set up a new advisory council. AIBS strongly
recommends cabinet office rank for a science advisor to the President and would
3
have further comments should a more comprehensive reorganization of science be
proposed.
0
 116

While this organization does not endorse the Bill in its current form , it would
like to thank the Committees on Aeronautical and Space Sciences and Commerce )
for providing this useful forum for discussion of the need for reassessing and L
restructuring the administration of federal science and technology.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT W. KRAUSS,
€
Chairman , AIBS Public Responsibilities Committee.
(
Dr. SPRUGEL. Among the concerns I have identified is that related
tothe composition of the proposed Council. t
I have a very grave suspicion that the new Council, as proposed in
the revised version of S. 2495, will not be any more effective than was
the old Federal Council on Science and Technology.
Further, in my statement, I have sought toexplore with youthe
possibility of establishing an even more monstrous mechanismfor link
ing the scientific community to the higher echelons of our Government
than the council system described here earlier this morning. I have I
wondered about the possibility of reestablishing both the old Federal
Council and the President's Science Advisory Committee, constituted
much as they were before, butwith differentreporting responsibilities
and a common chairman . Both might report to the Council identified
in S. 2495 .
Perhaps the composition of the Council might be modified to in I
clude, busy as they are, the Vice President as Chairman, the Speaker 1
of the House as Vice Chairman, senior scientists representing various C

disciplines in the scientific community, a senior member of the Office .

of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Council of Economic 1

Advisers, the Chairman of the CEQ, one or more representatives of

industry, and, certainly, one or more members from the engineering
professions.
I am wondering, as monstrous as this structure is, whether or not
it might have theclout to get things done. It could be amechanism, e
usinga variety of subcommittees with access to both the Federal and
the private sector of science, which could identify potential threats
to our domestic tranquility, and do something about them in the sense T
of evaluating them , and initiating programs to correct the causative
factors before they reach the crisis proportions that constantly seem
to confront us.
In addition, my statement suggests that, perhaps, this supercouncil,
so to speak, might have the same responsibilities envisioned in the bill
except that, in recommending to the President agencies to carry out
particular research activities, integrative functions, or technological t
developmental activities, preference should be given to existing agen
cies of the Federal Government best equipped to handle the task. (
While NASA is a fine organization and has made some remarkable
achievements, there may be other agencies of the Government better
equipped to handle certain issues.
Aside from a few recommendations for minor changes in wording of
certain passages in S. 2495, I believe these comments reasonably sum
marize the contents ofmy statement.
Senator TUNNEY . There seems to be agreement among the witnesses
this morning that the upgrading of the Federal Council on Science
and Technology into a Council such as is envisioned in the legislation
before us would be a poor idea.
That is a very helpful insight for me, and I hope for other members
of the committee .
 117

You recommended a relatively large size National Science and

Technology Resources Council in your statement with membership
across the spectrum of governmental and nongovernmental sources.
Other witnesses have suggested a more compact organization, pat
tended after, for example, the CEQ.
Do you feel that the many interested parties could be adequately
represented on a properly structured advisory committee while keep
ing theCouncil membership small.
Dr. SPRUGEL. Perhaps so. My comments weren't intended to con
stitute a recommendation. I merely wanted to explore the idea with
the committee. The thing that bothers me about a smaller group, I 1
guess, is that we have the potential for some of the shortcomings of
the earlier committees that were heavily loadedwith certain discip
lines, while others were not representedat all. Yet, some of the very
domestic problems that we have before us now were not recognized
or given sufficient early attention because the disciplines mostlikely
to be aware of their significance were not represented at the decision
making level.
Perhaps a smaller Council would be adequate if there were properly
structured subcommittees.
I wouldn't be prepared to oppose something patterned after the
Council of Economic Advisers.
Senator TUNNEY. There is some thought, in my mind at least, that
if you really want to have a Council that functions efficiently and ef
fectively, it ought to be small in size.
Dr. SPRUGEL.That is probably correct.
Senator TUNNEY. And that you could then draw upon various dis
ciplines for input in advisory capacities, and maybe develop some sort
of mechanism whereby that advisory committee would meet on a
regular basis.
I am always leery of councils that are made up of important politi
cal personages. I have the sense that they don't function very well.
This is usually a secondary or tertiary responsibility for those political
personages, and very frequently, if not almost always, they fail to
attend committee meetings andsend delegates in their behalf. I just
don't get the sense that you would have the creativity and the organiza
tional discipline to move forward with the kind of planning and pro
graming that we envision the Council should have.
Dr. SPRUGEL. Senator, I agree with you, but I think it depends en
tirely on the individualsinvolved.
In the past, there have been instances in which the Vice President
chaired a commission and the arrangement worked very effectively.
However, it depends on the individual involved .
An objective I was trying to achieve, I think, was a means to achieve
top-level input of the best science-based advice to both the executive
branch and the Congress .
I am afraid that, if a group reports to only the executive branch, its
recommendations may be ignored if they conflict with existing admin
istration policy.
Senator TUNNEY. Of course, other witnesses have suggested other
ways of handling the situation , such as having Council report on an
annual basis to the Congress and that seems to me to make a good deal
of sense .
 118

As a person who serves on, I think , 15 subcommittees in the Senate,

I have noted that I do not spend verymuchtime on certain subcommit
tee responsibilities, simply because there is not the time. Therefore,
evaluating by own experience and that, and looking at the kind of
Council that weare talking about constructing, it seems to me it would
be better to have on that Council people who would bein a full-time
role, and who would devote full time to their responsibilities. Then
we could have an advisory committee which would be able to meet on
a regular basis and provide the input necessary to that Council.
You indicate in your statementthat there is a near void in commu
nication between the scientific community and the Government.
One of the stated reasons given by the administration for shifting
the science policy apparatusfrom the White House to the NSF was
because it desired to bridge that communications gap .
Do you see any evidence of increased contact with the Federal
science policymakers as the reorganization went into effect ? 1

Dr. SPRUGEL. Not at all,sir. 4

Senator TUNNEY. Why is that ?

Dr. SPRUGEL. I am not sure I know . The National Science Founda
tion is the agency you referred to, I think , as taking over this new role. 1

It seems to me they may not have the staff to accommodate this situa
tion - I believe that is what Mr. Carey was talking about.
Further, I don't know if the National Science Foundation wants
this role. Dr. Waterman , when he was Director of the Foundation
during its early years,shied away from the untenable position of NSF
being both judge and jury onscience matters among the Federal
agencies.
Perhaps the major problem , at the moment, is simply lack of per
sonnel to carry out this function adequately in the National Science
Foundation .
Senator TUNNEY. It was suggested by Mr. Carey that we might
consider as an alternative the separating of the survey of scientific
resources from technological resources for both practical anddefini
tional reasons and makeseparate assignments to NASA and NSF. DO
you have any opinion on that ?
I understand that in your responsibility as chief of the Illinois
natural history survey and president of the American Institute of
Biological Sciences you have had some experience in the areas of
surveys, and I am curious to know what your thoughts are on Mr.
Carey'ssuggestion.
Dr. SPRUGEL. You are referring to the separation of the survey and
the technology required ?
Senator TUNNEY. Right.
Dr. SPRUGEL. It really depends upon what you mean by the term
" survey."
It seems to me you have tohave both, and that they should be inter
related. Perhaps interrelated, but not dependent upon each other.
If separated, the survey will come up with informationgained from
another survey relative to available technological resources. I think
the same survey could identify the problems as well as the resources
available to solve these problems.
Am I correct in my interpretation of your question ?
 119

1
Perhaps in one sense they should be separated, but at the same time,
one is dependent upon the other.
Senator TUNNEY. So you feel that the survey, insofar as an institu
tional mechanism is concerned , should be separated from the agency
that establishes policy ?
2
Dr. SPRUGEL. I am not sure that I can say that, for the agencies that
2
establish policies, and I presume you are talking about the regulatory
agencies of the government, may contain , as well, the individuals who
have the expertise to plan and provide the input to the survey.
If I may refer to my own institution for a minute, we don't neces
7
sarily consider survey in terms of this definition. While we look at
$
the kinds of animals and plants that inhabit Illinois, with our other
hat, we identify the problems which concern these animals and plants
1
and develop solutions to rectify the difficulties.
If the two functions are separated, the activities of both have to be
very, very closely correlated .
Senator TUNNEY. I want to thank you very much. I appreciate your
thoughts.
Dr. SPRUGEL . Thank you, sir.
.
Senator TUNNEY. Our last witness is Mr. Arthur Hartford , chair
man, Engineering Manpower Commission, New York City.
5 STATEMENT OF ARTHUR F. HARTFORD, CHAIRMAN, ENGINEERING
]
MANPOWER COMMISSION
1
Mr. HARTFORD. It is Wilmington , Del. The commission is in New
York.
Senator TUNNEY. It is nice to see you.
2 Mr. HARTFORD. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to present the man
power part of S. 2495 .
The engineering manpower commission was established in 1951
다. under the engineers joint council, at the request of the Federal Gov
ernment, to serve as a focus for national technological manpower
problems. It is concerned with all aspects of the supply/demand situa
tion and the utilization of engineers, technologists, and technicians in
the national interest.
The commission itself is made up of 32 men and women appointed
because of their personal involvement in some aspect of manpower
activities,chosen from the widest possible range of engineering em
ployment and education.
The engineers joint council is a nonprofit scientific and education
al organization, made up of 38 federated engineering and technical
societies. Members of its committees and commissions serve without
compensation as a service to the engineering profession.
The engineering manpower commission is particularly aware of
the need for a comprehensive long -range scientific and technological
resources survey as contemplated by S. 2495. The Nation's principal
such resource is, of course, the knowledge and expertise of its engineers
and scientists, since science and technology can only be applied to na
tional needs by qualified people. A survey of national resources must
therefore include a current and continuing inventory of the Nation's
scientific and engineering manpower .
 120

The framework for such an inventory no longer exists since the ter
mination of the National Register of Scientific and Technical Person bad
nel in 1971. The Register, which had been maintained by the National L
Science Foundation since 1954, was discontinued as a result of a recom dore
mendation in the President's budget for fiscal year 1972, presumably
because of the high cost of maintaining it and the limited use then dir
being made of it. lic
Although the engineers' section of the Register -- the National En Con
gineers Register - had been officially terminated , Engineers Joint 2000

Council was able to adapt its mechanisms toconduct thenational sur T

vey of engineering unemployment sponsored by the National Science S
Foundation in the summer of 1971. Since then , however, no practical D
means has existed for obtaining an authoritative inventory of engineer cu
ing manpower. POS1
Scientific and engineering manpower statistics currently available with
from Federal agencies, suchas the Department of Labor, the National
Science Foundation , and the National Center for Educational Statis bige-
tics, fail in many important respects to provide the data base necessary J厂
for the solutionofsuch immediate and potential national problems as ques
man
the development of energy resources, the abatement and prevention of
pollution, recurrent technological unemployment, andthe maintenance CONG
of our economy in the face of disruptive actions by other nations. mate
We do not know with any real accuracy how many engineers and I
scientists there are in the United States, what their special capabilities phy
are, how they are being utilized, how many are unemployed and in tog
what areas, what future manpower needs are likely to be, or how the that
future supply of engineers and scientists can be brought into better upt
balance with these needs. SO
As examples of the deficiencies in our national data, two will suffice. larg
With regard to the employment of engineers, the most recent published aspe
data from the Bureau ofLabor Statistics are for 1970. They therefore SE
antedate the aerospace layoffs and unemployment problems of 1971 Nat
72, not to mentionthe more recent fuel and energycrisis, yet current 1971
assessments and projections of future manpower needs must be based coul
on such outdated information for lack of better data. M
Second, in connection with an inventory of scientific and engineer star
ing manpower, we have nothing more recent than the 1970 census data. orgo
In addition to being already 4 years old , census data on engineers are and
shockingly inaccurate. had
According to still unpublished findings of the National Science had
Foundation's 1972 post-censal survey , just over half of the people not
classified as engineers in the census enumeration actually met educa So
tional and occupational criteria consistent with professional engineer this
ing employment. mech
The following specific changes in the text of S. 2495 are submitted TOU
for the Committee's consideration. In order to assure the incorpora Se
tion of essential manpower data in the scope of the intended survey, VE
the Engineering Manpower Commission recommends that sections Ter
102 (a ) and 103(a) ( 1 ) be amplified to specify manpower as one of the it co
dev
science and technology resources to be surveyed and inventoried an
nually. a re
stud
It is also suggested that the composition of the Council - section
101 – be expanded to include qualified representatives of engineering
 121

and scientific professional organizations as well as the governmental

bodies already specified.
In summary,the Engineering Manpower Commission strongly en
dorses the establishment of a continuing national survey and inventory
of engineering and scientific manpower resources to help in effectively
directing the application of science and technologyto meet urgent pub
lic needs. Engineers Joint Council and the Engineering Manpower
Commission stand ready to assist in any way possible in furthering the
cooperation of the engineering community in this important purpose.
This concludes my formal remarks.
Senator TUNNEY. Thank you, Mr. Hartford.
Do you agree with the proposition that we could have a smaller
council but with an advisory Committee that would be broad in com
position, and would have various scientific disciplines represented
within the committee, and meeting on a regular basis and reporting
to the council as contrasted with the thought that we ought to have a
bigger council ?
Mr. HARTFORD. Our views, and this is not along the line of your
question, but I know you asked a question of this of the other gentle
man, we do have an opinion as to how the surveys are going to be
conducted,
matter
and there are many approaches, and it is a complicated
.
1 I do believe that you can I think there is a management philoso
5 phy that if you push down to the lower level of where you are going
1 to get the information, you may be able todo a better job of getting
2 that information as long as you have good communication channels
I up to the governing body.
So, yes ,I think you could stand to have smaller membership on the
largecouncil,so longastheyorganize so as totake care of the various
aspects of the survey's resources.
e Senator TUNNEY. Mr. Hartford , you mentioned the existence of a
National Register of Scientific and Technical Personnel from 1954 to
it 1971. Do you think the Register should be reestablished and if so , how
d could better use be made ofit ?
Mr. HARTFORD. I wasn't on the Commission when that first got
started, but to recall a little history, it was very slow in getting
1. organized and getting the results that wewere really looking for,
e and about the time that I did come on the Commission, we probably
had made one of the better studies through NSF, a contract that we
e had with them , and at about that time, of course, the funds were
l not available .
So I do believe we have learned since we were actively engaged in
this in the early 1960's up until the early 1970's, that we had a
mechanism by which, I think from now on, the cost of maintaining it
would be rather inexpensive.
Senator TUNNEY. And you think effective use could be made of it ?
Mr. HARTFORD. An effective use could be made of it. I think we
IS were going through a trial period ofhow to do it, and what should
it contain , and so on, but I think we did have quite a bit of information
1 developed, going through experimental stages to get this register on
a reasonable basis, and I know one of the studies, one of the last
1 studies made, I think, was very beneficial from the standpoint of
!
 122

knowing where we were and what we had, and if you needed to do

any shifting.
As you probably know , one of the organizations within the En
gineers' Joint Council or associated with it is the engineering coun
cil for professional development. They are involved in the guidance
and trying to help guidance people to get people going into the {
right kinds of disciplines and so on. That is, in the engineering field.
This is so important. I think it has been brought out by some of 3
the other testifiers that you have got to know , do you need more 10
chemical engineers, if you need fewer, and so on . I think these num G
bers that we are maintaining, the composition of our current force
and what comes out of this council , what the future is to be, then e

we can shift our manpower accordingly and through our other en 1

gineering agencies do the proper job in telling potential engineers

what direction in which to go. 16

Senator TUNNEY. How great were the widely -publicized engineer 1

I
.

ing unemployment problems in 1971 and 1972, and was the National
Register used in finding jobs for engineers that were laid off ?
Mr. HARTFORD . Yes, there was an establishment, and I think it was
through NSF, and wegot one of the contracts — no, I guess NASA had $
one. I am not sure of the governmental structure, but yes, there were
several agencies set up to retrain, to search out positions for laid -off 1a
engineers. th
I might like to correct one item that mas made, or one statement
that was made earlier this morning, that actually the unemployment th
of engineers as we define them in the engineeringmanpower commis
sion was not quite as high as the number, I think mentioned by our m
first testifier.
There were around 3 percent unemployed. But no matter. The fact
of the publicity of that, the enrollments really have gone down, as
was stated. It is about 30 percent in 2 years.
Senator TUNNEY. Do you think that enrollment is coming up?
Mr. HARTFORD . We see a plateau in the fall of 1973. The freshman
classes of 1972 and 1973 were essentially about the same. However, the
overall enrollment will have to slide down because of the great drop
we had in the freshman classes 2 yearspreviously.
So we do not foresee the changes in degrees coming out of college
increasing until probably the late 1970's.
Senator TUNNEY. You feel that it will go up ?
Mr. HARTFORD. Well, if we have hit the plateau, the last 2 years
indicate , as I say, that we are sort of bottoming out. We did make
a high spot survey because of the last meeting which our commis
sioners were all in attendance at, there was an indication in some local
areas where we thought the enrollment was slipping again because
of the energy crisis. This happened to be some of the schools in the
city areas, where maybe transportation was a problem for high school
classes and so on.
So we did make a very high spot survey of about 100 colleges just
very recently on the applications this year compared to ayear ago.
Fortunately, we were very happy with our findings. It looks like
about an 8 -percent increase, if all those applications become students.
Senator TUNNEY. It seems to me that the situation between engi
neering and science manpower supply and demand are completely
out of phase.
 123

Mr. HARTFORD . Very much so.

Senator TUNNEY. Then, do you see the need down the line for
trained personnel ?
Mr. HARTFORD, I think this council would be an excellent tool,
because of thinking of the future, knowing where we stand, of let
ting the general public know that we are going to have some shortages
in certain areas, and maybe some of the scientific areas that are being
overcrowded , and if we had the complete picture we could get the
students going in the right direction.
Senator TUNNEY. Do you have any expertise as to the amount of
dollars that it is going to take to conduct the survey function and
the planning functionof the legislation ? We provide $ 10 million for
fiscal year 1974–75. How much do you think it will take ?
Mr. 'HARTFORD. You mean for the overall technological survey of
these resources ?
Senator TUNNEY. Yes. Do you have any expertise in this area ?
Mr. HARTFORD . I really wouldn't be able to help you on that. From
a manpower standpoint, I don't think we are talking a great deal
of money. I don't know how you would use $10 million. I don't know
what portionmanpower would be of that.
We are talking, I think, because of some of the knowledge we
have now, that probably for half a million dollars, you could get
the new Register going and then maintain it after that for half of that.
Senator TUNNEY. The Register, yes, but we are not talking about
the register.
Mr. HARTFORD. Yes, you realize, but I am talking in terms of
manpower .
Senator TUNNEY. So the half million figure you use
Mr. HARTFORD. That is to get it going again and then to maintain
it , half of that.
Senator TUNNEY. The survey functions would be much broader
than that.
Mr. HARTFORD. Yes. I realize we are talking about the academic
side, the governmental side, industrial and so on. I just would have 1
no feel for that.
Senator TUNNEY. Well, thank you very much . We really appreciate
your testimony.
i
Without objection we will include in the record correspondence
we have received from professional societies, educators, industry, and
others on S. 2495.
This concludes today's hearing. The committee will stand in recess
to the call of the Chair .
[Whereupon , at 12:35 p.m. , the hearing was adjourned , subject to
the call of the Chair .]
I
IN

D
 APPENDIX

Correspondence received from professional societies, educators, industry, and

others on S , 2495 .
FAIRCHILD INDUSTRIES,
Germantown, Md. , October 8, 1973 .
Mír. R. F. ALLNUT,
Staff Director, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, Washington , D.C.
DEAR BOB : In your letter of September 27, you asked me for my comments on
the Magnuson Bill. I am not a very strong position weigh all of the implica
tions of the Magnuson Bill, but several thoughts have come to mind regarding it.
NASA , of course , has many skills and facilities that can do great things. How
ever, most of our societal ills cannot be solved by the use of these skills, and the
indiscriminate dumping of some of these problems on NASA's shoulders could
easily break NASA's back. While the country undoubtedly has many pressing
issues with relationship to the skills and facilities of NASA on which NASA could
make useful contributions as " ad hoc" problem solver, it would appear to me that
NASA's prime function - aeronautics and space must be protected against the
dangers of erosion and innundation. I think the Congress should continue to au
thorize and appropriate the NASA budget for NASA's traditional aeronautics and
space missions, and that additional assignments should be supported by addi
tional appropriations. My main concern would be that without adequate ramparts
NASA could get so swamped, and spread so thin, that its primary mission - space
and aeronautics — could be lost, setting the stage for a new Sputnik debacle.
I see much merit in seeing NASA's role widened, if it is done with great dis
cretion and care. I would not want to see NASA overwhelmed . I think the Ad
ministrator of NASA should be the ultimate authority to decide what additional
assignments NASA can or cannot take on.
I will be interested in staying abreast of developments with respect to this bill.
Yours sincerely,
WERNHER VON BRAUN .

ROCHESTER & PITTSBURGH COAL Co. ,

Indiana, Pa. , October 26, 1973 .
Mr. GILBERT W. KEYES ,
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington , D.C.
DEAR MR. KEYES : At the request of Messrs. Robert Mayer and William P. Miller,
Jr. , I have reviewed the proposed Senate Bill 2495 with respect to the establish
ment of a Technology Resources Survey .
I would not recommend the passage of this bill for the reason that the Congress
has already passed a Technology Assessment Act and if Chairmen of Committees
of the Congress want information of this type they can properly refer to the
Office of Technology Assessment.
In establishing the Technology Assessment Act Congress was critical of many
departments overlapping and being responsible to the Executive Branch. This
bill is a proliferation of that practice which in effect would permit the Executive
Branch to negate ordegrade the Technology Assessment Act.
Very truly yours,
C. J. POTTER .
( 125 )

32-205474 -9
 126

INSTRUMENT SOCIETY OF AMERICA, FOD

Pittsburgh, Pa. , November 1 , 1973. ery
Mr. GILBERT W. KEYES, inc

Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Russell Senate Office Building, TI

Washington , D.C. she
DEAR MR. KEYES : Mr. William P. Miller, Jr. of the American Society of Mechan offo
exa
ical Engineers and the Engineers Joint Council Technology Assessment Panel
has supplied me with a copy of Senate Bill S. 2495 and requested that I supply plai
comments on it to you. thi
I
The statement of findings and policy are basically sound although I am not Ex
sure that it is really “ the responsibility of the Federal Government to insure
the full and efficient use of such scientific and technological resources.” I find it and
difficult to envision exactly what is meant by “ a comprehensive national tech que
nological survey ." ase
The selection of NASA as the operating agency in this area is well advised. The
agency has outstanding technical and managerial capability. It has an excellent
interface with high technology segments of American industry and should be able leg
to undertake and push to completion the solution of the most complex domestic pro
of
technological problems. an
It appears that the bill and S. 1686 introduced by Senator Dominick are at
tec
tempting to accomplish similar goals although utilizing different techniques. Of
course, the legislation establishing the Office of Technology Assessment also
touches on how to use technology in today's environment, I feel that both S. 1686
and S. 2495 should be studied very carefully and possibly combined .
Both bills in their present form are extremely broad and make available very
substantial funding with very few specifics or even criteria for how the money
is to be spent. The $ 200,000,000 authorization for NASA in S. 2495 is very difficult
to justify.
These comments are based upon my personal opinion and are supplied in re
sponse to Mr. Miller's request. They do not represent a position or opinion of RE
either the Instrument Society of America or the Engineers Joint Council.
Very truly yours,
JOHN K. STOTZ, Jr. , E
ISA Representative, EJC / TAP.

I
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, I
DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING AND MECHANICS, t
Minneapolis, Minn ., November 2, 1973. t
Mr. GILBERT W. KEYES,
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Russell Senate Office Building, 1
Washington , D.C.
DEAR MR. KEYES : Bill Miller of ASME has sent me a copy of S. 2495 for com
ment. My reaction is that of an active mechanical engineer as I have not had
time to survey my associates in ASME. I subscribe very heartily to the intent
of the bill which seems to be to use the system analysis techniques which have
been developed by the aerospace community for critical domestic problems. I
particularly like the establishment of the National Technology Resources Council
to monitor the activities of the office of Technology Application and other agen
cies. On balance then, I can heartily support both the intent and the structure
of the bill .
I am a little concerned about placement of this office in NASA unless that
agency can be persuaded to be less parochial in its overall technical activities.
What it has done, it has done extremely well but, like all of us, it tends to
concentrate very narrowly. For example :
( a ) For years, until congress insisted otherwise, aeronautic activities were
neglected in favor of space activities. Very little research was done on improve
ments for subsonic aircraft during this time.
( 6) Until some of the scientific and the engineering community insisted, in
sufficient attention was paid to the ecological impact of the SST commercial
transport. It is not obvious that sufficient unbiased attention is being paid to this
problem even now.
( 0) NASA thinks that the problem of commercial air transport begins and
ends at the airport. The traveler is interested in start to finish time, comfort
and convenience. This means ground transportation, long walks for elderly
 127

people, delays and baggage problems. For many short routes, frequent fast ground
service would be preferable but some means must be found to integrate this into
an overall system .
These are three examples of problems within the current charter of NASA
where their technical coverage was not complete. There are others where their
efforts have led or are leading to useful applications in other fields. One shining
nel example is pavement grooving. Another is the use of jet engines for peak power
5 plants. What is needed is strong, constant, monitoring to encourage broad
thinking.
not I am very ignorant of the usual arrangements between Congressional and
ure Executive agencies. I hope some effort is made to ensure that the Office of Tech
lit nology Assessment and the GAO have complete access to the technical findings
ch and background data of these contemplated activities. I would also raise the
question as to whether a name change is in order to indicate the increased scope
the assigned to NASA.
ent Let me commend the Senators and their staffs for a forward looking piece of
ble legislation which can have a profound influence on the future technological
stic progress of our country. I would call your attention to the recent testimony
of William D. Carey of Arthur D. Little before the House Committee on Science
at and Astronautics in which he deplores the piecemeal way we are approaching
Of technological development.
also Very truly yours,
ROBERT PLUNKETT,
686
Professor, Aeronautical and Engineering Mechanics,
Hers
Vice President, A.S.M.E.
iner
cult
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS ,
re Allentown, Pa. , November 9, 1973.
Re S.2495 and Mr. W. P. Miller's letter of October 16, 1973.
Mr. GILBERT W. KEYES,
Committee on Aeronautics and Space Sciences,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington , D.C.:
P.
I have reviewed various aspects of the subject bill, which proposes to amend
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, and am forwarding the com
ments to you as Mr. Miller requested in his letter. The purpose of the amend
ment is to set up a Technology Resources Council in the Office of the President
to, among other things, make a technological resources survey and recommenda
3. tions to the presidentconcerning domestic problems.
In general, I concur with the intent of the bill to apply NASA expertise to
ing. the solution of domestic problems. However, I believe this should be done by
shifting NASA effort and authorizations from aeronautics and space to domestic
problems.
320 More specifically, I concur with Sec. 403 which provides for a survey of tech
nological resources, keeping the survey up to date and the staff for doing so.
re However, I do not concur with Section 404 ( a ) ( 1 ) which permits appointment
without regard to the General Schedule of pay rates. I think this job can be
done well within the rates.
Section 405 establishes an Office of Technology Application (OTA ) within
NASA. Presumably Section 6( b) provides NASA with $ 200,000,000 to do this.
I believe the bill should provide for setting up OTA within NASA but by shifting
at some present NASA effort and authorizations from aeronautic and space effort
S. to domestic problems, rather than adding $ 200,000,000 in new authorizations
and expenditures.
Section 405 mentions the OTA is to be composed of the Office of Technology
Utilization ( OTU ) and the Office of Application (OA ) . I find these expressions
synonymous and confusing.
I believe that if these offices are going to be mentioned in the bill, their
activities should be defined .
In conclusion, although I agree with the purpose of the bill, I cannot concur
with its method of implementing that purpose and, hope you find my specific
comments constructive.
Sincerely yours,
E. W. NELSON .
 128

ILLINOIS NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY ,

Urbana, Ill., January 31 , 1974.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON ,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
Hon. FRANK E, Moss,
Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, Washington , D.C.
DEAR SENATORS MAGNUSON AND Moss : Thank you for your letter of January 23
inviting comments on Senate bill S. 2495, the " Technology Resources Survey
and Applications Act.”
The American Institute of Biological Sciences, with central offices at 3900
Wisconsin Avenue N.W. , Washington, D.C. , will be delighted to respond with
a formal statement of views based on detailed study of the original and modified
versions of the bill. In the meantime, I'd like to offer some personal, “ off-the-cuff”
comments.
Many biological scientists have grave concern about the near void in com
munication between the scientific community and the higher echelons of our
government. While the situation seems particularly desperate at the present
time, our government has long needed a more effective mechanism for identifying
national domestic problems and dealing with them in a meaningful manner before
they reach crisis proportions. In the absence of such a mechanism, we are con
stantly reacting to crisis situations which could have been avoided had vigorous
corrective action been taken earlier. For a variety of reasons, even the earlier
Federal Council for Science and Technology, Office of Science and Technology,
and the President's Science Advisory Committee did not always function well
in this respect. The Office of Technology Assessment is only now being established
and , thus, its performance as a true early warning system is difficult to predict.
Should its activities become such as to discourage maximum cooperation between
the Legislative and Executive sectors in efforts to resolve major domestic prob
lems, the effectiveness of the OTA may be questioned.
Information of developing domestic problems sometimes becomes known early
to individuals within the Federal establishment. However, it is often most
difficult to obtain an early and informed evaluation of the threats at those
levels of the government with sufficient influence to initiate remedial measures.
For example, individual grass - root scientists began to call attention to the
precursors of many of our current domestic crises many years ago, and clues to
developing environmental quality and energy supply problems were already
well recognized by scientists of the Office of Naval Research, National Science
Foundation and other agencies in the early 1950's. Efforts to establish the credi
bility of these threats at higher levels of the government were unsuccessful, and
the warnings continued unheeded for many years.
The revised version of S. 2495 , in particular, appears to be a thoughtful effort
to involve the nation's scientific and technical resources more directly in the
solution of domestic problems. Certainly , one can find little fault with the
(
contents of Section 2. One wonders, however, if the composition of the Council
as proposed in either the original or the modified S. 2495 will be any more .
effective than was the earlier Federal Committee for Science and Technology.
The proposed Council would be composed essentially of department heads or
representatives of lesser governance-oriented interests, each with his own agency's
interests to protect or promote and, in many cases, each with allegiance to es
tablished policies of the Executive Branch. The possibility of a clearly unbiased
and unrestricted evaluation being made of domestic problems under these con N

ditions seems rather improbable. While the Council is required to report on its
activities to the Congress and include recommendations for possible legislative
action , the Council, with the membership proposed, must still be a child of and
reflect the partisan interests of the President's Office.
My remaining comments pertain to the modified S. 2495 which , in my judg
ment, is the most suitable of the two versions. One might wish to modify " Func
tions of the Council" such that page 6, line 13, expresses the sense of “ . . criti
cal eristing and potential domestic problems .” and page 6, line 22 through
24, state something like “... to the most appropriate Federal agency or com
bination of Federal agencies for solution , with authorization to draw upon
necessary talents or skills available within the government or private sectors."
Perhaps page 7, lines 6 and 7, might be modified to read “ ... submit a common
report the President and to the Congress 1
The deadline date of “ September 1, 1975 ," in page 7, line 15, would appear to
be somewhat impractical in terms of achieving a meaningful, indepth Survey.
 129

Perhaps "September 1, 1977" might be more realistic. In the same paragraph ,

page 7, line 20, you might wish to consider “ . . . Nation's critical existing and
anticipated domestic problems. ” Continuing with Sec. 103, page 8, line 3, might
be changed to read “ . application of existing science and technology or the
conduct of additional research ; ..." and page 8, line 6, to include " . . . critical
existing andanticipated domestic problems, .

Perhaps, Title II – The Office of Technology Application, Sections 201, 202

and 204 ( b ) should be deleted from the bill and the provisions of Sec. 201 ( b–1 )
through (6-5 ) be applied to any Federal agency considered appropriate to carry
out the requests and recommendations of the Council. Specification of “ aerospace"
firms in page 11, line 8, is , perhaps, unnecessary and undesirable. My basis for
these suggestions is that, while NASA has , indeed, performed engineering mira
cles in applying technology to the solution of problems associated with space
travel, there are those in the scientific community who believe the solution of
many of our existing and impending domestic problems requires a greater breadth
of scientific and other talents and skills than may be found in the NASA
organization .
Few would question , perhaps, that NASA engineers can make a remarkable
contribution to the solution of many domestic problems and, surely, NASA has
abundantly sought the advice of segments of the scientific community when that
advice was considered necessary. Nevertheless, there are many who consider
the NASA success story to be one in which engineering accomplishments have
far exceeded the agency's scientific achievements. A number of other Federal
agencies have substantially different inhouse scientific and research capabili
ties which may be more pertinent to many domestic problems. Finally , one
wonders how the diverse and exceptional talents of the National Science Founda
tion and its relatively new responsibilities for research applied to national needs
would fit into the picture if major responsibility for related activity is assigned
to a new Office of Technology Application within NASA.
While the preceding comments may appear to be presumptuous, I assume your
desire to develop a highly effective mechanism for focusing the nation's scientific
and technological talents on the solution of existing and anticipated domestic
problems is as genuine as my own. Perhaps, then, you will not mind if I offer
some additional thoughts for consideration . Your ability to evaluate the political
realities and operational feasibility of these notions on the Washington scene is,
of course, far greater than mine.
Suppose a Federal Council for Science and Technology and another group
somewhat similar to the old President's Science Advisory Committee were re
established by statute as coequals in the Executive Office of the President. The
committees might have investigative responsibilities similar to those assigned
them in earlier regimes but not the same orientation of reporting channels. Pro
vision might be made for the committees to work in concert on issues. Suppose,
instead, that these two bodies, representing both the Federal establishment and
the non-Federal scientific and engineering community, were to report via a
Chairman in common ( perhaps a Science Advisor or Special Assistant to the
President, established by statute ) to a National Science and Technology Re
sources Council also established by statute in the Executive Office of the Presi
dent, as is proposed in S. 2495 ( revised ) .
Suppose , as well, the membership of the National Science and Technology
Resources Council included the Vice President ( Chairman ) , the Speaker of the
House of Representatives ( Vice Chairman ), individual senior scientists repre
senting the Biological Sciences, Medical Sciences, Physical Sciences and the
Social Sciences, a representative of the engineering professions, a representative
of industry , the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chair
man or Director of the 0.T.A. , the Chairmen of the Councils of Environmental
Quality and Economic Advisors, and, perhaps ex officio , the Chairman in common
of FCST and PSAC ( Science Advisor or Special Assistant for Science ) . The non
government members might be appointments made on a nonpartisan basis by
the President and confirmed by the Senate for staggered terms of 5 or 6 years
toprovide certain continuity from the private sector.
Would such an organizational structure, operating within the context of
pertinent functional and administrative provisions of S. 2495 ( revised ) and
supported by a variety of subcommittees advisory to the FCST and the PSAC,
provide the elaborate but effective mechanisms by which current and anticipated
domestic problems can be identified, evaluated and their solutions developed ?
With access to so much scientific talent in the government and private sectors,
the development of a Science and Technology Survey should not be a problem .
 130

Would such a group have the “ clout ” necessary to assure attention to its recom 1
mendations at the highest levels of government ?
We appreciate the opportunity for A.I.B.S. formal comment and my own
informal observations concerning S. 2495. 02

Respectfully yours,
GEORGE SPRUGEL, JR .,
President, American Institute of
Biological Sciences.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS,
Cambridge, Mass., February 5, 1974.
Mr. ROBERT F. ALLNUTT,
Staff Director, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. ALLNUTT : I have read both versions of S. 2495 and do not feel
really competent to advise on alternative methods of conducting scientific and
technological resources surveys. The trouble is that most people are expert in
at most one or two branches of science and engineering, so their perspective
is professionally limited. People who do claim to have some special ability
tosee science or technology as a whole are usually exaggerating quite a lot.
If you don't mind my saying so, I think the bill takes too simple a view of the
capacity of technology to solve our most pressing domestic problems. The ex
ample of the space program is misleading on three counts. First, that was pri
marily a scientific -technological problem in a sense in which the housing problem
or the urban transportation problem is not. In the second place, the Congress
was less given to worrying about the cost of the space program than it has
shown itself to be when it comes to housing or mass transit. Finally, on the
few occasions when it has been tried, my impression is that the aerospace
community has not shown itself to be particularly good at other things.
I think it would be more productive if the Committee were to narrow its
scope to some important class of problems— housing and urban transportation
are merely two examples and consider ways to mobilize a substantial scientific
technological effort on one such field, rather than on all at once.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT M. Solow. TE

ti
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERS, INC.,
Oxon Hill, Md.
Mr. GILBERT W. KEYES,
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington , D.C.
DEAR MR. KEYES : As one of the member societies of the Engineers Joint
Council- Technology Assessment Panel, we are responding to your request for
comments on S. 2495. Although we are in accord with the bill's intent, some
of the language leaves it open to interoperations which, in our judgment, would
detract from its effective implementation. Examples of our concern follow and
are keyed to the page on line numbers of the bill itself. T

Page Line ( 8 )
011
2 6-8 The Federal Government in our opinion does not have the
responsibility for the efficient USE of scientific and tech
nological human resources beyond those in its employ, any ta
f
more than it has for doctors, lawyers, welders, carpenters, a
or any other skill . To imply otherwise is to suggest that
0
similar skilled resources employed in the private sector
may be directly or indirectly under Federal control. Such
a condition, even by implication, except during National 501
emergencies is intolerable and runs counter to our way of
free enterprise.
The Federal Government does, however, have a responsibility CE
VE
to prioritize the critical problems in the domestic areas, as
T
intended by the bill, and provide the necessary environment th
which will encourage aggressive private participation. in
We firmly believe that once the domestic objectives are suffi
ciently defined and prioritized , the private sector will ag I
gressively pursue them . C
 131

Page
2 Line ( 8 )
13-16 We are concerned that this may have already been done by
either the NSF, NAS, NAE , Department of Commerce or
Labor.
again, we believe it is currently the role, and should
2 17–20 Here
be the policy of the Federal Government to clearly identify
areas for the application of our scarce scientific and techni
cal resources . But, the Federal Government should not be
responsible for the applications of such resources , except
of course , those in its employ .
3 6 Are the terms " available " and " used ” intended to apply to
other Government agencies ( Federal, state , and local) as
well as the private sector ? If so, how do we protect our
National interests when dealing with domestically owned ,
but internationally operated , corporations ? In today's world
market, we believe our scientific and technological innova
tions should be propriety to this Nation until such time as
we may be willing to profitably share or exchange results.
Additionally , what financial terms will the NASA expertise
be made available ( e.g., cost reimbursable, gratis ) ? In the
private sector is it intended to make NASA's expertise avail
able on an industry or company basis. We are concerned
that if other than an industry basis, individual companies
could gain unfair competitive advantage.
4 14 Somewhere, we believe, the innovations generated within the
Department of Defense, but not solely defense oriented ,
should be represented through the Secretary of Defense .
Additionally, the National Academy of Engineers should
be identified .
5 18 Is not this review and evaluation function also the domain
of Congress and the General Accounting Office ? If so, the
Comptroller General should be added to Title IV, Section
401 ( a ) , ( similar to the Office of Technology Assessment )
and his resources augmented to carry out this more technical
review and evaluation .
6 4 Same as above.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your request and add oui con
tributions to the others who have joined with the EJC / TAP to flesh out the
best technological legislation possible.
Sincerely yours,
F. L. HAYNES,
Director, Government Liaison .

CHASE ECONOMETRIC ASSOCIATES, INC .,

New York, N.Y., February 7, 1974 .
Mr. ROBERT F. ALLNUTT,
Staff Director, Senate Committee on Aeronautics and Space Sciences, Wash
ington , D.C.
DEAR MR. ALLNUTT : In reply to your letter of January 23, I have reviewed
S. 2495, “ The Technological Resources Survey and Applications Act” of which
you sent copies to me.
As you may know, the work which I have done here has indicated that sub
stantial benefits have accrued to the economy as a result of the activities
of NASA during the past 15 years, and I believe that NASA has developed a
capability in addressing and solving problems which could be of direct benefit
to the solution of critical problems that will continue to face the United States
during coming decades.
Regarding the specific mechanism for conducting scientific and technological
surveys, I must first say the mobility of resources in the scientific and develop
mental areas is so great as to make the results of such a survey misleading.
Certanily a scientific resources survey conducted in 1956 would not have re
vealed the resources which ultimately have placed man in space. Similarly,
those resources which can be directed toward other problems may now exist
in unrelated or only tangentially related areas.
With this in mind, I believe that the Bill which has been referred to your Com
mittee should undertake the following two tasks. First , a survey of scientific and
developmental research facilities in the United States in both the public and
 132
The
private sectors. Such a survey could be conducted by the Resources Council pro der ta
posed in your Bill. In the public sector, I believe that people like NSF probably ize 30.
have adequate information concerning university facilities and governmental raches
facilities for scientific research ; in the private sector, however, access to such
information will be more difficult to obtain . I would suggest a survey of cor a they
porations conducted by the Bureau of the Census as contractor to the Council are the
for this purpose. As you may know, the Census regularly contacts virtually all sation i
firms in the United States for information regarding employment and output. It al se
would, therefore, be feasible for them to ask for information concerning the Mish,
extent of a R&D facility , the size of the R&D facility, and the general nature of
the activities undertaken by such a facility. The results of the survey would be
best stored as a computer accessed data base to list facilities available in any
particular area , remembering critical comments made above. kislati
NASA's strength in your undertaking is its ability to define a path to the solu
tion of a problem . The Council, in conjunction with other government bodies,
should define particular problems which it considers critical to America's develop
ment and welfare and assign to NASA the task of developing a feasible program
using its systems analysis capabilities for the solution or mitigation of these
problems. In so doing, NASA could , of course, utilize this extensive survey data
bank which was developed by the Council and, moreover , would enable the Coun
cil to propose specific legislation addressed to specific problems. TARRE
As you may be able to tell from these comments, I am personally more an Chairi
advocate of the " pull” theory in science policy than perhaps the authors of this FRASE
Bill were ; however, as you are painfully aware, in the current economic climate
Congress should be critical of any legislation which cannot identify specific S.S
benefits. Noting that this Bill asks for $200 million for NASA , I beliere that it DE:
would be particularly important to emphasize the application of the resources addre
survey to specifically identified problems. if the
You may also want to talk to Stephen Berger, who is director of Nelson Rocke Th
feller's Commission on Critical Choices for America regarding this proposed desir
legislation . siste
Should you wish to contact me further, please feel free to call me at in ca
( 215 ) 667–7350 . fele
Yours sincerely ,
TV
STEVEN J. ELGART,
rad
Vice President.
year
with
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, also
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS , Und
St. Louis, Mo. , January 28, 1974 .
Mr. ROBERT F. ALLNUTT, Ilea
Staff Director, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. ALLNUTT : Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on
S. 2495. As someone who has devoted much of the past two decades — in gov
ernment, industry and academia—to the problems of applying the nation's scien
tific and technological resources to important national objectives, I am delighted
to see your Committee making the progress that it is. HO
It is in that spirit that I offer the following very frank comments : .
1. I am concerned that the contemplated surveys will overlap the existing TV
efforts along very similar lines by the National Science Foundation and the Na
tional Bureau of Standards. Perhaps the objectives of S. 2495 could be achieved
by expanding the existing activities of the two agencies, and transferring to them il
the pertinent work being done in NASA. Alternatively, the entire effort could
be consolidated in NASA. But merely setting up competing and duplicating 10
efforts would, I believe, be wasteful and inefficient. d
2. The proposed Council , it seems to me, would be another one of those admin
istrative nightmares where nobody is responsible for anything -- except a lot of
paper shuffling. Haven't we had enough experience with the Space Council,
Oceanic Council, etc. , etc. ? I am mindful of the need to involve the various agen
cies and interest groups, and there are many good ways of doing that. But this
type of compromise which seems to be favored by busy legislators only papers
over the problem . There is no substitute for putting one man or woman in charge
of the operation - full -time. Otherwise, nobody will be accountable to the Con
gress, or the public.
 133

3. The authorized amounts are too generous, in terms of getting a new agency
under way ( and no doubt insufficient once it gets underway) . Between now and
June 30, 1975, the new agencies will — or should - be busy thinking through ap
proaches, developing procedures, and going through the birth pains of any new
governmental undertaking. The surveys won't be finished before then , so how
can they sensibly contract out $200 million during that time period ? At the least,
give them the fiscal year '75 to do the surveys. Then - hopefully with the infor
mation in hand—they will have some basis for awarding the large contracts in
fiscal year 76. Otherwise, the results, I am afraid, will be predictable -- another
crash, wasteful, and inconclusive undertaking.
Although these remarks may sound harsh , they reflect the great concern that
the important objectives of S. 2495 and they are worthy and important - be
accomplished in a creditable manner. The opportunity presented in the proposed
legislation may not come again for a long time.
Sincerely yours,
MURRAY L. WEIDENBAUM ,
Professor,

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS,

New York, N.Y., February 21 , 1974 .
WARREN MAGNUSON ,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
FRANK E. Moss ,
Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senato, Washington , D.C.
DEAR SENATORS MAGNUSON AND Moss : Your letter dated January 23, 1974,
addressed to Mr. Joseph Martin has been sent to me as the incoming President
of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers for 1974 for reply.
The concept of conducting scientific and technological resources surveys is a
desirable one from our point of view. We believe that a need exists to develop a
system of man - power impact statements for engineering and scientific man -power
in connection with each of the major budget expenditures contemplated by the
federal government.
With the four year lag time between initiation of college level training and
graduation of a starting professional engineer or scientist ( i.e. , as much as seven
years for advanced degrees ), longer term forecasts of national needs for people
with these skills are important to proper planning on the part of universities and
also employers. Consequently your idea of a ten year projection , is most desirable.
Updating on an annual basis also seems justified .
Please be assured that the American Institute of Chemical Engineers will be
pleased to cooperate with your committees in whatever fashion you feel desirable.
Yours sincerely,
I. LEIBSON ,
President, AIChE .

INTERNATIONAL UNION , UNITED AUTOMOBILE ,

AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Detroit, Mich., February 21, 1974.
Hon, WARREN MAGNUSON ,
U.S. Senate ,
Washington , D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON : Thank you for your recent letter regarding the
Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act.” As you know , I am very
interested in this legislation and appreciative of your initiative in proposing it.
As you will understand, I am primarily interested in the thrust of the bill
which would commit NASA to apply its technological advantages to resolving
domestic problems having an adequate authorization to permit them to do so
effectively. I think your bill would achieve those objectives.
If you desire additional comment on the technicalities of the bill, I suggest
you have your staff contact our legislative director, Jack Beidler, at our Wash
ington office.
Sincerely ,
LEONARD WOODCOCK,
President.
 134

NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS,

Washington , D.C., February 27, 1994.
Hon. FRANK E. Moss,
Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, Washington , D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : By letter of January 23, 1974, you requested our com
ments on S. 2495. We are appreciative of the opportunity to supply them to you.
This measure would amend the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 4

so as to provide for application of NASA's scientific and technological expertise

to the solution of domestic problems. It would create a long-range survey of 1

technological resources, including existence of unemployed technologists ; provide

an inventory of critical domestic problems susceptible to resolution by the appli 1
cation of science and technology ; and, provide an organization within NASA to F
carry our programs thus identified .
America's engineers have historically supported the concept of "technology
transfer.” It promotes the public's interest, aids business, provides new jobs for
the unemployed and better jobs for the underemployed, makes optimum use of 1
tax expenditures while increasing tax revenues at the same time, and solves 1
problems which have either no current solutions or merely inadequate ones. En
gineers would also support the thrust of S. 2495 for the same reasons.
The bill's Policy Declaration includes a finding to the effect that the scientific
and technical resources of the United States can and should be used more effec
tively and efficiently to solve critical domestic problems and which , when properly
applied and directed , could meet many major public needs. We wholeheartedly
agree.
Engineers agree with that section of the measure's findings that more sys
tematic approach to analysis and planning is needed in order to achieve full and
efficient use of the nation's technological resources ; and, that a comprehensive
long-range resource survey would most certainly assist in the definition and
execution of such approach .
S. 2495 would establish a National Technological Resources Council in the
Office of the President directed to develop a program to identify scientific and E
technological resources, including manpower which is available but presently
unused, for the solution of critical domestic problems. Through a new NASA 1
Office of Technology Application , responsibility would be assumed for such prob
lems' resolution by the application of scientific and technological expertise. This
is a commendable approach to the need for systemizing the bill's purpose.
Several things do occur to us, however, in areas where we believe the organiza
tional scructure might be strengthened . First, it would appear highly desirable
to include both within the Council framework and within the specific problem
application functioning a broader representation of state and local government
officialdom . It is here at the grassroots level where such problems are best iden
tifiable and where the applications of solutions are most meaningfully perceived.
Second is the obvious need to include the expertise of organizations representing
the scientific, engineering, and other technological components of our society in
these activities. Perhaps a statutory provision could be inserted requiring the
Council and the new NASA Office to consult with representatives of engineering
and other technological societies during the course of discharging their assigned
functions.
Finally , we think care should be exercised to safeguard against the possible
use of this legislation as authority for government interference in the provision
of services by private firms or individuals. The addition of a wholly new section
to S. 2495 could alleviate this possibility by providing language including the
concept that : " Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authority to provide a
service available from private technical services, professional consultants, or
private institutions."
We would be pleased to assist your staff in perfecting the measure's provisions,
or in any other way you might deem appropriate. And we thank you again for
the opportunity to supply these observations and suggestions.
Very truly yours,
PAUL H. ROBBINS, P.E.,
Executive Director.
 135

SPACE DIVISION,
NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL,
Downey, Calif., March 4, 1974.
Mr. ROBERT ALLNUTT,
Staff Director, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR BOB : Your letter to Doc Watson asking for comments on S. 2495, the
" Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act,” was forwarded to me for
assessment and comments. I welcome this opportunity for it relates to the posi
tion Rockwell International took in our testiomny before the Committee on
Aeronautical and Space Sciences on September 27, 1973. I refer both to the com
ments of William B. Bergen, President of the North American Aerospace Group
of Rockwell International, and to Section 4 of the written testimony we sub
mitted on the same date.
You may recall at that time we said, “ The ( NASA ) could probably undertake,
with some modification of internal structure and interagency working agree
ments , the additional task of lead technology 'problem -solver for the govern
ment.” Of course, we made a strong point in our testimony to emphasize that for
a number of reasons — most of them either political, economic or market re
lated — the NASA /aerospace resource is unable to deal with all of our social
and urban problems. But, it can apply to many, and it is already participating
in a number of areas where the nation is turning to advanced technology for
solution of pressing national problems. We can intensify and perhaps broaden the
application of this capability if we are guided by the Apollo lesson — that mean
ingful solutions to major national needs frequently require large, fully - funded
efforts under positive control of a single agency .
With this in mind, we made two specific recommendations in our testimony : ( 1 )
NASA's role as lead technology “ problem -solver" for the government should
be formally established ; and ( 2 ) NASA should be authorized additional re
sponsibility and resources to bring selected technologies to the prototype hard
ware status of marketable products. The advantages are twofold. Within the
government, other agencies would be provided with competent, experienced
management to develop a unified systematic approach to the development of
technology for the country's needs. Externally, the government marketplace
for advanced technology for solving national problems would become clear, busi
ness opportunities would be more certain, and the application of industry and
university talent could be more positively channelled.
I think the working draft of the proposed bill comes very close to implement
ing these recommendations. The policy declaration statingit to be the Federal
government's policy to " foster the application of scientific and technological
resources of the United States in the resolution of critical domestic problems "
is a clean and vigorous statement ; Section 201 specifies the expanded role to be
played by NASA ; and Section 202 appropriately amends the National Aeronau
tics and Space Act of 1958. With but one qualification, therefore, I heartily en
dorse the working draft version of S.2495. My only reservation concerns the
$ 200 million the bill gives NASA for GFY 1975. I trust this would be added to
total NASA funding and not represent a reallocation within the $ 3.247 billion
budget plan now before Congress.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Yours truly ,
J. F. MADEWELL ,
Director, Shuttle Applications,
Space Shuttle Program , Space Division,
 136

NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE ,

Washington, D.C., March 11 , 1974. Hon. W
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON , S. der
Chairman , Committee on Commerce, Tashin
Dirksen , Senate Office Building, DEAR
Washington, D.C.
That la
Hon. FRANK E. Moss, Lother
Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
che mi
old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. drait le
DEAR MR. CHAIRMEN : Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review S. The
2495, the “ Technology Resources Survey and Application Act” . I relayed giving ta] Tesis
you my comments until after this bill was reviewed by the National Governors'
the mo
Conference Task Force on Transportation, Commerce and Technology. They did C'nited
meet last week and briefly discussed your proposed mechanism for conducting tions to
long-range surveys of technology resources and the resolution of domestic prob doubt a
lems through specific application of these resources. Some
The National Governors' Conference recognizes the tremendous new technologi the Ext
cal discoveries by the United States in many fields including medicine, communi inthe
cation , transportation and data proces Federal investment in programs such consist
as space exploration and domestic related research , involve large sums. Because directii
of this public investment, technical discoveries should become available for the Ex
maximum public benefit. The federal government is a major supporter of pro that me
grams which generate new technologies. There should be a program at the federal which
level to identify and document the opportunities and problems created by these lic ade
developments . A vital part of this information system is channels of direct com mental
munication between those creating new technology and those seeking to adapt and for the
apply it to public purposes . The National Governors' Conference supports federal of such
and state government actions designed to increase the attention being paid to such a
domestic problems by the research and development community of the Nation , and confid
supports the dedication of federal government resources in support of problem plishir
oriented research designed to provide policy analysis and options to state govern
approa
ment decision -makers. I believe that your bill is designed to accomplish this. siento
S. 2495 would provide for state and local government input to national science Scient
policy . We
I note that Title I would establish in the Executive Office of the President, the
National Science and Technology Resources Council to be composed of the mem sembl
bers of the Federal Council for Science and Technology ( FCST ) , as well as a mem there
ber of the National Governors' Conference, A Council of State Governments rolec
report " Power to the States” specifically recommends that federal-state tech proba
nology requirements procedure should be set up under the guidance of the The
Federal Council for Science and Technology, through which the user needs of forms
state government can be assembled and coordinated with available technology. NASA
I would hope, however, that this legislation would provide the means to in stress
crease the influence of FCST on national science policy and R & D priorities. The respo
States must assist in identifying and describing problems of importance which agene
could be favorably affected by application of technology, and therefore, I am Space
pleased that the National Governors' Conference will be a member of the Council. tion
Your program has the potential of focusing more attention on the application techn
of federal technology resources on state and local problems. The existing or both
ganizational frame work of the federal government for science and technology abant
is not particularly well suited to a cooperative federal-state - local relationship. desira
Sixteen major agencies, and a variety of lesser ones, are in the research and the s
development business. Counting the separate components of these major agen itself
cies, the universe of federal R & D dispensing bodies probably approaches one Ih
hundred . Each has its own ideas, constituency, language, methods, procedures, tion .
and way of life. As you well know, from the viewpoint of state and local gov Ple
ernment, this is a very difficult system to work with . To the extent that this new
mechanism can serveto influence and orient federalR & D priorities to state local
needs, a major breakthrough will have been accomplished.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on S. 2495 .
Sincerely,
CHARLES A. BYRLEY.
 137

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ,

Washington , D.C., March 12, 1974.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON : Our comments on S. 2495 are being submitted some
what later than we had planned, mainly because of time constraints imposed by
another assignment we have had for a Congressional committee. We hope that
they will prove useful in connection with the joint committee consideration of the
draft legislation now under way.
The comments we have received from Academy members consulted on this bill
express generalagreement with the basic intent of the legislation “ to provide for
the more effective utilization of the scientific and technological resources of the
United States in the solution of critical domestic problems. .” However , reac
tions to the provisions for accomplishing this purpose have evidenced considerable
doubt about the administrative machinery to implement the legislation .
Some of our members have reservations about the proposed establishment in
the Executive Office of the “ National Science and Technology Resources Council."
On the one hand , these reservations reflect a concern that this arangement is in
consistent with Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973 which went in the opposite
direction, removing responsibility for leadership in science and technology from
the Executive Office and vesting it in the National Science Foundation . Whether
that move was right or wrong, sufficient time has not been allowed to pass in
which to test its validity. Secondly, these reservations reflect the traditional pub
lic administration reaction against assigning responsibility to an interdepart
mental body for the kinds of decisionmaking and operational activity envisaged
for the Council. There is too much experience of shortcomings in the performance
of such mechanisms to justify hope for the kind of vigor and sense of direction that
such an enterprise would require. The record of the old FCST does not inspire
confidence. The case for not using the NSF for the coordinating role in accom
plishing the objectives of the proposed legislation has not been made. Alternative
approaches which have been proposed include a CEA type council composed of
scientific and technological advisers or the model of the World War II Office of
Scientific Research and Development .
We would want to know a good deal more about the nature of the science and
technology resources survey before commenting on it in detail . Past efforts to as
semble and evaluate data of this kind have not been greatly rewarding. Perhaps
there would be some merit in a one-time survey to establish what would be in
volved and how best to put such a survey together. Such a one-shot effort would
probably best be done by the NSF.
The proposal for setting up the Office of Technology Application in NASA con
forms with the thinking of a number of our members who have wanted to see
NASA move in this direction for some time. We, however, would place heavy
stress on the importance of the provision in Section 202 ( a) that the new
responsibilities proposed for NASA would not lead to any diminution of the
agency's work in space and aeronautics . As you know , the original intent of the
Space Act was that the space program should lead to the “ most effective utiliza
tion of the scientific resources of the United States” . Past efforts in the field of
technology transfer or technology utilization have fallen short of expectations
both in the public and private sectors. But past disappointments do not justify
abandoning efforts in this direction. Some of our members would question the
desirability of putting into legislation an internal agency reorganization when
the same purpose might be accomplished by leaving it to the agency to organize
itself to accomplish the stated goals of the legislation.
I hope theseviews will be useful in your consideration of this proposed legisla
tion.
Please let me know if you would like to hear further from us.
Sincerely ,
ROY W. CRAWLEY ,
Executive Director,
 138

FEDERATION OF AMERICANS SUPPORTING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Columbia , Md., March 13, 1974.
Senator FRANK E. Moss
l
3121 New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Moss : Senate bill S. 2495 was circulated for comment at Sandia Labora
tory , Livermore, California. The circulation was part of a pilot FASST study on
soliciting and summarizing comments relative to specific pieces of proposed
legislation. A summary is enclosed of Senate bill S. 2495. The study was initiated
by the Federation of Americans Supporting Science and Technology (FASST ),
a national youth organization which promotes youth interaction with industry 1
and government. FASST would like to propose that student task groups prepare !!

summaries of comments made by both students and senior technical people, con
cerning specific legislation, on a continuing basis, as a service to members of
Congress.
The summaries would benefit Congress by providing direct and immediate feed
back from two important sectors of the population . The fact that some of the
comments received from Sandia paralleled changes made in the working draft is 0
evidence that such commentary could be very helpful.
The summaries would benefit FASST by providing an important avenue for 0
student-industry -government interaction on a national scale. An attempt would be
made to establish a network which extended to diverse sections of the country,
n
If you feel that the summary service would indeed be a useful tool, could
you :
1. Give FASST your endorsement to implement the summary activity.
2. Describe an appropriate procedure to obtain current or pending legisla
tion at the earliest possible time.
DE
3. Describe an appropriate procedure for submitting the summaries. NO
4. Suggest alternative sources of funds to cover incurred expenses, such as
postage, typing, printing, etc.
Respectfully,
DAVID FRADIN, 1
President.
b
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON S. 2495—TO AMEND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 0
SPACE ACT OF 1958 TO APPLY NASA TO DOMESTIC PROBLEMS
C
Page Line Specific comments
2 5 Agree
2 6 List some critical domestic problems
2 8 What is the basis for proper direction ? C
2 17-18 ( 1 ) Wasn't this already being done ? ( 2 ) This is already being
done elsewhere.
I
6 7-8 Will this be a continuing effort ? 2
6 10-14 ( 1 ) Will this include forecasting ? ( 2 ) in advance of what ? Would
want, rather, to maintain an inventory of technology to match
against concerns which arise for the purpose of ( a ) Identifying
an applicable, existing resource, or, ( b ) Identifying the re
source which could best conduct the appropriate technology
development program .
6 15 Add : ( 1 ) Make recommendations
Add : ( 2 ) Through NASA, assist in consolidating activities,
where the council feels it appropriate, which have the same or
similar achievement goals.
4 Who makes the recommendation, engineers or congressmen ?
9 How big a staff ?
co

5 Agree
9 10 Does this include expenses ?
11 8-13 A probable loser ! 1

GENERAL COMMENTS

( 1 ) The words " domestic problems” or “ critical domestic problems” occur 14

times, throughout the bill. “Domestic problems" runs the gamut from Watergate
to Ecology to Energy to Welfare. What is the scope and real objectives of this
new " Super" agency ?
 139

ANALYSIS OF THE COMMENTS

( 1 ) The bill would give NASA new tasks. The scope of the tasks is not well
defined !
( 2) A long-range plan and current resources inventory are so vital, there is
question that these do not already exist.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS,

New York , N.Y., March 14 , 1974 ,
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON ,
Chairman , Committee on Commerce,
Hon. FRANK E. Moss,
Chairman , Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, Washington , D.C.
DEAR SENATORS MAGNUSON AND Moss : The Board of Directors of the AIAA
appreciates the thoughtfulness of the Committee in providing the opportunity
for review and comment on S. 2495.
The Committee has been most responsible and perceptive in pointing out the
formidable gulf which seems to exist between the Nation's vexing domestic con
cerns and the broad technical competence which is apparently available to elim
inate or ameliorate many of them. We also believe that the Committee has
shown rare wisdom in perceiving that this gulf will not be bridged by sporadic
or ad hoc measures, but only by the systematic attention of a permanent body
with unquestioned competence and authority .
We therefore commend the Committee for its initiative in proposing such a
body, establishing meritorious functions and goals, and providing it with re
sources . Our comments are in broad categories which the Committee may find
pertinent in its further deliberations as to how this body may best carry out the
purposes of the Bill :
1. Definition of Crucial Terms
The term “ critical domestic problems” is pivotal to the purpose of the Bill,
but is nowhere defined or limited. Some such definition may be needed to specify
or limit the range of technical disciplines which the Bill is intended to apply.
Current national concerns include, for example, purely social problems ( race
relations ) , fundamental biological problems ( birth defects ) , and public health
problems ( drug abuse ), as well as those with high engineering content ( energy ) .
A clear statement of the intended scope of the Bill is needed , necessarily based
on a more precise definition of the problems it is designed to address.
The term " technical and scientific resources” is also subject to varying inter
pretations. Is it intended, for example, to include the contents of data banks and
archives, public and private, or merely the human and tangible assets ? The an
swer may be critical to both the content and the methodology of the proposed
Survey. Other terms, such as “ projects ” ( Sec. 201b . ( 4 ) ) could perhaps be more
sharply defined to assure compliance with the purposes of the Bill.
2. Composition of the Proposed Council
We believe that the purposes of the Bill would be better served if the Council
were composed of Cabinet officers and heads of major Administrations, Com
missions, and Councils as contemplated in the first draft dated September 27,
1973.
The Council constituted in the Working Draft would lack the level of execu
tive power required to coordinate the activities of major public and quasi-public
organizations, and to adjudicate possible conflicts and duplication. It would
therefore tend to become an advisory, rather than an executive body, thus dupli
cating the roles of the several scientific and technical advisory bodies which
already exist.
It also should be pointed out that the Chairman of the existing Federal Council
for Science and Technology, who presumably would become Chairman of the new
National Science and Technology Resources Council as proposed in the Working
Draft, is also the Director of the National Science Foundation, and thus is al
ready recognized as Advisor to the President.
 140

3. The Role of NASA

No organization is more fully appreciative than AIAA of the unprecedented
achievements of NASA in creating new technology, applying it to the fulfillment
of missions and applications, and creating new techniques to deal with complex
management, coordination, and integration problems.
We believe that NASA should remain highly committed to perhaps the most
significant task of its life — the application of spa technology to pressing 1
domestic and world problems through programs and resources already under its 1
purview. We believe there is high risk that in being assigned additional roles, N

it may suffer a dilution of effort in this primary mission which it alone is uniquely 1

qualified to carry out.

Under Section 201b. of the Working Bill, NASA is charged with responsibilities .
which, in the judgment of the Board, would give it the characteristics of both an
advisory and executive body. Such dualism may be prejudicial to good manage M

ment practice, no matter how competent the body which is assigned to fill such
roles.
4. The Roles of Other Bodies i
e
There is a possibility that any body charged with major executive functions in
overseeing and coordinating technology application may find it difficult to develop
and use the full potential of other Research and Development and high technology
organizations. A careful assessment of the immense contributions to the goals b
of this Bill which could be made by such bodies as NSF, NAE , NAS , AEC, DOD,
DOT, etc. , should be undertaken and a formal means to assure effective use of
these resources should also be included . The roles of organizations doing research
in such disciplines as agriculture, forestry, and marine biology should be care
fully studied as well, and the depth and variety of their experience should be
fully utilized in carrying out the purposes of the Bill.
The Bill should also establish some clear relationship between the existing
Office of Technology Assessment and the proposed Council .
5. Nature of the Survey
The language of the present Bill seems to suggest that the Survey shall con
sist of a single annual document, intended as a guide for legislative and budget
ary functions. It seems to us that the body of data gathered and evaluated in
preparation of such a Survey could become a valuable national asset, if sys
tematic access to it were provided. The maintenance of the data base could be
done through an input-output system , and access provided through a clearing
house function , coordinated with and cross-referenced to existing relevant data
sources. This would create a resource of practical value to government agencies,
educational institutions, private industry, professional and trade organizations,
and all others who seek information on the application of technology to domestic
problems.
6. Summary of AIAA Comments
From the above brief comments it is possible to summarize the consensus of
the AIAA Board :
( a ) The intent of the Bill, and the provisions of a responsible body to carry it
out are admirable. The purpose of the Bill will be better understood and served
if certain critical terms ( e.g. " critical domestic problems” ) are more sharply
defined or limited.
( 6 ) The Council should have the level of executive power suggested by its
composition in the September 27, 1973 draft.
( c ) The Council should carry out its policies through a body which will utilize
fully the resources of such organizations as NSF, NAE, NAS, AEC, DOD, DOT,
etc. It should be somewhat more autonomous than the Office of Technology Appli
cation suggested in the Working Draft. This body should create and direct appro
priate mechanisms for the Survey, the performance of experiments and demon
strations, and the coordination of such efforts by all Federal agencies. It should
utilize private industry to the fullest possible extent in carrying out these
responsibilities.
(a ) The Survey should be the periodic output of a continuous data gathering,
evaluation, and classification effort. Access should be provided to all agencies
and groups which may become involved in carrying out the expressed intent of
the Bill.
The Board considers thesesuggestions to be constructive guidelines upon which
more detailed dialogue can be based. It looks forward to any interchange that
 141

may be of value to the Committee, and is pleased to be a participant in an activity

which is so clearly oriented to the national interest.
Sincerely ,
DANIEL J. FINK .

RCA,
New York, N.Y., March 14, 1974 .
Hon. FRANK E. Moss ,
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, Washington , D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR Moss : Thank you for your letter and your generous com
ments on my talk at The Johns Hopkins University last month urging a coherent
national policy on science and technology. I am impressed by the parallel direction
you and the cosponsors of S. 2495 have taken, and I appreciate your thoughtful
ness in letting me see copies of both versions.
In connection with these efforts, I think you will be interested to learn that at
the invitation of Senator Mathias I assigned Dr. James Hillier, RCA Executive
Vice President for Research and Engineering, to work with him and his staff in
developing concrete, detailed proposals as the groundwork for a bill establishing
a Science and Technology Commission. If you wish I would be glad to arrange
a similar meeting with you or anyone you may designate so that we may share
these ideas and possibly stimulate others.
It is heartening to know that people at the highest government levels are
becoming more and more concerned with the neglected cause of long - range
planning and commitment in the nation's science and technology.
Again I want to express my appreciation for your thoughtful remarks.
With all good wishes,
Cordially,
ROBERT W. SARNOFF.

THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY,

March 15 , 1974.
Hon. WARREN MAGNUSON,
Hon . FRANK Moss ,
U.S. Senate ,
Washington , D.C.
DEAR SENATORS MAGNUSON AND Moss : This letter is in response to a request to
the American Physical Society from you for comment on the proposed legislation
( S. 2495 and revision ) setting up an Executive level scientific and technological
resources survey ( title 1 ) , coupled with a proposal to utilize NASA (title 2 ) ,
through the creation of an Office of Technology Application , in conducting such
a survey and in developing and demonstrating capabilities for resolving critical
domestic problems. This response has been prepared with the endorsement of the
Executive Committee of the APS.
The proposed legislation, in both original and revised forms, recognizes two
incontestable premises : ( 1 ) increasingly many domestic problems have important
scientific and technological dimensions where the nation's resources in these
areas, if known, could be more effectively employed ; ( 2 ) important technological
and engineering resources reside within the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration . It is understood that the primary intent of the proposed legisla
tion is to assess the nation's problems and the resources which may be brought
to bear to solve them . This is clearly a difficult and far-reaching task , involving
a number of subtleties, as I shall indicate below. I do not believe that the Bill as
written is equal to its intent. Moreover, the mechanism by which national prob
lems are defined , and the programs and policy objectives formulated to solve them,
should not be tied legislatively to any single agency .
The first difficulty of conducting a survey of technological and scientific
resources is that a large amount of information is tractable only if it can be
categorized. The way inwhich it is categorized depends both on the nature of the
information and upon the type of questions one must ask, It is useful in this
connection to distinguish science from technology and long-term from short-term
problems. Short-term technological problems will be the easiest to isolate. Corre
spondingly, it will be relatively easy to identify presently available engineering
and technological resources to meet them .

32-205-74-10
 142

Unfortunately, most of our problems will be of longer term and far greater
complexity. Not only will these problems involve social, economic and political
constraints , but optimum solutions will very likely involve technologies which
have not yet been developed or whose development is limited by unresolved ( or
even unformulated ) scientific questions. New technological resources will arise
whenever basic research discoveries are made. Thus not only will the information
content in the categories surveyed change in time, but the categories themselves
must continually change. Even just a survey of engineering and technological
capabilities must then be very carefully approached . I do not feel that the
proposed legislation provides adequately for this delicate task, particularly in
the composition of the Council suggested in the revised version.
An even greater problem is that it is very difficult to usefully survey scientific
resources. Only very general categories pertain , categories which give no clue as
to where research progress will next yield developments which mightbedirectly
or indirectly utilized by a properly constituted governmental agency. This would
certainly complicate the ten -year projection aspect of the survey. Moreover, it
is an explicit intent of the Bill to locate problemsand support “programs which
will strengthen the economy and contribute to the resolution of such critical
domestic problems. ” The great danger here, of course, is that an inadequate
perception of the essential scientific matters, or a short-sighted emphasis upon
strengthening the economy in this way now, will leave us without the new
resources we will need in the decades ahead.
In general, I feel that those problems facing the nation which have important
scientific and technological dimensions must be perceived, and new courses of
action formulated, at the Executive level. The decisions involved must be based
upon a critical and independent appraisal of all the options available and poten
tially available. An adequate perception of these options involves not only weigh
ing competing technologies according to efficacy and social, environmental and
other constraints, but also the scientific capability to discern new directions in
research which may point the way to superior solutions. Thus, the technical op
tions and capabilities of the various agencies which are strongly conditioned
by the policy objectives of these agencies, must be very carefully balanced. More
over, the optimum course of action for a few years hence may depend upon scien
tific and technological resources which do not now exist within these agencies,
but must be foreseen and developed. Finally, a number of tradeoffs between
technical, social, political, economic and environmental factors must be made.
Tying the enabling mechanism for this very large task so closely to NASA, or to
any single agency ( even the NSF ) , compromises these objectives and may thus
endanger the long-term health of the nation .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon these important matters and
upon this Bill. I would be most happy to respond, on behalf of the Physical
Society , to any further requests or questions you might have.
Sincerely ,
WOLFGANG K. H. PANOFSKY,
President.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS,

Washington, D.O. , March 21 , 1974.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON ,
Chairman , Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This letter is written in connection with the joint hear
ings of the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Aeronautical and
Space Sciences on S. 2495, the proposed Science and Technology Resources Surveys
and Applications Act of 1974,
The legislation has, among other provisions, the provision that there be es
tablished in the Executive Office of the President the National Science and
Technology Resources Council which shall be composed of :
( a ) The membership of the Federal Council for Science and Technology
as established by Executive Order 10807 of March 13, 1959, and amended by
Executive Order 11381 of November 8, 1967 ;
( b ) A representative designated by the National Governors Conference ; a
representative designated by the National Association of Counties ; and a
representative jointly designated by the National League of Cities and the
 143

United States Conference of Mayors who shall be voting ex -officio members

of the Council .
We note that the testimony of both Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Director, National
Science Foundation, and Dr. Philip Handler, President, National Academy of
Sciences , indicated that, to meet the objectives of S. 2495, the membership of the
Federal Council on Science and Technology and its subcommittees should be
expanded to include representation of industry.
As Dr. Handler said , " . it is important that such a significant policy state
ment recognize that decisions concerning the uses of the nation's science and
technology resources should be made in a pluralistic environment involving all
sectors of our society - private industry, the universities, government at all levels
and the public at large .
The official policy of the National Association of Manufacturers on science
and technology concurs in this philosophy in the following statement:
" Industry is concerned with assuring the effective utilization of scientific and
technological resources which inevitably bear on economic growth, quality of life,
national strength, and the broadening of knowledge.
" In pursuit of this objective, we encourage wise planning and the cooperative
undertaking of research and development endeavors among industry, govern
ment, and educational institutions."
Therefore, the National Association of Manufacturers strongly urges that
S. 2495 be amended to provide for industrial representation on the Federal Council
on Science and Technology and its subcommittees.
Respectfully submitted,
DR. RICHARD P. NALESNIK,
Manager, Resources and Technology Department.

THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

Washnigton, D.C. , March 26, 1974.
Hon . FRANK E. Moss,
Chairman , Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, Washington , D.O.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in response to your letter to Mr. Michael Moskow
requesting our views on S. 2495, a bill “ To amend the National Aeronautical and
Space Act of 1958 to apply the scientific and technological expertise of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to the solution of domestic
problems, and for other purposes."
The Department of Housing and Urban Development agrees fully with the
broad objectives of the Congress as expressed in this bill ; what we suggest is a
modification of the approach proposed by this bill. In the interests of national
efficiency and economy, it does not seem desirable to try to convert a narrowly
focused, highly specialized institution like NASA into an agency directed at
solving domestic problems. The time required for them to obtain an understanding
of the domestic problems and the means for their solution would be prohibitive.
We recommend that our objective be to strengthen the existing capability of
the domestic agencies for the application of science and technology and to make
select parts of NASA responsive to these agencies. These parts of NASA would
function in a manner similar to the National Bureau of Standards. No legislation
is required to implement this objective and, in fact, the Administration is already
utilizing NASA capabilties on a number of projects.
Because of their long experience with domestic problems, agencies such as
HUD, DOT, and HEW possess an understanding of these problems and have
established working relationships with the State and local governments charged
with their solution. The experience and capability of these agencies in applying
systems analysis techniques and science and technology are limited but can and
should be strengthened . This could be accomplished by increasing the scientific
capability of the domestic agencies. The linking of the select parts of NASA more
closely to these agencies with specific mission statements to apply science and
technology to domestic problems would strengthen the effort. The relevance and
budgets of these closely linked activities would then be evaluated as part of
the domestic mission agency budget process,
The suggested change in the National Technology Resources Council member
ship to add representatives of local government interest groups to the Council is
not advisable.
 144

In summary , we cannot support the conversion of NASA's mission to one of

domestic problem-solving and suggest instead the strengthening of existing
domestic agencies for the application of science and technology and the making
of select parts of NASA more responsive and available to these agencies.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection
to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the program of the
President.
Sincerely ,
ROBERT R. ELLIOTT,
( for James L. Mitchell ).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Washington, D.C. , March 26, 1974.
Hon, FRANK E. Moss,
Chairman , Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, Washington , D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in response to the letter of January 23, 1974,
from you and Chairman Magnuson of the Committee on Commerce requesting
our comments on S. 2495 , the " Technology Resources Survey and Applications
Act", which has been referred jointly to your respective Committees, and on a
working draft, the “ Science and Technology Resources Survey Applications
Act” , which sets forth a number of suggested revisions.
The underlying purpose of S. 2495 and the working draft is to apply our
scientific and technological resources to resolve critical domestic problems and
to establish a mechanism for the preparation and maintenance of a comprehen
sive national scientific and technological survey .
Both the bill and the working draft would establish a National ( or Science
and ) Technology Resources Council in theOffice of the President, but the mem
bership of the Council would differ. Under S. 2495, the Council would be composed
of the Vice President, as Chairman , and ten heads of departments and agencies
with missions basically oriented to domestic areas. Under the working draft,
the Council would be composed of members of the Federal Council for Science
and Technology with representation from National associations of the Governors,
counties and cities .
Both versions of the proposed legislation would direct the new Council to
prepare and transmit to the President and the Congress a survey ( to be revised
annually ) identifying existing ( and projected ) technological activities, capabili
ties, programs, and resources and the means by which each might be applied to
the resolution of critical domestic problems.
The Council to the fullest extent possible would utilize the services, facilities
and information of other governmental agencies as well as private research
agencies.
The Administrator of NA through an Office of Technology Application,
would be directed upon request, to furnish technical assistance to the Council
in the preparation of the survey and in deciding what critical issues may be
resolved by the application of scientific and technological resources ; when
directed , to accept responsibility for specific domestic problems which might
be resolved by such application ; and to utilize aerospace and other private scien
tific organizations on a contract basis. Under the working draft, NASA also would
be directed to conduct research and development projects to demonstrate the
feasibility of potential solutions of critical domestic problems.
Both proposals would authorize the appropriation of $10 million to the Coun
cil for fiscal year 1974, and fiscal year 1975. $200 million would be authorized
for NASA for fiscal year 1975.
Although the Environmental Protection Agency endorses the policy that the
Federal Government should utilize all of its scientific and technological resources
to the fullest extent possible in the solution of critical domestic problems, we do
not recommend enactment of the legislation proposed in S. 2495 or the working
draft.
We believe that passage of this legislation would cause unnecessary duplica
tion of programs already being carried on by mission -oriented agencies with the
responsibility and ability to solve domestic problems. Such agencies are in a
better position to identify the various approaches to a problem, including the
economic sociological and political as well as the technological aspects. When
techological advancements are needed , the mission agencies can bestdefine what
specific research and development are necessary . If in-house research and develop
 145

ment capabilities must be supplemented, EPA has found no difficulty in the loca
tion of or access to such technology . We understand that this is generally true
and that when there is a problem , the constraints often are political, economic
and sociological rather than one of technology transfer.
The Federal Council for Science and Technology, which would be a part of
the new Council as proposed in the working draft, now has broader powers than
the proposed Council. Its membership is composed of policy -level personnel of
Federal agencies, and it considers the overall aspects of technology in solving
domestic problems. Through its committees, there is a continuing review and
coordination of the application of science and technology to domestic problems.
NASA presently hasan Office of Technology Utilization which tries to identify
problems for which its technology and capabilities would provide a solution.
EPA through interagency agreements aggressively uses the competence of high
technology agencies such as NASA, DOD and AEC.
We believe that passage of S. 2495 would result in overlap of authority and
would fragment on -going efforts to solve our critical domestc problems. We, there
fore, do not recommend the enactment of a new statutory mechanism to accom
plish functions which are already provided for under other authorities.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to
the submission of this report and that enactment of S. 2495 would not be in
accord with the program of the President.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN ,
Administrator.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ,
Washington , D.C., April 2, 1974.
Hon . WARREN G. MAGNUSON ,
Chairman , Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in reply to your request for comments on S. 2495,
the " Science and Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act of 1974."
I fully concur with the views of Congress that the scientific and technological
resources of the United States can and should be used to solve critical domestic
problems. In general, we believe that the appropriate way to employ the scientific
and technological resources of the Federal Government is through the mission
agencies since :
They are the closest to the problems and are responsible for the opera
tional aspects of many problem areas.
They are best able to identify the alternative approaches to problem solv
ing, some of which may be technological in nature, some not.
They are steadily developing stronger R&D capabilities.
They are and will continue to be expected to use NASA as a technical
resource to supplement their own capabilities when appropriate.
In keeping with these views, I can assure you that we will continue to explore
ways in which the management and technical expertise of NASA may be effec
tively utilized to solve critical domestic problems. Moreover, I believe that we
can meet the Congressional desire to use NASA's capabilities, as appropriate,
within NASA's existing organizational and statutory framework .
We would be opposed to the authorization of $200 million for NASA to demon
strate the feasibility of potential solutions to critical domestic problems since this
would duplicate the program responsibilities of other agencies. As you know,
other agencies can often use NASA capabilities on a reimbursable basis so sepa
rate funding is not required. In addition , since no specific program plans have
been developed, we would not know whether these funds would be spent on high
priority activities.
The proposed addition of State and local government representation to the
Federal Council on Science and Technology ( FCST) appears to be worthy of
further consideration. If on further examination this appears to be desirable, we
believe that State and local government representatives could be added to the
existing FCST on either a continuing or ad hoc basis.
As you know, the duties of the Office of Science and Technology were trans
ferred to the Director of the National Science Foundation in 1973. Dr. Stever,
with the assistance of his Science and Technology Policy Office and Office of
Energy Policy , has been actively involved in many currentresearch and develop
 146

ment issues ( e.g. , review and final formulation of the accelerated energy R&D
plan ) . The arrangements provided for Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973 are
working effectively.
It appears to us that existing mechanisms are adequate for the conduct of
scientific and technological resources surveys. We believe that the assessment
of resource requirements related to specific R&D policy issues is more productive
than a broad survey such as provided for in S. 2495. Assessment must be lodged
with officials responsible for dealing with domestic problems.
In summary , while we support the overall objectives of S. 2495, we do not
believe that it provides the best approach to the solution of the problem of how
to apply our technological resources to domestic needs. If we can be of further
help , please feel free to call upon me or Frank Zarb, my Associate Director.
Warm regards,
Sincerely,
Roy L. Ash, Director.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,

Washington , D.C., April 2, 1974.
Hon . FRANK E. Moss,
Chairman , Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, Washington , D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Robert H. Cannon,
Jr. , Assistant Secretary for Systems Development and Technology, dated Janu
ary 23, 1974, asking for comments on the working draft of S. 2495, the " Science
and Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act of 1974.”
The bill would establish a National Technology Resources Council, in the
Executive Office of the President, composed of various members of the Cabinet
and other government officials, including the Secretary of Transportation . It
would add three appointed representatives as ex officio members to the current
membership of the Federal Council on Science and Technology. Each of these
members is to represent a nationwide constituency of either states, counties, or
cities. Secondly, the bill increases the focus of the Council toward surveying and
enhancing the application of technology on domestic subjects as opposed to foster
ing science and technology in general. Thirdly, the bill provides appropriations for
a staff to conduct a survey and maintain an inventory of the applicable science
and technology. Finally, the bill would establish an Office of Technology Applica
tion, within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which would
assist the Council in its resources survey, and upon direction of the Council,
accept responsibility for specific domestic problems which may be susceptible to
resolutionby the application of scientific and technological resources .
The Department of Transportation is only one of the Federal agencies which
has responsibility to address these domestic problems and bring technology to
bear where it is appropriate. We are deeply concerned about the process of pro
viding effective utilization of the technological resources in the solution of critical
domestic problems. The Department has very strong activity through a program
we call Technology Sharing in which we deal with this subject on a day-to-day
basis .
Frequently, we find it is not the lack of technology but rather the lack of
understanding of how to apply the technology that is missing. The Office of the
Secretary works through the modal administrations to enhance this process in
many ways. Incentives in the form of planning, capital, and operating grants
are available for application to problem solution. As an alternative to local
initiative, enforcement is available through the regulatory process. The applica
tion of available technological resources is an important adjunct to the regula
tory process. We have found in our working relationships with the actual operat
ing authorities, local jurisdictions, and manufacturers, that these tools are
extremely important in effecting appropriate understanding. We believe that
exercising the responsibility for such grants and regulations is the most effective
way in which science and technology can be applied to help solve the local com
munities' problems.
The existing Federal Council on Science and Technology, through the auspices
of the National Science Foundation, provides overview and stimulates coordina
tion between NASA and the concerned agencies. DOT is an active participant on
this Council. An increase in the technology flow can be effected by an increase in
funds. We believe the Council, within its current structure, could assure that a
substantial portion of such funds be earmarked for use in NASA R & D facilities,
 147

where appropriate. We concur that NASA has a good technology applications

program which has derived from the science and technological achievements of
the space activities. We work with that office in assessing new concepts that may
be applied to our problems.
In summary, we believe the necessary statutory authority and organizational
responsibilities now exist. It may well be that more funds would be useful but
until we dev real understanding of what the problems are, a high techno
logical activity may not be productive.
Sincerely ,
RODNEY E. EYSTER,
General Counsel.

PHILADELPHIA SECTION , AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY,

Philadelphia , Pa., April 10, 1974 .
Hon. WARREN MAGNUSON ,
Chairman, Commerce Committee of the U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON : The Commerce Committee's consideration of the
Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act ( S. 2495 ) encouraged three
experienced chemists of the 4000 -member Philadelphia Section of the American
Chemical Society to study the bill closely and discuss its merits.
Allow me to offer their enclosed statement in the spirit of constructive com
mentary on this very significant effort by you, Senator Moss, and Senator Tun
ney to enhance the utilization of the nation's scientific and technological resources.
We welcome response to our statement, and we look forward to the progress
of effective legislation toward enactment.
Sincerely yours,
F. WILLIAM KIRSCH, Ph. D. ,
Chairman , Legislative Liaison Committee.
A STATEMENT ON THE TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SURVEY AND APPLICATIONS ACT,
S. 2495

The Senate Commerce Committee's concern over the nation's scientific and
technological resources, including human expertise and physical facilities, is
commendable ( S. 2495 ). This statement is an attempt to strengthen the product
of the Committee's deliberations by constructive comment. We offer this response
as the collective views of three chemists with intentions of good interaction vis -a
vis government and with credentials arising from professional experience in
private industries, in educational institutions at all levels, and in non -profit re
search organizations.
Our overriding purpose, like that of the Committee, is to see the nation's scien
tific and technological resources identified and utilized in the national interest.
As Dr. Philip Handler reportedly said when he testified before the committee,
" The issue is how best to institutionalize the entire federal science and techno
logical effort."
To summarize our views we want to emphasize three main points which we
think are vital to the Committee's goal :
1. The National Technology Resources Council is a reasonable locus of the
functions described :
( a ) To “ develop and supervise a technology resources survey ; ' '
( o ) To " identify in advance scientific and technological resources, in
cluding manpower ;"
( c) To "review and evaluate the activities of Federal departments and
agencies engaged in programs which are recommended by the technology
resource survey and similar activities of State and local public agencies ;"
( a ) To make recommendations to the President ; " :
le ) To “ review and evaluate the progress in solving problems assigned by
the Council. ”
2. The proposed composition of the Council is and ought to be representative
of all federal departments and agencies with a visible program of scientific
and technological effort.
3. To achieve maximum effectiveness in the breadth of its agenda and in the
comprehensiveness of its operation , the Council needs :
 148

( a ) A high degree of visibility within and without government ; The

( 0 ) Access to the President which is inherent to the Council's mandate bp Dr.
and its structure ; and th
( c ) Availability to all individual and collective elements of the public Organi
sector, especially the broadest possible population of scientists and engi The
neers rather than merely the traditional sources of such articulated opinion admira
and reaction . cations
Therefore, we favor the creation of a National Technology Resources Council "the s
by law, as the Commerce Committee apparently does. At the same time, we urge le use
its incorporation by law within a federal Department of Science and Technology, that
headed by a Secretary of Cabinet rank. efficier
From that incorporation and the legislative creation of the Department we Ноу
could expect to see an embodiment of purpose which Dr. Bernard Friedman urged to gui
upon the Commerce Committee at its March 11 hearing on S. 2495 : of cri
" Maintenance of a healthy' atmosphere for R and D require the avoidance of Spa
abrupt and unexpected shifts in federal R and D funding and the associated focuse
unemployment of skilled technical manpower." other
Personally and collectively we want to encourage members of the Commerce The
Committee to proceed " with all deliberate speed ” to the creation of a vantage devel
point for perspective on science and technology in the far-reaching and complex derela
domain of the federal government. cult 1
Especially, we want to achieve a sense of purpose and direction in the vast progr
investment of the federal government in science and technology . Only then can bette
we expect to realize our hope — and that of many thousands—for a stability in Th
policy and operation which will utilize our resources fully and not sacrifice techn
them to shifts in priorities which too often herald the indiscriminate and deep it is
cut of a budgetary knife. edge
Sincerely yours, probil
F. WILLIAM KIRSCH, Ph. D. basic
FREDERICK H. OWENS, Ph. D. lishin
WILLIAM TOROP, Ph. D. ecuti
to a
SIGNERS OF THE STATEMENT ON THE TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SURVEY AND cont
APPLICATION ACT, S. 2495 si
Tech
Dr. F. William Kirsch , who works for a non -profit research institute, is chair for
man of the Legislative Liaison Committee, member of the Board of Directors, and othe
a past chairman of the 4000 -member Philadelphia Section of the American Chemi Scie
cal Society. He also represents the Philadelphia Section as a councilor to the na ma
tional ACS Council, where he serves on its Committee on Economic Status. tem
Dr. Frederick H. Owens, who conducts and directs industrial research, is chair Stro
man-elect of the Philadelphia Section of the American Chemical Society and will and
become its 1975 chairman . He serves on its Board of Directors and is a member
of
of its Legislative Liaison Committee, in addition to chairing several other stand T
ing committees of the Section .
like
Dr. William Torop, who teaches chemistry and earth science at the college for
level, is a member of the Legislative Liaison Committee and the Policy and By res
laws Committee of the Philadelphia Section of the American Chemical Society.
He has also served as a Section Coordinator for Education and Training and as
chairman of several key committees.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES,

Washington, D.C. , April 17, 1974.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON ,
Chairman , Committee on Commerce .
Hon . FRANK E. Moss ,
Chairman , Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Se
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATORS MAGNUSON AND Moss : The American Institute of Biological th
Sciences ( AIBS ) is pleased to have been invited to comment on Senate Bill
Sa
S. 2495, “ Technology Resources Survey and Application Act.” As a short intro
duction , the AIBS was chartered in 1947 and is a nonprofit, scientific and educa
tional organization for individuals working or interested in all disciplines of the 91
es
life sciences. The Institute is an " individual member " organization, as well as
a federation of 38 Adherent biological societies. F
te
 · 149

The Institute agrees, in general, with the comments made on 21 March 1974
by Dr. George Sprugel, Jr., Chief of the Illinois State Natural History Survey
and the President of the AIBS . The following brief statement summarizes the
Organization's position on S. 2495.
The American Institute of Biological Sciences is in full agreement with the
admirable goals of the “ Science and Technology Resources Survey and Appli
cations Act of 1974” as they are stated in the working draft of the Bill : That
“ the scientific and technological resources of the United States can and should
be used more effectively and efficiently to solve critical domestic problems," and
that “ it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to insure the full and
efficient use of such scientific and technological resources."
However, NASA does not seem to be the proper agency to lead a new effort
to guide the science and technology capabilities of the Nation in the solution
of critical domestic problems. In contrast with NASA's sharply focused effort
in space, the application of technology to critical problems seems to be an un
focused mission that could result in the duplication of much that now goes on in
other federal agencies.
The Bill S. 2495 is particularly unclear with regard to the areas of research and
development to be included under its umbrella. Would all federal research and
development, from life science to astrophysics, be included ? It would be diffi
cult for one agency to gather the expertise to administer such a broad-based
program, and it is easy to imagine the situation getting worse rather than
better.
The Bill fails to recognize the fundamental difference between research and
technology. Experience shows that scientific research is most productive when
it is diversified. In contrast , technological development applies existing knowl
edge generated by a diversified research effort to the solution of a particular
problem . In view of NASA's strong technological orientation, AIBS fears that
basic scientific research would suffer. This legislation also proposes the estab
lishment of a National Science and Technology Resources Council in the Ex
ecutive Office of the President. Like NASA, the proposed Council does not seem
to adequately represent all the segments of the scientific community that would
contribute to solutions of pressing national problems.
Since the President's Scientific Advisory Council and the Office of Science and
Technology were dismantled last year, there have been numerous suggestions
for restoring science to a place of prominence at the White House level. Like
other members of the scientific community, the American Institute of Biological
Sciences is cognizant of the need for changes in science administration. But the
major overhaul that is needed would not be accomplished by a patchwork at
tempt to broaden the powers of NASA and set up a new advisory council. AIBS
strongly recommends cabinet office rank for a science advisor to the President
and would have further comments should a more comprehensive reorganization
of science be proposed.
While this organization does not endorse the Bill in its current form, it would
like to thank the Committees on Aeronautical and Space Sciences and Commerce
for providing this useful forum for discussion of the need for reassessing and
restructuring the administration of federal science and technology.
Sincerely yours ,
ROBERT W. KRAUSS ,
Chairman , AIBS Public Responsibilities Committee.

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING ,
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ,
Urbana, I11. , April 22, 1974 .
Senators WARREN G. MAGNUSON , FRANK E. MOSS, AND JOHN V. TUNNEY.
GENTLEMEN : The purpose and intent of your bill S. 2495 are so commendable
that despite the considerable testimony to this effect by those far more eloquent
than I, it continues to be a source of great regret that illness prevented me from
saying so in person last month .
As an educator at a University which prepares a very large number of highly
qualified engineers and scientists to contribute to the Nation and the world, I
especially applaud the statement ( 3 ) of Section 2 “ It is the responsibility of the
Federal Government to insure the full and efficient use of such scientific and
technological resources.”
 150

In my capacity as Dean and in my transient position as President of the We beli

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, I should like to go on record with t deroga
the hope that you will press forward with ( 3 ) and with ( 4 ) “ A more systematic lis gener
approach to analyzing and planning for the resolution of critical domestic prob in view
lems is essential to achieving such full and efficient use of the Nation's scientific Felcome
and technological resources." visultat
We do need an equivalent of the Office of Economic Advisors, say an Office of propria
Engineering and Scientific Advisors, to provide the Executive and Legislative licatio
branches of government with a vital input which is now largely absent. We live if mutua
in an age in which the driving force of technology is enormous and not yet well The 01
understood even by experts in each field . The problems we face are by no means the Adm
purely technological, but engineering and science must play key roles if the prob report.
lems are to be solved .
Si
Almost unnoticed we have passed well beyond the stage of history when suffi
cient time was available, in accord with the ordinary supply and demand market
mechanism , for an adequate technological response to the most crucial identified
needs. Today when a crisis arises in a technologically intensive area, such as
energy, the time scale for solution is much greater than the public and many
leaders recognize. Tomorrow as we face the materials crisis and other crises, it
may be dangerously so. Advanced planning for a variety of alternatives is essential
if the needed technology is to be available in time, Engineers and scientists must Hon. Fr
be involved at the beginning stages of planning and in an anticipatory R & D mode Chairma
whenever a purely responsive mode will have insufficient lead time. Hon . W
Never again should we allow ourselves to make decisions which so badly dis Chairme
rupt our effective national use of engineers and scientists. The abrupt swing in U.S. Sere
and out of the space program provided a sad lesson which should be remembered GENTL
and institutionalized as part of the activities of a Council of Engineering and can Soci
Scientific Advisors. To be fully effective, all levels of the private and the public workin
sector should have representation, and input. Council
In closing let me say again how pleased I am by the forward thinking you The I
have displayed . Those of us in the Colleges of Engineering and in the Engineering to stim
Societies are anxious to contribute in every way we can. Do feel free to call upon to coor
us .
ticipati
Sincerely, the divi
D. C. DRUCKER. with of
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Durit
sire co
Washington, D.C., April 26, 1974. their
Hon. FRANK E. Moss, and ret
Chairman, Committee on Astronautical and Space Sciences,
U.S. Senate, It is
TCA DE
Washington , D.C.
Act, s .
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : I am replying to your letter of January 23, addressed to feel th
Mr. Herman Pollack , concerning S. 2495, “ a bill to amend the National Aero oriente
nautics and Space Act of 1958 to apply the scientific and technological expertise Our
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to the solution of domestic maxim
problems, and for other purposes." from
The Department of State strongly supports the objective of ensuring the more our sea
efficient application of our scientific and technological resources to the solution been
of critical domestic problems. As far as the need for this legislation, the Depart man
ment would defer to the views of other agencies more directly concerned with our satellit
science policy. However, the Department does wish to express a concern about areas
the manner in which the draft legislation deals with the international implica the da
tions of our science policy. Letter
This concern is that the responsibilities of the proposed National Technology nical
Resources Council and the proposed Office of Technology Applications of the The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration would be so exclusively focused tione
on domestic problems that the international implications of domestic activities but in
could be lost sight of, that opportunities for beneficial cooperation with other ralua
countries could be overlooked , and that the legislation could be misconstrued in lation
ternationally as reflecting an inward turning by the U.S. away from the policies We
we have heretofore followed . .
scienc
The Department would hope, therefore, that in considering how best to achieve and
the more efficient application of our scientific and technological resources to becon
domestic problems, full consideration will be given to potential foreign policy tive
aspects. Coun
 151

We believe it should be made clear thatnothing in the legislationis intended

to derogate from the authority and responsibility of the Secretary of State. While
his general statutory responsibilities of course already include such matters,
in view of the international implications of the proposed legislation, we would
welcome the addition of a provision to the effect that the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the agencies concerned, should take such steps as may be
appropriate to assure international cooperation and coordination regarding the
applications of scientific and technological resources to the solution of problems
of mutual and international concern.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of
the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this
report.
Sincerely ,
LINWOOD HOLTON ,
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS,

TECHNICAL COUNCIL ON AEROSPACE.
Hon. FRANK E. Moss,
Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
Hon . WARREN G. MAGNUSON ,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.
GENTLEMEN : Your request, addressed to Mr. Charles Yoder, President, Ameri
can Society of Civil Engineers ( ASCE ) , for comments regarding S. 2495 and its
working draft of January 18, 1974, was directed by Mr. Yoder to the Technical
Council on Aerospace of ASCE.
The Technical Council on Aerospace ( TCA ) was authorized on April 20, 1971,
to stimulate the interest of civil engineers employed in space activity in ASCE ;
to coordinate the activities of the several technical divisions ; to enhance the par
ticipation of these individuals in those civil engineering activities sponsored by
the divisions that are space related ; and to coordinate the activities of ASCE
with other space-oriented agencies and professional organizations.
During the past year and continuing into this spring, TCA has conducted exten
sive correspondence and dialog with technical committees of ASCE regarding
their current interests and activities in advanced aerospace technology in general
and remote sensing in particular.
It is against the above background that President Yoder requested that the
TCA prepare comments on the Technology Resources Survey and Applications
Act, S. 2495. We are pleased to offer a contribution to the review of S. 2495, and
feel that the broad involvement of the committee membership of TCA in space
oriented activities and current technology lends validity to that contribution,
Our driving concern since the formation of the TCA has been to determine the
maximum utilization that ASCE can make of the technology transfer available
from NASA and DOD sources. The classifications of DOD programs has limited
our search to date primarily to the NASA programs. Much of our attention has
been concentrated on the Earth Resources Technology Satellite ( ERTS ) and the
many potential uses by Civil Engineers of data received from this and similar
satellites . We have recently sent recommendations to NASA concerning such
areas as photographic scale, remote sensing, and similar items, that would make
the data received immediately useful to Civil Engineers. See Attachment # 1–
Letter to NASA and their response as well as Attachment # 2__Aerospace Tech
nical Applications in Civil Engineering,
The past three years of working with technology transfer in the areas men
tioned above have provided TCA with an appreciation of the problems involved,
but more importantly, with reassurance that the potential gains are large and
valuable, indeed. Accordingly, TCA is vitally interested in S. 2495 ,or in any legis
lațion dealing with current technology and its usefulness to the nation.
We understand the major thrust of S.2495 to be a mechanism whereby the
science and technology resources of the United States can be identified , mobilized,
and directed to the solving of major domestic problems before such problems
become crises. The bill would facilitate such goals by establishing in the Execu
tive Office of the President, the National Science and Technology Resources
Council ( NSTRC ) to be composed of the members of the Federal Council for
 152

Science and Technology (FCST ) and representatives of State, County and munici ereral a
pal government. The council would : should b
( a ) Inventory the Nation's scientific and technological resources. Iden Bology R
tify capabilities not being fully utilized ; Existi
( 6 ) Inventory critical domestic problems which may be susceptible of Age of
resolution by the application of science and technology ; and lenis bu
( c ) Recommend programs to the President. centrate
The bill would authorize the Council to take full advantage of the expertise of affected
NASA through the functions of an Office of Technology Application to be estab energy
lished within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in compliance derelor
with the provisions of S. 2495. attentic
In amending the National Aeronautics and Space Act, under provisions of quality
S.2495, the Congress would instruct that the expertise of NASA be made avail tection
able to NSTRC and be used in the resolution of critical domestic problems of hation
the United States to the extent not inconsistent with or in diminution of its and ot
aeronautical and space activities . Further, NASA would be chartered to conduct other f
research and development projects to demonstrate the feasibility of potential Simi
solutions of critical domestic problems. te util
Accordingly , the proposed Office of Technology Application would : The
( a ) Furnish technical assistance to the Council ; of the
( b ) Accept responsibility for specific domestic problems ;
( c ) Conduct research and development projects to demonstrate the feasi tial a
bility of potential solutions of critical domestic problems, and lead
( d ) Utilize aerospace firms and other scientific organizations to assist in Energ
developing and demonstrating capabilities . Wed
Finally , S.2495 would provide funding for NSTRC and NASA to carry out alrea
their functions. trans
Our comments on S.2495 are based on our understanding of the bill as outlined In
above. 9.24
The complex nature of our society today demands that solutions to major
domestic problems receive dedicated attention and not be left to chance. It is
evident from past experience that local government and the private sector at
times cannot bring sufficient resources to bear upon the solution of these prob
lems. Highway safety , ecology , the energy crisis and similar problems have con
cerned individuals for years before any substantial action was taken towards a
real solution, and this only when the Federal Government interceded and elevated
the problems to the national level, thereby bringing adequate resources to bear.
It is on this basis then that the Federal Government should strive to look into
the future and anticipate problems which are over the horizon. The subject bill
addresses that role.
TCA is confident that many critical domestic problems are susceptible of reso
lution by the application of science and technology, and endorses the concept
of overall guidance on the national level. ca
However, the Federal activities should not be a series of crash programs in
response to crises. The existence of an alleged problem shouldnot automatically
result in expenditure of funds or other resources. Problems should be surveyed
with regard to long term national needs, and national resources apportioned
in a manner consistent with their availability . The bill should also recognize as
a national goal an educational process designed to develop in the public the
knowledge that natural resources must be conserved and used wisely. Many
critical problems may be identified in the future, but simultaneous solutions of
these problems to meet everyone's expectations may not be feasible because of
resource nonavailability . Means must be provided to set priorities, and to estab
lish and implement plans to solve the problems prior to the point of reaching
the critical state .
The Technical Council on Aerospace, American Society of Civil Engineers,
endorses the Congressional intent to apply the resources of the Federal Govern
ment in identifying and solving domestic problems. The intent, however, can best
be served through the present governmental organizational structure. Specifi
cally , the existing Federal Council for Science and Technology should continue
to direct its broad concern toward the proper utilization of national science and
technology resources . This is considered to include their application to the solu
tion of critical domestic problems.
The FCST is assisted in the formulation, development, execution and monitor
ing of science and technology programs to meet the national concern by a number
of interagency coordination committees, which are charged with developing
integrated Federal programs in their assigned areas involving the missions of
 153

several agencies, and with reporting to and advising the Council. This function
should be strengthened. The establishment of a new National Science and Tech
nology Resources Council is believed unnecessary .
Existing mission oriented agencies of the Federal Government possess knowl
edge of not only the scientific and technological aspects of critical domestic prob
lems but also the political, social and economic ramifications. Therefore, con
centrated concern with domestic problems should continue to be assigned to the
affected , existing mission agencies, assisted by others as desirable ; e.g. , the
energy problem , and the formulation of a national program of research and
development to cope with this problem , is currently receiving the particular
attention of the Atomic Energy Commission ( AEC ) ; and, the environmental
quality and pollution problem is primarily assigned to the Environmental Pro
tection Agency ( EPA ) . In discharging their responsibilities for solving critical
national problems amenable to application of science and technology, AEC, EPA
and other similar agencies can enlist the capabilities of the aerospace firms,
other firms and nonprofit organizations.
Similarly, the in -house science and technology capabilities of NASA should
be utilized when applicable by other agencies on a reimbursable basis.
The Technical Council on Aerospace is favorably impressed by many aspects
of the Earth Resources Technology Satellite Program . We favor the continuation
of this program because we believe that many of its products have broad poten
tial applications in civil engineering. These applications in civil engineering can
lead to the solution of critical domestic problems in such areas as pollution,
energy resources, land uses, transportation and disaster surveys and controls.
We do not believe that the NASA Act of 1958 should be expanded since the act
already provides a mechanism for technology transfer. However, the existing
transfer mechanism should be fully utilized.
In summary , the Technical Council offers three major suggestions regarding
S. 2495, as follows :
( a ) Timely identification of critical national problems that are or might
be susceptible of resolution by the application of science and technology, and
the orderly application of national resources to the problems should be
directed at the national level .
( 6 ) A new agency ( NSTRC ) is not believed necessary to accomplish the
above goals. The existing Federal Council for Science and Technology can
be used for overall direction .
( c ) The existing mission agencies should remain responsible for their
field ; e.g. , AEC for atomic energy ; EPA for environmental protection ; and
NASA for aeronautics and space. Technology transfer should be utilized fully.
Specifically , the existing Technology Utilization program of NASA should
be supported and utilized fully.
If TCA can answer any questions or furnish additional information, please
call on us at any time .
For the Executive Committee :
J. G. DICKSON,
Chairman.
STEWART W. JOHNSON ,
Vice Chairman.
JAMES VITAGLIANO ,
Member' .
EARL J. KRAMER ,
Member' .
DAVID BARR ,
Secretary.
JAMES G. WINTER,
Management Group A.

U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,

Hon . FRANK E. Moss , Washington, D.C. , June 3 , 1971 .
Chairman , Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences ,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR SENATOR Moss : The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to reply to
your letter of January 23, 1974, requesting our comments on S. 2495, the " Tech
nology Resources Survey and Applications Act” , and on a " working draft” of
 154

S. 2495 dated January 18, 1974, the " Science and Technology Resources Survey
and Applications Act of 1974."
We believe it is essential to the Nation's well-being to accomplish the pur
pose of the bill , which is to promote the more effective, efficient use of the sci
entific and technological resources of the United States to solve critical domestic
problems. However, we do not support the bill's enactment because we believe
that it could impede the government's efforts to overcome the energy crisis by
causing duplication of responsibility among existing and proposed agencies, and
diffusing resources to conduct necessary programs.
The bill would amend the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to in
clude a Congressional declaration that NASA's research and development ex
pertise shall be made available and be used in the resolution of critical domestic
problems to the extent not inconsistent with its aeronautical and space functions.
It would establish in the Executive Office of the President the National Tech
nology Resources Council to, among other things, prepare a technology resources
survey and advise and assist the President with respect to technology resource
matters. The Administrator of NASA would establish an Office of Technology
Application through which he would furnish technical assistance to the Council.
The Office could also work on resolving domestic problems by the application of
scientific and technological resources.
The " working draft ” version of the bill makes a number of changes but is the
same in essential respects. It establishes a National Science and Technology
Resources Council, with different membership and modified duties ( e.g. , it would
not review and evaluate activities of Federal departments and agencies ) . It also
directs the establishment of an Office of Technology Application in NASA to
assist the Council. Added to the duties of the Office would be a direction to " con
duct research and development projects to demonstrate the feasibility of poten
tial solutions of critical domestic problems." Each version of the bill would
authorize $10 million for the Council for FY 1974 and FY 1975, and $200 million
for NASA for FY 1975.
S. 2495 would add still another organization ( the Council ) to those making
recommendations to the Administration on science and technology. In the energy
area , such organization could duplicate the efforts of the Federal Energy Admin
istration and the proposed Energy Research and Development Administration
( ERDA ) .
The Administrator of the recently created Federal Energy Administration is
directed, to the extent authorized by a specified subsection of the Act, to "advise
the President and the Congress with respect to the establishment of a compre
hensive national energy policy in relation to the energy matters for which the
Administration has responsibility, and, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, the integration of domestic and foreign policies relating to energy resource
management ..." The President has also proposed the establishment of ERDA
to, among other things, exercise central responsibility for policy planning, co
ordination, support and management of research and development programs
respecting all energy sources. ERDA will draw primarily upon the research and
development expertise and resources of the Atomic Energy Commission. In this
connection, the Office of Technology Application which would be established in
NASA also appears to have a broad charter which could duplicate the resyon
sibilities of numerous agencies which have developed far greater experience and
resources in particular areas. We are particularly concerned that it might en
gage in activities related to energy research and development, which would come
within the authority of ERDA. We believe that the Federal Energy Administra
tion and ERDA would provide the coordinated planning and efficient execution
of those programs necessary to meet the Nation's energy needs.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection
to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's
program.
Sincerely,
DIXIE LEE RAY,
Chairman .
 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

155
3 9015 07806 0418
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Washington , D.C. , June 4, 194.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON ,
Chairman , Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This letter is in further reply to your request for che
views of this Department with respect to S. 2495, a bill to provide for the more
effective utilization of the scientific and technological resources of the United
States in the solution of critical domestic problems, to amend the National Aerg
nautics and Space Act of 1958, and for other puropses.
This bill declares as a matter of policy that the Federal Government shall foster
the application of scientific and technological resources of the United States in
the resolution of critical domestic problems, and to that end shall prepare and
maintain a comprehensive national scientific and technological survey. To ef
fectuate this policy the bill would , in Title I thereof, establish in the Executive
Office of the President, a National Science and Technology Resources Council. The
Council would be composed of the present members of the Federal Council for
Science and Technology plus three representatives from State and local gov
ernments. The functions of the Council include preparation of an annual science
and technology resources survey, developing a program that would identify sci
entific and technological resources which are available for the resolution of criti
cal domestic problems, and making recommendations to the President who may
assign any such problem identified by the survey to the Office of Technology Ap
plications of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or any appro
priate Federal agency. The bill would authorize the appropriation to the Council
a total of $10 million for fiscal years 1974 and 1975.
Title II of this bill would estabilsh within the National Aeronautical and
Space Administration an Office of Technology Application whose functions in
clude furnishing, upon request, technical assistance to the Council in the prepara
tion of the survey and in deciding what critical domestic problems may be re
solved by applying scientific and technological resources. The Office would also ,
upon direction of the President, accept responsibiilty for specific domestic prob
lems which may be susceptible of resolution by the application of scientific and
technological resources. In addition, the Office would conduct research and devel
opment projects to demonstrate the feasibility of potential solutions of critical
domestic problems. To carry out these functions, the bill would authorize the
appropriation of $ 200 million to NASA for fiscal year 1975. Subsequent fiscal
year authorizations for the functions covered by this bill would be governed by
the same authorization of appropriation procedures applicable to NASA's other
functions.
While we agree that the scientific and technological resources of the United
States can and should be used in seeking to resolve critical domestic problems,
we fail to see how the provisions of this bill would accomplish its objectives.
Accordingly, for the reasons which are set out below, this Department recom
mends against enactment of this legislation .
The bill's principal weakness is the lack of recognition given to such critical
factors as the mechanisms for effecting the transfer and application of govern
ment-developed technology to domestic problems, the incentives for such transfer
and application, and the necessity for innovative government-industry coupling.
Ultimately, all these factors will bear importantly on the success of the program
and will largely determine whether the program produces anything more than
token demonstrations that collapse when government support is withdrawn and
there is no private incentiveor mechanism for continuing them.
The composition of the National Science and Technology Resources Council
would, as indicated above, be the same as the present Federal Council for Science
and Technology plus three representatives of State and local governments. We
view the proposed Council's creation as unnecessary for the functions that would
be assigned to the Federal Council under section 102 of this bill are essentially the
same as it now has.
 156

As you know , the Office of Science and Technology was terminated last year
and its functions were transferred to the Director of the National Science Foun
dation. As he is now the President's principal Science Adviser, it is our view
that the National Science Foundation should be given an opportunity to deal with
the problems that can be resolved through use of that agency's resources. The
statutory authority of the Foundation and that of the National Science Board
( 42 U.S.C. 1862–63 ) clearly embodies the objectives and goals of this bill. We,
therefore, feel that the surveys and identification of scientific and technological
resources called for in section 102 ( a ) and ( b ) of the bill as well as the making of
recommendations to the President called for in section 102 ( c ) of the bill fall
within the present statutory authority of the National Science Foundation and
its Board.
In analyzing the proposed creation of the Office of Technology Application and
its role in NASA under S. 2495, we note that one of the principal statutory func
tions of NASA is to arrange for the most effective utilization of the scientific
and engineering resources of the United States with other nations engaged in
aeronautical and space activities for peaceful purposes. While we recognize the
significant feats in outer space that have been accomplished by NASA, we find
difficulty in ascertaining how that agency, considering that its primary mission
assignment is centered in aeronautical and space science activities and industries
engaged in that field of endeavor, might have unique capabilities to bring to bear
on problem areas already within the purview of other Federal agencies.
Insofar as the appropriation authorization figures shown in section 204 are
concerned, we are unable to ascertain from the requirements imposed by the
legislation why a sum of $200 million would be needed by NASA for the first full
fiscal year's activities. Of the five functions assigned to the proposed Office of
Technology Application only those in section 201 ( b ) ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) are likely to in
volve expenditures of any significant amount. However, we would not think that
large sums would be expended in even these two activities until well after the
critical domestic problems alluded to in the bill have been identified and meaning
ful plans established to deal with those problems-a period that would most
likely extend through , at least the major part of fiscal year 1975.
In sum, we do not favor the enactment of S. 2495 for the reasons that a respon
sibility for analyzing critical domestic problems and the adequacy of national
science and technology resources needed to meet those problems would seem to be
inherent in the present functions of the Federal Council for Science and Tech
nology as well as in the assignment given to the Director of the National Science
Foundation as the inheritor of the functions of the President's Office of Science
and Technology . Further, other Federal agencies have the statutory authority
and capability of seeking the resolution of this nation's domestic problems and
have been striving toward that end. Assigning the functions called for by this
legislation to a single agency, ( NASA ) whose present authority is essentially
limited to one area of scientific expertise would, we feel, be an experiment which
would prove costly and unnecessarily duplicative of other agency's efforts. We
have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there would be
no objection to the submission of our report to the Congress from the standpoint
of the Administration's program.
In view of the fact that our comments were requested jointly by your Com
mittee and by the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, we are
sending a copy of this letter to Chairman Moss.
Sincerely,
KARL E. BAKKE,
General Counsel.
О O
aated last year
Science Foun
it is our view
ity to deal with
-

resources . The
Science Board
f this bill. We,
d technological
s the making of
of the bill fall
Foundation and
Application and
statutory func
of the scientific
ions engaged in
ve recognize the
NASA, we find
primary mission
es and industries
to bring to bear
agencies.
section 204 are
imposed by the
for the first full
coposed Office of
are likely to in
d not think that
il well after the
ied and meaning
Chat would most

ns that a respon
uacy of national
would seem to be
cience and Tech
National Science
Office of Science
tutory authority
cic problems and
alled for by this
ity is essentially
xperiment which
ncy's efforts. We
t there would be
m the standpoint
ly by your Com
Sciences , we are

E. BAKKE ,
eneral Counsel.
 9312
Perc
July
10.15
1474.
བ།:4[1ྱ
1. ,

11
B
 1032 -
1. Ae8 : de 813
ADVANCED AERONAUTICAL CONCEPTS
The Uni
DUPL
of Michigan
B 551087 Reference

HEARINGS
BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY- THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION.

JULY 16 AND 18, 1974

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
LIBRARIES

SEP 10 1975
DEPOSITED BY THE
Printed for the,vise of theATES OF AMERICA
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

38-2660 WASHINGTON : 1974

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington , D.C. 20402- Price $ 3.26
 COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES
FRANK E. MOSS , Utah , Chairman
WARREN G. MAGNUSON , Washington BARRY GOLDWATER , Arizona
STUART SYMINGTON , Missouri CARL T. CURTIS , Nebraska
JOHN C. STENNIS , Mississippi LOWELL P. WEICKER , JR., Connecticut
HOWARD W. CANNON , Nevada DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma
JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota JESSE A. HELMS, North Carolina
FLOYD K. HASKELL, Colorado PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
ROBERT F. ALLNUTT, Staff Director
JAMES J. GEHRIG, Professional Staff Member
GILBERT W. KEYES, Professional Staff Member
CRAIG M. PETERSON , Chief Clerk/Counsel
H. GERALD STAUB, Professional Staff Member
CRAIG VOORHEES, Professional Staff Member
Dr. GLEN P. WILSON , Professional Staff Member
RALPH E. VANDERVORT, Jr. , 488istant Chief Clerk
CHARLES F. LOMBARD, Minority Oounsel
( II )
 CONTENTS

Tuesday, July 16, 1974 : Page

Opening statement, Senator Frank E. Moss, chairman. 1
Table : Total and aerospace balance of trade, calendar years 1960
to date .. 2
Statement of Dr. James C. Fletcher, Administrator , NASA, accom
panied by J.Lloyd Jones, Deputy Associate Administrator, NASA ;

OT
and Gerald G. Kayten, Director, Study and Analysis Office, NASA
Testimony of J. Lloyd Jones--- 7
Illustrations :
1. Operational techniques for reduced fuel consumption . 7
2. Future transports ---- 8
3. Wake vortex dissipation - 9
4. Cockpit displays--- 9
5. Propulsive - lift aircraft_ 10
6. Typical tilt- rotor aircraft_. 11
7. Typical lift-fan concepts- 11
8. Fuel - conservative aircraft concept. 12
9. Fuel- conservative turbine engines . 13
Testimony of Gerald G. Kayten_ 14
Illustrations :
1. Supersonic cruise aircraft research concepts_- . 15
2. First generation supersonic transports ---- 15
3. Advanced supersonic propulsion concepts --- 16
4. The oblique -wing concept. 17
5. Subsonic hydrogen transport 17
6. Supersonic hydrogen transport- 18
7-8. Load distributions for cargo aircraft 19-20
9. Cargo aircraft design for special applications.. 20
10. Advanced fighter concepts_ 21
11-12. Hypersonic aircraft 22
13. Dual valve variable-cycle engine --- 27
Prepared statement of B. K. Holloway , Acting Associate Ad
ministrator for Aeronautics and Space Technology, NASA---- 33
Illustrations :
1. Importance of air transportation --- 34
2. Supercritical aerodynamics - cruise speed 34
3. Supercritical wing - fuel savings--- 35
Prepared statement of J. Lloyd Jones, Deputy Associate Ad
ministrator ( aeronautics ) , OAST, NASA. 35
Statement of Vice Adm. W. J. Moran , U.S. Navy, Director, Navy Re
search , Development , Test and Evaluation, accompanied by the fol
lowing Naval Air Systems Command personnel : William Koven,
Director, Advanced Aircraft Development ; Capt. A. A. Schaufel
berger, U.S. Navy, Project Manager, Thrust Augmented Wing, V/
STOL ; T. F. Kearns, Technology Administrator, Aerodynamics ,
Structures and Material ; E. A. Lichman, Assistant Technology Ad
ministrator for Advanced Air Breathing Engines ; R. G. Perkins,
Aircraft Concepts Manager, and R. F. Siewert, Assistant Technology
Administrator for Aerodynamics --- 42
( III )
 IV

Tuesday, July 16 , 1974 – Continued

Illustrations : Page
1. CCR concept --- 44
2. Conventional rotor hub and circulation control rotor
hub 45
3. One lift-fan aircraft concept 45
4. Turbotip fan. 46
5. Multimission model adaption. 46
6. Lift concept--- 47
7. Control concept ---- 47
8. Lift plus lift/cruise concept. 48
9. Hybrid aircraft concept --- 49
10. Operating environment for Navy aircraft 50
11. Stress corrosion cracking--- 51
12. Model A - 6 7050 A1 fuselage bulkhead . 52
13. Fiber reinforced composite materials. 52
14. Service evaluation components. 53
15. Reinforced thermoplastics --- 53
16. Microstructure of unidirectional solidified Al- Alg Ni
eutectic specimen .-- 54
17. Vane skin temperature. 55
18. General variable area turbine arrangement 56
19. Maximum temperature engine- 56
20. Inside of one of today's modern jet liners . 57
21. Fiber optics---- 62
22. N/WDS before and after- 63
Statement of Dr. Walter B. LaBerge, Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force, Research and Development. 65
Prepared statement of Dr. Walter B. LaBerge--- 72
Statement of Dr. Robert Cannon, Assistant Secretary for Systems,
75
Development and Technology, Department of Transportation ---
Thursday, July 18, 1974 :
Statement of J. Gordon Vaeth, Director, System Engineering, Na
tional Environmental Satellite Service , National Oceanic and At
mospheric Administration -- 86
Illustrations :
1. A 50-million-cubic-foot cargo -carrying airship, moored on
a turntable at its headquarters base with an inflatable
hangar in the background .. 90
2. A nuclear version of a passenger airship ( reactor details
have been exaggerated ) 91
3. A natural disaster relief mission being carried out by air
ship without benefit of airport or prepared facilities--- 91
4. Environmental airships at work, making atmospheric and
marine observations and, in the case of the lower ship,
engaging in the cleanup of an oil spill---- 92
Selected bibliography of airship books, reports, and articles pub
lished since 1972_ 92
Statement of Joseph F. Vittek, Jr. , assistant professor, Department
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT. 97
Illustrations :
1. Relative size of a 500 - ton airship- 97
2. Ground requirements for six 1,000 -foot dirigibles imposed
on Logan Airport in Boston.. 98
3–5 . Large crew requirements necessary in the old diri .
gibles . 99, 100
6. Ground crew of the 200-foot Goodyear blimp --- 100
7. Picture of the Shenandoah which tore off its mast in
Lakehurst 101
8. Recent accident to Goodyear blimp 102
9. Range and altitude of airship ----- 103
10. Appropriate sensor packages, rotational forces, stresses
and strains. 103
 V

Thursday, July 18, 1974 — Continued

Statement of Joseph F. Vittek , Jr. - Continued Page
11. Range of cargo costs and speeds.- 104
12. Analysis of transportation modes.- 105
13. Energy penalty in increasing speed of an airship 106
14. Cost in terms of gas capacity- 106
15. Development cost per unit . 107
16. Production cost per unit--- 108
17. Overall cost of an airship--- 108
18–19. Some examples of the sensitivity to assumptions that
can be made .-- 109
Prepared statement of Joseph F. Vittek, Jr---- 112
Material on lighter -than -air aircraft submitted by Senator Goldwater
for the record ---- 118
Statement of Dr. Jerry Grey, administrator, Technical Activities and
Communications, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau
tics, accompanied by Ernest Simpson, Air Force, Aeropropulsion
Laboratory 133
Statement of Oscar Bakke, formerly associate administrator for Avia
tion Safety, FAA--- 147
Statement of Maj. Gen. Howard H. Cooksey, Acting Chief of Research ,
Development and Acquisition, U.S. Army, accompanied by Paul F.
Yaggy, Director of Research, Development and Engineering, U.S.
Army Aviation Systems Command---- 153
Illustrations :
1. Army aviation goals. 154
2. Scope 155
3. Advancing blades concept 156
4. ABC potencial advantages . 157
5. ABC lift at 200 knots_ 157
6. The faster ABC flies, the greater its lift. 159
7. Rotor systems research aircraft 160
8. Rotor systems research aircraft project- 160
9. RSRA concept .. 161
10. Candidate rotor systems. 162
11. Tilt rotor research aircraft , 163
12. Tilt rotor program---- 164
13. Comparison of systems.. 165
14. Noise comparison for equivalent payload aircraft_ 166
15. Vibrator environment- 167
16. XV - 15 tilt rotor research aircraft conversion corridor. 167
17. Typical mission performance 168
18. Gas turbine engine for the AAH and UTTAS_ 169
19. STAGG configurations----- 169
20. STAGG engine-family -objectives-
21. Advanced small axial turbine technology program .. 171
Prepared statement of Paul F. Yaggy , Director of Research, De
velopment and Engineering, U.S. Army Aviation Systems
Command 172
Appendix :
Statement on behalf of the U.S. scheduled airlines on advanced aero
nautical concepts by Clifton F. von Kann , senior vice president ,
ATAA 180
Statement of Arthur G. Grimmins , manager , aerocrane programs , All
American Engineering Co- 209
Letter and paper submitted by Thomas R. Stuelpnagel, president,
American Helicopter Society, Inc---- 215
Letter from Hughes Aircraft Co----- 225
Comments from Boeing Commercial Airplane Co --- 226
Letter and statement from Combustion Division , Combustion Engi
neering, Inc. 230
 VI

Page
Appendix-Continued
233
Statement of Douglas Aircraft Co., McDonnell Douglas Corp-
Letter and statement of Fairchild Industries --- 241
251
Statement of J. N. Krebs, General Electric Co., aircraft engine group
Letter and statement of Goodyear Aerospace Corp- 254
Letter from Grumman Aerospace Corp---- 273
Letter and statement of LTV Aerospace Corp ---- 275
Letter and brochure from Lockheed Aircraft Corp 280
Letter and paper submitted by North American Aircraft Group, Rock
well International.. 339
Statement of F. N. Piasecki, president, Piasecki Aircraft Corp --- 350
Statement of Charles Emery Rosendahl, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy
retired 368
Statement of United Aircraft Corp--- 371
 ADVANCED AERONAUTICAL CONCEPTS

TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1974

U.S. SENATE ,
COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES,
Washington, D.O.
The committee met, pursuant to notice , at 9:36 a.m., in room 235,
Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Frank E. Moss ( chairman )
presiding
Present: Senators Moss, Metzenbaum , Goldwater, and Bartlett.
Also present: Robert F. Allnutt, staff director; Craig M. Peterson,
chief clerk / counsel; James J. Gehrig , Glen P. Wilson, Craig Voor
hees, Jerry Staub, and Gil Keyes, professional staff members; Mary
Rita Robbins,clerical assistant; Charles Lombard, minority counsel
and Anne Kalland, minority clerical assistant,
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN . The hearing will come to order.

As we begin this morning, I want to take just a minute to acknowl
edge something that is verymuch on all our minds. Thisis U.S. Space
Week. Five years ago, just about at this sametime, Neil Armstrong,
Buzz Aldrin, and Mike Collins lifted off from the Cape on the his
toric flight of Apollo 11.
Although we are here today to talk about aeronautics, and although
we will be having a number of observances of this fifth anniversary
this week, I wanted to take just a moment to note our respect for
thethousands of men and women who gave so much forall mankind.
Today the committee begins 2 days of hearings to receive testimony
on advanced aeronautical concepts.
Aviation plays an exceedingly important role in the affairs of our
country. It is one of our largest industries and largest employers.
In all of its aspects, it is one of our most technically advanced indus
tries; as a consequence, the United States enjoys å very substantial
favorable balance of trade in aerospace products. Without objection
there will be included at an appropriate point in the record the table
from page 103 of Aerospace Industries' Aerospace Facts and Figures
for1974/75, showing the balance of trade for the years 1960 through
1973. ( See p. 2. )
Aviation systems play a major role in transportation, moving peo
ple and cargo around the country andbetween countries, and predic
tions indicate manifold increases by the end of the century.
(1 )
 2

For some years now, the United States has been the undisputed
world leader in aeronautical technology and systems. We enjoyed
this position because our Government,our universities, and our in
dustry pressed the technology and have been innovative in the pro
duction and marketing of aeronautical products. To retain a leading
position in the future will likewise depend on our technology and on
the innovation of our Government, universities and industry leaders
in using this technology to meet the needs of the people.
The purpose of these hearings is to examine what the aeronautical
R. & D. community is thinking about for the future. We are inter
ested in those things that might possibly provide a quantum jump
in aeronautical technology and systems. We do not intend to review
what is under development now , but rather, what our leading aviation
experts can predict for the future.
Today, we will hear from Government witnesses from the Na
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, from the Department
of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, and the Department
of Transportation,
On Thursday, we will hear from the Department of the Army and
from witnesses outside the Government on lighter -than-air vehicles,
on neir engines and new vehicles, and from a recognized leader in
the field of aviation safety.
[The table follows :]
(Reprinted from Aerospace Industries' Facts and Figures for 1974-75)
TOTAL AND AEROSPACE BALANCE OF TRADE, CALENDAR YEARS 1960 TO DATE
[Millions of dollars)

Aerospace Aerospace trade

Total V.S. balance as percent
Year trade balance i Trade balance Exports Imports of U.S. total

1960 . $ 5, 369 $1,665 $ 1 , 726 $61 31.0

1961. 6,096 1, 501 1,653 152 24.6
1962 5, 178 1 , 795 1 , 923 128 34.7
1963 6, 060 1,532 1 , 627 95 25. 3
1964 . 7,556 1,518 1 , 608 90 20.1
1965 . 5, 852 1 , 459 1,618 159 24.9
1966 4,524 1,370 1 , 673 303 30.3
1967 . 4, 409 1,961 2 , 248 287 44.4
1968 . 2, 661 2,994 333 234.9
1 , 133
1969 . 1 , 289 2 , 831 3, 138 307 219.6
1970 . 3,089 3, 397 308 114. 6
2, 708
19714 2 2,024 3, 823 4, 196 373
19724
1973 .
-6 , 331
1 , 567
3, 242
4, 382
3, 807
5, 136
565
754
8 279.6

1 U.S. balance of trade is the difference between exports of domestic merchandise and imports for consumption.
2 First negative U.S. balance of trade since 1888.
8 Not applicable .
Revised.
Source: Bureau of the Census, "U.S. Exports, Schedule B Commodity and Country" , Report FT 410; “U.S. Imports,
General and Consumption, Schedule a CommodityandCountry ," Report FT 135; “ Highlights of U.S.Exportand Import
Trade, " FT990(Allaremonthly publications).

The CHAIRMAN. Before we call our first witness, who will be Dr.
Fletcher, Administrator of NASA, I would like to turn to my col
league, Senator Goldwater, and ask him if he has any comments or
opening statement.
 3

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly concur

with your thoughts about National Space Week. I hope it will serve
as a reminder to our fellow Americans of the many benefits that have
come from space programs.
We have a vital interest in maintaining a high level of research
and development in our country and there seems to be no doubt that
there is a relationship between R. & D. spending and improved tech
nology and higher productivity.
Part of the process lies in stimulating innovation . Innovation can
only occur when the windows are open and fresh air can come in .
And I hope these hearings will help to keep the windows open.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much , Senator. We look forward
to hearing from the witnesses we have today and as I indicated, our
first witness will be Dr. Fletcher, the Administrator of NASA.
Dr. Fletcher, you and your associates may proceed at thispoint.
[ Biographies of Dr. James C. Fletcher, GeneralBruce Holloway,
Mr. J. Lloyd Jones and Mr. Gerald G. Kayten follow :]
BIOGRAPHY OF JAMES CHIPMAN FLETCHER, NASA ADMINISTRATOR
Dr. James C. Fletcher was sworn in as Administrator of the National Aero
nautics and Space Administration in a White House ceremony in the President's
office on April 27, 1971.
President Nixon announced Dr. Fletcher's nomination as NASA Administrator
on Feb. 27, 1971 and the appointment was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on
March 11, 1971.
Dr. Fletcher became President of the University of Utah in 1964 after two
decades of leadership in industry, government and military activities.
He was born June 5, 1919 in Millburn, New Jersey, attended high school in
Flushing, New York and graduated from Bayside High School, Bayside, New
York. He received a B.A. degree in physics with a minor in mathematics from
Columbia University in 1940.
After graduation, Dr. Fletcher served as a research physicist with the U.S.
Navy Bureau of Ordance, at Port Townsend, Washington, studying the problems
of degaussing ships as protection against magnetic mines.
In 1941 he became a special research associate at the Cruft Laboratory of
Harvard University. He went to Princeton University in 1942 as a teaching
fellow and later was an instructor and research physicist.
At the end of World War II, he began work on a doctorate in physics at the
California Institute of Technology under a teaching assistantship and an East
man Kodak Fellowship. After receiving his Ph . D. degree in 1948, Dr. Fletcher
joined Hughes Aircraft Co. , Culver City , California , as director of the Theory
and Analysis Laboratory in the Electronics Division. Six years later this
division — instrumental in developing the Falconair -to -air missile and the F - 102
all-weather interceptor — had grown from 120 to 25,600 employees.
In 1954, Dr. Fletcher joined the Ramo-Wooldridge Corp. as an Associate
Director and soon became Director of Electronics in the Guided Missile Re
search Division. Later the Guided Missile Division became Space Technology
Laboratories, a subsidiary of Ramo-Wooldridge, with technical responsibility
for all United States intercontinental ballistic missiles ( Atlas, Titan and Min
uteman ) , as well as the Thor intermediate range ballistic missile. The labora
tories also initiated Pioneer 4, the nation's first space probe.
In July 1958, Dr. Fletcher organized and was first president of the Space
Electronics Corp., at Glendale, California, with his associate, Frank W. Lehan.
Space Electronics Corp. developed and produced the Able Star stage of the
Thor-Able space carrier and had grown to 300 employees by 1960 when con
trolling interest was sold to Aerojet General Corp.
A year later, Space Electronics Corp. was merged with the spacecraft division
of Aerojet to form the Space General Corp. Dr. Fletcher was responsible for
the formation of this new corporation and was its first president. He later be
came Chairman of the Board of Space General and Systems Vice President of
 4

Aerojet General Corp. He served in this dual capacity until July 1, 1964 when
he resigned to become the eighth president of the University of Utah.
In his career as a research scientist, Dr. Fletcher developed patents in areas
es diverse as sonar devices and missile guidance systems. He continues his in
terest in science through national committee work , having served on more than
50 national committees and as chairman of 10.
In March 1967, Dr. Fletcher, after serving as a consultant since its inception
in 1958, was appointed by President Johnson to membership on the President's
Science Advisory Committee, on which he served for several years.
He was a member of the President's Committee on the National Medal of
Science ; and of several Presidential Task Forces, the most recent being the
Task Force on Higher Education.
He is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, an
Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Theodore von Karman Memorial
Foundation . He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and
of the American Astronautical Society, a member of the Cosmos Club and a
member of the Board of Governors of the National Space Club.
He received the first Distinguished Alumni Award to be given by California
Institute of Technology and an Honorary Doctor of Science Degree from the
University of Utah. Dr. Fletcher served higher education as a member of the
Executive Committee of the National Association of State Universities and
Land Grant Colleges.
He is the fourth man to head the nation's civilian space agency which came
into being October 1 , 1958. The first Administrator was Dr. T. Keith Glennan,
then president of Case Institute of Technology , Cleveland. He was succeeded in
1961 by Mr. James E. Webb, a former Director of the Bureau of the Budget
and Under Secretary of State , who served until 1968. Dr. Fletcher's immediate
predecessor was Dr. Thomas 0. Paine, who resigned September 15, 1970, to re
turn to the General Electric Company after heading NASA since October 1968.
Dr. Fletcher is married to the former Fay Lee of Brigham City, Utah, and
they are the parents of four children, three girls and a boy : Virginia Lee, Mary
Susan, James Stephen and Barbara Jo . The Fletchers reside at 7721 Falstaff
Road, McLean , Virginia .

BIOGRAPHY OF BRUCE K. HOLLOWAY, GENERAL , USAF ( RET .) , ASSISTANT ADMIN

ISTRATOR FOR DOD AND INTERAGENCY AFFAIRS, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINIS
TRATOR FOR AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
Bruce K. Holloway, General, USAF (Ret . ) was named Assistant Administra
tor for DOD Interagency Affairs on March 15 , 1974. He also serves as Acting
Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Technology .
Holloway, former Commander of the Strategic Air Command, had been ap
pointed a Special Assistant to the Administrator, September10, 1973. He joined
NASA as a consultant to the Administrator on August 13, 1973.
Holloway graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1937 and
did postgraduate work in aeronautical engineering at the California Institute
of Technology. During World War II he became a fighter ace as a pilot with
the famed " Flying Tigers" of the American Volunteer Group in China. He com
manded this unit after it was activated as the Army Air Force's 23rd Fighter
Group. His distinguished career has included assignments as Commander of
the Air Force's first jet-equipped fighter group, Commander of the United States
Air Forces in Europe, and Air Force Vice Chief of Staff. His decorations include
the Distinguished Service Medal and the Silver Star .
Holloway was born in Knoxville, Tennessee. He is married to the former
Frances Purdy of New York and they have three children.

BIOGRAPHY OF J. LLOYD JONES , DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR (AERONAU

TICS ) , OFFICE OF AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
J. Lloyd Jones is Deputy Associate Administrator (Aeronautics ), Office of
Aeronautics and Space Technology, NASA Headquarters , Washington , D.C. He
has held the position since 17 June 1974.
In this position, Jones is directly responsible for aeronautical research and
technology including aerodynamics and vehicle systems, aeronautical propulsion ,
aeronautical operating systems , military aircraft programs, transport technology,
and the JT8D Refan Program .
 5

Prior to this assignment, Jones was Director, Aerodynamics and Vehicle Sys
tems Division, a position held since 1972. Earlier positions within NASA, all at
Ames Research Center, include : Research Assistant to the Director, 1970–1972 ;
Chief, Aeronautics Division, 1965–1970 ; Chief, Vehicle Aerodynamics Branch,
1962–1965; and Chief, 8 by 7 Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel Branch, 1954–1962.
Jones graduated from the University of Washington in 1944 with a B.S. in
Aeronautical Engineering and received an M. S. in Engineering Science from
Stanford in 1952.
Jones, who holds a patent on a supersonic transport aircraft concept, has
written a number of technical papers in aerodynamics and fluid mechanics, and
is an internationally recognized authority on wind tunnel design and operation.
He is an associate fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro
nautics.
Mr. Jones and his wife, Kathleen, have four children and reside in Annandale,
Virginia.

BIOGRAPHY OF GERALD G. KAYTEN

Gerald G. Kayten is Director of the OAST Study and Analaysis Office in

NASA Headquarters. Prior to this assignment he directed the Transport Ex
perimental Programs Office. He joined NASA in 1968 after 13 years with the
Martin Marietta Corporation in Baltimore, where he served as Chief Aerody
namics Engineer, Chief of Preliminary Design, and Advanced Design program
manager. In earlier Government service , he spent 9 years as Head of the Flying
Qualities and Flight Test Branch , U.S. Navy Dept. Bureau of Aeronautics, and
6 years in stability and control research at NACA's Langley laboratories.
Mr. Kayten was born in New York, N.Y. and is a graduate of New York
University's College of Engineering. He is an Associate Fellow of the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES C. FLETCHER , ADMINISTRATOR, NASA ,

ACCOMPANIED BY J. LLOYD JONES, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINIS
TRATOR, NASA ; AND GERALD G. KAYTEN, DIRECTOR , STUDY AND
ANALYSIS OFFICE, NASA

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman , Senator Goldwater, I would like to

first introduce the two gentlemen appearing with me this morning.
To my right, Mr. Lloyd Jones who has recently assumed the duties of
Deputy Associate Administrator for Aeronautics in the Office of
Aeronautics and Space Technology. On my left Mr. Gerald Kayten,
who is the Director of the Office of Study and Analysis, Office of
Aeronautics and Space Technology.
Gen. Bruce Holloway, our Acting Associate Administrator for
Aeronautics and Space Technology, intended to deliver a brief intro
ductory statement here this morning. Unfortunately, he is unable to
testify for he is acting as an honorary pallbearer at the funeral of
Gen. Carl Spaatz, whom you will remember was the first Chief of
Staff of the Air Force. In his absence I would like to offer his state
ment for the record and at the end read two brief excerpts from it
at the conclusion of my remarks.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that may be done. It will be
included . ( See p. 33. )
Dr. FLETCHER. I am always pleased to appear before this committee
but especially so in a meeting like this one. We are here today not
to discuss our budget , our needs, or our problems, but rather to share
with you a glimpse into the future of aeronautics - a subject of par
ticular interest to me.
Since my arrival at NASA in 1971 our aeronautics effort, measured
in terms of accomplishment as well as research expenditures and peo
 COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES
FRANK E. MOSS, Utah, Chairman
WARREN G. MAGNUSON , Washington BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona
STUART SYMINGTON , Missouri CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska
JOHN C. STENNIS , Mississippi LOWELL P. WEICKER , JR., Connecticut
HOWARD W. CANNON , Nevada DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma
JAMES ABOUREZK , South Dakota JESSE A. HELMS , North Carolina
FLOYD K. HASKELL, Colorado PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
ROBERT F. ALLNUTT, Staff Director
JAMES J. GEHRIG, Professional Staff Member
GILBERT W. KEYES , Professional Staff Member
CRAIG M. PETERSON , Chief Olerk / Counsel
H. GERALD STAUB , Professional Staff Member
CRAIG VOORHEES, Professional Staff Member
Dr. GLEN P. WILSON , Professional Staff Member
RALPH E. VANDERVORT, Jr. , Assistant Chief Clerk
CHARLES F. LOMBARD, Minority Counsel
(T)
 CONTENTS

Tuesday, July 16, 1974 : Page

Opening statement, Senator Frank E. Moss, chairman .. 1
Table : Total and aerospace balance of trade, calendar years 1960
to date_ 2
Statement of Dr. James C. Fletcher , Administrator, NASA, accom
panied by J. Lloyd Jones, Deputy Associate Administrator, NASA ;
and Gerald G. Kayten , Director, Study and Analysis Office, NASA. 5
Testimony of J. Lloyd Jones --- 7
Illustrations :
1. Operational techniques for reduced fuel consumption. 7
2. Future transports ---- 8
3. Wake vortex dissipation --- 9
4. Cockpit displays .. 9
5. Propulsive-lift aircraft_ 10
6. Typical tilt- rotor aircraft_ 11
7. Typical lift -fan concepts- 11
8. Fuel- conservative aircraft concept. 12
9. Fuel- conservative turbine engines 13
Testimony of Gerald G. Kayten_-- . 14
Illustrations :
1. Supersonic cruise aircraft research concepts_ 15
2. First generation supersonic transports ----
3. Advanced supersonic propulsion concepts- 16
4. The oblique -wing concept.. 17
5. Subsonic hydrogen transport 17
6. Supersonic hydrogen transport- 18
7-8. Load distributions for cargo aircraft--- 19-20
9. Cargo aircraft design for special applications 20
10. Advanced fighter concepts.. 21
11-12. Hypersonic aircraft - 22
13. Dual valve variable-cycle engine--- 27
Prepared statement of B. K. Holloway , Acting Associate Ad
ministrator for Aeronautics and Space Technology , NASA---- 33
Illustrations :
1. Importance of air transportation ---- 34
2. Supercritical aerodynamics — cruise speed. 34
3. Supercritical wing - fuel savings---- 35
Prepared statement of J. Lloyd Jones, Deputy Associate Ad
ministrator ( aeronautics ) , OAST, NASA. 35
Statement of Vice Adm. W. J. Moran, U.S. Navy, Director , Navy Re
search, Development, Test and Evaluation, accompanied by the fol
lowing Naval Air Systems Command personnel : William Koven ,
Director, Advanced Aircraft Development ; Capt. A. A. Schaufel
berger, U.S. Navy, Project Manager, Thrust Augmented Wing, V/
STOL ; T. F. Kearns, Technology Administrator, Aerodynamics,
Structures and Material; E. A. Lichman, Assistant Technology Ad
ministrator for Advanced Air Breathing Engines ; R. G. Perkins,
Aircraft Concepts Manager, and R. F. Siewert, Assistant Technology
Administrator for Aerodynamics --- 42
( II )
 IV

Tuesday , July 16, 1974 - Continued

Page
Illustrations :
1. CCR concept--- 44
2. Conventional rotor hub and circulation control rotor
hub 45
3. One lift - fan aircraft concept . 45
4. Turbotip fan.. 46
5. Multimission model adaption- 46
6. Lift concept- 47
7. Control concept --- 47
8. Lift plus lift / cruise concept- 48
9. Hybrid aircraft concept- 49
10. Operating environment for Navy aircraft. 50
11. Stress corrosion cracking --- 51
12. Model A - 6 7050 A1 fuselage bulkhead -- 52
13. Fiber reinforced composite materials. 52
14. Service evaluation components- 53
15. Reinforced thermoplastics --- 53
16. Microstructure of unidirectional solidified Al- Als Ni
eutectic specimen. 54
17. Vane skin temperature_ 55
18. General variable area turbine arrangement 56
19. Maximum temperature engine---- 56
20. Inside of one of today's modern jet liners . 57
21. Fiber optics.--- 62
22. N /WDS before and after . 63
Statement of Dr. Walter B. LaBerge, Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force, Research and Development- 65
Prepared statement of Dr. Walter B. LaBerge_ 72
Statement of Dr. Robert Cannon , Assistant Secretary for Systems, 75
Development and Technology, Department of Transportation.----
Thursday, July 18, 1974 :
Statement of J. Gordon Vaeth, Director, System Engineering, Na
tional Environmental Satellite Service, National Oceanic and At
mospheric Administration .- 86
Illustrations :
1. A 50 -million - cubic - foot cargo -carrying airship, moored on
a turntable at its headquarters base with an inflatable
hangar in the background. 90
2. A nuclear version of a passenger airship ( reactor details
have been exaggerated ). 91
3. A natural disaster relief mission being carried out by air
ship without benefit of airport or prepared facilities --- 91
4. Environmental airships at work, making atmospheric and
marine observations and, in the case of the lower ship,
engaging in the cleanup of an oil spill.- 92
Selected bibliography of airship books, reports, and articles pub
lished since 1972 92
Statement of Joseph F. Vittek, Jr., assistant professor, Department
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT .- 97
Illustrations :
1. Relative size of a 500 - ton airship .. 97
2. Ground requirements for six 1,000 - foot dirigibles imposed
on Logan Airport in Boston.. 98
3-5 . Large crew requirements necessary in the old diri.
gibles.-- 99 , 100
6. Ground crew of the 200 -foot Goodyear blimp- 100
7. Picture of the Shenandoah which tore off its mast in
Lakehurst 101
8. Recent accident to Goodyear blimp---- 102
19. Range and altitude of airship --- 103
10. Appropriate sensor packages, rotational forces , stresses
and strains . 103
 V

Thursday, July 18, 1974Continued

Statement of Joseph F. Vittek, Jr. — Continued Page
11. Range of cargo costs and speeds... 104
12. Analysis of transportation modes -- 105
13. Energy penalty in increasing speed of an airship 106
14. Cost in terms of gas capacity- 106
15. Development cost per unit- 107
16. Production cost per unit.. 108
17. Overall cost of an airship--- 108
18–19. Some examples of the sensitivity to assumptions that
can be made.- 109
Prepared statement of Joseph F. Vittek, Jr. 112
Material on lighter -than - air aircraft submitted by Senator Goldwater
for the record --- 118
Statement of Dr. Jerry Grey, administrator , Technical Activities and
Communications, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau
tics, accompanied by Ernest Simpson , Air Force, Aeropropulsion
Laboratory 133
Statement of Oscar Bakke, formerly associate administrator for Avia
tion Safety, FAA--- 147
Statement of Maj . Gen. Howard H. Cooksey, Acting Chief of Research ,
Development and Acquisition, U.S. Army, accompanied by Paul F.
Yaggy, Director of Research, Development and Engineering, U.S.
Army Aviation Systems Command--- 153
Illustrations :
1. Army aviation goals . 154
2. Scope 155
3. Advancing blades concept- 156
4. ABC potencial advantages . 157
5. ABC lift at 200 knots.. 157
6. The faster ABC flies, the greater its lift_. 159
7. Rotor systems research aircraft , 160
8. Rotor systems research aircraft project- 160
9. RSRA concept. 161
10. Candidate rotor systems. 162
11. Tilt rotor research aircraft_ 163
12. Tilt rotor program .- 164
13. Comparison of systems--- 165
14. Noise comparison for equivalent payload aircraft 166
15. Vibrator environment .. 167
16. XV - 15 tilt rotor research aircraft conversion corridor. 167
17. Typical mission performance . 168
18. Gas turbine engine for the AAH and UTTAS_ 169
19. STAGG configurations---- 169
20. STAGG engine-family-objectives---
21. Advanced small axial turbine technology program . 171
Prepared statement of Paul F. Yaggy, Director of Research, De
velopment and Engineering, U.S. Army Aviation Systems
Command 172
Appendix :
Statement on behalf of the U.S. scheduled airlines on advanced aero
nautical concepts by Clifton F. von Kann, senior vice president,
ATAA 180
Statement of Arthur G. Grimmins, manager , aerocrane programs, All
American Engineering Co --- 209
Letter and paper submitted by Thomas R. Stuelpnagel , president,
American Helicopter Society, Inc---- 215
Letter from Hughes Aircraft Co--- 225
Comments from Boeing Commercial Airplane Co---- 226
Letter and statement from Combustion Division, Combustion Engi
neering, Inc. 230
 6

ple, has increased steadily. I would like to be able to report an even

greater increase, but I realize, as you do, that our resources are not
unlimited and our planning is necessarily influenced by priority needs
in many areas. Nevertheless, I believe we have a healthy aeronautical
research program in being and I fully expect to see it grow even
more so.
Any discussion of advanced aeronautical concepts requires that we
project well out into the future. Our confidence in such projections
depends largely on how solid a base we use as our starting point
and how well we have performed in the past. In this regard I believe
NASA , and NACA before it, can point to a fairly impressivetrack
record. The research conducted in our laboratories and flight facilities,
in close cooperation with military services and aeronautical industry,
has led to a succession of advances spanning all but the very earliest
history of flight These include early NACA accomplishments ; for ex
ample, airplane drag reduction ; the development of a family of air
foil sections used in generations of successful military and civil air
plane designs; a series of effective high - lift devices essential to high
performance transport and combat airplane design ; the establishment
of a data base for high -speed airplane design resulting from the
" X -airplane " series of research programs covering swept wings, low
aspect-ratio design, delta wings, and variable sweep ; and, more re
cently, the so -called " area rule” which made sustained flight in the
transonic speed range practical.
Most recently, the research has produced the supercritical airfoil
technology which is now beginning to influence new military and
civil designs, and the propulsive -liftconcepts shortly to fly in the
Air ForceAdvanced Medium STOL Transport prototype program .
NASA's aeronautical programs provide the essentialtechnology
foundations, and contain the seeds from whichNASA , the military
services, and the industry evolve a variety of advanced concepts.
These concepts constitute options for eventual development. Among
them are several which will greatly alter the character of future
aviation systems,but at this time it is virtually impossible to predit
which will actually be developed and produced. This will, of course,
depend on the demonstration of technical feasibility, but it will de
pend also on a combination of economic, social, military, and political
considerations which will determine the willingness and ability to
finanace the particular undertaking.
Although we cannot predict with confidence where the advanced
concepts will lead, we can postulate where they may lead and we
thinkthe prospects are quite exciting. In the remainder of this half
hour we will review some of the more interesting concepts and the
uses to which they may be put. Since you will be receiving separate
military testimony, we willplacemost of our emphasis onpotential
civil applications. Mr. Jones will cover the nearer term future, in
which significant improvements in the familiar forms of subsonic air
transportation appear possible. Mr. Kayten will address the more
speculative and farther out future possibilities. We will then be
pleased to answer your questions or to provide additional information
not included in our statements.
 7

3ven
The CHAIRMAX . Thank you. Mr. Jones, will you go ahead ?
not Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, Senator Goldwater, the major trends in
eeds aviation over the next two decades will be influenced strongly by com
cical mitments already made by the aircraft operators and bytechnology
ven
developments now under way. These developments, particularly those
undertaken in response to pressing needs such as energy conservation
i we
and environmental improvements, will lead to significant changes in
IONS
the relatively near-term future.
it
Toward the end of the century, a new generation of civil transports
ieve will be in operation. Most of the wide-body jets of today will have
'ack
been replaced in trunk-line service, and a greatly expanded and di
versified airline market will be served. Air transportation will con
jes.
try,
tinue to be economical, environmentally acceptable, and socially bene
iest
ficial. Aircraft engines, which constitute only a minor factor in
ex
pollution, will become even cleaner. Noise impact on the community
ir will be drastically reduced from that of past and present jet aircraft.
Above all, the aircraft will be fuel-conservative, an essential feature
because the energy shortage and fuel costs will continue to be issues
zh of great importance.
ent
he During this time period, advancements are expected in three gen
W
eral areas: operations, short-haul and special-purpose aircraft, and
long-haul transports.
re
he A major element in future aeronautics, which contributes to
fuel economy, noise reduction, congestion relief, and safety, is a new
oil approach to operations ( fig. 1) . Some of the techniques include steep,
od
curved approaches; reduced separation distances; fewer holds in flight
and on the ground ; and, improved allweather operations. In later
le

V OPERATIONAL TECHNIQUES FOR

у REDUCED FUEL CONSUMPTION
3.
g IMPROVE TERMINAL
AREA OPERATIONS
'e
t
REAL - TIME ROUTE
COMPILATION

REDUCE SEPARATION DISTANCES

ALL WEATHER
OPERATIONS
SPEED - UP
TRAFFIC FLOW

MINIMIZE
GROUND IDLE
TIME

MANAGEMENT OF ENERGY DURING

DESCENT, APPROACH & LANDING
1 REDUCE GROUND ACCESS TIME
Figure 1
 8

developments, advanced avionics and active controls will permit

routine maneuvers which are beyond the capability of an unaided
pilot, especially in exploiting the unique terminal- area character
istics of STOL and VTOL aircraft.

Figure 2

Future transports ( fig. 2 ) will be configured for compatibility

with improved terminal-area operations. A recent study has identi
fied conceptual features which include drag, brakes for steeper
approaches; avionics and displays for precise, efficient control
of aircraft movements, high -capacity landing gear for quick run
way turnoffs; and several methods of vortex control -- for example,
outboard nacelle placement - effective at takeoff - and especially
scheduled trailing-edge flap deflection and retractable turbulence
generators — both effective at landing.
Vortices generated by the wings of large airplanes are a significant
factor in terminal-area congestion. At present, they cause us to space
aircraftlandings a minimum of 3-5 miles apart as a safety precau
tion. Dramatic progress is being made toward vortex control and
dissipation, and we are confident that the separations required for
vortex avoidance can be reduced to 1-2 miles. Recent smoke tests in
the Langley vortex test facility ( fig. 3 ) provide a visual display of
trailing vortices both with and without vortex dissipation devices.
As approach and landing procedures become more precise and
tightly scheduled, corresponding improvements will be made in cock
pit displays ( fig. 4 ) and automatic landing systems.Augmentation
of the pilot's available information and reduction of his workload
will improve both energy conservation and safety.
 .9

WAKE VORTEX DISSIPATION

NORMAL VORTEX DISSIPATED VORTEX

Figure 3

1113

LEO

FRI

100838..GGCO
Figure 4
 10

PROPULSIVE - LIFT AIRCRAFT

NASA QSRA

POTENTIAL AMST'S

BOEING YC - 14 DOUGLAS YC - 15
NASA RD74-2020 (3 )
Figure 5 (Rev. 1) 7-5-74

Short-haul aircraft will be particularly benefited by operational

improvements because they spend so large a portion of their time
operating in the terminal area. The advanced propulsive -lift concepts
being pursued for short-haul transports will provide the performance
and high maneuverability required for advanced terminal area opera
tions. This capability also permits the use of shorter runways . The
combination could eliminate costly delays and fuel waste, and con
tribute to improvement in overall transport system efficiency. Propul
sive-lift concepts are currently being incorporated in the Air Force
( AMST ) prototype designs and in a NASA research airplane ( fig.
5 ) . Results of flight research on these vehicles will provide the basis
fordesign decisions on future militaryand civil transports .
Vertical take -off and landing aircraft of the future will combine
vertical ascent and descent capability with more efficient horizontal
flight than is possible with today's helicopters. Apart from con
siderable improvement possible in the helicopter itself, two concepts
appear quite promising for future application - thetilt- rotor and
the lift - fan .
In the tilt-rotor concept (fig. 6) the aircraft operates as a con
ventionalhelicopter in verticaltake-off and landingbut attains high
speedflight on wing lift, tilting the large rotors to act as propellers.
In the lift-fan concept ( fig. 7) gas generators are used to drive ver
tical-axis fans in the nose, and perhaps also in wing tip pods, for
STOL and VTOL operation. Horizontal-axis fans are used for cruise
thrust , with nozzles to divert the thrust downward for takeoff and
landing. The first applications of VTOL aircraft will probably be
military, to satisfy a number of advanced tactical and logistic mis
 11

TYPICAL TILT - ROTOR AIRCRAFT

B. TRANSITION
CONVERSION ) MODE 00C

C. CRUISE MODE
A. HELICOPTER
MODE

ПП
&
NASA HO RH73. 152241318-14: 12
Figure 6

al
ne
ts
ce

e
2
1
Y
ce NAV
SC

1S
x

16
al

10

8.

OT
S8
nd
be Figure 7
Eis

38-266 O - 74 - 2
 12

sion needs. Civil applications may provide efficient and rapid access
to such remote locations as off shore oil rigs and wilderness sites.
The next generation oflong -haul transports must be designed for
economical operation at fuel costs predicted to be more than three
times thepre- 1973 level. They will use only two-thirds to one-half as
much fuel per availableseat mile as the aircraft they replace. Current
studies are evaluating the fuel-saving benefits of advanced transport
design features (fig . 8 ).Designed for present-day subsonic cruise
speeds, the aircraft sketched in this figure combines many of these
features. It utilizes supercritical wing technology to reduce both drag
and weightby permitting a higher aspect ratio, less sweep and thicker
airfoil sections. Composite materials are used extensively, providing
a significant weight reduction. Active controls, fast acting and com
puter coordinated, will allow reductions in inherent aerodynamic sta
bility and in loads imposed on the structure, thereby reducing both
weight and drag. Small winglets ( or vortex diffusers) mounted at
the wing tips reduce the lift-induced drag . Removal of part of the
boundary layer on the wing and tail surfaces through porous or
slotted skins maintains extensive regions of laminar flow with a
dramatic skin-friction drag reduction. The turbulent skin - friction
drag of the fuselage is reduced by injecting air through slots into
the boundary layer. The fuselage boundary layer is ingested into
the aft-mounted engine in a way which provides an efficient source of
injection air. The design features intended to reduce skin friction
have the potential of great benefits in fuel conservation, but will re
quire considerably more technology development than the other
features shown.

FUEL -CONSERVATIVE AIRCRAFT CONCEPT

doo
ooooo
boooo
WINGLET COMPOSITE
LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURE
HIGH ASPECT LOW NOISE
RATIO
O 00 "D)
oop oop2.0
NACELLE
SUPERCRITICAL 0P OLD
WING 200 ...DOP Cop c
POROUS SURFACE FOR
LAMINAR FLOW CONTROL

។
AIR INJECTION

-BOUNDARY LAYER
INGESTION ACTIVE CONTROL
SYSTEM
NASA RX75-2801
7-2-74
Figure 8
 13

acoso FUTURE FUEL -CONSERVATIVE TURBINE ENGINES

sites.
nedfor
in thre
-half x

ansport
- CTUR CURRENT TURBOFAN

Eh dry
thickr
Oviding
d con
nic st ADVANCED -TECHNOLOGY,
g but CONVENTIONAL - CYCLE TURBOFAN
teda
of the
us of DURAN
with
iction
ADVANCED -CYCLE
into
into
ce of
ction
1 re
ther
TURBOFAN CONCEPT
(REGENERATOR ) TURBOFAN
e
Figure 9
NASA RL75-2389 (2)
7-9-74

Fuel-conservative engines will incorporate advances in the tech

nology of compressors, turbines, inlets, nozzles, seals, combustors,
fuels, and lubricants and some (in later models) will use advanced
cycles, including features such as regenerators. A drastic reduction in
engine size will accompanythe change from current engines ( fig. 9,
upper engine) to a fuel-conservative, advanced -technology turbofan
of conventional cycle ( fig. 9, center engine). Installed weight reduc
tions and overall efficiency gains combine to produce an effective fuel
consumption drop of 15 percent. One concept of an energy -conserva
tive advanced -cycle engine ( fig. 9, lower engine) incorporates a
regenerator, which uses exhaust heat to raise thecombustor inlet tem
perature. This engine is predicted to use 30 percent less fuel than
the current-technology turbofan engine.New engines will utilize ad
vanced engine components and will be significantly quieter and
cleaner than current engines.
We have a short filmillustrating the wake vortex and advanced
avionics
show no
and information display research which I would like to
w.
The first movie sequence will show the vortices produced by the
standard Boeing 747 configuration. Measurements of induced roll are
made on the model whichfollowsthe 747. The second sequence illus
trates the alleviation of the vortex intensity by external devices at
tached tothemodel.Youwill noticetheabsence of thetightly rolled
vortex force.
 14

With continued research there is hope that the vortex problem

will be eliminated. The next element in solving the runway capacity
problem has to do with reliable and routine all weather operations.
This experimental 737 aircraft is a research facility to study this,
as well as other problems.
A novel feature of this aircraft is the cabin within the cabin, where
instrument pilots may conduct flight evaluations of advanced dis
plays and controls designed specially for all weather situations. 1

Two examples ofthe types of advanced displays being studied are

shown here. A single display at the top presents integrated altitude
data in an improved format. The display at the bottom is, in effect,
an active map containing updated position and landmark' data.
This scene, a fully automatic landing, illustrates how a pilot-flying 1

1
with instruments alone can either monitor or control approach, land
ing, and rollout, using the integrated data concept. The aircraft al
titude is displayed digitally in the box in the upper right; a forward
facing TV camera is used to superimpose an imageof the outside
scene on the display. The flight path angle, roll, and drift attitude
are indicated by the two wedges in the center of the display. The
position of the aircraft with respect to the desired approach path is
indicated by the position of the aircraft " symbol” within the " landing
guidance ” box.
Additional work is needed and planned . For example, a method
must be found to display the outside scene in all weather conditions.
The research under way will continue to place heavy emphasis on
the primary displays needed for pilot confidence in operations in
dependent of weather.
This brief look at aeronautics in the late 20th Century suggests
that important changes resulting from advancements in aeronautical
technology will makepossible considerable improvements in the more
familiar forms of military and commercial aircraft. Complementing
these evolutionary improvement options, and in some instances com
peting with them, will be a number of advances along less conven
tional lines, some of which will be discussed next by Mr. Kayten.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. That was a fine statement.
Mr. Kayten , will you go right on ?
Mr. KAYTEN . Mr. Chairman , Senator Goldwater, Mr. Jones has
indicated some of the improvements we can expect in conventional
aeronautical systems during the 1980's and 1990's. In addition, a
number of more radical departures from the conventional systems
can be envisioned, some during that same time period, and others as
advanced concept options for the more distant future.
One of the primary measures of a transportation system's merit
is the product of the payload and the distance it is carried in a
given time interval. On the basis of this productivity criterion alone,
supersonic transportation appears inevitable, whether or not the
first-generation European entries prove economically successful.
When an American supersonic transport is undertaken , it will have
to offer large advantages over the most advanced subsonic jets, and
over the initial and improved versions of the Concorde and the
TU - 144, in order to compete successfully on the world market. It
will also have to overcome the environmental concerns which figured
 15

olem
in cancellation of the original SST prototype program . We believe
内

that thesupersonic cruise aircraft research now in progress could

lead to a second-generation SST with at least a 100 percent increase
呱 城

in payload capability, a 25 to 30 percent increase in range, and a 25

percent increase in speed relative to the Concorde, withnoise levels
邮

dis
well below current Federal regulations, and with objectionable
engine emission reduced by 90 to 95 percent with respect to present
,

day engines.
The optimistic predictions are based on several new conceptual
fect
approaches which were not far enough along when the first-genera
tion designs were being solidified. These include, for example, the
arrow -wing planform and the " blended ” configuration ( fig. 1) which
offer considerable increases in aerodynamic efficiency compared with
ang
the more familiar delta shapes ( fig. 2 ) and which now , with new

side SUPERSONIC CRUISE AIRCRAFT RESEARCH CONCEPTS

cude
The
his
ing

bod
Ins.
on
in

sts
cal
ore ARROW WING BLENDED WING BODY
ing
M
Figure i
en
en.
nt FIRST GENERATION SUPER SONIC TRANSPORTS

zas
nal
a

ms
as

rit
a
ne,
me H HHE
al.
e
ed
ne
BOEING 2707 TU 144 CONCORDE
It
d
Figure 2
 16

ADVANCED SUPERSONIC PROPULSION CONCEPTS

VECTORING NOZZLES POWERED LIFT

五三 三
thos
THRUST REVERSER MODE
saLOW-SPEED MODE

SUPERSONIC MODE LIFT - AUGMENTATION

AND CONTROL MODE
Figure 3

structural concepts, can be designed for practical manufacture. The

arrow wing, incidentally, has the additional advantage of spreading
the lift over a longer length , reducing sonic boom effects. The ad
vanced supersonic design concepts also include the use of propulsive
lift to enhance the wing lift, and the use of a totally new variable
cycle engine ( fig. 3 ). The variable cycle engine is an essential new
feature. The concept is somewhat similar to that of the variable
sweep wings used on supersonic combat aircraft. Here the internal
engine geometry is altered to vary the engine airflow as a function
offlight speed . Operating as a gear shift, the variable cycle opti
mizes efficiency for both low -speed and high -speed flight, and per
mits low -noise take-off and landing. Lastly, the new configurations
will gain additional performance through the weight savings
achieved by use of the active controls concept. In the supersonic
applications, the active controls may include vectored thrust as well
as aerodynamic control surfaces.
For certain civil or military missions, flight at very low super
sonic speeds, with no sonic boom effects at all, may prove necessary
or highly desirable. The oblique -wing concept ( fig. 4) offers an in
teresting option for such applications, providing both drag and
weight benefits relative to symmetrically swept wings. In low -speed
flight, the wing is rotated to operate as a conventional unswept wing
with its inherent low -speed performance and safety advantages. The
oblique-wing is also being studied to determine whether it offers
significant benefits in subsonic applications.
Apart from the fuel conservation concepts discussed by Mr. Jones
and the efforts toward synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, the use of liquid
hydrogen , or possibly liquid methane, as an alternatefuel is being
considered for both subsonic and supersonic aircraft. Depending on
the cost and energy required to produce them, the liquified glass
 17
A2 .
S
A
M

Figure 4

ದ ದ ಸಾ
Le.
EW
Le
Lal
On
i
er
ms

ell

er Liec

Ty

md
ad
ng
he
ETS

Les
ad
ng Figure 5
on
SS
 18

i
i
I
+

CO.
а

i
T

1
Figure 6

could be of interest as a means of reducing dependence on petroleum

and other fossil fuel sources. If the hydrogen can be carried in
ternally, the subsonic hydrogen transport ( fig. 5) willhigh
not appear
much different from conventional design,
a and the energy
content of the hydrogen will actually result in some weight and per
formance advantages. If the external-pod arrangement is selected
for safety reasons, the performance will be somewhat degraded. In
a supersonic design ( fig . 6) , the hydrogen configuration again ap
pears conventional, andthe performance improvement is even more
significant. From the standpoint of the airplane and engine design,
the cryogenic fuel concept appears entirely feasible. The more for
midable technology problems lie in the system support areas of
economical hydrogen production liquefaction, distribution, storage,
and handling
Perhaps the greatest air transport growth in the future will occur
in the air freight field where extremely large demand is expected
toward the end of the century. Several of the advanced concepts
now being studied are directed at the cargo requirement, looking
at advanced ground handling concepts as well as advanced cargo
vehicl concepts.
e
The projected demand growth, the large size and weight of some
of the anticipated cargo units, the handling considerations, and the
advantages of scale all suggest the eventual development of very
large air vehicles that will dwarf the largest wide-body transports
flying today. The size alone will present a number of technology
problems, even if the vehicles are relatively conventional airplanes.
 19

If systems and economic studies indicate that unconventional air

craft, or surface -effect machines, or airships offer attractive alterna
tives, either for general transportation or for importantunique appli
cations, the required technology preparation may be still more exten
sive. For example, preliminary study indicates that one potentially at
tractive and productive airship concept may be a totally new form of
vehicle, a hybrid in which the lift developed from buoyancy is supple
mented by aerodynamic lift, or propulsive lift,or both. Our studies of
the cargorequirement, and the various alternative approaches to meet
ing it, include consideration of lighter-than -air and semibuoyant
vehicles as well as conventional aircraft.
The large cargo airplane may carry most of its load and its fuel
in the wing rather than in the body ( figs. 7 and 8 ) . This flexibility
in load distribution is one of the benefits of large size, and permits
major savings in structural weight, since the distributed load
balances the aerodynamic lift forces on the wing. The result is a
potential payload increase on the order of 50 percent, with a cor
responding decrease in operating cost and fuel per ton -mile. Other
advanced concepts being considered ( fig. 9 ) include : coupled aircraft
in which the efficiency and distributed span-loading of the large
wing are obtained by in -flight combination of individual smaller
units which may operate from independent termnials; tandem air
craft in which the large loads are carried in thebody but supported
by two wings; and large, conventional low-speed airplanes in which
advanced technology is deliberately avoided in favor of design
simplicity and low manufacturing cost.
um
in
par

ST
2r
ed
'n
)
e
‫ܕ‬
FI

NASA X73
Figure 7
 20

LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS FOR CARGO AIRCRAFT

SPAN - DISTRIBUTED LOADING

1 CONVENTIONAL LOADING

Bo
Figure 8

CARGO AIRCRAFT DESIGN FOR SPECIAL APPLICATIONS

de
m

662 US

sto
rez
FREIGHTER
TANDEM
WING
• LARGE, ODD- SIZE PAYLOADS all
• DESIGN SIMPLICITY • WEIGHT ADVANTAGE
tin
• CONVENTIONAL GEAR TREAD toc
SOD
an
th

tr
0

100/1

COUPLED AIRCRAFT
- 0

• AERO EFFICIENCY to
00 0

00

• SPAN -DISTRIBUTED LOAD Th

0

• TERMINAL- COMPATIBLE UNITS eng

0-

int
0

Figure 9 tur
0
/100

000
Although no active effort is currently under way toward nuclear son

powered aircraft, the trend toward very large size, large payload lab
requirements, and long range, together with the fossil fuel shortage vel
concerns, could very conceivably lead to a revival of interest in COM
nuclear power, particularly if a military need emerges for missions
of extremely long duration. Sen
One of NASA's technology efforts in support of military require evo

ments is directed at developing concepts for substantial improve

ments in advanced fighter maneuverability ( fig. 10) . We have been
perfecting the techniques of remotely piloted research vehicles, to
 21

ADVANCED FIGHTER CONCEPTS

Beel

000
VORTEX LIFT ENHANCEMENT

WING FUSELAGE INTEGRATION

INTEGRATED FIGHTER DESIGN

NASA RH75-2301
THRUST INDUCED LIFT CONCEPT 7-2-74
Figure 10

minimize cost and risk in flight testing selected high maneuverability

design concepts. The military services are experimenting with re
motely piloted vehicles - RPV's — for missions such as battlefield
surveillance. It is possible that RPV's may in the future be found
useful for specialized civil applications such as monitoring of severe
storms, forest fire detection, fire fighting, disaster assistance, and
remote area deliveries.
The hypersonic transport may be a follow -on or perhaps even an
alternative to second -generation supersonic flight. Operating at three
times the speed of Concordeor about eight times the speed of
today's jet transports— and capable of very long ranges, the hyper
sonic transport could be of interest in an era of increased East -West
and African trade. Hypersonic transports would operate at ex
tremely high altitudes and use liquid hydrogen fuel.
At first glance, the hypersonic airplane ( fig. 11 ) looks quite similar
to a supersonic vehicle. Actually, there are some major differences.
The airplane is powered not by a conventional turbojet or turbofan
engine, but by a supersonic -combustion ramjet ( fig. 12) intergrated
into the structure. Because of the very high flight speeds, the struc
ture must be cooled by circulating liquid, depending on the large
cooling capacity of the liquid hydrogen to remove the heat. Hyper
sonic research engine tests have been conducted successfully in the
laboratory ; a possible flight research program to further the de
velopment of the hypersonic cruise flight concepts is currently being
considered jointly by NASA and the Air Force.
In the much more distant future, there exists the possibility of
semiglobal, or suborbital, rocket -propelled transport which could
evolve concurrently with further advances in space transportation.
 22
a

d
m

ac

A
US

na

OP

BERO
E.
&
tr:
HYPERSONIC AIRCRAFT WE

ite
be
Figure 11
de

21

SA

Figure 12
 23

We have reviewed only some of the potential new developments in

aeronautics. We have covered them only sketchily, and have not
discussed any of the research and technology programs which will
advances possible. We
make theseinformation will be pleased to provide any
additional you may require.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kayten, for the
glimpse you, Mr. Jones, andDr. Fletcher have given us. It is stimu
lating and pricks our curiosity as to what further we can be moving
onto.
I wonder, Mr. Fletcher, if you could have more funding for aero
nautics, what do you see as the most pressing need or the greatest
opportunity for rapid advance !
Dr. FLETCHER. Well, it is hard to point to one particular program
as needing funding. I would like to turn to my associates in a
minute, but I would say that I feel a little uneasy about the lack
of funding for this variable cycle engine that Mr. Kayten was talk
ing about for possible supersonic application. I think that develop
ment of that engine will not only be useful for possible supersonic
transports in the future but may be useful in other applications and
we arenot really spending enough money in that area.
Mr. KAYTEN. Yes sir. The variable cycle engine is the one key
item. At the moment we cannot even predict when the Nation would
be ready to make a decision on proceeding withsupersonic transport
development. With about 5 years of research efforts on the variable
cycle engine we believe that we would have that information in hand
andbe on our wayif the decision is positive.
The CHAIRMAN . How much effort are you able to put on it now,,
on the variable cycle engine ?
Mr. KAYTEN . At the moment we are working on component re
search toward the variable cycle engine which is probably appropri
ate for maybe this year or next year. Beyond that it would require
a significant increase to really proceed with variable cycle engine
research .
The CHAIRMAN. And about 5 years out you think it ought to be
in a position where we could be seriously considering its utilization
in supersonic aircraft ?
Mr. KAYTEN . Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN . Dr. Fletcher, as you know , it was this committee
that recommended the Civil Aviation Research and Development or
CARD policy study several years ago. Can you tell us what the
status is of your efforts to implement the recommendations of the
CARD study ?
Mr. JONES. Well, the recommendations of the CARD study dealt
primarily with the noise and congestion problems of our transporta
tion system . Since the time of that study we have emphasized re
search in those areas in our program and certainly that emphasis
remains. We will continue to do that.
More recently, of course, there has been much concern over the
energy conservation aspects of aviation and that has to be taken into
account with the pollution and noise research because in some areas
the requirements are not compatible and compromise must be made.
 24

So the direct answer to your question is that we continue to empha di

sizethenoise and congestion problems, as was noted in the testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. That is on -going now on a regular basis?
Mr. Jones. Yes. That is an essential part of our research program . s

.
mi
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to turn to my colleague , Senator na
Goldwater. I may want to come back later with another question or
two. It
Senator GOLDWATER . Mr. Jones, referring to your vortex supres

2
sors in figure 2 (p. 8 ) , you did not fully explain the effect of the

2.8
plunger. That is all I can call it. That is what it looks like. Near the boi

wing tip of each wing. What does that do ?

Mr. JONES. There is an example of that shown on the model in

?
front of me. It is essentially a turbulence generator which introduces
turbulence into the stream at the location of the vortex and that
turbulence tends to break up the continuity of the vortex. Those are
1
envisioned to be used in the landing approach. They would not be ten
appropriate for takeoff because of the high drag that they introduce.
But the high drag in the landing approach may well be compatible ☺
with steeper approach concepts in the landing approach. hay
Senator GOLDWATER. Yes, but you had vortex on takeoff. Would 1

the placing of the engine near the wing tip tend to overcome the
lesser vortex that is developed on takeoff ! I know it is not a traffic
problem but we have had some accidents on takeoff following jet
aircraft too closely by conventional light aircraft.
Mr. Jones. Well, the one advantage in takeoff is that aircraft are
dispersing rather than converging,but the aspect we show here is
the outboard placement as you point out - placement of the outboard Ta
engine near the wing tip so that the energy which it contributes
tends to disperse the vortex and avoid the concentrated vortex core in
some distance behind the aircraft.
Senator GOLDWATER. Just as a matter of information, in your
vortex research what is the maximum distance that the vortex has
been of sufficient force to cause problems behind preceding aircraft? pl
I ask that because one night I ran into vortexproblems nearly 10
miles behind a 707 and it actually started to roll me. How far back W

bar
will that
Mr. JONES. I would think that is about the limit. We have en
an
countered significant disturbances 7 to 10 miles behind large trans
port aircraft .
Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you. le
Now, relative to the oblique wing, that is a very interesting con en

cept. I wish you could go into it a little more. It would be a con ap

ventional wing on takeoff and landing ? a

Mr. KAYTEN. That is right. It would be unswept for takeoff and

landing
Dr. FLETCHER. It is mostly useful, Senator Goldwater, in the
region just beyond sonic, about Mach 1.2 or thereabouts.
Senator GOLDWATER. Well, could you explain the aerodynamic ad
vantages in placing it in the oblique position ? I can see some prob
lems being accentuated if we confine it in a conventional wing such
as in a turn, the higher wing goes faster than the lower wing creating
 25

18.
varying lift problems. Would not this happen to a more marked
15 degreewith the oblique wing in that position ?
Mr. KAYTEN. It does not seem to, Senator. The actual advantage
21.
is largely one of structural weight rather than aerodynamic- in a
Y muchmore simple hinge and pivot mechanism . There is an aerody
namic advantage and perhaps Mr. Jones would want to explain that.
It has to do withthe reduced drag forces on the oblique wing.
Mr. Jones. Well, the aerodynamic advantage is thatit is effectively
a higher aspect ratio wing than a conventional swept wing where
both panels of the wing are swept back, comparingwings of the
same span. There is a higher degree of aerodynamic efficiency in the
yawed wing.
Senator GOLDWATER. What happens to the turbulence on the wing ?
Does it travel straight back or does it tend to go along when the
wing isin that position ?
Mr. JoNEs. Well, the boundary layers flow very close to the surface,
tends to follow back along the wing but the general flow over the
wing does not.
Senator GOLDWATER. You have done wind tunnel tests on this,
have you not ?
Mr. JONES. Yes. We have a numberof wind tunnel tests. Boeing
has made studies for us of the possibility of application of this
concept to a transport aircraft.
Dr. FLETCHER . Senator, we have also flown small models of that
skewed wing exhibit, to study some of the stability and control
aspects of it. It seems to behave reasonably well so far.
Senator GOLDWATER. It is a two-position set up or can this be
varied ?
Mr. JONES. It could be varied . Primarily I think it would be flown
in two positions, unswept for low speed and highly swept for the
high speed cruise.
Senator GOLDWATER. Does this have any effect on the sonic boom
problem ?
Mr. KAYTEN. The configuration itself does not but the speed at
which it would be flying is selected so that there would be no sonic
boom effects reaching the ground
Senator GOLDWATER. You got into hydrogen fuel. How far away
are we from the practical use of hydrogen ?
Mr.KAYTEN. We think, Senator, with respect to the aircraft prob
lems the technology could be ready probably in the mid-1980's. How
ever, the hydrogen economy aspects, the production and distribution
and the ground support systems, and above all the economical avail
ability of the hydrogen fuel, that seems to be considerably farther,
possibly at the veryend of the century. We do not believe that we
would go in a civil application to hydrogen use for aircraft alone.
Aircraft would use hydrogen if the rest of the world were using
hydrogen in large quantities.
Senator GOLDWATER. Well, it is a much stronger fuel, is it not ? Say
per cubic foot of fuel would you not get more power from the hydro
gen than you would out of any conventional fuel ?
Mr. KAYTEN. You get considerably more energy per pound. The
volume is actually larger. Yes sir, it is about something on the order
 26

of three times the energy per pound that we have in the hydrocarbon
fuels. Then there is a compensating loss because of the volume and
the installation, things that go with it. It still ends up a net gain
in applications depending, ofcourse, on what the manufacture and
liquefaction costs are.
Senator GOLDWATER. Now, I wonder if you could give us a short ex
planation of the variable cycle engine . I can understand a reciprocat
ing engine but when you get into the fan type engine, what cycle are
you varying ?
Mr. KAYTEN. The thing primarily being varied is the quantity of
air flow through the engine and the- effectively the by-pass ratio,
and in one simple model which we started to bring up but it was a
little too small to visualize, we actually have just a two-position series
of tubes, if youwill, one permitting a larger passage of air, the
other one a smaller one, and by rotation we switch from one to the
other. There are a variety of different ways of accomplishing this.
But basically it is to permit more bypass air at one speed range than
in another.
Senator GOLDWATER. Do we not dothat now in the SR -71 engine?
If that is the cycle that you are talking about, the cycle of air, is
that not the secret of the SR - 71 engine, the control of air ?
Mr. KAYTEN . I think, Senator, what we are doing there is — you
mean the variation of the inlet size
Senator GOLDWATER. Yes.
Mr. KAYTEN. I think that — it does not quite do the same thing. It
does not alter the ratio of bypass to straight through air. It alters
the total air. I believe that is the difference .
Senator GOLDWATER. Well, do we not do that to some extent in the
bypass engine today ?
Mr. KAYTEN. We do it at a fixed ratio and that is why the high
bypass ratio is excellent for low speed takeoff thrust, for low noise
and so on. In supersonic flight, it is a loss. Ideally what you would
like to have is a straight jet in supersonic flight and a high bypass
ratio engine for takeoff and landing, and these mechanisms for
jockeying the amount of air in effect provide that for us. This is all
in the very early conceptual stage at the moment.
Senator GOLDWATER.Are there any papers available on what you
have done so far ? Let's say is there a paper available on the basic
concept ?
Mr. KAYTEN . Yes sir. We can provide that.
Senator GOLDWATER. I would like to have one just for my own use.
[Material requested follows :]
The terminology " variable cycle ” as applied to engines has come to be asso
ciated with those engines which operate as turbofan engines at subsonic speed
and as straight or after-burning turbojets at supersonic speed. Variable cycle
engine types include, but are not limited to : Single valve variable cycle engines ;
mixed mission integrated propulsion systems ; variable stream control engines ;
and dual valve variable cycle engines.
The characteristics of all of these types of variable cycle engines are that
they move large amounts of air at relatively low velocity at subsonic speeds for
low noise and good specific fuel consumption, and relatively small amounts of air
at high velocity at supersonic speeds for optimum cruise specific fuel consump
tion .
 27

001 A single valve variable cycle engine would use a valve or flow diverter between
dual fans by which some of the front fan air would be bypassed around the
second fan and additional auxiliary inlet air provided to the second fan for
subsonic operation, but, for supersonic operation, all intake air would pass
through front and rear fans and the compressor stages.
A mixed mission integrated propulsion system would use three turbojet en
gines in a single pod where, for subsonic operation , some of the main inlet air
is bypassed in ducts around two outboard engines with the main stream through
at. the compressor, burners, turbine, and nozzle of the middle engine. Auxiliary inlet
ant air is also ducted through the compressors, etc. , of the outboard engines in the
pod. For supersonic operation, the auxiliary inlets are closed and main inlet air
feeds all three engines. The total system thus operates as a turbofan at sub
-e di sonic speeds and a turbojet at supersonic speeds.
A variable stream control engine is a variation on a duct heating turbofan in
$1 which, for subsonic operation, the duct heater is not lit, while for supersonic
1
speeds, it is lit. Such an engine would also contain variable fan, compressor,
and turbine geometry .
A dual valve variable cycle engine being studied intensively is shown in the
th enclosed chart. At subsonic speeds, this engine would operate in a high -bypass
his mode ( upper part of chart ) . In this mode, the intake air is split to pass through
( a ) the front fan , then the rear fan, the high compressor, the burners, the high
hau and low turbines and the second low turbine as in a straight turbojet, and ( b )
the front fan and then through an auxiliary nozzle similar to the operation of
me! a bypass jet. Since additional bypass air is needed, an auxiliary inlet is also
.
opened which carries the additional air around the compressor and turbines
and discharges it at the primary nozzle. This bypass air may be given additional
energy for acceleration modes by use of the duct heaters if required. For the
you supersonic cruise mode ( lower part of chart ) the auxiliary inlets and nozzles
are closed and the intake air is split to pass through ( a ) the compressor, the
burners, and the high and low turbines to be discharged through the rear flow
diverter valve into the outer duct without passing through the second low tur
-. It bine, and ( b ) the duct heater and the rear flow diverter valve to power the
ters second low turbine. In the supersonic cruise mode, the engine is in essence a
dual turbojet with the intake airflow matched to the requirements of the com
pressor/burner /high and low turbine path and the fan/duct heater / second low
the turbine path .

Ligh DUAL VALVE VARIABLE -CYCLE ENGINE

Oise
uld
Jass FORWARD FLOW HIGH
for AUXILIARY -AUXILIARY SECOND LOW
DIVERTER COMPRESSOR
INLET NOZZLE TURBINE
: all HIGH BYPASS
MODE
you (LOW TAKEOFF
NOISE)
asic
TURBOJET
MODE
(SUPERSONIC
use.
CRUISE
REAR FAN - PRIMARY
-TURBINES REAR FLOW
FRONT DUCT
FAN (WITH BURNER ( HIGH DIVERTER
asso HEATER
ROTATING ( COOLED )
AND LOW )
peed SPLITTER ) -
ycle
ines ,
nes, FIGURE 13
that The CHAIRMAN . Thank you. Mr. Jones, NASA has been working
for
fair
steadily for many years on the STOL aircraft but the civil STOL
ump
always seems to be just around the corner. Are we getting any closer
to a widespread use of STOL or is it still a long way off ?
Mr. JONES. Well , I believe the use of STOL in the transportation
system will be an evolutionary process because it requires a complete
38-266 O - 74 - 3
 28

system to be totally effective. I think the development of the Air

Force AMST prototype aircraft and the testing done with the NASA
research airplane, pictures of which were shown here, will go a long
way toward defining capabilities that can be built into SĨOL air
craft. The AMST aircraft, of course, do not have the constraints on
them that are placed on an aircraft designed for civil operation, par
ticularly in the area of noise.
Dr. FLETCHER. Could I clarify that statement ? We use terms some
times that are technical and not always understood. When we say
systems, we mean the airplane, the airport,the landing system , and
the traffic control system that takes the STOL fromone place to
another. Just changing the plane to a STOL does not giveyou all
the advantages of a STOL system . You really need to change the way
airports are designed and you need to change the traffic control sys
tem, the whole works, along with it to get full advantage.
What Mr. Jones is saying, I think, is that the technology for all
of these things is available. For the airplane, we are doing it, but
the whole system is a very expensive and a slow changing kind of
thing. What he is saying is it will gradually happen , not suddenly
happen.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there not a great demand for STOL ; isn't there
quite a bit of pressure for it ?
Mr. JONES. Well , I think there is no lack of demand from the
standpoint of addingto theefficiency of our transportation system
but the cost of installing a STOL system , and I use that term along
the lines defined by Dr. Fletcher, issignificant and that is why I be
lieve it will happen as an evolutionary process.
As the aircraft becomes available, it will be used initially within
the existing airports and as the system totally develops, then there
will be changes made to accommodate the unique capabilities of the
STOL aircraft.
The CHAIRMAN . Mr. Jones, some have suggested that advanced
computers and sophisticated wind tunnel techniques should allow us
to move toward a two-step FAA certification of new aircraft, pre
liminary certification as an aid to financing, and final certification
of the actual aircraft for general use. Does this seem feasible to you?
Mr. JONES. There is a potential there, I believe, to do just that.
We are in fact exploring those possibilities with the FAA at the
present time, but they are in the very early stages of exploration.
The CHAIRMAN. So you think it is feasible and would be a pretty
good idea but FAA is considering it, is that it ?
Mr. Jones. The feasibility really has to be established vet. We have
to make some studies utilizing our current flight simulation equip
ment with some test cases. I perhaps am a little early in sayingthe
total system is feasible. It seems feasible and we are examining that.
We would like to establish the feasibility. Of course , certification is
the FAA's concern and anyway in which we can help them with
NASA technology, we wi}} certainly standby to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, certification is a bit costly, is it not ? How
much does it cost to certify a 747 ?
 29

Air
Mr. JONES. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman , I cannot answer that
SA
question.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, my information is it is quite a long and com
air
plicated process and takes a vast amount of money ; I just wondered
if there could be a simplification and if the two-step certification might
par lead to simplification.
Mr. JoNEs. Well, certainly it is a costly process and anything we
ome
can do with the technology that NASA works with to assist the FAA
SAT
and the industry in reducing those costs should be looked at and we
are doing that.
迦

e to The CHAIRMAN . Senator Metzenbaum , do you have any questions?

Senator METZENBAUM. I had an Interior Committee hearing at
the same time as this one so I was a little late. I have just one ques
STS tion on the usage of STOL in the total system aspect, could you
explain what it requires at the landing field You talked about three
all areas other than the equipment itself and I was a bit curious because
but I could not quite envision the problem .
of Dr. FLETCHER. I'll defer to our expert on airports. Let us try Jerry
enly Kayten . Jerry is the expert in this area.
1
Mr. KAYTEN . The SÌOL airplane, Senator, is really not so much
here a short runway operation as a low speed flight capability which en
ables you to maneuver very tightly and utilize the minimum of air
the space and keep noise off the community and things like that.
tem Oneof the things you needto beable to utilize that capability to
ong the fullest extent is the, oh, things like the microwave landing system
be. which provides information to the pilot and which he can use in
guiding the airplane, and particularly under instrument conditions.
chin The things that we would really like to do with these propulsive lift
here airplanes is to separate them from the conventional traffic and use
the them to relieve the congestion that was built in a few years ago and
has slacked off now, which is one reason for the slackening in the
med apparent demand. But to do this, it simply means that you want to
US
use additional airports or additional runways and that means just
re prosaic things like terminal buildings and baggage handling and
CON traffic .So it is not a sophisticated system that is required insome
n! cases. It is just
at. Senator METZENBAUM. It is a simpler system . You would use a
he simpler kind of a runway , a runway which would not be as long.
Mr. KAYTEN . That is right.
y Senator METZENBAUM . And therefore I am wondering why, in an
swer to the Chairman's question — you talk about the fact you needed
€
a special kind of airport. It would seem to me that most airports
that I can recollect have long runways but often times have shorter
e runways that are not used.
Mr. KAYTEN. Yes, youcould use the airports but you would not
get the benefit for which they would be developed and the cost
just would not warrant it.
Senator METZENBAUM . How much runway do you need on an aver
age STOL takeoff and landing ?
Mr. KAYTEN . It could be as low as 2,000. It is more costly to design
for that, more likely 3,000 feet would be about average.
 30

Senator METZENBAUM. One point, there was a good deal of pub

licity about STOL being totally vertical on takeoff. Is that just a
nice conversation topic ?
Mr. KAYTEN . No , sir. We would call that VTOL and Mr. Jones
showed some pictures. We are working towards that, too. But it is
a little further away and a little more costly.
Senator METZENBAUM . Thank you .
Dr. FLETCHER. Senator Metzenbaum , could I add one other thought?
One of the easiest illustrations of a STOL airport would be a 3,000
foot runway placed in the middle of the East River, lets say, right
along side of Manhattan. You could do that with STOL and you
would really gain a big advantage ifyou came up with somethinglike
that. I am not proposing to do it but you could do that and then
relieve a lot of the traffic that lands out at Kennedy International
and it would be a lot easier to get into work from there.
That is just an illustration of something that could be done with
STOL in order to take real advantage of the possibility of a short
runway .
Another possibility you already mentioned, use short pieces of exist
ing airports. But then you have got to figure out the traffic, how to
take advantage of that short piece so it does not get mixed up with
the traffic using the longer runways.
All of these things have to be put together in a national system and
that is being considered now but it is not being done.
Senator METZENBAUM . Thank you .
The CHAIRMAN . Thank you. Senator Goldwater, you have an addi
tional question ?
Senator GOLDWATER. Would you not say that the landing and take
off of helicopters at the conventional airports presents somewhat the
same kind of a problem that you are talking about ? I mean they
have not really solved that yet.
Dr. FLETCHER. No question about it. If helicopter traffic grows any
more it is going to really congest the airports that we have; and I
do not know, but I suspect that helicopter traffic is partly limited
by the other traffic patterns. Is that a proper statement ?
KAYTEN . It is but not as much as STOL traffic is limited, be
cause the STOL is still a normal flying machine and the controllers
bring them in in normal approaches and intermixes them , whereas
thehelicopter they will allow tocomein on taxi strips andin the
hanger areas and things like that. They are a little less reluctant to
mix them in with conventional airplanes. If there were a lot more of
them as Dr. Fletcher says, they probably would get a little more
concerned .
Senator GOLDWATER. That model behind you, with the variable al
titude engines, we have one of those flying now, made in Canada ?
Not exactly like that. It is not the large rotor type blade but
Mr. KAYTEN. That rotates the entire wing and
Senator GOLDWATER. Yes.
Mr. KAYTEN [ continuing ]. And it is more of a propeller driven
airplane like the CX - 142 was, whereas this is more of a conventional
helicopter. It is a different approach to the same general concept, yes.
 31

pak Senator GOLDWATER. And Sikorsky cameout with a contra -rotating

此

rotor for helicopter use and, in fact, I think they built a prototype to
eliminate all of the torque problems. Have you had anything to do
with that ?
Mr. KAYTEN. I did not see the article but we have been testing with
Sikorsky, their so-called ABC concept and I think that is about
what that is.
ght Senator GOLDWATER. I have a few more questions, Mr. Chairman.
3.00 Does the United States now possess the technology to build an eco
nomically attractive SST ?
Dr. FLETCHER. That is really a tough question. My guess is — if you
forgot about all the environmental issues — it would be possible,but
then
ional
just barely so. My recommendation would not be to start an SST
right now; but to develop the technology necessary to build an eco
nomical and environmentally acceptable SST. I would defer that de
with
cision to later in the decade and work intensively on the technology
short so indeed when we made the decision, if we made the decision, we
xist
would have an economically, and as pointed out in the testimony, a
much more viable airplane than either the Concorde or the Soviet
w to planes.
with Senator GOLDWATER. You answered my next question.
Has NASA studied the economics of a hypersonic transport ?
and Mr. KAYTEN. I do not believe we have gone very deeply into the
economics. We have been working the technology both for possible
transport and for military use. I think the economics of the hyper
ddi sonic transport - I do not really believe we would have a sound basis
for analyzing that and it would depend really on missions and mar
ake kets that we can not yet visualize. We know it would be feasible
the technically. We do not know it would be desirable economically.
ther Senator GOLDWATER. Remember in 1946 hearing Hall Hibbard of
Lockheed talk about the Mach 4 transport flight.I think everybody
an inthe room thought he was off his rocker.
ad I Mr. Kayten, do you believe lighter-than-air vehicles can help the
Gited nation's future transportation needs ?
Mr. KAYTEN. Well, we are going intosome fairly extensive studies
be to develop a better answer to that. I believe there are certain unique
lers requirements for which lighter-than - air can do things that nothing
meas else can do. What we do not know yet is the extent ofthe require
the ment, whether or not it would justify development, and one of the
E to reasons we are making the kind of studies that we are entering into
of now is that the lighter -than -air we believe starts to look more attrac
ore tive when you introduce new technology. New technology means new
effort and additional cost and we are trying to be sure enough of our
al
TA !
ground so that if we enter into a technology development effort we
are doing it because we know the demand and justifications are there.
The answer to your question is, yes . I believe that lighter-than -air
can help. What we want to find out is where it can help and what
applications and what type of vehicles and what technology we could
en provide that would help with the development.
val Senator GOLDWATER. Again, Mr. Kayten, has NASA looked at the
25.
hybrid proposed by the Aereon Corporation of Princeton , New
Jersey ?
 32

Mr. KAYTEN. Yes sir. We conducted some studies of our own on a

hybrid which isvery similar to the Aereon general concept some
years ago. The Goodyear people proposed one like it and this was
one of the conceptual approaches that turned some of us on about
the potential of lighter -than -air or semilighter-than -air. The hybrid
does offer higher payload capability, higher speed, higher altitude,
and better groundhandling possibilities and a number of the things
that would make an airship more feasible. We have asked in the
studies that we are about to undertake that that be one of the types
of configurations given particular study by the study contract.
Senator GOLDWATER. As you know, as you gentlemen have demon
strated, what really surprised me is the varied interest in lighter
than -air in this country. I just made a few casual remarks a few
moments ago about lighter-than -air and I am already a member of
about 5 associations. In fact, there is one being built not too far
from my home in Arizona and a number of others that are under
going development. SoI hope you keep up with it.
One last question, Mr. Kayten. Has NASA studied the circulation
control rotor based on the Coanda effect ?
Mr. KAYTEN. I believe we have some people working with the Navy
Department in testing of that concept at the NSRDC facility , and we
provided some technical assistance. I do not recall whether we ac
tually did any of our own testing. We did — I think, when Mr. Jones
was still out at Ames, we testedsomething somewhat similar in one
of these cooperative programs with one of the French helicopter com
panies but it was not quite the same thing. We are aware of it and
our people have been working with the Navy people but I believe
the development you are talking about has been worked primarily
by the Naval Air Systems Command, if it is the one I think it is.
Senator GOLDWATER. They are coming on today. I have not seen it.
It has been over a year, and I have not kept up with what progress
is being made. I wondered if NASA had their hands in that particu
lar project.
Mr. JONES. The tests conducted at the Ames Research Center were
on a jet flap rotor which actually used a jet exhaust at the trailing
edge of the blade.
Senator GOLDWATER. There was some experimentation, I believe,
too, of that same effect replacing our alternating wing flaps, is that
correct ?
Mr. KAYTEN. The upper-surface blown wing approach to propul
sive lift essentially uses that principle.
Senator GOLDWATER. Gentlemen, that is all I have, Mr. Chairman .
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Senator from Oklahoma, do you
have any questions ?
Senator BARTLETT. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman .
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We do appre
ciate it, Dr. Fletcher and Mr. Jones and Mr. Kayten. It was an in
teresting presentation and we appreciate being updated a little. We
would like to have you back and get updatedsome more very soon.
Thank you .
 33

[ Prepared statements follow :]

Some
PREPARED STATEMENT OF B. K. HOLLOWAY, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOB FOB
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, NASA
ibout
I welcome the opportunity to discuss with this Committee some of the ad
zbri vanced aeronautical concepts which may affect our lives in the foreseeable
future . have with me Mr. J. Lloyd Jones, my Deputy for Aeronautics, and
Mr. Gerald G. Kayten, Director of our study and Analysis Office.
In the 70-year history of powered fight, continuing research has made pos
sible some remarkable improvements in the efficiency, economy, comfort, and
type safety of flight. Research has enabled the U.S. to maintain world leadership in
both civil and military aviation—a position now being threatened by increas
mon:
ingly serious foreign competition. The statistics shown in Figure 1 illustrate
the importance of the high -technology, highly competitive field of air transpor
chter tation.
fer NASA and its predecessor, NACA, have contributed a major share of the aero
er ol nautical research foundation upon which the nation's military and civil avia
tion pre -eminence has been built. In light of the results, the cost of this research
fr has been quite modest. The investments involved in a single major aeronautical
nder venture such as the Boeing 747 or an equivalent military program can easily
exceed 3 billion dollars. The aeronautical exports for a single year, as shown
ation in Figure 1, can also exceed this figure which is considerably greater than the
total spent on aeronautical research by NASA and NACA during the entire 60
years of their combined existence.
Nary A vigorous national program of aeronautical research and technology must
d we be maintained in view of the pressures of international competition and military
preparedness, and the vital concerns for energy conservation and environmental
eat protection in meeting the nation's long-term air transportation needs.
Tones NASA's aeronáutical programs provide the essential technology foundations,
2 one and contain the seeds from which we, the military services, and the industry
com evolve a variety of advanced concepts. These concepts constitute options for
eventual development. Among them are several which will greatly alter the
and character of future aviation systems, but it is virtually impossible at this time
liere to predict which will actually be developed and produced. This will, of course,
rily depend on the demonstration of technical feasibility , but it will depend also on
it is a combination of economic, social, military, and political considerations which
will determine the willingness and ability to finance the undertaking.
en it Even in the case of a clear technical breakthrough, it is difficult to judge
ress where and how a new concept will be applied. The NASA supercritical wing,
Ticu for example, was originally conceived and tested as a means of achieving å
15–20 % increase in jet transport cruise speed, to approximately Mach 1, the
speed of sound ( Figure 2 ) . Technical feasibility was demonstrated successfully,
were but although the higher -speed performance is being considered for specialized
Eling combat aircraft and business jet applications, it has not yet been found suffi
ciently beneficial economically to justify its general adoption for commercial
transportation. In the meantime, however, a completely secondary benefit of the
aers, supercritical wing concept has emerged as an extremely important feature and
that is currently being utilized in several advanced military and commercial trans
port designs. In this alternate application , which was demonstrated in a joint
NASA /Navy flight research program , the wing is considerably thicker than that
pul required for near-sonic speed. Instead of the speed advantage, the thicker super
critical wing permits considerable savings in weight, cost, and most signif .
jan. cantly - fuel ( Figure 3 ) . Mr. Jones will discuss this and other fuel-conservation
yor
concepts in his statement.
Although we cannot predict with confidence where the advanced concepts will
lead, we can postulate where they may lead — and we think the prospects are
quite exciting. In the remainder of this half hour we will review some of the
pre more interesting concepts and the uses to which they may be put. Since you will
in be receiving separate military testimony, we will place most of our emphasis on
potential civil applications. Mr. Jones will cover the nearer - term future, in which
Te significant improvements in the familiar forms of subsonic air transportation
on . appear possible. Mr. Kayten will address the more speculative and farther out
future possibilities. We will then be pleased to answer your questions or to
provide additional information not included in our statements.
 34
HEN

IMPORTANCE OF AIR TRANSPORTATION

WORLD - MOBILITY
480 MILLION PASSENGERS
• 380 BILLION PASSENGER-MILES
TERI
TATE
T • 12 BILLION TON -MILES CARGO

U.S.A. - ECONOMIC
$ 18 BILLION INDUSTRY
700,000 JOBS
• $3 + BILLION EXPORTS

U.S.A. - MILITARY
· RAPID GLOBAL LOGISTIC SUPPORT

Figure 1

SUPERCRITICAL AERODYNAMICS -- CRUISE SPEED

$

i
TE

r
SUPERCRITICAL
CONVENTIONAL le
S
ic

DRAG

1
CRUISE SPEED

1
I 3

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

SPEED ( MACH NO. , M ) NASA RX75-2803

7-8-74

Figure 2

1
0

la
 35

SUPERCRITICAL WING --- FUEL SAVINGS

쳤
CONVENTIONAL ( Ms. 8) SUPERCRITICAL ( M •. 8)
1

FUEL CONSUMPTION

200 1.6 BILLION 1.36 BILLION

AIRPLANE GALLONS GALLONS
FLEET PER YEAR PER YEAR

ANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS : 240 MILLION GALLONS

NASA RX75-2802
7-2-74
Figure 3

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. LLOYD JONES, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

( AERONAUTICS ), OAST, NASA
The major trends in aviation over the next two decades will be influenced
strongly by commitments already made by the aircraft operators and by tech
nology developments now under way. These developments, particularly those
undertaken in response to pressing needs such as energy conservation and en
vironmental improvements, will lead to significant changes in the relatively
near-term future .
Toward the end of the century , a new generation of civil transports will be
in operation. Most of the wide-body jets of today will have been replaced in
trunk -line service, and a greatly expanded and diversified airline market will
be served. Despite the temporary setbacks being experienced by the airlines, it
is still predicted that total passenger miles flown per year may be three or more
times the current traffic, even in the face of somewhat increased fares and im
provements in alternate transportation modes.
Air transportation will continue to be economical, environmentally acceptable
and socially beneficial. Aircraft engines , which constitute only a minor factor
in pollution , will become even cleaner. Noise impact on a community will be
drastically i'educed from that of past and present jet aircraft. Above all, the
aircraft will be fuel -conservative, an essential feature because the energy short
age and fuel costs will continue to be issues of great importance. These improve
ments will be achieved as a result of technology advances on which research
is now in progress .
During this time period, advancements are expected in three general areas :
operations, short-haul and special-purpose aircraft, and long-haul transports.
A major element in future aeronautics, which contributes to fuel economy,
noise reduction, congestion relief, and safety, is a new approach to operations.
Some of the techniques ( Fig. 1, see page 7) include steep, curved approaches ;
reduced separation distances ; fewer holds in flight and on the ground ; and,
improved all weather operations. The two-segment approach now being intro
duced in limited operations is the forerunner of these advanced techniques. In
later developments, advanced avionics and active controls will permit routine
maneuvers which are beyond the capability of an unaided pilot,especially in
exploiting the unique terminal-area characteristics of STOL and VTOL aircraft.
 36

Future transports ( Fig. 2, see p. 8 ) will be configured for compatibility

with improved terminal-area operations. A recent study has identified conceptual
features which include drag brakes for steeper approaches ; avionics and dis
plays for precise, efficient control of aircraft movements, high - capacity landing
gear for quick runway turn -offs ; and several methods of vortex control - for
example, outboard nacelle placement ( effective at take -off ), specially scheduled
trailing -edge flap deflection and retractable turbulence generators ( both effec
tive at landing ).
Vortices generated by the wings of large airplanes, which have been described
as miniature horizontal tornadoes, are a significant factor in terminal-area
congestion. At present, they cause us to space aircraft landings a minimum of
3-5 miles apart as a safety precaution. Good progress is being made toward
vortex control and dissipation, and we are confident that the separations re
quired for vortex avoidance can be reduced to 1–2 miles. Recent smoke tests in
the Langley vortex test facility ( Fig. 3, see p . 9 ) provide a visual display of
trailing vortices with and without vortex dissipation devices.
As approach and landing procedures become more precise and tightly sched
uled, corresponding improvements will be made in cockpit displays ( Fig. 4, see
p. 9 ) and automatic landing systems. Augmentation of the pilot's available
information and reduction of his workload will improve both energy conserva
tion and safety.
Short-haul aircraft will be particularly benefited by operational improvements
because they spend so large a portion of their time operating in the terminal
area. The advanced propulsive -lift concepts being pursued for short-haul trans
ports will provide the performance and high maneuverability required for low
speed, steep, precise, quiet operations in the terminal area . This capability also
permits the use of shorter runways. The combination could eliminate costly
delaysand fuelwaste, and contribute to improvement in overall transport sys
tem efficiency. Propulsive-lift concepts are currently being incorporated in the a
Air Force YC – 14 and YC – 15 (AMST) prototype designs and in a NASA re in
search airplane ( Fig 5, see p. 10 ) . Results of flight research on these vehicles Se
will provide the basis for design decisions on future military aircraft and civil OL
transports.
Vertical Take -Off and Landing ( VTOL) aircraft of the future will combine
vertical ascent and descent capability with more efficient horizontal flight than SC
is possible with today's helicopters. Apart from considerable improvement possi re
ble in the helicopter itself, two concepts appear quite promising for future t'i
application — the tilt-rotor and the lift-fan. TE
In the tilt-rotor concept ( Fig. 6, see p. 11 ) , the aircraft operates as a con st
ventional helicopter in vertical take -off and landing but attains high-speed flight e
on wing lift, tilting the large rotos to act as propellers. In the lift-fan concept CO
( Fig. 7, see p. 11 ), gas generators are used to drive vertical-axis fans in the ta
nose, and perhaps also in wing tip pods, for STOL and VTOL operation. Hori. DE
zontal-axis fans are used for cruise thrust, wi nozzles to divert the thrust
to
downward for takeoff and landing. The first applications of VTOL aircraft will
probably be military, to satisfy a number of advanced tactical and logistic
mission needs. Civil applications may provide efficient and rapid access to such a
remote locations as off shore oil rigs and wilderness sites. CE
The next generation of long -haul transports must be designed for economical a
operation at fuelcosts predicted to be more than three times the pre- 1973 level.
They will use only one-third to one-half as much fuel per available seat mile t
as the aircraft they replace. Current studies are evaluating the fuel-saving 9
benefits of advanced transport design features ( Fig. 8, see pp. 12, 37 ) . Designed
for present-day subsonic cruise speeds (Mach No. 0.8 ) , the aircraft sketched in
this figure combines many of these features. It utilizes supercritical wing tech
nology to reduce both drag and weight by permitting a higher aspect ratio, less
sweep and thicker airfoil sections. Composite materials are used extensively ,
providing a significant weight reduction. Active controls, fast acting and com
puter coordinated, will allow reductions in inherent aerodynamic stability and
in loads imposed on the structure, thereby reducing both weight and drag.
Small winglets ( or vortex diffusers ) mounted at the wing tips reduce the lift
induced drag. Removal of part of the boundary layer on the wing and tail
surfaces through porous or slotted skins maintains extensive regions of laminar
flow with a dramatic skin-friction drag reduction. The turbulent skin -friction
drag of the fuselage is reduced by injecting air through slots into the boundary
layer . The fuselage boundary layer is ingested into the aft-mounted engine in
 37

FUEL - CONSERVATIVE AIRCRAFT CONCEPT

o
oooo
.
dis D .. ee .

0 oo
din:
-fo WINGLET COMPOSITE
200 ' ) booo doo ច ]
Luled LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURE
HIGH ASPECT
LOW NOISE
RA ‫י‬
NACELLE ‫סס‬
SUPERCRITICAL ‫סס‬
ribed ‫ס‬
WING ‫סס‬
are ‫סס‬
‫סס‬
‫ס‬‫סס‬
‫סס‬ POROUS SURFACE FOR
‫ס‬
Ward ‫ס‬‫סס‬ LAMINAR FLOW CONTROL
31 ‫ס‬ ‫סס‬
‫ס‬
ts in ‫סס‬
‫סס‬
‫סס‬
so D
O
D
D
‫סם‬
D

3, AIR INJECTION
labile
erta
-BOUNDARY LAYER
ents INGESTION ACTIVE CONTROL
inal SYSTEM
Irans
NASA RX75-2801
- lot 7-2-74
also
Figure 8
sys
in the
A ne
a way which provides an efficient source of injection air. The design features
hicles intended to reduce skin friction have the potential of great benefits in fuel con
civil
servation, but will require considerably more technology development than the
other features shown.
mbine Fuel -conservative engines will incorporate advances in the technology of com
than
pressors, turbines, inlets, nozzles, seals, combustors, fuels and lubricants and
some ( in later models ) will use advanced cycles, including features such as
possi
uture regenerators. A drastic reduction in engine size will accompany the change from
current engines ( Figure 9, see p. 13 upper engine ) to a fuel-conservative, ad
I con
vanced -technology turbofan of conventional cycle ( Figure 9, center engine ) . In
flight stalled weight reductions and overall efficiency gains combine to produce an
incept effective fuel-consumption drop of 15 percent. One concept of an energy
n the conservative advanced -cycle engine ( Figure 9, see p. 13 lower engine) incorpo
Hori
rates a regenerator, which uses exhaust heat to raise the combustor inlet tem
hrust
perature. This engine is predicted to use 30 percent less fuel than the current
t will technology turbofan engine. New engines will utilize advanced engine compo
gistic nents and will be significantly quieter and cleaner than current engines.
such One important concept affecting the evolution of all future, highly -efficient
aircraft is the use of computer-aided design methods, utilizing the powerful
mical
computer capabilities now coming into operation ( Figure 10 ) . Combined with
level. advanced wind tunnel facilities, these advanced analytical techniques permit
; mile extensive early exploration and optimization of design alternatives, reduced
trial-and -error in development, closer approaches to design criteria and margins
signed
and, consequently , reduced cost.
nedin
This brief look at aeronautics in the late 20th Century suggests that impor
tant changes resulting from advancements in aeronautical technology will make
). less
possible considerable improvements in the more familiar forms of military and
sively
commercial aircraft. Complementing these evolutionary improvement options,
and in some instances competing with them , will be a number of advances along
com
less conventional lines, some of which will be discussed next by Mr. Kayten,
and
drag. PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD G. KAYTEN , DIRECTOR, STUDY AND ANALYSIS
e lift OFFICE ( OAST ) , NASA
i tail
ninar As Mr. Jones has indicated , we can expect considerable improvement in con
iction ventional air transportation systems during the 1980's and 1990's. In addition,
adary a number of more radical departures from the conventional systems can be en
ne in visioned. Some of these advanced concepts could be developed concurrently with
 38

the improved traditional types ; others are probably much farther into the
future. All of them are credible options which are considered to be technically
feasible.
One of the primary measures of a transportation system's merit is the product
of the payload and the distance it is carried in a given time interval. On the
basis of this productivity criterion alone, supersonic transportation appears in
evitable, whether or not the first-generation European entries prove economically
successful. When development of an American supersonic transport is under
taken, it will have to offer large advantages over the most advanced subsonic
jets, and over the initial and improved versions of the Concorde and the TU
144, in order to compete successfully on the world market. It will also have to
overcome the environmental concerns which figured in cancellation of the origi
nal SST prototype program . We believe that the supersonic cruise aircraft
research now in progress could lead to a second -generation SST with at least
a 100 % increase in payload capability, a 25-30 % increase in range, and a 25%
increase in speed relative to the Concorde, with noise levels well below current
federal regulations, and with objectionable engine emissions reducer by 90-95 %
relative to present-day engines.
The optimistic predictions are based on several new conceptual approaches
which were not far enough along when the first-generation designs were being
solidified , and which still require considerable work to assure technology readi
ness. These include, for example, the arrow-wing planform and the " blended "
configuration ( Figure 1, see p . 15 ) which offer considerable increases in aero
dynamic efficiency compared with the more familiar delta shapes ( Figure 2,
see p. 15 ) . Interest in these refined aerodynamic shapes has been spurred by
new structural concepts which have increased our confidence that the configura
tions can be designed for practical manufacture. The arrow wing, incidentally,
has the additional advantage of spreading the lift over a longer length and
thereby reducing sonic boom effects. The advanced supersonic design concepts
also include the use of propulsive lift to enhance the wing lift for low -speed 1
performance improvement and noise reduction ( Figure 3, see p. 16 ) , and the use
of a totally new variable cycle engine. The variable cycle engine, which is still
in the early study stage and requires extensive technical development, is an
essential new feature. The concept is somewhat similar to that of the variable 1
sweep wings used on supersonic combat aircraft. Here the internal engine ge
ometry, rather than the wing geometry, is altered to vary the engine airflow as
a function of flight speed. Operating in a sense as a gear shift, the variable
cycle permits effective low -noise operation for takeoff and landing while still
maintaining high efficiency for supersonic cruise. Lastly, the new configurations
will gain additional performance through the weight savings achieved by use
of the active controls concept. In the supersonic applications, the active con
trol may include vectored thrust as well as aerodynamic control surfaces.
Despite the anticipated sonic boom reduction, the advanced supersonic con
figurations will still probably be restricted to subsonic flight over land. For
certain civil or military missions, " slightly ' supersonic speeds, producing no
sonic boom effects at all, may prove necessary or highly desirable. The oblique
wing concept (Figure 4, see p. 17 ), offers an interesting option for such appli
cations, providing both drag and weight benefits relative to symmetrically swept
wings designed for the same requirements. In low-speed flight, the wing is ro
tated to operate as a conventional unswept wing with itsinherent low -speed
performance and safety advantages. The oblique-wing is also being studied to
determine whether it offers significant benefits in subsonic applications.
Apart from the fuel conservation concepts discussed by Mr. Jones, NASA and
the military services are exploring the use of synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. In
addition, the use of liquid hydrogen, or possibly liquid methane, as an alternate
fuel is being considered for both subsonic and supersonic aircraft. Depending on
the cost and energy required to produce them , the liquified gases could be of
interest as a means of reducing dependence on petroleum and other fossil fuel
sources. If the hydrogen can be carried internally, the subsonic hydrogen - fueled
transport ( Figure 5, see p. 17 ) will not appear much different from a conven
tional hydrocarbon -fueled design , and the high energy content of the hydrogen
will actually result in some weight and performance advantages. If the ex
ternal-pod arrangement is selected for safety reasons, the performance will be
somewhat degraded. In a supersonic design ( Figure 6, see p. 18 ) , the configura
tion again appears conventional, and the performance improvement is even more
 39

significant. Substantial technical effort is required to assure adequate thermal

protection and strength in lightweight fuel tanks, but from the standpoint of
the airplane and engine design, the cryogenic fuel concepts appear entirely
feasible. The more formidable technology problems lie in the system support
areas of economical hydrogen production, liquefaction, distribution, storage, and
handling.
Perhaps the greatest air transport growth in the future will occur in the air
freight field, where even the most conservative projections indicate a tremen
dous increase in demand toward the end of the century . This increase will neces
sitate considerable new development, and several of the advanced concepts now
being studied are directed at the cargo requirement. The advanced cargo vehicle
concepts are influenced by the need for compatibility with advanced handling
concepts in containerization, automation, and computerized control which will
serve advanced surface systems as well as air modes.
The projected demand growth, the large size and weight of some of the antici
pated cargo units, the handling considerations, and the advantages of scale all
suggest the eventual development of very large air vehicles that will dwarf the
largest wide -body transports flying today. The size alone will present a number
of technology problems, even if the vehicles are relatively conventional airplanes.
If systems and economic studies indicate that unconventional aircraft, or
surface- effect machines , or airships offer attractive alternatives for either gen
eral transportation or important unique applications, the required technology
preparation may be still more extensive. For example, preliminary study indi
cates that one potentially attractive and productive airship concept may be a
totally new form of vehicle, a hybrid in which the lift developed from buoyancy
is supplemented by aerodynamic lift, or propulsive lift, or both . To assess the
technology needs NASA, DOT, and the military services are conducting studies
of the cargo requirement and the various alternative approaches to meeting it.
The NASA studies include consideration of lighter -than -air and semi-buoyant
vehicles as well as conventional aircraft.
The large cargo aircraft may carry most of its load and its fuel in the wing
rather than in the body ( Figures 7 & 8, see pp . 19, 20 ) . This flexibility in load dis
tribution is one of the benefits of large size, and permits major savings in struc
tural weight since the distributed load balances the aerodynamic lift forces on
the wing. The result is a potential payload increase on the order of 50 percent,
with a corresponding decrease in operating cost and fuel per ton -mile. Other
advanced concepts being considered ( Figure 9, see p. 20 ) include : coupled air
craft in which the efficiency and distributed span -loading of the large wing are
obtained by in - flight combination of individual smaller units which may operate
from independent terminals ; tandem aircraft in which the large loads are car
ried in the body but supported by two wings ; and large, conventional, low-speed
airplanes in which advanced technology is deliberately avoided in favor of
design simplicity and low manufacturing cost.
Although no active effort is currently under way toward nuclear -powered
aircraft, the trend toward very large size, large payload requirements, and
long range, together with the fossil fuel shortage concerns, could very conceiv
ably lead to a revival of interest in nuclear power, particularly if a military
need emerges for missions of extremely long durations .
As General Holloway stated, our emphasis in this statement has been pri
marily on civil air transportation concepts. Much of NASA's effort, of course,
is devoted to generating technology in support of military requirements. One
of these efforts is directed at developing concepts for substantial improvements
in advanced fighter maneuverability ( Figure 10 , see n. 21 ). We have been
working toward perfecting the techniques of remotely piloted research vehicles
( RPRV's ) , to minimize cost and risk in flight testing selected high combat
maneuverability design concepts. At the same time, the military services are
experimenting with remotely piloted vehicles ( RPV's ) for missions such as
battlefield surveillance. It is possible that RPV's may in the future be found
liseful for specialized civil applications such as monitoring of severe storms,
forest fire detection, fire fighting, disaster assistance and remote area deliveries.
The hypersonic transport can be envisioned as a follow -on or perhaps even an
alternative to the second-generation supersonic flight. Operating at three times
the speed of Concorde — or about eight times the speed of today's jet transports
and capable of very long ranges, the hypersonic transport could be of interest
in an era of increased East-West and African trade. Hypersonic transports
 40

would operate at extremely high altitudes and use liquid hydrogen tuel. With
respect to environmental considerations, the altitude increase significantly re
duces sonic boom effects on the ground and, although the hydrogen fuel may
present a water vapor problem, it contains no hydrocarbon pollutants .
At first glance, the hypersonic airplane ( Figure 11, see p. 22 ) looks quite
similar to a supersonic vehicle. Actually , there are some major differences which
account both for the spectacular performance and the technological risk . The
airplane is powered not by a conventional turbojet or turbofan engine, but by a
supersonic-combustion ramjet ( Figure 12, see p. 22 ) integrated into the struc
ture. Because of the very high flight speeds, the structure must be cooled by
circulating liquid through tubes embedded in the external skin , depending on
the large cooling capacity of the liquid hydrogen to remove the heat. Hypersonic
research engine tests have been conducted successfully in the laboratory ; &
possible flight research program to further the development of the hypersonic
cruise flight concepts is currently being considered jointly by NASA and the
Air Force.
In the much more distant future, there exists the possibility of semi-global,
or sub -orbital, rocket-propelled transports which could evolve concurrently with
further advances in space transportation --that is, with eventual development
of a fully reusable successor to the Space Shuttle system .
In this brief session we have reviewed only some of the potential new devel.
opments in aeronautics. We have covered them only sketchily, andwe have not
discussed any of the research and technology programs which will make these
advances possible. We will be pleased to provide additional pertinent informa
tion as required .
The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from representatives of the
Navy. Vice Admiral W. J. Moran, Director of Navy Research , De
velopment, Test and Evaluation , in the Office of the Chief of Naval 4

Operations ; accompanied by Mr. William Koven , Director of Ad

vanced Aircraft Development of the Naval Air Systems Command.
We are pleased to have you before us, Admiral Moran and Mr.
Koven , and look forward very much to your testimony.
[ Biographies of Admiral Moran and Mr. William Koven follow :]
BIOGRAPHY OF VICE ADMIRAL J. MORAN, UNITED STATES NAVY
a
William Joseph Moran was born in Burlingame, California, on July 20, 1919, I
son of William J. and Anna Field Moran . He attended Santa Rosa Junior Col
lege and the University of Nevada , graduating from the latter with the degree
of Bachelor of Arts. He began naval service on February 19, 1941, had pre- flight
training at the Naval Reserve Aviation Base, Oakland, California , and fight
training at the Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas. Designated a Naval
Aviator, he was commissioned Ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve on December
24, 1941, shortly after the outbreak of World War II that month . Through sub
sequent advancement and his transfer from the Naval Reserve to the U.S. Navy
in 1946, he attained the rank of Vice Admiral , to date from December 1, 1972.
Assigned from January through March 1942 to the Advanced Carrier Train .
ing Group , San Diego, California , he had instruction with a similar group at
Norfolk, Virginia , the next two months and in June reported to Fighting
Squadron Three, based on the USS Hornet (CVA - 8 ). He later served with
Fighting Squadron Seventy- Two, based on that carrier and subsequently on the
USS Nassau (CVE 16 ) . He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, a
Gold Star in lieu of a second similar award, and two Air Medals for outstand
ing service with that squadron .
The first DFC was for "extraordinary achievement in aerial combat as a
Pilot of the USS Hornet Air Group during action against enemy Japanese
forces in the Solomon Islands Area, October 13, 1942 ..." The second DFC was
awarded for completing his twentieth mission during the Battle of Santa Cruz
and in the vicinity of Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands, from October 14 to 26,
1942 ; and the Air Medals were for five missions each during operations against
the Japanese enemy forces in the Solomon Islands from September 18 to Octo
her 5, 1942, and from February 6 to 20, 1943, respectively .
Upon his return to the United States in April 1943, he was ordered to the
Naval Auxiliary Air Station. Green Cove Springs, Florida , as an Instructor.
 41

He remained there until August 1944, then returned to the Pacific Area to serve
throughout the latter period of the war as Operations Officer and Executive
Officer of Fighting Squadron Ten and Bombing-Fighting Squadron Ten, based
on the USS Intrepid ( CV -11 ). For extraordinary achievement while serving
with these squadrons, he was awarded Gold Stars in lieu of another Distin
guished Flying Cross and two additional Air Medals .
Relieved of active duty on December 27, 1945 , he remained in inactive status
in the Naval Reserve until his appointment in th regular Navy, then reported
in January 1947 to Commander Carrier Division Seventeen . He served for four
months as Assistant Operations Officer on that Staff, and during the period
June 1947 to December 1948 was Assistant Operations Officer on the staff of
Commander Fleet Air, Alameda. He was a student at the General Line School,
Monterey , California, from January through December 1949, after which , from
January 1950 until February 1952 he served as Operations Officer and Assistant
Experimental Officer at the Naval Ordnance Test Station , Inyokern , California .
When detached he became Project Officer, and later served as Operations Of
ficer of Composite Squadron Three, and from February 1953 until July 1954
was Commanding Officer of Fighter Suqadron Twenty -three, based on the USS
Essex (CVA - 9 ) and operating in the Korean Area. Upon his return to the
United States he was ordered to the Naval War llege, Newport, Rhode Island,
where he completed the Command and Staff Course in June 1955. That month
he was assigned to the Naval Ordnance Test Station , China Lake, California ,
where he remained for more than three years as Assistant Experimental Officer.
From October 1958 until November 1959 he served as Weapons Officer on the
Staff of Commander Naval Air Force, Atlantic, and for fourteen months there .
after was Executive Officer of the USS Essex ( CVA - 9 ) . In February 1961
he began a tour of duty as Naval Aide to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Research and Development), Navy Department, Washington , D.C.
In August 1964 he reported for instruction at the National War College,
Washington, D.C., and after completing the course there in June 1965, assumed
command of the USS Rainier ( AE - 5 ). In August 1967 he became Commander
Antisubmarine Warfare Group Three and "for exceptionally meritorious service
from June to October 1968 ..." in that capacity was awarded the Legion of
Merit.
In November 1968 he reported as Director of the Navy Space Program Divi
sion, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department. As such, he
provided for the exploitation of space systems to furnish solutions to many
operational problems and advanced the system in the fields of satellite com
munications, ocean surveillance satellite navigation and meteorology . He was
awarded a Gold Star in lieu of the Second Legion of Merit " for exceptionally
meritorious service ... in that assignment. In October 1970 he became Com .
mander of the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California and in December
1972 assumed duty as Director of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department.
In addition to the Legion of Merit with Gold Star, the Distinguished Flying
Cross with two Gold Stars, and the Air Medal with three Gold Stars, Vice
Admiral Moran has the Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon for the award to the
First Marine Division ( Reinforced) for World War II service (Guadalcanal)
and the Meritorious Unit Commendation awarded the USS Bennington. He also
has the American Defense Service Medal ; American Campaign Medal ; Asiatic
Pacific Campaign Medal with four operation stars ; World War II Victory
Medal;Navy Occupation Service Medal, Asia Clasp ; China Service Medal; Na
tional Defense Service Medal with bronze star ; Korean Service Medal ; United
National Service Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal. He also has the Viet.
namese Navy Distinguished Service Order Second Class and the Republic of
Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device.
Vice Admiral Moran and his wife, the former Ruth Eleanor Nelson of St.
Croix Fall, Wisconsin, have three daughters, Margaret E., Christine R. and
Mary Louise Moran . His official residence is 1340 Nixon Avenue, Reno, Nevada,

BIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM KOVEN (NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND )

Mr. Koven received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Aeronautical Engineering
In 1944 and has taken numerous postgraduate courses in aeronautical engineer
ing as well as in management. His early experience was obtained at the Langley
 42

Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory of the National Advisory Committee for

Aeronautics (NACA ) where he was engaged in research work on aircraft flying
qualities and swept wing aerodynamics from 1944–1948. He left NACA in 1948 V
to join the aerodynamic staff of the CAA from whence he joined the Navy De 11
partment's Bureau of Aeronautics in 1949. He has been with the Bureau of
Aeronautics and its successors, the Bureau of Naval Weapons and the Naval te
Air Systems Command since 1949 except for a short stint in 1955 as aerody UI
namic consultant to the USAF Directorate of Flight Safety at Norton Air Force T
Base. His recent positions with the Naval Air Systems Command include Chief
of Aerodynamics, Technology Administrator for Aerodynamics, Structures and fo
Materials, and Director, Office of Advanced Aircraft Development.
Mr. Koven has served on numerous Technical Committees of the American hi
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the American Helicopter Society.
In the past he served on a number of NACA /NASA research advisory subcom ca]
mittees and presently is a member of the NASA Research and TechnologyAd shi
visory Committee on Aeronautics. He is also the Navy member of the Flight an
Mechanics Panel of AGARD. His awards include the Navy Superior Civilian 1

Service Award and a special commendation from the FAA for his services as
we
Associate Technical Director of the first Supersonic Transport Evaluation .
1
STATEMENT OF VICE ADM . W. J. MORAN, USN DIRECTOR, NAVY SM

RESEARCH , DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ACCOM . To

mh
PANIED BY THE FOLLOWING NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND

-
PERSONNEL : WILLIAM KOVEN , DIRECTOR , ADVANCED AIRCRAFT

吧
DEVELOPMENT; CAPT, A, A. SCHAUFELBERGER, USN , PROJECT

如
MANAGER, THRUST AUGMENTED WING , V /STOL ; T. F. KEARNS, me

TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATOR , AERODYNAMICS, STRUCTURES

AND MATERIAL; E. A. LICHMAN , ASSISTANT TECHNOLOGY AD.
MINISTRATOR FOR ADVANCED AIR BREATHING ENGINES; R. G.
PERKINS, AIRCRAFT CONCEPTS MANAGER AND R. F. SIEWERT,
ASSISTANT TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATOR FOR AERODYNAMICS

Admiral MORAN . Good morning Mr. Chairman . th

The CHAIRMAN . Good morning. You may proceed, sir.
Admiral Moran. It is a pleasure to be here. We appreciate the op
portunity to tell this committee about some of the concepts andtech We
nologies currently under exploration or development in the Navy
today. They are efforts that we hope will provide us with more capa ch
bleaircraft tomorrow . en

Current Navy aircraft possess remarkable capabilities that have fe

become routinely accepted such as speeds greater than Mach 2, all OF

weather intercept, long-range missiles, andremarkably capable avi.

onics systems. They are designed and built to operate continuously in
the environment of ships at sea. V
These aircraft of today have grown from past exploratory and de
velopment efforts, and in the atmosphere of not always being too
certain about the application of a specific technology. Similarly, it
is probable that some, but not all, ofthe work being done today will
provide the base of technology for tomorrow's aircraft.
Further, some concepts andtechnologies may find earlier applica
tions than others. This is the natureof R. & D. and results partly
from technical uncertainties and partly because the precise direction 0

of future aviation is difficult to predict. For these reasons our R. & D.

programs are structured to provide us with a wide range of options
 43

e ter
Brian
To cover a broad range of technology options is costly ; therefore,
104 where we share common interests with the AF, Army, FAA or
NASA, weattempt to enter into joint R. & D. programs. In addition,
au de
1972
welook to NASA as the key source of basic aeronautical research and
technology, reserving our resources for problems andprojected needs
Tors unique to the Navy. We try to avoid duplicating work going on else
Chie where. We do try to expand upon and exploit where possiblethe ef
forts of other Government agencies and the aeronautical industry.
W

rich Looking to the future, one likely trend is an expanded air-capa

ciety bility in the Navy. Aircraft can be used to extend and enhance the
bcon capability and effectiveness of virtually allNavy ships. However, for
5
Flight
ships other than aircraft carriers, this will require vertical takeoff
Filia:
and landing ( VTOL ) aircraft.
es al To provide this capability is a substantial technicalchallenge and
we are devoting considerable attention to promising VTOL concepts.
We are also studying other VTOL systems not directly related to
ATT
small air-capable ships but which havepossible long-range payoffs.
30 Today we will describe some of these VTOL concepts and indicate
AN why theymay be attractive.
AM We will cover some of the new technology which may have a
TECI significant impact on VTOL aircraft, and may offermajor benefits in
RNS
the areas of cost reduction, reliability, maintainability, logistics, and
manpower for all aircraft types. In particular, important develop
TRES ments in materials, structures, propulsion and electrical systems will
be highlighted .
R.C. I have several technical representatives from the Naval Air Sys
ERT
tems Command with me today to assist in this presentation. They are
TOS
led by Mr. William Koven, who is director, advanced aircraft de
velopment of the Naval Air Systems Command. I would now like to
turn this presentation over to Mr. Koven , who will describe some of
the current Navy efforts in more detail.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Admiral, and we look forward to hear
ing you, Mr. Koven. If you would like to identify your associate,
we would like to have their names in the record .
avy Mr. KOVEN . All right, sir. Mr. Kearns is up at the Vugraph ma
chine. He is ourexpert on materials. Mr. Lichtman is our expert on
engines. Mr. Perkins is our expert on advanced concepts. Capt. Schau
BTE
felberger is the project manager on the XFV - 12A aircraft, the thrust
augmented wing and Mr. Siewert is our expert on aerodynamics.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We welcome all of you .
Mr. Koven. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. A large variety of
de
VTOL concepts are being investigated for possible application to
Navy and Marine Corps missions. For example, we recently com
500
pleted a shore and shipbased flight evaluation of the CL-84 tiſt wing
it aircraft, and we are following very closely the NASA / Army XV - 15
1 tilt prop development program .
As for our own programs, they are directed to the speed /altitude /
size spectrum not presently being investigated elsewhere. In addition
we are working on a concept which could have a significant impact
on helicopter operations in the not too distant future, the circulation
1. control rotor - CCR .

38-266 O - 74 - 4
 44

CCR CONCEPT
THIN FILM OF AIR
ADHERES TO
ROUNDED TRAILING
EDGE INDUCING
HIGH LIFT BY THE
COANDA EFFECT

DIRECTION OF ROTATION

ROTOR ADVANTAGES
HIGH DISC LOADING
STRONG " RIGID " BLADES
SIMPLIFIED PNEUMATIC CONTROLS

FIG. 1

In the circulation control rotor ( fig. 1) compressed air supplied by

a compressor is ducted out a spanwise slot over the rounded trailing
edge of a hollow rotor blade. By varying the amount of air flowing
through the slot, the total lift as well as the lift distribution can be
varied as necessary. The prime virtue of this rotor is that it is simple
and we would expect it to be reliable. It eliminates the need for
many hinges , bearings, and mechanical parts so troublesome to con
ventional helicopters. Recent wind tunnel tests as well as structural
and design feasibility studies continue to show this concept to have
great promise. This year we intend to initiate development of a tech
nology demonstrator to prove the CCR in full scale .
Figure 2 illustrates what a circulation control rotor hub of the
future might look like as compared to current day articulating rotor
hubs.
A lift-fan propulsion system has great potential for providing the
Navy with a multipurpose, highly flexible subsonic VTOL aircraft
system . One of the lift-fan aircraft concepts being considered ( fig. 3)
involves three lift fans arranged in triangular fashion to provide both
lift and control movements. The apex fan is mounted horizontally in
the nose of the aircraft while two aft- fans are mounted vertically with
the telescoping retractable hood for VTOL flight. In the arrangement
shown, the turbine tip fans ( fig. 4 ) are powered by hot gas ducted
from two gas generators in the fuselage. We find the lift fan air
craft significant because it offers good speed ( M -0.85 ), high altitude
(40,000 ft.), good endurance, excellent range, mechanicalsimplicity,
à reasonable hover capability, and a comparatively benign footprint.
By footprint, we mean temperature and pressure profiles near the
aircraft caused by the downwash or exhaust of the propulsion system.
 45

CONVENTIONAL
ROTOR HUB

CIRCULATION CONTROL
ROTOR HUB

FIG. 2

iling
be
mple
for

f the
rotor

8
craf
1g.
both
Ir
with
ement
ucted FIG . 3
7 air
tude
icity
print.
y the
stem .
 46

TURBOTIP FAN

tu
-TURBINE

SCROLL

FAN

FIG. 4

Finally, we feel that multiapplication capability can be achieved by

using the core propulsion system and building larger or smaller fuse
lages around it ( fig. 5) . We are currently involved with NASA on a
joint exploratory project on this concept.

MULTIMISSION MODEL ADAPTION

ASW HIGH VALUE ASSAULT, COMBAT SUPPORT

AEW COMPONENTS V /COD
RESCUE

FIG . 5
 47

Lift Concept

URBIE

INSTALLED ENGINE THRUST 14,070

AUGMENTATION RATIO . .1.55
LIFT THRUST 21,800
TOGW ( V ) 19,500
AN T /WT. .72 INSTALLED

1.12 TAKE- OFF

FIG . 6

Control Concept
ieved he
erhis

An
V
c.g.
Augmenter
Ratio

1.6

1.4
CONTROL
1.2

1.0!

0.8
-LIFT AND TRIM
Hㅏ
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 Fㅑ
Diffuser Angle - Degrees
FIG . 7
 48

Our largest and most ambitious project in the VTOL field is the
Thrust Augmented Wing ( TAW ), the XFV- 12 airplane. Here, (fig.
6 ) high velocity, high temperature air is ducted from a basic gas
generator to ejectors located in the wings and in the forward canard
surface. The high velocity ejected air entrains or pulls in large quan
tities of the ambient air and thus produces an upward thrust or lift
considerably greater than the primary thrust provided by the ejector
alone. Achievement of a high augmentation ratio, that is, ratio of
total thrust to ejector thrust, is a key to the success of the TAW . Ex
cellent control is provided through the " four poster" arrangement
( fig. 7 ) by changing the angles of the various ejector wing flaps.
This project has been underway for some 2 years now and the
plan is to build and flighttest two prototypeaircraft. The attractive
ness of the TAW lies in its potential forhigh performance, a benign
footprint and minimum propulsion system investment.Because of its
unique wing arrangement it also offers unusually good short takeoff
and landing performance. Although we are currently looking at the
Mach 2 plusapplication, this concept would apply equallywell to
a high performance subsonic aircraft.
We also have underway a modest effort in a lift plus lift /cruise
Mach 2 plus fighter /attack aircraft. It too features a forward -placed
canard but differs with respect to its propulsion system . In this case
(fig . 8 ) the propulsion system consists of two lift engines mounted
vertically directly behind the cockpit canopy and one horizontal
cruise engine which is converted to a lift engine for VTOL flight by
means of a swivelling nozzle at the aft end. This concept also offers
IL
high performance but the high temperatures and pressures of the abu
direct engine exhaust may create special problems in deck handling
and unprepared site operations.

• LIFT ENGINES & LIFT /CRUISE ENGINE TEAM FOR V /STOL

• EMERGENCY CRUISE HOME WITH CRUISE ENGINE OUT
• STOL LANDING CAPABILITY WITH LIFT ENGINE OUT

CYLINDRICAL
P & W JTF22A -30A EJECTOR
DERIVATIVE OF CRUISE
THE NAVY F401
NOZZLE
cap

IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY LIFT ENGINE

10,500 -LB . THRUST INLET DOORS
LIFT ENGINES DOCE

3 -BEARING
SWIVEL NOZZLE
BLEED AIR FOR (YAW CONTROL )
PITCH & ROLL RCS

HORIZONTAL VARIRAMP INLET LIFT ENGINE

AFT VECTORING DOORS FIG . &
 49

is the
14

LA
山

ector
God

mer

IA
8.
Tt
tive
Enig

keof
the

uise
ced
case
nted
intal
t bir
lers
the I would like to mention one other VTOL program , the Aerocrane,
ing a hybrid aircraft concept composed of helicopter and balloon ele
ments (fig.9 ) , which could satisfy a potential need for an ultra heavy
lift VTOL aircraft. Although a simplified model has been flown in
tetherd flight, we lack indepth technical studies of the Aerocrane at
this time. If the many expected andunknown technicaldifficulties
can be overcome and if thevery preliminary weight and performance
AL
estimates
bilities are correct, this concept could conceivably provide lift capa
up to 200 tons with some of the stability and endurance of a
balloon combined with the mobility and control of a helicopter. This
capability may be available at a fraction ofthe cost ofthe most ad
helicopters
vanced .
This concludes the discussion on aeronautical concepts and I would
now liketo proceed to someimportant technology developments which
are key to the success of future aeronautical vehicles.
Senator GOLDWATER. May I interrupt ? Before you get rid of this
picture, what RPM are you talking about.
Mr. KOVEN. Oh,between 8 and9, Senator. Very low RPM .
Senator GOLDWATER. And where would your engine be ?
Mr. Koven. The engines are located out onthe wings or out on
LE
L)
therotors. In fact, you can get an indication of itthereon the model.
There is a littlepropeller,theone on the right hand side.
Senator GOLDWATER. Yes I see it.
.
Mr. KOVEN. It is a little model airplane engine.
Senator GOLDWATER. That is going to shape them up.
(Laughter .]
Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you .
The CHAIRMAN . You may proceed.
 50
stre

FIG. 10

Mr. Kover. The operating environment for aircraft in the Navy is

tough ; saltwater is everywhere ( fig. 10) , and we find that the charac
teristics of the materials available for building engines and airframes
determine to a large extent how well this equipment will perform .
In addition to the well recognized requirements for lighter weight
construction and higher operating temperatures to improve airframe Fill
and engine performance, there are demanding requirements for cor
rosion resistance, ease in maintenance, reliability, long life, ease in
fabrication and low cost . We are now using available materials at
about the limits of their capabilities. We are working on some new de
velopments that offer extremely attractive improvements for the
future. The numbers may not sound dramatic, an increase of 150° F
in turbine blade temperature, a 15 percent reduction in airframe
weight or a reduction of 50 percent in corrosion maintenance, but
advances such as these can double the payload of our aircraft, reduce
fuel consumption by 10 percent and save millions of dollars in main
tenance costs and manpower. These improvements are particularly
advantageous in the versatile aircraft that we need to extend our
capability for operation from small ships in an air -capable Navy.
Before mentioning some of the things still in the laboratory in ma
terials and structures, I would like to discuss a development recently
completed and now entering service. One of the limitations of the
high strength aluminum alloys has been a susceptibility to stress
corrosion cracking ( fig . 11 ) . Some parts under a sustained tensile
stress in our corrosive environment would crack after 1 year or more
in service. Repeated inspection, maintenance and part replacement
 51

STRESS CORROSION CRACKING

pressed in bushing

stress corrosion
crack

FIG. 11

due to stress corrosion cracking has been very expensive. However,

arac
working with industry and the Air Force, we have developeda new
alloy - 7050 aluminum — that is resistant to stress corrosion. It also
umes has better strength and toughness than the current most widely used
m.
high-strength aluminum alloys and its cost is about the same. It is
ght now being used ( fig. 12 ) in bulkheads of the A-6 airplane and its use
ame
will be extended tohelp solve our stress corrosion problems. The cost
cor
ein
to the Navy of this development was about $ 250,000, but the savings
in maintenance costs in the future will be in the millions.
For the future, in airframe construction, we are developing com
de posite materials of carbon filaments in a plastic matrix ( fig. 13) . The
the
F
materials development in this area is now well advanced and current
mie
emphasis is on experimental structures. Before it can be applied ex
Dut
tensively in airframes, we must gain experience and confidence in
ace
our ability to use it in complex airframe design and we must be
1
sure of its ability to survive in the service environment. We are now
-1
designing, building and testing a variety of airframe components ( fig.
14) for this purpose and will install these on an experimental basis
T.
on a few in -service aircraft. The weight saving possible by using
2.
advanced composites in place of metal construction can sometimes
V
be as high as 50 percent, depending on the part, and it is not unreal
e istic to predict a 10 to 15 percent overall airframe weight saving if
current indications prove to be attainable in practice . The cost of
2
the advanced composites is still high ($75/1b ) but it has been de
creasing as production increases. Even now we can build some parts
composites more cheaply than in metal because of the lower manu
infacturing
costs.
 52

$1

5
MODEL A- 6
7050 AI
Fuselage Bulkhead
FIG. 12

FIBER REINFORCED COMPOSITE MATERIALS

CARBON FIBERS

PLASTIC MATRIX
FIG . 13
 53

SERVICE EVALUATION COMPONENTS

F - 14 OVERWING FAIRING
BQM - 34E WING

S - 3A SPOILER
.

F -14 M.L.G. DOOR

FIG . 14

IS
REINFORCED THERMOPLASTICS

ERS

formed part
low cost flat sheet

FIG . 15
 54
such
To reduce the cost of composite parts, we are developing a carbon ing,
fiber thermoplastic composite which can be formed from flat sheet at sean
elevated temperatures ( fig. 15 ) . This material should permit use of
automated lay-up machinery for low -cost flat sheet and eliminate bec
much of the labor in parts manufacture. An overall cost saving of CUIT
about 50 percent compared with current advanced composite prac to h
tice is possible, depending on the particular part concerned. Applica For
tions of this material are underway now in our experimental struc gines
tures program .
main
mate.
pies
MICROSTRUCTURE OF UNIDIRECTIONALLY SOLIDIFIED
a ) TRANSVERSE SECTION ;
GROWTH DIRECTION Al-AIZNI EUTECTIC SPECIMEN
NORMAL TO PAGE
LAGNIFICATION : 500 X

b ) LONGITUDINAL SECTION ;
GROWTH DIRECTION
LEFT TO RIGHT
NAGNIFICATION : 200 X

c ) TRANSVERSE SECTION
GROWTH DIRECTION
MAGNIFICATION: 3200 X

FIG. 16

We are also developing a new type of material for gas turbine

blading that is very promising and may permit an increase of 150° F
or perhaps even morein blade temperature over the 1,800 ° F allowable
with our best super alloys. This isthe directionally solidified eutectic. Ana
By controlling composition and fabrication practice we can precipi
tate strong filaments in the metal itself giving very high strength in
the direction in which they are oriented (fig . 16 ).Some of the high ally,
temperature strength values measured for materials of this type are
more than three times those of our current best super alloys. There
is much work to be done before this attractive laboratory development
can be converted into useful turbine blading. The other Services and The
NASA are also engaged in work on directionally solidified eutectics
and we have formed a special working group on this topic for mutual
planning of an overall research and development program.
I have mentioned just a few items in aircraft materials and struc THER
tures research to indicate the potential for the future. In other areas,
 55

he such as high temperature organics, ceramics and nondestructive test

晚

ing, important advances appear attainable through continued re

则

search.
出

Advances in propulsion technology have been and will continue to

崛

be crucial to the success of advanced aeronautical concepts. Work

吧 喝

currently underway in joint programs with the Air Force promises

to have a major impact on the next generation propulsion systems.
咖

For example, advanced cooling techniques ( fig. 17 ) will permit en

gines to operate withturbine inlet temperatures up to 3,500 ° F while
maintaining turbine blade and vane skin temperatures at approxi
mately 2,000° F. This is between 700 to 900° F hotter than current en
:)
gines and produces significantly more thrust per pound of air flow .

COOLING AIR
600-800 F

GAS STREAM
3250 F
3500 F
1

S룰 VANE SKIN TEMPERATURE

1800-2000 F

ne
FIG . 17
-F

Another key parameter is fuel consumption. The variable area tur

bine ( fig. 18 ) currently under development, in which the flow area
between turbine stages is varied either aerodynamically or mechani
cally, will permit the engine to operate at more optimum matching
conditions throughout the flight envelope than is presently attainable.
Improvements in fuel consumption of about 30 percent appear pos
sible with this concept .
These advances, coupled with the development of high strength /
high temperature materials (i.e., eutectic alloys), high heat release
burners, and high stage loading compressors and turbines, promise to
provide engines of one -half the size and two-thirds the weight, with
cruise efficiencies much improved over current jet engines ( fig. 19) .
 56

1
" GENERAL VARIABLE AREA TURBINE ARRANGEMENT" ain

WO

whi
pro
toda

BLADES

VANES

Var VANES BLADES

AERODYNAMIC CONTROL MECHANICAL

AG. 18

MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE ENGINE

• SAME THRUST
• ONE-HALF LENGTH
Th
• ONE-HALF VOLUME
adi
VE • TWO -THIRDS WEIGHT shou
• 60 PERCENT SFC
MTE of
• 3500° F VS. 2200 ° F
As
Ther

the

CURRENT - AFTERBURNING
FIG . 19
 57

Finally, I would like to note briefly an important development in

aircraft electrical systems. Current aircraft are built with large net
works of wires, electromechanical switches, relays and connectors
which are, of course, prone to failure and hard to troubleshoot . The
problem is illustrated on figure 20 which shows the inside of one of
today's modern jet airliners.

ANS

FIG . 20

Through multiplexed control signal transmission and the use of

fiber optics, wehope to eliminate 80 percent of the wiring and in
addition, provide immunity from electromagnetic interference. We
should be able to replace the electrical components with solid state
components and logic and achieveincrease in reliability of the order
of 250 percent with attendant reductions in weight and volume of
about 45 percent.
As was indicated in Vice Admiral Moran's opening statement,
there are indeed many new and exciting developments in aeronautical
concepts and technology which could have a significant impact in
the years ahead. We have discussed just a few of them here this
morning
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and are
prepared to answer questions and/or provideadditional information
as you desire. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN . Thank you, Mr. Koven, for that fine statement.
When I see that pile of wiring that was in that last picture, it raises
my doubts as to whether I ought to be flying so much . There must
 58

be a broken wire in there some place. I hope there is considerable

interest in reducing the great complexity that that represents in that
aircraft.
You have described some of the advanced technology of the Navy acter
in exploration, electronics and materials. I understand the Navy
To
Air Propulsion Test Center is also experimenting with synthetic Tar
fuels. Could you describe some of your progress in this area? P-5
Mr. KOVEN . Perhaps I should turn that over to Mr. Lichtman. Lelio
The CHAIRMAN . All right. post-1
hare
Mr. LICHTMAX. The effort has been underway for several years, those
Senator. It is in conjunction, with other Services and agencies. I and 1
would beg leave to furnish you a more detailed answer for inclusion rathe
in the record , sir.
zines
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have that. pel
( Information referred to follows :]
Mr. LICHTMAN. The Naval Air Propulsion Test Center (NAPTC ) is carrying NSR
such a
out exploratory development and advanced development work on synthetic The
fuels for Navy aircraft under the direction of the Naval Air Systems Command.
This work is part of a broad Nary investigation on the potential suitability of fired
synthetic fuels for ship, air and shore based applications. The primary objective
of this investigation is to develop assurance that Navy machinery will be able
to operate satisfactorily on these fuels if their use becomes mandatory in some Azure
future energy emergency . If there are unavoidable hardware problems associ
ated with the use of synthetic fuels, the Navy programs will define them so redt
that there is adequate lead time for machinery modifications. All these efforts Te in
are fused into a coordinated program by the Navy Energy and Natural Re Viction
sources Research and Development Office ( MAT-03Z ) . MAT-03Z has also been
pria.
named as the Department of Defense ( DOD ) focal point for synthetic fuels Re TISA
search and Development and as the office responsible for liaison with other gov
ernment agencies on synthetic fuel matters.
NAPTC has been investigating the potential for the use of synthetic JP - 5 jet
fuel derived from coal , oil shale and tar sands. Emphasis is placed on JP -5 as he
it is the aircraft fuel most used by the Navy. The need for additional testing on riels
synthetic JP - 4 fuel has been eliminated by the decision of the Air Force to
emphasize this fuel in its work on alternate sources of aviation fuels. The re
cent and current work by NAPTC on the three sources of synthetic fuels is as
follows :
Coal. - Information on the state-of-the-art of coal liquefaction developed by
the Department of the Interior ( DOI ) has been evaluated from the standpoint
of application to JP - 5 . It was found that a jet fuel can be made from coal, but
little is known about the suitability of such a fuel for actual service use. The
DOI plans to include, in future liquefaction research programs, work on the
refining of products for Navy use . This work should result in quantities of 72
synthetic fuel for testing of Navy hardware. In the interim, contract program 20
was started by NAPTC with the Sun Oil Company to produce JP - 5 of good and
marginal quality from each of two kinds of coal . This will enable us to get an
early look at the range of properties that can be expected of coal-derived JP -5
and may result in useful feedback to the DOI programs. The JP - 5 obtained will
be evaluated in -house by means of standard JP-5 specification tests, material
compatibility tests, jet engine combustor tests, and performance and exhaust
emissions tests in a small gas turbine engine. Chemical characteristics of the
fuel which may contribute to poor performance or health hazards will be studied.
The Naval Research Laboratory is cooperating in this phase.
The work to provide experimental fuels and most of the tests described are
scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1975. The contract work is being supple.
mented by in -house studies of the potential for production of JP - 5 from coal.
derived fluids. A small quantity of a stable JP - 5 type fuel has been derived
from " Sea Coal” , the synthetic boiler fuel used in a sea trial of the destroyer,
U.S.S. Johnston .
Oil Shale.-Several experimental samples of material derived from Green
River Formation oil shale were obtained from the Oil Shale Corporation for
evaluation as JP-5 fuel. These samples had been treated with hydrogen to re
move the nitrogen and sulfur impurities found in shale oil and to improve the
 59

chemical and physical characteristics of the fuel. The most severely treated of
these samples successfully passed the JP - 5 specification tests. As greater quan
tities of these fuels become available they will be subjected to hardware tests.
Earlier work had been done in 1960 in which the chemical and physical char
acteristics of a JP - 4 derived from shale oil were evaluated and found to be
satisfactory.
Tar Sands. - A kerosene portion of synthetic crude oil derived from Athabasca
Tar Sands has been evaluated at NAPTC . This material was found to pass all
JP - 5 specification requirements with a good margin. It has been tested in a T63
helicopter engine for 60 hours. Performance of the engine was satisfactory. The
post-test condition of the engine is still being evaluated, but no harmful effects
have been noted to date. Some exhaust gas pollutants were slightly higher than
those measured using a typical conventional JP - 5 . This effect is being studied
and may be due to small differences in the physical properties of the fuels
rather than being related to the source. Additional chemical and compatibility
tests of this fuel will be carried out, and qualification type tests on other en
gines will be conducted if they appear necessary. More synthetic fuel of this
type can be obtained for such larger scale tests. A portion of the fuel received
has been sent to the Naval Ship Research and Deve ment Laboratory
( NSRDL ) for evaluation of properties pertinent to nonaviation shipboard use
such as in diesel engines.
The ultimate objective of the programs now underway is to test the suitabil
ity, for operation of aircraft , of synthetic fuels that show promise of being pro
duced in the future. Fuels which pass the small scale screening tests will be
subjected to full scale engine tests and flight tests. Such expensive large scale
tests will be conducted only on synthetic fuels which show real promise for
future production and for which there is a reasonable doubt as to suitability as
à JP - 5. Negotiations for obtaining these fuels ( which would probably be de
rived from coal or shale ) are being conducted by MTA -03Z with DOI and pri
vate industry for all DOD departments. Requests for Jet A fuel needed by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) for large-scale com
mercial jet engine combustor tests will also be processed through MAT -03Z.
NASA has also indicated a willingness to assist in testing JP-5 in their com
bustors, if the Navy can make fuel available. A specific Naval Air Systems Com
mand objective which will require fairly large quantities of synthetic fuel is the
flight test of a Navy aircraft on synthetic JP - 5 by 1976. A specific timetable
has been set-up towards this objective which calls for specification tests, ma
terials compatibility tests , combustor and fuel system evaluations and initia
tion of an engine flight rating test in fiscal year 1975. The above work will be
done at NAPTC . Chemical analysis and flammability and fire extinguishing in
vestigations will be conducted by the Naval Research Laboratory ; and prob
lems pertinent to compatibility with ships fuel systems will be investigated by
the Naval Ship Research and Development Center. With satisfactory comple
tion of these tests, pre -flight aircraft tests will take place at the Naval Air
Test Center, Patuxent River, MD . These will be followed by preliminary flight
tests and, finally an aircraft carrier landing and take - off demonstration in 1976.
The CHAIRMAX. Sometime ago the Bureau of Mines demonstrated
that satisfactory jet fuel could be made from coal . More recently a
process was developed that indicated that JP - 5 can be made from
a synthetic crude oil derived from coal . Has the Navy made any
evaluation of the jet fuel derived from coal ?
Mr. Kover. They have tested a coal-derived fuel in a Navy vessel,
I believe . Admiral Moran ?
Admiral MORAX . Yes, Mr. Chairman . We have stayed in very close
touch with efforts in various departments of the Government on
synthetic derivitives to make sure that whatever comes out of their
process is understood and we can in fact be a sensible user and
customer of that product. The experiment mentioned was an experi
ment using so -called coal -derived fuel to drive a destroyer for a
period of time and it explored the possibilities and problems that
might be associated with such a fuel for ship propulsion. We an
ticipate no serious difficulty in the adaption to gas turbines either
in aircraft or other gas turbine applications..
38-266 O - 74 - 5
 60

The CHAIRMAX . Thank you very much .

Senator Goldwater ? th
Senator GOLDWATER. Getting back to the Coanda effect rotor heli
copters, how much would be saved in maintenance costs by using
this rotor ? not
Mr. KOVEN. We do not have any quantitative numbers yet. The kieme
people in industry who have looked at it and our own people believe
that the improvement in maintenance man-hours would be quite To
noteworthy. One reason we are going to design and construct a full
scale demonstrator is to obtain these numbers. for
Senator GOLDWATER. Actually industry has gotten to the point of
bidding on one or the Navy has approached Kaman and Lockheed,
one of their companies, I believe, to build one of these. cite
Mr. KOVEN . The Navy is going out on a competitive contract to pret
build the technology demonstrator, sir. WIN
Senator GOLDWATER. Who would do that ? MIC
Mr. Koven. Kaman and Lockheed are the companies involved. SE
Senator GOLDWATER. Lockheed is getting another contract ! 0
From your tests out here, what do you think the performance the
benefits will be ?
Mr. Koven. It is essentially a stand -off from the standpoint of 101
performance as compared to conventional helicopters. For low speed
applications, its major benefits come from the less complex rotor Sot
system . $
Senator GOLDWATER. Admiral, can you give the committee the JE
reasons why the Navy is interested in the Aerocrane concept !
Admiral MORAN. Senator, I do not know if I can fully answer that Use
question but I would sure like to try. пер
Senator GOLDWATER. Go ahead . bea
Admiral MORAX. Naval Aviation, as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, is the end result of a long series of experiments and de
velopments, some of which have hadapplications and some of which SC
have not and some which have been failures and some of which M
have been successful. You have to look at a thinglike the Aerocrane SE
experiment in a fairly broad fashion since it clearly does not fit Tige
into the picture as you now have it. It is not a carrier based device
and it is not a aircraft that will operate in any of our normal re
quirements for which we now build helicopters and aircraft.
On the other hand, if we can build a device that will do that kind
of lifting job of very heavy weights and place with some precision
those weights as we sometimes do with helicopters now , you can see
application in amphibious operations and in construction effort, I 10

would see a thing like that going into utility and support work far
more than it would in the military scene. 2149

Senator GOLDWATER. That is what I thought. You would not have

any place for it on a carrier, say .
Admiral Moran. I am unable to see the application, no matter how
hard I try, sir.
Senator GOLDWATER. Just so you do not get it in close air support.
[ Laughter.]
Senator GOLDWATER. In conclusion with that question, is the Navy
doing any work on lighter-than-air, any other work on lighter -than
air ?
 61

Admiral Moran. We are not doing very serious work in lighter

than -air, Senator. As you mentionedwith the NASA witnesshere,
it is a subject that comes up periodically. We are trying to stay
in quite close touch with all of the work that is going on with the
1
notion that if some good fallout comes from it, we sure wish to
know of it and be a part of it.
Senator GOLDWATER. Do you feel that the experiences you had in
World War II using lighter-than-air for antisubmarine work would
cause the Navy to be — to still be interested in using lighter-than - air
for this purpose ?
Admiral MORAN. Senator, I do not believe that we would have a
great interest in using lighter -than -air for that purpose and I would
cite one fact. The submarines we are looking for today travel at
pretty high speeds. If he was making his high speed into a strong
wind, your lighter-than -air craft may have a hard time making
much ground in chasing him down.
Senator GOLDWATER. That is a good answer.
One further question on the helicopter. I am told by members of
the committee staff that they were briefed to the effect that a 4-bladed
helicopter using circulation control rotors might achieve a speed of
700 miles an hour. Is that right !
Mr. Koven. Perhaps I can answer that. You are referring to the
X -wing:
Senator GOLDWATER. The what ?
Mr. Koven . The X-wing. The X -wing is a 4 -bladed helicopter
없
configuration where you stop the rotors in forward flight and then
use the rotors as fixed wings to sustain lift ; two blades or wings are
swept forward and two are swept back. In this condition it would
be a high speed aircraft. We have done very preliminary work on
this, not very much more than back -of-the-envelope design studies
at the moment. It is in the very early stages.
Senator GOLDWATER. You wind up with four wings ?
Mr. Koven. Yes, sir. In X configuration.
Senator GOLDWATER. What lift affect do you get off that one stick
ing straight out ?
Mr. KOVEN. Well, the two fore wings are conventional swept
forward wings and the two aft ones are swept back conventional
wings.
Senator GOLDWATER. It would be an X, not a cross ?
Mr. KOVEN. Right. It would be an X.
Senator GOLDWATER. I get you. Do you think you can hit 700 miles
an hour with that ?
Mr. Koven . Well, if you keep the fuselage very streamlined and
keep the hub drag small it is possible, I guess. I do not really know
because it is ina very early stage of study and it is too difficultnow
to estimate .
Senator GOLDWATER. What is the theoretical amount of power
that you need to do that ?
Mr. Koven. I do not have the numbers on that right now, Senator.
Senator GOLDWATER. All right. Thank you .
The CHAIRMAN . Well, thank you very much. Senator Metzen
baum ?
 62

Senator METZENBAUM . Mr. Koven, seeing all that array of elec

tronic components, would you explain why the Navy or the airline
manufacturing industry has not already gone to solid state com
ponents ? It just seems to be such an obvious thing to do.
Mr. KOVEN . I can not explain it and I agree with you. It seems
like a very obvious thing to do. It takes time, however, to gain ith
confidence in the capability to exploit a new development on an air
craft and until you have actually demonstrated it in flight and
obtained experience with it, you hesitate going ahead withgeneral Cou
application.
Senator GOLDWATER. Actually would you not even have a better S
safety factor with solid state components and be able to test if there for
were a break ?
. Mr. Koven. You would. In addition, maximum advantage of
.

S
advanced electrical systems can be obtained through the use of Mr.
multiplexing fiber optics.
Senator GOLDWATER. I do not know the term fiber optics. What
does that mean ?
Mr. KOVEN . Fiber optics is the use of glass fibers to transmit
elecrical impulses. You take an electrical impulse and convert
it to an optical impulse, transmit it across glass wires or glass fibers,
and at the other end convert the optical output into electrical
signals.
It takes two fiber - optic cables of this size- 1 / 16 inch — to do the job
that you have to do with conventional copper cables of this size — 11,4
inch_taken from a typical ship application. ( Viewgraph displayed
fig. 21. )

FIBER OPTICS

INDIVIDUAL FIBER

d
1 to 3 mils

FIBER BUNDLE
JACKET
Fibers
k
20 to 125 mils

FIG . 21
 63

Senator GOLDWATER. There we are on the picture.

Mr. KOVEN. You can see the fiber bundle there. Note the little
e
glass wires, which transmits the light impulses.
Senator METZENBAUM. Actually, the reduction in the utilization of
0
space with solid state components would be quite impressive, would
an
if not, because that whole array might be reduced to just a couple of
very small boards.
nt 2
Zene
Mr. Koven. That is right. We figure on a typical airplane we
could save 45 percent on space through the use of fiber optics and
multiplexing
ft Senator METZENBAUM . 45 percent of that amount presently utilized
for the electronical components ?
Mr. KOVEN . Yes sir .
age
Senator METZENBAUM. Thank you very much . Nothing further.
Mr. Chairman.

112

ANSD
ONTE
fiber N /WDS BEFORE & AFTER
tric

heja
-1 WIRE FIBER OPTICS
咖

NUMBER OF CABLES 302 52

TOTAL LENGTH 4832 FT 832 FT

TOTAL WEIGHT 82 LB 12.6 LB

TOTAL COST $ 7.9K $ 2.1K

Contact FIG . 22

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. That is a very good question and it

is an interesting thing for me. I notice now on the slide up there
(fig. 22) the reduction in the number of cables and the total length
and total weight and the total cost, too.
. Senator METZENBAUM . May I suggest to the Chairman that he
.

possibly inquire in his capacity of the airplane manufacturers as to

why then have not moved in the direction of solid state components,
really a more safe means, a more economic means from the stand
point of weight and many other advantages, and it is almost as Mr.
Koven indicates questionably why we have not at that point already,
why others have not done it. It really is not a Navy project.
 64

The CHAIRMAN . That is a very good suggestion and we will in

毗EwF 伽 侧 咖 咖 ww业 机 姻 娜 燃
quire. That is something we ought to know about it. It seems so
obvious that one wonders why they have not moved in that direction.
Senator GOLDWATER.I might say as far as the cockpit in the air
plane, they have moved very far. But, when you look at the average
passenger airplane, when you are sitting there all those buttons
that you have to push , they still have to take that wire some place.
They have not made that solid state. But up in the cockpit, though
they still have a long way to go. They have done a very remarkable
job. I forget the amount of wiring in the B - 1. Any of you Air
Force types know ! I know it is well over 80 miles of wire and they
are already working, trying to cut that down on the production join
models.
Admiral MORAN . Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to this ques
tion. We are configuring an A - 7 aircraft with fiber optics in some disci
Di

w
major parts of the system . The problem of how rapidly you move
into a new application that is a substantial or radical departure

仙山 仙伽伽
from what you have been doing before is a very real problem . It is
one where you would like to know with some certainty that you are
making the steps ahead which you believe and I believe we would
be making if we went ahead a little more vigorously. However, we
are tied to a pretty substantial investment , a set of fabrication

h 娜娜娜
systems, a set of maintenance people and before we change all of
that, we really need a little bit of certainty that we have itin hand.
One would hope to get that from this A -7 that we are configuring
with the fiber optics in order to go ahead more vigorously.
ste
Senator METZENBAUM . Thank you. defert
The CHAIRMAN. Well, this miniaturization and elimination of and
complicating wiring has been a constant push , has it not, with the
Navy and with other research areas !
Admiral MORAN . It has, sir, and it is a battle that we have been
losing steadily because each time we save a little bit of space some
where we find three more systems that have to go into the airplane
and you get a picture like the one you saw up here.
Senator GOLDWATER. The greatestadvance in military aviation will
be to stop making black boxes. Every airplane we have built is a
beautiful airplane to fly and then you start hanging all that stuff
on it.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen . We surely ap
preciate your presentation. We have found something we need to
chew on a little further apparently. 97
The CHAIRMAN. We are now going to hear from the Air Force
and Dr. Walter LaBerge, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Research and Development will be our witness. We look forward
to having you, Dr. LaBerge.
[ Biography of Dr. Walter B. LaBerge follows :]
BIOGRAPHY OF DR. WALTER B. LABERGE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
( RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT )
Dr. LaBerge was born in Chicago, Ill. , on March 29, 1924. He received a
bachelor of science degree in naval science, 1944, a bachelor of science degree in
physics, 1947, and hisdoctorate degree in physics, 1950, from the University of
Notre Dame. During World War II he served as executive officer and then
Commander of the U.S. Navy Mine Sweeper YMS 165 .
 65

After receiving his doctorate degree in 1950, he became a program engineer

and then program manager for the Sidewinder missile at the Naval Ordnance
Test Station, China Lake, Calif. He participated in the development, production
and introduction into the Fleet of the Sidewinder missile, with primary exper
tise in missle seeker design and kinematics.
From 1957 to 1971, Dr. LaBerge was associated with the Philco-Ford Corpo
ration in various laboratories and operations concerned in research and devel
opment, electronics, design , implementation, maintenance, and management, in
cluding their programs involved in Gemini, Apollo, and satellites. He first was
Director of Engineering, Western Development Laboratories, at Palo Alto ,
Calif. , with engineering and project responsibility for all the laboratories pro
grams. In 1963 he became Director of the Philco Houston Operations at Houston,
Tex., and was senior technical and operating executive responsible to NASA
Mission Control Center from Gemini IV through Apollo XVII. Dr. LaBerge
joined the Research and Development Corporate Staff at Philadelphia, Pa., in
1965, as vice president, and was senior defense electronics staff officer for re
search and development with direct responsibility for the Philco Corporate
research program and approval authority for divisional program proposals and
discretionary fund application.
Dr. LaBerge rejoined the Western Development Laboratories in 1966 as vice
president and senior operating executive of the division responsible for main
tenance and upgrading of NASA Apollo Houston Control Center and the U.S.
Air Force remote satellite tracking facilities. From 1967 to 1971 as vice presi
dent of the Electronics Group he had senior line supervision of military elec
tronics business with worldwide operations including satellite control facilities,
communications satellites, and large antennas for commercial communications
satellites.
In 1971 Dr. LaBerge went to the Naval Weapons Center in California as
Deputy Technical Director and in June 1973 became Technical Director. In
this position, he was responsible for naval weapons development programs con
ducted at the Center, for research and advanced technology work in support of
these programs, and for the technical facilities. He acted as Deputy Program
Manager to the Naval Air Systems Command for advanced aircraft weapons
systems, and for the Naval Ordnance Systems Command for shipboard point
defense weapons systems, antiradiation missile systems, air -to -surface weapons,
and shipboard point defense systems. He also was responsible for joint service
programs conducted with the Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force.
Among the awards that Dr. LaBerge has received are the California Legisla
ture Resolution of Appreciation for Sidewinder Contribution, 1957 ; California
Junior Chamber of Commerce Award , one of Five Outstanding Young Men of
California, 1957 ; University of Notre Dame, Centennial Award to 50 Outstand
ing Scientific Graduates, 1967 ; and Navy Superior Civilian Service Award, 1972.
Heis a member of the Research Society of America and the American Society
of Professional Administrators. He has served on the Defense Science Board
Panel on Remotely Piloted Vehicles, 1971–1972 ; and the Chief Naval Operations
Industry Advisory Committee on Telecommunications, 1972.
Dr. LaBerge is married to the former Patricia Anne Sammon of River Forest,
Ill. They have five children : Peter Robert, Steven Michael, Jeanne Marie,
Philip Charles, and Jacqueline Anne, and reside at 1300 Capulet Court, McLean,
Virginia .

STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER B. LABERGE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF THE AIR FORCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Dr. LABERGE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman . I thought if you
wish I could continue the discussion of the wiring problem for a
moment.
The CHAIRMAN . Very good.
Dr. LABERGE. The B-1 does attempt to work the problem . We
believe we will have about a thousand pounds of wire eliminated by
a multiplexing system. This is the first time we will have tried it
on an aircraft of this size in this degree. It is essentially equivalent
to the system the telephone company uses. You dial a code and
 66

through a single wire send this code to various parts of the aircraft.
There is a receiver which decodes it and activates a landing gear, pilo
flap, or whatever it is that you commanded depending upon that PIOS
code.
The 747 had, in its early development cycle, committed partially teste

to a system of this kind, but had some difficulties which precluded ‫ون‬
full utilization of the scheme. I think all of the commercial and T
military aircraft visionaries are going to learn from the B-1 ex
perience. thro
Up until now one of the primary rules of aviation safety has been force
to have a single, physical wire connected to each of the vital parts I
of the aircraft. The YF-16 lightweight fighter now has a fly-by-wire perle
:

system which is entirely electronic and will do the things that were mpe
talked of previously about signaling for aircraft control. Most of 10 W

the B - 1's physical equipment beyond the cockpit area will be con ible
trolled by this digital system .
We now have that system checked out and it does look to be ment
operable and is not now a pacing item in the B-1 schedule. It had been Dr.
a pacing item because it was a new technology, but it does look as
if it is going to go quite well and based on that, I would expect that
this class of thing can straightforwardly go ahead.
The CHAIRMAN. Good. TO
Dr. LABERGE. If I could , I would like to enter for the record my BHT
statement and because of the relatively limited time, skip to a few
ofthe pieces of it which I think are particularly important.
The CHAIRMAN. That is acceptable. The full statement will be
placed in the record infull ( see p . 72) .
Dr. LABERGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman . this
I do appreciate the opportunity to be with you. I wanted to Bo
highlightfirst the importance of two facility programs which we
have before us, not that they are advanced aviation technology, but
they are crucial to the test of all of the new aircraft structures and Dr
engines that we expect to be testing in the future. mich
I want to reinforce both the combined NASA and DOD positions
in support of the high Reynolds number test facilities proposed in
this year's budget and the aeropropulsion system test facility which
will be in a future budget. These are quite expensive. We believe
they are very important and in order for ourselves to be sure that the
costs are in fact able to be justified, we have talked with both the
commercial and the military engine and air frame suppliers and
believe we can get them to support, with you , these facilities. They
are crucial to any advanced aeronautical system which we will be
testing in the future.
The importance of simulation I think is becoming for us, more and
more clear. The opportunity is much more available to us now to
do this reasonably economically, and with the advent of large scale
integrated circuits and with high power computers, we can quite
well simulate such things as air-to -air combat and air -to-ground
combat. We have a major program for simulation of air-to -air com
bat where we hope to understand not only the requirements of our
air frames and our control systems, but also in the training of our
 67
airer

ing a pilots for successful air-to-air combat, and that is one of the major
pon programs that we are presently undertaking.
The first units are nearing completion . The first unit will be
pari
recla
tested starting in September of this year and then will go down
cials
to Luke AFB, Arizona for use down there.
B -10 andWea arefullnot
360only simulating
degree cockpitthevisibility,
6 degreesbut
freedom
we areof attempting
movement
through about 31 different air compartments in the seat to simulate
has le forces on the pilot so that he will get the physical feeling of flying.
I think it is becoming more and more clear to us from the ex
.hr periences in the Arab- Israeli War that training, is a very very
LAT TE important part of air combat, and I think we will continue to try
Most to understand the important characteristics of our training and be
beat able to measure how well we do.
Senator METZENBAUM. Would you care to elaborate on that state
k to ment ?
adhe Dr. LABERGE. The Israeli pilots, flying equipment substantially
Jook the same as that of their opposition, were trained to a very fine
at the point and in air -to -air combat had a just overwhelming advantage.
As you talked to them about what is important, what to them was
important, was that they had the opportunity to train, to understand
ord on their equipment, and to physicallyget a chance to fly in combat - like
air conditions. I think we have known that for a while.
Senator GOLDWATER. Before you go on, Doctor, I have flown the
will be simulator at McDonnell -Douglas that has the air pad. Of course,
that wasjust to tighten up the belt. The one at Northrup actually
puts the " G " forces on you by centrifugal force.
Helt Do you thinkit is preferable to haveair -to-air compartment simu
ch w lation rather than the actual forces ? Have you abandoned that
Tibt Northrup concept ?
es ad Dr. LABERGE. We have for this air-to-air simulator, where we
wish to have a continued motion unconstrained. Namely, the pilot
itios can take any manuever possible, going to a situation half way be
ed tween simulating motion as well as G forces. We have a limited
motion where you get the feeling for some G forces, but you can not
lier: continue because of the transverse position limits. And we supple
t the ment this with the air bags.
the We are looking at the Northrup approach . It seems to us more
an important to give full flexibility to the pilot in all of the maneuvers
Thi possible.
16 Senator GOLDWATER. Is the computer cost still the major cost
component of the simulator ?
ami Dr. LABERGE. It is about matched by the optical and mechanical
THI systems. I think we will find that the computer costs will go down
al but in the main, the optical and mechanical systems are still ex
ite pensive and what we are hoping is that we can find out on this
ind first unit what is important and scale down the mechanical/optical
OM part while keeping the computer system essentially as it is so we
JUI can fly any and all aircraft in any and all conditions .
lli You might be interested, Senator, that this struck home to all of
us in the sense that we simulated three highly variable combat air
 68

planes, an F -4, a Mig -21 and an F-15, and educated one pilot very
carefully on where his airplane -- flew best, and then took pilots who lea
1
had not gone through this special training and let them compete
against each other in the simulator. The F - 15 performed very very por
well against the Mig -21 until it went up againstthe Mig with a pilot pot
who really knew how the Mig-21 worked. The Mig was able to stai
quietly sucker even the F - 15 into a position where he was dominant
about 15 percent of the time. Given a short bit of training the pilot sbl
of the F -15 won all of the time. I think it is just important that we A
know where airplanes operate best and that we use the simulation to
teach people byphysical experience what happens when they do not from
operate the airplane essentially as they were designed to be operated. get
Senator GOLDWATER. Well, this is a very expensive bit of equip
ment, but I can assure the members of the committee that it saves thet
money. The Army Helicopter School at Fort Rucker, Alabama will coal
save from $100 to $ 1,000 an hour by simulated training. The airlines neer
are now doing their line checks with simulators. I am sorry to say
that when our pilots in Vietnam first went up , except those who had look
been in Korea, none of them had ever had air-to-air combat training
and it was just lucky that they ran in to missions flown by people iner
who had not had as much exposures as we had or we would have had tail
terrible losses .
We are now training our pilots and what you said is true, even in JOS
actual training, but thesimulator will make it possible for a young pilot
to understand the forces of combat flying and will not have to be matt
constantly bothered by people who are safety conscious.
Dr. LABERGER. Yes, sir. I think that is particularly important. Ifyou
had to pick one thingthat the Israelis said their management allowed loa
them to do which was helpful, it was that they allowed them to
train in combat-like conditions. They could pull as much as the Tas

airplane could pull with no safety restraints. I think in peace time

we can not go that far, but we can do a great deal with the simulator. Te
With respect to the field of propulsion, I think it is most important ofl.
that we all realize that the major fighter aircraft advances are
really keyed by the remarkable technology we all have in this coun
try in the engine business. We have a number of programs where the
we are attempting, with the Navy and with the NASA in coopera is
tive efforts, to advance that technology. They include development of th

structural understanding through computer programs, namely, a 23

way to stop a little bit of "cut and try ” and to get a little bit better
understanding of our structures through computer usage.
Next is the development of the advanced high strength composite
materials. We have an attractive program in this regard and here In
we are quite closely tied to what the Navy is doing. th
We believe as does the Navy, and we have a cooperative program
with them , that the variable bypass, variable cycle engine is a
necessary future requirement. I did have the opportunity to get up
in the SR - 71, and I understand there was some earlier discussion of
this aircraft. The SR - 71 has a bleed system which changes the
pressure within the turbine engine with Mach number and altitude.
It is a technique that has been known but what needs to be done is
to be able to vary the engine cycle over the whole flight region of the
 69

vilot TE aircraft in a very reliable, efficient way and we are in the process of
ilots of learning how todo it.
compe We have, I think, a strong interest in the possibilities of nuclear
ert re power. We are planning a modest program to start to evaluate its
chapi
potential. We initially propose to notspend a great deal, but to
able i start laying out the tests which will allow us to see whether the
lomini technologyhas moved far enough to make nuclear power a reason
the pi able thing for a large aircraft.
thata A generation ago, or maybe 10 years ago, the technology was not
lation: sufficiently advanced. It now appears to be that perhaps 10 years
ydot from now it will be, and we need to do those things thatallow us to
operate get into position to exploit it.
fequi We are looking, as the Navy described, jointly with them at syn
it sa thetic fuels and the use of fuels generated from shale and from
ma T coal. That does look straightforward. It is something, though , that
airlit needs to be carefully doneand thought through.
i tos We are heavily embarked on a program of synthetic materials,
thek looking at the graphite composites primarily.We find that we can
traini make very substantial savings in cost as well as very substantial
peep increases in performance using these materials. We already have the
are bei tail surface of the F - 15 built of composites. We are attempting to
take large wing structure like the B-1 and make it out of com
eren i posites with the expectation that we can get very substantial re
ductions in weight and in cost . We believe we can also, with these
e toho materials, get something which allows the wing to bend and twist
without destroying its characteristics as an air foil. As you know ,
If when an aircraft lifts away, it does this principally through the
llowed loads on the wing and this causes a deformation of the wing . When
nem to the wing deforms, it does not turn out to be as good an air foil as it
as the was originally, and you get a less efficient operation .
eetim We think with the composites we can tailor this bending so that
ulator wecan keep the lift characteristics essentially optimal, independent
ortasi of load.
es an One other example of the use of composites might be landing gears
cour where about 90 percent of the original billet , which is the start of
ther the landing gear, is machined away to get the central structure which
pert is left. It turns out that we think we can directly avoid this by going
ent of to composite materials with a very substantial reduction in weight,
elt. an increase in useful lifetime, and surely a decrease in cost.
bette In the new technology areas we are discovering something which
has been known for a long time, that under high G, the heart
osite cannot pump the blood to the brain when you are essentially sitting
her in the direction of the G forces. If you can lean back and take
the G's as one does in the Apollo system , you can survive and
gram operate with greater efficiency at very high G levels. We are ex
is : ploring, in the YF -16 and to a lesser extent in the YF-17, the tilt
t up back seat and we have found, for example, that in the YF - 16 the
of pilot gets the sensation of only 41/2 G when he is really stressed
the up to 6 or 7 G's. This will allow us to take better advantage of the
ude new airplanes we can build that can sustainflight at 9 or 10 G.
e is Unless we do something like this we will not efficiently use the pilots
Ethe under these high G's and so we are looking at the whole system
 70

of tiltback seats, primarily to get higher efficiency from the aircraft

that we now can design and build.
testi
We are looking at the digital signaling system . The program
within the Air Force is called the DAIS. It is a cooperative program Our
with the naval facility at Johnsville which is working a correspond mod
ing part of the program for the Navy together with us. alTCI
As I said, we are looking at fly -by-wire. We think that we can
thel
get systems which allow the safe control of aircraft through digital PPT
programing by computers. I think all of us know that if we can
make it safe, we can make the aircraft maneuvering systems much to pt
better than they are now. tell
We are looking at direct force control. This is a system where Th
there
you don't have to bank to turn but you can get translational forces both
which can move you sideways or up and down without banking into
a turn . It turns out, if you can do this, you can get about the same if to
conce
forces that you got before but you get perhaps as many as five times
this
more opportunities to shoot your guns if you don't have to point D.
the airplane in the line of the directional motion. This is a very
interesting new program for us. conte;
We have a program for high supersonic flight. We are looking dvar
at new technologies and the thing that I wish to assure you is that progr
we do in fact have a very cooperative program with the NASA and tmish
the Navy. This I think is truly one set of programs that Admiral
trams
Moran's people take care to tell us when they have something of
importance. We work quite closely with them and I think we do
mtegi
in this instance share the benefit of each other's work so equally that mone
you cannot tell by the color of the suit who is doing the work.
We would like to finish by saying we are doing some work on THE
hyper -velocity vehicles. Our X - 24 vehicle test program is nearly Dr.
completed. We are looking at a change in the vehicle configuration inEn
in order to allow us to go to higher speeds and to higher cruise
conditions. We would expect to be able to launch from the B - 52,
and get to about Mach 5 at 100,000 feet with a controllable aircraft build.
CISSI
We do wish your continued support this year and I think we'do oem
have a program of substance and I would promise youit is one which
effectively makes information from our side as available to others for
as others have made it to us.
Thank you . Toul
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. LaBerge, for your Dr.
summary statement. We are glad to have the full statement for the
record.
In the first part of that statement you discuss a number of new
research and development facilities. How do such test facilities
relate to the use of remotely piloted vehicles for research purposes.
Dr. LABERGE. Well, I think it is a three- phased program and the
country is now embarking on all three phases to see what the ratio It
of effort should be. NASA is exploring how you better calculate the
effects of aerodynamics and they have a very fine program which we Th
are working with them on which someday may allow us to not
have to test everything in the wind tunnel. D
We have four facilities which we are coming to you on for wind 1
tunnel testing, two from NASA and two from the Air Force, and Th
we with the NASA are exploring their AMES program . They are
 71

in fact monitoring our YF - 16, and our initial confidence in our spin
testing is going to be derived from some work that they have done.
Our confidence in future aircraft will depend on some of the scale
modeling they are doing.
Essentially, we are trying to make sure that the very expensive
aircraft are not subject to catastrophic situations, subject either to
the lossof life of the pilot or the loss of the aircraft. So I think our
RPV efforts will let us try these things before we have the courage
to put a man or a machine into test. They do not, however, substitute
well forthe data taking end of thebusiness.
The CHAIRMAN . I was glad to have you give us assurance that
there is great cooperation between all of the R. & D. institutions,
both military and civilian, and that is a good thing. But I wonder
if you think the total U.S. R. & D. effort on advanced aeronautical
concepts is being funded adequately. Are we spending enough in
this area ?
Dr. LABERGE. That is a very hard question to answer without the
context of the whole program . This year's program I think I agree
to. We are going to have to put more time and money into the
advanced concepts. This year the Air Force I think has a sound
program but it is a constrained program in the sense that it must
finish several very expensive things that it is undertaking in pro
grams like the B - 1 and finish the F-15 and the A - 10. I think we are
getting much more for our money than we ever got before by the
integrated program we have and we are going to have to put more
money in.
The CHAIRMAN. Have we, fallen behind other countries, do you
think, in the provision of first class aeronautical R. & D. facilities ?
Dr. LABERGE. We are falling behind. The Europeans have, both
in England and France, facilities which are better than our current
facilities. They will not be as good as the ones that we propose to
build. The European community this month is again resuming dis
cussions of theirprogram to enhance their facilities and they intend
to embark on a program muchlike the one we talked to you about.
The CHAIRMAN. What would you envision is the possible schedule
for the development of a nuclear aircraft and what size aircraft
would this be and how much would that cost ?
Dr. LABERGE. May I supply that for the record, precisely, because
we have tried to go through this, but it is likely, if at all, to be at
least 10 years away. There are some very substantial hardware
problems. The principle of operation is clear. The hardware is just
not clear. In our present guess on weights, it will drive you to air
craft of the size of 747 or larger, probably in the million pound
class. And we have estimates on cost.
I would rather, if I may, provide them for the record. It may be
quite expensive.
The CHAIRMAN. That may be done but as you see it, that is about
10 years away before we can really be into that.
Dr. LABERGE. Yes, Senator.
[The information follows :]
The development of nuclear aircraft technology could take between 12 and 15
years. The size aircraft for which the technology would be developed is esti
mated to be in the order of 1.5 million pounds ( twice that of the 747). The cost
 72

仙妮娜娜娜娜
of technology development could range from $ 900 million to $ 1,700 million de
pending on options in the development program.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Dr. LaBerge. We
appreciate your testimony and the material you are going to furnish
us. It was interesting. We are going to have you back again soon
for another look as we keep up with what you are doing.
Dr. LABERGE. Thank you, Senator, and it turned out to be ap
proximately 90 miles of wire in the first B-1 , much of which in the
end could be replaced by a suitable digital system .
The CHAIRMAN . Thank you .
[The prepared statement follows :]

哪 咖 咖 咖 侧 叫 她
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER B. LABERGE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss those facets of technology that are of
particular interest to the Air Force and which have the potential to significantly trams

contribute to new aeronautical systems. Rather than review specific aircraft Of

仍
designs, my remarks will center on those technologies with broad future power
application .

伽 呼 山 删 她 她 咖 阻 仙山
First, we recognize that success in the development of superior aircraft is
dependent in a major way on the availability of adequate research and develop
ment test facilities. The Air Force has recognized for some time that existing popul
aeronautical facilities are becoming increasingly inadequate to do the job that
must be done. Under the auspices of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Co
ordinating Board, senior representatives from the Department of Defense and
NASA have developed a coordinated plan to provide the nation with the techni
cal facilities needed to develop new aircraft and supporting aeronautical sys
tems. This plan includes two Air Force and two NASA wind tunnels. The Air
Force tunnels are the High Reynolds Number Test Facility , HIRT, and the
Aeropropulsion System Test Facility , ASTF.
The HIRT will provide full- scale Reynolds number flow in the transonic

咖
Mach number range where mixed subsonic and supersonic flows require that
major dependence be placed on tests rather than on theoretical analysis. Ex
perience has shown that extrapolation from the lower Reynolds numbers avail

咖
able in current wind tunnels to full-scale values is often grossly inaccurate and
results in less than desired performance capabilities from the aircraft. Present ting
tunnels do not allow for proper simulation of transonic flows. In fact, tests in
our currently available transonic wind tunnels must be conducted at Reynolds
numbers which are up to 15 times lower than current aircraft operating values. Tink
The HIRT facility offers great promise for reducing aircraft development time
and for enhancing overall system performance and efficiency .
The ASTF will overcome the deficiencies in our present propulsion test facil
ities. The deficiencies I speak of relate primarily to the inability to test com
plete aircraft propulsion systems under simulated flight conditions.
Equally important to producing superior aircraft is the task of training pilots
to fly them . Simulation is expected to play an ever increasing role in pilot
training, and the Simulator for Air -to-Air Combat, which will be operational
next summer, is a leading example of our efforts along these lines. This two
cockpit simulator will have six degrees of freedom and full 360 degree out-of
the- cockpit view. The visual system is totally new and was developed expressly
for this simulator. Even the pilots ' seats are new technology. These seats con
tain 31 air compartments which are computer controlled to simulate accelera
tion forces on the pilot's body while he is maneuvering the simulator. The ex
perience gained in the development of the Air-to-Air Combat Simulator, as well
as other advanced simulators, has so convinced us of the importance of the
nhyschological aspects of simulation that the Air Force is co -locating human ,
factors personnel with simulator engineers. ·
In the field of propulsion, some of the major technology areas to be empha
sized over the next several years are improved structural definition , new ma
terial application, variable cycle engines, and special purpose engines.
 73

Major structural problems experienced in the development of advanced tur

bine engines have underscored the critical need for improved structural design
criteria and inceased test verification of new configurations early in the devel
opment cycle. Structural analysis procedures, instrumentation and test tech
niques are being augmented by closely integrated Air Force /Navy turbine en
gine advanced development programs.
Advanced lightweight, high strength , composite materials will be developed
for engine static structures, fans, compressors, and turbines. The utilization of
these materials has the potential of producing substantial improvements in
engines by increasing thrust- to -weight ratios, component speeds, and aerody
namic loadings, while at the same time reducing costs by eliminating component
stages and parts.
Air Force mission requirements for efficient operation over a wide range of
supersonic and subsonic flight conditions have created the need for a variable
cycle in future turbine engines to vary the bypass ratio, pressure ratio, and
airflow of the engine to best match the flight conditions. The effectiveness of
mid and long term multimission aircraft will be dictated by the flexibility in
herent in this type engine. We believe the variable cycle technology represents
the next major advance in the development of the jet engine and its use will
extend beyond the year 2000. Both the Air Force and NASA are sponsoring pro
grams to increase our variable cycle technology base.
Of continuing interest are special purpose engines that will utilize nuclear
power. The Air Force and NASA did extensive work in the past in this area ,
but much remains to be done with the development components such as long-life
pumps, highly reliable vanes, and leak - free and durable heat exchangers. We
plan to begin a modestly paced technology program leading toward a nuclear
propulsion capability for long range, long endurance aircraft for application in
the 1990's and beyond. In the meantime, during the 1980's and into the 1990's,
the Air Force will still rely on hydrocarbon type liquid fuels. We are, therefore,
studying the possibility and feasibility of deriving acceptable aircraft fuels from
coal and oil shale resources. Estimates indicate that it will require at least ten
years to fully develop these resources.
In the area of materials, I would highlight the composites which will enable
us to either increase payload, range, and maneuverability of aerospace vehicles
or to decrease the size and gross weight of a vehicle performing an equivalent
mission. The Air Force is currently demonstrating composite empennages and
secondary structures in the Lightweight Fighter program, and the F - 15 has a
composite stabilizer. In addition , other aircraft composite programs have been
initiated such as the development of a fighter wing and the " Weapon Systems
Advanced Composites Application Program " which will develop bomber -scale
wing and empennage structures. In regard to cost, composite structures offer
the potential for significant reductions over conventional metal structures. We
are attempting to exploit the directional properties of the composite material in
wing designs in such a way that the wing will, under combined aerodynamic
and weight loads, deform in a prescribed way . This “ load conforming" deforma
tion will be obtained while satisfying all other requirements such as strength
and flutter. This will allow the wing to control its loading under maneuvering
flight at high speeds where adverse load distributions can occur. Thus, future
wing designs using composites show promise of achieving “ Maneuver Load Con
trol" passively, i.e., without recourse to deflecting auxiliary surfaces .
Also in the area of composites, the Air Force has produced a prototype
graphite composite landing gear tailored to a 13,000 pound class aircraft. A 50
percent improvement in fatigue life is indicated with a 30 to 40 percent weight
savings. Over the next ten years, we shall continue development of composite
landing gears for application to large aircraft.
In discussing advanced aircraft systems, the high - G seat, digital avionics ,
and direct force control are representative of items of interest to the Air
Force. Since today's fighters incorporate an unprecedented level of sustained
maneuverability, the emphasis on added fighter agility has raised serious
questions as to the ability of the pilot to effectively function in this dynamic
environment. Therefore, attention has been focused on development of a high - G
cockpit concept whereby the pilot will be positioned to provide added G
protection during extreme combat maneuvers. The program will determine if
the high - G cockpit does provide an air combat advantage and whether the
implementation of the cockpit is technically viable.
 74

In digital avionics, the Air Force has initiated a program called Digital Avi.
onics Information System , DAIS. In the past, mission information requirements
have been established along semi-autonomous subsystem areas such as naviga
tion, weapon delivery, stores management, flight controls, and others for each
new system. The trend within each of these subsystems has been toward digital
systems each with its unique processing, transfer and display of information.
Interaction of requirements between these subsystems has been limited to that Ter

necessary to accomplish system integration. The DAIS concept proposes that the
processing, multiplex, and display functions be common and serve all the sub 361
system requirements on an integrated basis. To accomplish this, the information ical
is reduced to a common digital format similar to that in pocket calculators.
With everything in terms of numbers of digits, the common computers can C.S
switch from handling a television display to a weapon delivery calculation and the
then to navigation as required. B
We are, of course, continuing efforts to develop those subsystems which lend L
themselves to digital electronics. For example, we expect to begin a Digital
Flight Control System project next year to develop and test a digital flight T
control system. The objective will be to obtain flight validation of operationally D
representative hardware, software, and procedures. Emphasis will be placed on Inst
evaluating digital, survivable, fly -by -wire systems and the evaluation will be
tailored to the air-to-air and air - to -ground combat missions. A YF -4C aircraft E
will be utilized as the design test vehicle and we contemplate possible use of the
this type system in advanced tactical fighters in the mid - 1980's.
Another area of interest is the evaluation of direct force control to enhance
aircraft maneuverability. Direct force control is the ability to produce and
control lift and sideforce, or a combination of the two, to affect a change in
an aircraft's lateral or vertical positionwithout a corresponding change in the
aircraft's attitude or angle of attack. The employment of direct force controls
have the potential of significantly improving the maneuver and tracking per Pr
formance of modern tactical fighter aircraft. Studies have shown that a typical and.,
fighter aircraft employing direct force controls will have over five times the P
gun -in -envelope time of a conventional fighter.
To summarize advanced developmentwork in aircraft systems, I should like
to mention the Advanced Fighter Technology Integration, AFTI, program just istra
begun this year . The purpose of the AFTI program is to develop a family of 1100
flight vehicles which will efficiently and conclusively demonstrate the technical
characteristics of promising technologies, both singly and in combination. This
program is very closely coordinated with NASA's High Maneuvering Advanced STA
Technology ( HIMAT ) program which will utilize remotely piloted vehicles to
assess high risk technology . The relation of HIMAT to AFTI is that HIMAT 5
will develop high risk technology to the point that the technology can be safely
evaluated and demonstrated on the manned AFTI aircraft. This philosophy
provides for the orderly identification , assessment, and incorporation of new
technologies and will demonstrate the benefits of integrating multiple technol
ogies starting in the initial design process. Flight demonstration of selected
integrated technologies can bridge the gap between development and systems
applicaiton and will reduce the risk of incorporating advanced technology.
Finally, I wish to conclude with a brief summary of work in the area of
hyper-velocity vehicles. Once the on-going X - 24B flight test program is complete,
we are considering a change in the configuration of the X - 24B to accommodate
increased fuel and a new engine. Since this new configuration would be capable
of very high speed flight under cruise conditions, the airframe would be coated
with a heat protection material to protect the basic structure from aerodynamic
heating. The vehicle could be launched from a B -52 aircraft to achieve a
maximum speed of Mach 5 at an altitude of 100,000 feet. This would permit us
to concentrate on high speed cruise conditions and evaluate handling qualities,
thermal protection systems, advanced propulsion systems , and the man -machine
problems associated with this type of vehicle .
Gentlemen, this concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opporunity
to appear before this committee, and will be happy to answer any questions.
The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Dr. Robert Cannon, who
is Assistant Secretary of the Department of Transportation and his
function there is Assistant Secretary for Systems, Development, and
Technology.
 75

[Biography of Dr. Robert Cannon follows :]

BIOGRAPHY OF ROBERT H. CANNON , JR. , ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Dr. Cannon came to the Department of Transportation from Standford Uni
versity, where he was Vice Chairman of the Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics and Director of the Guidance and Control Laboratory. Prior to
joining the Standford faculty , Dr. Cannon was Associate Professor of Mechan
ical Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology .
From August 1966 to July 1968, Dr. Cannon served as Chief Scientist of the
U.S. Air Force. In that position he served as advisor to the Chief of Staff and
the Secretary of the Air Force on technical and scientific policy.
Born : Cleveland, Ohio 1923.
Legal Residence : California .
Marital Status : Married to the former Dorothea Collins.
Family : Six sons, one daughter.
Education : University of Rochester, 1944, Bachelor of Science ; Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 1950, Doctorate.
Military Service : 1944 to 1946 — U.S. Navy, Radar and CIC Officer,
Experience : 1959 to 1970 — Stanford University, Professor, Vice Chairman of
the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Director of the Guidance
and Control Laboratory ; 1966 to 1968 - U.S . Air Force, Chief Scientist ; 1957 to
1959 — Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Associate Professor of Mechanical
Engineering ; 1951 to 1957 — Autonetics Division of North American Aviation,
Anaheim , California, Supervisor of research and development of flight control
and navigation systems ; 1950 to 1951 – Bendix Aviation Research Laboratories,
Detroit, Michigan, Research Engineer.
Professional memberships : Director of the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics ; Tau Beta Pi ; Sigma Xi .
Publications: Dynamics of Physical Systems, McGraw -Hill, an undergraduate
college textbook, and numerous technical papers and articles.
Advisory positions : Chairman of the National Aeronautics and Space Admin
istration's Subcommittee on Guidance, Control and Navigation, and of the Ad
visory Group of the NASA Electronics Research Center ; Vice Chairman of the
Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT CANNON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

SYSTEMS, DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION

Dr. Canxon. Good morning, Mr. Chairman .

The CHAIRMAN. Glad to have you, Dr. Cannon. You may proceed.
Dr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that you
wrote and asked me to testify today because the question you asked
in your letter, about what opportunities we may see for quantum
jumps in airplane technology and systems, is one towhich I have
given a great deal of thought during the 41/2 years I have been in
Washington as we have tried to see how to help our transportation
system serve our people even better.
I have a special personal reason for being glad you asked me to
speak today because I will be leaving the Government next month
to take a new job that also excites me very much and this gives me
a chance before I leave to share my thoughts of 41/2 years with this
committee that is providing such important leadership to aviation.
I have eight specific items to suggest to you, but first, I would like
to say just a few things about my basis for judging.
First, transportation is a business with a very big leverage. It is
20 percent ofthe Gross National Product. It is the life's blood by

38-266 0 - 74 - 6
 76

which we live and interact with one another. It serves us all well. It
serves our economic well-being provides us opportunities to work at
those jobs we wish , and it serves our quality of life in many ways.
The Department of Transportation's role is to maximize trans can

portation's contribution to that well-being.

I
Our great transportation system and particularly our wonderful
air transportation system did not come aboutbecause smart planners
in Washington planned it all out and established an official need and
alr
decreed the proper technology to be developed. It came about because
inventive genius and vigorous free enterprise took advantage of new
technological opportunities as they appeared on the scene. Technical befi
opportunities generate progress and nothing else does. It is govern to 1
ment's job to foster the development of these technological oppor
tunities. F
I would like to speak very briefly about our relations with NASA

言言,
which are so important to us for with respect to air transportation,
NASA plays the key role, the role of the technological stimulator,
developing new technological opportunities and confronting the term
transportation industry and us in the DOT with them . I think con
fronting is exactly the right word : The interplay between technol men

ogical opportunities and transportation planning -- the continual stim edra

ulation and prodding of each by the other - needs to be nurtured and
institutionalized.
In these years we have worked hard to structure and restructure redu
this process of prodding each other. Some products of our determina
tion are the CARD study which this committee chartered , the joint mene
Office of Noise Abatement, the R. & D. Policy Office in my shop
which is heavily participated in by NASA, and the establishment of BE
the position of Special Assistant for Aeronautics which is occupied dra
by Mr. Larry Greene who iswell known to you for his very impor
tant contributions on the F-86, the F-100, where he was chief aero the
dynamacist, and the X - 15 and XB - 70 on which he was Assistant
Chief Engineer. We are still at work on this structuring, because oft
NASA is one of the great resources on which we have to draw. the
It is in this framework, then, of new technological opportunities abs
I see on the one hand, and the transportation needs I see them serving
on the other, that I offer my observations on your question about
opportunities for a quantum jump in aeronautical technology and NE
systems. Specifically I will speak to eight such opportunities I see
ahead.
The proper role of the Federal Government is not one of building
the Nation's transportation system but of providing an environment
in which the privately operated systems can grow and serve the Na
tion. Thus, the eight specific technological opportunities I will discuss
are each focused on removing a constraint to the acceptable growth of
aviation by making it quieter, moving it more smoothly, improving
its interface with the communities it serves, insuring that it is ab
solutely harmless to the environment, and reducing its consumption
of scarce resources .
The first, of the eight opportunities is in aircraft noise abatement,
particularly the application of advanced engine technology and ad
 77

vanced capabilities in control and handling of aircraft to this prob

lem . The CARD study had as one of its most important outputs the
clear finding that aircraft noise is a major limiter on the amount we
can allow our air transportation system to grow and on the ways it
can serve us.
Historically, in the last decade the excellent work of developing
the fan jet concept (in which the Lewis Laboratoryplaced an impor
tant part) has been the single most important contributor to reducing
aircraft noise. The large 777's, DC - 10's and L - 1011's operate at very
much lower noise levels for their size than other aircraft ever have
before. The refan program of NASA, addressed as a possible solution
to retrofitting earlier noisier aircraft, also makes a very important
contribution in the continuing effort to reduce noise.
Further, operational concepts (on which important early technical
work and demonstration work was carried out by NASA ) to make
two-segment approaches safe and operationally acceptable will, I be
lieve also have a very important effect on reducing noise in the near
term.
Looking, into the future at the new contributions to noise abate
ment that can be made by advanced technology , I see, first, additional
advances from the even -higher -by -pass-ratio fan engines. I see us
rapidly reaching the point where the core of the jets coming from the
engines becomesthe basic limiting noise level as we get moreand more
reduction of machinery noise. I see very important work in under
standing the fundamental way in which jets of air at high velocity
generate noise as being one of the important technical contributions
that must be made and drawn upon .
Below that floor is yet another one which is often called aero
dynamic noise, the noise made simply by the body of the aircraft
moving through the air, particularly in the landing, configuration
Where the aircraft is very dirty. Basic advances must be made there.
Finally, the two-segment approach is only the first of a sequence
of things that we can do,and will do, to employ great flexibility in
the flight paths of our aircraft as they maneuver near airports to
absolutely minimize the noise impact they make on the surrounding
area. The greatest technical advance that will permit this is the
microwave landing system which will indeed allow us great flexibility
in the use of flight paths (where today we can use only a single one
or possibly the two-segment one ).
Next, if there are to be SST's flying into our airports on more
than an experimental basis, basic enginedevelopments must be made
which will permit takeoff without the use of afterburners. This will,
of course, involve as I see it the use of a variable cycle engine de
sign. It will take a long time and will be an expensive development
project, but I feel it is essential to these aircraft being acceptable.
Of course, at the other extreme, there is the fine work that NASA
is doing in quiet STOL aircraft . I think that work will have its im
pact and I will speak to that a little bit later.
The second of the eight opportunities I see is that of application
of digital computer technology and new sensor technology to air
traffic control to make it even safer, less expensive, both tothe user
 78

and to the Government, and more flexible in terms of much more

efficient use of the airspace and as I just mentioned, of minimizing
noise.
Historically, again we have come a long way from the early days
90
of air traffic control by manual observation of radar screens which
began in the Berlin Airlift in real earnest. Our latest system now in
being at over 60 of our airports — the ARTS-III system ,and the com do
panion NAS Stage A enroute system - represent the beginning of the
use of controllers as managers rather than as routine data processors.
We are currently handling substantially more traffic than we handled STS
in 1969, when the skys were filled with aircraft orbiting for 2 and I
3 hours before being able to enter an airport, where delays were very tre
large indeed and where air traffic controllers were suffering from a101

great anxieties because of the difficulty of keeping track of the air 2117
craft. Those days are behind us and I hope and am confident that I
they are behind us permanently. As I say, today we are handling dis
substantially more traffic than we had during those very trying days che
of 1969. thea

Turning then to the future of air traffic control, I see a system in

which computers carry out the routine control functions and pinpoint
surveillance, probably using satellites, allows human controls to main Inco

tain complete strategic management of the positions of all commercial 000

aircraft. I see a day when all scheduled flights will be managed from
block to block so thoroughly that there will be no waiting time at GOIN
any part of any trip . Safety will be substantially enhanced in the
process, and costs will be substantially reduced. This is a logical ex
tension of the research going on now. We have already laid the
groundwork for the system of the 1990's which I firmly believe will
have these important characteristics.
My third item is that the digital computer has another contribution
to make and this is in cargo origin to destination management. Air
transportation has very large economic contributions yet to make as 60
a major mover of freight. Its contribution is the short trip time that
it offers, but it is origin-to-destination trip time that counts. This
meansair plusground movement. Total trip managementthrough ad
vanced surveillance technology, through computer management of tha
the movement of each shipment, will provide this much better origin
destination service and will be an important contribution in the
future .
Our beginning of this is a system called CARDIS, in which ship
ments from overseas to this country are already being watched
through digital computer surveillance. It is interesting that we were
able to start the system more readily in the overseas arena than at
home because the institutional constraints turned out to be easier
there.
My next subject is very quick and it is a purely aerodynamic
phenomenon, that of the wake vortex. The wake vortex currently
limits our operations near airports. It is the limiting factor on how
rapidly we may safely land aircraft. The FAA is moving rapidly to
establish a capability to sense and thus to avoid wake vortices through
the air traffic management. At the same time, however, it is important
that we learn how to disperse these vortices.
 79

The formation of a vortex is areodynamically fundamental to the

generation of lift of an aircraft; and the larger the aircraft the
stronger the vortex will be. So it is a question, not of producing lift
with no vortex motion, but of findingways to disperse the vortices
much more rapidly than currently occurs. At our request NASA is
working more andmore urgently on this task . A great deal of prog
ress has been made just in the past year.
My fifth item is not primarily one of high technology. It has to
do with ground access to airports. But I mention it because it will
be a truly essential part of any improvement in the air transportation
system .
There are three components involved : a dedicated connection be
tween the airport and the communities it serves, circulation in and
around the airport, and very high speed connections between two
airports.
Let me speak particularly to the third item. I am thinking of the
difficulties we have in being able to use two good airports that are
close together, for example, O'Hare and Midway, where we could
greatly increase the capacity ofa given area but where the problem
isone of the airlines being unwilling to serve two places and duplicate
all of their facilities and inconvenience their passengers. A particular
inconvenience is that of parking at one airport and then returning
to the other. If — and I believe it, is possible — we can connect such
pairs of airports with a 10-minute trip time between them , so that
going from one airport to another takes no longer than going from
one part of a single terminal to another, then I believe that we can
truly move into a period in air transportation development where
pairs of airports—and more than two airports — in many cities will
serve as an important means of solving the airport capacity problem
in very heavy terminal areas.
I think a technological breakthrough that will contribute to this
is the tracked levitated vehicle which can move easily at speeds of
150 to 200 miles an hour with very minimal maintenance on the
guideways. The guideways must, of course, be elevated or tunneled,
but they can be substantially less expensive and require much less
maintenance than even conventional rail. I think this is a technology
that really will have an important helping effect on air transporta
tion. I will be glad to discuss it a little further if you wish, Mr.
Chairman .
Short-haul air transportation in particular is so marginal that
only if major ground access improvements can be made will it be
viable. I want to say here that we will always tryto foster alterna
tives. We will always try to foster both the air and ground compon
ents of travel between cities where the distances are in that region
of overlap that can indeed be served by high speed ground transpor
tation , for example. We want to give the people a choice and we
want the market to determine what the answer is, but we do not want
to constrain. Indeed, we want to foster all of the opportunities that
are economically viable to pursue.
Let me turn next to the regime where air transportation stands
alone, the long trip transportation regime, and to an item that is
high technology indeed. A major advance in combustion technology,
 80

山
together with a deliberate unstinting program of atmospheric moni
toring, will I believe be essential to commercial operation at higher

压
altitudes than we are presently using. We are in the final year of

卵 肌
the Climatic Impact Assessment Program ( CIAP ) . The NASA, along
with NOAA and many others, have played a very important role

肥
with us in gathereing the data and making the assessments needed

刪 !
to carry out this program . The results are not yet available. What
we have been able to do is to make the measurements that represent

网 mw 侧 伽娜妮娜 哪
the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle about how the flight of aircraft at
very high altitudes could impact the climate and the biosphere of the
earth in various ways. We were able to complete our measurements
the first time around on the various pieces of the puzzle, and we are
now very hard at work putting the pieces together to see what con
clusions can be drawn. This will take the better part of the summer
and early fall and we will make our report to the Congress as
promised in December of 1974.
I can , however, make some comments about the sort of result that
could come from these studies. It may turn out to go like the fore

妮 I- 帕
following:
If we do the right things, on time, it may be safe for us to operate
at higher altitudes. If we do continue the movement toward higher

w
altitudes, both by increasing the number of SST operations and in
deed operations by the subsonic fleet also, specifically with today's
engines and fuels, it could lead to serious consequences indeed. And

船 配
again I will be pleased to discussed these, Mr. Chairman, if you
want to take more time.

她
The right things, the things that we must do, will include first de FF
veloping the combustors in engines to the point where they can burn thre
with a much lower production ofnitrous oxides ; second, the monitor CONE
ing and the carrying out of continuing research in the atmosphere,
to learn with more and more confidence what the interactions are
and what the dangers may be in absolute quantitative terms.
The engine research, the monitoring and the upper atmospheric
research all are in the bailiwick of NASA with some help from
NOAA on the latter. They have been working with us up to this
point. Even though the DOT budget in this area is on the order of
$7 million per year, the expenditures by NASA and NOAA in these
areas which are of direct application to this problem are on the order
of $30 million and $15 million per year respectively. This work must
go on and it must continue to be focused on these specific problems
so that our confidence andourunderstanding and the sureness that
we are proceeding properly can be increased from year to year.
Finally, stringent regulation developed with the most deliberate
care among the nations must be instituted and maintained. This, of
course , is the responsibility of the FAA and they are beginning this
work,
We have time to do this one right, without crisis and without dam
age. Here is one technological advance where we are doing our tech
nological assessment in plenty of time. We know what to do. But we
have to start now.
If I can add a personal note to this, I have given this matter a
great deal of thought myself and I have a very strong conviction
 81

mu
that we must take no chances at all of disturbing in any way the
delicate balance of the environment we live in on this precious planet.
她 刚

Having said that, I also have the conviction that if we cansafely

operate at higher altitudes and at higher speeds, the contributions
which this new level of air transportation can make to the economic
叫 崛

well-being of the world will indeed be so great that our generation

TL
will make a major contribution by pursuing it.
I think there is an analogy that will explain why I feel this way.
Before there were jet aircraft — the people at the centers of culture
低 础 此

in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston and the center of government

ement
in Washington - had a certain amount of dialog together. But the
people on the west coast were really not nearly asactive in participa
tion in the culture and business of the country as they have been since
叫 個

the jet came into being. There seems to be a major difference between
being able to travel between two points in 412 hours and taking 8
ASSI
hours for the trip. California is very much closer to the east coast
t this
now, and thuspeople who live anywhere in our country participate
much more heavily in the culture of our country than was possible be
fore the jet.
I now extend this analogy to the cultures andpeoples of other coun
叫

igher
tries who, by very high speed air transportation, would also be on
the order of 3 or 4 or 5 hours away ; and what I see is a true awaken
di
ing and a truebringing together of the peoples of the world through
dar this medium. I think it is something that we will not want to deny
And
ourselves, and as long as we can be very safe and very sure that we
are safe with respect to our environment, I think it is a course of
action that is likely to be pursued.
de Finally, I would like to talk very briefly about the very long term ,
tor
three to six decades away. Here the challenge will be for aviation to
AN1
continue to serve in an era of increasing scarcity of energy and of
C1 critical materials.
2/ C
My seventh item , which is the development of aircraft of con
em
tinually advancing performance, but without using exotic scare ma
com
terials for their structures, will call for engineering ingenuity at the
highest level.
his
And my eighth point is that powering such aircraft without draw
ing heavily on natural petroleum will require a breakthrough in
er
fuel technology or perhaps in other means of propulsion such as you
discussed a little earlier this morning.
I suspect that there may be even two more quantum jumps in the
81
speed at which we travel very long distances around our globe, with
major economic benefits to mankind each time ; but we must be
absolutely certain that there will be no adverse side effects. There is a
te
lot ofnew engineering between here and there.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman .
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Cannon. I am pleased
with your statement. You obviously have given a lot of consideratio
1
n
to it and set down the various points that you see where we must
make this breakthrough and must move ahead all the way from
ground systems to new fuels and materials, and I appreciate your
8
assessment of the problems and your indications that DOT is working
1
 82
th
th
in concert with the other agencies concerned with aeronautics and
trying to find solutions.
The report that will be issued this fall should be very interesting of
and I will be looking for that when it comes out.
I did not know that you were about to leave and I do not know
how soon you are going to leave Government service. Do you mind
telling me where you are going?
Dr.CANNON. Mr. Chairman,I will beChairman of the Division of
Engineering and Applied Science at Cal Tech .
The CHAIRMAN. Cal Tech. Very good. Well, we certainly wish you

妈
well.

叫
Dr. CANNON . Thank you , sir.

奶
The CHAIRMAN . And we know that that will be a very satisfying

肌
assignment and you have done a great job while you have been here.

娘
for
Wehave been glad to have had your service on the Federalscene

机 BMW
during this period of time and it is most encouraging to find that
Transportation, the Department itself, is involved in this effort
of finding and developing new technology as vigorously as is being
done. We sometimes have a tendency in our Government to get sort
of diversified and get several departments working in isolation on MO

overlapping problems but in this case it is quite reassuring that there I

Lai
is close communication and structuring so that you work in concert
and not in watertight cells and that, therefore, we get technical assist
ance flowing from one to the other.
On the long-term fuel problem, do you see that as really getting
into anothertype of fuel rather than the one we depend on now , fossil
IM
fuels, or is it improving the technology of using fossil fuels?
Dr. CANNON. Well, of course , it is some of each . In the near term it
has to be improving the technology of using fossil fuels since the
near term does not hold, as I have cometo understand it, the oppor
tunities to use an alternative. But in the long term that I mentioned,
los
the three to six decades hence, aviation , if its growth continues in INC
the ways that our intuition tells us it will, bids to become almost the
major user of petroleum , and we all know the rate at which we are TE

consuming our petroleum and how long we can continue to consume it

at these rates. That is why I see no alternative but to find a way to
fly ultimately without consuming naural petroleum fuels.
As you know ,transportation uses about 50 percent of the petroleum
that isusedin this country.As of today, some 80 percent plus of this
is used by highway vehicles, and air transportationuses only a small
percentage. But the growth of aviation that my intuition tells me
will occur will lead toa very much higher percentage use by aviation
three decades from now.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Fletcher said this morning that we should not
be immediately involved in the development of the SST but we
should be working on the technology so that when we were ready to
go, then we could provide one with the various necessary safeguards,
and so on, that were outlined for it. Do you concur with that general
view of Dr. Fletcher ?
Dr. CANNON . Yes, I do. I believe that the question of whether this
Nation becomes involved in SST development will certainly be one
 83

that will be decided on the basis of the people's wishes just as it was
the last time around, and acceding verymeticulously tothose wishes,
we have been careful not to become involved in the fostering or active
development in any way of SST aircraft during these years but only
of being sure that we understand all we possibly can about what the
consequences might be of their flying and particularly being very
sure that we either see ways or else develop prohibitions to keep
us completely safe from their side effects with respect to noise and
particularly with respect to this atmospheric problem .
In the latter case it was quite interesting to find that although we
began the study (CIAP ) looking for what the impact of SST's
might be - bearing in mind that whether this country builds them
or not other countries are so engaged and are likely to develop them ,
and needing to know what our position would be with respect to
these othercountries and to have the best possible knowledge base
for development of a position, we found, however, that not only
SST's but subsonic aircraft as they move to higher and higher alti
tudes are a potential source of danger. And so we have broadened
the scope of our activity in this area.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you also feel that other countries are really
moving ahead of us in R. & D. facilities in the aviation field ?
Dr. CANNON. I think I should defer to Dr. Fletcher and Dr.
LaBerge and the other witnesses you have had who have studied
these facilities with obviously much more care than I have. The
facilities under my own direction or purview have to do largely
with our management of the air traffic control system , as you know ,
together with our upper atmospheric research activities, so that when
it comes to wind tunnels, engine facilities, and so on, I look to NASA
for information and a judgment.
The CHAIRMAN . Well, thank you very much, Dr. Cannon. We
surely appreciate your statement and you have helped us by giving
us a little better view of where we are moving and what we are
doing and what we have to do. We will look forward to a continuing
association with you for the remainder of your Federal term and also
when you get to Cal Tech.
Dr. CANNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman .
The CHAIRMAN . Thank you .
In addition to witnesses invited to appear before this committee,
we have invited a number of organizations to send the committee a
statement for the record if they wish to do so. Without objection,
those statements will be printed at an appropriate point in these
hearings. ( See p. 180. )
That completes our list of witnesses for this morning. We will
return on Thursday morning at 9:30 to continue the hearings.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to re
convene Thursday, July 18, 1974, at 9:30 a.m.]
 同
警
鲁g臺言 署
B
 ADVANCED AERONAUTICAL CONCEPTS

THURSDAY, JULY 18, 1974

U.S. SENATE ,
COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to recess , at 9:35 a.m., in room 235,
Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Barry M. Goldwater pre
siding.
Present: Senators Goldwater and Bartlett.
Also Present:Robert F. Allnutt, staff director ; Craig M. Peterson ,
chief clerk / counsel; James J. Gehrig , Glen P. Wilson, Craig Voor
hees, Jerry Staub and Gil Keyes, professional staff members; Mary
Rita Robbins, clerical assistant ; Charles F. Lombard , minority
counsel, and Anne Kalland, minority clerical assistant.
Senator GOLDWATER . The meeting will come to order.
„Senator Moss, the chairman of the committee, is detained at a
party caucus and cannot be here, so I will get the show on the road.
This is a resumption of the hearings on Advanced Aeronautical
Concepts that we started the other day. We have five witnesses. It
is my understanding that this is the first time in over 30 years that
a committee of Congress has received testimony on the subject of
lighter-than -air vehicles. I hope we would not have to wait until the
year 2004 for the next set of hearings.
I might say that I have been very surprised at the amount of
interest that has been shown across this country in this subject.
When we first talked about it, I thought the last believers in
dirigibles disappeared in Lakehurst many many years ago but as I
mentioned the other day, I think I have been made an honorary
member of about five lighter -than -air clubs already and in as much
as balloon rating is the only rating I do not have, I am going to
have togo out and get one of those.
Our first witness is Mr. Gordon Vaeth, director, system engineer
ing, National Environmental Satellite Service. You may proceed.
[The biography of Mr. Vaeth follows :]
BIOGRAPHY OF J. GORDON VAETH , DIRECTOR, SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SERVICE , NOAA
J. Gordon Vaeth graduated from New York University in 1941. During World
War II, he served as a ground officer with airship commands of the Atlantic
Fleet and acquired a background in lighter-than -air operations which he seeks
now to apply to the revival of the very large airship. Following the war, he
became a member of the ONR stratosphere balloon projects HELIOS and
SKYHOOK and later headed the New Weapons and Systems Division of the
U.S. Naval Training Device Center. His specialty at NTDC was flight and
missile performance simulation . Author of the first popular book published in
this country on high -altitude rocketry and spaceflight, his writings in the 1950's
are among the earliest in the literature of astronautics. He was briefly a mem
(85 )
 86

以
ber of Project Orbiter which preceded Vanguard. As a member of the Technical
Staff of the Advanced Research Projects Agency, he was responsible for tech

山 地瓜 J
nical matters pertaining to Man-in-Space. A contributor on airships to the
Encyclopedia Britannica, he has authored six books, including GRAF ZEP
PELIN, and over 100 articles and papers, many of which deal with the appli.
cations of lighter-than-air technology. An Associate Fellow of the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, he was one of the organizers of the har

姻 w 脑
" Helium Horse" session of the AIAA's 1974 Annual Meeting. A member of the
British Interplanetary Society, Lighter-Than-Air Society, and the U.S. Naval
Institute, he is a biographee of WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA.

伽 ww 哪 伽 k
STATEMENT OF J. GORDON VAETH , DIRECTOR, SYSTEM ENGINEER
ING , NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SERVICE, NA
TIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Mr. VAETH . Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the alma
increasing number of individuals in Government, industry, and the
academic community who believe that lighter -than -air vehicles offer

帕娜娜娜 四
a more productive aeronautical future, I want to thank
this committee for the opportunity to appear before it to discuss the
potential offered by very large airships or dirigibles. My apprecia
tion is made all the greater by the fact which you have just men
tioned, that this is the first time that testimony on this subject has
been invited by a committee of the Congress in probably well over
a quarter of a century .

伽 时 伽 以
The comments and recommendations that I have to offer are
based on my experience as a member of naval airship commands
during World War II and, more recently, on my awareness as a Tue
governmental technologist of what might be achieved by applying lite
aerospace progress in materials, structures, and power plants to the

叫 她 训
improvement of airship safety , performance, and utility. My views
are my own and do not represent those of the National Environ
thin
mental Satellite Service of NOAA , which I am privileged to serve
as director of system engineering. TE
FON
Exemplified by America's Akron and Macon, Britain's R - 100 and
pro
R - 101, and Germany's Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg, large air
ships were abandoned, presumably forever, in the 1930's. Now, sud TOL
denly, we are seeing an international revival of interest in returning
them to the sky. In England, a 25-million-cubic-foot cargo - carrying
shipấthe Hindenburg, by contrast, was 7 million cubic feet - possess
ing a payload greater than 600,000 pounds has been the subject of
a study by theCranfield Institute of Technology. Airfloat Trans
port Ltd., of London is proposing a 46 -million-cubic- foot vehicle I TE
for a similar purpose. And Shell International is reportedly pursu 60
ing a 100 -million -cubic- foot design to transport natural gas. In the
developing countries, the dirigible is increasingly seen as a means
to bring transportation to the interior where roads, railways, and
air facilities are nonexistent and where they would be extremely
costly to provide. The airship’s ability to operate quite independently
of ground facilities and to move with great flexibility in and out of
essentially unprepared clearings in jungle and hinterland areas has
excited the interest not only of a number of specific governments in
Africa and South America, butalso of the Organization of Ameri
can States, the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank,
and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
In the United States, NASA's forthcoming airship feasibility study
and the Lighter - Than -Air Workshop, to be held in September under
 87

Techr.
fort
NASA, Navy, and Department of Transportation sponsorship, are,
ps to i
of course, helping generate this renewed interest, as is, of course,
AF I the professional exposure being given to the subject by the American
the app Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Ameris
is di
Just why is the airship attracting such attention ? The reasons
er di
have a lot to do with the energy, environmental, and transportation
S. Nu problems of today. The dirigible is an energy -saver for one thing.
Being lighter than air, it need expend no propulsive energy to over
comegravity, using its engines only to move and maneuver. Com
INED pared with jet aircraft, its fuel requirements are low . Large, slow
II turning, counter -rotating, stern -mounted propellers can make it ex
ceptionally quiet, and it can be driven by environmentally desirable
closed -cycle powerplants.
of t. It can be sized to carry payloads of up to 1 million pounds with
ndt almost no limitation on payload dimension. It can transport extra
as of large, fully assembled structures and equipment and do so over
intercontinental distances. Operating as a VTOL , it makes possible
iss the delivery of those loads to open areas or fields without heavy-duty
Oracli runways or other costly and ecologically disturbing site preparations.
mer By hovering over pick up and delivery points, it holds promise of
ct has being able to load and unload items without actually landing, winch
1 ore ing cargo up and down while maintaining position with thrust vector
control and buoyancy management. Alternatively it might use a type
Ia of shuttle craft between itself and the ground. The hybrid Aero
uando crane, a combination balloon and helicopter now being studied under
as a Navy contract, and described by the Navy to this committee on
yzing Tuesday, could be just that vehicle. Whatever the pick up and de
othe livery technique actually used, the ability of such a merchant ship
iems of the sky to providelong distance point-to -point transport of cargo
0101 without landing could radically change our concepts for moving
PITE things by air.
The airship's potential for commerce hasdrawn to it a number of
would-be users. John R. Norton III of Phoenix, Ariz., a major
produce grower, is typical. In terms of only lettuce, he ships 600,000
pounds of it every day. Concerned over the shortage of refrigerated
railroad cars and by the problems of rail service, concerned, too,
ing over the possible effects of fuel shortages, reduced highway speeds,
and rising costs of truck transport, he sees in the 100 mph airship
d a vehicle to overcome and overfly the problems of domestic surface
transportation. He also sees it as a means to develop markets overseas.
Stephen J. Keating, program manager, Airborne Heavy Lift
Transportation Systems, for combustion engineering of Windsor,
Conn., is another. At the " Helium Horse" airship session of the an
nual meeting of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro
nautics this past January, his remarks concerning the transportation
of large, preassembled, nuclear reactor components to inland desti
nations made an exceptionally strong case for the airship. In view of
the goal of making the United States self-sufficient in energy, his
statement of the transportation needs facing the builders of nuclear
electrical generating plants urgently deserves a solution , be it by
airship or other means.
Nuclear energy brings to mind nuclear propulsion and here the
dirigible really offers a unique opportunity for a genuine quantum
jump. Airships, being displacement vessels, resemble surface ships
 88

则
and submarines far more than they do airplanes. As mentioned
earlier, their energy needs are low . Thus, for nuclear propulsion,

励
they need less powerful reactors and less shielding. Also, by virtue in 11
of their size, radioactively “hot” elements can be effectively isolated execi

毗 伽 毗 伽 而 侧 毗
and cushioning and shock -absorbing mounting systems provided to from
safeguard against a nuclear mishap in event of a crash.
The nuclear propulsion of both aircraft and spacecraft has proven
WAS
an elusive goal. Considering the comparative simplicity of adapting
a nuclear engine to an airship, why not do so and use it as an air
borne testbed ( flying mainly over the ocean) to develop the tech urali
nology and operating experience needed to achieve these long-stand initia
ing, promising, yet unfulfilled applications of atomic power? natio

咖
The value of a nuclear-propelled dirigible is not limited to just arshi
a testbed application however. Naval Research Laboratory memo identi

删 叫 S 咖 孤
randum report 2463 of July 1972, for example, gives the payload for
any range of a nuclear-driven 22 -million - cubic- foot airship at and
To
655,000 pounds! This sort of performance should be ofspecial interest shoule
to the Defense Department's Military Airlift and Military Sealift Fir
Commands, particularly in view of the dirigible’s already -cited
ability to operate without runways or prepared sites. I might add resshi
that the Office of the Navy Comptroller has recently taken aninterest time.

伽
in this airlift-by -airship concept. Inas
Unlimited range implies unlimited endurance, each within human
and practical limits, of course. From this standpoint, the ability of Tansi
such an airborne vehicle to maintain continuous, unrefueled, and
Seri
weeks -long station over the remotest of ocean areas in antisubmarine
surveillance is particularly timely and important. Able to deploy telop
and tow what would probably be the largest passive sonic arrays Thi
ever used by a moving naval unit, able to do so without generating
the hull and screw noises that handicap surface ships in their anti
submarine listening, able to maintain a hovering " silent presence" subje
in developing an underwater contact, able to chase after the contact
Ba
at 100 mph or better without regard for sea state, and able to carry
out an attack either itself or by the aircraft or RPVs ( Remotely
Piloted Vehicles ) that it could carry, launch, and recover, the in
definite range, indefinite endurance, antisubmarine, nuclear-propelled
airship could revolutionize naval tactics and thinking.
Mr. Chairman , I would like to invite the committee's special atten Site
tion to this naval application of the dirigible. Evaluation of the
future usefulness of the airship is being tied much too much, in my
opinion , indeed almost entirely, to its commercial uses. This naval
mission, which is also possible with conventional propulsion and re
fueling at sea, is an application to be decided more by military
considerations than by such factors as ton-mile costs. I strongly urge
that this airborne version of the Sea Control Ship, intended to aug
ment the capabilities of the surface version, be examined in depth .
I would like to departfrom my prepared statement at this point
and comment, as I feel I must, upon Vice Admiral Moran's testi
mony on Tuesday that airships, blimps being the term used, have
no foreseeable usefulness for antisubmarine warfare. The reason he
gave was the airship’s alleged inability to make headway against the
wind in pursuing a high speed submerged submarine . Frankly, if
he was thinking of pitting a 1940 vintage nonrigid airship or blimp
 89

against a 1974 attack or ballistic submarine, I would be the first to

agree with him . But what we are talking about here is an airship
of the 1970's and 1980's, capable of flank speeds twice that possible
in World War II and carrying on board aircraft and RÚV's to
1 execute an attack if the airship for some reason is itself prevented
from doing so. In replying to the question put to him on airships
and antisubmarine warfare, I am confident that Admiral Moran
was not thinking of airship capabilities in this modernized context.
In other and less controversial areas, airships have still other
possibilities, for geophysical exploration, for oceanic work, for nat
ural disaster relief, for environmental monitoring, and for diplomatic
initiatives leading to new applications-orientedprograms of inter
national cooperation. In this latter regard, one might visualize the
airship as a partner of the Earth resources satellite, the spacecraft
identifying the location of these resources for developing countries
and the dirigible providingthe means of access to them .
To make use of the benefits offered by large dirigibles, I feel we
should keep three things in mind :
First, that the last such ship, the Graf Zeppelin II, sister of the
Hindenburg, was built 35 years ago. The subsequent aerospace prog
ress has never been applied to this type of vehicle. And inthe mean
time, the building oflarge airships has become almost a lost art.
In a sense, we must begin again and, in a sense, never has there been
a greater opportunity for aerospace technology application and
transfer.
Second, that the uses I have been describing here require the de
velopment, testing, and proving of equipment and operating tech
niques which are achievable but do not now exist.
Third, that lacking any experimental airships to generate actual
technical data, studies of lighter -than -air capabilities, no matter
how competently undertaken, must remain theoretical and their results
subject to confirmation ( or correction ) in the real world of flight.
Based on these factors, Mr. Chairman, I would make this specific
recommendation to the committee: That a "proof of concept” flight
program , involving construction and operation of a small to mod
crate sized experimental testbed airship, be authorized for NASA.
I would propose that the approach be similar to that of the Rotor
Systems Research Aircraft program in which , as I understand it,
one helicopter fuselage is used to experiment with a variety of ex
changeable rotor systems. I visualize a modular airship car, which
can easily be changed in size and configuration to accommodate
various engine, landing gear, ground handling, and command and
control arrangements. To it would be fitted a variety of exchange
able airship hulls, of differing form factor, differing volume, and of
differing materials and construction, including nonrigid, semirigid,
and even rigid design. Here would be a vehicle to provide test data
on forward control surfaces, stern propulsion, fin -mounted power
plants, even the possibility of propulsion by steam . With it the tech
niques of hovering, buoyancy management, and thrust vector maneu
vering could be developed. By means of it, new mooring techniques
could be tried out and the advantages of hybrid designs investigated.
Hybrids, that is to say, airships shaped to generate sizable aero
dynamic lift from their movement through the air as well as aero
 90

static lift from their helium , are a particular promising design con
cept that could impact heavily virtually every lighter-than -air
application that I have touched upon this morning.
To begin with, I would suggest an experimental vehicle with a
useful lift of about 30 tons. It could be flying within 3 years for an
approximate cost of $30 million spread over 2 or more fiscal years.
So important in my opinion is the airship to the potential solution
of our current energy and other transportation problems that I
would further recommend, Mr. Chairman, that the necessary prepa
ration and preliminary design be started this year.
I hope that the members of this committee and staff and my
friends and colleagues at NASA who are here in this audience will
not think me too presumptuous for informally volunteering my opin
ion concerning NASA programing and funding. I feel, however,
that having been given the privilege of appearing before you that I
would fall short of my obligations if I did not make a specific and
concrete recommendation,
This concludes my testimony.
I have several illustrations of possible future airship designs (Fig
ures 1-4 ) and a bibliography of recent relevant literature which,
with the committee's approval, I would like to submit for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman .
Senator GOLDWATER. If you will submit those.
[The material referred to follows]
Possible airship configurations of the future. Figure I shows a 50 -million TODOS
cubic-foot cargo - carrier, moored on a turntable at its headquarters base with CANCIO

an inflatable hangar in the background. Figure II is a nuclear version of a

passenger ship ( the reactor details have been exaggerated ). Figure III depicts
a natural disaster relief mission being carried out without benefit of airport
or prepared facilities. In figure IV, two environmental airships are at work,
making atmospheric and marine observations and, in the case of the lower
ship, engaging in the cleanup of an oil spill.

FIGURE 1. A 50 -million -cubic -foot cargo-carrying airship, moored on a turntable

at its headquarters base with an inflatable hangar in the background.
 91

gn
hane

olatu
that
propre

TE
OPP
Tere!

Call

IT :
hid
con

ilior FIGURE 2. A nuclear version of a passenger airship ( reactor details have been
exaggerated ) .
of
icts
port
ork
omer

A.S. FRIENDSHIP

FIGURE 3. A natural disaster relief mission being carried out by airship with
out benefit of airport or prepared facilities.

le

38-266 O - 74 - 7
 92
Son

Vael
June 2
Hun
Astron

Horse,
Saral.
Alex
1913
The

prograi
Seem
Croan
Vaeti
nautics
Note
than-Ai
Control
Seherer
Sens
million

Mamet
Sena

FIGURE 4. Environmental airships at work, making atmospheric and marine Mr.

observations and, in the case of the lower ship, engaging in the cleanup of an
oil spill.
Seme
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AIRSHIP BOOKS, REPORTS, AND ARTICLES PUBLISHED strat
SINCE 1972
Ir.
The Airfloat Project: Proceedings of a One Day Symposium, Multi-Science
Publishing Co. for Airfloat Transport Ltd ( The Old Mill, Dorset Place, London trou
E15 1DJ ) , 1972
Stevenson, Robert E. and Terry, Richard D., "Oceanography from a Blimp," Son
Buoyant Flight, March /April 1972
Morse, Francis, “ Cargo Airships : a Renaissance ?" , Handling & Shipping,
June 1972
Clements, E. W. and O'Hara, G. J. , “ The Navy Rigid Airship ,” NRL Memo
randum Report 2463, Naval Research Laboratory , July 1972 Mr.
Jones, Trevor, "Airship Project for Natural Gas Shows Early Promise,” Sea bara
trade, August 1972 ( a British publication )
Morse, O'Hara , Pavlecka, Stehling and Vaeth, "Dirigibles : Aerospace Oppor
tunities for the '70s and '80s,” Astronautics and Aeronautics, November 1972
Abbott, Patrick, Airship : The Story of R. 34 and the First East-West Cross
ing of the Atlantic by Air, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1973
Brooks, Peter W.,Historic Airships, New York Graphic Society, Greenwich ,
Connecticut, 1973
Hook , Thom , Shenandoah Saga, Air Show Publishers, Ferry Farms, NAPO ,
Annapolis, 1973
Jackson, Robert, Airships, Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New
York, 1973
McPhee, John, The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1973
Robinson, Douglas H., Giants in the Sky : A History of the Rigid Airship,
University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1973
Coughlin, S., An Appraisal of the Rigid Airship in the UK Freight Market,
Centre for Transport Studies, Cranfield Institute of Technology, Cranfield ,
Bedford, England, March 1973
 93

Sonstegaard , Miles H., " Transporting Gas by Airship ,” Mechanical Engi

neering, June 1973
Vaeth, J. Gordon, “Dirigibles : Naval Vehicles for Tomorrow ," Sea Power,
June 1973
Hunt, Levitt, Morse, Stehling and Vaeth , “ The Many Uses of the Dirigible, "
Astronautics & Aeronautics, October 1973
Stehling, Kurt R. and Vaeth , J. Gordon , " A Compelling Case for the Helium
Horse, " NOAA Magazine, October 1973. Reprinted with updated material in
Naval Aviation News, May 1974
Alexander, Tom, " A New Outbreak of Zeppelin Fever," Fortune, December
1973
The Helium Horse : Air Transportation for Tomorrow, American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics Recorded Lecture Series, 2-hour recorded
program available in cassette form , 1974
Seeman, Harris, Brown, and Cullian, " Remotely Piloted Mini-Blimps for
Urban Applications," Astronautics and Aeronautics, February 1974
Vaeth, J. Gordon, " The Airship Can Meet the Energy Challenge,” Astro
nautics and Aeronautics, February 1974
Note: In addition, see Buoyant Flight, published bimonthly by the Lighter
than-Air Society, 1800 Triplett Boulevard, Akron, Ohio 44306 , and Inside the
Control Car, issued by Roy D. Schickedanz, 910 Sherwood Lake Drive,
Schererville, Indiana 46375.
Senator GOLDWATER. You mentioned that the Hindenburg was a 7
million -cubic - foot aircraft and one of the oil companies is looking
at a 100 million cubic foot ship. What was the size of the Hinden
burg ? How long was it ?
Mr. VAETH . The Hindenburg was 803 feet long and 135 feet in
diameter.
Senator GOLDWATER. What would be the dimensions of a 100 -mil
lion - cubic - foot aircraft ?
Mr. VAETH . The reports I have seen on that should it about 1,800
feet long.
Senator GOLDWATER. Is that design depicted in one of your il
lustrations ?
Mr. VAETH. No, sir. The pictures you have are artist concepts only
and not based on any specific designs. The figure you have in front
of you is a proposed 50 million cubic footer.
Senator GOLDWATER . You say that lacking actual flight data even
the best studies will only be theoretical and their results questionable.
What actual data do we have to help give us a handle on airship
economics and practicability !
Mr. VAETH . The data we have, which are, incidentally , very en
couraging, are data from the German Zeppelin operations of the
1930's. Between about 1930 and 1937, the Germans operated the
Graf Zeppelin in a regularly scheduled trans-Atlantic passenger ,
cargo, and mail service between Germany and Brazil . The service
began in the spring and ran until December. The commercial ar
rangements for it were made throughthe Hamburg -American Line.
The Graf Zeppelin during its 9 -year flying lifetime made a total of
590 flights, flew over a million miles, crossed the ocean 144 times,
and spent 17,000 hours in the air. The success of this service is per
haps best attested to in the form of a Zeppelin hangar, which still
stands today 25 miles south of Rio and was constructed by the Bra
zilian Government as an indication of the future which it felt the
airship had at that time.
 94

The Graf Zeppelin was a very successful but inefficient airship

because its volume and shape were dictated by the size of the largest old
hangar left in Germany after World War I in which to build it.
The Hindenburg was an entirely different situation. Its volume was relog
about twice that of the Graf Zeppelin. The Hindenburg in one year soire
of operation, 1936, made 10 round trip flights across the North At- inten
lantic, while covering 75 percent of its total cost by revenue. Twenty selre
percent of its passenger accommodations were occupied by non -pay- hope.
ing VIP's and persons makingthe flight for training. The Zeppelin
Co. projected that if another three to four ships were added to the the d
service, it could look forward to a 7 percent return on its investment.
Unfortunately the Hindenburg, as we all know , burned at the bona
start of its second season of operation. Stories of sabotage notwith- MI
standing, the fire was caused , in my opinion, by an electrical dis Te ar
are a
charge triggered off, believe
ment. TheHindenburg had ait new
or not,
andby a technological
" improved" type ofimprove
alumi- Wind
Ута
nized dope on its cloth outer cover. It was found afterthe accident
that this dope had the effect of considerably changing the electrical This
properties of that cover , probably setting the stage for the genera
tion of a spark in the thunderstorm atmosphere at Lakehurst that ming
May 6, 1937. Car
Be that as it may, the Hindenburg and Graf Zeppelin provided a
INIC
reliable commercial service and with modern technology we can look
forward to a resumption of even better routine commercial opera moin
tions by large airships.
Senator GOLDWATER. What was the cruising speed ?
Mr. VAETH . The cruising speed of the Hindenburg, Senator Gold
water, was 77 miles per hour. Maximum speed was about 82. mo
Senator GOLDWATER. What do you envision with the new ones ?
Mr. VAETH . A minimum cruising speed of 100 miles per hour and
top speeds of 125 to 150. 1
Senator GOLDWATER. You mentioned new diplomatic intiatives with
the airship . What do you have in mind ?
Mr. VAETH. Two things, sir. One would be a cooperative airship
program with the Soviet Union; the other a cooperative program
with the developing nations of the Third World. It is little remem
bered today, but the Soviets have a long history of airship activity.
They flew airships, helium -filled airships, as far back as the 1930's.
For a number of years, a Soviet dirigible, the V - 6, held the world's
endurance record for airships of any kind, a record of 130 hours
unrefueled .
There are continuing reports in the Soviet press of interest in
using airships to develop the Siberian interior, bringing large pre
assembled heavy equipment in and bringing natural resources out,
An article in a Soviet magazine approximately 2 years ago said, I
do not know how correctly, that a total of 14 Soviet agencies, in
cluding several ministries, favored the building of airships for this
purpose. There would thus seem to be interest there, and if we have
interest here, some type of cooperative program might very well
be worked out.
 95

N
As for the developing countries of the Third World, I have been
told that at this moment there are requests from three different
South American countries in the hands of the Inter-American De
velopment Bank asking that airships be investigated as a means to
solve their internal transportation problems. I would hope that this
interest, not generated by us but generated by those countries them
selves, mightlead also to some type of cooperative program . I would
hope, Mr. Chairman, that the United States and not some other
country would be the one to develop and utilize airships to assist
thedeveloping countries of the Third World.
SenatorGOLDWATER. What are the most acute technical or opera
tional problems you foresee in bringing back the dirigible ?
Mr. VAETH. The first one is keeping the airship off the ground. If
we are talking about a dirigible 1,000 feet long and 250 feet wide, we
are also talking about a very large sail when the ship is being han
dled on the ground. I believe that the airship should be kept air
borne as much as possible to minimize the ground handling problem .
Which is why I very much favor, as do others, the idea of the air
ship unloading and loading without landing, by winching or by
bringing cargo or passengers aboard by some typeof shuttle craft.
Commander Jack Hunt, who, for instance, in the 1950's flew a
Navy nonrigid for an unrefueled record of about 260 hours, is of the
opinion that one of the best uses for airships is to fly them round
robin around the North Atlantic, coming up the eastern seaboard ,
going across to Europe, going down from Europe to North Africa
and back across and that that airship, possibly nuclear propelled,
would fly this route while its cargo would be airlifted on and off
through the shuttle arrangement I have mentioned. In summary,
the most major problem, as I see it, is to minimize the ground
handling
The second most important is to ensure the adequacy of trained
personnel. Many of the accidents to airships in the 1920's and 1930's
can be laid directly to lack of experience. Tuesday the Committee
heard described the value of flight simulators. Flight simulators will
have an important role in training crews to handle large airships.
Certainly one is not going to build a 50-million-cubic-foot airship
and simply say, “there she is, boys, take her up . " Much training
will be required ahead of time in the air in training ships and on the
ground in simulators.
Senator GOLDWATER. One more question. The mission model for the
space shuttle foresees 770 flights in the decade of the 80's. As you
know, two solid rocket motors will be used on each flight. These
rockets are 149.1 feet long, 146 inches in diameter and weigh about
179,600 pounds empty. They will be jettisoned into the Atlantic or
Pacific depending on where the flight originates. In other words, over
1.500 solid rocket casings will have to be retrieved at sea for re
furbishmentand reuse .
Do you consider this a suitable mission for lighter -than -air ?
Mr. VAETH. Not only suitable, but a natural.
First, I assume that a prime objective would be to get those boosters
out of the corrosive sea water environment as fast as possible. There
 96

fore, the first step would be to deploy booster recovery vehicles that STAT.
can reach the sites of these expended boosters as rapidly as possible DI
and airships can get there faster than surface ships.
Now, assuming that we have a surface ship and an airship com Pro
peting to retrieve such a booster, if the sea state is high or if a heavy forth
sea is running, there may be a considerable problem on the part of HOTLI

the surface craft in lifting out the booster, which according to the
dimensions, and which youjust mentioned, sir, are certainly formida to ass:
ble . The surface ship will probably have difficulty bringing it on
board without smashing therocket casing against the side of the certau
| rolling and pitching vessel. There is a definite advantage to the air
ship in this case because the airship can lift vertically and, once it
removes the expended booster from the water, it is able to hoist it
directly up to the ship itself. It need not, incidently, take it inside. that it
It can simply suspend it beneath the hull which is relatively un For
obstructed. in som
So I think, sir, this would be a very logical and very cost effective
letter
application for the very large airship.
Senator GOLDWATER . Thank you very much, Mr. Vaeth, for your
presentation and your answers.
Thank you very much. 10 、
Mr. VAETH . Thank you.
Senator GOLDWATER. We will now hear from Prof. Joseph Vittek,
Assistant Professor, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. TAMRO
MIT . Go right ahead and start.
[The bibilography of Professor Vittek follows :]
BIOGRAPHY OF JOSEPH F. VITTEK, JR. , ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS
AND ASTRONAUTICS, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
A member of the Massachusetts Bar and of the faculty in the M.I.T. Depart
ment of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Mr. Vittek offers courses in the legal.
regulatory and public policy aspects of transportation. He received his
Jurisprudence Doctorate from Suffolk University Law School, graduating at
the top of his class. Mr. Vittek also received an LL.M. from the Harvard Law
School where he specialized in governmental administrative and regulatory
processes. His undergraduate degree is a B.S. in Mathematics from M.I.T.
Mr. Vittek is also Associate Director of the M.I.T. Flight Transportation
Laboratory and is involved in studies of various aspects of the air trans
portation industry ( transportation economics, demand modeling, noise predic
tion and reduction , air traffic control, transportation data management sys
tems, etc.) . These studies are funded by such government agencies as NASA,
DOT, FAA and the U.S. Army.
In addition, Mr. Vittek has held the following technical positions : 1969–70.
Director of Software, M.I.T. Draper Laboratory's Deep Submergence Project;
1966-69, Project Manager for Software, first manned Apollo Mission ; 1963–66.
Flight Test Engineer, Honeywell Aerospace ; and 1962-63, Systems Analyst
for M.I.T. Draper Laboratory ,
Professional memberships include the Chairmanship of the American Insti
tute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' Lighter Than Air Subcommittee. Mr.
Vittek also serves on the Associate and Advisory Committee of the American
Bar Association's Standing Committee on Aeronautical Law and served on
the Transportation Planning Council for the City of Newton, Massachusetts.
He is also admitted to the Federal Bar for the District of Massachusetts.
He has written several recent articles and reports on Lighter Than Air
vehicles, air service to small communities, aircraft requirements for low
density markets and airport noise abatement and control.
 97

niele STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. VITTEK, JR., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,

Poss DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, MIT
ship Professor VITTEK . Thank you. I have submitted prepared testimony
ful for the record which I will leave stand as it is. I would prefer this
e per morning to make my presentation based on some informal remarks
1 and the use of some vugraphs that the Army has been nice enough
form to assist me in showing:
ng I think from Mr. Vaeth's talk we can tell that lighter-than -air
certainly has a great deal of potential and that it alsohas its prob
the lems. There is very little doubt that modern technology can solve
many of these problems. The issue in my mind becomeswhether or
not the cost of that technology can be recovered to such an extent
tin that it would make the lighter-than -air concept economically sensible.
For any new mode of transportation to succeed, it has to be better
in someway than the transportation modes it is supplanting. Clearly
of the airship, because of its large payload, is better than a truck. It is
better thanrail or barge to the extent that it does nothaveto follow
a particular route. It is better than an ocean -going vehicle because it
can travel faster. It can come inland directly without stopping at a
port. And it can potentially carry more in a payload sense than a
large airplane while not requiring as large airport facilities. So, at
Tilta least in theory, there are advantages over other modes. These ad
Laut vantages lead to a number of potential applications and, as Mr.
Vaethhas covered many of them, I will not go into them in detail.

1500
leert
TE
RE

20
I. 500 TON AIRSHIP
tiu
IN
1000

SUPERTANKER

HINDENBURG EMPIRE
- STATE
500
BUILDING

SATURN 5
ROCKET
1
다
3
747
1 1000 2000

FIGURE 1
 98

I will instead go on to some of the problems associated with the

airship. Most of these problems are related to the size of the airship.
Figure 1 indicates the relatvie size of a 500 -ton airship, which is
certainly within the range of those discussed today; a super tanker;
the Hindenburg; a football field and a 747. As you can see, the air
ship is very large and its size does create ground handling problems
and certain airborne problems that will be mentioned shortly.
Now, although the lighter -than -air ship can hover, discharge its
traffic, et cetera, as Mr. Vaeth discussed, it also needs a ground base
at some point. Because of the necessity for anchoring it against the
wind and for providing flexibility for wind direction, this can con
sume a fair amount of land.

***

.. . MIDA

INELE

12
par

HOVEN
‫دل‬ ‫اوف اوف دل‬

FIGURE 2

3C ALT

Figure 2 shows the ground requirements for six 1,000-foot dirigi

bles imposed on Logan Airport in Boston. As you can see, the
ground requirement can be extensive. I have used an existing airport
for comparison. However, because the primary mission may be
freight, it can also be handled outside the city in less expensive
ground areas. Nonetheless, we can not ignore that there is a signifi
cant ground requirement for the airship .
A major problem in the past has been ground handling of the air
ship. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the large crew requirements that were
necessary in the old dirigibles. They were pushed out by hand, held
by hand. Three or four hundred people werenecessaryto keep them
on the ground, as Mr. Vaeth pointed out.
 99

le air

proble
tl.
RA

FIGURE 3
NA & SM / SI

be
T

FIGURE 4
NA & SM / SI
 100

A
brin

咖 咖
咖 侧 山
dowi

融 如 她
di
11 Ar
ding

FIGURE 5

NA & SM/SI

GOOD VED

FIGURE 6

FLYING
 101

As Figure 6 shows, even today the 200 -foot Goodyear blimp,

which is fairly small, requires a ground crew of about 10 people to
bring it down. Also, the Goodyear blimp is so dependent on its
ground handling crew that it is often required to linger in the air
waiting for the crew to catch up with it, erect its mast and bring it
down .
Another problem is ballasting. An airship picks up cargo and
discharges ballast - or discharges cargo and picks up ballast. In
either case, it always transfer one for the other. Its ballasting prob
lem could be severe if it were in an isolated area where it wanted
to discharge cargo.
Another problem area is susceptibility to damage in ground han
dling. Figure 7 is a picture of the Shenandoah which tore off its
ang

ON

FIGURE 7

NA & SM/SI
 102

mast in Lakehurst. I believe it took several months to repair the

damage.
Figure 8 shows the very recent accident to the Goodyear blimp as ALTI
it was being pulled out of its hangar at Houston last year. It bumped
11p against the hangar door and was laid up for 4 to 6 weeks for FE
repairs.
Another problem area is helium. Certainly by using helium we
avoid hydrogen's explosiveness. However, helium is not an element
that wecan create. It is found in our natural gas wells in this coun
try and we have the best supply in the world, but a large scale
program will require a lot of heliumand I don't know, although I
am sure some of our people from the Department of Interior do, just
how large our helium supply is. Since helium has replaced hydrogen,
a major fear is no longer fire but breakup in violent weather. This
was clearly the fate of ourlarge dirigibles in the 30's. It is very diffi
cult to say what the situation would be today although we do know
more. We have modern weather forecasting techniques and modern
technology that can certainly alleviate this problem .
An additional problem is that of pressure altitude. The airship can
have a very long range--as the curve on the right in figure 9 shows ,
if it does not fly very high. But as the airship flies higher, the
gas itself expands and has to be released or less of it used so the
airship can gain more altitude. This offsets the payload, including
fuel. The higher the ship flies, the less distance it can travel. As a
compromise between cargo and altitude, large airships operate some
where in the range of 2,000 feet. I think one can imagine the prob 3 SON
lems facing an airship commander today, operating something 1,400 Th
the a
throu

GO figur

OD YEAR

FIGURE 8

World Wide Photos

 103

ALTITUDE
IN
FEET

RANGE IN MILES

FIGURE 9

feet long, at 2,000 feet altitude, cruising through our airways. This
is something that has to be considered.
There are technological solutions to many of these things. Perhaps
the air handling and ground handling problems both can be solved
through applications of modern inertial sensors. I have shown in
figure 10 that, if an airship is designed with appropriate sensor

SENSOR SENSORI

FIGURE 10
17

104
17
packages, rotational forces, stresses and strains could be detected
very quickly and fed back to control surfaces and engines and 58 .
counter-acting forces could beapplied. We know how to do this from pert
the Apollo program. It is a direct application of the same types of Tate:
things. Th
Also, television can be mounted in the front, back, or wherever it Pract
is needed by the crew so they can perhaps avoid some of these ground this 1
handling problems, have better visibility, et cetera.
Weather forecasting is certainly improved. We have computer
design methods (also developed for the space program ) for stronger
structures and lighter weights at the same time using modern mate hong
rials. The same type of thing can be applied to airships.
So, in short, I think the technology is available to conquer many of penny
of these problems. However, the issue, as I said at the beginning, is
coing
whether or not the cost of that technology, when incorporated into
the airship, allows us an economically viable vehicle. Th
Now, alot of special applications can only be performed by an cape
airship. However, to be a commercial success, airships must capture
a certain amount from existing transportation markets. I am going 177
to stressthe commercial side; Mr. Vaeth pointedout the importance 22 PO
of the military. Military missions can be evaluated in a very similar
way: See if the mission is beingprovided now ; how it is being pro
vided — how a helicopter or ocean craft is being used ; the relative
cost of that versus an airship ; and, to the extent that the jobs are
comparable, is it worth the investment to have an airship just to do
that particular task ?
20T ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
.

?
COST ?
15+ ? AIRPLANE
PER
? ?
TON
?
MILE ?
AIRSHIP ?
IN 10 ? ?!
CENTS ?
? ? IN
TRUCK
?
5 ? ?
I?
?
RAIL ? ?
? ?
100 200 300 400 500
WATER

SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR

FIGURE 11
 105

e deti Wecan look at that both commercially and militarily in the same
way. Figure 11 represents a range of cargo costs and speeds. The air
LINES
thist plane runs from about 200 miles per hour to over 500 and the cost
e trpe per ton mile is somewhere between 10 and 20 cents. Truck, rail, and
water on the left side are slower but less expensive.
herer There is a natural gap that the airship can fill, but we do not know
sa ma exactly where it is going to lie in terms of cost. There is no data at
this time. If it is in thetop of that range -- for example, 100 to 200
СОШІ. miles per hour, 15 to 20 cents per ton mile — it is very possible it
Strona would not capture any traffic from other modes of transportation
PIN DI because the airplane is faster at the same cost and the truck, al
though slower, is less expensive, so there will be very little transfer.
mann However, if it comes in at the bottom of that range - say , less than1
NININ penny a ton mile — then there is good potential for significant traffic
ated to being diverted, particularly from truck, rail and water transporta
tion because of the greater speed .
db The analysis that has been performed to date on airship and air
capir ship economics is really a function of the productivity of the airship.
mg01
This is based on a number of assumptions.
20172 When we look at the transportation modes, we do an analysis using
simil the equations in figure 12. If you take the payload times the speed,
relati
ohse
t to
MAXIMUM PAYLOAD X SPEED = HOURLY PRODUCTIVITY ( H.P. )

H.P. X YEARLY UTILIZATION = AVAILABLE TON -MILES PER YEAR (ATM )

ATM X LOAD FACTOR = REVENUE TON MILES PER YEAR ( RTM )

ANNUAL OPERATING COST

= COST PER TON MILE
RTM

that gives you the potential productivity of the aircraft. This hourly
productivity times the hours used per year lets you know the avail
able ton -miles per year. In other words, how much cargo could an
airship carry. If you multiply this by the presumed load factor, you
end up with the revenue tonmiles per year — the ton miles of traffic
that are sold. If you then divide the annual operating cost by these
58
revenue ton miles, you get the cost per ton mile. Typically, for the
jet airplane, 100 ton payload at 500 miles per hour gives you about
50,000 ton miles per hour. Over a 3,000 hour per year utilization ,
with 50 percent load factor, we end up with about 75 million reve
nue ton miles per year. The cost of operating a jumbo jet in this
size range is about $9 million yielding a cost per ton mile of about
12 cents. Within the range of values shown in figure 11 .
 106

Bi
ceter
0001
dere

FUEL
the a
CONSUMPTION SHOW
IN
desig
GALLONS start:
PER TO
HOUR relo
INC
How

Th
As fi
teron
Fir
50 100 150 200 250 Costo
SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR Patter
Fig
FIGURE 13

Thi
The lighter -than - aircraft can compete by carrying heavier loads or Jeh
increasing its speed. Clearly it can carry large loads if we can build
it large enough . However, as figure 13 shows, there is an enormous
energy penalty in increasing the speed of an airship. I do not have the ai
exact numbers but studies in general indicate this type of trend:
The optimum fuel economy is somewhere between 50 and 100 miles gh
per hour and the energy consumed goes up rapidly as you approach The
150 to 200 miles per hour. So we can make airships go faster but it
does detract from their fuel economy, which is one of their big assets.

DEVELOPMENT
COST
ន
ក
។

IN
DOLLARS

DOL

GAS CAPACITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET

FIGURE 14
 107

Based on the assumptions that one uses for speed, utilization, et

cetera, the range of an airship's cost can go from less than 1 penny
to over 20 cents per ton mile. One of the big unknowns in this is the
development cost. Typically, the development cost of any new air
craft is a straight line function that is proportional to the size of
the aircraft. In the aircraft industry, we use gross weights. Figure 14
shows cost in terms of gas capacity, so the basic development cost,
design, tooling, all the things that are necessary before construction
starts, go up directly proportionate to this.
Thatcost is divided by the number of units produced to get de
velopment cost per unit and, as figure 15 shows, after you get past
100 or 200 units the development cosi per unit becomes very small.
However, if the market will support only 10 or 20 units, the cost
per unit is very expensive.
The production costs are also somewhat like those of an airplane.
As figure 16 shows, the more units built, the cheaper production
becomes per unit because of increased production efficiency.
Finally, all these costs can be combined to estimate the overall
cost of an airshipas in figure 17. Again, these numbers do not start
flattening out until you produce about 100 units or more .
Figures 18 and 19 show some examples of the sensitivity to as
sumptions that can be made.
The wide body jet on the first line has 100 ton payload , 500 miles
per hour, 3,000 hours per year utilization. These are good averages
for our present system . The next several lines show the fluctuations
in available ton miles per year as different assumptions are made for
the airship's payload, speed and utilization. Finally, the ocean tanker
by comparison has a much larger payload , much slower speed , very
high utilization and comes out with very high available ton miles.
The second figure shows what happens as assumed load factors
change. The assumed load factor and the assumed costs can be used

DEVELOPMENT
COST
PER
UNIT
IN
DOLLARS

1 1

100 200 300

NUMBER OF UNITS

FIGURE 15

38-266 O - 74 - 8
 108

PRODUCTION
COST
PER
UNIT

VEH

NODE
AKHI

OCEAN

100 200 300

NUMBER OF UNITS

FIGURE 16

VEH
DE
VE
LO
PM
EN COS
T T WIDE
HOSH
1984
TOTAL WASH
COST PROD
UCTI
PER ON COST
MOM
UNIT
WEAN

ENGINE COST

NUMBER OF UNITS

FIGURE 17
 109

SPEED UTILIZATION AVAILABLE

PAYLOAD IN MILES IN HOURS TON MILES
VEHICLE IN TONS PER HOUR PER YEAR PER YEAR

WIDE BODY JET 100 500 3,000 150,000,000

AIRSHIP # 1 500 100 2,000 100,000,000
AIRSHIP # 2 1,000 200 3,000 600,000,000
AIRSHIP # 3 1,000 200 6,000 1,200,000,000
OCEAN TANKER 100,000 15 6,000 9,000,000,000

FIGURE 18

AVAILABLE REVENUE ANNUAL

TON MILES LOAD TON MILES COST OF COST PER
VEHICLE PER YEAR FACTOR PER YEAR OPERATION TON MILE

WIDE BODY JET 150,000,000 50 % 75,000,000 $9,000,000 124

AIRSHIP # 1 100,000,000 50 % 50,000,000 9,000,000 18
AIRSHIP # 1 100,000,000 75 % 75,000,000 9,000,000 12
AIRSHIP # 2 600,000,000 50% 300,000,000 9,000,000 3
AIRSHIP # 2 600,000,000 75% 450,000,000 9,000,000 2

AIRSHIP # 3 1,200,000,000 50% 600,000,000 9,000,000 1.5

AIRSHIP # 3 1,200,000,000 75% 900,000,000 9,000,000 1

OCEAN TANKER 9,000,000,000 50% 4,500,000,000 7,500,000 .16

FIGURE 19
 110

to compute the cost per ton mile. As the load factor increases, the 11
cost obviously goes down. This shows that, under a variety of as 2017

sumptions, the cost per ton mile for an airship could be anywhere Se
from 18 to 1 cent per ton mile. Il
There are some additional issues that we have to consider, al about
though they are perhaps longer term. I mentioned briefly that there Pn
are institutional constraints .How would we fund the development betre
of an airship ? Secor Browne, while Chairman of the CAB, said Vert
manufacturers would not develop any airplanes in this country with Ša
out some sort of Government support. And, since the development Pry
of an airship is an even greater unknown, I can't see manufacturers
being willing to take therisk on their own. mates
How about certification ! During the Graf Zeppelin's around-the there
world flight, it would fly up to a mountain, below the height of that
mountain and assume the updrafts were going to carry it over. I
cannot see an FAA check pilot flying up to a mountain on the faith
that there will be a wind current there that will carry people over Pro
the top. As for traffic control, I understand the Goodyear blimp is
often mistaken for a stationary object.
Finally, regulation . Would airships come under the Civil Aero tum]
nautics Board or the Maritime Commission ? Just who would regulate time a
them ? Would they be regulated at all ! Who would operate them ?
I have raised a lot of unknowns and some steps have been taken LUI

to answer them. Under the joint sponsorship of NASA, the Navy

and the Department of Transportation, MIT is hosting a Lighter 1
Than Air Workshop this September to address some of these issues. Pro
Many of you may have heard about it. The response has been out
standing. At this time, approximately two months before the Work
shop, we have over 80 people who are definitely committed to attend.
I have more than 50 abstracts submitted from Germany, France, and
the United Kingdom , as well as the United States. People from de
veloping nations are attending. The response and interest in this pro
gram have been overwhelming. ME

The program is structured to separate facts from unknowns and

not necessarily to answer questions but to direct how to find those
answers. There will be 3 days of papers presented discussing various
topics: operations, economics, construction, et cetera. On the last 2
days these same people will form smaller working groups who will
discuss the papers and try to design programs to answer the un
knowns .
As I said, the goal is to identify programs, not to recommend that
any one specific program be followed. This Workshop is a fact-find
ing group, a neutral group.
After these programs have been identified - what could be done.
what the various costs could be—then I feel it is up to the political
process to submit these findings to a group such as yours or others
to see if in fact the researchis worth while .I am sure the AIAA
would take an active role in this.
So we have identified a number of questions and we are going to
investigate ways to find answers. But those answers will not be evi
dent until appropriate research programs have been completed.
 111

I thank you very much, Senator, for allowing me to appear this

morning
Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much. Professor Vittek.
I have a few questions. First, what kind of money are you talkingIking
about to develop the first dirigible, the first airship ? are anywhere
Professor VITTEK . The estimates that I have seen
between $5 million and $ 500 million . I am afraid we do not have a
very good handle on that problem right now.
Senator GOLDWATER. I guess that would be hard to come up with.
Professor VITTEK . As I said, it is the sensitivity to assumptions.
It all has to do with the size, the capacity, the speed. So the esti
mates and the assumptions used are very closely tied together but
there is a vast range right now .
Senator GOLDWATER. The construction would be quite different, I
imagine, from the airships of the 1930's. If I remember correctly,
they used semirigid, girder construction ?
Professor VITTEK . Yes, but there are modern techniques that can
be applied — at least people are proposing them — such as the mono
coque - a solid outside covering — advanced fabrics, advanced struc
tural materials. The Southern California Aerospace Council has
done a study in this area and has indicated that present aeronautical
techniques could be applied to airship construction.
Senator GOLDWATER. Do you think we have made enough advance
ment on construction techniques to overcome the problem of turbu
lence that you are going to encounter at your optimum altitudes ?
Professor VITTEK . There is a tradeoff between construction to meet
the optimal impact of weather and our modern techniques of avoid
ing weather and I think that compromise can be made. I am not
sure that we could ever build a large airship that could sail into the
center of a thunderstorm and come out in one piece. I am not sure
that we couldn't either. But practicality would dictate a combina
tion of avoidance plus advanced structural technique. We have the
same problem with airplanes.
Senator GOLDWATER. In your prepared statement you say, and I
quote, “Will the airship be closer to the airplane or the tanker cost
structure ? "
I think that is an interesting question. Do you have any tentative
conclusions on that ?
Professor VITTEK. Well, as I said, our forthcoming workshop is
neutral and, as its director, I am precluded from making conclu
sions at this time.
However, the reason I raised that question is that the ocean tanker
travels slower than an airpline. It needs a crew while it is in port.
It is large. It has many of the characteristics of an airship . For
example, at least in thebeginning stages the airship will probably
have to have a crew on board at all times. It will need several crews
because we are talking 20- or 30-hour flights and it will have to carry
backup crews. To that extent, it looks somewhat like an ocean liner .
However, it does fly in the air.
The answer to the question I raised may be which union gets
control.
 112

Senator GOLDWATER. Do you believe the United States should build

a dirigible in the near future to be used as a test vehicle ?

T 础 做 如
Professor VITTEK. I cannot answer that question without prejudic
ing my role in leading our workshop .
Senator GOLDWATER. Well, I would like to see them do it. I will

刚刚 叫 阳 伽伽
answer it for you.
Professor VITTEK. I am sorry. I don't mean to be evasive in these
things but if Iam going tomaintain an academic neutrality and try
to put forward the facts, I can't make statements like that at this
time.
Senator GOLDWATER. We politicians don't have to be academic.

毗 她 娜娜 咖 % 伽
I think you heard the question I asked the preceding witness rela
tive to picking up the rocket casings from the ocean. Would you like
to comment on that ?
Professor VITTEK . That certainly would be a very logical applica 011
tion of the airship. Again, does that application in itself justify the tions

development cost ? Or are there enough special applications! I Po

叫
don't know how many airships would be required to pick up rocket city-
casings but I would assume a fairly small number.

仙 姐姐
Senator GOLDWATER. Do you have any views as to the role that
lighter- than -air can play in antisubmarine warfare ?
Professor VITTEK . It is certainly an application that is there. I
gave an economic analysis relative to the transportation system . As
I mentioned, the military analysis would follow the same lines. The
What can an airship do ? What is currently being done by airplanes by the
or ships? Do the economics justify developing the airship for those CONT
roles !
All
Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much, Professor Vittek. Wc " те
did have a question from the chairman but you answered it.
Professor VITTEK. Fine. Thank you.
Senator GOLDWATER. Relative to the acceptance of the meeting in
September at Monterey
Professor VITTEK . There has been very high interest. Just yester toul
day I received my first reply from the Soviet Union. We invited
some people from there. This person responded that he could not
come but is going to submit a paper for our consideration .
Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Professor Vittek follows :]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. VITTEK , JR., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, AERO
NAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FLIGHT TRANSPORTATION
LABORATORY , MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY : CHAIRMAN,
LIGHTER - THAN -AIR SUBCOMMITTEE , AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS
AND ASTRONAUTICS

THE POTENTIAL AND PROBLEMS OF LIGHTER - THAN -AIR TRANSPORTATION B

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as neither an advocate nor

an enemy of lighter -than -air transportation , I am interested in separating
fact from speculation. In the past few years there has been much discussion
both here and abroad of the ability of lighter-than-air vehicles to meet future
transportation needs. Many of the proposed uses and missionsseem promising.
However, lighter-than -air is not without its problems. Although modern tech
nology may be able to overcome these problems, the ultimate issue is the
economic feasibility of lighter -than - air when the costs of modern technology
are included in the price of the service and the demand for the service at
that price is determined .
 113

THE POTENTIAL OF LTA

The airship has certain advantages over alternate modes of transportation .

Like a ship or barge, it can move large bulk and weight shipments over long
distances. Unlike a ship or a barge, it need not follow established waterways.
Nor does it require terminal facilities. The airship offers these same advan
tages over railroads and has considerably greater capacity than trucks.
Even though a high- cargo -capacity airplane could be developed, it would
require large runways at both ends of its trip. Thus, the airplane lacks the
airship's flexibility.
Because of the inherent advantages, several LTA missions can be identified.
One often mentioned is the use of LTA to improve trade of developing na
tions allowing the movement of bulk commodities and crops out of otherwise
inaccessible areas. Another mission is the transportation of bulky machinery
such as nuclear power generation equipment too large to move over normal
highways or rail right-of-ways. Its large capacity, coupled with the ability to
hover, makes LTA a candidate for construction tasks — the proverbial " sky
hook.” These same characteristics could be used for disaster relief when
normal transport facilities are damaged .
Other uses such as spraying crops, geological survey, archeological expedi
tions, military reconnaissance and anti-submarine missions are also discussed .
For passenger travel, the airship could revive an era of elegance no longer
available. Although some feel the airship might compete for city -center to
city-center short haul traffic, its true role would probably be the cruise liner
of the air.
All these uses, coupled with the airship's potential for low pollution , low
noise and energy efficient flight, have rekindled public interest and imagina
tion in these " ships of the sky.”
LTA PROBLEM AREAS

The promise of LTA is not without its problems. Most are directly related
to the large size of a lighter -than -air craft.
Ground Operations
Although LTA vehicles may hover while transferring cargo, etc., they still
have a requirement for home bases for maintenance, repairs and refurbishing.
The least this will require is an open area and a mooring mast or other
tethering device. For some of the larger airships proposed, the clear area
needed for maneuvering, particularly in response to wind shifts, could be
quite extensive. To handle more than one airship at a time, the land area
needed approaches that of a large scale airport. The cost of these facilities
could also be high if large airship sheds or docks are required.
Ground handling techniques present second problem. Although by the
mid -1930's the hundreds of ground handlers required in earlier days had been
reduced through mobile masts and winches, numerous ground personnel were
still needed .
Even today, about 10 ground handlers are needed to land a Goodyear blimp,
a relatively small lighter -than -air craft. In fact, it is so dependent on its
ground handlers that it must often circle a destination waiting for its ground
crew , who travel by highway, to catch up and erect the mooring mast.
An additional operational problem occurs when payload is taken on board
or discharged . Under normal operating conditions, an airship has approxi
mately neutral buoyancy. That is, it will neither rise nor descend unless
additional forces are applied. The upward lift is balanced by the downward
pull of gravity.
When the airship is loaded or unloaded, its weight changes, destroying the
equilibrium condition. Normally, ballast is also loaded or unloaded to retain
the neutral state (although reducing the amount of lifting gas would have
the same effect) . This means that if the airship is delivering or picking up
cargo at some undeveloped site, there must also be provisions for ballast and
transferring that ballast. Alternatively, some on -board system is needed to
change the gas volume. But such a system may be too heavy to justify.
Air Operations
The replacement of hydrogen with non - flammable helium as the lifting gas
has shifted the major danger of an airship catastrophe from fire to structural
 114

failure in violent weather. This was clearly the fate of the Shenandoah and
the Macon, and perhaps the Akron.
Undoubtedly, better structures can be designed today than 40 years ago.
And modern materials can provide increased strength with decreased weight.
But as the size of proposed airships increases so do the bending and twisting
forces that may arise during operations. Although theoretically the lift
capacity of an airship grows as the cube of its size while weight increases
only as the square , is not clear whether the structures required to meet the
dynamic forces encountered by large airships will still follow the theoretical
laws or instead impose weight penalties due to safety considerations that
will decrease payloads.
Another problem associated with the structure of an airship is its maintain
ability. There are many examples in airship history of minor ground han.
dling errors damaging the skin or interior bracing leading to substantial
down-time for repairs. Such questions of damage susceptibility, structural
integrity and maintainability raise doubts as to the reliability of airships and
their ability to reach the degree of utilization needed for commercial success. ankets
Airships also face an operational constraint on their altitude. As an air care
ship rises, the external air pressure decreases. Therefore, the gas inside the
airship expands. When the internal gas expands to the limits of the gas cell,
the airship can go no higher without bursting or somehow removing gas from
the cell. This altitude is called the “ pressure altitude.” To raise the pressure
altitude, the airship can start its fight with less gas. However, this decreases
payload. The compromise solution developed by airship operators was to
cruise at about 1,500 to 2,000 feet with a pressure altitude of about 6,000 feet.
The resulting circuitous routings in mountainous areas increased both time
and fuel consumption. The economic impact of such procedures at today's airp
labor and fuel prices is unknown.
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS

Technology available today or in the foreseeable future can alleviate many

of these problems. Perhaps the most useful technological innovations would l the
be the application of modern sensors and variable thrust and direction en
gines to both stabilize position and perform precise maneuvers. As in the
Apollo spacecraft, inertial sensors that detect directional and rotational
forces can be coupled through a computer to active control systems. This
would allow rapid detection of undesired motion and the application of cor
rective forces to counter the motion before it becomes too severe. This type
of system would improve ground handling and air operations.
Television cameras could be used to monitor the parts of the airship not
directly observable. They would also provide the crew with extra eyes during
precise maneuvers such as docking. Radar altimeters would provide better
knowledge of altitude. Better radio and navigation equipment would provide
considerably more information than an old and experienced zeppelin captain
would have ever thought possible.
Modern weather prediction techniques and frequent forecast updates would the
allow the safe circumvention of storms, as would airborne weather radars.
Computerized structural design techniques would permit more accurate
analyses of the stresses and strains an airship would have to endure. This,
coupled with today's knowledge of storm intensities and shear forces, would
lead to structures designed to withstand the worst weather possible. And the
application of titanium and composite fiber materials would minimize the
weight of these structures. New synthetics are available to make stronger
while -lighter -weight coverings.
The use of on -board gas compression systems would alleviate some of the
problems of pressure height and ballasting mentioned, although the weight
of current systems would have to be reduced . Likewise, nuclear propulsion
could be used to extend range and eliminate the need to use water recovery
or other ballasting techniques to compensate for the loss of weight as fuel
is consumed.
In short, the technology is available to address many of the problems of
lighter-than-air already discussed. The basic question remains whether the
demand for lighter-than-air services is sufficient to offset the costs of this
technology as reflected in the price that would have to be charged for the
service.
 115
ab 2 ECONOMIC ISSUES

IS AN For any new method of transportation to gain acceptance, it must offer an

Theigt: improvement over existing systems, in terms of performance or cost or both .
wigiz: Therefore, to be a commercial success, lighter-than-air must capture traffic
he I from an existing mode of transportation by offering a better service or
TEAM generate new traffic by offering services not currently available.
set the It is extremely difficult to predict what new markets or types of traffic
vretiz might be developed if airships did exist. Some come to mind, such as the
s the transport of bulky power generation equipment to remote sites, but the de
mand for such applications is limited. In any case, it is doubtful whether
intai the management of a potential airship manufacturer would commit funds for
i her development based on such speculation alone. Therefore, the remainder of
tantis this discussion will concentrate on the share of traffic airships might capture
Ictus from traditional modes.
18 ani LTA's ability to lure traffic from other modes will depend on the types of
Actes markets it can serve. At the present time, most time-sensitive shipments
travel by truck for short distances and air for long distances. But speed is
de the expensive. Truck costs average around 7 cents per ton-mile. Air may run as
s cele high as 20 cents per ton-mile ( although container rates for belly cargo in
from wide-bodied aircraft are in the range of 8 to 10 cents per ton-mile, approach
2SSUM ing truck rates ) . Rail traffic is slow and more suited to bulk commodities,
reasa with costs in the range of 2 to 3 cents per ton-mile. At the bottom of the
as spectrum is ship or barge traffic, slower still , but with costs approaching 1
) fect cent per ton-mile or less.
In terms of speed, the airship is superior to surface modes, but inferior to
odar the airplane. In terms of capacity, the airship is superior to the truck and
airplane, but inferior to large trains, barge tows or ocean transports.
If the costs of airship freight were the same as for aircraft, the airship
would not capture any traffic from another mode. At the same cost, traffic
could move at the higher speed of air since fewer people would want less
mans service for the same price.
ould If the costs of airship freight were similar to those of truck, the airship
el would capture that portion of the current air freight market that is semi
time-sensitive traffic that must move faster than truck but does not have
Tona! to travel at jet speeds. Currently, it moves by air because there is no alterna
This tive. An airship with costs less than air and speed greater than truck could
COM capture this market.
tore The airship with costs similar to truck would also capture some traffic
now moving by truck, but not all. Trucks, because of their door - to -door
not
capability would still offer an overall time advantage in many markets. Also,
ring smaller shipments that comprise less than a truckload would probably still
tter move by truck to avoid the rehandling required to load them on an airship.
ide Large shipments that currently move in multi-truckload lots ( such as agri.
ain cultural crops ) would be the prime candidate for using airships instead of
trucks.
If the cost of airship freight were comparable to bulk carriers such as
train, barge or ocean transport, the airship would capture a large share of
the bulk market. However, much traffic would still move by traditional modes
some because established collection and distribution patterns are based on
current line-haul methods and would cost too much to change, some because
he the traditional mode can carry more in one shipment than several airships
(e.g. 100,000 ton tankers ) saving transfer and handling costs.
The discussion so far has been based on United States domestic rates. A
different picture emerges in developing nations. Unlike the United States,
most underdeveloped areas do not have an extensive transportation infra
structure - i.e. existing highways, railroad track, canals, airports and port
facilities. If the costs of these facilities are included in the calculation , the
airship’s relative economies would improve greatly since it does not need an
expensive infrastructure .
Similar analysis can be performed for military applications by comparing
the airships to ships, helicopters or whatever craft is currently needed for
a particular mission.
In any case, the extent to which airships will capture traffic carried by
present
service.
modes of transportation will primarily depend on the costs of airship
 116

What these costs will actually be is the major unanswered question of VIN

lighter -than -air. The methods for calculating those costs are straightforward.
However, the results are extremely sensitive to the assumptions used and
assumptions must be made because actual data is virtually nonexistent.
To determine cost per unit of output, say the ton-mile, total output over
some time period is computed. This is then divided into the total cost over
that same period . As a first step, one computes the productivity of the ve
hicle . This is the product of the vehicle's payload capacity and its speed.
Thus, by multiplying the lift capacity in tons ( available tons ) by the speed
in miles per hour, one gets the productivity in available ton-miles per hour.

miles available ton -miles

available tons X hour
hour

Multiplying this result by the hours of utilization expected in one year yields
the potential traffic -carrying capacity of the vehicle in one year.
available ton -miles hours available ton -miles
-X
hour year year
But vehicles are not always full. Therefore, this available capacity must be
multiplied by the load factor to get the revenue ton-miles per year.
available ton -miles,x load factor = revenue ton -miles
year year sults
If the total costs for the year are now divided by the revenue ton -miles, the
result is the cost per revenue ton -mile or the cost per ton -mile carried for profit.
cost /year cost
revenue ton -miles/year revenue ton -mile
As an example , a wide-bodied jet freighter can carry about 100 tons (200,000
pounds) at about 500 miles per hour. Thus its productivity is
100 tons X 500 miles_50,000 ton -miles uring
hour hour

At a typical utilization of 3,000 hours per year, the total yearly capacity
would be 150,000,000 available ton-miles. A 50 per cent load factor would yield
75,000,000 revenue ton -miles per year. The annual direct operating cost of
such an aircraft would be about 6,000,000 dollars. In an all- freight airline, Bon
the indirect costs are typically about 50 per cent of the direct . Therefore,
total annual costs would be about 9,000,000 dollars, yielding a cost per
revenue ton-mile of about 12 cents.
Similar calculations can be made for a lighter - than -air vehicle. But because
of a lack of valid data , many assumptions must be made. For example,
several engineering studies indicate that a 200 mile -per -hour airship with a
1,000 ton payload is technically possible. ( There are also studies that challenge
this position.) If the utilization is 3,000 hours per year as for an airplane
and a 50 per cent load factor is assumed, the yearly capacity would be
800,000,000 revenue ton -miles - four times that of the wide- bodied jet. If the
utilization were 6,000 hours, in the range of an ocean tanker, the yearly
capacity would jump to 600,000,000 revenue ton -miles - eight times that of
a wide- bodied jet.
If, however, we make different assumptions, the results change drastically. Alt
If the most economical speed for an airship is 100 miles per hour (which is
above the cruising speed of the Graf Zeppelin and other early rigids ), the
payload is 500 tons instead of 1,000 and the utilization is 2,000 hours, the
annual capacity at a 50 per cent load factor drops to 50,000,000 revenue ton
miles — two-thirds that of a wide-bodied jet. If the yearly operating costs
were the same as a wide-body under each set of assumptions, the cost per
ton -mile would vary inversely as the annual revenue ton-miles carried - or
from less than 2 cents per ton -mile under the most favorable assumption to
20 cents per ton -mile under the least favorable. Yet all these assumptions
are quite reasonable.
On the cost side, the largest unknowns are the cost of the airship itself
and its useful life. The cost of the airship is determined by four major Veli
 117

tion :
OTTON
factors: the total development cost, the number of units produced ( needed
to compute the development cost per unit ) , the construction cost per unit
ed as and the cost of the engines. Reasonable estimates of the latter can be ob
It OTE
tained since a first generation airship would no doubt use available engines.
All the other variables are unknown. Estimates of development costs run
St DC
from 50 to 500 million dollars. The number of airships needed has been
the estimated between 10 and 100. Construction cost estimates also vary consider
SE ably. Thus, the price per airship could vary between perhaps 15 and 150
Spet million dollars.
1001
Having purchased an airship , the operator would depreciate it over some
useful life. The annual depreciation cost is part of the annual operating
cost used to determine cost per ton-mile. Assuming a 25,000,000 dollar airship
with a 10 year life, the annual depreciation cost would be 2,500,000 dollars.
In an airline operation , depreciation is typically 10 per cent of the total
pies

operating cost. Based on 2,500,000 dollars depreciation, the annual total

airship operating cost would be 25,000,000 dollars. In an ocean tanker opera
tion, the depreciation represents about 50 per cent of the direct cost. Under
this assumption, the annual direct cost would be 5,000,000 dollars. Indirect
cost is assumed to add another 50 per cent to the direct cost for a total
ust be annual cost of 7,500,000 dollars. Will the airship be closer to the airplane or
the tanker cost structure ?
These exercises point out how sensitive study results are to the assump
tions used . An error of a factor of two or three can substantially alter the
results in terms of cost per ton-mile. And differences of but a few cents per
ton-mile may prevent airships from capturing traffic from other modes and
it. spell financial disaster for operators.
INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS

20,MB A final set of problems is that imposed by government regulation, union

contracts and the like. Perhaps the most important is how will airship
development funds be raised ? Secor Browne, before he left the Civil Aero
nautics Board, said that the United States aircraft industry could no longer
afford to develop new aircraft and requested legislation to alleviate this
problem . If it is true that the aerospace industry cannot afford to develop
city new heavier-than -air vehicles, a field in which they have great experience
ield and are world leaders, can it be expected to underwrite the development
t of of airships with all their inherent unknowns ?
line How will airships be certified ? The Federal Aviation Administration has
fore been attempting to develop standards for STOL aircraft for several years,
Del although the differences between STOL and conventional aircraft are not
that dramatic. How long will it take to develop standards for commercial
VIP airships? How will airships be tested ? What safety standards will apply ?
ale How will airships be handled by the air traffic control system ? At the
least, because of their relatively low speeds and altitude restrictions, special
procedures of some type will be needed .
Will airships be operated by airlines ? By shipping companies ? Will certifi
he cates of public convenience and necessity be required ? Will the aviation
the or the maritime unions have jurisdiction ? Will the Civil Aeronautics Board or
are the Federal Maritime Commission have jurisdiction ? What of our inter
of national bilateral agreements ? Will they apply or will new negotiations be
needed ?
ly Although these issues are currently overshadowed by the technical and
is economic questions, they must at least be considered.
the
HOW CAN THE UNKNOWNS BE ANSWERED ?
the
ON
SES Thus far, possible uses and associated problems of airships have been
per
discussed. How are the conflicts and the unknowns to be resolved ? As a first
-01
step, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, the Federal Aviation
to Administration , the Navy and the National Aeronautics and Space Admin
Ons istration have contracted with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's
Flight Transportation Laboratory to conduct a week -long workshop on
ell lighter-than -air in September of this year. This is in addition to other studies
501
already underway or planned by these agencies.
 118

Workshops have been used for many years to bring together a group of
people knowledgeable on a particular subject for an intensive period of
discussion and interchange of ideas. As many representatives of different
perspectives and viewpoints on LTA as can practically be expressed will be
invited to participate at all levels of the program . Some participants will
come for only one session, some will attend the entire program .
The goal of the lighter-than -air workshop is to establish what facts are
known about LTA's potential, what are the unknowns and , in turn, to identify
programs ( and their cost ) that could answer some of the unknowns. As a
fact- finding body , the workshop will not adopt an advocacy position for
or against potential programs or for or against lighter -than -air in general.
After three days of papers and presentations on various lighter -than -air
topics such as missions, construction techniques and operational economics,
workshop participants will spend two days discussing the presentations,
identifying areas that need further investigation and proposing programs that
could be undertaken to answer the unknowns.
It is hoped that the options developed will serve as a starting point for
further research if the costs seem justified by the airship's potential. Al
though the workshop is not designed to answer many of the questions raised ,
it may point the way to answering these questions and, indeed, to separating
fact from speculation once and for all .
Senator GOLDWATER. I have some material on lighter-than -air air
craft that I would like included in the record at this point.
The material referred to above follows :]
[ Reprinted from the Congressional Record, Oct. 30, 1973 ]
WHY NOT BLIMPS ?

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, NASA is currently studying the various

ways to move the Space Shuttle from point to point within the Earth's at
mosphere. The need arises because NASA will have to move the Space
Shuttle from the factory to either the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canav
eral or Vandenberg Air Force Base in California . Moreover, the Space
Shuttles may have to be moved from one launch site to another owing to
mission requirements.
I am informed that NASA is considering various ways of moving the
Shuttle in level flight among these are : fitting air breathing engines in a
strap-on mode, modifying a C -5A as a piggy back carrier, joining together
two 747s, towing the Shuttle behind a transport aircraft.
All have serious drawbacks .
Why not blimps ?
have written to Dr. James C. Fletche the Administrator of NASA sug
gesting the possibility of blimps or dirigibles. They have the following at
tractive features :
First. Low power requirements.
Second . Low noise levels .
Third. High inherent stability.
Fourth. No runways needed .
Fifth . Great ability to hover.
America has a plentiful supply of helium to provide buoyancy - buoyancy
without the threat of fire.
From the foregoing it seems clear that blimps or dirigibles would be so
cially acceptable. They would not consume great quantities of fuel. They
would pollute less. They would not add appreciably to existing noise levels.
Finally, blimps are friendly.
The only real technical problem that I know of involves the takeoff and
landing. Years ago large crews were used to assist takeoffs and landings by
handling tethers. Inevitably, there were injuries. And, the high cost of large
standby crews might be prohibitive today . I believe this problem can be
solved by using modern technology.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my letter to Dr.
James C. Fletcher be included at this point in the Record .
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record , as follows:
 119

“ U.S. SENATE ,
1 COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES,
Washington , D.C. , October 29, 1973.
" Dr. JAMES C. FLETCHER,
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration ,
Washington, D.C.
" DEAR DR. FLETCHER : As you know, NASA is considering various ways of
moving the Space Shuttle from point to point within the USA. I would like
to suggest that you consider the possibility of using either blimps or dirigibles.
" If blimps and dirigibles looked attractive from economic and engineering
standpoints, it would provide NASA with a multipurpose means of trans
portation. For example, the solid rockets and the tanks for the Shuttle could
be moved by them .
I
" As far as I can tell, it has been a long time since the U.S. Government
has studied the economics and engineering of blimps and dirigibles. If such
a study were made in conjunction with the Space Shuttle, I would like to
suggest that NASA simultaneously study blimps and dirigibles as a method
of commercial transportation . One purpose of such a study might be to
answer this question : What kinds of cargoes, if any, could they haul eco
nomically ?
" I am sure you can appreciate the favorable public reaction that would
occur if NASA was able to provide technology for moving food from the farm
to the marketplace in a cheaper, faster way.
" With warmest personal regards, I am
" Sincerely yours ,
“ BARRY GOLDWATER,
Ranking Minority Member ."
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, in the October, 1973 edition of the Astro
nautics and Aeronautics, there is a very fine article entitled , “ The Many Uses
of the Dirigible.” It authors are Jack R. Hunt, Ben B. Levitt, Francis Morse,
Kurt R. Stehling, and J. Gordon Vaeth. They point out that many people
have an adverse reaction to dirigibles, because of bad memories of the
Hindenburg which blew up at Lakehurst, N.J., in 1937. The Hindenburg used
hydrogen for buoyancy and thus was highly susceptible to explosion. German
zeppelins had to use highly volatile hydrogen as a result of a U.S. embargo
on helium .
However, it is a fact that during the years 1936–37, German zeppelins
made over 200 transatlantic flights on schedule or nearly so. On one occasion
during a flight to Rio de Janeiro, a zeppelin was unable to land as there
was a revolution in progress. The airship simply maintained station over the
Atlantic until the airport resumed operations.
The authors see many uses for the dirigible. The one that impresses me
the most is that of a cargo carrier.
I know many Senators have received letters about the boxcar shortage.
Many communities throughout the land have been short of transportation.
I believe it is time for NASA to take a new look at blimps and dirigibles
a new look at the engineering and economical problems involved . I don't
believe NASA should go full bore into development. I do believe NASA should
provide study money to take a further look at blimps and dirigibles from
the vantage point of 1973 economics and technology.
Any transportation system promising low noise and low fuel consumption
deserves some consideration today.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the article entitled “ The
Many Uses of the Dirigible ” printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows :

" THE MANY USES OF THE DIRIGIBLE

“ (Modern technology combined with still unrivalled payload, internal vol

ume, range, and endurance will equip the airships of the future to do the
jobs no other vehicle can. )
" The revival of large airships could provide the United States with a
dramatically new and different technological challenge. (See, 'Dirigibles :
 120

Aerospace Opportunities for the '70s and '80s, ' in the November A/A. ) But
engineering challenge alone will not attract enough support. Dirigibles must
be needed. They must be able to do things no other aircraft can do as well
or do at all. We will detail some of these singular talents in this article.
“ But remember, in evaluating the dirigible’s renewed usefulness think in
terms of future airship design and performance. Thirty-six years have passed
since the Hindenburg's hydrogen caught fire at Lakehurst. Yet most persons 'IL
visualize tomorrow's helium - filled dirigibles as more Hindenburg's. This is
like trying to predict the usefulness of a future airplane by what the Ford
Trimotor or DC - 3 could do.
" Remember also that different application will require different designs
and configurations. Size will vary according to purpose. Some applications
will require nuclear propulsion ; others will be better served by more conven "Pri
IN
tional power. And, recalling that the Zeppelins of WW I carried loads to
10,000 ft. we must expect, too, a variety of cruising altitudes and speeds.
" Also keep in mind that airships are not unduly weather-sensitive. Ground
handling in severe weather admittedly takes great care, but once airborne
airships take on quite a different nature. For this reason future uses of the init
dirigible anticipate their remaining aloft as much as possible, and loading
or unloading passengers, freight, supplies, and crew by hoist, hook-on planes,
or perhaps helicopters.
" The German Zeppelin operators of the 1920s and '30s, pioneers in pressure
pattern navigation that they were, actually chased after storms to hitch a
ride on the wind circulation around them . In this way the Hindenburg once
reached a ground speed of 188 mph. After nine years of flying the North and
South Atlantic, Zeppelin captains learned to respect penetrating fronts rather caintai
than fear it. Trim the ship, place it in static equilibrium , and at low altitude
enter the light spots was what they routinely did-and without benefit of
radar. Localized thunderstorms they circumnavigated . More than a half mil
lion hours safely flown by the Navy blimps in WW II reinforced the Zeppelin
men's conclusion. This
" Not even icing presents the hazard supposed. Protracted flights in rime
indu
icing have shown that an airship picks up a static load equal to about 5% Nato
of its gross weight after which no more builds up. Glaze icing poses an in
significant hazard owing to its random distribution over the surface of the
ship and the short time during which glaze icing conditions persist. Snow
does accumulate but not in dangerous amounts for airspeeds above 40 kt.
" This icing information came out of all-weather stationkeeping carried out
in January 1957. While the most severe winter weather in 75 years hit New
England, Navy blimps from a squadron at South Weymouth, Mass., and than a
from another at Lakehurst, N.J., manned a point 200 mi east of New York Artic
City, keeping at least one airship on station " at all times for 10 consecutive
days. Meanwhile, weather grounded commercial carriers for three of these
days at all major Northeast airports. After this performance airships hardly
deserved dismissal as 'fair weather aircraft. '
“ But this is history. The technology used in future airships—the nature of
their skin, the ducting of heat, the use of embedded electrical elements, the
carrying of balast that doubles as deicer fluid ---would overcome any remain
ing icing handicaps as surely as modern techniques have done so for airplanes. "
“ Designing, building, and operating large structural airships makes per
fectly.sound engineering sense. Whether Zeppelins, metal-clads, or some other or
type, however, their engineering must permit a suitable magnitude of de
flection throughout their structure, something that was not always done in
the past. Given this structural flexibility and given the level of technology
that made possible the Boeing 747 and the Saturn V, nothing prevents huild
ing airships as airworthy as any other man-made thing that flies.
“The dirigible's appeal for the future lies in certain characteristics possessed
either not at all or to only a limited or lesser extent by other aircraft. In
herently it makes an environmentally clean vehicle which could appreciably TL
reduce pollution caused by aircraft operations. It combines very large payload
with extreme range and a flight endurance measurable in days, weeks, or
with nuclear power, months. Substantial shipping holds could carry bulky
cargo. It could transport outsized items, such as preassembled structures,
slung beneath the hull and accurately lower them into place while hovering
overhead. Sightseers, arms-control observers, land or sea bed treaty inspectors,
 121

mappers, geologists, agriculturalists, oceanographers, biologists, coastline sur

S IS veyors, doctors and nurses, rescue workers, salvagers, archeologists, and
others could travel abroad by the hundreds and with room to work and live
comfortably. For mounting sensitive equipment the structure of a large dirigi
ble would prove convenient as would the airship’s standing as perhaps the
most stable and vibration - free propelled airborne platform man can build.
pena " The usefulness of a dirigible is a function of its volume. The Hindenburg's
This 7-million cu . ft. approached an efficient size for its purpose , its day, and its
e Fox hydrogen inflation . Lighter materials and improved structures would reduce
dead weight and improve performance in the future. Even so, tomorrow's
missions would require larger sizes-- nine-, twelve-, perhaps twenty-two-mil
catio lion cu. ft.
2007 " Projections set the payload of a 22-million cu. ft. conventionally propelled
vads 1 airship of conservative design at 615,000 lb for a range of 2950 mi, and
ds 326,000 lb for 6500 mi. With nuclear power the payload remains 655,000 lb
TFOLIO regardless of range. This is impressive carrying power by any standards.
Corresponding payloads for the C -5A - considered by some the largest cargo
of the airplane practical — reportedly weigh 265,000 lb and 80,000 lb, respectively,
(a .៖ nowhere near the airship’s.
plars "With performance like this and that graphed at right, dirigibles could well
become merchant ships of the air, carrying low -density and large-dimension
sessor cargoes that jet freighters find economically unattractive or practicably im
itches possible to handle. Airships could transport these shipments nonstop at 100
or more mph (depending on design and powerplants ) across oceans and then
ch 2012 deep into continental interiors. At destination, they could unload without
rather landing, using propeller thrust -vector control and other techniques to help
maintain position and compensate for changes in weight. If the cargo hap
fit of pens to require a landing, they would need only a flat clearing and simple
fmi? stick mast. They would need no costly port terminals or thousands of feet
ppeli of heavy -duty runways.
"This ability to bring large ( in size and weight ) cargoes into and out of
rime areas without landing facilities would make the airship a logical candidate for
at 3 introducing trade into the underdeveloped and inaccessible regions of Africa ,
an is South America, and Asia.
of the “As aerial cruise ships dirigibles also have much to offer. The Hindenburg
SHOT was considered the quietest form of transportation then available. The noise
kt level in its passenger quarters ranged between 40 and 61 dB. It flew so
doit smoothly that tall vases holding cut flowers safely stood on its tables. Scarcely
ter a ripple disturbed the surface of water or wine in goblets. Absent were the
often abrupt motions of heavier-than-air flight. No one got airsick.
"Passengers had accommodations like those on a luxury steamer. They
utire particularly liked the large outward-slanting draft-free windows along the
ther promenade decks. These windows usually remained open and through them
cardi passengers could look directly out at the scenery beneath . Because the ship
cruised at about a thousand feet, it offered spectacular sightseeing. Those
Te of who paid their $ 400 to fly the Atlantic this way sat or stood for hours before
the the windows. They described the experience of traveling on the Hindenburg
main by saying, 'You fly on an airplane but you voyage on an airship .'
" An even more enjoyable Aight would await those who cruise on tomor
row's dirigibles. The anticipation of gliding slowly over and around the
ther islands of the Caribbean and of exploring from comfortable quarters in the
E de air the historic and picturesque coastlines of the Mediterranean would almosť
ne in certainly attract vacationers in large numbers. Imagine the thrill of hovering
blon low over the canals of Venice or the ruins of ancient civilizations and seeing
uild and photographing them unhurriedly in detailed plain view. Consider the
appeal of following a river like the Amazon, poking around the Arctic ice
essed pack in the summer, or circling the globe, all while aboard an airborne resort
In hotel. For land excursions passengers could be ferried to the ground and
ab's back by airplane. Or the airship might ride to a sea anchor offshore and lower
oad its guests to the surface where waiting hydrofoils would take them into port.
01 "Cruise activity, a major part of the maritime scene, has fallen captive al
ulki
most entirely to foreign -flag ships. A new type cruise vessel, something en
ures
tirely different, to attract U.S. and other tourists would help reduce the sub
ring stantial dollar outflow resulting from recreation travel.
TON
 122

" The leisure use of the dirigible contrasts sharply with its value for giving
assistance and saving lives following natural disasters. Earthquakes, typhoons,
storm surges, floods, landslides, and other such calamities continually remind
us of our inadequate preparations for dealing with them. Each invariably
touches off a frantic international effort to provide assistance. How well that
effort succeeds depends on where the tragedy strikes and how accessible by
air. If airports have been crumpled , submerged, washed away, or if they
simply do not exist nearby, help is tremendously hindered. Even when runways
remain open , chaos may prevent distributing items airlifted. Such conditions
reportedly existed after last year's Managua earthquake.
" A dirigible could carry for thousands of miles hundreds of thousands of
pounds of supplies and deliver them directly into the hands of survivors and
evacuees without depending upon usable runways or airports. It could take
food, water, water purifiers, medicines, tents, sleeping bags, generators, com . an
munications equipment, vehicles, pumps, demolition gear, and even bulldozers. 101
In hovering flight it could intensely illuminate an area at night. Cables could
carry emergency power to the ground. Using the airship as an aerial vantage Ifthe
point experts in rescue, firefighting, demolition, and the restoration of essen MODS
tial services could oversee and direct activities. To play its role in disaster
relief, such a ship must be specially configured to contain hospital facilities,
for example. Provided the payload, speed, range, and altitude capability to
rapidly reach almost any inhabited place on Earth, it will almost certainly | locon
comprise the most technologically advanced airship flying.
" When not on disaster service, it could improve international well-being
many other ways. Going into remote regions, it could seed plants from the intell
air and dust crops. In areas of Africa afflicted by locusts, it could reach and ‫ܙܪܪ ܂‬
spray the breeding area. It could accurately chart land use and help evaluate
its management, stock inland waters with fish and nutrients, take fishery
surveys, and wildlife censuses and track the migration of whales. An airship
could spray or literally mop up large oil spills at sea operating above and
free of the mess, criss- crossing the spot to lay down chemicals or tow booms minga
or other devices to clean the surface. "Jis su
" This vehicle of global goodwill, this flying symbol of American or inter
national humanitarianism could take well-equipped teams of geologists, geode:
sists, biologists, and other scientists, also engineers, to areas of interest and
deposit them for in situ sampling, exploration, excavation, and construction.
Archeological expeditions could reach their destinations this way. All the Thi
while, however, the ship would remain equipped and ready for its prime mis pal
sion. With the first word of a natural calamity, it would set course imme
diately for the scene, picking up the needed medical and other specialists on Topy
the way by airplane hook -on.
" A similar but less spectacular role can also be visualized for airships as
airborne versions of the medical ship Hope. Equipped as flying clinics and
training centers and routinely bringing health care and instruction to the
hinterlands, they could help people and communities beyond the direct
reach of the famous humanitarian vessel.
“ In its survey operations for the public good, the dirigible would demon
strate its special talents for remote sensing. Certain frequencies now carry
atmospheric, oceanographic, and Earth - resources radiometric observations,
because they are the best permitted by the antenna -carrying limitations of
today's air and space craft. The airship's size, stability, and low vibration
would permit carrying environmental and geophysical sensing antennas that
would open up a new world of frequencies to use. Sensitivity , gain, and reso Thes
lution should improve remarkably .
“ Gravitometers and magnetometers, trailed if necessary to remove them
from the effects of the ship, could be ied as could very high -resolution
cameras and laser profilometers. Remote-sensor technologists would appreciate Tin
the airship's ability to carry on-board processing facilities. They could iden
tify questionable results while the ship is still in or near the observing area
and repeat runs using the same or different instruments, frequencies, or
spectral intervals .
“ Current technology has not revised the WW I verdict that airships make
poor combat aircraft. It would permit improving their ability to survive if
attacked. Damage control would become feasible in a large rigid or struc
tural airship, since repair parties could reach its frame, engines, and gas
 123

cells in flight. More important, it could carry self-defense aids, consisting

phica of early warning and fire -control radars, anti-air and antimissile missiles,
rem ! also other countermeasures suitable to the threat. Even so, prudent operation
仙

must keep the ship out of situations for which it is not intended. The vul
ell ti nerability considerations of an airship do not differ from those of any other
sible to military vehicle, be it troop transport or aircraft carrier. Each must operate
if the in the tactical environment for which its designers intended it to have an
acceptable level of survivability.
叫

nditia " The airship's ability to deliver large quantities of men and supplies into
remote areas with little or no ground support gives it an important military
unds role.
Ons 2 " But it has a much more significant one as a platform for ocean surveillance
Id teh surface, air, and underwater - for sea control. Using the immensity of its
sides, an airship could fly a phased -array radar with the power and perform
idoza ance to mount an intensive watch over large areas of the ocean surface. Other
3092 sensors, infrared and over -the-horizon radar, might also find uses.
antep " If the dirigible could classify detected targets, it could fire air-to-surface
weapons at unfriendly ones. If it could not, it might launch its own aircraft
to classify, and, if necessary, to attack them. It will want to use its planes too
when keeping silent its own high -powered surveillance radar to avoid de .
lity tection .
rtain " It could carry out air surveillance in a like manner but with an additional
consideration. If friendly forces occupy the area of interest, the enemy must
l-being not be allowed to conduct aid reconnaissance there. Denying the enemy target
ing intelligence will significantly improve the survival chances of friends.
The effectiveness of standoff surface -to -surface missiles decreases as uncer
aluste tainty increases about the location , composition , and disposition of potential
ister targets. Some cruise missile submarines reportedly receive their targeting
Lirshi data from reconnaissance aircraft. Deprived of such information they must
PAN stay close to acoustic detection range where they have much more difficulty
booms locating and classifying targets.
" Air surveillance should permit the airship to detect cruise missiles in flight,
inter thus giving warning of attack and providing it the opportunity to launch coun
geode ter missiles or to vector intercepting aircraft. As for submarine-launched ballis
tami tic missiles, particularly those with depressed flight trajectories, the forward.
ction positioned dirigible can improve early -warning time and serve as a platform
I to be from which to fire counter weapons while the missiles pass through their
mis boost phase when their low speed and large infrared signature tend to make
‫לחוו‬, them vulnerable.
" For underwater surveillance, the airship could emplace large fields of
moored sonar buoys, monitor them , classify and correlate detections, and
788 vector forces to localize and attack unfriendly submarines . The dirigible
an itself could carry antisubmarine warfare (ASW ) support forces made up of
aircraft or remotely piloted vehicles (RPV ). Buoys that fail or break away
irect would be recovered, replaced, and repaired , if necessary, in on -board main .
tenance facilities. The ships could retrieve and redeploy entire buoy fields.
" The airship could also tow horizontal linear passive sonar arrays, de
an signed with an extremely large aperture, essentially to the limits of the sea
ONS environment. Screw and hull noises would no longer interfere with listening,
3 od and sweep rates and other performance aspects could improve. Subsurface
ing arrays towed by airships seem specially suited to maintain surveillance over
potentially unfriendly ballistic missile submarines.
PY " The Navy is replacing dedicated ASW aircraft carriers by the CV with
its mixed complement of ASW and attack aircraft. The airship could bring
PD about a return to a single -mission ASW carrier , and most important from a
logistic and operationalviewpoint, without needing accompanying destroyers
or underway replenishment groups.
21 "Finally, theairship appears eminently qualified to serve as the central
command post and operational control center for a designated sector of open
ocean. It has the size to house the most sophisticated communication equip
ment, computers, and analysis and display equipment required by a major
fleet command. Its mobility would permit the area commander to remain liter.
ally 'on top of the situation.
" " The dirigible could and should play other significant roles but space
35 does not allow discussing them here. Oceanographic work for one. Use as

38-266 O - 74 - 9
 124

a movable VLF antenna for communicating with submarines for another. A

carrier and mother ship to Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicles for still another.
“ The Soviets reportedly have an interest in using airships to deliver to the
Siberian interior whole prefabricated buildings and completely assembled IN
heavy equipment, and to bring out the region's natural wealth on the return O bas
flight. In March 1972 the Russian popular magazine Sputnik contained two
articles on the subject. One stated that 14 Soviet institutions, including IM
some government ministries, favor the building of large airships. The U.S.
and USSR have formal cooperative programs in space, including a renedezvous
in orbit. A new bilateral agreement, this time for the mutual development
of airship transportation, would strengthen technical collaboration between
the two nations. The Administration in its desire to see trade, understanding,
and friendship developed between the U.S. and USSR, might well consider
the airship as a tool toward realizing that goal.
" In addition, the government should look deeper into the disaster relief air
ship. ' Creating it as a major international effort with internationally shared
funding seems a ‘natural as does operation under United Nations auspices.
“ While discussing the dirigible's international future, let us not forget
Japan. Geographically isolated and dependent upon overseas commerce, the
industry of that energetic country that produces the world's largest tankers
may suddenly discover in the airship the means to transport manufactured
goods rapidly and in bulk to Western Europe and South America. The dis
covery could work either to the distinct advantage or disadvantage of the
U.S. aerospace industry.
“ How much will it cost to build a fully - equipped operational prototype to
do some of the tasks described above ?
" Naturally that answer depends upon the size, performance, mission , and
type of construction. Also upon the extent to which major subsystems (power.
plants, for example ) already exist and need not be specially developed . And
upon the nature and extent of structural testing required " ( a large airship
and a ' jumbo jet' might receive quite different treatment in this regard ).
Estimates for such a prototype range from as low as $ 100 million to as high 6. indu
as $ 500 million , with follow -ons, of course, substantially less. Six cargo air
ships, each 12,500,000 cu. ft. and of modernized conventional rigid airship
design , could cost about $25 million a copy.
" But first, a training airship must be constructed. Exceptionally thorough.
going flight and ground -handling proficiency building programs must forestall
operating inexperience, a major cause of the lighter-than -air accidents of * BA
yesteryear. Simulators will help but they are not enough. The expertise and
skills of flying large dirigibles have to be revived, starting anew . Before a
crew can take over a large operational airship, it must at the very leasthave 20.C.
received a checkout in a smaller shipprobably of about 3 -million cu. ft.
“ This training ship would cost perhaps $50 million. It need not carry the TA
advanced electronics and other special features required by the operational
ships. Constructing such a ship inside one of the half-dozen dirigible hangars Vores
still standing in the U.S. would take about three years.
“ Providing a training airship , an operational prototype, and qualified crews
would probably cost too much for any private organization. Government sup
port seems almost certainly required, particularly if the aerospace industry
persists in some of its costly ways of doing things ( often at the insistence
of the government itself ) . The 6.5-million -cu . ft. Akron, an operational proto
type, cost $ 5.4 million and its sister ship, Macon, $ 2.5 million. These two
dirigibles, representing perhaps America's single most ambitious aircraft
construction project of the late 1920s and early 1930s were built by à con
tractor's engineering group that, including draftsmen, numbered no more than
about 50 persons. The Navy's highly successful ZMC - 2 metalelad, a radically
different developmental airship prototype involving new materials, design.
and construction techniques, was engineered by a staff of a half-dozen. How
many scores or hundreds would work on that same job today ?
“ Which agency might provide the support ? The Coast Guard, Environmental
Protection Agency, Geological Survey, Atomic Energy Commission, Arms Con
trol and Disarmament Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin
istration, and, of course, the Maritime Administration all have programsand wangi
missions that would benefit from large airships. Individually, none of these
Federal agencies would likely underwrite development alone. But they could
 1:25

pool their requirements and resources and sponsor the ship collectively. One,
however, must take the lead.
" The Defense Department could obtain the resources to begin a comprehen
sive airship program . Despite the military applications described earlier,
DOD has so far shown little interest. If it does, an Air Force or Navy airship
program could lay the foundation for nonmilitary usage and designs.
"NASA has apparently no more interest in airships than does DOD.
" Yet the airship offers a vast potential for services, applications, and uses
important, even critical, not only to the U.S. but also to the world. It would
have a measurable impact on the balance of trade, scientific progress, na
tional defense, and international humanitarianism . It offers as much as did
the SST - perhaps even more - an opportunity for engineering creativity, tech
nological advancement, and management innovation. Building a dirigible
differs from building an airplane. To revive airships, we must make a new
technological start. And in so doing, we can also make a new managerial start,
something much longed for by those caught up in the way of doing things
that has evolved since WW II. Building a dirigible can be used by astute
managers in government and industry to reverse the trend toward ever more
costly and more difficult to control aerospace programs.
"Will the airship be revived ? Almost certainly it will but not until its
technical and operational merit has become more widely recognized and the
subject itself given more professional attention.
"The time table could change overnight if the Office of Management and
Budget concluded that airships can substantially or uniquely contribute to the
Administration's goals at home and overseas. An OMB recommendation to
develop this environmentally clean and attractive vehicle for its commercial,
scientific, defense, utilitarian , and global good-will value is what is really
needed .
" There is no question about whether the dirigible will return, but when.
And that depends on how rapidly an awareness of its potential can be con
veyed to the Executive Branch, Congress, the military, the scientific commu
nity, industry, and the public.”

[Reprinted from Congressional Record, May 20, 1974 )

SENATOR GOLDWATER ON AIRSHIPS
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, on May 13, the distinguished ranking minor
ity member of the Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee addressed the
36th annual meeting of the Aviation /Space Writers Association in Washing
ton, D.C. His subject was "Airships ?”
The Senator from Arizona said that transportation problems in the United
States may shortly become so critical that the Nation will have to look at
dirigible-type airships to help ease the crunch.
Moreover, he told his audience some of the thoughts that occurred to him
in the wake of the energy crisis and the shortage of boxcars and transporta
tion problems that are afflicting a growing and more demanding population .
This speech raises an important question for the future of the Nation and I
commend it to my colleagues.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of the distin.
guished Senator from Arizona be printed in the Record.
There being no objection , the statement was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows :
" AIRSHIPS ?
" Thank you for inviting me to speak before the 36th Annual meeting of the
Aviation /Space Writers Association . It is a great feeling to be among so
many friends.
“ Over the past 36 years there has been a lot to write about :
“Aviation played a decisive role in a global war.
"Routine air travel was established across the oceans and around the world.
"The sound barrier was broken and supersonic flight became routine.
"And man set foot on the moon.
" The advancement in technology has been staggering and the benefit to
mankind incalculable. The writing professions have been an integral and
necessary part of this saga .
 126

“ This morning I would like to share a few thoughts with you concerning

言:目后言還言
airships.
" During the past year, there has been renewed interest in blimps, dirigibles
and hybrids. It might be called a lighter-than -air -boom . Articles have ap
peared in large circulation magazines and in specialized professional and
trade magazines. The term 'Helium Horse' was coined.
“ A growing awareness of ecological and energy problems in transportation
may be partly responsible for thisresurgence . A sentimental journey by Amer.
icans back to the decade of the 1930's may have contributed. And, then, there
is man's natural desire to find better ways of doing things.
" At the outset, we must recognize technical problems which are generally
common to lighter-than -air vehicles : First, there is the basic problem of
mooring a neutrally buoyant vehicle. Second, . ballasting requirements during
load transfers. Third, the fact the aerodynamic thrust is small - compared
to potential gust loading and is generally not vectorable for adequate
station -keeping
" Let us have a look at some of the apparent advantages of airships ag
compared to conventional aircraft :
" 1. Outsized and heavy payloads can be lifted .
" 2. Less pollution resulting from lower power requirements.
" 3. Public annoyance reduced through low noise levels.
“ 4. Stay aloft for extended periods of time.
“ 5. Operate where there are no airports.
"6. Hover for extended periods of time especially in a hybrid mode comi
bining static and dynamic lift.
“ 7. Safety resulting from sizeable mass and slow speeds. The foregoing 1
characteristics suggest some intriguing applications.
"The Navy could certainly use airships for improved anti-submarine capa Idon't
bility. Airships have a much better station -keeping ability than the conven argo
tional aircraft now used for submarine detection . Moreover, the airship could
overtake or outdistance existing nuclear submarines, which most naval sur
face vessels are unable to do .
“The Air Force might use a fleet of airships as a launching platform for
intercontinental ballistic missiles with the obvious advantages of dispersal
and station -keeping.
“ The civilian economy might be helped by the ability of the airship to carry Etich
huge and outsized payloads. Entire homes and buildings might be moved Tisot
from factory to construction sites. Whole tree farming could become a
reality. Heavy machinery for oil well drilling could be lifted to remote areas.
"Within the past few days, the Navy let a contract for $ 85,000 to the All
American Engineering Company of Wilmington, Delaware to study a concept
known as the Aerocrane . htda
“ Aerocrane is a hybrid vehicle which looks like a spherical balloon with
four rotors attached 90 degrees apart. The balloon part of Aerocrane has a
diameter of 150 ft. Each rotor is 112 ft. long. On each rotor there is a turbo
prop engine developing 1250 horsepower.
“ The entire vehicle turns at 10 revolutions per minute with a tip speed of Turt
196 ft. per second. Forward operational speed would be a maximum of about
52 miles per hour. Favorable weather conditions are required.
" Aerocrane is said to combine the advantage of static and dynamic lift, and ភ្នំ
the small version would be able to lift a 50 -ton sling load. A later stretch
version would be able to lift as much as 200 tons.
“ The Navy believes a vehicle like Aerocrane could help with small craft
and aircraft salvage, ship repair, submarine rescue operations, amphibious
assault, and harbor improvement. Navy planners have to take into account
political instability in much of the world, which can make the future avail
ability of a specific port questionable.
“ Since 1972 Aerospace Developments, Ltd. of London has been working on
a giant airship under contract to the Shell Oil Company.
“When I say giant, I mean an airship 1800 feet long, 300 feet in diameter,
and with a 100 million cubic feet capacity. ( I don't know who started the
rumor that the British think small .)
“ The purpose of this vehicle would be to transport natural gas in a gaseous
state.
" I understand that Shell Oil Company is satisfied with the economics of
this airship. As you no doubt know, the cost of a liquid natural gas plant is
 127

upwards of $ 100 million. The cost of a liquid natural gas plant is upwards of
$450 million . When you combine the ship and the plant costs Shell believes
1 the airship will show a savings of at least 30% .
"Nationalization, the threat of nationalization, and political instability are
making the oil companies reluctant to make capital investments where these
conditions exist. A giant natural gas airship is a neat solution .
" Shell's determination is simply demonstrated by its instructions to Aero
space Developments. These instructions say in effect : Keep going until you
run into a technical problem you can't solve.
" In 1973, there were 40 nuclear power plants in operation. According to one
industry estimate, there will be 150 units in 1980, and the curve will rise to
1000 units by the year 2000 .
" In the past, nuclear power plants had to be located near large bodies of
water for cooling purposes. With improved cooling tower technology, nuclear
power plants can now be located away from lakes or rivers.
" But, there is a transportation problem . Components in the 50-400 ton range
must be moved from the factory to the plant site. Where the components can
be barged by water all is fine, but what happens if the plant site is inland ?
"It is a fact that Combustion Engineering of Hartfond, Connecticut, has
entered into an agreement with a large aerospace company to jointly study
the airship as a way of moving large nuclear plant components.
" Clearly commercial markets for airships can be identified - markets where
there is a need to move large, bulky cargo.
"There may be another market --one that is hard to identify. But, ask your
self this question :
“ How many of the things we manufacture are limited by constraints which
we take for granted ?
" I don't mean to tell this audience about the weight and size limitations of
air cargo.
" But let's take a look at the more mundane surface transport constraints.
" If you are moving cargo on a railroad, you are limited by the size of a
fatcar which is 89 ft. 4 in. long by 10 ft. 8 in. wide.
"Moreover, your railroad flatcar has to go through underpasses that are 22
ft. high by 16 ft. wide. But that's not all. Your cargo will have to pass
through railroad tunnels that have a vertical wall height of 15 ft. 7/8 in .
to which you can add 6 ft. at the arch center.
"If you're moving cargo by truck you are going to be confronted by 14 ft.
underpasses near cities and 16 ft. underpasses in outlying areas. Moreover,
you'll find width constraints averaging 12 ft. depending upon the areas.
" Nearly everything that flies from an airport is subject to the same con
straints.
" It doesn't take much imagination to see what might happen to the economy,
if the weight and size constraints built into our surface transportation system
were removed .
" There are only two ways to get around the underpass and tunnel problemi :
barge and aircraft.
" Further, ask yourself this question : How are we going to build houses,
pipelines, power plants, office buildings, ten or fifty years from now ?
" I don't think we will be building houses by attaching lumber, nails, pipe,
and siding at the building site - and , then putting it all together piece by piece.
" Again , part of the answer has to be aviation.
"While airships have been enjoying renewed interest especially in the past
year, it behooves the prudent to cast a wary eye.
"Airships have both technical and political problems.
" The technical problems involve first of all economics which don't appear
to be fully understood today, or at least, not by me. For example, Ihave
heard cost per ton mile figures ranging on the low side from one cent to 45
cents on the high side. There seems to be a very definite need to refine eco
nomics of airship transportation .
"On the engineering side, there are problems concerning materials, attitude
control, and landing.
"When the Hindenburg landed at Lakehurst, New Jersey, on May 6 , 1937,
a ground crew of 230 men was needed --most of them to handle mooring lines.
I doubt that this method of landing would be acceptable in 1974, because of
the huge cost involved — not to mention consternation among the next of kin.
 128

" And the bureaucrats who administer the Occupational Safety and Health
Act would have a field day.
" On the political side, or if you prefer, the PR side, there are two factors
that stand out : ‫ܠܐܕ݂ܶܐ ܕܠܐ‬
" First, the poor reputation of dirigibles resulting from what might be called
the Hindenburg syndrome .
"Second, what might be termed the giggle factor -- which means what
happens to you when you mention dirigibles to those who think they won't
work .
“ The picture of the Hindenburg going up in flames is firmly etched in the
memory of anyone old enough to have seen the newspaper pictures. It was a
terrible disaster, but as you know, it resulted from the fact that the Germans
had to use hydrogen for lift.
" Detractors of lighter-than -air technology point out that the zeppelin had
great difficulty in operating in foul weather. They correctly point out that
success of the zeppelin was as much a result of the high quality of the skip
pers as of the craft's essential airworthiness.
" But, let us look at the other side of the coin :
"The zeppelin's skipper had no on-board weather radar.
“ He couldn't take advantage of space -age weather forecasting.
" His airship was under-powered.
" He had to have a crew continually adjusting and repairing his craft.
" He was denied the safety of helium. Rze the
" With modern materials, avionics, and propulsion—unknown in the zeppelin
days—I believe a dirigible could be built that would be at least as safe as
existing fixed -wing aircraft. Economics is the driving consideration.
“The 'giggle factor' is harder to counter, because it is based on a gut re.
action.
“ I can understand why some people feel that blimps are ludicrous. They
are big , and they are slow .
" To some extent, the ' giggle factor' is abetted by those who have a romantic
interest in lighter-than-air. Some exaggerated claims, backed by skimpy tech
nical information, have been made for dirigibles.
“ For example, I don't see the United States government or private industry Rio a
financing a R & D effort in airships to take passengers on moonlight cruises
up the Amazon River. On the other hand, the romantics have proposed that WE
large airships could be used to take entire hospitals to disaster areas. That
strikes me as an idea worth considering.
“ If passenger airships ever come about, I believe it will be an adaptation
of an airship developed for other purposes.
“ Meanwhile, let's not kick the romantics around. The tremendous strides
made in aviation is partly attributable to their dreams — without their dreams
it might never have happened .
"Airships deserve a second look for the promise they hold in meeting real
transportation needs. If our national aeronautical R & D effort is to merit
public support, part of the effort must be devoted to meeting the discernable
everyday needs of people.
" If our Nation has a chronic boxcar shortage, what can aviation do about it?
" If better and more efficient methods of distributing goods are needed , how
can aviation help ?
" A clue in solving our transportation problems may be found in looking at the
total system. What are the choke points ? What are the artificially created con
straints ? What needs to be done to overcome them ?
" In the overall picture, airships are likely to be only a part of the future
aeronautical R & D required by the Nation. To meet our future needs :
“ We must push advanced propulsion.
“ We must build modern aeronautical research facilities.
" We must pursue research in supersonic and hypersonic aircraft.
“We must put as much emphasis on performance as we do on pollution
and noise.
“ The economic and spiritual well-being of the Nation demand that we push
the frontiers of knowledge and technology. Through our renewed commitment
to doing a better job, we can assure a healthy aerospace industry.
“ Most important of all, we can provide a better and fuller life for all
Americans.
"Thank you."
 129

[ Reprinted from Congressional Record, May 29 , 1974 ]

THE INDESTRUCTIBLE BLIMP

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, as a result of an address I made to the 36th

annual meeting of the Aviation / Space Writers Association concerning air
ships, some mail has been coming into my office on this subject.
The most unusual letter came from Lt. Comdr . Gillis Cato, Jr., U.S. Navy
Reserve, retired. He took part in a blimp trip that can only be described as
incredible. In a period of about 2 days, he crash landed three times : Into
Lake Pontchartrain, on top of an automobile, and in a forest. Moreover, his
airship managed to knock out the entire power system of Houma, La .
Lieutenant Commander Cato's narrative demonstrates one important point
about airships : Their inherent safety.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cato correspondence be
printed in the Record .
There being no objection, the correspondence was ordered to be printed in
the Record , as follows :
OCEAN SPRINGS, MIss. ,
May 15, 1974.
" Hon. BARRY GOLDWATER ,
“ U.S. Senate, Washington , D.C.
"DEAR SENATOR GOLDWATER : A couple of days ago I heard a commentator
state that ' Senator Goldwater is now advocating the building of dirigibles .'
" This was said very much tongue in cheek . I do not believe he would have
been so flippant if he had taken the time to have looked up a few facts on
lighter than air transportation.
“ I believe my background qualifies me in some small way to comment.
Briefly it is as follows:
"During world war two I was assigned to lighter than air after I was thor
oughly grounded in the ways of airplanes. This, of course, was to be ex
pected. Naturally this did not endear me to blimps. However, after a thor
ough study of them at Lakehurst, N.J. I was then assigned as engineering
officer to commission the station at Hitchcock, Texas, after which I was sent
to Rio as engineering officer in charge of LTA over-haul for the whole At
lantic area from Trinidad to Rio. As you may imagine, I had plenty of time and
opportunity to become thoroughly acquainted with all of the vagaries of LTA .
One of my very first assignments upon reaching Brasil was to salvage a
blimp which had smashed headon into a mountain about a hundred miles
north of Rio. Having had considerable experience with the unpleasant details
of salvaging airplanes, you can imagine my surprise when I found that of the
whole crew thegrow
worst injury consisted of a sprained ankle. My respect for
LTA began to .
" While in Hitchcock, Texas, I had a chief whose name was Hamilton . He
was on one of the dirigibles which came apart earlier and much before
world war two. He told me in detail exactly what happened. He said that
for no reason at all the pilot flew the ship directly into a very severe thunder
head. This is something you avoid even with a 707. He then told me that he
believed that even then they would have made it except that these dirigibles
which had been made in Germany by people who knew their business, had
been drastically altered. It seems that the Germans put a very strong and
rigid keel in each of the dirigibles they built. An Admiral who shall be name.
less decided that he knew more than the Germans and that in order to save
weight, had the keels removed from all the dirigibles the Germans had de
signed and built. The results are too well known to dwell on here. However,
it is most noteworthy to observe that even when these ships broke apart
several thousand feet in the air, few of the people were killed, by comparison
with any airplane in like circumstances in which nobody would possibly sur
vive. The Chief told me that he and many of the men with him floated down
to the sea in the after end of the ship due to the compartmentation of the
gas bags which provided the lift. There was no fire and no explosion .
"Much has been made of the burning of the Graf Zeppelin.
" There was one reason and one only why this ship burned. Hydrogen .
" If we had given the Germans helium I would not be surprised if the shiu
were still flying. Very little is said of the flights this ship made at a time
 130

when we were still fying biplanes. She very casually roamed all over the
world with no danger or even an untoward incident. Proof that the Germans
thought they had something big lies in the fact that they built a luge
hangar, very permanent construction, just outside Rio. I used this hangar all

她
the time I was stationed there.
21
" While engineering officer in Brasil, I had many chances to observe some
unbelievable trips that these craft made that served to demonstrate their
toughness. My job demanded that I fly these ships at least twice a week and Tel
it was after a couple of trips in them that it dawned upon me that if a person
wanted to fly that was the way to go. The advantages are obvious :
" Enough speed to go any place, but slow enough to see everything there is
to see, which is why most people travel anyway.
" No need to fly thirty thousand feet. Fly two hundred if you choose in
perfect safety and with unparalleled visibility. Te 1
" Comfort ; plenty of room to move about, even in a blimp. In a dirigible
room enough to run a footrace.
world
" As to fire ; it is obvious that the only sensible power for a dirigible
would be diesel engines with fuel that is hard even to set fire with a match.
" While in the service I, with the aid of others in the engineering depart.
ments, worked out various designs for rigid ships. I believe that a flexible
frame is easily possible which would save weight and at the same time be
able to give when the occasion arises. An interesting side note : If a LTA
craft is caught in a 150 knot wind a person can lean out the window and

加
hold a lighted match. The reason of course is that it travels with the wind
instead of fighting . Makes for a some what longer but very interesting and
safe trip. Try letting a 747 drift with the wind.
" I am enclosing a copy of an absolutely true trip I personally took in a
blimp. I wrote this up for a few friends after telling them about it. I be
lieve it will serve very well in demonstrating the indestructability of a
LTA craft.
The
“ I sincerely hope that you were not being facetious when you mentioned the
construction of a rigid airship. s lat
" Nothing would give me more pleasure than to be able to use some of
the knowledge I have accumulated about LTA and to be associated with
such a project.
“ Very truly yours,
" GILLIS CATO, Jr.,
Lieutenant Commander, USNR, retired ."

" THE INDESTRUCTIBLE BLIMP

be
" It was only natural that after enlisting in the Navy in 1942 with a thor
ough knowledge of airplanes, that I would be sent to Lakehurst, New Jersey
to become proficient in blimps.
“ After a few months there I was made engineering officer of the Hitchcock
Naval Air Station, Hitchcock, Texas. Following the usual trials and tribula:
tions of getting a station commissioned , we were soon in the business of
flying the big airships on submarine patrols.
“ One night about twelve o'clock I was called to the base to find that we Heila
had apparently lost three blimps. Frantic radio and radar search finally
located and guided two of these back to the base. The third kept calling and
saying he was west of the field and drifting. He finally got out of radio touc
range and we all sat about eating fingernails and coffee. At nine the next
morning we received a call from a civilian at Starkville, Mississippi, who
stated that the blimp had landed there in a field , re -fueled with a regular
gas, and took off after asking him to call. He stated that the blimp was at
that moment circling the city of Starkville.
“ We took a crew in a Liberator and headed northeast, not west, to find our
blimp calmly going round and round the Mississippi State University. I was
riding in the nose and signalled them to follow us to Columbus, Mississippi.
air base. Inasmuch as I had, before joining the Navy lived at Greenville, Miss..
this whole country was as familiar to me as the palm of my hand.
“ We landed at the air base, recruited a landing party to haul the blimp Me to
down, drained the tanks and re -fueled with aviation gas. With the blimp
 131

safe and apparently in perfect condition, the question now arose as to what
to do next. The obvious solution would have been, get aboard and go to Texas.
Two things stopped the obvious ; the crew who flew it to Columbus stated
flatly that they did not intend to fly again for at least a week. The second
thing was the weather report. While the sun shone brightly at Columbus the
weather man said the birds were walking from Hattiesburg south on account
the fog and all planes were grounded.
"We had brought along a LCDR, a JG. , a flight mechanic and me, the good
old engineering officer. If I would agree to fly we could take off with a short
crew . Not being bright I agreed to iy.
" The weather deal was easy ; all planes were grounded, we were not a plane,
simplewe would fly to Texas in a pea soup fog and demonstrate a masterly
piece of navigation .
"We took off at about four in the afternoon . The LCDR kept the blimp
about ten feet above the trees and asked for the antenna to be lowered so
he could notify all and sundry that we were on the way. The antenna bob
struck a limb and bounced up into the gas bag aft cutting a hole about two
feet long. The LCDR stated he was not getting reception. I told him where
the antenna was. He said take the crook and pull it back out. I did and it
promptly went into the bag again cutting another hole. He then said to heck
with the whole business as we would be there before they knew we were
coming.
"The weather was still clear and shortly after this we flew over a large
barn at our tree top altitude. Several things occurred ; all the chickens took
off and vanished. The livestock in the barn lot left, taking the fence along.
Those in the barn left also, taking the sides of the barn along. The apparent
owner was walking across the lot with a shotgun. He let us have both
barrels. A blimp hide is very tough and the small shot had no effect. Buckshot
might have written a different ending to this narrative.
"The weather began to show evidence of the predicted fog and I decided
that I might as well sleep through the whole thing and I sacked out. An hour
or so later I was awakened and the LCDR asked me if I could tell him where
We were inasmuch as I knew the country. I looked out and had a glorious
view of nothing. Even the engines were invisible . Whoever said the birds
were walking was not kidding. The LCDR said they had passed over lights
a few minutes back . I assumed these were Hattiesburg, Miss. since the time
element was about right. The LCDR said that it made no difference as he
had computed a course that could not miss. About two hours later we sighted
a light in the soup and the LCDR said that he had it figured right on the
nose as that was the light on the hangar at Houma, La . I looked at the
altimeter and it said we were at about 600 feet. The hanger had either grown
or the altimeter was way off. Something gnawed at my subconscious. As we
circled the light again close enough to touch it, it hit me. I yelled, "Get the
hell out of here, those are the radio towers in New Orleans and they are
made of very good steel. '
"We promptly went up and out of danger. Take LCDR, said he guessed we
had better make another calculation on our navigation . I thought we had
better get a Texaco road map and a flashlight. We then figured we could not
miss anything as large as Lake Pontchartrain and headed in that direction.
After due running time we decided to let down, be sure of the lake and then
calculate from there. We let down, and down, and down. Just as the altimeter
hit a hundred feet we hit the lake. Water came almost to the deck but since
so much weight had been relieved by the water the gas bag promptly hauled
us upagain spouting water from every seam like a ruptured whale.
" After a profound interval of silence the Fight Mechanic allowed that he
believed there was no doubt that we had found Lake Pontchartrain. The LCDR
perked up, said he had it down pat now, and we could take off for Texas.
Everybody disagreed and insisted that we first find the Mississippi River,
but not exactly as we had Lake Pontchartrain. He agreed and we set off, very
carefully timing our flight. At what we hoped was the proper time, we very
carefully descended. Miracle of miracles, we popped out of the fog right over
Old Man River. Now it was easy enongh to find the Huey P. Long bridge and
follow the weather
road to Houma. We could put down there for the night and wait
for better .
We found the bridge, lined up on the highway and headed west with all
signals go, and made in the shade — we thought. There was a car going the
 132

出动
way we wanted to go and his lights made it all the nicer. Meanwhile, back at
the ranch - The blimp had been slowly losing helium from the antenna inci.
dent. In addition the bag was loaded with about 2700 pounds of moisture
from the fog. The controls were logy and when she was pointed down she
wanted to keep on down and would mush for awhile before answering the
elevator. The LCDR was determined to keep the car in sight. He was doing so
but getting dangerously low. Suddenly the old girl decided to keep on mushing
down and did so, right on top of the automobile. No one will ever know what
he thought. He ran off the left side of the road and vanished. Apparently no
injury was incurred as we never heard of him again. We turned sideways
across the road and went off to the right into a huge grove of soft feathery
willows. The blimp rolled to one side as if it was tired of the whole thing and
wanted to sleep. During this time we were also being treated to some rather
startling pyrotechnics. Fire was flying all over the car and even way back on
the afterpart of the bag. We had not time to even speculate on these happen.
ings as we were waiting to see what would happen to the blimp. As in the
Lake Pontchartrain landing, the weight being off and absorbed by the willows,

舰 如
the bag yanked us back into the air. The jar had relieved us of a lot of water
also. We circled gingerly back to the road and continued west. The controls
were nearly impossible. Something had happened but we would not know
what until much later.

础 幽
" I remembered two tall brick chimneys at Raceland at the sugar mill and
they were too close together to fly through. I had no desire to wind up stuck Sena
like a hog in a fence. The LCDR decided to rise a bit higher. We did, and The
promptly lost sight of the road and everything else.
“ We had been calling Houma Naval Air Station for some time with no
reply, but we knew we would be able to see all the lights at Houma. Calcu
lating our speed and the known distance we soon knew we had to be over D: DE
Houma . Not one light was visible. Again the slow, careful descent. This time cihis
we were lucky, we did not hit the ground, we only ran into the water tower deron
at Houma. The crash of breaking nose battens informed us that we had Listed
better not place any confidence in any landing lines attached to the forward i Carm
part of the blimp. We had no way of knowing whether or not all landing claro
line had been carried away. The LCDR then did the first constructive thing
on the whole flight. He went up to three thousand feet and stayed there.
" With daylight we were treated to a sight of the world without fog, and Anid
in addition we were right over the air training station at Lafayette, Louisiana. opulsi
“The blimp was now as heavy as lead and we knew we would not need a
crew to pull it down so we decided a landing was in order. The one we made
was without a doubt the hottest one a blimp ever made. We took up the
whole landing strip. Usually a blimp lands in about a hundred feet and has
to be hauled down.
" The cadets poured out to see the 'monster' and we were subjected to some 1.6
remarks about idiots that fly in bags and a few that cannot be printed here.
We ignored them and inspected the blimp. It was so heavy from helium loss
that the one landing wheel tire was spread out two feet wide. The control
difficulty was easily assessed. The trouble was a thirty foot willow tree that dir
had become entangled in the control cables and had been pulled up by the roots teiras
by the blimp. Since a blimp is about as tall as a five story building the tree
just had to stay there until we got to home base.
" The station gave us a magnificent breakfast, full tanks of gas, bowed their
heads in prayer for our safe return, and saw us off. A blimp has dynamic
lift like an airplane as well as lift furnished by the helium. Without it we TAT
would have never got off. As it was we used up every bit of the runway and
for awhile it appeared we might pick up another willow or two. The trip to AC
Hitchcock was une The landing was somewhat difficult as we had
become even heavier. We jettisoned our depth charges, all movable gear, and
dumped all the gasoline except enough to land on.
" The most unbelievable part of the whole deal, and every word is true, is that
that damn blimp was out on patrol next morning. That is more than can be
said of the crew. Dr.
" To summarize : the fireworks we experienced were simply explained. We
had run through a 440,000 volt high power line and demolished it. It in turn
melted off our tail wheel , burned holes all over the car and burned deer Belo
grooves in the propellors .
tha
 133
; back
anna “Knowing this, it was easy enough to see why we could not find Houma
moist or the Naval Air Station there. We had blacked out the whole area of that
downs part of Louisiana. We heard later that a perennial drunk had been sleeping
ering i it off under the tower at Houma. It is said that he has never touched another
doing drop. Much later, as I was going overseas, I talked to a Chief of Communica
mutis tions who had been stationed at New Orleans on that wild night. He told me
DOW that they had been ordered to close down except for a standby watch and go
rently 1 home as nothing would be flying. He said that a bunch of damn fools in a
sidene blimp had put a stop to all that and kept the whole communications system
feathe up all night on emergency . He said that if he ever saw one of the crew he
hing e would strangle him and believed he would be justified. I agreed. ”
le rate Senator GOLDWATER. The next witness will be Dr. Jerry Grey, ac
back to
harge companied by Mr. Ernest Simpson of the Air Force, Aeropropul
.s in ti sion Laboratory, who will present testimony on advanced aircraft
willor propulsion systems.
of met
I am sorry, did you have a question ?
Senator BARTLETT. No.
Senator GOLDWATER . I get so lonesome in here I sometimes forget.
Senator BARTLETT. You did fine.
up Senator GOLDWATER. You may proceed .
did. EN
[The biography of Dr. Grey follows.]
1. Caler BIOGRAPHY BRIEF FOR DR. JERRY GREY
be Otel
his tic Dr. Jerry Grey received his Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering
TOM
and his Master's in Engineering Physics from Cornell University ; his Ph . D.
We ha in Aeronautical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology.
forran His early career included stints as a full-time Instructor of Thermodynamics
landiri at Cornell, an engine development engineer at Fairchild, a Senior Engineer
e thini at Marquardt, and a hypersonic aerodynamacist at the GALCIT_5 " Hyper
ere.
sonic Wind Tunnel. He was a professor in Princeton University's Department
8. ar of Aerospace and Mechanical Sciences for 15 years, where he taught courses
uisian in ſuid mechanics and propulsion and served as Director of the Nuclear
need! Propulsion Research Laboratory. He formed the Greyrad Corporation, a sup.
emed plier of high -temperatureinstrumentation, in 1959 and was its full-time Presi
UP
dent from 1967 to 1971. He is now Administrator of Technical Activities for
nd bei the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, where he spends
half his time ; the other half is devoted to consulting practice, writing, and
lecturing.
som
here Dr. Grey is the author of four books and over a hundred technical papers
in the fields of fluid dynamics, heat transfer, rocket and aircraft propulsion,
watn
e nuclear propulsion and power, plasma diagnostics, instrumentation, and the
applications of technology. He has served as consultant to the U.S. Congress,
the Air Force, NASA , and the AEC, as well as over twenty industrial organi
e the
zations and laboratories. He was Vice President-Publications of the AIAA
for five years, and is listed in Who's Who in America, American Men of Sci.
theit ence, Who's Who in Aviation, Engineers of Distinction, and the United King
mami
dom's Blue Book and Dictionary of International Biography.
t
AM STATEMENT OF DR. JERRY GREY, ADMINISTRATOR, TECHNICAL
ip
had
ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, ACCOMPANIED BY ERNEST
that
SIMPSON, AIR FORCE, AEROPROPULSION LABORATORY
a be
Dr. Grey. The AIAA appreciates this opportunity to present its
Te views on advanced aircraftpropulsion to this committee, and I thank
pel
you for your invitation to appear before you.
Before I proceed to the substance of our testimony, I want to point
out that myappearance here today is as a representative of the Insti
 134

tute, and that the material I offer has been thoroughly reviewed by
appropriate members of our technical committees. Appearing with

脈
me is Mr. E. Clifford Simpson, who served as chairman of the pro
pulsion group at the recentAIAA Workshop Conference on Aircraft

曲 「西瓜
Fuel Conservation .
My testimony will be in three areas : advanced engine cycles, new
fuels, and nuclear propulsion. As you have suggested , Mr. Chairman ,
I will devote my brief time here primarily to research and develop
ment opportunities which are either not yet included or are not
yet I believe, receiving substantial emphasis in current Federal
programs.
I do, however, wish to call to your attention a basic premise which ,
although not explicitly stated, is interwoven throughout my entire
testimony: We face, in this country and in the world, an end to the

础
virtuallylimitless availability of natural liquid petroleum-based fuels
which we have enjoyed up to now. Although the recent " energy

业 则 如
crisis” may appear to have been relieved, serious and perhaps even
crippling fuel shortages are almost certain to reappear in the com
ing months and years. The search for viable petroleum substitutes,
and for methods to reduce our fuel consumption until such substitutes

她 剛剛
become available in quantity, are therefore essential elements in all
aeronautical research and development considerations. This subject
was covered in some detail at a recent AIAA Conference on Aircraft
Fuel Conservation which you, Mr. Chairman, strongly supported and
which I have listed as one of the referencesin an Appendix to this
testimony.
Senator GOLDWATER. Will you send a copy to the Committee, and TANIU
we will make it part of the record .

山 咖
Dr. Grey. Thank you ; I certainly will. 1. som

NEW ENGINE CYCLES

加 咖啡urthe
Although the " jet age " may appear to be well into its maturity,
many opportunities still exist for major performance, cost, and fuel
conservation improvements by tailoring engines, and their installa
tion in aircraft, for specific purposes. At present, different propulsion
systems are used for different operating conditions, but a new con
cept, the variable -cycle engine, shows great promise for efficient op
eration over a wide range of subsonic and subsonic /supersonic flight
儿 她

conditions. We have therefore chosen to discuss this concept in our

testimony, although there are, of course, many other new engine con
cepts undergoingresearch and development, as you have heard in
testimony presented to you by NASA and others earlier this year.
低

I have also decided to discuss briefly a far more advanced idea, the front
supersonic-combustion ramjet engine required for hypersonic aircraft .
他

propulsion. These two engine concepts were selected for our testi
mony from among all other possible choices because between them
they incorporate many of the new features which we believe are the
forerunners of tomorrow's propulsion technology. Both were men itha
tioned in the NASA testimony on July 16.
心
 135

VARIABLE CYCLE ENGINE

Mr. Goldwater, I heard you ask Dr. Fletcher for a paper describ
ing this engine. One will be published in the AIAA's magazine, Astro
nautics and Aeronautics, next February. I have with me a prelimi
nary copy of the basic content of that paper, which I will be glad
to leavehere with you .
Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much .
This concept is basically a variable bypass engine; that is, the frac
tion of the total airflow through the engine which passes through the
fan, thereby "bypassing" the fuel-burning core of the engine, can
be varied over a wide range. The basic advantage of this variable
bypass flow isthat it can provide the optimum bypass ratio for each
flight speed. Also, it has the potential for substantial reductions of
"installation losses" in both the inlet and nozzle. Thus, a variable
cycle engine can operate at peak efficiency from takeoff to high super
sonic flight speeds.
Because this engine cycle requires a number of innovations in
engine technology,it is still considered to be at least a decade from
implementation in even a test aircraft. The principal developments
needed are variable-pitch, variable camber fans (similar in basic
principle to, but far more complex than, the familiar variable-pitch
propeller ), variable-area turbine inlet nozzles for both the low-high
pressure and high -pressure turbines, variable-area convergent
divergent exhaust nozzles, and a propulsion controlsystem capable of
integrating all these variable-area components withthe fuel control
over all flight-speed ranges. Such further improvements as higher
pressure-ratio compressor blading, overall higher -pressure compres
sors, high -temperature ( columbium -lined ) combustion chambers, and
in some cases regenerative heat recovery, are also important elements
in variable- cycle engine development.
Along with a totally new approach to blending the engine into the
airframe, these features permit the use of a single engine over a wide
performance range. Just as the automobile hasseveral gear ratios to
meet the requirements of its use, the aircraft in many instances has
the same opportunity to save fuel through discrete cycle changes for
takeoff, climb, subsonic cruise, supersonic cruise, dash , and other op
erating modes. The variable -cycle engine thus can provide high -per
formance STOL capability and /or low -noise operation at takeoff
and landing while still being capable of high -speed economical cruise
flight, and it also permits efficient subsonic and supersonic perform
ance by a single airplane.
The most imminent applications for this new engine cycle are
military, which is why the Air Force is currently spearheading the
effort. However, this Nation will, someday, be forced to reconsider the
needs and the implications of a commercial supersonic transport air
craft, as was mentioned by both Dr. Fletcher and Dr. Cannon here
on July 16, and the variable -cycle engine will become a major element
in that reconsideration. For example , our now-defunct 2707 super
sonic transport design used up a major fraction ( about 30 percent)
 136

of its fuel just to reach cruising speed, partly because its engines
were, of necessity, designed to operate most efficiently at 2.7 times

仙· 臘 毗 址 丽 山
the speed of sound at high altitude. A high -bypass- ratio engine would
havebeen much more efficient for takeoff,climb, and landing ;further,
it also happens to be the best configuration for least noise. This com
bination of requirements “makes the case” for the variable cycle
engine in any future SST -- and despite the continuing negative atti
tude toward SST's, we need to be doing our technical homework now
to protect our valuable future commercial aircraft market against the
possibility of a successful second- generation foreign SST .

咖
But even if the variable-cycle engine does not find its home in a
commercial supersonic transport or in advanced STOL / low -noise

咖
applications, or proves too difficult to develop as a complete concept,
the above mentioned advancement in component technology which

咖
might be achieved during the development process will have far mmad
reaching implications in all future engines, not the least of which, inlogg
as was identified in the recent AIAA Workshop Conference on

咖
craft fuel conservation, would be substantial reductions — up to as 13 01

much as 50 percent– in the consumption of fuel. We therefore ask

that this committee encourage and support both engine and aircraft

网
résearch activities associated with thevariable -cycle engine concept,
and we certainly concur with Dr. Fletcher's statement that this
We
should receive the highest priority in any new funding consideration.
SUPERSONIC COMBUSTION RAMJET moleur

The supersonic combustion ramjetfinds it application even further athe

in the future than that of the variable- cycle engine. A truly new
concept, it is the only airbreathing engine whichcan operate effec tels
tively at flight speeds in excess of Mach 5.
The " Scramjet” , as it is sometimes called, was pioneered by the oft
Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, was
studied at a low level of effort for some years by NASA's Lewis home

Research Center, and is currently being pursued, also at a low level, Male
at NASA's Langley Research Center. Like all ramjets, it can only Ishr
operate at relatively high flight speeds. That is, in an ordinary turbo 190
jet, a compressor is used to achieve the pressure ratio needed to drive
the burned hot gasses through the engine, whereas the ramjet utilizes
the recovery pressure of the air " rammed into the engine. In a con
ventional ramjet the air must be slowed up sufficiently by the time
it reaches the combustion chamber, to reduce the pressure losses as
sociated with turbulence and other dissipative processes of high -speed
air flows. In a very high speed engine, however, this slowing-up
process becomes too inefficient, so in the Scramjet the supersonic inlet
air is slowed only partially. The inlet shock wave, although it isn't
strong enough to reduce the air flow all the way to subsonic speeds,
still generates sufficiently high air temperatures so that the engine
can maintain a hydrogen -air flame even at supersonic air speeds.
Military interceptors and commercial hypersonic aircraft (HST)
which might use this engine are still many years off, and require much
research effort not only on the new engine concept, but also in aero
dynamics, materials, and the aircraft cooling systems needed at flight
 137

speeds in the Mach 6 to Mach 8 range . The two major attractions

of the HST, other than its extremely high speed, are its reduced
sonic boom impact - because of the extreme altitude at which it flies
and the fact that its use of hydrogen , the only fuel which makes
the HST possible, avoids the need for scarce fossil petroleum .
From the viewpoint of this committee, support of research activity
on the Scramjetat a low butsteady level is important today, even
though commercial or even military implementation of a hypersonic
aircraft is not likely until the decade of the 1990's or even later. We
make this suggestion because much of the aerodynamic, combustion,
instrumentation, and materials knowledge needed for this highly ad
vanced concept will maintain for the United States a strong " cutting
edge” of airbreathing propulsion technology which will be reflected
throughout the entire spectrum of aircraftapplications, both in the
immediate and distant future. The sustenance of such advanced tech
nology programs has in the past proved its worth in providing the
technical base which has kept the United States well ahead of the
rest of the world in both commercial and military aircraft, a not
insignificant
survival.
factor in our international economic and military
NEW FUELS

We in the aircraft field are particularly sensitive to the ever

growing specter of scarcity — and hence ever -increasing cost - of pe
troleum -derived fuels. Perhaps no other transportation system or
energy-consuming segment ofmodern industry is quite so dependent
on the availability of liquid petroleum . It is therefore of critical im
portance that we begin to establish alternate fuel capabilities immedi
ately, because of the very long lead time necessary to implement such
capabilities into commercial and military aviation.
Of the various alternatives we might consider to replace or supple
ment petroleum -based fuels, there are only three basic categories:
more or less conventional liquid hydrocarbons derived from coal or
shale-oil, synthetic hydrocarbons, and totally new aircraft fuels such
as hydrogen or methane. In all cases, there are two possible extremes
in approaching the use of new fuels: either develop a fuel which can
be used in existing engines, or modify the engines as necessary to ac
commodate the fuel. In practice, a combination of these two extremes
will almost certainly be pursued .
HYDROCARBON FUELS

A small " first step” in the process of introducing coal-derived

liquid hydrocarbon fuels hasprogram
already been initiated by the Navy,
which has undertaken a test evaluate
to compatibility
their
with current military specifications. However, although such fuels
are readily available in laboratory quantities, there isat presentno
capability in the United States for making available aircraft fuel
cuts derived from coal or shale oil in sufficient quantities that is,
more than pilot plant amounts for an adequate engine testing pro
gram . Since these fuels are likely to be most economically useful
if some departures from present petroleum -based fuel spcifications are
 138

permitted, such testing of modifications on at least a few different

types of engines will be essential. We therefore suggest that this 1
committee support the immediate implementation of a small-scale 20
production program directed specifically at the manufacture of air
craft fuels from coal and shaleoil. We make this recommendation in
the belief that the prospects for practical utilization of any alterna
tive fuels other than fossil-derived liquid hydrocarbons are consider
ably further downstream in time.
[ The table follows :]
POTENTIAL NEW FUELS FOR AIRCRAFT
bhd
Heat of combustion (L) Specific
a com
Density heat , Btu/ Cost, dollars
Fuel Btu /lb Btu /ft3 Ib / ft3 Boiling point 1b /F per 109 Btu

JP ( jet A ) . 18, 590 940,000 50.5 370 ° F, to 550° F, liquid at nor 0.47 $1.00- $ 3.00
mal temperature. lizati
Hydrogen LH 51,500 222,000 4.3 -423° F cryogenic .. 3.20 2.50-8.50
Methane LCHA 21 , 500 570,000 26.5 -259° F cryogenic . 49 1.50–3.00
Propane C3H8 19, 940 720,000 36.1 - 44° F, low temperature or .65 .75-2.00
compressed gas. 1 Past
Methanol CH3OH .... 8,640 426,000 49.4 1490 F, liquid at normal tem 60 1.00-2.00
perature .
Boron (type B :He) ... 30,000 1 , 188,000 39.6 137° F, liquid at normal tem .57 100.00-300.00 HO
perature.
JP from coal, 18, 830 996, 000 53.0 370° F, to 550° F, liquid at nor .47 1.50–3.00
mal temperature.
Nuclear.

a la
Dr. GREY. In the very long term , of course, the demand for even coal
derived hydrocarbon fuels will become excessive, especially when they
come into wide general nonaviation use, as they certainly must. We in
the aviation field will then be faced with the need to manufacture syn
thetic fuels by utilizing nonfossil energy sources, for example, nuclear is be
breeder reactors and, hopefully, nuclear fusion and solar power. The Spa
time
two general classes of such synthetic fuels we might consider are
liquid hydrocarbons, very much like the fossil-derived fuels in use
today, or cryogenic high - energy fuels such as methane or liquid
hydrogen. mhald
Conventional hydrocarbon fuels could be synthesized, with sufi
cient availability of energy, from carbon in vegetable matter, natural
limestone - calcium carbonate - or even the carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere combined with hydrogen obtained from water - for ex Lin
ample, by electrolysis. Advantages of these hydrocarbon fuels areunit
the
same as those in use today; their high energy density — energy per
volumemand no requirement for sweeping new technology or logistic
distribution systems. Their disadvantages , ascompared with hydrogen
or direct nuclear propulsion — which I will discuss later - are their
lower energy content per unit mass and, possibly even more im
portant , their higher levels of air pollution. The relative cost of these
fuels is, of course, perhaps the critical factor, but we do not as yet
have any basis for establishing such cost data . Thus my recommenda
tion for pursuit of this avenue for new fuel development must be
made in the light of those for other alternative fuels, as is given later
in my testimony.
 139

lif LIQUID HYDROGEN

latti
all.si The potential for using liquid hydrogen as an aircraft fuel has
oft been considered extensively in the pastfew years, both by NASA
and by a number of industrial groups. Its principal benefit is its
ulter very high energy per unit mass, which can provide substantial im
INSIDE provements in range over hydrocarbon - fueled aircraft. Hydrogen also
generates very low air pollution levels, and affords an opportunity
foravoiding the use of scarce petroleum -based fuel - coal isan excel
lent near-term source for hydrogen. Principal disadvantages are its
low energy density - energyperunit volume — and low temperature,
-

which demand very large,well-insulated aircrafttankage, its high cost

as compared with present or even projected shale oil or coal-derived
:
fuels, and, perhaps most important, the lack of a nationwide logistic
system for liquid hydrogen manufacturing and distribution. Its fu
2. 06-01 ture cost as compared with true synthetic hydrocarbons, based on
25941
utilization of nonfossil energy sources to manufacture both classes
offuels, cannot yet be determined.
Past efforts in the utilization of liquid hydrogen as an aviation
1.048
fuel include engine testing, which has established hydrogen's clear
superiority to liquid hydrocarbons in virtually all aspects of engine
operation, even without modifying existing engines , and extensive
preliminary design studies of both subsonic and supersonic aircraft.
Because of hydrogen's low density, these designs have tended to be
-

very large — at least L - 1011 or 747 - size - in order to be cost competi

.com! tive, but the current escalation in aviation fuel costs may tend to make
7the smaller aircraft somewhat more interesting: Safety, incidentally is
far less of a problem than most people think, although some public
STZ education to counteract the "Hindenburg syndrome” would undoubt
clear edly be needed. Liquid hydrogen has seen extensive application in
Th the space program with virtually no safety problems, and in wide
are commercial use could probably become just as safe as gasoline or
present jet fuels. However, cost uncertainties, and especially the need
uid for a nationwide manufacturing and distribution capability, will
probably postpone the extensive implementation of hydrogen fuels
until around the end of the century.
IN
the LIQUID METHANE

the Liquid methane has also been examined as another alternative fuel .
although not in as much depth as has liquid hydrogen. Liquefied
natural gas — almost pure methane - is available today, but has not
proved competitive with current aviation fuels even at the prevailing
high prices. Methane could be considered for the future, but since
its energy per unit mass is only slightly better than that of fossil
derived liquid hydrocarbons and its energy density is far worse -- see
table — it is not likely to be a serious contender.
In view of the above discussion on new fuels, we recommend to the
committee that it support a careful and extensive assessment of
both synthetic hydrocarbons and liquid hydrogen as future aviation
fuels. Included in such an assessment, besides technical design and

38-266 O - 74 - 10
 140

operational factors, should be detailed projections of investment and

operating costs, environmental impacts, utilization, overall effect on
the Nation's economy, energy and materials needs, and interaction
with other fuel -using segments of the economy . Manufacturing and
distribution systems must, of course, be an essential element of the
assessment.
Finally, although the limiting factors in the utilization of hydro
gen as an aviation fuel are certainly those associated with the manu
facturing and distribution systems rather than with the aircraft or
engines, we suggest that the present modest NASA program in the
pertinent aircraft technology be maintained ; that is, the develop
ment of low -mass pressurized tankage and insulation, as well as
other aerodynamic, structural, and systems problems associated with
the high volume and low storage temperature of liquid hydrogen.
NUCLEAR PROPULSION

An extensive development program in aircraft nuclear propul

sion ( ANP ) , conducted by the U.S. Air Force and the Atomic
Energy Commission, was terminated in 1961. Subsequent develop
ments, however, particularly in aircraft size escalation and in the
growing scarcity and cost of hydrocarbon fuels, have stimulated
reconsideration of the concept at this time by both the Air Force
and the AEC .
In the nuclear-powered aircraft, a fission reactor is used to heat
a working fluid , which might be either a liquid metal - for example,
potassium or sodium - an inert gas- for example, helium or noble-gas
mixtures - or a molten salt. The hot fluid normally flows to a heat
exchanger and transfers heat to a secondary fluid loop. The secondary
fluid carries the heat to the engines, thereby eliminating the possi
bility for radioactive contamination of the engines. The secondary hot,
working fluid can either drive a turbine to power a fan or propeller
or, more likely, deliver heat to a heat exchanger which replaces the
combustion chamber in a standard engine. Most designs also include
the capability for burning chemical fuels.
In the modern concept of this engine, the reactor and all radio
active components are totally contained within a fully crashproof
" unit " containment vessel or shield, so that the radiation level in and
around the aircraft is maintained at a harmlessly low level even at
full reactor power. This feature, made possible solely by the use of
aircraft large enough to carry the heavy shield, is what primarily
distinguishes the modern nuclear airplane from the old ANP con
cept. More about " crashproofing " later.
The nuclear-propelled airplane has only one unique performance
feature : essentially unlimited range — it can stay aloft almost in
definitely. When the pilot of a chemicallv-powered aircraft takes off.
he knows that 6 or 7. or maybe even 20 hours later he has to land
not matter where when he runs out of fuel. The pilot of a nuclear
powered plane knows he can always fly to another field, no matter
how distant . Also , in sufficiently large aircraft, the nearly -constant
mass of the nuclear powerplant system provides a substantial im
 141

provement in payload capability as compared with all-chemical

fueled aircraft, especially for long range trips.
The two principal barriers to the development of nuclear aircraft
have been the lack of a truly important mission and concerns about
public safety. With impending shortages and high costs of conven
tional fuels, however, à review of these “barriers” appears worth
while.
Current nuclear aircraft concepts consider minimum payloads of
250 metric tons — 550,000 pounds--as compared withabout 100 metric
tons for the C -5A . Many design studies have postulated even larger
payloads. Some possible missions for such an airplane or seaplane,
both military and civil, are included in this testimony as Appendix
A. These missions are those which best utilize the large payloads
and the near-infinite range offered by a nuclear propulsion power
plant.
The“ safety barrier" represents perhaps the most severe problem
faced by thenuclear aircraft. Before a nuclear aircraft can become
operational, or even be flight tested, it must be demonstrated that
under no circumstances can the public be endangered by any acci
dent — even a full-scale crash - in which a nuclear plane is involved .
Prior to termination of NASA's nuclear propulsion activities in Janu
ary 1973, a program to develop the necessary safety technology had
indicated — by rocket sled tests — that reactor containment designs
could be capable of sustaining a Mach 1 impact into a concrete wall
without leakage of their contents. Also, NASA had formulated then
retical containment designs which could sustain a full post- crash
reactor meltdown without thermal failure. However, despite these
promising beginnings, clear demonstration of reactor safety still
has a long way to go, even if flights are restricted to over-water
routes.
In the technology area, although considerable research and de
velopment is needed , there appear to be no major barriers to the
achievement of subsonic flight. Nuclear-powered supersonic flight
would require extensive new technical knowledge, but the use of sup
plementary chemical - fuel power, as was proposed in the old ANP
program , would provide some supersonic capability to a basically
subsonic nuclear aircraft, especially when some of the newer fuels
are considered.
The nuclear -powered aircraft concept must, of course, be compared
with chemically - fueled aircraft using hydrogen or synthetic hydro
carbons, since the time frame of interest for all these concepts is
certainly near or perhaps beyond the end of the century. However,
even before such comparison studies can be undertaken , it is neces
sary to conduct rather extensive systems analyses of various ele
ments in the nuclear propulsion concept. For example, it has not yet
been established whether the reactor working fluid should be a noble
gas - or noble -gas mixture or a liquid metal, a choice which dictates
many basic design features of the entire power system . Also, there
has been no consideration of plutonium fuel , although in the time
frame of interest it is not likely that uranium 235 will still be avail
able. Many possible choices for heat exchanger materials, engine op
 142

渴望
三皇
宣言
erating parameters, chemical- fuel integration, and other variables

三皇号当冒
have not been evaluated .
We therefore recommend that the committee support a program of
analytical systems studies — not a development program ofnuclear
aircraft propulsion concepts. These studies shouldinclude airframe
considerations, and , eventually, should be incorporated into the over
all assessmentof the type we recommended earlier for synthetic and
hydrogen fuel utilization ; that is, to determine whether nuclear
energy is most effectively used for direct in - flight power, or indirectly
for the manufacture of chemical fuels.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this testimonyhas been helpful in providing
you with the information you need - additional detail may be found
in the references listed in Appendix B. I am, of course, convinced
that the continued growth of the aircraft industry is vital to the
health of this Nation . My presentation has been primarily oriented
to the future because I firmly believe that sustained active attention 181
to the support of advanced technology is essential to the nurturing
of that industry . INC

I thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today, and,
with Mr. Simpson, stand ready to answer any questions you may
have. 1. DE
[ Appendix A ) Anijeti
POSSIBLE MISSIONS FOR NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT ( 250 METRIC - TON PAYLOAD )
1. MILITARY MISSIONS
INILA
Transport by a relatively small fleet of a full Army division (or equivalent ?. Es
mass payloads ) to remote “ brush -fire” areas, on very short notice, with no atles
need for first establishing massive logistic capability ( e.g., fuel for return )
in the target area . Current subsonic nuclear aircraft design concepts in the
suggested payload range are capable of using existing (2500 -meter ) runways ;
seaplane designs are also possible. 2. W
Transport of large payloads in single -leg flight modes ( i.e., with no need
for intermediate supply bases ) , independent, except for added fight time of PRO
( 1 ) the need to avoid overflights of sensitive territories, (2 ) the need to NI
avoid enroute weather, or ( 3 ) target-area weather ( the aircraft simply holds
in a convenient pattern until the weather clears ) .
Transport of multiple payloads for parachute drop to a number of different
areas in a single flight, with no need for return -fuel supply bases. 16
Transport of extremely large single-unit payloads ( e.g., complete mobile
nuclear powerplants ) to remote locations with no need for logistic support. NEL
Missile-launching platforms similar to nuclear submarines, but with much
higher mobility and almost as undetectable by radar or satellite on short
term scales.
Long-term airborne reconnaissance, " search and destroy" ( of submarines),
anti-missile or anti-aircraft patrol, command -post operations, etc.
Long-range tug capability for smaller or special-purpose chemically-fueled
aircraft. One interesting mission in this category is to utilize very large cipe
nuclear aircraft circling the world indefinitely. Chemically -fueled aircraft that
takeoff, hook on to the tug for a " free ride ” ( perhaps halfway around the
world ), and then drop off to land. Payload capability for long flights is
thereby enormously enhanced, since virtually no cruise fuel is needed. DE
2. CIVIL MISSIONS

Air Freight. The capability for weather avoidance, flight legs as long as
necessary, and no logistic support in the delivery area offers enormous im
provements in freight-carrying cost and flexibility. Sea -based aircraft may
enhance these benefits. The high payload mass capability of large nuclear
 143

aircraft over long ranges also offers pertinent economic advantages for bulk
cargo on such missions.
Transporting large, special-purpose unit payloads either to remote (un
supplied ) areas or over long distances ; e.g. , construction equipment, mobile
powerplants, space shuttle orbiters, etc.
Transporting large numbers of passengers over long distances both eco
nomically and rapidly ; e.g., an extension of the proposed Laker Airways
Sky -train concept.
Airborne research platforms for earth resources studies, earthquake re
search, meteorological studies, oceanographic data -taking, and other NOAA
and Department of Interior missions.
Luxury cruise airlines, using mission patterns similar to those of surface
cruise ships, but touching many more ports during a specified time period.
[ Appendix B ]

REFERENCES FOR ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

VARIABLE -CYCLE ENGINE

1. Swan, Walter C., " Performance Problems Related to Installation of

Future Engines in both Subsonic and Supersonic Transport Aircraft,” (to be
published in Astronautics & Aeronautics , February 1975 ) .
SUPEKSONIC COMBUSTION RAMJET ENGINE

1. Dugger, Gordon L. , and Billig, Frederick S. , “ Supersonic Combustion

Ramjet;" AIAA Student Journal, December 1973, pp. 8-12.
NEW FUELS

1. Brewer, George D., " The Case for Hydrogen -Fueled Transport Aircraft,"
Astronautics & Aeronautics, Vol . 12, May 1974, pp . 40–51.
2. Escher, William J. D., “Future Availability of Liquid Hydrogen ,” Astro
nautics & Aeronautics, Vol. 12, May 1974 , pp . 55–59.
NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT PROPULSION

1. Wild, John M. , " Nuclear Propulsion for Aircraft,” Astronautics & Aero
nautics, March 1968, pp. 24–30.
2. Rom, Frank E. , "Airbreathing Nuclear Propulsion - A New Look , " NASA
TM X -2425, December 1971 ( also included in Nuclear News, Vol. 14, October
1971, pp. 79–84, 87 ) .
FUEL CONSERVATION

1. Grey, Jerry ( Editor ) , “ Aircraft Fuel Conservation : An AIAA View , "

June 30, 1974 .
Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much, Dr. Grey. I have some
questions that the Chairman wants me to ask and then I have a few
of my own. Dr. Grey, NASA has a responsibility for the preserva
tion of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space sci
ence and technology and in the applications thereof to the conduct
of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere. Do you feel
that the program of advanced aeronautical and space technology
of NASA meets that responsibility ?
Dr. Grey. In general, yes, I do believe so, sir. There are certain
limitations, however, in the overall funding of the NASA aeronau
tical and research and development program which we feel could be
expanded upon .
For example, Dr. Fletcher noted in his testimony on July 16 that
the variable cycle engine is really not receiving enough attention .
We certainly could devote a great deal more money and effort to
 144

this concept since it represents such a great broad -based potential for
future capabilities.
We also believe, as I have indicated here in our testimony, that bare
some expansion of the application of new fuels is essential because
of the impending shortage of petroleum fuels. Also, consideration of an de
a technology program in nuclear propulsion is warranted in the
budget. But in general, the maintenance of necessarily strong support
of aircraft technology is properly handled at the present time by
NASA. neprest
Senator GOLDWATER. Well, that is a problem that we on this com
mittee and the Armed Services Committee are faced with constantly.
It is not easy to convince other members of the Congress of the L:S
need for research and development, even of the need for maintaining
our lead in airplanes. They have a rather warped idea on the sub
ject of priorities. We feel that the maintenance of technological ad toub
vancement, particularly in fuel, is an absolute must. So I would sug
gest that through your publications of your different associations you The
try to make available to the uninformed the kind of word they should
be getting so that we will not have to give up almost when we know
we should have research and development across the board and we :
have a hard time getting it.
Dr. GREY. Yes, sir, the AIAA does that in every avenue that we
20.
find it possible. We would be delighted to receive any suggestions
that you or other members of the committee have in that regard.
Senator GOLDWATER. Just get the word out. You know the old sav oldbe
ing, better to light a candlethan complain about the darkness. We
have got service clubs and women's clubs in this country that are
just beating down the door for new speakers and you can reduce this 2. TO
to understandable language and maybe get them enthused. | ME
Dr. Grey. We are in the process of doing that just as hard and
fast as we can. Thank you very much for your words of support. WOON
Senator GOLDWATER. Dr. Grey, do you think it would be possible
for the aviation industry to go to liquid hydrocarbon or liquid
methane fuel without other forms of transportation also going that
route ?
Dr. GREY. I assume you mean liquid hydrogen and liquid methane.
We do not believe that would be feasible for some time to come. As
I indicated, the basic problem in implementing liquid hydrogen is
not the technology. It is the establishment of a countrywide logistic
system for manufacturing, distributing, and handling it. If the air
craft industry were required to support the entire cost of both the
development and implementation of that distribution system I do
not believe it would be at all economical. We would need to have
other segments of the economy also using either the hydroegn or
methane .
Senator GOLDWATER. That question leads me into one that just
came to my mind because I only heard about it yesterday. There is
a company in Arizona, Anderson -Clayton, whose primary concern
actually is cotton but they wrote me relative to a program they
heard about that I believe the Army is involved in, making fuel
from leftovers, manure, and so forth and so on. In fact, the man
 145

it who wrote me said some time in the rather immediate past was con
ducting an experiment using alcohol.
Have you done any work in that area ?
Dr. GREY. There has been some work done. I believe that the use
of mixtures of alcohol and hydrocargon , that is, conventional petro
1 leum derived fuels, has proved to be quite effective in automative
reciprocating engines. Up to as much assomething like 15or 20 per
cent ethyl alcohol in conventional gasolines does not introduce major
changes in engine capability. The possible use of ethanol and metha
nol is being examined in other segments of the Government at this
time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I think there are two fuels which can be made from
any vegetable product, sewage, that could serve as fuel. They are
methane and alcohol. If we once get methane or alcohol, it can be
synthesized into most any kind of hydrocarbon fuel without a lot
of trouble.
The basic problem with alcohol, and it is used conventionally in
many automobile race cars, is its Btu content. Its Btu content is
about 5,500 Btu per pound as compared to 18,400 for normal gaso
line. So it would take three times as much of it.
Second, alcohol is hygroscopic and it picks up water out of the
atmosphere, so we end up with a lot of water mixed in with the
alcohol which produces nothing. But certainly, alcohol as an inter
mediate product or a prime source of fuel is quite practical and
could be done. Its penalty in an automobile or truck or some such
thing as this would be much less than it would be in an aircraft
because it does not cost as much to haul the extra weight around.
Senator GOLDWATER. It would not require any changes in carbure
tion, would it ?
Mr. SIMPSON . Yes, sir. You would have to put in different jets,
but no basic change. I mean, bigger lines and a larger orifice in the
carburetion system .
Senator GOLDWATER. Well, we have General Cooksey with us from
the Army. Maybe he could drop a word on what they have been
doing.
Dr. Grey, I understand the Air Force is looking at potential ap
plications for nuclear aircraft propulsion but they believe that higher
temperature capability might be needed. Yet, you state that current
technology
that ?
is adequate for nuclear aircraft. Could you comment on
Dr. GREY. Yes, sir. I think this is a very important point. It is
one of the basic reasons that the previous ANP program ran into
such difficulty . That is, in general the tendency is to identify the best
possible performance that one might be able to predict and try to
develop hardware to meet that performance.
For example , it would be very nice to run nuclear airplane engines
at temperatures in the 1,600 ° or 1,700 ° ( F ) range, but it has been
fairly well demonstrated that we can run a very respectable nuclear
airplane in the 1,300 ° or 1,400° range , which is within the capability
of current technology. It would not be as good an airplane, but it
would be developed a lot faster and with a lot less effort than if we
try to advance our goals too rapidly in a new technology.
 146

What I am suggesting here is that even in an advanced field like

nuclear propulsion, small steps can be sometimes more effective than BI
trying to make giant steps. În effect, today's technology, that is, re
actors which would generate air temperatures in the 1,200° to 1,400°
(F ) range, would be perfectly acceptable for powering subsonic air
planes of good size.
Senator GOLDWATER. Of course, if you can improve on our knowl
edge ofmetalyou can get into those higher temperatures?
Dr. GREY. Oh, yes. There is no question that ultimately high tem 1
perature development is always an improvement. We are doing the
same thing in our conventionally -fueled turbojets today. As we go to
higher temperatures the performance goesup, but if we try togo to
higher temperature engines too early in the game, or as a primary Drift
Lanare.
goal, we might postpone indefinitely the development of a viable,
safe, and economically useful engine. SE
Senator GOLDWATER. What would you envision as a possible sched
ule for the development of a nuclear aircraft and what size aircraft
would this be andagain, what is your guess as to the cost to develop?
Dr. GREY. These are questions whose answers I can only offer as igen
guesses, since there is, as you know, no current program in nuclear
propulsion of aircraft! ban
to
During the next decade, I see nothing more than a technology release
program . I think the implementation of a development effort any AL
sooner than perhaps 8 to 10 years from now might tend to prejudice
the ultimate development of a viable nuclear airplane. The safety
questions have to be answered very extensively by elaborate ground
testing, including exhaustive subsystem and component evaluation,
long before an engine configuration is established. Thus, since we
should not even begin the development program until well into the
next decade, it would be very close to the end of the century before Thri
we would flight test a nuclear airplane. Costwise, I would foresee
something of thesame magnitude of the ANP program : That is, on
the order of $ 1 billion over perhaps a 20- or 25 -year period. The
cost of the initial technology program , however, shouldn't amount to
more than a few million dollars a year.
Senator GOLDWATER. From your colleagues around the world do
you have much information as to the activity of the other countries
inDr.
this nuclear field ?
GREY. To my knowledge, there are no active programs any.
where in the world on nuclear propelled aircraft. People are draw
ing pictures and doing preliminary designs of large airplanes and BE
there are even some program projections for development of nuclear
aircraft, but to my knowledge, there is no real systems analysis or
experimental work being conducted.
Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much, Dr. Grey and Mr.
Simpson. It has been a pleasure having you here. It has been a very
interesting presentation and you lived up to your reputation.
Dr. GREY . Thank you very much .
Senator GOLDWATER. Our next witness will be Mr. Oscar Bakke.
formerly Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, FAA, who
will discuss the impact of market factors on advanced aeronautical
technology systems.
 147

[ The biography of Mr. Bakke follows:]

BIOGRAPHY OF OSCAR BAKKE, FORMER ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AVIATION SAFETY, FAA
Mr. Oscar Bakke is a veteran of 27 years with the FAA and the Civil
Aeronautics Board. On January 6, 1974 Mr. Bakke was appointed Associate
Administrator for Aviation Safety in the FAA . In this position he was responsible
for aviation safety procedures, aircraft airworthiness, airmen training and certi
fication ( including medical certification ), airport safety and security, flight in
spection of navigation aids, and safety rulemaking. Mr. Bakke retired on June 28,
1974.
Prior to his last position in FAA , Mr. Bakke was in charge ofFAA's European,
African and Middle East region , headquartered in Brussels, Belgium . Mr. Bakke
was appointed to the Brussels post in 1971 and was responsible for the FAA pro
grams inEurope, Africa and the Middle East including the certification of foreign
aircraft intended for sale in the United States ( such as the Concorde. Airbus,
Mercure. Falcon, VFW 614, Corvette, etc. ) , the flight calibration of U.S. radars
and navigation aids installed abroad, the regulation of U.S. air carriers and
private operators outside the United States, the promotion of U.S. technology
and the gathering of aviation intelligence.
Prior to his overseas assignment, he was the Federal Aviation Admin
istration's first Associate Administrator for Plans heading a group within
FAA assigned to develop a blueprint for a comprehensive program to enable
the agency to meet the projected demands of aviation growth for the follow
ing decade and beyond.
In August 1961 he was named Director of the FAA's Eastern Region in
which capacity he was responsible for the agency's operating programs in 15
northeastern states. His appointment as Regional Director followed the an
nouncement of an agency decentralization plan which broadened the execu
tive authority of regional directors and improved general FAA management.
Bakke was selected to develop a prototype decentralization program in the
Eastern Region which subsequently was adopted as a model for other regions.
A veteran pilot with experience both in the military and civil aviation,
Bakke joined FAA in February 1960 as Director of the agency's Bureau of
Flight Standards. Before joining the FAA, Bakke served 14 years with the
Civil Aeronautics Board. He was Director of the CAB's Bureau of Safety
from 1956 to 1960.
During Bakke's 27 years of professional experience in aviation, he served
many times as representative and chairman of U.S. delegations to the Inter
national Civil Aviation Organization ( ICAO ).
Formerly a command pilot in the Air Force Reserve, Bakke is author of
several Air Force manuals and publications on instrument fying and radio
navigation. He is currently a Technical Adviser to the Radio Technical
Commission for Aeronautics and is a former Director at Large of the Ameri
can Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Born in Bergen, Norway, Bakke attended Brooklyn Technical High School
and Wagner College on Staten Island, where he received his B.A. degree in
1941. Later, while attending Brooklyn Law School, he was called to active
duty with the Army Air Corps. He was discharged as a major in 1946 after
serving as a pilot instructor in the Training Command and as an air navi
gation specialist on the Air Corps Instrument Flying Standardization Board.
Bakke is married to the former Astrid Josephsen. Mr. and Mrs. Bakke
are the parents of four sons.

STATEMENT OF OSCAR BAKKE, FORMERLY ASSOCIATE

ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY, FAA
Senator GOLDWATER. You may proceed with your prepared text or
we will make it part of the record and you can go any way you want .
Mr. BAKKE. All right, sir. I regret I have no prepared text to
submit to the committee but I think I can review my concerns to the
committee briefly and perhaps place some suggestions before you.
 146
II
What I am suggesting here is that even in an advanced field like
nuclear propulsion, small steps can be sometimes more effective than BI
trying to make giant steps. In effect, today's technology, that is, re
actors which would generate air temperatures in the 1,2009 to 1,400°
( F ) range, would be perfectly acceptable for powering subsonic air
planes of good size.
Senator GOLDWATER. Of course, if you can improve on our knowl
edge of metal you can get into those higher temperatures ? i verdien
Dr. GREY. Oh, yes. There is no question that ultimately high tem
perature development is always an improvement. We are doing the
same thing in our conventionally -fueled turbojets today. As we go to
higher temperatures the performance goes up , but if we try to go to
higher temperature engines too early in the game, or as a primary More
goal, we might postpone indefinitely the development of a viable,
safe, and economically useful engine.
Senator GOLDWATER. What would you envision as a possible sched
ule for the development of a nuclear aircraft and what size aircraft Prior
mation
would this be andagain, what is your guess as to the cost to develop?
Dr. GREY. These are questions whose answers I can only offer as
guesses, since there is, as you know , no current program in nuclear
propulsion of aircraft: In A1
picha na
During the next decade, I see nothing more than a technology
program . I think the implementation of a development effort any
sooner than perhaps 8 to 10 years from now might tend to prejudice
the ultimate development of a viable nuclear airplane. The safety
questions have to be answered very extensively by elaborate ground 11 rete
testing, including exhaustive subsystem and component evaluation,
long before an engine configuration is established. Thus, since we
should not even begin the development program until well into the
next decade, it would be very close to the end of the century before
we would flight test a nuclear airplane. Costwise, I would foresee
something of the same magnitude of the ANP program : That is, on
the order of $ 1 billion over perhaps a 20- or 25 -year period. The
cost of the initial technology program , however, shouldn't amount to
more than a few million dollars a year.
Senator GOLDWATER. From your colleagues around the world do
you have much information as to the activity of the other countries
in this nuclear field ?
Dr. GREY. To my knowledge, there are no active programs any
where in the world on nuclear propelled aircraft. People are draw
ing pictures and doing preliminary designs of large airplanes and
there are even some program projections for development of nuclear
aircraft, but to my knowledge, there is no real systems analysis or
experimental work being conducted.
Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much, Dr. Grey and Mr.
Simpson. It has been a pleasure having you here. It has been a very
interesting presentation and you lived up to your reputation.
Dr. GREY. Thank you very much.
Senator GOLDWATER. Our next witness will be Mr. Oscar Bakke.
formerly Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, FAA, who
will discuss the impact of market factors on advanced aeronautical
technology systems.
 147

[ The biography of Mr. Bakke follows :]

BIOGRAPHY OF OSCAR BAKKE, FORMER ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AVIATION SAFETY, FAA
Mr. Oscar Bakke is a veteran of 27 years with the FAA and the Civil
Aeronautics Board. On January 6, 1974 Mr. Bakke was appointed Associate
Administrator for Aviation Safety in the FAA. In this position he was responsible
for aviation safety procedures, aircraft airworthiness, airmen training and certi
fication ( including medical certification ), airport safety and security, fight in
spection of navigation aids, and safety rulemaking. Mr. Bakke retired on June 28,
1974.
Prior to his last position in FAA, Mr. Bakke was in charge of FAA's European,
African and Middle East region , headquartered in Brussels, Belgium . Mr. Bakke
was appointed to the Brussels post in 1971 and was responsible for the FAA pro
grams inEurope, Africa and the Middle East including the certification of foreign
aircraft intended for sale in the United States ( such as the Concorde. Airbus,
Mercure. Falcon, VFW 614, Corvette, etc. ) , the flight calibration of U.S. radars
and navigation aids installed abroad, the regulation of U.S, air carriers and
private operators outside the United States, the promotion of U.S. technology
and the gathering of aviation intelligence.
Prior to his overseas assignment, he was the Federal Aviation Admin
istration's first Associate Administrator for Plans heading a group within
FAA assigned to develop a blueprint for a comprehensive program to enable
the agency to meet the projected demands of aviation growth for the follow
ing decade and beyond.
In August 1961 he was named Director of the FAA's Eastern Region in
which capacity he was responsible for the agency's operating programs in 15
northeastern states. His appointment as Regional Director followed the an
nouncement of an agency decentralization plan which broadened the execu
tive authority of regional directors and improved general FAA management.
Bakke was selected to develop a prototype decentralization program in the
Eastern Region which subsequently was adopted as a model for other regions.
A veteran pilot with experience both in the military and civil aviation,
Bakke joined FAA in February 1960 as Director of the agency's Bureau of
Flight Standards. Before joining the FAA, Bakke served 14 years with the
Civil Aeronautics Board. He was Director of the CAB's Bureau of Safety
from 1956 to 1960.
During Bakke's 27 years of professional experience in aviation, he served
many times as representative and chairman of U.S. delegations to the Inter
national Civil Aviation Organization ( ICAO ) .
Formerly a command pilot in the Air Force Reserve, Bakke is author of
several Air Force manuals and publications on instrument flying and radio
navigation. He is currently a Technical Adviser to the Radio Technical
Commission for Aeronautics and is a former Director at Large of the Ameri
can Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Born inBergen ,Norway, BakkeattendedBrooklyn Technical High School
and Wagner College on Staten Island, where he received his B.A. degree in
1941. Later, while attending Brooklyn Law School, he was called to active
duty with the Army Air Corps. He was discharged as a major in 1946 after
serving as a pilot instructor in the Training Command and as an air navi
gation specialist on the Air Corps Instrument Flying Standardization Board.
Bakke is married to the former Astrid Josephsen. Mr. and Mrs. Bakke
are the parents of four sons.

STATEMENT OF OSCAR BAKKE, FORMERLY ASSOCIATE

ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY, FAA
Senator GOLDWATER. You may proceed with your prepared text or
we will make it part of the record and you can go any way you want.
Mr. BAKKE. All right, sir. I regret I have no prepared text to
submit to the committee but I think I can review my concerns to the
committee briefly and perhaps place some suggestions before you.
 148

I note, Mr. Chairman, at least two remarks among the previous

testimony and your questions concerning the testimony which has
been submitted which I thought were rather relevant to the views
that I would like to propound. One was your reference to warped Ethe
priorities within the Congress and the other had to do with Dr.
Grey's references to the need for small steps. As a matter of fact,
these go to the heart of the principles that I would like to suggest
to thecommittee, the first being that we have to a very considerable
extent compromised the effectiveness of our technology development
programs within the United States by reason of the fact that we
have failed to take the governmental actions necessary to insure
access to aeronautical markets and, by reason of that fact, much Tri
essential development, particularly with respect to aircraft develop
ment, has not taken place.
Second, we have been altogether too mesmerized with the need for
comprehensive systems developments. In the light of the Apollo pro

融
gram it has appeared demeaning to take small incremental steps in
technology improvement. I agree totally with Dr. Grey that we
should reconsider some of our technology development programs in
this light. ned
I believe that it is the responsibility of this committee to insure The
not only that specific ad hoc technology development projects are
undertaken in the United States but that there also exists a system
which insures that the total capability of the United States, includ
ing the private sector, is directed toward technology development
and not be confined to Government-sponsored programs. The na
tional policy which is to be adopted, in which thiscommittee will Lolo
doubtless have a very important role in the priorities to be estab
lished, must be considered in the light of how such policies may de ca

impinge on the role of transportation and the access to transporta

tion markets. Accordingly, I would suggest that a few thoughts are ཞུ །
necessary as a backdrop to the further consideration of this
committee.
We have had opportunity to review in the recent past the possible
contribution of aviation to the increased efficiencies of our urban h19
centers.We have been examining the role of transportation in achiev,
ing higher orders of efficiencies in our major cities. We have played
with the thought that, if aviation could gain access to our city cen
ters, there is another order of contribution that could be made in the
increase of the commercial and industrial efficiency of those cities.
Several efforts have been made but I would like to refer to just a
couple of them as illustrative of the problem we have encountered.
At the foot of the World Trade Center in New York there lies a
strip of new real estate which was created by the Port of New York
Authority by landfill which represents approximately 100 acres of
property, a strip about 900 feet wide, almost 2,000 feet in length.
In anticipation of the availability of this strip, we sought its use
at least on a temporary basis for STOL access to the financial dis
trict of Manhattan. I know that time does not permit a detailed ex
ploration of its advantages and disadvantages but I would like merely
to summarize and would be happy to add to the record further if the
committee so desires.
 149

PASTA
hich
Particularly among the operators of small less sophisticated air
craft, therebasis
was unanimous
by existingsupport
aircraft for
on athe use of this strip
le te temporary nonsubsidy basis, theonusea
Wang of which could begin immediately.
vith
oft
Allofofthe
were theview
operators who were consulted
that immediately during thisofexamination
upon the beginning such opera
tion, the air carriers concerned would be caught up in the normal
idera cost escalation process and would need relief through what has
lop throughout the history of aviation been a normal incremental de
that1 velopment of productivity . They would look for the next generation
‫מאמן‬
of aircraft. The first operation would have involved something liko
the Twin Otter, dash 300 series. It would have been a 19 -passenger
lerela aircraft. Within 3 years they suggested it would be necessary to con
sider an aircraft possibly doublethat size. Perhaps within the next 7
eelt years an aircraft double that size again. So that over the next 15
lope years there would be perhaps four orfive developmental increments
teps: which would bring us ultimately to the optimum sized aircraft for
lat that market. Were such incremental development possible, the car
amsa riers were confident that such operation could be conducted without
the need for Federal subsidy.
INSIR The fact is, however, the decision was made not to allow the use
its de of this property for that purpose. That property has now lain vacant
388te.r except for the storage of construction materials and building equip
aclia ment, for the last 4 or 5 years. It could have been used for a far
more essential purpose. The decision, however, not to permit its use
ne na: for such purposes was largely political. Aviation within the city
੪॥ represented a high political risk program. There were too many anti
stab technologists, too many environmentalists and others, without ade
mar quate cause I should say, who were in opposition to the program .
porta There was also a bit of deal-making which stipulated that there
SAN should be no major urban development which does not include a
thi substantial portion of that development as low cost housing. In
other words, it is in effect an effort to preserve a kind of political
3106 status quo by containment of a welfare constituency.
hen In 1967 we persuaded the city of New York to publish a request
jer- for proposals for an economic and engineering feasibility study of
red a huge multifunctional structure to be built on Manhattan Island
over the present dilapidated piers centered approximately at 34th
the Street. This undertaking was to integrate steel wheeled, rubber tired ,
water borne and air vehicle (VTOL and STOL ) terminal facilities
ta within the structure and to exploit this tremendous concentration of
ed transportation by including more than 15 million square feet of
salable commercial and industrial space. Although nine excellent pro
posals were submitted in response to the RFP, and although the
Federal Government offered to fund half the cost of the studies, the
mayor decided to abandon the investigation when communities in
the vicinity of the site protested the impact such a development
would have upon existing patterns of land use.
When you spoke of inverted priorities, Mr. Chairman, I recalled
particularly as a result of visits last week to the city of Newark .
the self-defeating impact of programs that have been purely socially
 150

motivated, that have sought to restructure our major cities to achieve

social objectives only - housing, education, health care , cultural pur
poses have been sought. Anyone who has the opportunity to visit
some of the projects in the city of Newark that have been accom
plished within the last decade, I think will agree that they have
miserably failed to accomplish their purpose. We have neglected to
focus onthe proposition that a city needs economic reason for exist
ence and that, unless that reason for existence continues, the possi MIN

bility of generating and distributing wealth, of creating jobs and of

making meaningful participation in the economic life of the Nation
will not be permitted toitsoccupants. Obviously, transportation has
a vital role to play in insuringthe economic efficiency of the city. od ot
And the final step of the process is that, were transportation given
an opportunity to participate in insuring the continued efficiency of
the city, the possibilities of an incremental development of aircraft
technology by the private sector would have been enhanced.
Several aircraft manufacturers had given us assurance during the
mid-sixties that, were access to the city of New York guaranteed, Mina
NON
they would begin immediately the development of a prototype
VSTOL aircraft for such service. In a couple of cases we had assur
ances that production of such an aircraft would be initiated imme
diately upon access to a major urban market. However, although we
have attempted such access in at least a dozen cities of the United
States, we have met with little success, not for lack of economic
justification or because of technological deficiencies but simply be
cause governmental decision making and action were not forthcoming.
There is an ironic twist to this fact because, as you will recall, Mr.
Chairman, the basic strategy which underlay the development of the mate
Airport Airways Development Act of 1970 was to create a fund
of money to be available at the Federal level and a system of distri
bution which would in effect increase the bargaining power of the "? ТО
Federal negotiators for the development of air transportation sys. cimo
tems. While there may very well be great merit in the objectives of
special revenue-sharing in other programs, it is especially inappropri am
ate to air commerce. EN
I would suggest to you that the most important single force which
shapes transportation systems in the United States is the control of
land use. The control of land use in the United States is typically
exercised by our smallest political jurisdictions. The smallest politi 91
cal jurisdictions are typically motivated primarily by the preserva
tion or the extension of the community. Anything which constitutes
a threat to the community, will as a matter of natural course be re
jected by local government, however great the regional or national
needs may be. Accordingly, some kind of balance to insure that the
regional and national requirements for transportation are met is
essential.
The Airport Airways Development Act was intended to provide
a better balance. The seeking of that balance, Mr. Chairman, has
not been one of the principal objectives in the use of the new Fed
ral powers under the Airport Airways Development Act.
I would suggest to you that this committee might very well con
sider that development of new aviation technology is of and by itself
 151

lachi
a fruitless effort unless provision is made in government to insure
that that new technology does in fact result in access to essential
markets. And in the process of doing that, I would suggest to you
i 2012
as well that a far more effective solution can be developed for the
er hr ills of our major metropolitan areas. There are numerous persons and
ected: organizations outside Government who are capable of making signifi
IT EIN cant contributions to aviation technology development it is by no
e mais means primarily a governmental mission . The opening of transporta
; and tion market is a completely different situation, however it can
only be accomplished through governmental action. Unless Govern
2011
ment is prepared to carry out its responsibilities in land use control
he
and other related jurisdictional areas, no amount of technology de
velopment will suffice.
ENTI That in general, Mr. Chairman, is the thesis that I would like to
BIMONI
lay before you. Now or at some other convenient opportunity, I
would be delighted to pursue it further should the committee find
ringi it of interest.
Senator GOLDWATER. I want to thank you very much for that very
oto:
OA "
interesting approach. This is a major problem for those of us in the
Congress who realize the importance of research and development.
We are divided in this Congress. We have those who feel that
ugh Federal money creates jobs. It does not. The only progress we make
Unita in this country is when the Government works hand in hand with
ONOL ! industry and the academics to create new tools and new items. This
ophe may sound strange coming from one who is supposed to be a bad
Om old conservative, but I realize that the time has long been with us
12.12
when real research and development cannot be engaged in by the
of the private sector alone.
fuori I am thinking, for example, of the SST, and had Boeing under
istri taken to do that,I think it would have required four times its corpo
of rate worth. So the Federal Government has to, I think, assume more
7 STE and more of the role on a pay-back basis. If we can do that, we will
ras get the research and development going.
ont I am afraid we have lagged. We are trying to cut the military
R. & D.every year. I do not think that is wise. We are not develop
ing new items as fast as I would like to see them developed, al
lo though I suppose we can say we lead the world in technological
ally developments, electronic developments, and so forth.
lit So I appreciate very much what you have said. We have no ques
TA tions to ask you because we did not have a prepared text and that is
DIE the only way we can sneak up on you.
Anything you would like to enlarge on, add anything to it, you
can us . your papers
withsend in at any time. I want to thank you for being
Mr. BAKKE. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator GOLDWATER . Our next witness will be Maj . Gen. Howard
Cooksey, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and
Acquisition, U.S. Army, and with him will be Paul Yaggy, Di
rector of Research, Development and Engineering, U.S. Army Avia
tion Systems Command .
[ The biographies of General Cooksey and Mr. Yaggy follow :]
 152

BIOGRAPHY OF MAJ . GEN. HOWARD H. COORSEY, USA

Howard H. Cooksey was born in Brentsville, Virginia, on 21 June 1921,
graduated from Manassas High School, Manassas, Virginia, in June 1939
and from Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia in 1943.
He began his military career when he graduated from Officers Candidate
School, Fort Benning, Georgia , in July 1943 and later attended the Armor
School at Fort Knox, Kentucky.
His service includes a tour with the 158th Regimental Combat Team dur
ing the Northern Philippines and Luzon campaigns in World War II ; here
he was awarded the Bronze Star, Combat Infantry Man's Badge and the
Purple Heart.
During the Korean War, he served with the 7th Infantry ( Hour Glass )
Division , earning two Oak Leaf Clusters to the Bronze Star and a second
award of the Combat Infantry Man's Badge.
He served as Deputy Commander, 2d Battle Group, 6th Infantry Regiment,
in Berlin , in 1961-1962, and later commanded the First Brigade, 2d Infantry
Division, in Korea , in 1966-1967.
Returning from the war in 1945, he held a number of administrative and
command positions before being assigned as Assistant Professor, Military
Science and Tactics at Drexel Institute, Philadelphia , Pennsylvania, in 1949
1951.
From 1954 to 1958, he was assigned as a staff officer with the Office, Chief
of Research and Development, in Washington , D.C. , before attending the
Armed Forces Staff College in 1958 .
From 1959 to 1961, he served with Headquarters, United States European
Command, in the Joint Secretariat.
He attended the National War College in Washington , D.C., in 1962-1963
and following graduation became Deputy Chief, Combat Materiel Division,
Office Chief of Research and Development, Department of the Army. In
February 1965, he became Chief of the Combat Materiel Division, and later
in 1965 he was assigned as Executive to the Chief of Research and De
velopment prior to being assigned as Commander, 1st Brigade, 2d Infantry
Division in Korea .
From September 1967 to May 1968, he served as Director of Personnel
(J1 ) , US Strike Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.
In June 1968, General Cooksey was assigned as Assistant Division Com
mander, 23d Infantry Division ( Americal ) , Vietnam, a position which he
held until May 1969, when he became Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Op
erations, US Army, Vietnam. In April 1969, he was awarded the Silver Star,
and prior to his departure from Vietnam he received the Distinguished Serv
ice Medal.
He returned toCONUS in December 1969 and on 10 January 1970_assumed
command of the US Army Training Center, Infantry, and Fort Dix, Fort Dix,
New Jersey. He held this position until 5 May 1972 when he returned to
Da Nang, Vietnam , to assume command of the First Regional Assistance
Command, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam , on 30 May
1972.
General Cooksey departed his headquarters in Da Nang on 25 January
1973 to assume additional duties as Acting Chief of Staff, United States
Military Assistance Command, Vietnam , during the period following the sign
ing of the Vietnam Cease -Fire Accords. On 28 March 1973, he moved to
Nakhon Phanom , Thailand, and became the Deputy Commander, United
States Support Activities Group /7th Air Force.
General Cooksey was assigned as Deputy Chief of Research and Develop
ment, Department of the rmy, on 2 November 1973. He is presently serving
as Acting Chief of Research, Development and Acquisition.

BIOGRAPHY OF PAUL F. YAGGY, U.S. ARMY AIR MOBILITY RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, MOFFETT FIELD, CALIF.
Paul Francis Yaggy was born in Detroit, Michigan, on 4 August 1923. His
high school years were spent at Vermilion High School, Vermilion, Ohio, and
at Dover High School in Dover, New Jersey, where he was graduated in
 153

1941. He received his college education at Taylor University, Upland, Indiana,

the University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana, and San Jose State
College, San Jose, California , where he was graduated with distinction ( honors
in engineering ) with a BSEE. Mr. Yaggy has pursued graduate study at
243 Stanford University, Stanford , California, since 1967.
From 1943-1946, Mr. Yaggy was on active duty with the U.S. Navy. Follow
ne ing an intensive college training program in aeronautical engineering from
which he was graduated in 1944 , he was assigned as an Aircraft Maintenance
eam i Officer, serving one year in a special detachment at the Ames Aeronautical
II: E Laboratory of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics at Moffett
and : Field, California, doing wind tunnel research on various World War II air
craft at high subsonic speeds. He was released to inactive duty in the fall
of 1946.
From October 1946 to July 1951, he held a succession of engineering posi
tions as a civilian employee of the National Advisory Committee for Aero
Regine nautics at Moffett Field , California .
Infar Recalled to active duty with the U.S. Navy during the Korean conflict
in 1951, Mr. Yaggy supervised the maintenance of a squadron of ASW air
tive craft in addition to serving as chairman of all aircraft accident boards for
Militer the squadron.
Following his return to civilian status in November 1952 , he returned to
the NACA at Moffett Field, California, as a research scientist. He has at
tained local and national recognition in the specific phases of V/STOL air
craft related to rotors, propellers, and ducted fans, and has served as a
consultant to industry, the Armed Forces, and other NACA Centers. With the
redesignation of the NACA to Ames Research Center, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Mr. Yaggy's increased responsibilities included re
searchon recovery systemsfor spacecraft and lifting body reentry vehicles.
Dirija In 1965 he was appointed Technical Director of the U.S. Army Aeronautical
rm5 li Research Laboratory at Ames. He served in this capacity from the date of
ad later its establishment until his assignment in 1970 as Director of the Army Air
od Mobility Research and Development Laboratory complex established that year,
nfant Mr. Yaggy is an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics. He has served on Technical Committees of the Institute of
TSONDE Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and the
American Helicopter Society. He serves on the Board of Directors of the
Com American HelicopterSociety as a Director-at-Large, and received the Society's
ich 1972 Dr. Alexander Klemin Award presented for "notable achievement in the
ndo advancement of rotary -wing aeronautics”. Mr. Yaggy is currently Deputy
Chairman of the Fluid Dynamics Panel of the Advisory Group for Aerospace
Research and Development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, hav
ing served on this Panel in various capacities in recent years . He has served
umes on the NASA Advisory Subcommittee for Aircraft Aerodynamics. He is the
DI author, or co -author, of numerous published technical papers. As an Assistant
ed
Professor at San Jose State College, Mr. Yaggy has also taught engineering
courses. He has been a guest lecturer at the von Karman Institute in Brussels,
Belgium, the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, England, and at Stanford
University in Stanford, California .
INT
atet STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN . HOWARD H. COOKSEY, ACTING CHIEF
16
OF RESEARCH , DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION , U.S. ARMY,
ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL F. YAGGY, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH ,
DEVELOPMENT, AND ENGINEERING , U.S. ARMY AVIATION SYS
TEMS COMMAND

Senator GOLDWATER. General, you may proceed as you desire. We

can make your formal presentation a part of the record and you can
take off any way you want.
General COOKSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We have, as you know , submitted material for the record. We
would like to talk about that shortly, not cover the entire thing.
 154

We feel we do have a very dynamic technology program . Wehave

selected three flight concepts and one propulsion concept which we
feel are representative of our program and we would like to discuss
those with you.
Mr. Paul Yaggy, as you have said, is the director of our research,
development, and engineering laboratories at the Aviation Systems
Command. He will make our presentation. Mr. Yaggy .
Mr. Yaggy. Senator, with your permission, I would like to make
my presentation standing, addressing the vugraphs.
Senator GOLDWATER. Go right ahead. We can turn the lights down.
Mr. Yaggy. Senator, as I am sure you are aware, in the past
decade the Army has found a significantly increased use for air
craft and particularly those which provide VTOL capability. This
capability , in our interpretation, is manifested primarily in the
rotary wing type aircraft. We have pursued these areas of tech
nology, in advance of requirements which we envision in the future
because we have found ourselves in excess of the state of the art of
the technology which we have available to us. We have attempted to
demonstrate our foresight in that regard because we realize that
there is no justification for us to enter knowledgeably into produc
tion of the technology which has not had significant reduction in
risk . Therefore, ourgoals are set in that fashion .
This next slide ( fig. 1 ) indicates the goals that we have selected.
First, we look at the matter of cost. This may sound rather
strange for a technologist but it is extremely important to us that
Alus

ARMY_AVIATION GOALS

DECREASE SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE COSTS

IMPROVE AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND MANEUVERABILITY
INCREASE SAFETY AND SURVIVABILITY WITH REDUCED VULNERABILITY
IMPROVE AIRCRAFT DYNAMICS /STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTS WITH INCREASED
RELIABILITY
Page
183
Line
19

FIGURE 1
 155

we do stay within limits which we can afford . That means not just
the acquisition cost but the life cycle cost as well. We attempt to
provide, then, improved aircraft performance and maneuverability
which is so important to our mission because so much of it is in the
nap of the earth and at low level,
În addition to that, because of these types of operations, we also
have the need for safety and survivability and reduction in vulnera
bility, but all of these potentials would be of very little worth if
it were not that we had an aircraft which has dynamic and structural
characteristics commensurate with increased reliability. So our time
is limited.
We have chosen to show these four areas. We pursue these both
in -house and by contracts, by international and national efforts. We
pursue it jointly with our sister services, the Air Force and Navy,
and through our unique arrangements for joint participation with
NASA.
We use, of course, the customary facilities such as wind tunnels,
flight simulators and computational analysis which are characteristic
of our area.
The scope of my presentation is indicated on this slide ( fig. 2 ) .
We will deal with these four which General Cooksey has already
mentioned , three of them are demonstrators and one is an engine
program . These will give you the spirit and character of our efforts.
Obviously, the program is much too broad to encompass in any
other manner of presentation.

SCOPE

AIRCRAFT SYSTEM DEMONSTRATORS

ADVANCING BLADE CONCEPT ( ABC )
ROTOR SYSTEM RESEARCH AIRCRAFT (RSRA )
TILT ROTOR AIR VEHICLE

ENGINES
• SMALL TURBINE ENGINE GAS GENERATOR (STAGG )
Page
Line
184
17

FIGURE 2

38-266 O - 74 - 11
 156

First, I would like to address the concept known as the Advancing

Blades Concept ( fig. 3 ) . This concept is one which uses a counter

294

U.S.ARMY

Page
184
Line
23
FIGURE 3
rotating hingeless rotor such as you see here. It is constructed with a
titanium spar blade which hasa fiberglass cover and along withthe
other characteristics of this vehicle tends to reduce its vulnerability
and increase its survivability, providing additional safety. The tail
rotor characteristically found on conventional helicopters is elimi
nated . This is accomplished by controlling, differentially, the rotors
to give directional control.
Most unique about this vehicle is its capability for providing lift,
and that I will discuss in just a moment.
The next slide ( fig. 4, p. 157 ) indicates some of the characteristics
and objectives of this program : increased safety through the elimi
nation of the tail rotor and reduced acquisition and maintenance
costs . We are interested in the ABC's high speed potential capability.
Senator GOLDWATER. Is Sikorsky building this for you ?
Mr. Y AGGY. Yes, sir.
Senator GOLDWATER. I saw this model out there last year.
Mr. Yaggy. All right, sir, since you are somewhat familiar, I will
shorten my presentation.
Senator GOLDWATER. Do not do that.
Mr. Yaggy. We do have high speed capability in this vehicle
up to 300 knots which is a capability not inherent in rotor systems
in general. We have reduced maintenance, as I mentioned , but more
than that we provide good maneuverability. This maneuverability
comes from the rotor system I will describe in a moment, and also
 157

ABC POTENTIAL
ADVANTAGES

TAIL ROTOR ELIMINATED

O HIGH SPEED CAPABILITY WITH AUXILIARY THRUST

( 300 knots )

O REDUCED MAINTENANCE

O GOOD MANEUVERABILITY

O SMALL ROTOR DIAMETER

Page
Line
1859
FIGURE 4

ABC
200 knots
.

1200 lb 1200 lb

LADVANCIN
TADVANCING BLADE

ADVANCING OLADE

ADVANCING BLADE FULLY USED

LIFTS 12001. NOT 13316
Line
Page
1866

FIGURE 5
 156

First, I would like to address the concept known as the Advancing

Blades Concept ( fig. 3 ) . This concept is one which uses a counter

125
23

U.S.ARMY

Page
184
Line
23
FIGURE 3

rotating hingeless rotor such as you see here. It is constructed with a

titanium spar blade which has a fiberglass cover anditsalong with the
other characteristics of this vehicle tends to reduce vulnerability
and increase its survivability ,providing additional safety. The tail
rotor characteristically found on conventional helicopters is elimi
nated. This is accomplished by controlling, differentially, the rotors
to give directional control.
Most unique about this vehicle is its capability for providing lift,
and that I will discuss in just a moment.
The next slide ( fig. 4, p. 157) indicates some of the characteristics
and objectives ofthis program : increased safety through the elimi
nation of the tail rotor and reduced acquisition and maintenance
costs.We are interested in the ABC's high speedpotential capability.
Senator GOLDWATER. Is Sikorsky building this for you !
Mr. YAGGY. Yes, sir.
Senator GOLDWATER. I saw this model out there last year.
Mr. Yaggy. All right, sir, since you are somewhat familiar, I will
shorten my presentation.
SenatorGOLDWATER. Do not do that.
Mr. Yaggy. We do have high speed capability in this vehicle
up to 300 knots which is a capability not inherent in rotor systems
in general. We have reduced maintenance, as I mentioned, but more
than that we provide good maneuverability. This maneuverability
comes from the rotor system I will describe in a moment, and also
 157

ABC POTENTIAL
ADVANTAGES

TAIL ROTOR ELIMINATED

O HIGH SPEED CAPABILITY WITH AUXILIARY THRUST

( 300 knots )

O REDUCED MAINTENANCE

GOOD MANEUVERABILITY

O SMALL ROTOR DIAMETER

FIGURE 4 Line
Page
1859

ABC
200 knots

1200 lb 1200 lb

DVANCI
ADVANCING BLADE

ADVANCING BLADE

ADVANCING BLADE FULLY USED

LIFTS 1200 ID NOT 1330
Page
Line
1866

FIGU 5
 158

we have a smaller rotor diameter because of the counter-rotating

characteristics and by removing the tail rotor we are able to get
into smaller areas, which is very important in the Army's missions.
The next slide (fig. 5, p. 157 ) indicates the significant character
istics of this vehicle. Customarily , in a single rotor vehicle, the re
treating blades, that is this blade which is moving away from the
oncoming airstream , suffers stalling and consequently cannot carry
its share of the lift. Therefore, in order to maintain balance on the
vehicle the advancing blade must also reduce its lift carrying capa
bility and at 200 knots, as noted at the bottom of the slide, a
conventional helicopter can only carry 133 pounds on each of the
rotor systems compared with 1,200 pounds for the ABC . Therefore,
in order to get the high speed from compounding rather than
putting a lifting surface on this vehicle it is possible for us to simply
compound for thrust and carry the lift continuously on therotor
itself. Because of the ability of the rotor itself to carry offset loads,
with each stage cancelling the other, we are able to maintain signifi
cant lift during maneuver, thus increasing agility and controllability,
whether in hover
Senator GOLDWATER. Those are counter -rotating?
Mr. Yaggy. Yes, sir. I will set it right here so you can see it.
Senator GOLDWATER. In the maneuvering, does the rudder act as
efficiently as the tail rotor would operate in a turn ?
Mr. YAGGY. Sir, at higher speed flights, the tail surfaces become
as effective as they would in the fixed wing aircraft. In hover mode
we get the same type of control as we do in ordinary helicopter ap
plications, except we get the differential control of the two stages
so there is a resulting torque applied to the vehicle because of the
torque that is applied on each stage.
Senator GOLDWATER. That comes from the rudder pedals ?
Mr. YAGGY. Yes, sir. Interconnected and phased out depending
on the cruise speed.
Senator GOLDWATER. And the control of the aircraft would be the
same ason a conventional helicopter.
Mr. Yaggy. Yes, sir. The pilot is not aware that he had anything
different than he had before .
Senator GOLDWATER. Would the rigid rotor concept work ?
Mr. Yaggy. Sure. This is a rigid rotor. It is hingeless. It has no
flapping hinges and no lag hinges. It is a very stiff rotor. Conse
quently, that reduces the vulnerability; increases survivability. As I
indicated that is combining structural techniques with the
Senator GOLDWATER. I understand the rigid rotor is the most effi
cient rotor system but it does have a weakness in lateral movements,
quick lateralmovements. Do you have that in this aircraft ?
Mr. YAGGy. No, sir, we do not because of the control systems which
have been applied to it. We have had this aircraft only412 hours in
flight and I might mention to you that we did encounter a control
problem which could not have been foreseen . The first of these air
craft did suffer damages. Consequently, we have gone back and
looked now at the problems associated with it to a greater degree,
including advanced wind tunnel tests, which have been of benefit
not only to this effort but to our entire rotor technology program.
We now have resolved the problem and are about ready to go into
flight tests with the second vehicle. I wouldpoint out thatthis indi
 159

tota cates the viability of such a demonstrator as this. Had it been en

cumbered with aïl the sophisticated weaponry and avionic systems,
et cetera, in the pre-production program , the loss could have been
drastic.
thes Senator GOLDWATER. What was the nature of the problem ?
Tom : Mr. Yaggy. The vehicle pitched up and settled into the ground.
of Senator GOLDWATER. Pitched up from
2012 Mr. Yaggy. It was in 30 knot flight.
Senator GOLDWATER. What causes that ?
slid Mr. Yaggy. It is a peculiar interaction of the two rotors and the
iofi downwash from one impinging on the other, but it is a character
ceret istic that is inherent in single stage rotors as well , and this investi
er this gation has given usa new insightinto how to correct that and pro
gin vide greater capability in our single rotor aircraft as well.
le mit Senator GOLDWATER. I asked them about that last year and they
did not see any problems. I remember the contra -props that we
SIQUE tried near the end of World War II would not have a similar
labil: effect but did have a problem related to that.
Mr. YAGGY. Yes, sir. This program was documented and had
perhaps more wind tunnel investigation prior to its fabrication
it than any other program we have done. Despite that fact, anditis
act characteristic ofrotary wing problems, the situation which occurred
could not have been anticipated . Essentially , in rotary wing re
becue search and development we have completely exhausted the empirical
rmo approach used in the past and now we must have sophisticated in
ter formation to carry on the effort.
This slide ( fig. 6 ) indicates the increased capability in speed and
lift which generates from the ABC concept.

ndez THE FASTER ABC FLIES, THE GREATER ITS LFT

be the

this

251
ONLY ABC
til

LIFT
-CONVENTIONAL
HELICOPTER
Line
Page
189
21

SPEED

FIGURE 6
 160

42673

MASA
Y
ARM
EX

Line
Page
189
23
SIKORSKY ROTOR SYSTEM
RESEARCH AIRCRAFT

A Wresa

FIGURE 7

Next slide ( fig. 7) . The next system which I would like to ad

dress is known as the rotor systems research aircraft. This is a joint
program that we have with the NASA under our joint participat
ing agreement. It has resulted from an early joint participat
ing agreement . It has resulted from independent studies since the
early 1950's in the areas in which we have been looking for methods

ROTOR SYSTEMS RESEARCH AIRCRAFT PROJECT

OBJECTIVE

DEVELOP A GOVERNMENT FLIGHT RESEARCH VEHICLE WITH

SUFFICIENT VERSATILITY TO PROVIDE FOR ECONOMICAL

AND TIMELY ;

IN-FLIGHT VERIFICATION OF ROTORCRAFT METHODOLOGY

AND SUPPORTING TECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH ON PROMISING New ROTOR CONCEPTS
Page
Line
1907

FIGURE 8
 161

for demonstrating in flight the capabilities of rotor systems. And

in order to do this, we have to provide a testbed which has an
advanced capability beyond that which is available today.
The next slide ( fig. 8, p . 160 ) gives the objectives of the program
which are to come up with something we can use economically and
timely not only to verify methodology but with the ability to test
several rotor systems on it.
The next slide ( fig. 9 ) indicates some of the characteristics of the

RSRA

CONCEPT

ESCAPE SYSTEM PILOT /CREW SAFETY

DESTE
307 WING AND AUXILIARY PROPULSION INCREASED ROTOR SIZE TEST CAPABILITY
SIMULATION CAPABILITY
SAFETY OF ROTOR LOADS BUILDUP
TESTS OF UNLOADED ROTOR CONCEPTS

ELECTRO /MECHANICAL COMPUTER ADAPTABILITY TO VARIOUS ROTOR

CONTROLS REQUIREMENTS
ADVANCED CONTROL SYSTEM STUDIES
ito u
JOB ROTOR, WING , AND AUXILIARY HIGH QUALITY QUANTITATIVE DATA
tiene THRUST INSTRUMENTATION THEORY - MEASUREMENT CORRELATION
ticira VIBRATION ATTENUATION ADAPTABILITY FOR BROAD RANGE OF
Page
Line

ice
190

TEST ROTORS
11

ethods

FIGURE 9

production components used toreduce risk . Each of these components,

such as the thrust, engines, tail rotor or wing, are instrumented to be
measured independently , and consequently, we are able to get exactly
what we want, that is,the rotor characteristics. In addition, we can
change the attitude of the wing. Wehave dive brakes here so we can
loadthis rotor over itsfull capability as we would in a wind tunnel
but do it in flight. That is a coordinated effort which has never satis
factorily been accomplished. So we are going to do it in this vehicle.
These are some of the
Senator GOLDWATER. Before you go on, the Army has this coming
into the inventory .
Mr. Yaggy. Not this. This is a research vehicle. Only research .
This is not a production type contract.
Senator GOLDWATER. H - 3 ?
Mr. Yaggy. This uses H - 3 components for the purpose of reduc
ing risk in the systems other than those which we were trying to
address.
Senator GOLDWATER. I was out at Fort Rucker recently. I swear
I was briefed on this bird as a troop carrier.
 162

Mr. YAGGY. No, sir.

Senator GOLDWATER. It sure looks like it.
Mr. YAGGY. Perhaps you were briefed on our UTTAS.
Senator GOLDWATER. No. I know the UTTAS. I recall the H-3
and I though it was a
Mr. Yaggy. Do not let that confuse you. It only uses some of the
H - 3 components to avoid the risk that is involved in the system .
It is not the H - 3 aircraft ( fig. 10 ) . These are some of the rotor
ANY

7
TY

ADVANCED AERO / ACOUSTIC ROTOR VARIABLE GEOSIETRY ROTOR

TIP SHAPES Oh
COMPOSITE STRUCTURE ROTO

UNIDIRECTICAL
ADVANCED CARBO :! Eroxy
AIR FOILS
CONTROLLABLE TXIST
ROTOR
REVERSE VELOCITY ROTOR
V
V + R

-00 : 31 : E •
V - OR GEO1: 21... C
TI:157

CIRCULATION CONTROL ROTOR

VANELE DIESEL

Page
Line
191
BLOWING

15
VARIABLE ...
!
AIR SUPPLY

FIGURE 10

systems which could be candidates here, I point out to you the two
onthe lower left. Those are now being investigated by theNavy. We
have close coordination with them in the area. The next two going
around clockwise are specifically NASA programs and the otherthree
are Army programs and we are taking an interservice approach to
this .This will be a facility which can be used as a 10 -year, 50 hours
a year useful life.
Senator GOLDWATER. That variable diameter rotor, have you
gotten into that yet ?
Mr. Y AGGY. Yes, sir. And we have been working on that. We have
had contracts with Sikorsky. One of our problems has been the
drive mechanism for the extraction and retraction and we have not
solved that problem .
Senator GOLDWATER. How much can you vary the length ?
Mr. Yaggy. We reduce it by 40 percent.
Senator GOLDWATER . That would have the same effect as reducing
a fixed wing once you are in flight.
 163

Mr. Yaggy. Yes , sir. In this case it also has significant benefit to
the dynamics of the rotor system . It makes it a smaller and less
ther dynamically responsive system which is very important. It also
tends to reduce the problems we are working on, that is, the re
treating blades problem .
SISE
Next slide (fig. 11 ) . The most advanced system we have in use

TILT ROTOR RESEARCH AIRCRAFT

NASA /ARRY

Page
Line
192
13

FIGURE 11

at the present time is also a joint program with the NASA and
that is the tilt rotor concept represented by the XV – 3 in the fifties.
At that time we ran into problems we could not resolve. Because
,W॥ of the deliberate program between the agencies we have solved
goire those problems wherewe are now ready to demonstrate this con
thre
cept in flight. Its unique capability to tilt the rotors by which we
obtain the characteristics of the helicopter in hover and then are
70W able to convert to cruise flight with reduced vibratory loads and
all. The problems of the helicopter, the edgewise problem , we are
For solving by putting it into the normal propeller mode.
Senator GOLDWATER. It becomes a propeller in that mode with a
rotor.
ar
the Mr. YAGGY. Yes, sir.
009 Senator GOLDWATER. And lift value. Can you hover as a conven
tional helicopter using cyclic control or
Mr. Y AGGY . Yes, sir .
Senator GOLDWATER. [continuing] . Down wash.
Mr. Yaggy. Yes, sir, that is right. It operates just like a sideways
tandem helicopter in this mode and the controls on the rotor phase
 164

out as it transitions into forward flight. So it operates as a con

ventional propeller mode and you have the normal aircraft con
trol surfaces.
Senator GOLDWATER. Is there a difference in the RPM in the two
modes ?
Mr. Yaggy. Yes, sir. Down to 70 percent in the cruise mode of the
hover tip speed .
Senator GOLDWATER. How far along is this ?
Mr. Yaggy. This is coming up for critical design review very
shortly and will fly in 1976.
Senator GOLDWATER. Who is going to do it, do you know yet ?
Mr. Yaggy. Yes, sir. The Bell Helicopter Co. has the award.
Senator GOLDWATER. I have seen the one made in Canada with
the wing.
Mr. YAGGY. Canadair CL -84, yes, sir.
Senator GOLDWATER. Have you tested that ?
Mr. YAGGY. We have been involved in testing with NASA in
those areas and we have used the data and, of course, it all goes
back to the triservice program which I am sure you remember which
incorporated all of these concepts and resulted in the XC-142 which
was a variable tilt wing. The ĈL - 84 then came from that same area.
Senator GOLDWATER. That is a propeller mode throughout.
Mr. Yaggy. Yes, sir, and it has characteristic propellers. It has
the characteristics of the heavier disc loading ofpropellers rather
than the lighter disc loading which is characteristic of the tilt rotor.
This chart ( fig. 12 ) indicates, by the way, the first objective, is to
AR

TILT 10TOR PROGRAM

ELCOAL
DEVELOP TILT ROTOR TECHNOLOGY FOR APPLICATION TO DESIGN AND
OPERATION! 0 :- CIVIL AND MILITARY AHRCRAFT
1007 OF CONCEPT OBJECTIVES
VERIFY ROTONPYLON /WING DYNAMIC STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE
CVER ENTIRE OPERATIONAL ENVELOPE
O INITIALLY ASSESS HANDLING QUALITIES AND ESTABLISH SAFE
OPERATING ENVELOPE
O INVESTIGATE GUST SENSITIVITY
O INVESTIGATE EFFECTS OF DISC LOADING AND TIP SPEED ON DOWNWASH,
NOISE AND HOVER MODE OPERATIONS
• ADVANCED RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
O INVESTIGATE GUST & LOAD ALLEVIATION SYSTEMS, TERMINAL AREA
Page
Line

NAVIGUIDANCE REQUIREMENTS , ARMY MISSION SUITABILITY , ALTERNATE

194
11

03 ADVANCED ROTOR CONCEPTS, ETC.

FIGURE 12
 165

verify rotor / pylon wing dynamic stability and performance over the
entire operational envelope. By analysis and wind tunnel testing we
have confidence we haveresolved that problem and are able to deal
withsome problems such as sensitivity characteristics, assessing the
le olt handling problems and the other items you see there.
Senator GOLDWATER. What shaft horsepower are you going to get
on your first bird ?
IET E
Mr. Yaggy. The shaft horsepower is — Dick , do you remember ?
Senator GOLDWATER . 600 ?
ret! Mr. Yaggy. No, sir. I should know that but it does not come to
mind.
ward
adet
Senator GOLDWATER. You can provide the answer.
[ The information referred to above follows:
The first vehicle is powered by two vertical running T -53 - L13 engines,
each developing a takeoff power of 1,550 shaft horsepower and a normal rated
power of 1,250 shaft horsepower.
CASA:
all !
Mr. Yaggy. Yes, sir. The other item I want to call to your atten
er mac tion as far as the Army is concerned, is right down at the lower
right corner of the slide, Army mission suitability is our whole goal
ime an
here. This vehicle is not a prototype. It is for the purpose of
demonstrating technology. It has a long useful life. There are two
Ib vehicles being obtained and they can be used to look at both the
-3 matka civil and military missions.
ilt mot Next slide (fig. 13 ) . This indicates the comparison of the systems
ir,e et including the tilt wing which you mentioned which is the bottom one.

ND
SPEED 100 % 125% 175% 23 %
RATIO : * 1 1 }
1.5
HOVER

N
PTE
AVAILABLE **
CO
1.0
E LI
T HE T OR
TII ROTLT N'S
314
SH

001
?

TI WI
S
:-?

E
Giv
73

PUD
H
.
i

.5

REQUI :

0 ! 1 ! 1

C
Líne
Page

0 163 2 )
1959

V .:

* COW.1.016E
**LES : 0):11:34fiind

FIGURE 13
 166

The characteristics are shown here. This is the shaft horsepower at

a hover compared with the shaft horsepower at any condition at cruise
flights. These are normalized so they are not necessarily the same
power but it indicates the lower levels relative to the hover require
ments for these advanced cases which not only gives us better economy
but result in lower dynamic loading on the drive systems and conse
quently, longer life.
Next slide ( fig. 14 ) . Just a few other characteristics.
LS AR11
TO
?

NOISE COSPARISO
‫بابا با به‬ ‫ وما أنا يا‬N FOU ECUADET PAYLOAD AIRCRATI

REVLON

SINGLE ROTOR HELICOPTER TILT ROTOR

HOVER AT 500 ft DISTANCE 95 dB 95 dB

110 dB 65 CP
CRUISE FLIGHT AT 1000 ft DISTANCE
ROTOR BANG NO ROTORCG

DETECTION TIME IN CRUISE AT LOW ALTITUDE 30-60 sec 5-10 sec

Page
Line
195
18

FIGURE 14

There is no improvement in noise at a hover but significant reduc

tion in noise in cruise flight and this is especially important to us
in detectability.
Senator GOLDWATER. Wait just a minute before your next slide.
You get no rotor bang out of a tilt rotor ?
Mr. Yaggy. No, sir, because the bang comes out of the edgewise
advancing of the rotor system throughthe air. It is the interaction
at tip vortices with the preceeding rotor.
Senator GOLDWATER. They offset each other.
Mr. YAGGY. In this mode the inflow is such that there is no such
interaction .
Senator GOLDWATER. All right.
Mr. YAGGY. Next slide (fig . 15 , p . 167 ) . Also shown is vibration
environment. Of course, the time subjected to vibration is shorter
because of the higher speed but there is a very significant reduc
tion in vibrationwhich improves the reliability, reducing crew
fatigue. It makes for better gun platforms, because of the character
istics associated with it .
 167

ST
VIBRATION
LEVEL
CABIN

CURTMILICCPTER : 50 KTS
,g's
3
N

TILT ROTOR @ 300 KTS

TILT ROTOR : CONVERSION RE-CONVERSION

CRUISE
sti
t < 1 min LAND
HELICOPTER : | CRUISE
to

Page
Line
T.O. LAND

1965
0

FIGURE 15

ARY
T
O
Y
S

XV - 15
TILT ROTOR RESEARCH AIRCRAFT
Ees ON

CONVERSION CORRIDOR
egreERSI
d,ANGL
CONV
30

60
A

Line
Page

90
196

80 120 160 200 240 280

11

40
TRUE AIRSPEED , knots

FIGURE 16
1
168

Next slide ( fig. 16, p . 167). Most important perhaps is the tilting,
conversion corridor, which means the attitude of the rotor at any
given point. You can see it is at least 60 knots wide at any place.
This shows you can operate with great flexibility. You are not
transitioning in that mode. You can stop and go back. You can
operate with higher agility. Of course, the tilt rotor mode gives you
a better lifting component than the fixed wing mode. So for our
missions in the places where we need high agility, close to the
ground, evidence is
Senator GOLDWATER. You still have the ground effects ?
Mr. YAGGY. Yes, sir. It still has the same type of ground effect.
The only thing that is different is there is some downwash on the
lifting surface.
Next slide, please ( fig. 17 ) . This indicates the productivity com
AR )

TYPICAL. Ring CODICE

WHEN THE SAME ELICOPTER

PAYLOAD IS CALLED , I TILT ROTOR
24 % LESS FUEL IS
ana
xD105

‫باله‬
CONSUMED
the
SIZE
OPZ

31..2 .
hi
2

L.Z.
26 1.1.0.3
L.2..
Page
196

0
50 100 150
I ! Doile
Line
24

FIGURE 17

parison and you notice it is done two ways. This is payload carried
in any given12-hour period. There is an advantage there. But what
is even more critical today is that you can carry the same load in
that period of time with 24 percent less fuel. Since fuel is becoming
such a critical item there is a significant advantage to the system .
( Slide) ( fig. 18, p. 169) . The final item I would like to address
is the engine area. I am sure you are acquainted with the gas tur
bine engine slated for the Advanced Attack Helicopterand UTTAS.
It has resulted from a 1,500 SHP demonstrator program which we
 169

till
NEWS

ellt
- )
AGM
ON

her
)
W T

Page
line
1976
FIGURE 18

performed recently . It is the Army's responsibility to develop small

engine technology. That has been assigned to us by ODDRE. Based
on the success of this program and requirements for technology in
the sizeof from 1 to 5 pounds per second flow engines, which is
120 to 825 horsepower, we have embarked upon a program shown in
the next slide ( fig. 19 ) . The upper part shows the two contractors
STAGG CONFIGURATIONS

WILLIAMS AIRESEARCH
Page
Line

PRATT & WHITNEY LYCOMING

197
25

FIGURE 19
 170

selected, Williams and Airesearch for the 1 to 2 pound per second

category and lower, and the two contractors, Pratt and Whitney and
Lycoming, for from 3 to 5 pounds per second. These programs are
currentlyunderway in a 4-year effort and are being carried out. The
next slide ( fig. 20 ) indicates the benefits we are hoping to achieve. By
ARMY
FO
10T
R

STAGG ENGINE - FAMILY - OBJECTIVES

1. DEMONSTRATE ( INTEGRATED) ADVANCED COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY

2. DEMONSTRATE CAPABILITY OF A SPECIFIC COMPONENT , WHILE

MAKING OTHER TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS

3. TO PURSUE ADVANCED COMPONENT /SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY

INTEGRATION / DEMONSTRATION IN REAL ENVIRONMENTS - IN LOWER
RISK ENVIRONMENTS

4. TO PROVIDE A LOGICAL HOME FOR 6:22 COMPONENTS OR SYSTEMS

THAT HAVE RECEIVED ' DIPLOMAS' OR HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
CAPABILITY OF GETTING THERE '

5. TO PROVIDE DEMONSTRATED GAS GENERATOR / ENGINE TECHNOLOGY

' ON -THE- SHELF ' FOR FUTURE AIRCRAFT /OTHER APPLICATIONS

Page
Line
6. TO PROVIDE VARIOUS DEGREES TECHNOLOGY AND FEATURES FOR

197
20
FUTURE APPLICATIONS

UPLE

FIGURE 20

actually demonstrating advanced component technology, specific fuel

consumption as a function of the horsepower can be significantly re WIN
duced while increasing reliability and simplicity of engines and acces
sories. Again, the priority is on the fuel because fuel isbecoming such
an importantproblem tous.
The next slide (fig. 21 , p. 171 ) indicates the program elements,
and I will not belabor these except to say that we are now down
to the testing phase. In addition we will follow this with a produci
bility study to reduce the costs, and increase the reliability. I em
phasize that this is only a gas generator program , compressors
,
high pressure turbine and seals and bearings. It is the core engine.
Our purpose in doing this is to establish a program that is ongoing.
Similar to the ATEC program which the Air Force carries out in
the large engine area , and its real value will be in its ongoing
characteristics aswe arethen able to add in the new technology such
as ceramics to elevate the operating temperature and get a more
specific engine with a higher specific thrust. These will be carried
on in this ongoing program . Here again , demonstration, we be
lieve, is the essential product of the technological development.
Without the demonstration and associated reduction in risk , we
 171
AKM

ADVANCED SMALL AXIAL TURBINE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

DESIGN POINT PARAMETERS

TIT = 2200-2500 ° F DESIGN LIFE - 750 HOURS AT DESIGN TEMP .

AH = 170-200 BTU / LBM LOW CYCLE FATIGUE LIFE ? 15,000 CYCLES

WA : 5 LB /SEC

APPROACH
PHASE I - PRELIMINARY DESIGN

PHASE II - TURBINE CASCADE INVESTIGATION

PHASE III - STAGE INVESTIGATION

PHASE IV - DESIGN TECHNIQUE ASSESSMENT

Page
Line
PHASE V - MODIFICATION AND TEST

1981
FIGURE 21

cannot bring our program to a sufficiently low risk to assure ac

complishment within cost. So this emphasis is characteristic right
from our fundamental research to our development phase.
That concludes my briefing. I will be glad to answer any other
questions.
Senator GOLDWATER. I think you answered this in a way but I would
like to getit a little more clearly on the record.
As you know, the Navy is working on the concept of the circulation
control rotor .
Mr. YAGGY . Yes, sir.
Senator GOLDWATER. I saw this last year and I was very im
pressed with it. I was wondering if you have worked with the Navy,
kept up on thisconcept .
Mr. Yaggy. Yes, sir. I would like to give you in just two or three
sentences the whole history of that. We operated with Giravion
Dorand Corporation of France for many years on a concept known
as the jet flap rotor which is also a circulation control concept and
we have done extensive work in this area, again in the latter period
inconnection with NASA, and have a large amount of data avail
able. It is the work which resulted in the circulation control rotor
in England. We had followed that very closely but because of its
deficiencies, we decided not to invest large sums of money in it.
Mr. Williams of the Navy Ship R. & D. Center at Carderock ,
Maryland has been active in this program and we maintain a con
tinuing liaison with him. Our purpose is to allow one agency to

38-266 0.74 - 12
 宣言
172

fund this until we have proven its capabilities and then, if itlooks

宣言三言爱了怎湾多会
to be what it purports to be, we intend to get in jointly with them
and develop that extensively. It is a fine concept. Its primary draw
back at the present time is ability to control the rotor. This is a
significant problem that has not yet been resolved.
Senator GOLDWATER. I am glad you are working with them . If it
does work out, it will bea great step forward.
Mr. YAGGY. Yes, sir, it will.
Senator GOLDWATER. Eliminating a large number of problems at
your hub .
Mr. Yaggy. I point out one other thing. There are two con
cepts of this sort of device. One is where the rotational drive is
provided from the jet andthat is the type that we had been investi
gating previously. The other, and we feel the only viable method
for efficiency, is to shaft drive this device and then you have to
provide the circulation control in addition to that.
Senator GOLDWATER. Do you not have a problem in that jet con
cept of maintaining the heat of the gas to the point that it leaves
the rotor ?
Mr. Y AGGY. Yes, sir.
Senator GOLDWATER. I understand nobody has come up with an
ureless
idea yet whereby they can keep that gas hot.
Mr. Yaggy. No, sir. We looked extensively at this drive years ago
in the XV - 9 with the Hughes Company. We used this type of drive.
We looked at it again in the HLH. The larger the vehicle becomes,
the heavier the transmission, the more attractive the drive becomes
but it is still not attractive enough to us at this time. It will require
significant research in order to make it a viable solution.
[Mr. Yaggy's complete statement follows :]
写
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL F. YAGGY, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH , DEVELOPMENT
AND ENGINEERING, U.S. ARMY AVIATION SYSTEMS COMMAND
IUuf
U.S. ARMY NEW TECHNOLOGY AND IMPROVED CAPABILITY IN AVIAT SYSTEMS
aircraft

Over the past decade, the U.S. Army has expanded its utilization
to a significant degree because of the operational versatility demonstrated by
the helicopter and its unique hovering and vertical flight capability. wide pen
variety of applications have clearly defined the need for VTOL operational
capability and demonstrated that it is irreplaceable by other means of trans thate
portation. This expanding role of aviation has generated technology require
ments which exceed the current state -of-the-art, particularly, that which deals antic
with rotary wing aircraft , which are most germane to U.S. Army requirements. The b
Available technology has always been the pacing factor in meeting demon
strated military requirements. Seldom can justification be developed for pro
ceeding into production with technology exceeding a demonstrated state-of-the NUE
art. Therefore, improved capability generally is only attained when foresight
has been demonstrated in acquiring and demonstrating technology to reduce
the risk to an acceptable level. A prime consideration in this process is the
ability to predict reasonable goals for design - to -cost, and to assure accomplish
ment of programs not only within projected costs, but to demonstrate a rea
sonable life cycle cost as well .
The accomplishment of these purposes requires the establishment of de
finitive goals. The U.S. Army has established aviation goals as is shown in
Fig. 2. It is a continuing requirement to increase mission effectiveness through
greater performance and increased agility. These factors are also essential
to providing adequate safety, survivability, and reduced vulnerability. How
ever, the attainment of these goals without the additional attainment of
 173
Lith
proper dynamic response, adequate and long life structural integrity and a
ith
reliable system , results in a situation of high potential but little kinetics.
Finally, acquisition and life cycle costs must be a continual consideration in
the trade-offs against these goals to assure sufficient quantities and to
justify the utilization of the concepts.
The U.S. Army pursues these goals through national and international en
deavors, both in -house and with industry, Air Force and Navy. This research
includes fundamental investigations in the basic discipline areas as well as
development of analytical techniques and hardware concepts which offer poten
bles tial solutions to known or anticipated problem areas and deficiencies. Facil
ities such as wind tunnels, whirl towers, ground based and flight simulators,
and computer modelling are employed in these research programs. However ,
WOTE adequate demonstration of these efforts in the flight environment must be
drirea accomplished to assure the reduction of risk to the level acceptable for con
fident application. Since the scope of the technology and concepts programs
of the U.S. Army is too vast for presentation within the allotted period , three
metz flight demonstrators and a demonstration propulsion program have been
hare selected to portray the character and spirit of Army efforts for new tech
nology and improved capability. These, as portrayed in Fig. 3, are the rotary
wing Advancing Blade Concept, the Rotor Systems Research Aircraft for
jet e rotor concept demonstrations, the Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft, and the Small
tlere Turbine Advanced Gas Generator engine demonstrator program .
THE ADVANCING BLADE CONCEPT

th! The Advancing Blade Concept (ABC ), Fig. 4, is a coaxial, counterrotating

hingeless rotor with several potential advantages, when compared with con
ars ventional rotary wing configurations. These advantages ( Fig. 5) are : ( 1 )
high speed capability when configured as a compound helicopter with auxiliary
fde thrust: (2 ) improved maneuverability, especially at low speeds ; (3 ) elimina
ECONS tion of the tail rotor, a hazard in both flight and ground operations; (4 ) re
DECOTA duced maintenance requirements ; and ( 5 ) compact configurations.
Both the high speed capability and improved maneuverability are a direct
TEDIT
result of the ABC unique aerodynamic lifting configuration. With this concept
(Fig. 6) , the aerodynamic lift in forward flight is carried on the rotating
blades advancing into the oncoming airflow and is not limited to that which
can be developed on the blades retreating from the oncoming flow which are
PMENT limited by the reduced airflow over the blades, as is the case with conven
tional single rotor configurations. Thus, this concept reduces the problems of
retreating blade stall and greatly enhances the amount of lift that can be
EVS provided during maneuvers. Further, the hingeless rotor system provides
aircut
greatly improved controllability in all flight regimes because of its ability to
carry loads with centers at large offsets from the rotor shaft.
ted As with other coaxial helicopters, a tail rotor is not required for anti
torque purposes . Yaw, or directional control in the ABC configuration, is pro
ation duced by applying differential pitch to the two rotors and thus, producing
a greater and lesser torque on each of the two rotors. Elimination of the
yu tail rotor has direct effects on operational suitability in confined areas, on
acoustic signature, and on maintenance.
Zen3 The hingeless rotor without flapping hinges, lead lag hinges, and associated
Pete
hardware, eliminates the maintenance and first cost normally associated with
these components. The very high stiffness blades are designed with a titanium
main spar and a fiberglass aerodynamic “ glove ” to form the airfoil section.
This composite construction has greatly reduced vulnerability characteristics,
and also permits rotor slowing for high speed applications where the blade
tip mach number must be belowapproximately 0.85.
Elimination of the tail rotor, when combined with the higher efficiency
of a coaxial rotor, permits a smaller, more compact configuration to accomplish
mission
the same .
The distinct advantage in forward flight capability is shown in Fig. 7. This
advantage is solelydueto the design features of the ABC rotor asdescribed
above. Simply compounding a single rotor helicopter with auxiliary power
will not approach this capability
.
The current program has included extensive model tests, full scale wind
tunnel tests, and full scale ground and flight tests. First flight was con
 174

ducted on 26 July 1973. After 412 hours of hover and low speed flight, Ship AI
No. 1 experienced extensive damage in an uncontrolled crash. Since that
time, extensive flight test data analysis, wind tunnel testing, and simula 19
tion have been conducted, and the cause of the crash determined. Design
modifications to alleviate the earlier deficiency have been developed and the
program is being restructured to pursue the initial program objectives with
Ship No. 2
This event clearly demonstrates the value of a technology demonstrator
program to reduce technological risk . The problem was one that could not
have been foreseen prior to operation in the flight environment. Significant
knowledge of this fundamental issue has been gained by the subsequent tests,
applicable not only to this project, but in a general sense as well. Occurrence
of such an event in a preproduction prototype, fully equipped with sophisticated
weaponry and auxiliary systems, would have been extremely costly.
ROTOR SYSTEMS RESEARCH AIRCRAFT

Since the mid -1950's, the Army and the NASA have conducted several inde
pendent studies to determine methods of improving the capabilities of rotor
flight research on an economical and timely basis. Results of these studies
prompted the establishment of an Army /NASA working group in January
1971 to determine if a commonality existed in both agencies for rotor flight
research, and if so, what system or facility would best provide a capal:ility
to achieve research objectives. It was concluded that an instrumented flying
test bed concept offered the best solution. The Army /NASA team subsequently THÌ AI
agreed upon the performance criteria and characteristics of a test vehicle that
would fulfill the flight research objectives of both agencies. A government
technical and cost risk analysis was completed in August 1971 to determine
the probability of success in developing a Rotor Systems Research Aircraft
( RSRA, Fig. 8 ) . To determine the feasibility of the RSRA concept, a com ima
petitive solicitation was released to industry in August 1971 for two inde
pendent predesign ( feasibility ) studies of the RSRA concept. In addition to RRR!
the feasibility assessment required from the contractors, program costs and are te
schedules for a RSRA, accompanied by an independent risk analysis, were
also required. To assure program continuity and joint agency commitment,
the Army and NASA entered into formal agreement on 1 November 1971 to
jointly develop and utilize the Rotor Systems Research Aircrafti The pre majcu
design studies were completed in August 1972, concluding that the RSRA dic
concept was feasible and within the state -of-the- art. Although different tech
nical approaches were submitted by the contractors, the vehicle configurations
were very similar. Also, technical and cost analyses confirmed the govern
ment's in -house estimate. Satisfied with the findings of government and in
dustry efforts, the Army and NASA in November 1973 selected, by a competi
tive solicitation, Sikorsky Aircraft to design , fabricate, and demonstrate the
RSRA .
Objectives
The objectives of the Rotor Systems Research Aircraft program ( Fig. 9)
are to provide those agencies of the government charged with the responsi
bility of developing rotor technology, with a flying research tool having
sufficient versatility to provide the necessary in - flight verification of support
ing rotorcraft technology as well as to test a wide variety of new rotor con
cepts. One of the prime considerations of the program is that this research
capability be cost effective and timely. These aircraft will provide research
capability that cannot be duplicated in ground based facilities and which
have been previously restricted because of the expense of specialized vehicles.
The design criteria for the RSRA have been established to insure attainment
of the broad research objectives of rotorcraft technology verification includ
ing flight research on new rotor concepts. The aircraft design will be flexible
enough to permit the installation and testing of many new rotor concepts
which are now in various stages of development by various government agen
cies. It will also allow parametric variation of such things as disc loading,
tip speed, and cruise conditions for each of these rotors.
The key the RSRA design philosophy ( Fig. 10 ) , and its value as a re.
reasch test bed, is the capability for data acquisition and accuracy. The air
craft is designed around a highly accurate rotor force and moment balance
 175

measurement system which isolates the rotor / transmission from the vehicle.
in
To complete the quantification of the rotor state, force measurements sys
tems are installed on the wing, tail rotor, and auxiliary propulsion system .
Implementation plan
cinese The RSRA concept dictates that the aircraft be capable of operating a
rotor under closely controlled and specified flight conditions with adequate
100577
provisions to accurately measure the rotor and air vehicle characteristics in
conlis maneuvers as well as forward flight. In order to obtain this capability, the
RSRA will be equipped with a computer controlled, automatic flight control.
12012 One of the most significant areas of research for the RSRA will include
Income quantified data for substantiation of analytical prediction techniques. True
potential of rotorcraft application and utilization cannot be realized until
their limitations are documented and understood. The unique features of the
RSRA will provide the first true capability to explore and document the full
potential of various types of rotors. Flight research for analytical prediction
technique substantiation in such areas as rotor stability boundaries and
aeroelastic characteristics, rotor maneuvering envelopes, rotor performance
capabilities, and drag interference effects will increase the design confidence
of new rotary wing vehicles. The RSRA will also be used to demonstrate new
tor
structural concepts and techniques for reduced maintenance, increased re
liability, and increased safety and survivability. The RSRA will also be used
Capela to verify the potential of new rotor concepts ( Fig. 11 ) resulting from the
ted to technology studies such as the variable diameter rotor, rigid coaxial rotor,
slowed and stopped rotors, new composite materials rotors, supercritical and
hide laminar airfoil rotors, optimum geometry rotors involving varying chord,
FATHE
twist, camber and airfoil shape as a function of span, as well as varying
deterd blade azimuth and vertical spacing. In addition, techniques offering potential
solutions to aerodynamically generated noise, tip compressibility effects, vibra
tion isolation, and integrated non -linear control systems will be economically
dition
verified through coordinated utilization of the RSRA. It is anticipated that
the RSRA will be utilized for 12 years at an anticipated rate of fifty pro
Uits
ductive research flight hours on each aircraft per year.
SIS,
TILT ROTOR RESEARCH AIRCRAFT
1991
A major problem in rotorcraft is the high dynamic loads experienced by
the helicopter rotor during cruise operation. These high dynamic loads not
only restrict the performance capability of the helicopter but, more im
urt portantly, generate the vibrations and noise that result in the fatiguing of
structures, components and aircrew, reduced availability, and increased main
and's tenance and support costs. Moreover, in addition to the VTOL capability re
quirement, several of the Army air mobility missions would benefit greatly
from the increased productivity that a higher cruise speed could provide. The
tilt rotor aircraft concept offers promise of significant improvement in these
areas while providing the desirable VTOL characteristics of the low -disc
loading rotary wing aircraft Therefore, over the past five years, the Army
has actively supported a program to develop the technology required to
hhari
enable the implementation of this type of air vehicle. Knowledge in all key
disciplines has now advanced ( through full-scale component experimental in
vestigations) to the point where the flight demonstration of the integration
of all technologies is warranted. A program to accomplish this has been de
veloped jointly with the NASA. This activity is known as the XV - 15 Tilt
Rotor Research Aircraft Project ( Fig . 12 ) .
ilka Objectives
The following proof-of-concept objectives, directed toward basic tilt rotor
air vehicle technology verification , have been established for the current XV
15 Rotor Research Aircraft Project ( Fig. 13.) .
M a. Experimentally explore, through flight research , current tilt rotor tech
nology which is of interest for the development of useful, quiet, and easily
Win
maintainable Army tilt rotor aircraft. Verification of the rotor/pylon /wing
dynamic stability and aircraftperformance over the entire operational en
velope are key elements of this objective.
b. Experimentally establish a safe operating envelope and initially assess
the handling qualities of the Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft as a basis for the
follow -on'advanced flight research .
 176

c. Investigate tilt rotor gust sensitivity.

1
d. Investigate the effects of tilt rotor disc loading and tip speed on down
wash and noise and the impacton hover mode operations.
An advanced fight research program has been formulated to expand the
state-of-the-art of tilt rotor handling qualities, operations and configuration
design. These flight investigations will be performed to achieve the following
objectives :
a . Incorporate and evaluate gust and load alleviation systems.
b. Perform thorough evaluation of the handling qualities of the Tilt Rotor It
Research Aircraft and assess areas where additional tilt rotor handling
qualities research is required.
C. Provide data for consideration of design and operational criteria and
mission suitability for potential Army production tilt rotor aircraft.
d. Investigate alternate or advanced rotor concepts or configuration modi
fications.
As part of investigating mission suitability, all related technological charac
teristics such as maintenance, human factors and safety will be explored .
Further flight research will be performed with the Tilt Rotor Research Air
craft to explore the various aspects of use of this concept for typical Army implem
missions—the ultimate Army objective of this program.
IDE !
Concept characteristics
The principal flight modes of the tilt-rotor aircraft are hover /helicopter,
transition and cruise. The two tiltable low -disc -loading rotors, located at the 1.Met
wing tips, are driven by two or more gas turbine engines. The engines may
be located in the tilting nacelles mounted at the wing tips, or may be fixed with Mall
respect to the wing. A cross shaft system mechanically links the rotors so
that power sharing for maneuvers or control is possible and asymmetric thrust
in the event of single engine malfunction is avoided . Independent control of
each engine / rotor can be maintained should simple cross shaft failure occur Edder
( due to combat damage, for example ). The rotor /nacelle tilt mechanism is
provided with redundant fail-safe design features, thus preventing asymmetric
tilt conditions and binding of the mechanism in any fixed position. The stiff
ness and mass distributions of the rotor / nacelle /wing / dynamic drive system
are tuned to avoid resonances in the range of operating rotor rotational
speeds. Special emphasis is placed on meeting both the structural and dy.
namic stability requirements. Therefore, the aircraft is free of rotor stall
flutter and wing/ pylon /rotor dynamic coupling problems throughout the
entire tilt rotor operational flight envelope. The control system in hover is
similar to that of a “ side-by -side" twin rotor helicopter. Cyclic pitch pro
vides longitudinal control and (differentially applied ) yaw control, eliminating
the need for a tail rotor. Differential collective pitch provides roll control.
In the cruise flight mode, control is achieved with conventional airplane con
trol surfaces, although the rotor controls can also be used in cruise for con
trol augmentation , aircraft stabilization, and gust alleviation. A program for The
phasing of control functions from helicopter to aircraft type controls as a
function of mast angle is applied during conversion. The relatively short dura
tion of high speed forward flight in the helicopter mode for most applica
tions results in a favorable fatigue environment for the tilt rotor aircraft
as compared to a helicopter. Therefore, high reliability and low maintenance
are anticipated. In the hover mode, tilt rotor vehicles operate at low power
levels and consume less fuel than other VTOL concepts (with the exception
of the helicopter ) because of the high lift efficiency of the low disc loading
rotors. The resulting low downwash velocities allow efficient operations to
be performed below hovering tilt rotor aircraft with improved personnel
safety. The low disc loading rotor also provides autorotation capability for
emergency descent in the event of total power loss. During the conversion
process to the cruise mode, rotor tip speed is reduced to approximately 70
percent of the hover value. Cruise propulsive efficiency ( Fig. 14 ) is therefore
increased and cruise noise levels are reduced while engine performance and
transmission /drive system torques are maintained at desirable levels. In addi
tion , the moderate tip speeds and low nonoscillatory blade loadings of the tilt
rotor result in noise levels in hover and cruise ( Fig. 15 ) that would reduce
acoustic signature and detection compared to other VTOL concepts.
 177

The tilt rotor concept eliminates the need for continuous edgewise flight
on of the rotor, which produces detrimentally high dynamic blade loads and the
deterioration of propulsive efficiency at moderately high speeds. The use of
the wing to sustain lift in the cruise mode permits reduced load on the rotors
niken which improves flying qualities and, by lowering cabin vibration levels ( Fig.
16) , reduces crew fatigue. Perhaps the key potential advantage of the tilt
rotor concept is the ability to provide cruise speeds in excess of 300 knots
while retaining the efficient hoyer and VTOL capability of the helicopter,
The tilt rotor concept is also unique in that the conversion corridor, ( i.e. ,
the band between the minimum and maximum flight speeds throughout the
rotor-mast tilting process ) , is broad ( typically greater than 60 knots ) and
iterin e non -critical (Fig. 17 ) . Furthermore, the conversion may be stopped and re
ft. versed, or the aircraft may be flown steady state at any point in the con
version corridor. This feature is expected to provide great flexibility in field
operations, enhance survivability because of low -speed agility, and permit
the performance of STOL operations at greater than VTOL gross weights.
The tilt rotor holds promise for both increased responsiveness and for re
pande duced fuel consumption ( Fig. 18 ) , both of which are vital to Army operations.
Implementation plan
The plan to accomplish the necessary technical goals is composed of the
following eight elements which are required prior to entering a production
geline prototype program :
ied 1. Methodology development.
gines e 2. Model tests .
fire 3. Full scale component and subsystem tests.
4. Air vehicle design studies.
ric the 5. Flight simulation investigations.
6. Systems integration and proof -of -concept flight tests.
ured 7. Advanced technology investigations flight tests .
hanisa 8. Mission suitability flight tests.
TOT , Flight simulation investigations have been planned and initiated throughout
the tilt rotor program. The simulations provide a means of assessing handling
e To characteristics, configuration variations, flight operation procedures, emer
Totato gency procedures and SCAS and gust load alleviation system charactiristics.
and The simulators will also be used for pilot familiarization .
The fabrication and proof-of -concept flight tests of the research aircraft
hout are important milestones in the Army tilt rotor technology program. Basic
horas flight safety and flight envelope boundary exploration will be conducted by
tch a contractor. Additional flight research to examine structural stability , assess
handling qualities and study generic tilt rotor aircraft flight characteristics
and the effects of gusts, tip speed and disc loading will be performed jointly
with NASA. These flight investigations from the foundation for the advanced
for og flight research program .
The Army and NASA will continue with the joint flight test program be
ls ! yond the basic proof-of-concept flights. Research into gust and load allevia.
rt ont tion systems, handling qualities, and alternate or advanced rotor concepts
are planned . The data resulting from this investigation may be instrumental
alue
e
in formulating design and operational criteria and specifications for Army
nient air mobility tilt rotor applications. Certain flight phenomena may warrant
additional analytical investigations, model tests, flight simulations, and further
flight tests.
The Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft will be used as a tool to assess Army air
tion
mobility mission suitability . Factors such as hover out-of- ground -effect, climb
ery capability, loiter and cruise performance, maximum speed capability, handling
ilitra qualities, maneuverability, pilot workload, autorotation capability, mainten
ITEN ance requirements, and noise, radar, IR and visual detection signatures will
ately be examined . Although the XV - 15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft is not
herets optimally sized or configured for the particular requirements for any specific
NY EL Army air mobility mission , the vehicle is sufficiently versatile to demonstrate
In audio and explore many of thevarious mission performance and operation factors.
the 1 TheTilt Rotor Research Aircraft is also a suitable test bed for advanced
THER VTOL avionics forall -weather operation and area navigation investigations.
 178

每了「 豪
The application of the STOL mode and the use of intermediate rotor mast

与国。富
positions will be studied during this flight test period.
SMALL TURBINE ADVANCED GAS GENERATOR ( STAGG )
The Army has assigned responsibility , by interservice agreement, for the
advancement of technology and the development of small engines. Recently,
the Army successfully completed a demonstrator program on a 1,500 horse
power engine which resulted in the General Electric T700 engine ( Fig. 19) to
be used in the Army advanced attack helicopter and the utility tactical trans
port helicopter. Based on this successful approach and in response to a require.
ment for small engines in the 2 to 5 pounds per second airflow range, the
Army has initiated a four-year program for the design, fabrication and test
ing of the Small Turbine Advanced Gas Generator ( STAGG ), with four
different contractors ( Fig. 20 ) . Williams Research and AiResearch are working
in the airflow range of 1 lb / sec to 2 lb/sec, corresponding to power levels of
120 hp to 290 hp ; Lycoming and Pratt and Whitney -Florida are investigating
the range of 3 lb / sec to 5 lb / sec, encompassing power outputs from 465 hp to
825 hp. The configurations are, in fact, scaleable to sizes ranging from 120 hp
to 1,850 hp with considerable assurance of success . The primary goals of the
STAGG program are the demonstration of greatly improved specific power
output and specific fuel consumption ( Fig . 21) .
The Army's interest in small gas turbine engine technology ( 1 to 15 lb / sec
: Nati
airflow size ) is based on two major factors : first, over 85 percent of the
aircraft gas turbine engines in the Army inventory are under 1,500 hp ; and
second, the small engine has been unable to utilize directly the advanced
technology from large engine research and development due to inherent geome
try and size limitations.
werd in
The program includes hardware and testing of the gas generator only— Pedban
the compressor, combustor, high -pressure turbine, bearings and seals. Studies
are also included which determine producibility, reliability and maintaina WIE 1
bility, and cost ( Fig. 22 ) .
ducts
The STAGG program has now progressed through the initial testing of the
gas generators. The ultimate benefits of STAGG will be realized by convert
ing the present program, which started in 1971, into a program continuing
the updating of the gas generator ( similar to the ATEGG program). Such
a program will incorporate advanced technology components into the gas Sena
generator as they become available, and will maintain the gas generator tech
nology at a current level.
" La
Senator GOLDWATER. General, do you have any comments ? tren
General COOKSEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I heard earlier some com
ments that were made about producing alcohol from organic waste. 1mi
We have discovered a fungus that can be used totransform or process
cellulose into alcohol and I think how we found that is particularly sem
interesting. We found an old cartridge belt in New Guinea that
had been out there since World War II and found this fungus on ANNO

that belt. The work is being done at Natick Labs in Massachusetts,

and we are working on a pre- pilot production facilities to do this
and we are right now estimating that in about 18 months we will
be able to really demonstrate the capabilities, in a reasonable cir
cumstance, to produce alcohol .
Senator GOLDWATER. Do you have any papers on it so far that
I could The
General Cooksey. I would like to submit something for the record,
if I may, on this program.
Senator GOLDWATER. I wish you would . I wish you would give me
a set, too.
General COOKSEY. All right, sir.
 179

roter [ The information referred to follows :]

Included within the mission of the US Army Natick Laboratories is the
responsibility to conduct research to reduce or prevent the deterioration of
military materiel. In pursuing this work , it was confirmed in the late 1960's
it, for: that a fungus, Trichoderma viride, causes microbial deterioration of packag
. RAY ing and other materials by producing an enzyme that converts cellulose to
glucose (sugar ). In 1970, a small effort was initiated to explore the potential
application of this process in a controlled manner to convert waste cellulose
(paper , cardboard , wood, grass cotton products, etc. ) to a useful product.
a Mega After the cellulose has been converted to a glucose syrup, presently available
ranet and widely used technology can be applied to convert this to other products
to include ethanol (ethyl alcohol ), a potential low polluting fuel.
with k A major breakthrough was achieved in 1971 when a mutant strain of the
e mund fungus was produced by irradiation. This particular strain produces two
: Teresi to four times the amount of enzyme produced by the natural fungus and
Prestige will significantly improve the economic competitiveness of the process.
46561 Considerable experimentation has been conducted to optimize the pre-process
ing of the cellulose waste prior to the enzyme reaction to produce the maximum
als dit yield. “ Ball milling" the waste and preparation of a pulp has produced the
fic ? best results.
To date the process has been used only in laboratory units in a batch
mode yielding a few pounds per batch. A pre -pilot model plant was installed
at of at Natick and became operational in June 1974. This plant will have the
1 bp 2 capacity for treating 1,000 pounds of cellulose per month to produce 500
adras pounds of glucose. It is planned to further optimize the process, develop the
engineering data necessary to scale up the plant and produce preliminary
economic feasibility data. At the present level of effort, this should be accomp
lished in 18-24 months
Sme Ethanol is a potential substitute for petroleum fuels or can be added to
aintais gasoline in varying proportions with little engine modification . However, the
present methods for producing ethanol are not cost competitive with petroleum
78 of the products at this time. Indications are that this process may be able to pro
CONTA duce ethanol more cheaply than methods currently in use. However, this re
ntials mains to be substantiated. From a technology point of view, a full scale
). operating plant should be possible by 1980.
the is
orta Senator GOLDWATER. We have got a lot of that stuff lying around
out there. In fact, you might look right over there in the Senate.
( Laughter.]
General COOKSEY. Please let the record show that I did not say
e cool anything
TOEST
I might add that the pre-pilot production facility is going to use
ulart
primarily paper waste,newspaper and things like that.
Senator GOLDWATER.Where is that facility ?
General COOKSEY. At Natick , Mass . Natick Laboratories in
us Massachusetts .
KIM

Senator GOLDWATER. Well, General, I think you have done a good

job here and you start off by telling about Army aviation. I think I
am the only one that read the Howze Board report all the way
ci
through and consequently, anything you do in aviation does not
surprise me. I think the next chapter will have to do with the Air
Force being issued rifles.
Thank you very much .
oni General COOKSEY. You are welcome, sir.
(Whereupon , at 11:50 a.m.,the hearing was concluded. ]
MI!
 180

APPENDIX

Statement of Clifton F. von Kann

Senior Vice President .
Operations and Airports
Air Transport Association of America
Before the Senate Committee on
Aeronautical and Space Sciences
July 25 , 1974

Statement on behalf of the U. S. Scheduled Airlines on

Advanced Aeronautical Concepts 1

1
My name is Elifton F. von Kann . I am Senior Vice President ,
1

Operations and Airports , of the Air Transport Association of

America . We are grateful for the opportunity to offer a statement
at this hearing which we understand deals predominantly with the
work NASA can do which will lay the technology base for advanced
aircraft of the 1980's and 1990 .
I wish to discuss four areas of interest to scheduled
!
air transportation : the institutional roles of NASA ; the

achievement of higher productivity of transport aircraft ; noise

and propulsion research and technology ; and research needed to
1
make our aircraft better partners in the airspace and airport
1

system .
We had the privilege of testifying earlier this year on
the NASA FY - 1975 Program and Budget , and our general views are
contained in that statement . We indicated our strong support

especially for research in the areas of materials , structures ,

and fluid and flight dynamics . We supported NASA's efforts on
 181

propulsion environment impact minimization , propulsion components

research , and experimental propulsion programs , and urged in
creases in NASA's work in aircraft operations research .
Much of the work and those recommendations apply to
building the technology base for transport aircraft of the 1980's
and 1990's . In our testimony we submitted a document , completed

late last year , containing specific airline views and recommen

dations on the role we feel NASA should play in relation to our
industry . This report, entitled "Views of the Scheduled
Airlines on a Responsive NASA Research and Technology Program "
discusses what we perceive to be NASA's roles and responsibilities ,
and offers a series of specific priority work areas and efforts
which we feel would benefit the air transportation system in
the country . The report is attached .
The Institutional Role of NASA

In considering the institutional roles NASA plays , and

should play , in the improvement of the air transportation system
and the aircraft we use , we perceive three basic roles :
First , we think it is NASA's responsibility to
build a technology base for aeronautics through
innovative research . In this task the goal
should be to utilize the best scientific minds
to create innovations and to enhance our know

ledge with the greatest possible independence

of spirit and freedom from bureaucratic entangle
ment .
 182

Second , NASA should be a problem - solver in which it

undertakes directed research in response to specific
problems which may be identified by NASA itself , or
by others .

Third , and vitally important , is the area in which

NASA's work is directly responsive to the needs of
other agencies or organizations , and in which guidance
and a degree of control is exercised by other agencies, 1

but where NASA has unique capabilities or facilities

which can serve identified needs .
SAM
WEI

One of our primary interests is to assure that aircraft of

the future are even better partners than our present fleet with
the airport and its neighbors , and the Air Traffic Control system
to assure that the greatest possible efficiency of the total system
can be achieved . This means that , particularly in the latter two
roles it is essential that NASA work closely both with FAA and the
industry and tailor its research activities to the real problems rings
which FAA faces in creating a better Airport/Air Traffic Control
system . It is essential to assure that the NASA work which comes
close to the responsibilities of FAA is fully coordinated , and
that the work done is responsive to problems and guidance offered tina)

by FAA , to achieve realistic cost - effective solutions to our

problems .
Productivity Research
In considering the problems of the air transportation system , pand

the area of productivity represents perhaps our greatest challenge .

 183

In a time of rising costs of all kinds , and a precipitous rise

in the cost of fuels , the achievement of more efficient aircraft

is perhaps our greatest challenge . This is not a glamorous area

of work , it probably represents few scientific breakthroughs
yet it is probably the most important challenge , in terms of
the improvement of our American air transportation system , and in
the opportunity it represents for the U. S. to remain dominant
in the world marketplace for aviation products .
The work encompasses many areas and many disciplines . Among
them the development of lighter , simpler aircraft structures ;

research to establish the properties of new and better materials ;

the achievement of greater versatility of application of particular
airframe and aircraft designs ; the achievement of more fuel - efficient
engines ; achievement of quantum steps in the reliability and in
tegrity of electronic systems used aboard our aircraft . 1

We have followed with interest NASA's work on supercritical

wing technology . This work has now been widely publicized and the
findings made known to industry . We believe this technology. should
now be extended into the low - speed regime . It's our understanding
that the supercritical wing offers its primary advantage in the
high - speed regime , but offers less , if any , advantage in the
terminal area or at low speeds . In order to make this technology
truly applicable to transport aicraft which must operate for
extended periods in terminal areas , research should now be under
taken to optimize the supercritical wing for operation in both
high- and low- speed regimes of flight .
 184

The airlines have observed and supported NASA's technology

work in the " STOL " area , and have watched with interest NASA'S
attempts to achieve economically viable propulsive lift .
We believe that propulsive lift technology work should
1
continue as a technology whose fruits may be applicable to a
arch
wide range of aircraft applications . Technology efforts directed
toward making aircraft better suited for terminal operations ,
Slider
regardless of range , are an essential ingredient in creating
viable aircraft for shorthaul service . These two areas of

research perhaps form a better basis for future development of

economical jet - STOL aircraft than concentration on complete
jet - Stol aircraft systems .
I want to call particular attention to an area of work of
great promise aircraft digital control systems and active
luist
control concepts , in which full - time stability augmentation
zler
systems might come to permit major reductions in aircraft
structural weight . The achievement of this capability , with the
safety and integrity which are basic requirements in any air
transport aircraft , deserves major emphasis and optimum exploitation It

in NASA's research and technology activities . es may

In sum , we envision in NASA's work on aircraft productivity

a focused , multi - disciplinary effort to produce fundamental 4 De

S, DO!
improvements in the efficiency of aircraft in military and civil
aviation systems , with particular emphasis on work to reduce
the cost of operations and improve the performance of aircraft .
fully fing
Emphasis on the operation of air transportation in the existing
and prospective Air Traffic Control system will pay dividends
 185

in terms of maintaining U. S. preeminence in aviation aerospace

products . We believe a specific focal point should be created
within NASA to deal with this effort .
Noise and Propulsion Research
We have often testified on the need for forward - looking
research and technology on propulsion systems and noise . The

reduction of noise and the achievement of better , more fuel

efficient propulsion systems remains one of our major goals and
one of the major activities for NASA . We have read the statement
offered by Dr. Jerry Grey of the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics who appeared before the Committee on July 18 ,
1974 ; and we support the views expressed particularly on
the need for research on new engine cycles , the variable cycle
engines , and work on new fuels . While we are somewhat less

optimistic about the possibilities for liquid hydrogen and

nuclear propulsion than would be implied from Dr. Grey's state
ment , we believe that NASA's work in these areas is essential
and requires strong support .
It should be kept in mind that NASA's work on advanced
fuels may have applications beyond air transportation . It may

turn out that ground and stationary energy users may be able
to use newer fuels , such as liquid hydrogen and possibly nuclear
fuels , more efficiently than can air transportation ; and this
indeed would be an important finding . It may be that the contri .
bution that NASA can make will be to show that the efficiency
of new fuels for stationary uses are such that they are best used
for such applications - thus freeing fossil fuels for transportation .
 186

We have long supported NASA's efforts in the achievement

on quieter and more efficient engines and continue to support
such work because of its importance in creating a technology
base for new and quieter aircraft .
We believe it is also NASA's role to establish the noise

base , i.e. , the low limit beyond which the laws of physics
tell us it is impractical to strive ; and to work in the psycho
acoustics area to learn more about the mechanics of noise and

the meaning and effect of different kinds and levels of noise on

the populace living near airports . It is a proper role for NASA
and one which should be exploited . As was pointed out nearly
It
unanimously by witnesses on July 24 , before the Subcommittee
on Aeronautics and Space Technology of the House Committee on
Science and Astronautics , there is great confusion , if not a void
in the psychoacoustics area .
Making Aircraft Better Partners in the Total System
NASA should work on the technology base which will permit
new aircraft to be better partners in the most effective use of
our airports and airspace system . Here the relationship between
We think it is FAA's Tos
NASA and the industry and FAA is critical .
obligation and responsibility to work with NASA to assure there
is a clear understanding of the current and prospective working
of the Airport and Air Traffic Control system , and to identify
vorli
those aircraft characteristics which would create the best and
most efficient total system .
We are delighted to see that NASA has seen fit recently
to establish an ad hoc Panel on Terminal Configured Vehicles .
 187

It represents an opportunity for NASA and the industry to come

together and understand the relationship of the aircraft to the
Air Traffic Control system and , working with FAA and the industry ,
to establish best areas of NASA research . I want to emphasize
several of the recommendations of the first meeting of that Panel .
The first is a recommendation that NASA make clear its objectives
for the Terminal configured Vehicles program . The Panel recom

mended that NASA extend its coordination , particularly in the

area of air traffic control with DOT / FAA to assure that dupli
cation can be avoided between the work of FAA on the Airport/ Air
Traffic Control system and NASA's efforts .
It has been recommended , and we endorse the recommendation ,
that several priority areas need to be investigated among them
pilot and aircraft system needs in the 1985 1990 air traffic

control environment , the achievement of aircraft designs ( which

concentrate on reduced fuel consumption ) integrated with FAA's and
airlines ' automated systems ; human factors and oculometer research ;
and impact of aircraft system failure modes , failure effects , and
criticality analyses on aircraft and pilot performance .
To sum up , the scheduled airlines continue to hold the
belief that NASA is a vital and potent force in the achievement
of a better air transportation system for the United States ,
and the achievement of continued superiority for America's products
in the world market . The role we foresee for NASA in relation to

the aircraft of the late 1980's and late 1990's is as an institution

which utilizes the best scientific minds to create innovations and

38-266 O - 74 - 13
 188

to enhance our knowledge with the greatest possible independence

of spirit and freedom from bureaucratic entanglement . We expect
innovative research to build the technology base for the future ;
but we also expect NASA to emphasize the seemingly more mundane
problems of achieving higher productivity from our air transportation
system . That is an equally challenging and appropriate task for
NASA and for our country .

i
 189

OF AMERICA
Air Transport Association ata

views of the scheduled Airlines on

a Responsive NASA Research

and Technology Program

september 1973

Air Transport Association of America

1709 New York Avenue , N. W.
Washington , D. C. 20006
 190

views of the Scheduled Airlines on a Responsive

NASA Research and Technology Program

Page wat

Introduction 1

Increased Emphasis on Aeronautics 1

Technology Research vs. Project Orientation 2

.

NASA Roles 2

Responsibility for Research and Development -Relationship

of NASA , DOT , and FAA ... 3 .

civil Aviation Noise Research and Development

Civil Airport and Runway Research and Development
Airway and Air Traffic Control Research and
Development Site

Permitting a Broader Reach in NASA Research

5
NASA Research Program Priorities and Emphasis
8
Detailed Recornendations on NASA Research & Development
LAPO
Other NASA Res arch Areas 18 tese
value
Dent

waves

Hong
IN
UN

PA
A Report of the N

Air Transport Association of America Atli

poje
 191

Views of the Scheduled Airlines on a Responsive

NASA Research and Technology Program

Introduction
1
The scheduled airlines of the United States view NASA as a
1 major national asset .
Scheduled air transportation owes a major debt to the National
1
Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA ) which was a major force
1
in shaping air transport technology before the major NASA emphasis
on space began a decade or more ago . The airlines are pleased
to see the re - emphasis within NASA on aeronautical technology ,
and we strongly support a vital and energetic NASA program ,
3
A major investment is being made which should yield important
results for this country and its aviation leadership . This
3
investment is by far the largest pool of scientists and engineers
working cohesively in aeronautical research and technology in the
United States , and probably in the world .
Increased Emphasis on Aeronautics
The transition within the NASA organization from a predominantly
space orientation to renewed emphasis on creative and innovative
aeronautical research and technology is not easy . There is a con
tinuing risk of NASA drifting into design refinement activity which
can only be done successfully on the manufacturers ' competitive
firing line , instead of pressing bold , innovative efforts .
Important strides are being made by NASA in this transition ,
and these must be continued and strengthened if there is to be
full value from the NASA work . The industry , and particularly the
eventual users of the NASA output , have an obligation to offer
constructive criticism , as well as to lay out clearly areas which
in their view would yield best results for the country from the major
NASA investment .

This paper is an airline contribution to that guidance and

direction .

Technology Research vs. Project Orientation

Airlines have begun to sense in recent months an important and
valuable NASA trend to emphasize individual technologies . While
NASA has always , and properly , rejected any intention to develop
prototype aircraft, there has been a tendency which has seemed
more project-oriented than is desirable . The airlines strongly
 192

1
support NASA orientation toward individual technologies because we
see therein the major NASA contributions, but also support research
into life- reliability studies on total systems , where such work
can offer prospective total aircraft system operational efficiency
improvements .
Airlines believe that the close buyer-seller relationship
between aircraft manufacturers and airline customers has been
primarily responsible for the development of the highly successful
aircraft development process in the United States ; and airlines are
concerned about any activity which could derogate that relationship ,
no matter how well - intentioned . The development and use of tech
nology by the military services has traditionally been of great HE
6.14

value in this process . The development of technologies which can

be used in enhancing that buyer / seller process and which can yield
better , more competitive aircraft in the world market , is the major 10
contribution NASA can make to this vital national asset .
..

In carrying out its mission , NASA should utilize to the maximum

practical extent the pool of scientific and engineering talent which
the aerospace manufacturers represen Use of this major resource
not only aids in achieving NASA's research aims, but broadens the
base of knowledge in industry which has been the basis of America's
aviation leadership .
MAR

NASA Roles
The roles which NASA should play in the development of aviation
advancement have been long under debate . NASA has traditionally
taken , and should continue to take several roles ..
In the view of the airlines , these roles , in order of
importance are as follows : ;Flot
ats i
1. First , the airlines believe it is NASA's responsibility
to build a technology base for aeronautics through QQ
innovative research . In this task the goal should be
to utilize the best scientific minds to create
DAS
innovations and to enhance our knowledge , with the hans
greatest possible independence of spirit and freedom
from bureaucratic entanglement .
' 2 . The second role should be that of problem solver , in
which directed research is done in response to
specific problems which may be identified by NASA
itself or by others . In this category of effort the
airlines see NASA again as an independent researcher ,
DO
dealing with problems and hopefully arriving at
solutions essentially independent of other government
structures .

1
 193

earch 3. The third category is work directly responsive to

☆
the needs of other agencies or organizations , in
which guidance and a degree of control is exercised
ency by other agencies , but where NASA has unique talents ,
unique capabilities , or facilities which can serve
identified needs .

Much of the work which the scheduled airlines see in which NASA
sful
s are
can make major contributions to the United States may at first glance
appear mundane and excessively result-oriented . Indeed much of the
nship work does not have the easy focus of a space shot or a revolutionary ,
t
imagination - firing new aircrafts yet in these difficult , unglamorous ,
an
and often gruelling efforts lies the secret of continuing u . s .
Leld
superiority in aeronautical technology and air transportation .
najer As the airlines see it , NASA should be the organization which
keeps the United States in the forefront of research and technology ,
by mustering the best brains and knowledge in the United States to
whid work on basic problems and innovations, by carefully distinguishing
ro
between basic innovative research and the more comfortable , but far
he
less valuable engineering design enhancement , by helping to make the
ca's
0. S. aerospace industry the best possible international competitor in
an aviation environment which is becoming more and more competitive,
and, certainly not least , by making major contributions to the efficiency
and economic viability of the aviation system as an element of the
V. S. transportation system .
atid
Responsibility for Research and Development Relationship of
NASA, DOT and FAA

In the view of the airlines , NASA should be responsible for the

development of a basic research and technology program to support and
enhance civil aviation . NASA should utilize the best thinking of
experts in and out of Government who are working in the forefront of
the technology , as well as the mature recommendations of the
aerospace industry and the users of aeronautical technology .
NASA should be responsive to policy guidance from the Department
of Transportation and FAA as those agencies perceive the need of the
Nation for research , and as enunciated in such documents as the Joint
DOT - NASA Civil Aviation Research and Development Policy Study and other
Government policy statements . The primary thrust and direction in
specific fields of work should be supplied by the most appropriate agency .
Civil Aviation Noise Research and Development
DOT should be responsible for establishment R&D of basic objectives
related to aviation noise with inputs from EPA , FAA and NASA as
appropriate .

NASA should be responsible for control management and funding

of noise research and development to achieve the basic objectives .
FAA's role is to assess the degree of readiness of a specific
noise control technology and consider its implementation . This espe
cially applies
alleviation .
to procedural and operational approaches to noise
 194

FAA , in consultation with EPA , should be responsible for the

establishment of program goals and research and development related
to airport area land usage planning and control efforts . dea

Airframe and Propulsion Systems Research and Development for

civil aircraft should be controlled , managed , and budgeted by NASA. 240P
While there must be direct lines of communication and coordination AT
between FAA and NASA , and while FAA should be free to request ch

specific work by NASA , basic control and management should be under

NASA . FAA's role should be to deal with R &D related to basic day
BE1CM
to - day airworthiness problems ; and to identify , and cause to be
carried out , R&D efforts which relate to regulatory problems of 9 but
airframe and propulsion systems . Pese

Civil Airport and Runway Research and Development

The ja
FAA should control, manage , and budget airport and runway re of pi
search and development , especially as it applies to airport layout
and traffic movement efforts , and achievement of improved and
rational methods of pavement design , FAA airport R&D should be
limited to the area within airport boundaries. FAA should utilize proble
NUSIA
WOLIVU
the services of NASA and other agencies with specific expertise
DA CE
( such as the military services ) in runway technology efforts as quida
appropriate .
lith ‫ܐ‬
Airway and Air Traffic Control Research and Development air)
OS DIC
FAA should control , manage , and budget this work . Responsibility
and authority for conduct and results of this effort should be FAA's . asts st
Separate efforts by other agencies , such as DOT and NASA , to under which
take airway and ATC research and development , should be discouraged the deve
in order to minimize duplication of effort . Valid NASA efforts
which fit into the broader FAA development effort should be supported, applic
but they should be subject to FAA's direction .
The cc
Permitting a Broader Reach in NASA Research cally
Nimatid
In outlining the roles the airlines feel NASA should play in im

the development of aviation advances , NASA's responsibility to build

a technology base through innovative research was listed first . In 802
this task the goal should be to utilize the best scientific minds
to create innovations and to enhance our knowledge , with the greatest
possible independence of spirit and freedom from bureaucratic en aten
tanglement .

While the airlines appreciate the need for a government - conducted,

tax - supported research institution to structure its research program
so as to project specific output , some research cuts across many ..
disciplines , and talented people should be given freedom to reach
broadly across the disciplines toward innovation . It should be work
possible to earmark a specific significant part of NASA's budget in
such a way that such unique effort and far- reaching work can be
initiated and supported . One approach may be to permit NASA Center
directors to assess such promising broad-reach research efforts and
to support them with special funds where the work is clearly of
great promise ,
 195

The difficulties of administering such funds are great since

there is a risk that mediocre talents or ideas will be funded or
that research funds will be granted on the basis of existing
organizations or staffs rather than merit . Despite these risks ,
the prospective fruits of such broad reach work are great , and it
may be appropriate to form a mechanism by which disinterested experts
can contribute their wisdom in judging the prospective value of such
research . Perhaps Center directors might use the advice and counsel
of such experts (whether they be from industry , Government, or the
academic world ) chosen in such a way that their advice would be free
of any but a scientific stake in the work or its funding .
NASA Research Program Priorities and Emphasis
The joint DOT /NASA Civil Aviation Research and Development
(CARD ) Policy Study published in March of 1971 noted three major
areas of priority work : Noise , Congestion , and a New Shorthaul System .
Of the three by far the most important work area for NASA , in the
view of the airlines , is the problem of aircraft noise abatement .
The problems of congestion -

air traffic control and ground

congestion should be primarily the responsibility of FAA and DOT ,
although certain aspects should be under the jurisdiction of NASA
with guidance from FAA .
With respect to a New Shorthaul System suggested by the CARD
study, airlines believe that valuable NASA work done to date shows
3 serious problems of technology , complexity , noise , and cost in the
1
so-called " true " STOL aircraft . The airlines believe that NASA's
emphasis should be on technology research in a number of disciplines
with which better aircraft and aircraft systems can be built and
on the development of improved propulsive lift systems , which can
have application across the broad spectrum of transport aircraft
including , but not limited to , shorthaul aircraft ,
The coordination of effort between DOT , FAA and NASA is
critically important and we have seen significant improvement. This
coordination is especially important in areas which border on air
traffic control . We believe that FAA must have both the authority
to conduct air traffic control research and development , and the
responsibility for achievement of results . NASA efforts in some
aspects of ATC related research can be valuable , in consideration
of NASA's capabilities and facilities , but such work should only be
undertaken if it is under the overall guidance and direction of FAA .
Airline View on Priorities

In considering the many areas in which NASA can make important

contributions to improvements in aviation , air transportation , and
aviation safety , it is difficult to establish priorities , since
much work can be done in parallel and simultaneously . The following
represents a rough priority order which , in the view of the airlines ,
represents areas in which work is most urgently needed and where
fruitful output would be most valuable .
 196

In the later portions of this report relatively detailed

recommendations are made in a number of work areas of major concern
to the airlines . The following listing is intended as a general
priority of effort , and as an indication of funding priority when
all efforts cannot be funded fully .
1. Noise Analysis and Abatement
a. The greatest need for NASA effort and results lies
in the area of noise and its abatement . The air
lines believe that there is a need for a compre
hensive fundamental program of research on the
mechanics of noise generation . This work should
include efforts in fan noise research , jet noise
research , engine machinery noise , the noise
mechanisms of aircraft structure (aerodynamic noise ) ,
research into the properties and best application
of acoustic materials and treatment , and the
establishment of a realistically achievable minimum
noise level . This work should give important
consideration to the practical economics of noise
reduction ,

b. The efforts to obtain empirical data to establish

the value of new front fans for the JT3D and
JT8D should be carried to completion .
There should be a thorough and well - funded program
of noise reduction through flight operational
procedures , This should have high priority insofar
as noise abatement hardware research and development
is concerned , since results in this effort can have
a relatively early as well as an important impact
on the problem .
d. There should be a comprehensive fundamental program
of research into several aspects of psychoacoustics
and the relationship of noise annoyance of
individuals to ground population distribution and 7.
other variables . This effort should include concen
tration on establishment of better criteria for
measurement and description of noise annoyance .
2. Emissions

A solid and comprehensive program of research on aircraft

engine emission and emission control , and establishment
of a realistic minimum achievable emission level .
3. Propulsion , Propulsive Lift , and Alternative Energy 8.
(Fuel) sources
A program of research leading to improved propulsion
systems, improved propulsive lift systems , and other
 197

basic propulsion - related efforts such as the develop

ment of applications of alternative sources of energy
( fuels ) .
4. A Program of Research in Airframe/Aeronautical Design ,
Structures , and Materials

This should be a broad - gauge effort to create a better

technology base in airframe and structural degign
innovation , pursuit of new aeronautical design tech
nologies ; and continuation of the traditional NASA
program of materials research , with emphasis on light
ening, simplification of structures , improvements in
fatigue life , and in - service research and evaluation of
new materials and structures .
5. Wake Turbulence

A comprehensive program of research to establish the

mechanism of wake vortex turbulence , the physics of
formation , life span , and movement of typical wake
vortices , and a comprehensive program of research on
the elimination of vortices at the source .

6.
Aircraft Operational Efficiency and Maintainability
Improvements
This should be a specifically focused multi - disciplinary
effort to produce fundamental improvements in the
efficiency of aircraft used in the aviation system with
particular emphasis on work to reduce the cost of
operations and improve the performance of aircraft used
particularly in air transportation . In this effort
there should be work in aircraft optimization , for
operation in the existing and the prospective, Air Traffic
Control system , system design from amaintenance per
spective , etc , 1

7. Flight Control Avionics and System Integrity Research

A research program in avionics and flight control systems,
concentrating predominantly on application of active
controls as a means for airframe design simpljfication ,
studies leading to better stability augmentation systems ,
innovative approaches to reliability and fault survival ,
applications of new avionics systems and display systems
to perform unique terminal and approach maneuvers ,
activities in clear air turbulence detection , etc.
8. Human Factors and Psychoacoustics
Research in life sciences with particular emphasis on
physiological factors related to pilot assessment of
 198

1
outside visual cues.. in relation to other aircraft and
landing information , physiological factors which may
lead to new or improved display systems, investigation
of the optimum pilot role in automatic and semi
automatic flight control and air traffic control
systems , studies of optimum pilot attention and aware
ness techniques , and optimum relationships between
simulation vs. flight training realism . The psycho
acoustics effort mentioned in 1. above should be
encompassed in this discipline .
Detailed Recommendations on NASA Research and Development
i. Noise Analysis and Abatement
a. Fan Noise and Efficiency Research
1) The airlines support the continued development
of new front fans for JT8D engines , and continued
effort to establish the benefits of new
front- fan development for the JT3D engine.
This work should continue so as to establish ,
in realistic terms , the prospective results
from such modified engines .

Data from these programs on a ) achievable, noise

reduction , b ) degradation or improvement in
aircraft performance and engine efficiency ,
and c ) relationship of new front - fan
implementation to nacelle acoustic treatment,
should then be examined from the standpoints
of economic viability and prospects for
C
meaningful reduction of noise annoyance as
perceived by airport neighbors . ( See also
b . and d . )

2) Research to establish the value of single

stage high speed ( 1.7 to 1.9 pressure ratio )
fans .

3) Research to establish capabilities of two - stage

low speed high pressure ratio ( 1.9 to 2.5 ) fans .
4) Assessment of possible advantages of vagiable
pitch fans at different bypass ratios .
5) Research an optimum inlet plus fan aero
dynamic design integration .
6) As a longer term effort , research to establish
the capabilities of low speed , low pressure
ratio , single stage fans ( 1.1 to 1.3 ) , in
cluding variable pitch fan effects .
 199

7) As longer term research , a study to establish

the capabilities of multi-stage fans of very
high pressure ratio ( 1,9 to 3.0 ) for STOL and
SST applications .
b. Jet Noise Research

1) Research to establish the capabilities of the

low speed jet ( 700 ft . to 1500 ft . per second ) .
2) Research to determine effects of turbine
swirl , clearance , tip speed , nozzle config
uration , mixing suppressors .

3) Research to establish capabilities of coaxial

jets : noise behavior of a coaxial jet system
at normal climb speeds , including effects of
flow disturbances in the mixing zone between
the jets .
4) As longer term research , establish the capa
bilities of high speed jets ( 1500 feet per
second to 3000 feet per second) .
5) Establish the capabilities of low speed jets
( 500 feet to 700 feet per second) .
6) As longer term research , basic combustor / duct
burning and after burning characteristics .
Research in acoustic materials to establish
optimum materials for engine noise suppression .
As longer term effort , research to establish
minimum practical aircraft noise level due to
flaps
etc.
and gear protuberances , vortex turbulence ,

d . Research on determination and prediction of a

minimum practical propulsion system noise level .
e. Research on the effects of inlet shape and
variable geometry effects on noise including
the effects of 1) sonic inlets , 2 ) engine position
for minimum noise , 3 ) retractable splitters ,
4 ) variable lip / suck - in doors .
f. Structural research on advanced load -carrying
acoustic treatment materials .
.
g

Psychoacoustics
1) Spectral shaping as an approach to reducing
psychological reaction to noise .
1

200

2) Effect of low velocity noise and house vi

brations / resonance on annoyance .
3) The relationship of annoyance to demographic
( social and economic ) variables .
4) Continued research to develop a subjective
noise unit , quantifiable in measurable
physical terms as a predictor of human
response to noise .

5) Research on the effect of thrust reverser

noise and control techniques on community
annoyance .
6) Validation of current slant range noise levels
(beyond 3,000 feet up to at least 20,000 -
30,000 feet ) to establish baseline footprints
of existing aircraft ( as a joint project with
FAA ) .

h. Noise reduction through flight operational procedures

( program should be conducted jointly with FAA ) .
1) Validation of realism and effects of aircraft
procedures including effects of psychoacoustic
reaction and fear of crash by people on the ground .
2) Validation and establishment of criteria for
two - segment , multi - segment , or curved aircraft
approach systems , as well as continued search
for alternative methods of achieving noise
reduction by procedure ( such as reduced flap
approach procedures ) and application of selected
techniques to typical aircraft .
3) A research program aimed at reducing takeoffs
noise through new or improved procedures .
Examples of such research could encompass
0 ° flap takeoffs (which could lead to a
requirement for improved tires and to
recertification of most existing aircraft )
and automatic programmed flap reduction to
achieve noise reduction on takeoff .
2. Emissions

a. Demonstrate combustors meeting the goals specified

for the NASA Advanced Technology Transport" (ATT)
activity for smoke , carbon monoxide , nitrous
oxide, and hydrocarbon emission levels in current
high by -pass engines .
 201

b. Validate effects of water injection on .nitrous

oxide formation on various engines , and
demonstrate effects on and of other emissions .
c. Develop and demonstrate advanced combustor system
for nitrous oxide control on appropriate real
engines capable of reducing nitrous oxide by
one half by 1975 , without water .
.

d. Conduct research to establish value of two

stage combustor processes , and water injection
effects on jet engine emissions .
e. Develop and demonstrate advanced combustion systems
capable of reaching ATT goals (by 1979 ) .
f , Review and Investigate dispersion of pollutants from
aircraft engines in the upper atmosphere , This
effort should be a part of broader NASA atmospheric
pollution studies , such as the Global Air Pollution
Sampling program , which should emphasize the overall
environmental goals of the nation .
3. Source
Propulsion , Propulsive Lift , and Alternative Energy (Fuel)
s

a. Research into economics of gas turbine engine / propulsion

systems . Undertake a research effort to establish
the cost benefit relationship of various engine
design features as a guide to producing economically
and environmentally attractive propulsion systems .
Such a program should be started forthwith to
insure better guidance than the current ATA methods
for assessing engine design features . It should
address the following:
1) Maintainability criteria and design requirements .
2) Reliability criteria and design requirements .
3) Fuel consumption , purchase cost and maintenance
cost relationships and trade - offs .
Cost for development , certification and production
and minimization ( realism of certification testing
requirements ) .
5) Advanced engine diagnostics , including better
instrumentation . 1
1

202

b. Advanced Tarbines Longer Term Research

1) Research to establish optimum characteristics

for highly loaded high speed turbines (reduced
cost of high pressure turbine modules ) .
2) Highly loaded low speed turbines
of low speed fan turbine ) . (reduce cost
3) Turbine Materials improved life , higher
temperature , lower cost.
4) Burst protection .
C. Integrated Nacelle Design & Aerodynamics Near
Term Research

Research to establish optimum characteristics for :

1) Weight reduction and improved economics .
2) Validate drag and performance of high speed
nacelle configurations .
3) Economic utilization of material for acoustic
treatment .

4) Maximize maintainability .
5) Improve engine and reverser design techniques .
d. Advanced Engine Control . & Instrumentation Near
Term Research

1) Development of more rugged , reliable and accurate

instrumentation for engine operation (pressure ,
temperature , vibration ) and diagnosis of engine
faults , including investigation of computer
software techniques for performing aircraft
engine diagnosis and diagnoses of other complex
airborne systems .

2) Development of engine controls which will provide

desired required power at fixed power lever angle
during appropriate flight segment .
I

3) Research into development of simpler , more meaning

ful cockpit displays of engine performance
parameters , and a search for improved fuel quantity
sensing systems which would avoid problems of
electrical noise and contaminants .
 203

e. Advanced Compressors /Fans

1) Research into lower cost compressors / fans with
high stage loading , fewer blades for pressure
ratios of 20 to 30 .

2) Composite materials ,
3) Burst protection .
4) Low deterioration of performance and stall margins ,
)
5

Research into possible applications of advanced

technology airfoils to rotating compressors ,
such as investigation of super-critical airfoils
for compressor and turbine blading to achieve
lighter and higher -performance rotary .
Research to create more efficient , quieter propulsive
lift , covering the range of aircraft from con
ventional to reduced takeoff and landing aircraft ,
toward achievement of quiet economical so-called
" true " STOL operation . The goals for " true STOL "
aircraft are so challenging that to pursue the work
with less than adequate tools would be false
economy . With respect to a " QUESTOL " research
vehicle , the airlines support NASA's view that
current research vehicles do not have the versa
tility to make them suitable as test beds for solving
the vexing problems which face quiet propulsive lift
vehicles , and thus support a NASA research aircraft
to perform the needed research in a timely and
practical manner .
g. Research Into New Fuels

An energetic research effort to cover all critical

aspects of the search for new , unique fuels and the
propulsion systems which might utilize them , as a
i longer term replacement for current fuels .
4. Airframe /Aeronautical Design , Structures , and Materials
a. Research to achieve improved landing and stopping
performance by use of non - runway dependent systems
such as air - cushion landing systems or reversible
fans .

b. Supercritical wing technology should be tested

and developed as it might apply to commercial
aircraft configurations , including full scale
research on low -wing aircraft to assess inter
ference effects , ground effects , etc.

38-266 O - 74 - 14
 204

C. The traditional NASA program on materials research

and development should proceed with emphasis on
prospective lightening and simplification of
structure , and in - service evaluation of reliability
and maintainability of new structural materials and
structures .
This effort should include emphasis on development
of new coating and plating processes , and inspection
techniques , for restoration of surfaces that have
deteriorated in normal service .

d. Research and trade-off studies should continue on the

use of stability augmentation systems (SAS ) to
augment the unstabilizing effect of super
critical wing technology , and on the use of full
time active stabilization systems in terms of
their impact on simplification and lightening of
aircraft structure .

e. A research effort to establish the capabilities

of variable geometry aircraft for transport
applications . This program should include the
study of optimum economics of the subsonic /
supersonic mode of operation to help deal with
the prospects of eliminating overland booms in
supersonic aircraft .
f. With respect to STOL and VTOL aircraft , ' research
should emphasize the establishment of a framework
of an economic criterion of design . " Since
past NASA work has focused attention on a series
of technology problems , such a design criterion
would be helpful in assessing the value of future
research into STOL and VTOL aircraft .

5. Wake Turbulence

a. A high priority effort to establish the character

istics of wake vortices , their life cycle , deteri
oration mechanism , and movement with the passage
of time and under varying meteorological conditions .
b. Research into the causes of wake vortex creation
and study of methods of reducing or modifying
wake vortices on existing aircraft with minimum
modifications of the aircraft , and minimum
reduction in efficiency .
C. Research into more drastic means for ameliorating
or eliminating wake vortices from existing and
future planned aircraft .
 205

d. Research into the optimum methods for following

aircraft to avoid harmful effects from wakes
in the path .

e. Close cooperative effort with FAA in the develop

ment of wake vortex detection and warning systems .
6. Aircraft operational Efficiency Improvements

This should be a specifically focused multi -disciplinary

effort to produce fundamental improvements in the
efficiency of aircraft in the aviation system , with
emphasis on work to reduce cost of operation and improve
performance of aircraft , especially those used in air
transportation . This should be a specifically
designated program task for NASA . Useful results would
yield valuable advantages to U. s . industry and the
international competitive market , as well as offering
advantages to all who use air transportation .
A part of NASA's efforts should be to identify areas
where promising work should be done . The following
should be specifically considered :
a. Research efforts on the improvement of tire life ,
integrity , and of the entire tire /braking system .
b. Research towards providing better traction under
adverse runway conditions and to prevent hydro
planing .
C. Research into improvements in tread and carcass
design , as well as tire test methods .
d. Research into materials used in runway surfacing
to overcome slippery runway problems as well as
research into better ways of removing ice and
snow . (This work should be done in cooperation
with FAA . )
e. Research into the development of evacuation and
escape systems significantly more dependable and
safer than those currently in use .
f. Research into system design from a maintainability
perspective . This should not be simply a design
improvement effort but a broad - based examination
of the aircraft systems including materials ,
structures , avionics , accessories , engines , and
other , hardware , to determine whether there are
better ways of integrating aircraft systems
to permit simpler , more maintainable transport
vehicles .
 206

g. Research into improved methods of locating

aircraft downed in deep water , as well as
research on optimum ditching techniques using
aircraft models .
n. Research on vehicle optimization for operation
in the existing and prospective Air Traffic
Control system , starting with the problem of
optimizing passenger and/or freight-through-put
at given airports of limited acreage .
Research to establish changes and improvements
which can be made to aircraft operation to permit
a simpler , more efficient air traffic control
process . In any such work , the basic guidance
and direction should be provided by FAA , and
criteria provided by FAA on the prospective
characteristics of the Air Traffic Control
system , and areas in which vehicle improvements
would pay off .
7. Flight Control Avionics and Integrity Research
a. Research into the application of active controls ,
and the potential application of " fly - by -wire "
systems, as a means of airframe design simpli
fication , with particular emphasis on innovative
approaches to reliability and fault survival .
b. Research in flight control systems leading to
better and simpler stability augmentation systems +
ride comfort systems , and simplification of
automatic flight control designs . Basic research
( as opposed to system design refinement ) for the
achievement of new orders of reliability , fault
survival, and system integrity in full time
stability augmentation and flight control systems .
c. Research into the applications of new avionics
and displays to permit simple pilot/aircraft
performance of unique terminal , approach , and
departure procedures ( in concert with FAA Air
Traffic Control system improvements ) . This
effort should be based on FAA statements of
criteria on expected and desired characteristics
of future airports .
.
d

Continuing research into simpler and more

effective methods of clear air turbulence de
tection and clear air turbulence warning systems .
 207

8. Human Factors and Psychoacoustics

This research effort in life sciences should place
particular emphasis on physiological factors related
to pilots :
a. Assessment of limitations of outside visual
cues in permitting pilots to see other aircraft
and in landingi
b. establishment of physiological factors which
may lead to new or improved display systems ;
establishment of pilot factors to aid in
determining optimum pilot role in automatic
and semi-automatic flight control and
Air Traffic Control systems ;

d. studies of optimum pilot attention and

awareness techniques ;
optimum relationships between simulation and
flight training in terms of training realism ; and
f. continued research into better and simpler
pilot training devices .
9. Additional Research Recommendations
a. Research and development toward achievement of
an insecticide which can be dispensed through
normal aircraft air conditioning distribution
systems during taxi-out , Such insecticide must
be compatible with all aircraft materials , and
be non-hazardous to humans ( infant and adult ) ,
live cargo , or agricultural materials .
b. Research into advanced filtration systems for
control of odors and contaminants which enter
the cabin through the air conditioning system ,
particularly during extending ground holding
periods prior to take - off .
C. Research and development into improved heat
transfer methods for discrete electronic units ,
and studies into reliability and life improve
ment for electronic systems under various
conditions of environmental control ,
d. Research and development into improved hydraulic
fluids . There is need for work on a fire
resistant fluid with fewer undesirable side
 208

effects , improved metal erosion character

istics , higher thermal stability , and lower
solvency activity , than current fluids .
Ozone data collection and studies of the
effect of ozone on aircraft materials for
consideration of future SST designs .
Other NASA Research Areas

In addition to the above nine categories of research , the

airlines support NASA research efforts in basic satellite tech
nology as they may lead to improved communications and
(subsequently, ranging capabilities . Such work should be done
under the direction and guidance of FAA .
Airlines see relatively little prospective benefit for
civil transport operations, especially in the nearer term , in
such efforts as VTOL or tilt rotor research , nor research on
hypersonic transport vehicles .
The airlines support further work in the basic technologies of
supersonic flight in order to maintain an acceptable v . s . base
for this technology .
 209

Statomentof: Arthur G. Crimmins

Manager
Acrocrine Programs
All American Engineering Company
> 1
Wilmington, Del. 19899
Mr. Chairman :

We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on the offorts being made to expand man's
overall ability to lift and move heavy loads. The fact of those honrings indicate that the basic thinking is
belang,done,that is so vital if we are to solve old problems in a new way .
As a point of beginning, let us assume that some form of social device couldoperate Hike a helicopter
but, instead of only being able to lip 12 tons as is the case with the largest available helicopter, let us
imagine a capability of upto 1000 tons. Abo let us usume that this now aerial device will operate at a cost
factor between 10 and 20 % of helicopter costs per pound of lift. Without attempting to define the
mochanical details of this dovice, whichIshall call the " Aerocrane ", let us think of the ærvices thatsuch a
aerial vehicle could perform .

In the industrial nations of the world the postulated Aprocrine could build bridgös, aid in industrial
plant construction, sestin agriculture in many ways from post control to timber harvestingand greatlyaid
the construction of energy generating facilities. Perhaps the major use would be in the delivery of highly
desirable dwelling units from " home factories" that could apply the incredibly successful mass production
techniques of industry to our housing problem .
The ability of the Aerocrane to vertically lift loads us large as virtually any land based cane without
the need for roads or ground preparation of any sortwill be useful in many casca .
Even in suchrather mundane seus such us earth moving,the Aerocrane could give accesstonatural
resources such as coul, o stiale, and timber now considered economically inaccessible. In this use the
proposed aerial vehicle would be fitted with a cam bucket and overdurdon removed ( and spread over
previously mined areas for case of land roclamation) and/or ore loaded into trucks for transport.i I
In the Less Developed Countries (LDC) the Acrocrane could literally mean Instant podoptecity
making available vast quantities of rawmaterial without the nood for the staggering investmentsnow
required in roads and mild systems. In a wodd plagued by shortages and high raw material pricesongladered
by short-sighted policy decisions of a few nations fortunate enough to have readily worsable resources, the
adventof the postulated Acrocrane would break most raw material monopolies bysuddenly bringing now.
suppliers:Into the market where thelaw of supply and demand would again be operative.
A major ute for such a Acorcrane would be in the unloading of cargo from contatorships. A 90-ton
lingload Aerocrane could provide a highly cost effecttio method of containership unloadingfor both
chvillion and military needs.

As the need for logistic support is the backbone of any military operation, a highly versatile arine
such u we postulato would bon bo indispensable,particularly w themerchant marine fleetsof the world
bocome more and more a container moving system .

There seems to be little doubt that if such an " Aerocrano" escisted as an American pribadiace, thie
export males alone would quicklybe a major factorinourbalance of payments, particularly if such a doriae
used a major natural resourco, such as bellum , in quantity.
 210

It is my pleasure to assure you and the members of this committee that a flying model of such a
deviuc is alive and well and living at All American Engineering Company in Wilmington , Delaware .
The All American Aerocane concept has been examined by the Aerospace Corporation of El
Segundo, California under contract from the U.S. Forest Sorvice with the opinion expressed that the AL
Aerocrane is foodble, well within the state of the art and potentially a highly useful and cost effective
vehicle , not only for timber harvestry but for many other usos .

A U. S. Navy contract has just been completed that has firmly established that the validity of the
Aerocrane concept is fully supported by extensive analytical work proving, among other points, that the
Aerocrane is remarkably insensitive to structural weightmlationships. In fact, the structuralweight of the
Aerocrane can actually be equal to the total acrodynamic lift (a situation that would absolutely prevent
true flight in a helicopter or airplane) with loss than a 15 % offecton overall performance .
A brief description of the Aerocrane is attached.

We are in the beginning phaseof the development program needed . The Naval Air Systems Command,
Advanced Concepts Division has had programmanagement responsiblity for thefirst contract. The Surface
Container System division of the Army Material Coundl has shown interest in the Aerocrane as a vital link
in containership off loading in support of military operations.

We feel the final roquirement is a full appreciation by Congress of the need for and foasibility of the
Aerocrane concept. We would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the 33 foot wing span flying model
now operational in Wilmington , Delaware.

BOX 12
TWX 51

het on thie
 211

THE AEROCRANE
A NEW CONCEPT IN ULTRA HEAVY VERTICAL LIFT

ws

2 KR

atenta

A ALL AMERICAN ENGINEERING COMPANY

a subsidiary of ALL AMERICAN INDUSTRIE S, INC
BOX 1247 . 801 SOUTH MADISON STAEET . WILMINGTON . DELAWARE • 19899 • PHONE 302-654-6131.
TWX 510-666-3657
Combination Liced Hit CABLE ALAMEN
 212

INTERNAL STABILIZATION CABLES The low wing loading resulting from the low relative wind
velocities and the external wing cable supports permits
uncomplicated construction techniques, much different than
either high -speed fixed -wing or conventional rotary-wing
aircraft. Because of the buoyance of the Aerocrane, structural
weight is also less important relative to present powered
150 FOOT DIAMETER
aircraft and therefore permits lower cost and longer life
component design while maintaining a high operating wa

DING LENGTH , II ? FEET

FOUR TURBOPROP ENGINES efficiency and low cost operation . 0
1250 MP EACH

....................
Because of varying lift requirements and the necessity of
vertical and horizontal directional and rate control, the wings
BING VIOTM will require both cyclic and collective pitch control. This will
18 FEET be accomplished from either a mechanical or combination
10 RPM , TIP SPEED 196 ' /SEC mechanical/aerodynamic control system .
42 MPH

ORD
50 TON SLING LOAD
The wings will be attached to the spheroid at the equatorial
plane through pivotal connections to the tubular spars which
Figure 1 converge at the centroid of the sphere.

Description of a Fifty- Ton Slingload Aerocrane Control Cab

Figure 1 shows a conceptual Aerocrane with four 112 -foot A control cab or gondola from which the Aerocrane will be
long by 18 -foot wide wings, each having a turbo prop power piloted is located directly below the vertical centerline of the
plant mounted on a 150 -foot diameter spheroid. spheroid .

Also shown in the figure is one possible approach to the design This gondola must be adequate to provide all the necessary

18LFILI/
of the skeletal structure internal to the spheroid: a light-weight

-
engine and flight controls, navigation equipment, radio
concept having tubular wing spars extending from a central equipment and life support functions dictated the mission
point within the spheroid with another tube extending requirements.
through the vertical axis down to the control cab . A matrix of
cables interconnecting these tubes completes this
uncomplicated but efficient primary structure.

Aerostat

The aerostatic portion of the Aerocrane is sized to achieve

sufficient buoyance to lift the total vehicle weight, including
fuel, plus buoyancy of up to 50 percent of the slingload (in
this case 50,000 pounds )..

* The 150 - foot diameter spheroid is constructed of a membrane

EXTERML TING SUPPORT CABLES
covering the primary tube and cable structure .
SUIVEL JOINT
CONTROL CAB
Wings and Powerplants CONTROL CABAS DRIVEN BY A RETROGRADE
GEAR SYSTEN TO MAINTAIN PILOT ORIENTATION
TO FLIGHT PATH .)
The aerostatic lift is supplemented by aerodynamic lift
generated by rotating the entire spheroid/wing assembly at a
low speed ( approximately 10 RPM ). The aerodynamic lift
provided by the wings is 50 percent of the slingload ( 50,000
pounds). The rotor thrust is vectorable and is used to Figure 2
maneuver and propel the Aerocrane.

An estimated (maximum ) 1500 horsepower turbo prop

powerplant on each of four wings will provide the power To provide positive orientation of the control cab and prevent WAMUS

va
necessary to lift a 50-ton slingload and translate at 42 mph. rotation with the spheroid , there is a swiveling joint above the
cab and a retrograde drive system ( see Figure 2).
 213

Performance scaling effects on the Aerocrane. Note that an Aerocrane

capable of lifting 220,000 pounds would have a sphere
The Aerocrane adds a totally new dimension to the diameter of 195 feet (only 45 feet larger than one for 100,000
performance of air vehicles with respect to payload capability, pounds) and require a total horsepower of about 13,500 to
vehicle cost per pound of payload and operating cost. translate at 42 knots.

While the Aerocrane is inherently limited to rela ely low Another attractive feature of Aerocrane lies in its overload
translational speeds because of the high parasitic drag of its capability . A vertical lift overload of about 20 tons is possible ;
aerostatic sphere and normal slingloads, it has high efficiency translational speed capability , however, will be reduced . In
over most normal wind conditions at the low altitudes in other words , if structurally designed to resist the 20 -ton
which it will normally operate . overloads, the 50 -ton Aerocrane would be able to lift 70 tons,
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY OF 42 MPH AEROCRANE but translate at 25 K.
EFFICIENCY

IN WINDS UP TO 40 MPH
VEHICLE

100 %
FACTOR

1 - COST OF VENICLE PER FOUND OF VEHICLE STRUCTURE

OPERATIONS IN 90
CROSS WIND 300.000 XOOK AEROCRANE

have? 42
* 100
) mnoho 107 $ 100

36.5
OPERATIONS DIRECTLY MPH 200.000
IN LINE WITH WIND
PAYLOAD

E.
* 100
%
130.00
IL

&

29.5
160 AEMOCRANG ( 25)
MPH 100.000

$ 1742
MERCULES
50.000

CAROL

SKYVAN

0 10.5 21 31.5 40 10 100 19 200 20

WIND VELOCITY IN MPH PEED NOT

Figure 3 Figure 5

Figure 3 is a plot of vehicle time efficiency at different wind Vehicle purchase cost relative to payload capacity is another
speeds for a 42 mph Aerocrane . In this case vehicle time important performance consideration. For example, each
efficiency is the ratio of time under no wind conditions to pound of payload capacity in a CH -47C helicopter costs about
cover one nautical miles to the average time to cover one $ 100 , or about the same as a Boeing 747. An Aerocrane , on
nautical mile in each direction under ambient wind conditions. the other hand, is estimated to cost about $25 per pound of
Note that is winds up to approximately 30 mph, efficiencies of slingload regardless of its size. Figure 5 compares
over 50 percent result over any closed course . representative fixed- and rotary -wing aircraft payloads , costs
AEROCRANE PERFORMANCE
and speeds to Aerocranes of 50- and 150-ton slingload
70
700
capacities.
35.000

60
600 30,000 Control System
HORSEPOWER

50
PEED
,.Snots

500 25,000
SLING
kMAX

Although it may prove possible to use normal helicopter type

HOAD
.X100
lbs

cyclic and collective pitch control for the Aerocrane, the rigid
(ho

40
400 20.000
mar. tilt angle - 20 non - flapping wings may transmit unacceptable cyclic loadings
iling Toad
300 15,000
- 13.500
to the structure resulting in a wallowing action would could
20
cause crew discomfort. Preliminary calculations have shown
200 10.000 also that quite high aerodynamic gust and maneuvering loads
&

10
100 5.000
are possible if the relieving effect of blade flap is not present.
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 0
One promising approach is a control system in which the-wings
SPHERE DIAMETER , ft.
195
are pivoted well ahead of their aerodynamic center and torque
of known amounts is collectively and cyclically applied to
Figure 4 induce the required thrust from each blade . The problem of
phase lag due to a change in moment not giving an immediate
change in thrust must be carefully considered .
In contrast to the traditional penalties for scaling up a
conventional rotary wing aircraft, the Aerocrane becomes The use of aerodynamic (tab or elevator) control as well as
more attractive in larger sizes. Figure 4 shows the approximate direct root control will be considered.
 214

HIGH WIND MOORING CONDITION

50 - TON SLING LOAD
AEROCRANE 40.000 LBS
NET AERO 150 FEET
18°
STATIC LIFT
120,00 LBS
NET AERODYNAMIC DRAG
100 KNOT WIND

500 FEET

80 FEET
MOORING LINES
18 DEGREES

40 FEET

RE
MOORING

Mooring

Becuase of the high reserve buoyancy to drag ratio inherent in

FACTORY - BUILT HOME DELIVERY
a large Aerocrane , mooring under high winds appears feasible .

Figure 6 shows a possible two line mooring configuration for a

50 -ton slingload Aerocrane in well above hurricane force wind
conditions (100 knots) . Note that the 1 : 3 net lift-to -drag ratio
give 80 feet of vertical ground clearance above the ground
tether point with approximately 500 feet of mooring line
length .

This is a purely static approach to a highly dynamic situation

and is not intended to indicate that a vehicle of this size can be
successfully moored under these conditions. Until satisfactory சிகிட
mooring systems can be analyzed and tested , a vehicle of this
type will be better in flight during unusual wind conditions.

Many potential uses have been suggested. The cover illustrates

a nuclear generating plant component weighing 500 tons being
23
transported by an Aerocrane. The following illustrations point MASS TRANSPORTATION
out a few more suggested uses.

‫مه‬
96.6.6.0.1.3.1.

144

CONTAINER SHIP UNLOADING WHOLE TREE AERIAL LOGGING

 215

45-7 ( m )

O
F
Board Chairman
EL

T
AN
James F. Atkins H AMERICAN

E
MERIC
President
Thomas R. Stuelpnagel nd HELICOPTER
wa
Secretary-Treasurer
John A. McKenna
SOCIETY, INC.
30 East 42nd Street . New York, N. Y. 10017
Eszecutive Director Tel.: Area Code 212-697-5168
Harry M. Lounsbury
9 July 1974
Regional
Vice Presidents The Honorable Frank E. Moss
Northeast Chairman , Committee on
Evan A. Fradenburgh
Mideast
Aeronautical and Space Sciences
RE W. Euan Hooper United States Senate
Southeast
Washington , D.C. 20510
Brig. Gen. Noah C. New , USMC
Midwest Doar Senator Moss:
Richard L. Long
Southwest It has been brought to my attention that your Committee on
Stanley Martin, Jr. Aeronautical and Space Sciences will hold hearings this month to
Western
James S. Hayden investigate new ideas for aircraft of the 1980's and beyond . Let me
International Affairs urge that your considerations include the future role of the light
Ralph P. Alex helicopter, particularly in urban transport .
Technical Director Enclosed is a copy of a paper presented by me to the Helicopter
Edward S. Carter, Jr. Association of America at an annual meeting of its full membership .
It would be appreciated if you will include it as part of your hearing
record, along with this letter.
Awards Chairman
James F. Atkins
To summarize the paper , we in the helicopter industry believe
that by the 1980's the helicopter will become to intracity transportation
Membership Chairman
Robert A. Wagner
what fixed -wing aircraft have been to intercity transportation for the
past 30 years . With increased urban surface congestion , higher costs of
rights-of-way and continued decentralization ofmetropolitan areas,
Forum Chairman local commerce and industry will need a transportation system that
Carl D. Perry requires a relatively small investment, uses a minimum of land and
offers the potential of speed , low cost , low noise, safety , convenience
Counsel and comfort. The solution to these requirements is within the realm of
Alfred L. Wolf existing helicopter technology .

Directors -at-Large I believe that the enclosed paper substantiates this fully. If
Norman R. Augustine further details or documentation is desired , please feel free to call on me .
Capt. David L. Hughes, USN
Lewis G. Knapp
Robert R. Lynn Sincerely yours ,
Herbert F. Moseley
Donald W. Robinson
Frederick G. Schonenberg
Paul F. Yaggy Te ssawurap esressi
T. R. Stuelpnagel
President

Encl /as noted THOMAS R. STUELPNAGEL

VICE PRESIDENT AND

L GENERAL MANAGER

(210 ) 670-3301
HUGHES HELICOPTERS CONTINELA #TEALE STREET
DIVISION OF SUMMA CORP . CULVER CITY , CALIFORNIA
 216

The Helicopter is a
Necessary Urban Transport
for the 1980's

Thomas R. Stuelpnagel
Vice President and General Manager
Hughes Helicopter Company
 217

THE HELICESTER IS A NECESSARY URBA , TRANSPORT

FOR THE 1980's

It is well known that the economic growth of an urban community is dependent

upon mobility within the community . The question posed in this study is whether
this mobility can be achieved without the operation of an urban VTOL transport .
It is contended that a sound economic growth of the urban community will re
quire the use of helicopter transports in the 1980's . Further, it is believed
that the helicopter will be to intra city transportation in the next 30 years what
fixed wing aircraft have been to inter city transportation in the last 30 years .
Air transportation has been the lifeline to national economic growth. It will
have the same dramatic impact on the future economic growth of our urban
areas .
The difference is that the distances involved in the urban community
are typically 20 times shorter . As such , the air vehicle involved will be dif
ferent but the job will be the same .

The urban transportation problem has resulted in great emphasis being placed
on the development and modernization of mass transit for improved mobility
in the growing urban areas . This effort is properly looked upon as an impor
tant solution to moving a large number of people in the shortest period of time .
However , there is an inclination of many planners to look upon surface rapid
trans it as a panacea for resolving the entire needs of the urban communities
to the exclusion of alternate transportation modes , such as air transport for
special transport requirements . This position is unsound and needs to be
changed for several reasons . First, it can be shown that the urban popular
tion and employment growth has been occurring at a more rapid rate in the
metropolitan rings than in the central cities now serviced by rapid transit
systems . Second, this decentralization of urban areas increases the cost of
the surface transportation systems because of the exponential growth in area
or increased line haul miles and the increased equipment needs to provide the
service . Third , the economic requirements of urban decentralization can be
correlated with national economic growth that was accompanied by the growth
of air transportation and stems from the importance of time saving as travel
distances increase . Fourth, the helicopter transport is a practical solution
to meeting urban economic development requirements . It is practical in
terms of cost, speed, noise . safety , convenience and land requirements ,
being at a development and operational stage similar to that preceding the
large scale introduction of the DC- 3 . The technology is now ready to be effec
tively exploited for the benefit of special urban transportation requirements .
These reasons dictate the need for the development of a helicopter urban
transport in conjunction with other modes of transportation . Let us examine
each of these reasons more carefully .

1
 218

13
URBAN GROWTH

As urban population has grown, it has been accompanied by a greater increase

of people living outside central cities than in central cities , as shown in Fig.
ure 1 , with projections to 1985 .

In addition , this pattern is also reflected in a significantly greater rise in total

employment outside of central cities as compared to the central cities , Figure
2. These patterns reflect a clear decentralization of business and population
around metropolitan areas and a resultant increase in distance between many 1
companies doing business with each other in these areas . In this decentrali .
zation picture, it is also foundl that transit usage does not stem the tide of
decentralization of population and employment from the central city. In fact,
it has been found that central cities with the highest transit usage consistently
exhibit the smallest increases or the largest declines in employment and popu
lation in both their central cities and metropolitan rings . Yet, in this decen
tralization movement, massive emphasis is being put on rapid transit serv
icing central cities to the exclusion of alternate modes of transportation that
could provide rapid service between business enterprises in the metropolitan
rings .
160
OUTSIDE
CENTRAL INCREASE
CITIES 6 MILLION
100
PER YEAR
MILLIONS
1976-1986
OF
PERSONS
60

CENTRAL
CITIES

1946 1966 1966 1975 1985

YEAR

Figure 1. Urban Population Growth *

20

15
CENTRAL INCREASE
MILLIONS CITIES 250,000 JOBS
OF 10 PER YEAR
PERSONS 1976-1985

6
OUTSIDE
CENTRAL
CITIES

INS 1966 1966 1975 1985

YEAR

Figure 2. Total Employment for the 24 Largest Cities in

Manufacturing, Trade and Selected Services *

* Source : A. Ganz, " Emerging Patterns of Urban Growth and Travel, " MIT,
Project Transportation
1 Meyer, J.R. , Kaio, J.F. , Wohl, M. , " The Urban Transportation Problem , "
Harvard University Press , Cambridge, Mass .

2
 219

SURFACE TRANSPORATION NEEDS

The geometry of the expanding metropolitan radius results in an exponential

growth of the area needing transportation service . It follows that this requires
a greater investment in rights - of- way for all surface modes and an increase
mileage, facilities , and equipment to provide the need service . With this
expansion of distance , the need for time- saving transportation mode a becomes
a greater economic necessity .

TRANSPORTATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

The need and development of time saving transportation modes was at the
forefront of U.S. economic development . This need was manifested in the
exponential growth in U.S. commercial air transportation after World War II
as shown in Figure 3. Accompanying this growth was an exponential growth
in domestic trade as reflected by the revenue for various modes of domestic
property shipments shown in Figure 4. This growth in trade correlates with
the growth in air travel because the entrepreneurs developing new business
made up approximately two- thirds of the total travel, increasing exponentially
(per Figure 5 ) , with increased trade .
126 25

100 20

REVENUE
75 15
PASSENGER REVENUE
MILES (BILLIONS $ )
10
(BILLIONS) 50
25 5

0
1920 1930 1940 1960 1960 1970 1980
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEARS YEARS

Figure 3 . Domestic Air Travel * Figure 4. Domestic Shipping Revenue

From Motor Carrier , Air
and Rail Transportation **

20
* Source : " Handbook of Airline Sta
tistics " and " Air Carrier
16

NO . OF
PERSON Traffice Statistics, "
TRIPS
10
Published by CAB,
MADE
BY AIR
(MILLIONS )
6 **Source: " 1969 Business Statistics"
and " Survey of Current
11
Business , U.S. Depart
1945 1960 1956 1960 1966 1970 1976 ment of Commerce ,
YEARS
Figure 5. Business Air Travel*** ***Source : " 1963 and 1967 Census of
Transportation . "
U.S. Department of
Commerce ,

38-266 O - 74 - 15
 220

To facilitate this gror. n in air transportation and economic development, the

air transport industry developed the transports with continually increasing
capability and reduced cost . This made available the capacity, as shown in
Figure 6, and the cost saving to stimulate the growth of air transportation.
Of course , these factors were also accompanied by increased service to more
cities and airports in all kinds of weather, plus greater safety, comfort and
convenience, which is the history of U.S. transport aviation development.
However, it must be remembered that this evolution started with the imagina
tion and vision of many great aviation pioneers in industry, airlines and gov
ernment . They recognized the potential of an unproven system to effect the

500

400

NUMBER 300
OF
PASSENGER
200
SEATS

100

0
1935 1945 1965 1966 1975
YEARS

Figure 6. Growth in Fixed Wing Aircraft Size *

*Source : Jane's, " All the World's Aircraft . "

kind of time savings at a premium price that eventually became a stimulus

for U.S. economic development tying the nation closer together and stimu
lating the expansion of foreign trade . This same phenomenon applies to the
growing urban areas to assure economic development within specific areas
and between areas . There is a need for air transportation to assure economic
viability and growth .
URBAN HELICOPTER TRANSPORTATION

In the 1980 period, we are faced with the following : increased congestion from
a growing number of automobiles ; the prospect of paying premium cost for
rights - of- way ; and more equipment for new rapid transit systems to service
the metropolitan rings and, in many urban communities , to service the central
city . The decentralization of the city amplifies all of these problems as the
radius increases and the area goes up exponentially . In this period of increas
ing distances between urban industrial enterprises doing business together and
between enterprises and commercial airports.servicing visiting businessmen,
there is a growing need for a new transportation system : one that is not im
peded by surface congestion , requires a relatively small investment, uses a
minimum of premium land, and offers the potential of speed, low cost, low
noise, safety , convenience and comfort to an important segment of the travel
ing public .

4
 221

The way to achieve the objective is by introducing a haopter that is smaller

earing than used to date because of the ability to master the problems and make it
OWO
tato.
economical at this time . The concept proposed is a light twin engine helicop
mon
ter with a 10 -passenger capacity, equipped for IFR, incorporating quieting
urtar
features capable of reducing noise by 90 percent from that of more conven
WI
tional designs and providing a structural integrity and safety exceeding any
commercial design ever built. This helicopter would provide : average speeds
apie from origin to destination that are three or more times faster than that of
djor surface modes, an operating cost equal to that of a taxicab, great flexibility
ect the
in route structure, a utility value2 that now is twice as great as that of a taxi .
cab and could exceed that of a private automobile as the helicopter system
was developed to provide lower helicopter maintenance and more helistop..

In support of this solution for intra city transportation, a few facts will be
examined. If the helicopter today is compared to the fixed wing aircraft in
size, Figure 7, the helicopter is at a point today that fixed wing air transpor
tation was at about the time the DC - 3 was making its impact on air transpor
tation growth , approximately 30 years after both their inception .
MELICOPTER FOXED WAS
CALENDAR YEARS
10 'W 'W ' n w
' ino 29 W'W ' n

MO
NUMBER
OF w
PASSENGER
SEATS 200
(UNITS )
100
1
20C-3
. 10 23 4 10 26 34 * N *
mula YEARS AFTER INCEPTION il
timo
to the
Figure 7. Transport Aircraft Size Comparison*
areas
HELICOPTER FOXED WING
CALENDAR YEARS
e 'solo 70 10 100 20 30 W 70 W
125

100

REVENUE 75
PASSENGER
from MILES
60
( BILLIONS)
t for POINTS OF EQUAL
25 UTILIZATION
rvice
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 70
YEARS AFTER INCEPTION

Figure 8 . Transport Aircraft Utilization**

* Source: Jane's, " All the World's Aircraft . "

**Source : " Handbook of Airline Statisitcs, " CAB .
low
relo 2
Utility Value = Passenger Volume x Average Speed
Total Cost

5
 222

However, a comparison of helicopter and fixed wing uurization, Figure 8, in 2

dicates that the helicopter has fallen behind by approximately ten years . This
is due to the lack of community acceptance resulting from helicopter noise,
reliability deficiencies , high cost and proximity of operations to residential and
business establishments . In more recent times this problem has worsened
as evidenced by the decline in helicopter airline operations shown in Figure 9 .
30

20
REVENUE
PASSENGER
MILES
(MILLIONS ) 10

1040 HA1050 1000

YEARS
Figure 9. Helicopter Transport Utilization *
* Source : " Handbook of Airline Statistics , " CAB .
1070 10

Therefore , what is needed is a helicopter of the type previously described for

intra city operation that satisfies the low noise and high reliability criteria
that would encourage user and community acceptance .

Looking to the future, it is clearly feasible for industry to provide a 10 - pas

senger helicopter operating in a commuter mode between, say, two high traffic
density points with a high enough load factor on a 10- minute departure schedule C

to experience a low cost operation . As in the early days of fixed wing trans
ports , some small subsidy might be required at the outset but it is expected
to operate without subsidy and at a profit as the system, equipment, and facil
ities evolve . Figure 10 depicts the projected cost through the year 2000. Com.
pared to other modes of transportation, the cost can be expected to'be compe C

titive in the next 30 years , but the average speed of the helicopter will far
exceed that of the surface transport - adding greatly to its utility value for
business and economic needs in the megalopolitan area .

125

100
OPERATING
EXPENSE 76 (
PER
PASSENGER 1
MILE 50
(CENTS )
25

0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
YEARS
Figure 10. Helicopter Operating Expense **

** Source : " Handbook of Airline Statistics , " CAB .

6
 223

The thesis is that the growth of the helicopter is consonant with the growth of
the city. Helicopter utilization is dependent on having a machine that is accept
able by the community to fly over their houses and into conveniently located
2014 heliports . The economic and business need already exists when one considers
that approximately three million trips under 50 miles are made by air, and
37618 half of these are made for business annually. 3
gures
In addition, the helicopter transportation system will require approximately
one- tenth the land needed for STOL aircraft systems and 1 / 3doth the land
needed for rail and road transportation serving a 30 -mile equivalent route .
Therefore, we find that a helicopter transportation system can be an effective
alternative transportation system to alleviate the traffic congestion in urban
areas while offering all of the other benefits cited, most important of which
is the stimulus for sound economic development.

In view of these facts , we believe it is time for action to assure balanced

transportation development . The Transportation Department has assessed4
that $670 billion will be required for transportation through 1990. Of this ,
$560 billion will be required for highway construction and $ 63 billion for
public transit needs . Of the latter, 70 percent would be for railways. It is
bed in: proposed that approximately 1 percent of the public transit funds or approxi
riters mately $500 million be used to develop a helicopter transportation system
for 25 major cities over the next 20 years . The money would be disbursed as
follows: $ 100 million for a helicopter development program that could be
paid back from royalties on helicopter sales; $250 million for ten terminals
to begin with in each of 25 major metropolitan areas ; $50 million for air traffic
hedal control facilities ; and $ 100 million for personnel training, administration ,
and general expenses .
peck
facil. This investment will support the next major economic growth in the United
Cod. States that will take place in the urban areas outside of the central cities , and
ompe contribute to the development of better than 250,000 jobs per year in the man
ufacturing, trade, and selected services outside the 25 central cities . These
uefor jobs represent an increase in local income in excess of $ 100 billion over a
20- year period from 1980 to 2000. This income will have a multiplying effect
on national income as well .

Thus, an investment of $500 million helps to create and support an increase

of $ 100 billion in the 20- year economic base of the urban areas outside central
cities at a time when there is a growing resistance to extending freeway and
railroad rights - of- way that threatens to restrain economic growth .

3 "of1967 Census of Transportation, National Travel Survey," U.S. Department

Commerce .

4 " 1972 National Transportation Report, " Department of Transportation,

July 1972 .

7
 224

The facts presented here warrant an immediate effort to invest money in the
development of the basic helicopter and an experimental operation in a selected
location . This will permit the early evaluation of the system to establish the
costs and operating requirements for national implementation .
The necessity for a helicopter transportation system for urban application is
the key to the growth of employment and economic viability of the developing
urban communities. A helicopter transportation system must be regarded as
a necessary supplement to rail and road development .
 225

391-0711

HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY 4.5-7 (m )

! GULVER CITY
CALIFORNIA

July 2 , 1974

Honorable Frank E. Moss

Chairman, Committee on Aeronautical
and Space Sciences
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Chairman Moss :

This is in reply to your letter of June 18 to Mr. L. A. Hyland,

our General Manager , in which you offered us the opportunity
to submit a statement in connection with your planned hearings
on Advanced Aeronautical Concepts .

Our company is not active in any of the areas of engineering

which are listed for your agenda. However, we are co - located
with Hughes Helicopters. I have taken the liberty of passing
your statement on to Mr. T. R. Stuelpnagel, Vice President
and General Manager of Hughes Helicopters , thinking that he
may be able to submit a statement which may be of interest to
you on one of these subjects ,

Very truly yours ,

Jerrems
Director of Technology
1
 226

BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE COMPANY

Jun
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle , Washington 98124

A Division of The Boeing Company

July 25 , 1974
B-7210-1-167

Senator Frank E. Moss

Committee on Aeronautical & Space Science
Washington , D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Moss :
Thank you for the opportunity to present written testimony for your
hearings on advanced aeronautical concepts . This letter will address
three of the five general areas covered by the hearings : new aircraft
designs , engines and fuels , and safety . The comments apply primarily
to commercial aviation .
Before getting to specific suggestions , I would like to discuss briefly
the philosophy of the government industry relationship in maintaining
a healthy aircraft industry . This country has been highly successful
in a commercial airplane business despite competition from European
countries with much lower labor rates than ours . The two principal
reasons for our ability to attain high world market penetration have
been ; a ) our technological base together with the ability to translate
it into high volume, efficient production , and b ) the ability of the
U.S. aircraft industry to tailor airplanes to the needs of airlines .
The technological advantage of the U.S. aircraft industry has in large
part been a fallout of past military aircraft development. In recent
years military research has declined and NASA spending has been pri
marily on space exploration . Meanwhile, foreign governments have
directly subsidized their industries in development of new commercial
airplane programs . The most recent examples are the A-300 short-to
medium range passenger airplanes and the Concorde. Despite this trend ,
we do not expect the government of the United States to spearhead commer
cial airplane developments. We feel that more flexibility is available
to find the right airplane combination for the airline market when the
exchange on requirements can take place directly between airline and the
manufacturer and when program go-ahead decisions are made on a strictly
commercial economics basis . Profit motive is a good decision criterion .
We feel that the principal role of the government should be in pioneering
high risk technological research . If the government can spearhead the
development of new technology then private industry should be able to
capitalize upon that know -how in bringing forth new airplane development
programs . The technology needed may not all be developed in the laboratory.
In the past , research airplanes such as the X series of airplanes after

BOEING
 227

World War II have proved to be extremely valuable and are reasonably

economical for bringing forth and trying out new ideas in aeronautical
technology. Some research can be best carried out by government agencies
in-house, e.g. development of new airfoil or high lift technology .
Other government sponsored research should be contracted to industry ,
e.g. airplane configuration studies or research aircraft .
In the following paragraphs.some general comments will be made in the
areas of new aircraft designs , engines and fuels , and safety and examples
of worthwhile research projects will be cited ,
NEW AIRCRAFT DESIGNS

New commercial airplanes will be required during the 80's and 90's in one
or more of the categories of subsonic , supersonic , and transonic passenger
airplanes, STOL , and very large airfreighters ,

The technology necessary to support medium range subsonic aircraft should

emphasize fuel efficiency as well as environmental factors . These aircraft
make the most takeoffs and landings and consume the majority of the fuel
used in aviation . Research emphasis should include terminal area techno
logy (aircraft and ground systems). This should include technology to
improve the aircraft handling capacity of airports and to reduce the fuel
that is wasted by delays in takeoffs and landings. Improvements are needed
in propulsion systems for conservation of both fuel and the environment.
These will be discussed further under Propulsion and Fuels .
There is little doubt that efficient supersonic flight can allow a quantum
jump in long range commercial air transport productivity and usefulness .
Research is necessary to ensure that such aircraft are not only economically
attractive but that environmental questions such as noise can be addressed
from a solid technical data base . The military importance of efficient
supersonic flight is also self - evident. Despite current shortcomings,
the Concorde still is a continuing source of advanced technological data
and forms the nucleus around which a first class technology team is being
developed. Important fields where the U.S. could develop its own super
sonic technology include variable - cycle engines , structural concepts , and
configuration integration .

STOL aircraft have important military applications. In the commercial

field, as airline traffic grows , new terminals will be required eventually
to alleviate congestion . Economics and other land use restrictions will
tend to limit space available for airports and the development of STOL
may become essential for the orderly development of a good total transpor
tation system . Research is required prior to the design of these STOL
aircraft with emphasis in the following areas : Propulsive lift techniques
to allow short field performance with minimum sacrifice of flight efficiency;

OEING
 228

guidance and control to ensure safe flight at very low flight speeds
near the ground ; noise reduction schemes to eliminate the adverse
impact of engine and airframe noise.
Very large aircraft will provide a unique means of delivering cargo
over long distances efficiently and quickly. They may have important
commercial and military applications . Technological building blocks are
needed as well as formation of engineering teams to integrate the designs.
Key technical areas include research on : very thick airfoils ; structural
load alleviation ; structural materials and concepts development to allow
lightweight large structures ; integrated guidance and control; and active
controls to improve airplane efficiency . Research will be necessary also
in the area of manufacturing techniques to ensure eventual design and
construction of these large aircraft at low cost. Use of 1 aminar flow
control to reduce drag and improve energy efficiency should also be
re - examined .
PROPULSION AND FUELS

As mentioned earlier , development of improved propulsion systems is pro

bably the single most important advance needed to cope with the fuel
shortage and the increased sensitivity of the public to aircraft noise
and pollution . Continuing research towards improvements in these areas
is very important to the future of commercial aviation , One technology
area that has considerable promise is that of variable geometry in engines.
The variable geometry may come about from variable components (e.g. com
pressor blade pitch changes ) or from valving that allows changes in bypass
ratio . One version of a variable bypass engine has been tested at Pratt &
Whitney Aircraft under Air Force contract. This concept could allow great
improvements in supersonic aircraft by providing high bypass ratio to
provide low noise and high fuel efficiency in the vicinity of the airport.
It allows switching to a low bypass ratio for maximum fuel economy in
the supersonic portion of the flight.
in the area of fuels , there is a need to establish the characteristics
of aircraft - type fuels derived from coal and oil shales . If these charac
terestics are found to differ significantly from current ones, there should
be testing of these fuels in various types of aircraft engines with the
objective of finding the right compromise between extraction and refining
processes , fuel characteristics acceptable to aviation , and economics.
Fossil fuels face eventual exhaustion and long term studies of alternatives
are in order . Synthetic hydrocarbons, hydrogen , and nuclear propulsion
should be investigated. Synthetic hydrocarbons here refers to hydrocarbon
fuels made from non - fossil materials, while hydrogen suffers from low
energy per unit of volume and current high cost , it has very high energy
content per pound and would te compatible with airplanes of the future,
including hypersonic airplanes . Also , in the longer term , improvements in
core design and shielding may eventually make nuclear propulsion economical
for large airplanes .

BOEING
 229

SAFETY
Commercial air travel is currently one of the safest modes of transpor
tation. Fatalities per passenger mile are lower than those for auto
mobiles by a factor of six . However , further efforts and research to
improve aircraft safety are considered very important . Many of the
improvements in other technologies such as propulsion and structures
and flight controls will reflect themselves in improved reliability
and safety. Specific areas where more research seems to be needed are :
crew factors , weather forecasting , and crashworthiness .
Crew - factor research is desirable to find ways to help the flight crew
perform their duties through improved human engineering or better train
ing procedures . Research on improved weather forecasts and reporting
should cover clear air turbulence avoidance , runway visual range , and
improved current weather reporting . Research to improve airplane
crashworthiness should include development of fire resistant materials
and research on improved structural integrity of airplanes in crashes .
The above comments are not meant to be all inclusive but to give examples
of areas where increased research could be sponsored by the U.S. government.

Very truly yours ,

ณร์

193 H. W. Withington
1 Vice President Engineering

POEING
 230

-6405-7 (m )
COMBUST DIVISION , COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
WINDSOR. CONN. 06095
203-688-1911 CABLE : COMBENG

CE COMBUSTION DIVISION 2

July 8 , 1974
PSP - 74-185
X

Mr. Charles F. Lombard , Minority Counsel

Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences SIE

Russell Senate Office Building , Room 231

Washington , D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Lombard :

Subaitted herewith in response to your suggestion of June 26 , 1974 , is a state

ment by Combustion Engineering , Inc. related to its advanced transportation needs
for use in the mid - July hearings on Advanced Aeronautical concepts by the Senate
Aerodautical and Space Sciences Committee . Ist

The statement is , of necessity , brief and is based on existing data . , Work now
la the planning stage is intended to provide a broader definition of advanced
corporate transportation needs .
po
Included herein also per your suggestion is a brief personal biographical sketch .

ta
Sincerely yours ,

Hotel Seating
Stephen J Heating, Jr.
Program Manager
Airborne Heavy Lift Transportation Systems
side!

tret

het

berage
peri
ettric
wte

nie 1

រ ឯ1.
stra
 231

STATEMENT
to the
Senate Aeronautical Air Space Sciences Committee
on

Advanced Airborne Transportation Needs

2 by
Combustion Engineering , Incorporated

Mr. Chairman , I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of Combustion

Engineering, Inc. on its future transportation needs primarily with respect to
the transport of its Nuclear Steam Supply System components . Concern with
future transportation requirements are not unique to Combustion Engineering in
the electric power industry but may vary in degree from vendor to vendor . In
all cases , the trends are similar . It should be noted here that delivery means
using existing technology do exist for all units booked or proposed to date ,
however C-E recognizes that there can be strong economic incentive to utilize
alternate means based on new technologies . C-E is not averse to seriously con
sidering these means .

Nuclear Steam Supply Systems are characterized by very large , heavy components
such as the reactor vessels which presently weigh over 400 tons and are over 40
feet long by 22 feet in diameter , and the steam generators which weight up to
800 tons, are up to 65 feet long and 21 feet in diameter . Equipment supplied
by other vendors to complete the nuclear power plants such as the electric power
generator rotor and stator , is of a similar size and weight .
Almost without exception in the past , such equipment has been transported from
the point of manufacture to the point of installation by barge to plants sited near
navigable water . However , in the very recent past there has been a significant
trend away from plant sites near navigable water with the result that the large
components must be transshipped from the barge at the nearest port and then
transported over land by expensive , time - consuming methods to the remote sites .

The trend away from navigable water is due to several causes , amongst which are
the rapidly increasing cost of suitable water-edge real estate , the proliferation
of safety - related regulations such as population exclusion laws and the environ
mentalist pressure to minimize thermal pollution of bodies of water heretofore
considered suitable as heat sinks for the thermal cycles involved .

The trend is made possible , not without significant added cost and penalties to
operating effectiveness, by the shift to closed-cycle cooling systems charact
erized by cooling towers or cooling ponds .
Indications are that the trend to siting away from navigable water will continue .
Based on the latest AEC projection (Case D) and assuming reasonable increases in
average unit sizes , it is expected that over 700 nuclear units will be built in
the period from 1981 to 2000, representing nearly 1,000,000 megawatts of installed
electrical power and an investment by the utilities of about 500 billion dollars .
An appreciable percentage of these plants will be located where the need to trans
port the heavy components overland will be imperative . Since anywhere from three
to ten large components will have to be moved per plant and since by 1990 up to
20 units per year will be located remotely based on a conservative estimate,
possibly 3 items per week may have to be brought to their destinations by over
land transport modes .
 232

Overland transport of these components by existing rail or highway podes can

present problems , the foremost of which is associated with the size of the
component . Rail and highway route clearances are sometimes not adequate to
accommodate these large loads and so very expensive modifications to route-side
and overhead structures and obstacles may have to be made or else detours in
volving in many cases intermodal transfers may have to be made .

Of alternate modes investigated to obtain relief from the restrictions of ground

based overland modes , the most likely to provide a good solution by relaxing
dimensional limitations on the land may be an airborne mode based on the use of
lighter - than - air technology in pure airships which obtain all their lift from
aerostatic means or on hybrid airships which obtain lift from both aerostatic
and serodynamic means . To be most effective this mode will not require extensive
and very expensive landing facilities in remote areas . Large payload weight
would still present a formidable problem and in this respect much work would have
to be done to develop suitable vehicles and to reduce component weight .

As an early step towards the use of airborne means to deliver the very heavy
nuclear components , serious consideration should be given to other products such
as tanks and ductwork which though very large , have characteristic weights several
times smaller than the NSSS components . The benefits of shop fabrication of com
ponents provides a strong incentive for Combustion Engineering, Inc. to investi
gate alternate and more flexible shipping means . This would avoid the need to
fabricate at the site large assemblies from parts whose size is dictated by the
presently available transportation " windows" .

In the furtherance of these goals , Combustion Engineering, Inc. has entered into
a joint effort with Grumman Aerospace Corp , to investigate the feasibility of
Airborne Heavy Lift Transportation Systems . The effort should provide some sub
stantial answers to questions relating to the transport of electric power gener OM
ating components by airborne means . C-E and GAC both recognize , however , that
to justify the large development , certification and deployment cost of suitable M
vehicles by maximizing their utilization , other transport needs will have to be
filled by the transport system .
W

The national and perhaps international survey for such needs and their evaluation
and categorization is far beyond the scope of our present joint effort and our
resources . Such a "mission definition" effort may belong under the aegis of a
federal agency where contacts with competing systems and hardware vendors inareas
such as the electric power industry to determine the overall industry'needs will
not be looked at askance by anti- trust elements and where the resources of many
federal agencies such as NASA , DOT , the Department of Commerce , the Federal Power
Commission and the Department of Agriculture can be efficiently marshalled.
Finally, the planning for such a system , once the needs are properly defined ,
should be conducted from a vantage point which insures the efficient maximization
of its interface effectiveness with other , existing, transport modes ;

Stephen Keaton
Stephen
Nuclear
J. Keating, Jr.
Power Systems
Combustion Engineering , Inc.
Windsor , Connecticut 06095

July 8 , 1974
 233

July 26 , 1974

Statement of

John C. Brizendine

President

DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION

For the

Senate Committee on Aeronautical

and Space Sciences

NEW IDEAS FOR COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT OF THE 1980s AND 1990s

It is a major challenge for the United States aircraft manufacturing industry

to maintain its competitive position in world markets considering the energy
problem , wide spread international competition , and the accelerating pace of
research and development abroad . Meeting this challenge is made more diffi
cult by the declining funds available in the United States to support aero
nautical research and development . The introduction of commercial supersonic
operations by the Concorde on major North Atlantic routes will shortly high
light the extent of the foreign competitive threat .

During the 1980s and 1990s strong and aggressive foreign competition is
anticipated in several important areas of the commercial transport market :
the second generation SST , the advanced medium range transport , and the very
large second generation wide - body transport. To meet these challenges the
funds available in the United States for aeronautical research and develop
ment must be wisely used .

1
 234

Efforts must be concentrated in those research areas most likely to provide

Pean
the technology base necessary for the development of aircraft that will be
competitive in the world markets of the 1980s and 1990s . These airplanes
need to be efficient , economical, appealing to the passenger and be environ
mentally acceptable to society .

s
The Douglas Aircraft Company appreciates the opportunity to share with the MST

Committee our views on the roles and relationships of V.S. government and 2 193

industry in aeronautical research and development in the face of the growing

pressures from government supported international consortiums , and from the
declining United States military aeronautical research and development that iss

is applicable to commercial transports . It is a difficult task , at best ,

for government to be a leader in civil aeronautical development because of
our free enterprise system and the many demands placed upon government by
society .

The main thrusts of research and development for future aircraft can be broken
into categories of long haul , short haul , and the advantages that can accrue
due to the synergistic values of technology integration . Continued emphasis
on technology research is required in propulsion , aerodynamics , avionics , 11

structures and controls , with special attention to energy conservation .

The fuel savings made possible by the use of improved operating procedures
for commercial aircraft will have been achieved well before 1980. Therefore,
further energy savings can only be obtained through advances in technology
applied to new aircraft . Efficient use of the nation's resources will dictate
that the advanced technologies should be directed toward reducing fuel
consumption per seat-mile as well as minimizing operating expenses.

2
 235

In response to these goals and requirements the Douglas Aircraft Company is

currently engaged in the preliminary design of a new advanced transport - the
DC -X . To successfully design, develop and market this airplane , research in
all the aeronautical technologies must be conducted . New advances that can
be applied to both new and existing aircraft should be especially investigated .

Industry supported research and development in civil aeronautics between 1968

and 1972 has declined 43 percent. It is estima ted that 1974 funding will be
roughly equivalent to 1972. Research and development effort by major foreign
competitors has , with full government support , significantly increased in
this same time perio

In the early 1960s , United States military sales were roughly four times the
level of free world commercial airplane sales ; today they are about equal.
Douglas forecasts indicate the civil sales markets will be double the military
markets in the near future . It is , therefore , most important to our nation
that we strive to maintain our world leadership role in civil aeronautics .
The resulting benefits can be measured in terms of employment , balance of
trade, prestige , national security , and an innovative technology base from
which new products and increased productivity will accrue to the nation's
industry .

In the area of long haul transportation , the public will express its interest
in supersonic travel next year , 1975 , when, the Concorde initiates service .
NASA sponsorship of research and development for both a near term advanced
supersonic transport competitor and a longer term more sophisticated SST
should be encouraged . United States industry may have lost too much ground

38-266 O - 74 - 16
 236

to match an improved Concorde with a near term SST . Government leadership

in research and development is a necessary ingredient to establish the
technology base from which a competitive and economically viable advanced
supersonic transport program can be launched .

In the area of short haul transportation , an important program is now underway

at Douglas : the AMST ( YC -15 ) . It is progressing ahead of schedule and will
fly in the fall of 1975. We are pleased that NASA is pursuing a flight test
program in cooperation with us so our nation can realize the maximum benefits ,
both commercially and militarily from this exciting development activity .

mail
Sarah
A NASA funded system study of medium density air transportation being
conducted by Douglas will assist in determining the technology areas and
manufacturing techniques that should be emphasized if a commercially viable ml

airplane that will provide efficient service to small cities is to be developed. sme

fra
Specific areas of necessary research and development in the aeronautical
technology areas are discussed in the proceeding sections .
plia
PROPULSION

The present efforts to reduce specific fuel consumption , to increase bypass

150
ratios , and to reduce engine noise must be continued . Recent studies ,
however , have identified additional areas of necessary propulsion technology
refinement .

Past propulsion system weight reductions achieved by technology advancements

have reduced the basic engine weight but not the weight of the nacelle that
1
encloses the engine . In fact the weight of the complete nacelle has increased
due to the need to include sound absorbing materials for reducing aircraft
propulsion noise . This undesirable trend can be reversed by the use of
composite materials in the nacelles .
 237

An advanced engine concept which shows considerable promise is the variable

pitch fan engine. Additional research and development is necessary to
maximize cruise thrust to enable relatively high speed flight. Aircraft
propulsion systems incorporating the variable pitch fan concept will have
lower fuel consumption , be considerably quieter than even the quietest turbo
fan engines and eliminate the need for separate thrust reversers which have
been costly and troublesome items .

Recent advances have allowed the automation of engine throttle , This

capability in conjunction with flight profile control can optimize energy
management. The utilization of this apability to reduce fuel consumption
warrants the allocation of research and development effort .

Theoretical studies dealing with the feasibility of using alternate energy

sources for aircraft should be started . This work will provide the basis
for valid technical decisions if it becomes necessary toward the end of the
century for aircraft to use alternate energy sources such as liquid hydrogen ,
or liquid methane .

AERODYNAMICS

To support the design of aircraft that will be competitive in the world

markets during the 1980-1990 time period , both analytical and experimental
aerodynamic programs are needed .

Advanced airfoil research needs to be continued with emphasis on weight

reduction rather than increased speed ; thicker airfoils with improved
maximum lift coefficients need to be studied .

5
 236

to match an improved Concorde with a near term SST . Government leadership

in research and development is a necessary ingredient to establish the
technology base from which a competitive and economically viable advanced
supersonic transport program can be launched .

In the area of short haul transportation , an important program is now underway

at Douglas : the AMST ( YC-15 ) . It is progressing ahead of schedule and will ได้)
WS
fly in the fall of 1975. We are pleased that NASA is pursuing a flight test
program in cooperation with us so our nation can realize the maximum benefits,
both commercially and militarily from this exciting development activity.

A NASA funded system study of medium density air transportation being

conducted by Douglas will assist in determining the technology areas and s

manufacturing techniques that should be emphasized if a commercially viable

airplane that will provide efficient service to small cities is to be developed.

Specific areas of necessary research and development in the aeronautical like

technology areas are discussed in the proceeding sections.

Ivic
PROPULSION
NAL
The present efforts to reduce specific fuel consumption , to increase bypass
DDO
ratios , and to reduce engine noise must be continued . Recent studies ,
however , have identified additional areas of necessary propulsion technology
refinement. BRL

Past propulsion system weight reductions achieved by technology advancements

have reduced the basic engine weight but not the weight of the nacelle that
encloses the engine . In fact the weight of the complete nacelle has increased
due to the need to include sound absorbing materials for reducing aircraft
propulsion noise . This undesirable trend can be reversed by the use of
composite materials in the nacelles .

4
 237

An advanced engine concept which shows considerable promise is the variable

pitch fan engine . Additional research and development is necessary to
maximize cruise thrust to enable relatively high speed flight. Aircraft
propulsion systems incorporating the variable pitch fan concept will have
lower fuel consumption , be considerably quieter than even the quietest turbo
fan engines and eliminate the need for separate thrust reversers which have
been costly and troublesome items .

Recent advances have allowed the automation of engine throttle . This

capability in conjunction with flight profile control can optimize energy
ement. The utilization of this capability to reduce fuel consumption
warrants the allocation of research and development effort .

Theoretical studies dealing with the feasibility of using alternate energy

sources for aircraft should be started. This work will provide the basis
for valid technical decisions if it becomes necessary toward the end of the
century for aircraft to use alternate energy sources such as liquid hydrogen ,
or liquid methane .

AERODYNAMICS

To support the design of aircraft that will be competitive in the world

markets during the 1980-1990 time period , both analytical and experimental
aerodynamic programs are needed .

Advanced airfoil research needs to be continued with emphasis on weight

reduction rather than increased speed ; thicker airfoils with improved
maximum lift coefficients need to be studied .

5
 238

The two largest components of drag, skin friction and induced drag, need to
be re - examined to determine if drag reductions , not previously feasible, can
now be achieved due to other advanced technologies . A good example is the
use of the supercritical airfoils developed by NASA wich can minimize the
need for wing sweep and in tum makes lani nar flow control easier.

Another case is the use of composite or advanced structural techniques.

They may make feasible non - planar wing systems which reduce induced drag.
Non -planar wing sys tens also have the potential for reducing wing tip
vortices . If substantial reductions in the strength of these vortices can
be achieved the spacing of aircraft approaching airports can be substantially
reduced, thus increasing airport capacity . >
1

Airport capacity at the already congested major terminals can also be

increased by the use of advanced technology quiet aircraft , such as the DC - 10 ,
which provide increased capacity with reduced number of flights .

The effects on airplane aerodynamics of other emerging technologies in such

fields as noise reduction and use of advanced composite materials must be
evaluated and programs initiated to combine the technologies so maximum
advantage will be taken of all the advances .

Since the design of an aircraft involves many variables , the greatest

contribution that can be made to industry is the providing of basic
analytical and experimental aerodynamic data which systematically covers
a range of design options .

AVIONICS
The development of advanced digital avionic systems and of multifunction
displays such as cathode ray tubes will permit major advancements in flight

6
 239

management. Routine control of the aircraft flight path as well as of the

aircraft systems can be automatic from takeoff through landing roll out .
This advanced capability will permit the flight crew to function more
efficiently in their capacity as managers due to their reduced workloads
but with a greater awareness of the actual status of the airplane and its
subsystems. The overall result of these advances will be increased safety.

STRUCTURES
Advanced structural concepts can make major contributions to assure that
airplanes built in the United States during the period 1980-1990 will be
competitive in world markets , efficient users of energy and economically
efficient. It is possible to reduce the complexity of aircraft structural

systems. Today's aircraft consists of a myriad of individual parts, mich

riveting and a large number of machined components. Studies indicate that
the number of structural components can be reduced by about 12 percent , with
a resulting weight reduction of about 8 percent. The use of a new structural
technology concept , " Isogrid Panels " , developed in the space program can
result in a radical reduction in the number of fuselage parts and an 11
percent reduction in fuselage weight.

Another interesting structural concept is the use of composite materials in

portions of future airplanes other than the engine nacelles . This use of
composite materials was discussed in relation to propulsion technology . This
concept has been studied for several years with increasing encouragement.
Although these materials are more expensive than conventional aluminum, they
are much lighter and the reduced airplane weight reduces fuel consumption ,
Advanced design studies also indicate that operating costs can be reduced by
as much as 15 percent through the use of advanced composite materials.

!
 240

The use of both isogrid structures and advanced composite materials will,
however , require considerable research and development effort to establish
the confidence necessary for their application to commercial aircraft.

CONTROLS

Advanced control technology may yield significant improvements in aircraft

performance , longer life , and reduced fuel consumption as a result of lower
skin friction and trim drags and will improve passenger comfort . Full time
reliance on automatic control systems will require reliability levels at

least equal to present systems . Significant milestones in flight control

technology were achieved this past year . The successful flight testing
by NASA of two pure fly -by -wire systems lend hope for the future of this
advanced concept . Much work , however , remains to be done .

CONCLUSION

Focusing the nation's aeronautical research and development efforts on these

promising areas will provide a technology base from which aircraft can be
developed that will be competitive in the world markets of the 1980s and
1990s . These airplanes will be efficient users of energy and will have
even better economic characteristics than present aircraft as well as being
environmentally acceptable .

8
 241

f:

Fairchild Industries
que
Germantown , Maryland 20767 ( 301) 428-6000

Wernher von Braun

Vice President -Engineering and Development July 19 , 1974

Honorable Frank E. Moss

United States Senate
Chairman , Senate Committee on
Aeronautical & Space Sciences
Washington , D. C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman :

In response to your letter of June 18 , 1974 ,

I am enclosing a statement I thought would be of
interest to the members of your Committee .

Thank you for offering me this opportunity

to present my views on a subject we here at
Fairchild feel very strongly about .

Sincerely ,

KonuWheenr onoreSeanne
Wernher von Braun

WVB : bas
Enclosure
 242

1
SUBJECT: Hearings on Advanced Aeronautical Concept
11.

STATEMENT

by
FAIRCHILD INDUSTRIES

1
Commercial air transportation in the United States faces two severe
limitations which could result in our loss of world leadership in

this field . The first limitation is concerned with performance,

The cancellation of the Supersonic Transport program has constrained

our future transport designs to operate in the transonic speed
regime (0.9 Mach ) . The second limitation is the long term depletion
of fossil fuels since present propulsion systems are totally dependent
on petroleum based fuels .
I believe both of these problems can be
solved by leap frogging the current foreign SST program with the
development of Hypersonic Transport utilizing liquid hydrogen fuel.
800L

Atitude
During the past ten years , studies were conducted on the technical/ wher

economic feasibility , and environmental impact of hypersonic trans

slutl
ports . These studies were conducted by Fairchild and others for NASA
talde
and DOD , and showed that the following hypersonic transport aircraft
were technically and economically feasible :
 243

1. A - 200 passenger transport having a range of 5000 nautical

miles cruising at an altitude of 110,000 feet at Mach 6.0 .
Advanced turbofan - ramjet engines utilizing a liquid hydrogen
fuel were defined as the most efficient propulsion system
to accelerate to and cruise at Mach 6.0 .

2. The feasibility of a more efficient 320 passenger transport

configuration having a range of 10,000 nautical miles

cruising at an altitude of 140,000 feet was also investigated .
The propulsion system for this configuration consisted of
turbo - ramjet accelerator engines for take - off to Mach 3,5

and an annular convertible scramjet burner to accelerate

from Mach 3.5 to Mach 12 cruise . Again , liquid hydrogen fuel is

required for this propulsion system .

The advantages beyond that of higher speed performance are significant,

The sonic boom problem is non - existent since cruise at 110,000 feet

altitude results in acceptable pressure increases at ground level .

Further , the use of liquid hydrogen fuel eliminates the atmospheric
pollution caused by the emission of unburned hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide since the combustion of hydrogen results in water vapor ,
 244

The development of a production Hypersonic Transport is possible by

the late 1990's without overtaxing our resources , and should become
a national objective like the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs.
Research is required in aerodynamics , advanced structural materials,
The
propulsion , guidance systems and ground support concepts.
Hypersonic Transport program deserves your support and consideration

as a means of perpetuating U. s . leadership in air transportation.

###
 245

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION

Pierre Laclede Center
St. Louis, Missouri 6310S

David S. Lewis 314-862-2440

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer August 5 , 1974

The Honorable Frank E. Moss , Chairman

Committee on Aeronautical & Space Sciences
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Moss :

This is in response to your letter of June 18, 1974, in which

you afford us the opportunity to present a statement on Advanced Aero
nautical Concepts. It is my understanding that your hearings will cover
new aircraft design , new engines and fuels , lighter - than - air vehicles
and general aviation and safety .

While all of these areas are of interest to the General Dynamics

Corporation, our expertise , within the concept of your hearings, is
primarily in new aircraft design . As you know , General Dynamics has
pioneered in the field of advanced aircraft design , having produced the
first supersonic interceptor (the F- 102), the first supersonic bomber
(the B-58) and the highly regarded F- 111 which, with its variable - geometry
wings and its automatic terrain following adar / flight control, has proven
to have a unique capability as a deep penetration vehicle.
More recently, General Dynamics was one of the two aircraft
companies chosen to produce a new and advanced lightweight fighter. We
have produced two of these aircraft as prototypes and both of them are now
flying at Edwards Air Force Base, California, for testing purposes. I am
attaching a copy of a paper dealing with the genesis of the lightweight fighter
program along with a description of the YF - 16, the General Dynamics version
of this aircraft. We have detailed many of the innovative and unique charac
teristics of this new and inexpensive fighter to illustrate some of what we
feel should be considered in the coming years .

Particularly, we would urge the committee to give strong con

sideration to advanced composite material research and applications as a
means of coping, not just with the energy crisis to which you referred in
your news statement of June 14, but also with the critical materials shortages
 246

that are already becoming apparent throughout the aerospace industry .

General Dynamics' experience with these materials in the YF- 16 and
F - 111 programs indicates they may hold great promise as viable light
weight substitutes for existing materials .

Again , I appreciate your thoughtfulness in offering us the

opportunity of sharing our experiences with your committee.

Sincerely,

Davlat Lewis
Chairman of the Board
 247

THE GENERAL DYNAMICS YF - 16 FIGHTER

Background

During the original " F - X " studies that eventually led to the development
of the F-15, General Dynamics investigated the concept of a lightweight,
very highly maneuverable, day fighter. Although this concept did not meet
all of the requirements for the " F - X , and was not proposed as such by
General Dynamics, it did arouse support within the U. S. Air Force that
led to funded studies in 1970. This concept was continuously studied and
refined , and eventually served as the basis for the General Dynamics
response to the Lightweight Fighter Prototype request for proposals.
Configuration Rationale

To obtain the best fighter performance, total integration of the aircraft

design is required. Although thrust -to -weight ratio , wing loading, aspect
ratio , etc. , are all important parameters in defining a high performance
fighter, they are only useful if the pilot can use that performance to maneuver
without fear of losing control.

To realize this objective, a large number of configuration alternatives were

analyzed and tested in wind tunnels before the final selection . The configuration
selected is a design utilizing a number of new technological advances that
provide outstanding fighter performance at low cost.
Engine Selection

The engine cycle was a significant factor in defining the weight on the YF - 16.

During the conceptual phase, two engines received primary consideration :

a single Pratt & Whitney F - 100 with a bypass ratio of 0.72, and two General
Electric YJ- 101s with bypass ratios of 0.2. Analysis showed that to accomplish
the design mission with the YJ- 101 engines would require an aircraft weighing
4,500 pounds more than one with an F - 100 engine.

An additional factor favoring the selection of the F- 100 engine was its develop
ment status and planned usage. Flight experience has proven to be the single
most important factor regarding engine reliability, safety and durability. By
the time the first production F- 16s would be flying, the F- 100 will have over
75,000 hours in the F- 15 and would benefit from F- 15 experience and improve
ments .
 246

that are already becoming apparent throughout the aerospace industry.

General Dynamics' experience with these materials in the YF - 16 and
F- 111 programs indicates they may hold great promise as viable light
weight substitutes for existing materials.

Again , I appreciate your thoughtfulness in offering us the

opportunity of sharing our experiences with your committee.

Sincerely,

Lain
Davity .Lewis
Chairman ofthe Board
 247

THE GENERAL DYNAMICS YF - 16 FIGHTER

Background

During the original " F -X " studies that eventually led to the development
of the F -15, General Dynamics investigated the concept of a lightweight,
very highly maneuverable , day fighter. Although this concept did not meet
all of the requirements for the " F - X , " and was not proposed as such by
General Dynamics, it did a rouse support within the U. S. Air Force that
led to funded studies in 1970. This concept was continuously studied and
refined , and eventually served as the basis for the General Dynamics
response to the Lightweight Fighter Prototype request for proposals.

Configuration Rationale

To obtain the best fighter performance , total integration of the aircraft

design is required. Although thrust -to -weight ratio , wing loading , aspect
ratio, etc. , are all important parameters in defining a high performance
fighter, they are only useful if the pilot can use that performance to maneuver
without fear of losing control.

To realize this objective, a large number of configuration alternatives were

analyzed and tested in wind tunnels before the final selection . The configuration
selected is a design utilizing a number of new technological advances that
provide outstanding fighter performance at low cost.
Engine Selection

The engine cycle was a significant factor in defining the weight on the YF - 16.
During the conceptual phase, two engines received primary consideration :
a single Pratt & Whitney F - 100 with a bypass ratio of 0.72, and two General
Electric YJ- 101s with bypass ratios of 0.2. Analysis showed that to accomplish
the design mission with the YJ - 101 engines would require an aircraft weighing
4,500 pounds more than one with an F - 100 engine.
An additional factor favoring the selection of the F - 100 engine was its develop
ment status and planned usage . Flight experience has proven to be the single
most important factor regarding engine reliability, safety and durability. By
the time the first production F- 16s would be flying , the F- 100 will have over
75,000 hours in the F- 15 and would benefit from F-15 experience and improve
ments .
 248

Integrated Advanced Technology

Throughout the history of aviation , advances in technology have primarily

been used to design aircraft to go faster, higher, farther and with greater
payloads. In the YF- 16 design , however, a new technology has been adapted
to reduce cost without degrading basic performance, thereby producing
significantly smaller, lighter and simpler aircraft with far greaten agility
and combat capability than present designs.

The YF-16 incorporates a number of advanced technologies combined in no

other aircraft . These are all designed to produce the best fighter pilot /
fighter aircraft combination possible .

Fly -by -Wire

After prioneering the " adaptive control systems in the F-111 , this
fully electronic control system represents the next logical generation
for providing ideal flight handling characteristics throughout the
flight envelope. Built - in safeguards permit the pilot to fly up to the
absolute limits of the aircraft's capability without concern. At the
same time, it is more reliable , survivable and maintainable at a
lower cost .

Relaxed Static Stability

Because of the advanced adaptive characteristics of the fly -by -wire

control system , the designer has been able to make use of previously
unusable advantages of relaxed static stability to reduce drag and
weight and to improve maneuvering performance while maintaining
ideal handling characteristics .
Blended Body

This results in improved lift - to - drag ratios at higher angles of attack

while at the same time increasing usable internal volume and de
creasing weight.

Forebody Strakes

These result in greatly improved directional stability at high angles

of attack . In addition, when integrated with the blended body , they
significantly increase lift .
 249

Automatic Leading Edge Flap

The leading edge flaps automatically move to the optimum deflection

during flight, greatly improving the buffet - free maneuver capability
of the aircraft as well as improved lift - to -drag ratios at high angles
of attack

High " g" Cockpit

The 30 -degree seat back angle coupled with the raised heel position
results in a 1 to 2 " g " increase in pilot tolerance level and overall
comfort. The minimum displacement, force sensing, side stick
allows more precise pilot control, particularly under high " g "
conditions. The full bubble canopy design provides the pilot with
exceptional visibility.

Bottom Located, Fixed Geometry Inlet

Careful integration of the inlet geometry and location has resulted

in a highly efficient design capable of 2.0 Mn without complex and
costly moving ramps or bypass doors. The straightening effect on
the air flow caused by the forward fuselage causes an increase in
inlet efficiency at higher angles of attack .

As of July 31 , 1974, the No. 1 and No. 2 prototypes of the YF- 16 had completed
141 flights and had confirmed the results of these advanced technologies in pro
viding a lighter and lower cost fighter compared with an aircraft of the same
basic performance without them .
 250

NANCS
SEN
YF16
01567
CE
FOS.RAI R
U.
..

th for

Old are

Mlis a

trenda

a
alany
ariable c

punt demo

eller
 251

STATEMENT OF J , N. KREBS
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
AIRCRAFT ENGINE GROUP

To the Senate Committee on Aeronautical & Space Sciences

General Electric has studied the presentations made by NASA , USAF , USN ,
DOT and the AIAA at the July 16 and 18 hearings of the Senate Committee on
Aeronautical and Space Sciences and appreciates this opportunity to submit a
brief statement about new technology for aircraft engines of the future .

Figure 1 is a summary listing of the advanced technology which we believe

has the highest payoff for products of the 1980's . It is in fairly good agreement

with much of the Government testimony presented, but there are some

additional items listed and some items , mostly related to products of the

1990's and beyond, were eliminated . Figure 1 also shows the applicability of

this technology and the funding status of R & D hardware programs - including
1
.
NASA, USAF, USN , DOT , and GE programs. Where items are designated

as having " reasonably adequate hardware programs" we are not suggesting

that additional funding is not highly desirable but rather that the next

priority for any new funds are the items listed as not having adequate
hardware programs.

Figure 2 is a summary and brief description of General Electric's

recommendations for four new NASA experimental programs for ptodacts:

of the 1980's which need to be started soon . The concepts have been generated
and hardware R& D is now essential for further progress . The first program

is a variable cycle engine concept demonstrator , the next two are CTOL .
transport demonstrator programs , and the fourth is a subsonic VTOL
demonstrator .

38-266 O - 74 - 17
 AIRCRAFT
ENGINE
TECHN
SUMMAOLOGY
RY

Reasonably
Applicability Adequate
Milit
Civil
Hard ary
es
Enginware
Highest
Technol
Payoff ogy Subso
Super nic
sonic
SST
Fund ram
Proged
400-600
i°F
combust
tin&urbine
tempera or
ncreasetures
Yes
Advigh
temperature
superalloys
turbines
.hfor
Yes
materia
Composilte
compone nts
Yes
Cost
Manufac
Lower turing
Process es
Yes
Higher
efficien
conserv
compon cy
ing
e, nergy ents
No
Low
emissio
combust ns
ors

Multipurpose Technology
Yes
CTOL
subso
systenic
ms

Lower
noise
conserv
252

ec,, nergy
omposit ing
e
nacelle
wtranspo
ankersrts
t(fbody No
reighte
,) ide rs
Direct
drive
pitch
fan SW
v,,(Aariable

38 286
patroleederliance
sf/,) urveill ner No

STOL
subsoni
systems
)(QCSEE c

2
eversin
eared g
v,•Guiet
ariable
pitch
rqfan
Yes
Low
noise
composi
nacelle te
Yes
VTOL
Lift
Syst ems
No

Special Purpose Technology

Js

Variable
Cycle
Conce pts
No
SST
Exhaust
Nozzle
Suppres
/Noise sor
No
i
Figure

Variable
Cycle
Engine oncept
 Applicability
NASA
New
Recommended
Priority
Highest Soon
N
, eeded
Programs Military
Engines Engines
Civil
Supersonic
Subsonic
Supersonic

Engine
Cycle
Variable Demonstrator
Concept

ratio
bypass
provide
concepts
Electric
General
New
mission
mixed
of
performance
installed
improved
for
control
proposes
aircraft
.S
msG E
ST
ilitary
upersonic
&)/( ub
be
to
modified
engine
on10l
Jconcepts
these
ato
demonstrate
engines
S& ST
ighter
.of
adv
farrangement
and
cycle
the
typical
VCE
SST
the
on
tested
be
would
uppressor
snozzle
/An
advanced
,
configuration
D emonstrator
Components
Transport
CTOL
&- onserving
CEnergy
an
permit
will
which
emerging
now
is
technology
New s
2i-a1and
sfc
engine
r% in mprovement
8050eduction
in
%
-215
rgive
to eduction
combine
which
./w0t
in
thrust ៩ 253
program
component
efficiency
usage
Ah.fuel
transportigh
demonstrator
engine
an
by
- ollowed
fbe
initiated
should
program
STOL
.QCSEE
the
to
similar
program
Nacelle
CTOLnergy
-, onserving
CE
Quiet
fuel
consumption
and
noise
the
in
reductions
Important
long
of
concept
new
with
made
be
can
jets
body
wide
current
composite
and
treatment
coustic
aadv
,with
nacelle
duct
and
tested
built
be
should
nacelle
scale
A
. ull
fconstruction
flight
.in
and
ground
the
on

.
Demonstrator
Fan
Lift
VTOL

torogram
ap
proposed
has
Electric
,General
design
lift
fan
VTOL
-cturbotip
advanced
an
,aruise
build
test
nd
V
.8min
useach
TOL
designed
is for
asystem
Tsystem
. his
has
which
type
the
of
also
is
and
aircraft
multimission
Navy
commercial
future
for
contender
as
atrong
identified
sbeen
VTOL
transports
.
2
Figur e
 254

GOODYEAR AEROSPACE
CORPORATION

AKRON , OHIO 4 4 315

WY

15 July 1974

The Honorable Frank E. Moss , Chairman

Committee on Aeronautical & Space Sciences
U.S. SENATE
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Moss :

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to your Committee , which
is holding hearings on Advanced Aeronautical Concepts during the month of July . we

As the country's major manufacturer of airships for almost 50 years , Goodyear.

is in a unique position to provide information needed in formulating plans involving
LTA vehicles. Besides the background as an airship supplier , Goodyear operates ztan

a fleet of air ships for advertising, which also have been used in many public, P10E

service activities. Your hearings are particularly important at this time. In

recent months , considerable interest has been shown in the use of LTA vehicles
for applications and operations not current ly possible with other types of vehicles.
The U.S. Navy and other services have manifested renewed interest in the unique
capabilities of airships .

Goodyear has received inquiries about the use of airships in several innovative
applications such as transportation of farm produce andover - sized payloads that
cannot be conveyed on present highways and rail systems .
brought to our attention involve operations in areas where noSimilar applications
other transport
systems can operate, such as in the remote areas of Alaska and in emerging
nations where it is not economically practical to develop and maintain highways
or conventional aircraft transport facilities .
1

We believe that many of the applications being considered for LTA vehicles are
practical , but unfortunately most of the applications taken alone do not justify
the investment necessary to develop the required vehicle .
ever , and important to note that the type of vehicle desired Itforis all
of applicat how
interest,ions
is basically the same . Because of this basic similarity , Goodyear believes that
the country's military and civil interests would be best served by Government
support of a program for manufacture and operation of a vehicle that could be
used toconductmission evaluations for a broad spectrum of applications. Also,
such a flying test bed vehicle could be used to evaluate the application of Space,
Age technologies to LTA system design . It could be implemented at a relatively
low cost and would have the advantage of providing real performance information
at an early date .

implementation of such a program

to your committee theairship
We are recommending U.Ś.
the design ofmanufac
using airship the turedNavy ZPG - 3W , which was the largest non
rigid ever .
 255

This airship could operate either as a fully buoyant VTOL vehicle or in a hybrid
or semibuoyant mode as a STOL vehicle using aerodynamic lift for increased
payload capability . In the hybrid mode , the ZPG- 3W payload capacity would be
approximately 25 tons with an endurance capability of over 80 hours . Top speed
of the original ZPG- 3W was 75 knots .
This baseline design would be updated to incorporate new materials , avionics ,
structures, and propulsion technology to achieve a significant improvement in
performance for today's missions . For example , it could cruise at 100 knots .
Also, the recommended vehicle would serve as a highly desirable platform to
investigate and evaluate sensor payloads for military or civil missions. A
typical civil mission would be use as a monitoring system for environmental,
agricultural, and energy problems.

This approach offers a solution to the problem of avoiding the cost of implement
ing a new design by using an existing design as a program baseline for new
developments .
1

!
In summary, we are confident that the field of LTA is an untapped resource
now within our nation, particularly when we view the additional performance
that can be achieved with a modern airship design . We would like to thank you
again for the opportunity to respond to your request for a statement, and we look
forward to an increased emphasis on the investigation of this type of air transport
system .
3
Very truly your 8,
GOODYEAR AEROSPACE CORPORATION

Momo gote
Morris B.
President
Jobe
jk
 256

ATTACHMENT TO GOODYEAR AEROSPACE LETTER ,

15 July 1974

In recent months , Goodyear Aerospace Corporation has received nearly a hundred

inquiries from both public and private business sectors related to potential modern
air ship applications . Sources of interest have included NASA , military, U.S.
companies , local governments , and foreign governments .
This renewed interest can be attributed to four major factors :
1. A growing awareness of the ecological and energy problems
associated with current transportation systems.
2. The realization that the operational characteristics and
capabilities of airships are either not available or avail
able only to a limited extent in other transportation sys
tems .

3. The conviction that the quantum advancements in aero

space and aviation systems technology can place modern
.airships on the same level of safety , economy, and per
formance capability as alternate transportation systems.
4. The identification of many conventional and unique missions
that modern airship vehicles could potentially perform 1

cost effectively .
In contrast to these factors, certain limitations and purported deficiencies are. 4

often defined as also characteristic of airships. These broadly can be grouped as

technical limitations , economic uncertainties , and institutional uncertainties. 2

Each of the four sources of interest, the technical limitations, and economic and
institutional uncertainties are briefly discussed as well as one possible approach
to eliminating the major stumbling blccks retarding the revival of modern airship
vehicles .

ECOLOGICAL AND ENERGY FACTORS

The recent oil embargo and the resulting concern over the energy crisis has
 257

resulted in an increased awareness of the dependency of our existing forms of

transportation on the ever decreasing supply of petroleum . Commercial aircraft,
One of the most severely affected transportation modes during the embargo, join
private automobiles at the head of every list in terms of fuel energy consumed per
passenger mile or per cargo ton mile . In contrast, modern - airship vehicles , be
cause no fuel is expended in overcoming gravity , offer an extremely fuel efficient
Hial mode transportation mode .
U.S.
A second area of increased public concern is the ecological and environmental as
pects of air transportation . Demand projections for air transportation indicate
that
many major airports will be considerably overloaded in the near future .
ni Acceptable locations for the construction of major new airport facilities and STOL
port facilities present an increasingly difficult environmental and land use problem .
Also, the ground level noise environment in areas immediately adjacent to airport
facilities, as well as the air pollution associated with commercial aircraft -ground
operations, are significant considerations in the introduction and operation of
future air transportation systems . In each of these areas, the operational charac
teristics of modern air ships, such as vertical takeoff , low power requirements,
operational flexibility, and safety, offer potential advantages as an alternate trans
portation mode for cargo and personnel .

The V /STOL capability , possibly ' augmented by vectorable propulsion for im

AS
proved low - speed handling, eliminates the need for large runways characteristic
of commercial aircraft operations. Essentially , air ships require only a level
clearing, not necessarily paved, with a radius slightly larger than the vehicle's
length. A mast at the center of the clearing is used to tether the airship when
couper a it is on the ground and loading or discharging its cargo. In many applications, a
ties landing would not even be necessary to discharge the cargo .
mit 21 The lower power requirement results from the use of buoyant lift rather than aero
Dorok dynamic lift. The decreased power requirements, in turn, results in reduced
LITET operational noise, decreased air pollution and potentially reduced costs, through
reduced fuel consumption per unit productivity .
 254

GOODYEAR AEROSPACE
CORPORATION

AKRON , OHIO 4 4 315

15 July 1974

The Honorable Frank E. Moss , Chairman

Committee on Aeronautical & Space Sciences
U.S. SENATE
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Moss :

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to your Committee , which
is holding hearings on Advanced Aeronautical Concepts during the month of July .
As the country's major manufacturer of airships for almost 50 years, Goodyear.
a unique position
is in vehicle to provide information needed in formulating plans involving
LTA s . Besides the background as an airship supplier , Goodyear operates
air ships for
a fleet ofactiviti adverti sing, which also have been used in many public,
service es . Your hearings are particularly important at this time. In
recent months , considerable interest has been shown in the use of LTA vehicles
for applications and operati ons not current ly possible with other types of vehicles.
manifested renewed interest the unique
The U.S. Navy and other service s have in
capabilities of airships .

Goodyear has received inquiries about the use of airships in several innovative
applications such as transportation of farm produce and over - sized payloads that
cannot be conveyed on present highways and rail systems . Similar applications
brought to our attention involve operations in areas where no other transport
systems can operate, such as in the remote areas of Alaska and in emerging
nations where it is not economically practical to develop and maintain highways
or conventional aircraft transport facilities .
1

We believe that many of the applications being considered for LTA vehicles are
practical, but unfortunately mostofthe applications taken alone do not justify
the investment necessary to develop the required vehicle .
ever , andlyimportant to note that the type of vehicle desired Itforis all applicat how
of interest,ions
is basical the same . Because of this basic similarity, Goodyear believes that
the country's military and civil interests would be best served by Government
support of program for manufacture
a ando peration
of a vehicle
thatcoul be d
used to conduct mission evaluations for a broad spectrum of applications. Also,
such a flying test bed vehicle could be used to evaluate the applicat ion of Space
Age technologies to LTA system design . It could be implemented ance a relativel
at y
low cost andwould havethe advantage of providing real perform
at an early date .
information
Weare recommending to your committee the implementation of such a program
using the design of the U.Ś. Navy ZPG -3W airship, which was the largest non
rigid airship ever manufactured .
 255

This airship could operate either as a fully buoyant VTOL vehicle or in a hybrid
or semibuoyant mode as a STOL vehicle using aerodynamic lift for increased
payload capability . In the hybrid mode , the ZPG- 3W payload capacity would be
approximately 25 tons with an endurance capability of over 80 hours . Top speed
of the original ZPG- 3W was 75 knots .

This baseline design would be updated to incorporate new materials , avionics,

structures, and propulsion technology to achieve a significant improvement in
performance for today's missions. For example , it could cruise at 100 knots.
Also, the recommended vehicle would serve as a highly desirable platform to
investigate and evaluate sensor payloads for military or civil missions. A
typical civil mission would be use as a monitoring system for environmental,
agricultural, and energy problems.
This approach offers a solution to the problem of avoiding the cost of implement
ing a new design by using an existing design as a program baseline for new
developments .

In summary, we are confident that the field of LTA is an untapped resource

now within our nation, particularly when we view the additional performance
that can be achieved with a modern airship design. We would like to thank you
again for the opportunity to respond to your request for a statement, and we look
forward to an increased emphasis on the investigation of this type of air transport
system .

Very truly yours ,

GOODYEAR AEROSPACE CORPORATION

loma
Morris B. Jobe
President Joten
jk

1
 256

ATTACHMENT TO GOODYEAR AEROSPACE LETTER ,

15 July 1974

In recent months, Goodyear Aerospace Corporation has received nearly a hundred

inquiries from both public and private business sectors related to potential modern
air ship applications . Sources of interest have included NASA , military, U.S.
companies, local governments , and foreign governments .
This renewed interest can be attributed to four major factors :
1. A growing awareness of the ecological and energy problems
associated with current transportation systems .
2. The realization that the operational characteristics and
capabilities of airships are either not available or avail
able only to a limited extent in other transportation sys
tems .
!
3. The conviction that the quantum advancements in aero
‫ܐ‬
space and aviation systems technology can place modern
.airships on the same level of safety , economy, and per
formance capability as alternate transportation systems.
4. The identification of many conventional and unique missions
that modern airship vehicles could potentially perform 1

cost effectively .
21
In contrast to these factors , certain limitations and purported deficiencies are
often defined as also characteristic of air ships. These broadly can be grouped as
2
technical limitations , economic uncertainties, and institutional uncertainties.

Each of the four sources of interest, the technical limitations, and economic and
institutional uncertainties are briefly discussed as well as one possible approach
2
to eliminating the major stumbling blocks retarding the revival of modern airship
vehicles .

ECOLOGICAL AND ENERGY FACTORS

The recent oil embargo and the resulting concern over the energy crisis has
 257

resulted in increased awareness of the dependency of our existing forms of

transportation on the ever decreasing supply of petroleum . Commercial aircraft,
one of the most severely affected transportation modes during the embargo , join
private automobiles at the head of every list in terms of fuel energy consumed per
passenger mile or per cargo ton mile . In contrast, modern-air ship vehicles, be
cause no fuel is expended in overcoming gravity , offer an extremely fuel efficient
. transportation mode.
A second area of increased public concern is the ecological and environmental as
pects of air transportation . Demand projections for air transportation indicate
that many major airports will be considerably overloaded in the near future .
Acceptable locations for the construction of major new airport facilities and STOL
port facilities present an increasingly difficult environmental and land use problem .
Also, the ground level noise environment in areas immediately adjacent to airport
facilities, as well as the air pollution associated with commercial aircraft - ground
operations, are significant considerations in the introduction and operation of
future air transportation systems . In each of these areas, the operational charac
teristics of modern air ships, such as vertical takeoff, low power requirements,
operational flexibility , and safety , offer potential advantages as an alternate trans
portation mode for cargo and personnel.
The V / STOL capability , possibly ' augmented by vectorable propulsion for im
proved low - speed handling , eliminates the need for large runways characteristic
of commercial aircraft operations. Essentially , air ships require only a level
clearing, not necessarily paved , with a radius slightly larger than the vehicle's
length. A mast at the center of the clearing is used to tether the airship when
it is on the ground and loading or discharging its cargo. In many applications, a
landing would not even be necessary to discharge the cargo .
The lower power requirement results from the use of buoyant lift rather than aero
dynamic lift. The decreased power requirements , in turn , results in reduced
operational noise, decreased air pollution and potentially reduced costs , through
reduced fuel consumption per unit producti
 258

MODERN AIRSHIP CAPABILITIES

Although the unique capabilities of airship vehicles compared with existing air
craft are fairly well recognized, they will be briefly identified :
1. Safety , resulting from their relatively low take off and
landing speeds and the fact that airships cruise at low
altitudes , usually well below conventional aircraft
traffic .
2. Carry bulky and heavy payloads, either internal in
specially designed , containerized car go bays , or sus
pended externally beneath the bull .
3. Virtually all - weather operational capability, with ground
handling in severe weather further aided by vectorable
thrust.
4. Exceptional endurance capability unparalleled by any
air transportation vehicle . The 1.5 million cubic foot
ZPG - 3W built by Goodyear Aerospace and delivered to
the U.S. Navy in 1958 had an endurance of 84 hours
(3-1 / 2 days) at a cruise speed of 30 knots , on a fuel load
of only 2500 gallons.
5. Operate where no airports or roads exist, unhampered
by land -water interfaces . Hence, air ships are more
flexible than the airplane and could operate at a cruise
speed (100 mph or greater) highly competitive with sur
face transportation without the surface transportation
limitations (roads, tunnels, and underpasses, land -water
interfaces, box car or rail car size constraints, etc. ) .
6. Hover for extended periods of time, particularly in the
hybrid mode, combining static and buoyant lift with pro
pulsive lift achieved through vectored thrust.
7. From an environmentalist's point of view , airships offer
one of the most attractive transportation modes available .
Both reduced air pollution and lower noise levels result
from the lower power requirements .
 259

8. Finally , from an energy conservation point of view , air

ships offer an extremely fuel - efficient transportation
mode in terms of cargo ton miles or passenger sealt miles
per pound of fuel .

APPLICATION OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY TO AIRSHIPS

Significant advances in structures, materials , and aerospace technology have oc

curred since the last detailed airship design effort was conducted . A few of the
developments that could provide the highest payoff to airship technology include:
1. Extensive knowledge of weather patterns via Space Age
weather forecasting and on - board weather radar .
2. More reliable propulsion systems with improved fuel
consumption and power - to -weight ratios .
3. Higher strength - to -weight ratio materials: fabrics,
metals , and composites .
4. Improved permeability plastics that will greatly im
prove helium retention .
5. Tremendously improved capability for the analysis and
design of large rigid and semi- rigid airship structures
resulting from the advent of modern high- speed com
puters and the developments of large- scale generalized
structuraldynamics analysis programs developed for
Apollo and other NASA related programs.
6. Better insulation and high - temperature material capa
bility to capitalize on the potential performance improve
ments resulting from super heating the lifting gas . '

MODERN AIRSHIP MISSIONS

Perhaps the most significant factor contributing to the revived interest in modern
air ship vehicles is the identification of many rather unique missions for modern
 260

airships. The missions most frequently discussed have arisen from a combina
tion of the factors above: ecological and energy considerations, unique airship
capabilities, and the promise of new technology . They may be loosely grouped
into five general classes : commercial, public service, space related, AEC re
lated , and military . Some of the most promising missions in each class are
briefly described below .

COMMERCIAL MISSIONS

Commercial applications fall broadly into two groups: passenger missions and
the more frequently discussed cargo missions .
Since the speed range of modern air ships will probably be in the area of 100 nauti
cal miles per hour , the most promising passenger missions are generally short
range applications similar to those performed by helicopters and proposed future
V /STOL aircraft, including supplements to urban rapid transit systems. 1

Cargo mission applications have received the most interest of all modern airship
missions. Oversized cargo traasportation , such as auclear reactors, cooling
towers , factory assembled houses, massive pipelines, oil exploration equipment,
and other large indivisible payloads are merely a few of the more promising appli
cations . Modern airships could perform these missions irrespective of constraints
4
applicable to either surface transportation or current air transportation modes.
Transportation of natural gas in a gaseous state is currently being investigated as 11

an economically viable application . An airship transportation system of this type 1

would possess flexible origin -destination alternatives .

Transportation of (perishable ) bulk agricultural cargo is also gaining wide interest.
The airship offers increased speed over surface transportation modes, flexible 9

origin destination capability, and better ton /mile cost for low - density cargo com
pared with aircraft transports . 1

PUBLIC SERVICE MISSIONS

Several public service missions are currently under investigation at Goodyear or

have been identified as potential airship applications . A Goodyear study recently
 261

mbi completed for the Tempe, Arizona Police Department clearly identified the capa
bility of a police surveillance and crime prevention airship. as a cost effective
guzel alternative to the noisy, fuel consuming, and fatiguing helicopter.
OCT! Another application under study at Goodyear, similar in some ways to the police
we
Hrveillance mission, is an environmental surveillance and monitoring airship
system capable of performing a variety of missions in the areas of air pollution ,
water pollution, noise pollution, and general ecological and envizopmental re
Search .
1

6231 A flying disaster relief hospital, capable of international service following natural
disasters, is an additional application frequently identified . Modern air ships
could deliver hundreds of thousands of pounds of supplies several thousands of
short miles and distribute the cargo over a large area without depending on runways
Thu
or airports. While it is unlikely that an airship would be reloped Liquely for
this purpose, if the initial development work were performed for some alternate
mission , application to a flying disaster relief sbip might be a realistic possibility .

iling SPACE RELATED MISSIONS

ione

1149 The Space Shuttle Transportation System will be one of the most significaat achieve
Justru
ments of this century . This system will add a new dimension of cost effective
odes.
flexibility to space travel. While the requirements for the initial shuttle flight- test
program called for a capability beyond that of airship vehicles , i.e., the capability
ated ! to air launch the massive, 150, 000 pound orbiter vehicle, airships remain a viable ,
is type cost effective transportation system for ferry requirements and support of the
operational shuttle system.
inten
A preliminary shuttle transportation system has been defined by Goodyear Aero
space Corporation that can provide (1 ) orbiter portal- to - portal delivery , ( 2 ) solid
0
rocket booster recovery at sea, and (3 ) dry external tank and solid - rocket booster
transportation , with minimum orbiter design impact. The airship transportation
system could provide orbiter pickup and delivery throughout the existing airways
system without elaborate , specialized equipment required to mount the orbiter
" piggy -back " on a conventional aircraft.
 262

AECMISSIONS

民意
Perhaps one of the highest benefit - to - cost ratio missions of future air skip vehicles

是
is a dedicated antonomous transportation system for muclear fuel and nuclear waste ARKI

material. Industry estimates predict 1000 nuclear power plants in operation by

the year 2000, a 50 - fold increase over the mmber operational in 1973. The in
creased risk of in - transit accident, accidental exposure , or subversive diversion 2941

of radioactive waste or fissionable material will probably exceed the 50 fold in

crease because of the increased traffic in the existing transportation infrastructure.
The airship transportation system would operate independently of any existing
transportation mode or terminal facility . Origiø - destination points would consist
tu
solely of nuclear power generating plants, nuclear waste processing and disposal
facilities, and nuclear fuel processing plants, each containing a secure area for
payload transfer operations . The benefits of such a system result from a reduced
NL
risk of accident, reduced risk of radioactive exposure from transportation within
the existing intermodal network , and a reduced risk of sabotage or subversive
acquisition of radioactive or fissionable material.
An additional synergistic economic benefit may result from application of the same
type of airship to the construction of the power plants themselves . Advances in
cooling tower technology now make it possible , even desirable in many cases, to
locate power plants away from major lakes and rivers, eliminating the utilization
of barge transportation of major components. The cost of an airship cargo sys •
tem capable of delivering large power plant components from the factory to the
plant site could be significantly reduced by sharing the development costs with the
dedicated AEC transport system. Furthermore, the actual construction costs
might be reduced, leading to a set cost savings fot plant construction, including
the cost of the airship systems.

MILITARY MISSIONS

Important military applications result from two of the airships unique capabilities.
The capability to deliver large quantities of men and supplies to remote areas
over a long range without the need of extensive ground support provides a military
 263

cargo or logistics capability beyond that of even the largest cargo aircraft . The
ip petek
extremely long - endurance capability of airship vehicles results in a platform
uniquely suited to airborne surveillance applications: air , surface , and under
water .

Sivert2 Although the cargo carrier and troop transport applications are extremely viable
missions, airship.capabilities and characteristics are probably best suited to the
over -water environment of naval missions . Some of the more promising Naval
applications include surveillance of airborne and surface targets , airborne com
stung
mand control and communications , mine countermeasures , and ASW applications.

dispat' A surface surveillance platform having the massive size and volume of modern
airship hulls is a significant advantage. Conventional or phased - array radar sys
w
tems of unprecedented performance capability could maintain surveillance over
an extremely large ocean area. Other sensor systems such as infrared and over
the-horizon radar could also be employed . The application of airships as an air
surveillance platform is similar in many respects to the surface- surveillance
mission , capitalizing on the capability to employ high - performance radar sys
tems to detect and classify airborne vehicles . ( The last squadron of Navy air
ships, the ZPG- 3W built by Goodyear Aerospace , was designed to perform the
air surveillance mission . ) Modern airship air - surveillance missions would in
clude pot only aircraft but also cruise missile and submarine - launched ballistic
STI
missile applications. Incorporation of air - to - air missile capability on-board the
airship would provide both a self - defense and an offensive attack capability against
each type of airborne target.
Air ships are extremely well suited to serve as a command, controle and communi
cation center for area or fleet operations. Airships of reasonable size could house
the most sophisticated computers, software, display, and communications equip
ment .

Airships could also be employed as excellent mine sweeping vehicles , in much

the same way as the helicopters successfully employed in operation " End Sweep "
in North Vietnam . By operating in air rather than water , the airborne mine
sweeper can operate at reduced risk to both personnel and the mine sweeping ve
bicle. Airship endurance and self - sufficient operations capability offer significant
advantages compared with the helicopter platform .
 264

As an ASW system , air ships could be used to tow extremely large aperture linear
sopar arrays. Array performance would not be impaired by noise associated
with a surface ship towing. Air ship advantages would further include rapid de WE

ployment and redeployment flexibility as well as long endurance /on - station capa
bility .
In an alternate ASW application, air ships could be used to emplace and monitor
large fields of sonar buoys . Target classification could be performed by the air
sbip and ASW attack forces vectored against the threat submarine . On -board
maintenance facilities would allow repair of damaged buoys recovered by the air
ship .
31

A
MODERN AIRSHIP PROBLEMS AND TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS
3
With the many promising missions identified for modern air ships, it is worth
while to address the technical limitations and purported deficiencies often cited
9
as limiting airship applications .
In the military area , airships appear to be ideal platforms, particularly for Naval 1

ASW missions . Since air ships served as excellent ASW vehicles during WW I and
WW II, the question arises why they were phased out of these missions .
The reasons most often cited include ( 1 ) insufficient speed, ( 2 ) increasingly
sophisticated submarine technology relative to detection equipment capability,
and (3 ) vulnerability.
As submarine performance and speed improved, the pressurized airships were
unable to maintain the required 30- to 40 -knot ground speed under severe sea
state conditions: 60 - knot head winds . With today's propulsion and design tech
nology , improved pressurized , semi- rigid or rigid airships could easily provide
the performance capability required to overtake the fastest enemy submarine in
virtually any weather condition .

The second factor that contributed to the airship's retirement from Daval service
was unrelated to airship capability. Submarine technological and operational im
provements outstripped detection equipment capability , particularly the sonar de
tection range. Sophisticated advancements during the recent decade have resulted
 265

wie in quantum improvements in ASW detection equipment. ASW air ships could utilize
the improved dunking sonar, towed array systéms , large area sonobuoy fields,
new magnetic anomaly detection gear and improved radar equipment, as well as
01 CM supporting systems, including onboard data processing , readout analysis , locali
zation, attack and data link systems developed for the S- 3 aircraft and SH - 3H and
KAN
LAMPS helicopter ASW vehicles.
VA

The final factor often cited in the demise of naval airships is their vulnerability.
This topic seldom fails to arise when military applications of airships are dis
the ti cussed. In fact, recent developments in Soviet surface- to -air missile systems
and antiaircraft artillery systems often leads to doubts about the survivability of
even our least vulnerable attack aircraft . For air ships, however, acceptable
levels of survivability can be achieved by employing the airship in missions and
tactical environments compatible with their unique design and operational charac
teristics .

Survivability could be improved by compartmentization of the lifting gas cells in

large rigid and semi- rigid designs . Damage control and repair are feasible ,
since the structure and gas cells would be accessible to repair crews . More sig
nificantly , airships could be equipped with self - defense systems , early warning
and fire control radar , anti - air and anti -missile missiles , and various electronic
ly countermeasures to further enhance their survivability .
ity, In the nonmilitary mission area, other problems often cited limiting airship appli
cations include ground handling, ballast requirements during load transfer, con
trol of buoyancy and trim , and air ship response to severe gusts and turbulence .
None of these areas constitute unsolvable technical problems or limitations
utilizing existing approaches . However , airship performance and operational
rovit capability could certainly be improved by dedicated engineering design and develop
ment effort utilizing Apollo - era technology .

Ground handling of the latest and largest Navy air ship, the Goodyear ZPG - 3W , was
STK : considerably improved by the use of motorized " mechanical mules . " Addition of
vectorable thrust capability could also appreciably improve airship low -speed
r det control characteristics during landing and ground handling . Vectored -thrust capa
quilted bility was employed by the Goodyear Akron and Macon rigid air ships in the ear ly
 266

30's and could be appreciably improved utilizing 1974 technology Small amounts
of aerodynamic lift and vectored thrust could also be utilized for control of buoyancy
and trim . Water recovery from fuel combustion products have been successfully
applied for reclaiming ballast as fuel is consumed and warrants further investiga
tion for modern propulsion systems . Initial heating of the lifting gas or inter
mediate, enroute ballast recovery are also promising avenues to buoyancy control.
Problems associated with airship response to severe turbulence can be minimized
utilizing modern weather forecasting and navigation and avionics to avoid severe
turbulence . However , modern rigid and semi- rigid air ships would be designed
to accept elastic deflections of the vehicle structure due to gust loadings. Modera
computerized structural analysis and design capabilities would result in airship
designs as air worthy as any modern aircraft .
Load transfer of massive cargo loads is an area that can benefit by actual flight
experience and research and development efforts . Cargo /ballast load transfer
approaches have been defined utilizing both water and solid ballast containers that
simultaneously transfer the cargo to the ground and the ballast to the airship.
Other approaches that offer promising solutions to cargo transfer include small
reversible bow and stern - mounted ducted propellers and internally suspended
cargo transfer platforms free to rotate independently of the airship's response to
ground winds. For many air ship applications, cargo transfer actually presents
no major problem not previously solved in airship operations. This area would
require appreciable research and development only for the transfer of large
(several hundred ton) indivisible loads characteristic of some modern air ship
missions .

Thus, none of the major technical problems or limitations often associated with
air ship applications to either a military or nonmilitary missions represent prob
lems that have not been adequately solved in the past and could not be appreciably
improved upon via modern technology. While modern applications might require
air ships of unprecedented size 20 million , 40 million , perhaps even 100 million
cubic feet compared with the 6.5 -million - cubic - foot Goodyear - built Akron and
Macon, their development can be achieved by an orderly evolution from historical
technology and experience .
 267

The successful evolution will benefit significantly from the technology advance
ments of the last few decades and could be further enhanced by a research air
craft approach, not necessarily at full scale , aimed at investigations and im
investor
inter
provement of air ship operations particularly in the areas of ground handling,
CTRA
cargo transfer, and advanced buoyancy control and ballast recovery systems .

ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY
i server
The fundamental problem that has deterred the revival of airship utilization is
រង
economic uncertainty . Research and development cost estimates for large rigid
airships have ranged from zero dollars by Airfloat Transport Limited of England
air.be
to half a billion dollars . Cost estimates of pressurized airships similar to these
last employed by the Navy can also be misinterpreted . Historical cost data gen
al the time erally reflect extensive engineering and design efforts to meet rigid performance
andet
specifications and achieve significant technological advancements in perform
ance capability . Sophisticated military equipment, and air ship design character
ship istics for its utilization , resulted in specialized design features and costs .
smal
These uncertainties in the R& D costs and production costs for unknown produc
tion quantities directly affect the operating costs estimates via indirect operating
Ah
cost charges to amortization , interest charges , insurance , fees , taxes, etc.
esenti
Uncertainties in the ground facilities and personnel costs associated with per
formance of the many different mission applications further confuse operating
cost estimates, which ultimately determine the economic viability of airship ap
shin plications .

INSTITUTIONAL UNCERTAINTIES AND CONSTRAINTS

prave The third problem area that will affect the development of modern air ship trans
portation systems for commercial applications may be defined or broadly grouped
4

FY under the heading of institutional constraints. These include government regula

THIAS
tions , state regulations, economic regulations, and so on .
The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 specifically equires the safety regulatio of
d
lan

airspace, air navigation facilities , aircraft, aircraft parts , airmen , carriers,

and certain airports. Historically , aviation safety policies have been issued and

38-266 O - 74 - 18
 268

delineated through safety regulations issued under those requirements through

the regulatory process . Furthermore , economic regulation cover transport
of mail, persons , and property . Policy guidance in the Federal Aviation Act
is broad , primarily looking toward the development of a safe and economically
sound air network . Twenty - nine states have promulgated safety regulations
applicable to intrastate operations . The range from simple registration and in
vestigation of accidents to elaborate assurances of compliance with federal regu
lations .

Some of the major questions which arise in considering commercial applications

include How will air ships be certified by the FAA ? How will the air ships be
tested and how long will it take to develop commercial operation and safety stand
ards ? Who will operate modern airship vehicles ? What International and National
regulations and agreements will apply ? Questions such as these must be con
sidered in the successful introduction of modern airship transportation systems.
 269

SUMMARY

The renewed interest in modern airship vehicles is based on several well founded
facts .

1. Air ships are an environmentally desirable and energy .'

officient alternative to existing transportation modes .
2. Airships have distinct advantages over existing trans
portation modes due to their unique operational capa
bilities .

3. Application of 1974 technology can significantly improve

the capabilities of modern air ships compared with vehi
cles of the past .
4. Because of the three facts above, many promising mis
sions have been identified.
Factors that have prohibited the revival of modern airship missions are of three
basic types: technical limitations or uncertainties , institutional constraints , and
.economic uncertainties .

In the technical area , the successful revival of modern airship vehicles can be
achieved by an evolutionary program based on airship technology of the past, up
graded to reflect the technology of today . With the possible exception of transfer
of large indivisible cargos , technical problems do not exist that have not been
solved in the past and could be significantly improved upon by the application ,
testing, and proving of equipment and operating techniques using 1974 technology .
The are of institutional constraints does not present any insurmountable problems
but does deserve further investigation. Airship certification for commercial appli
cations could be aided significantly by the availability of an airship for actual flight
test programs.

Economic uncertainty is the major problem retarding the development and success
ful introduction of modern air ship transportation systems . Cost uncertainties
arise from unknown production quantities ad unknown costs . These uncertainties
in turn actually result from unknown market size ( i.e. , how many missions could
 270

low cost and would have the advantage of providing real performance information
at an early date .
1

We are recommending to your committee the implementation of such a program

using the design of the U.S. Navy ZPG - 3W airship, which was the largest non
rigid airship ever manufactured.
This airship could operate either as a fully buoyant VTOL vehicle or in a hybrid
or semibuoyant mode as a STOL vehicle using aerodynamic lift for incfeased
payload capability . In the hybrid mode , the ZPG- 3W payload capacity would be
approximately 25 tons with an endurance capability of over 80 hours. Top speed
ofthe original ZPG-3W was 75 knots. This speed can now be increasdato 100
knots, with the use of more modern transportation .

This baseline design could be updated to incorporate new materials , structures,

and propulsion technology to achieve a significant improvement in performance
>

for today's missions . This flying test bed airship could be used as a scale test
vehicle to experimentally investigate and develop airship operational capabilities
as well as investigate advanced technology applications.
The se investigations would include cargo transfer techniques, buoyancy control
technology , ballast recovery systems, personnel minimized ground handling op
erations , incorporation of advanced avionics , as well as other improvements
that could further enhance mission capability .
Also the recommended vehicle would serve as a highly desirable platform to in
vestigate and evaluate sensor type payloads for military or civil missions. A
typical civil mission would be used as a monitoring system for environmental,
agricultural, and energy programs.
This approach offers a solution to the problem of avoiding the cost of implementing
a new design by using an existing design as a program baseline for new develope
peats .
1

In summary , we are confident that the field of LTA is an untapped resource Dow
within our nation , particularly when we view the additional performance that can
 271

air ships cost effectively perform ) and what characteristics (speed payload, range ,
etc.) the airship should possess to perform these missions and the costs required
to develop such a vehicle .

Thus, a dilemma arises . Airship costs depend on quantity produced . Production

quantity and air ship characteristics depend on the numbers and types of missions
airship can competitively perform . The number of missions that airships can
perform is uncertain because actual flight testing and operational investigations
bave not been conducted due to lack of a research or test bed airship . A research
or test bed airship is not available because of the uncertainty in what size air ship
should be developed and the cost to develop such an airship .
One approach to eliminating the development cost /applications dilemma and still
providing a flight test and operational research airship is to construct the vehicle
based on an existing, proven design, successfully built and flown in recent appli
cations. This research airship or flying test bed could perform realistic, flight
evaluations for a broad spectrum of mission applications and serve as a flying
test bed for the evaluation of improved technological and operational approaches.
This research airship approach could be implemented at relatively modest cost
and the potential benefits of a viable , modern airship transportation system are
great.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We believe that many of the applications being considered for LTA vehicles are
practical, but unfortunately most of the applications taken alone do not justify
the investment necessary to develop the required vehicle . It is of interest, how
ever, and important to note that the type of vehicle desired for all applications
is basically the same . Because of this basic similarity , Goodyear believes that
the country's military and civil interests would be best served by Government
support of a program for manufacture and operation of a vehicle that could be
used to conduct mission evaluations for a broad spectrum of applications. Also ,
such a flying test bed vehicle could be used to evaluate the application of Space
Age technologies to LTA system design . It could be implemented at a relatively
 272

be achieved with a modern airship design . We would like to thank you again for
the opportunity to respond to your request for a statement, and we look forward
to an increased emphasis on the investigation of this type of air transport sys
tom .
 273

GRUMMAN AEROSPACE JOSEPH Q. GAVIK, JA.

chairman of the board
CORPORATION
BETHPAGE , NEW YORK 11714

31 July 1974

The Honorable Frank E. Moss

Chairman , Committee on
Aeronautical and Space Sciences
United States Senate
Washington , D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman :

In reply to your letter of June 18 , I welcome the opportunity

to comment to the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space
Sciences . NASA aeronautical personnel are of extremely high
technical excellence and are well motivated toward new and improved
aerodynamic concepts . We remember well the aeronautical technical
information made available to us through NASA and especially
through the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics prior to
1958 and recognize that these data played a most important role in
the 45 -year history of our company . It is further recognized that
Space Age emphasis minimized NASA's aeronautical research work
during the past 15 years . There is no shortage of new ideas for
aircraft within NASA , but there is a need for increased funding
for aeronautical research .

In this context and with the belief that NASA personnel are
most capable in the selection and execution of the specific
aeronautical research programs , I would like to offer the follow
ing thoughts to your Committee :
1. Retention of ecological goals is an important factor in
future world markets . Low noise and low pollution are 1
a must . !
1
2. Fuel costs will play an increasingly important role in
the selection and acquisition of systems in the future .
We do not see a replacement for fossil fuel in aircraft
in the next 15 years nor do we see an improvement in 1 1

engine cycles which would yield any large reduction in

specific fuel consumption . Application of lightweight
structural technology and active load control promises'
relatively modest savings in fuel per passenger mile .
 272

be achieved with a modern air ship design . We would like to thank you again for
the opportunity to respond to your request for a statement, and we look forward
to an increased emphasis on the iavestigation of this type of air transport sys
tem .
 273

GRUMMAN AEROSPACE JOSEPH Q. GAVIK.JA.

chalrmanof the board
CORPORATION
BETHPAGE , NEW YORK 1174

31 July 1974

The Honorable Frank E. Moss

Chairman , Committee on
Aeronautical and Space Sciences
United States Senate
Washington , D. C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman :

In reply to your letter of June 18 , I welcome the opportunity

to comment to the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space
Sciences . NASA aeronautical personnel are of extremely high
technical excellence and are well motivated toward new and improved
aerodynamic concepts . We remember well the aeronautical technical
information made available to us through NASA and especially
through the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics prior to
1958 and recognize that these data played a most important role in
the 45 -year history of our company . It is further recognized that
Space Age emphasis minimized NASA's aeronautical research work
during the past 15 years . There is no shortage of new ideas for
aircraft within NASA , but there is a need for increased funding
for aeronautical research .

In this context and with the belief that NASA personnel are
most capable in the selection and execution of the specific
aeronautical research programs , I would like to offer the follow
ing thoughts to your Committee :
1. Retention of ecological goals is an important factor in
future world markets . Low noise and low pollution are
a must . !
1
2. Fuel costs will play an increasingly important role in
the selection and acquisition of systems in the future .
We do not see a replacement for fossil fuel in aircraft
in the next 15 years nor do we see an improvement in
engine cycles which would yield any large reduction in
specific fuel consumption . Application of lightweight ,
structural technology and active load control promises'
relatively modest savings in fuel per passenger mile .
 274

Additional savings can also be expected when the need

for large quantities of reserve fuel can be markedly
reduced through better weather forecasting and air
traffic control .

Although we do not see any dramatic savings in fuel

per passenger mile we believe that normal evolution
of this parameter will be important to sales of future
aircraft . We conclude that the only practical solution
is to save as much fuel per passenger mile as possible
and direct our national priorities to development of
substitute fuels for energy uses that are ground -based
and relatively insensitive to weight . Air transporte
tion should have first priority on fossil fuels .
3. An excellent safety record is a prerequisite to future
aircraft sales . Decreased approach and landing speeds
through further development of high - lift and perhaps
variable sweep technology is of definite interest .
Military experience supports the lower speed - increased
safety relationship and indicates that designing for
lower landing speed will result in lower liftoff speed
for additional safety benefit . Also , improved , more
highly automated traffic control systems that minimize
airspace congestion and reduce accident probabilities
are needed . Greater emphasis should be placed on design
of fail operational / fail safe aircraft propulsion and
flight control subsystems .

In summary our message is : allow NASA personnel to select the

detailed research programs with the overall goal of achieving a low
noise , low pollutant , fuel efficient , and safe transportation system .
Thank you for the opportunity to present our thoughts to
your Committee . I would appreciate receiving a copy of your
Committee's findings . Please do not hesitate to call on me if
I can be of further assistance .

Sincerely ,
GRUMMAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION

Gaving
Joseph G. Gavin , Jr.
Chairman of the Board
 275

MR
LTV AEROSPACE CORPORATION
A SUBSIDIARY OF THE LTV CORPORATION
Tim
PRESIDENT
SEN . FRANK E. MOSS PO BOX GOO7
DALLAS , TEXAS 78222

US CODIC
Porn
A.UG 1 1974
30 July 1974

RE
LULUUL
ILULUU
WASHINGTON , D. C.

Senator Fran E , Moss

Chairman
Committee on Aeronautical and
Space Sciences
New Senate Office Building
Washington , D.C. 20510

Dear Senator M088 :

Paul Thayer, President of The LTV Corporation , has

advised me of your committee's hearings on Advanced Aeronautical
Concepts and of your 18 June invitation to submit a statement
for possible publication in the hearing record .

We welcome this opportunity to be heard , and LTV

Aerospace's statement is enclosed for your consideration,

Sincerely

Enclosure
Solane
Sol Love
 276

S Τ Α Τ Ε Μ Ε Ν Τ
on

ADVANCED AERONAUTICAL CONCEPTS

LTV Aerospace Corporation welcomes this opportunity to

participate in these important hearings . While we currently
are a producer of military rather than commercial or general
aviation aircraft , we have been a major contributor to the
advancement of aeronautics for more than half a century and
currently are at work on some promising advanced concepts
which could significantly increase the efficiency of commer
cial transport aircraft . We also would like to recommend

the pursuit of several allied technologies which ultimately

could result in substantial economic improvement in air
transportation .
One of our advanced concepts utilizes a multi -bypass
ratio propulsion system which can be integrated very well with
the aerodynamic arrangement of an airplane to provide substantial
benefits in performance and utilization .
Combined aerodynamic / propulsion approaches have been
employed in the past , although with less effective synergetic
relationships in mind . STOL and V /STOL airplanes , such as our
XC- 142 tri - service transport , were designed to utilize the
propeller flow to improve the aerodynamics and control at low
speed and hover . More recently , unique arrangements were
introduced on the Advanced Medium STOL Transport project to
induce an increase in wing lift through appropriate position
ing of the turbofan exhausts .

!
 277

The multi - bypass ratio propulsion system utilizes a cross

flow fan , a device invented in the last century and perhaps
best described as a linear air pump . The cross flow fan resembles
a long , thin version of the familiar " squirrel cage " blower used

in many heating and air conditioning systems , but it doesn't

function in quite the same way . Rather than causing the air
to flow in one end and out radially , the cross flow fan is con
figured to pump the air across the diameter . Pressure ratios ,
well exceeding 1.5 across the fan , are easily achievable and at
efficiencies above 80 per cent .

This device , installed in segments along the trailing edge

of a wing and driven by a turboshaft engine , takes in air from
the bottom surface of the wing and blows it aft over the top of
a properly configured wing flap . This fast -moving air could
induce substantially increased wing lift at low speeds and high
lift-to-drag ratios in cruise . At the same time , it functions

efficiently as the primary thrust for the aircraft .

Thus , the system could approach the ultimate in terms of
an efficiently - integrated aerodynamic / propulsion relationship
for subsonic applications . It could result in a substantial
reduction in power requirements , permitting use of smaller engines
and dramatic reductions in fuel consumption over given performance
ranges . It also has the potential for both subsonic and supersonic
VTOL applications .
LTV Aerospace is exploiting the cross flow fan concept as
one of its Independent Research and Development programs , and the
Navy currently is sponsoring further development . The system
 278

has very high potential across the subsonic commercial trans

port spectrum from the small inter - urban commuter to the

large , transoceanic transport ,

Recomunended for further development and exploitation is
an emerging array of advanced technologies which could improve
the overall efficiency of commercial aircraft products . These
concepts , when developed to their fullest potential , could
lead to reduced weight , reduced cost and reduced maintenance
while substantially increasing reliability . They include :
o
Advanced metallic structural concepts which , when de
veloped , will provide for the combination of new structural
design concepts with the new developments in airframe fabri
cation .

Advanced alloying of existing materials currently

under development will provide competitive strength properties
while enjoying better fatigue and corrosion resistance charac
teristics . These characteristics will result in lower fabri
cation and quality control costs plus lower service maintenance
costs . The advanced fabrication techniques will include low
cost castings , laminated bonding of skins and parts and the
reduction of previously required mechanical fasteners by com
bining bonding and riveting in various combinations for even
additional cost reduction ,

o Composite structural materials are now beginning to be

recognized for use in the production of airframe components at
costs competitive with conventionally fabricated metallic struc
tures .
 279

Weight savings of 20 to 30 per cent are already being

achieved by using these composites . The materials lend themselves
to fabrication by automatic , numerically controlled tape - laying
machines , a procedure which permits production of large compon
ents without joints while substantially reducing labor costs .
Further development and usage of composite materials will result
in additional cost and weight reductions .
1
O Electrical/ electronic digital (fly -by -wire) control
systems will result in reduced control system weights , vqlpmes
and production and maintenance costs as compared to the electro
mechanical systems employed in today's aircraft designs . Most

important , however , is the realization that the fly - by -wire

concept is the necessary key to the exploitation of .

O The control configured vehicle (CCV ) principles which

will provide for lower aerodynamic drag , improved ride quali
ties and gust load alleviation , all of which will reduce the
empty weight and fuel required .
1

The future of commercial air transportation , currently

being impacted by the restrictions of the energy crisis , could
very easily be affected by accelerated research and development
programs in these and other advanced aeronautical concepts ,

##
 280

LOCKHBED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

QURBANK , CALIFORNIA SISOJ

RONALD SWELT July 25 , 1974

VICE PRESIDENT
CNICI SCIENTIST

Senator Frank E. Moss

United States Senate
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences
Washington , D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Mose :

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your request to

Mr. Kotchian of June 18 , to contribute material pertinent
to your recent bearings on Advanced Aeronautical Concepts .

The attached brochure , entitled "Air Transport Technology

Needs , " focuses on many of the key aeronautics technology
issues of the next decade and suggests some priorities on
our future research and development efforts . It further
highlights our concern that the aeronautical effort and
funding within NASA represents a very small fraction of
the total NASA program . In no way do we question the
wisdom and desirability of a strong space program . Rather
We suggest that , in the face of the strengthening off - shore
threat to the U.S. commercial air transport industry and
the low levels of new military aircraft development , NASA
could profitably increase its aeronautical contribution
with a relatively small effect upon its total budget .
It is also our hope that your Committee in its deliberations
· can spend some time in considering the mechanisms whereby
new concepts make the transition from federal laboratories
to the airplane inventory . NASA and DOD have usually
stimulated new concepts to the point where feasibility and
potential merit were clearly established . This is an
essential first step in which the government laboratories
have been , and continue to be , outstanding . However, two
further steps remain in the transfer of new technology to
new aircraft and we can foresee difficulties in both of
these , particularly in the commercial field .

Immediately following the demonstration of feasibility of

& new technology , it is necessary to perform a large number
of detailed engineering tasks to ensure that the new concept
18 satisfactory in all respects . A current illustration is

:
 281

the concept of graphite composites as structural material

for aircraft . We have now demonstrated that we can make
such material , with strength and stiffness superior to
conventional metallic aircraft structures , at a competitive
cost . It now remains to show that these materials will
remain satisfactory for a typical aircraft service life ;
that they have no disqualifying corrosion problems ; that
they will survive lightning strikes ; that field repair
techniques can be developed ; and a host of similar detailed
engineering tasks which must precede their operational use .
In the past we have grossly underestimated the magnitude of
this intermediate task between feasibility demonstration
and operational deployment . We would strongly urge that
funding be made available for NASA and DOD to play a greater
role in this phase .

The final step in transfer of any new technology to the

operational phase requires that difficult decision on the
part of the aircraft industry , the airline or the government
to accept the risk of a new concept for its promised improve
ment . This risk is minimized with good engineering development
but history shows that it is never completely absent . There
is little doubt that the present climate in the aerospace
industry is not conducive to the assumption of high risk .
Both financial and economic factors militate against the
acceptance of significant risk and the financial community
already rates the airline and aircraft industries as
speculative fields for capital investment . Unless steps
are taken to change this position , and to provide returns
for these industries commensurate with the risks taken ,
the U.S. aeronautical industry will find it difficult to .

continue its past record of high technology application

which has led us to our current position of international
dominance in the air transport field .
il
Sincerely,

Ronald Sunelt
Ronald Smelt

Enclosure
 TRA
AIR NSPORTATION
TECHNOLOGY
NEEDS

Submitte
suppleme
as
data
the
to
hearings dntary
on
Advanced
Aeronauti
Concepts
before
the
U.S.
Senate
Committecal
e
on
282

Aeronauti
Space
Sciences
,16/18
J1and cal
974
. uly

LOCKHE
CALI ED
FORN
COM
B
•C URBPAN Y IA
ANK
交 , ALI FORNIA
D
OFA IVISIO
LOCKH
AIRCRA N
EED
CORPO FT
RATION
38-266 0 - 74 - 19
M
-ILITA
EVOL
AIRC RY
UTIO
RAFT
TRAN SPORNT

the nd
manufact
engine
and
a,, irframe
aNASA
by
performe d
research
from urers
emanate
ideas cal
aeronauti
various
in
establishe
are
verificati d
New ons
tal
experimen
nd
developed
are
a,texplored
are deas
I., heories
military
283

programsent
.developm
airplane
actual
including
concept
of
proof
require
that
new
emerge
activities
these s
approachecal
aeronauti
From
technical
as
NASA
, ith
manufact
wwith urers
working
military
the
involved
steps
first
Ithese
past
n
the
.
operation
advanced
adopted
these
general n
.Iairplanes
military
performa
high
new
on mphasisnce
Eplaced
.was
tried
were
ideasadvisors
;new any
level
the
on
risk
csuccess
imposed
which
tconfidencalculated
a•M.ofechnologi ees
significan
provided
that
concepts
proven
emerged
these
tested
Fand
built
were
aircraft
rom ttal
experimen
.many
and
design
aircraft
improvem s
. ractical ents
poperation
•in
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

TRAN
EVOL SPOR
AIRCUTIO
RAFTNT

MILITARY

NEW
IDEAS Y
63 EARS PROVEN
CONCCPTS

MFR
284

DEVELOPMENT

NASA

DESI
NEW GNS
A
•
P DV
. ERF
C
•
R ALC
. ISK
MILITARY
 EVOLUTION
COMMERCIAL
–
AIRCRAFT
TRANSPORT
285

the
emerged
have
that
advances
technology
from
resulted
has
transportation
air
commercial
in
progress
of
Much
airframe
propose
confidently
could
manufacturer
engine
and
.Whe
programs
military
,tfrom
concepts
proven
new
ith
potential
safety
bnewnd
,aassurance
wetter
airlines
the
to
designs
transport
advanced
economic
improved
of
ith
.The
design
life
long
risk
his
and
practical
were
advances
new
these
that
confidence
had
purchaser
airline
.
demonstration
previous
by
protected
was
buy
to
commitment
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

TRAN
EVOL RAFT
AIRCUTIO
SPORNT

MILITARY COMMERCIAL
NEW
YEARS
3-6 PROVEN
IDEAS 3
MORE NEW
CONCEPTS YEAR
OR S
TRANSPORTS

MER
SELLER

DEVELOPMENT
286

NASA

NEW
DESIGNS NEGOTIATION NEW
DESIGNS
P
.O DV
AERF E
O CONOMICS
C
o
R ALC
. ISK DEVELOPMENT S
o AFETY

로
MILITARY o
LONG
LIFE

AIRLINE
BUYER
 E
– XAMP
EVOL
AIRC UTIO
RAFT
LE T
SPORN
TRAN

.wing
Cback
swept
the
transport
isonceivedal
commerci
practical
to
idea
new
from
evolution
the
of
example
tunnelsAn
wind
.in
NASA
1945
287

developed
was
advancem
eginningmic
aerodyna
,bhis
,tII
War ent
World
during airplanes
40's
T.the
of
end
,athese
bombers
B52
and
B47
were
concept
the
adopt
to
aircraft
large
first
wingThe
deflectio
involving
problems
structuraln
and
qualities
handling
speed
low
the
towards
way
the
paved
concept
this resolving
adopt
to
transport
first
thehe
Tswept
by al
sd
aggravate
all
are hich
,.wing
wcommerci
flutter
and airplane
wing
swept
large
first
the
since
11
emerged
first
idea
new
the
after
years
,a3nd
,1years
1958
in
appeared
.
flown
had
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY
1

TRAN
EVOL RAFT
AIRCUTIO
SPORNT

MILITARY
COMMERCIAL
NEW
IDEAS YEAR
3-6 S PROVEN
CONCEPTS 3
MORE
YEAR
OR S NEW
TRANSPORTS

MER SELLER

DEVELOPMENT

NASA
288

NEW
DESIGNS NEGOTIATION DESI
NEW GNS
P DV
.•AERF E
• CONOMICS
C
•
R ALC
. ISK DEVELOPMENT S
• AFETY
MILITARY L ONG
•LIFE

AIRLINE
BUYER

SWEPT
WING B47
B52 707
1945 DC
-8
1947-52
1958
REF
.RADC
REP AP
ORT
 OFF
SPIN
C5

,
development
military
from
advances
technology
recipients
been
all
have
decade
this
of
transports
bodied
wide
The
(Cdesign
transport
cargo
Galaxy
Force
Air
large
).Tincluding
that
problems
new
the
of
many
introduced
his
5A
,atmanufacturing
.N
controlling
were
engines
andling
nd
hscaleew
besting
on
things
doing
to
relate
igger
made
.
practical
were
aircraft
large
for
systems
control
new
and
developed
289

,built
C5A
,iThe
Lockheed
by
.T
country
the
throughout
companies
supplier
and
airframe
many
experience
nvolved
hus
!
D nd
C10
,L-1a011
747
the
as
available
were
manufacture
development
transport
commercial
large
for
skills
and
.
scene
the
upon
came
designs
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

SPIN
C5
OFF

AIRC E
LARGRAFT
VERIFICATI
TESTI NG ON ADVANCED
FLIGHT
TECHNIQUES CONTROLS

0 0
290

WIDE
BODY
STRUCT URE
AND
MFG HIGH
FLOT
LAND ING N
GEARATIO
H
PRESSES
() EAVY

AIRPLAN
SYSTEM
LARGE SE HIGH
BY
P
-ENGIN
TECH E
ASS NOLO GY
PARTIC
STATES
40IPATING

-
 AIRCRA
MILITARORY
INVENTFTY

being
aircraft
military
of
numbers
.T
change
process
inhe
is
described
just
process
evolution
airplane
transport
The
next
the
For
1958.
in
introduce
was
Electra
the
when
inventory
in
were d
than
less
291

far
are
today
developed
to
apin
will and
operation
be
aircraft
military
large
newew al
new nly
fodesigns
transport
,ofosition
ageneratio n
from
flow
technolog
traditiona
the
of
eversal
be
rwill
trend
this
of ly
result
O ne
advances
atechnolog
proven y
.offer
aircraft
commerci
.to
military al
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

AIRC
INVE RAFT
MILINTOR
TARYY

1958 1968
ELECTRA 198X
TRISTAR
# + ?

9
C- 7
1C
- 21
292

1
C- 24
1C- 30
-1
C 33
1C- 35
B-52 C
1
- 41
B-58 XB
-70
-YB
6 0 -FB
1 11
-YP
6 M C
-5
3
R
-Y -1
B
1
F
-2
AMST
 TECHNO
FUTURE S
EMPHASILOGY

on
emphasis
diverse
be
also
will
here
;inventory
tmilitary
the
in
types
aircraft
fewer
be
there
will
only
Not
for
need
wcapability
systems
weapon
,superior
stress
walwayssith
military
he
,a. ill
293

Tapplicatio
technolog ny
payoffs
military
of the
all
desirous
wsectorhile
commerci
he
,.propulsio
nd
,atructuresal
n
Tsaerodyna
better mics
reflect
properly
noise
meet nd
standards
emission
and
,atransport
new
their
that s
require
areas
same ill
,win
these
enhancem
technolo
require
to
continue
will
sector
commerci
T ent
gy
al
.problem
energy
the
ofhe
impact
possible
life
long nd
aseconomic
improved
.,toafety
leading s
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

FUTURE
TECHN
EMPHAOLOGY
SIS

ITEM MILITARY COMMERCIAL

INTEREST INTEREST
NOISE

POLLUTION
✓
CONGESTION
V
ENERGY
294

<

SAFETY
✓ ✓
MANEUVERABILITY

POWE
LIFT RED ✓
COMPOSITES

CONTRO
ACTIVE LS

AVIONICS
<<
<<<<
 DEVE
TRAN LOPMT
SPOR
FUTURE ENT

ecolog
on
focuse
directl
not
femphas y
, uture ydlogy
techno
nd opmen
civil ,devel
under
aircraf
militar
afewer
With tyis t
togiven
be
must
attent
reater
proces ion
s
ion
Gevolut
.gradua
aon
take
will
orebe
develo l
will
therepment
mtransp nd
,manufa
airpla
aand necturer
ort nment
gover
the s
both
by
progra
develo
and
researc ms
pment
on
impro
produc
and
concep
new
adevelovemen aviatio
t tsnh
ts
p
to
aircraf
transp
existin
of
use
on
reliance
greater t
ort
g
.transp
new
the
for
life
service
active
longer
mean orts
will
his t
T.basis
retrofi
beyon
go
will
design
T. hese ne
baseli
the d
from
develo
aircraf ive
295

derivat
numbe
be ofreatertrped
gaalso
will
There
materi
, tructur
ing
swplant
power
,inhanges
today
alsal
place
commo
Care
.that
versio
fuselag
stretch
the n
nseed
.
transpo
today'
of
versio
advanc
on
appear
all rts
ns
sed
may
aerody
lift
high
and namics
and
retrofi
from
spin
recipie
the
be
will
athe
ofnd gtnt
,off
comin
in
slower
be
will
design
transp
new
all
An employ
also
will
progra ort ms
.- oing
from
bbe
Wgon , enefit
approp
.militar
progra
hen ort
transp
ysed
riate
ivems
derivat
be
would
there
that
sugges
militar his ts
Tthe
to
transp
commer
new
.the
from
off
be ort
ycial
also
will
There
and
purpos
of spin nalit
commo e
for
search
aircraf
future
of
users
militar
and
could tycial y
commer
the
if
gain
mutual
specifi
both
satisfy
can
concep c
.needs nets
airpla
similar
identif
nd y
a,that
design
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

TRANS
FUTUREPORT
DEVELO PMENT

12 CIVIL
AVIATION
RESEARCH

COMMER
TRANSPCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
ORT

NEW

A/C
TRANSPORT
<
二
REDUCED
MILITARY
PROGRAMS
296

DERIVATIVE
A/C

RETROFIT
EXISTING INCR'D
TRANSP
CIVIL ORT RESEAR
S
/ CALED CH
FLEET DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPE
OFF
SPIN A/C
A

FUTURE
TRANSPORT
TIMETABLE

.
1990's
early
the
to
extending
life
active
an
have
will
now
service
entering
aircraft
bodied
wide
newer
The
297

wprovide
versions
,wDerivative
years
five
next
within
appear
may
.N
90's
mid
the
to
service
ill
hich
ew
1985
than
earlier
much
.technology
service
enter
not
probably
will
transports
advanced
 LOCKHEED
COMPANY
CALIFORNIA

FUTURE
TRANSPORT
TIMETABLE

YEAR
1975 80 85 90 95 2000

EXISTI
/
A
C NG
298

DERIVATIVE
AIC
(SIMILAR
TECHNOLOGY
)

NEW
AIC
A
( DVANCED
TECHNOLOGY
)

38-2
38-266 0 - 74 - 20
SSUES
ICONSIDERATIO
-NEW
TRANSPORT NS

noth
.BA
transport
new
generation
next
for
date
entry
service
the
influence
will
issues
of
and
ecological
umber
findings
airplane
future
in
impact
will
. heir
;tdesign
present
at
proceeding
are
programs
study
conservation
energy
(CsIAP
Program
Assessment
Impact
Climatic
)iThe
on
impact
their
and
emissions
atmospheric
upper
with
involved
fuel
and
coal
from
depletion
problem
of
production
related
the
,apossible
.Snd
ecology
oil
tudy
,and
.shale
decade
next
in
attention
priority
high
given
be
all
will
energy
forms
alternate
of
introduction
the
airplane
future
influence
strongly
will
efforts
these
from
.Findings
design
299

.Or
80's
mid
the
in
possible
be
to
appear
may
fuel
hydrocarbon
forms
synthetic
of
Use
fuels
alternate
perhaps
-wsolution
world
practical
most
.the
)a(Ltide
as
upon
looked
be
may
century
of
end
H2
,soperation
decade
next
In
for
enthusiasm
public
on
light
some
shed
will
TU144
and
Concorde
the
of
ervice
sbasis
.the
, cheduled
fares
premium
at
transportation
speed
ahigher
on
generation
boom
sonic
of
importance
nd
B-1bomber
The
technology
in
advances
new
of
demonstration
and
experience
flight
supersonic
add
also
will
.T he
demonstrate
will
program
AMST
.
practicality
lift
powered
LOCKHEED
COMPANY
PORNIA
CAL

NEW
CONSI
TRANSDERAT
PORT IONS

YEAR
75 80 85
T 90 95
1
CIAP MID
TERM
STUDIES ENERGY FAR
TERM
PLAN
ENERGY
PLAN
C
,AMST
ADVANC E
ONCORDED
CURR
TRANSPOR
ENT T
S
B-1ENGIN E
ERVICES
SERVICE
LIFE
300

-
 NEW
CONSIDERATIONS
TRANSPORT
LONG
-
TRANSPORTS
RANGE

80's
be
will
acthe
not
longlate
mid
nhoice
until
service
see
.Irange
may
transport
generation
next
The
(iresponse
subsonic
be
should
airplane
new
this
whether
as
)omade
needs
conservation
energy
severe
to
nr
.Or
supersonic
design
airplane
fuel
alternate
century
of
end
an
for
prepare
and
off
hold
to
be
might
option
the
301

l(piquid
).T
supersonic
powered
be
to
appear
not
does
transport
hypersonic
robably
he
ahydrogen
or
SST
generation
third
.rather
,but
option
term
asnear
econd
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

TRAN
EVOL RAFT
AIRCUTIO
SPORNT

MILITARY
COMMERCIAL
NEW
IDEAS YEAR
-3-6 S PROVEN
CONCEPTS OR
-3
YEAR
MORES NEW
TRANSPORTS

MFR SELLER

DEVELOPMENT

NASA
288

DESI
NEW GNS NEGOTIATION DESI
NEW GNS
A
.P DV
• ERF E• CONOMICS
R
.C ALC
•ISK DEVELOPMENT S
• AFETY
MILITARY L
• ONG
LIFE

AIRLINE
BUYER

SWEPT
WING B47
707
1945 B52
1947-52 DC
-8
1958
REF
R
. ADCA
REPO P
RT
 OFF
SPIN
C5

development
military
from
advances
technology
recipients
been
all
have
decade
this
of
transports
bodied
wide
,The
(Cdesign
transport
cargo
Galaxy
Force
Air
large
).Tincluding
that
problems
new
the
of
many
introduced
his
5A
,atmanufacturing
.N
controlling
were
engines
andling
nd
hscaleew
besting
on
things
doing
to
relate
igger
.
practical
made
were
aircraft
large
for
systems
control
new
and
developed
289

built
C5A
,iThe
Lockheed
by
country
the
throughout
companies
supplier
and
airframe
many
.Tnvolved
experience
hus
available
D011
747
the
L-1,aas
nd
C10
were
manufacture
development
transport
commercial
large
for
skills
and
.
scene
the
upon
came
designs
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

C5
SPIN
OFF

AIRC E
LARGRAFT
VERIFICATI
TESTI NG ON ADVANCED
FLIGHT
TECHNIQUES CONTROLS

0
290

WIDE
BODY
STRUCT URE
AND
MFG FLOT
HIGH ATIO
LAND
GEAR ING N
H
PRESSES
() EAVY

AIRPLAN
LARGE E
SYSTEMS HIGH
BY
PENGIN
-TECH E
ASS NOLOGY
PARTIC
STATES
40IPATING
 STATES
PARTICIPATING
40

10
INVENTORY
AIRCRAFT
MILITARY

military
being
aircraft
described
.T
change
process
in
is
of
numbers
he
just
evolution
airplane
transport
The
next
For
1958.
introduced
was
Electra
when
inventory
the
in
were
than
less
far
are
today
developed
291

in
and
operational
to
apfgeneration
,oosition
designs
transport
of
be
will
aircraft
military
large
new
nly
ew
the
from
flow
technology
traditional
.Oeversal
advances
proven
aroffer
be
will
trend
this
result
ofne
aircraft
.
commercial
to
military
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

AIRC
INVE TARY
MILINTOR
RAFTY

1958
1968
ELECTRA 198X
TRISTAR
# # ?

9
C- 7
-1
C21
292

-1
C 24
1
C- 30
1C- 33
1C- 35
B
-52 1-C41
5B- 8 XB
-70
YB
6
-0 FB
1
- 11
6
-YPM
-5
C
R
-3Y B-1
1
F
-2
AMST
 EMPHASIS
TECHNOLOGY
FUTURE

inventory
military
the
in
types
aircraft
fewer
there
will
only
Not
diverse
be
also
here
;temphasis
on
.Till
application
atechnology
military
,walways
capability
systems
weapon
superior
stress
for
need
sith
he
293

structures
aerodynamics
abetter
.T
,wpropulsion
sector
commercial
payoffs
military
the
all
of
desirous
hile
nd
he
,aproperly
standards
emission
and
noise
reflect
nd
will
areas
same
these
in
meet
transports
new
their
that
require
will
enhancement
technology
require
to
continue
.The
problem
energy
the
of
impact
possible
sector
commercial
safety
economics
improved
to
.,aleading
life
long
nd
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

FUTURE
TECHN
EMPHAOLOGY
SIS

ITEM MILITARY COMMERCIAL

INTEREST INTEREST
NOISE

POLLUTION ✓

CONGESTION
v
ENERGY
294

SAFETY

MANEUVERABILITY
POWERED
LIET
v
COMPOSITES
✓
ACTIVE
CONTROLS ✓ ✓
AVIONICS ✓
 DEVELOPMENT
TRANSPORT
FUTURE

auture
development
under
aircraft
military
fewer
,fWith
ecology
on
focused
directly
not
emphasis
technology
nd
Gcivil
to
given
be
must
attention
reater
process
evolution
gradual
ore
.amtransport
on
take
will
development
manufacturers
bybe
will
there
nd
,aboth
airplane
and
government
the
programs
development
research
aviation
a
improvements
product
and
concepts
new
develop
to
aircraft
transport
existing
of
use
on
reliance
greater
This
basis
retrofit
will
service
active
longer
mean
transports
new
the
for
.life

agreater
be
also
.TThere
design
baseline
the
from
developed
aircraft
derivative
of
number
beyond
go
will
hese
295

.Cmaterials
today
place
common
are
that
versions
fuselage
stretched
wthe
plant
power
,sin
tructural
ing
hanges
.
transports
today's
of
versions
advanced
on
appear
all
may
aerodynamics
lift
high
and

retrofit
and
coming
from
off
spin
of
recipient
the
be
will
,aAn
innd
slower
design
transport
new
all
Wenefits
transport
,bderivative
-gappropriate
on
.from
employed
be
also
will
programs
military
oing
hen
transport
commercial
new
the
from
off
spin
be
also
will
There
would
.This
military
to
there
that
suggests
commercial
ifthe
gain
mutual
aircraft
future
of
users
military
and
commonality
for
search
could
purpose
specific
,and
design
both
satisfy
can
that
concepts
airplane
similar
.identify
needs
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

TRANS
FUTUREPORT
DEVELO PMENT

CIVIL
AVIATION REDUCED
RESEARCH MILITARY
PROGRAMS

TRANSP CIAL
COMMERORT
DEVELOPMENT
NEW
TRANSPORT
A/C
296

た
-
DERIVATIVE
A/C
Il

RETROFIT
EXISTING CIVIL
TRANSP
INCR'D ORT RESEAR
S
/ CALEDCH
FLEET DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPE
OFF
SPIN A/
C
FUTURE
TRANSPORT
TIMETABLE

.
1990's
early
the
to
extending
life
active
an
have
will
now
service
entering
aircraft
bodied
wide
newer
The
297

wprovide
versions
,wDerivative
years
five
next
within
appear
may
.N
90's
mid
the
to
service
ill
hich
ew
.
1985
than
earlier
much
service
enter
not
probably
will
transports
technology
advanced
 LOCKHEED
COMPANY
CALIFORNIA

FUTURE
TRANSPORT
TIMETABLE

YEAR
1975 80 85 90 95 2000

EXISTING
/
A
C
298

DERIVATIVE
AIC
(SIMILAR
)TECHNOLOGY

NEW
AIC
(ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY
)
38-266 O - 74 - 20
SSUES
ICONSIDERATIO
-NEW
TRANSPORT NS

noth
.BA
transport
new
generation
next
for
date
entry
service
the
influence
will
issues
of
and
ecological
umber
impact
design
airplane
future
in
proceeding
.findings
present
at
will
heir
;tenergy
are
programs
study
conservation
(CsIAP
Program
Assessment
Impact
Climatic
)iThe
on
impact
their
and
emissions
atmospheric
upper
with
involved
from
and
coal
depletion
problem
fuel
of
production
related
the
,apossible
.Snd
ecology
oil
tudy
,and
.shale
decade
next
in
attention
priority
high
given
be
all
will
energy
forms
alternate
of
introduction
the
airplane
future
influence
strongly
will
efforts
these
from
.Findings
design
299

.Or
80's
mid
the
in
possible
be
to
appear
may
fuel
hydrocarbon
forms
synthetic
of
Use
fuels
alternate
perhaps
world
solution
practical
most
as
upon
looked
.-wthe
)a(Ltide
be
may
century
of
end
H2
for
,service
decade
next
In
enthusiasm
public
on
light
some
shed
will
TU144
and
Concorde
the
of
operation
on basis
.asthe
, cheduled
fares
premium
at
transportation
speed
higher
generation
boom
sonic
of
importance
nd
will
B-1b
The
new
of
demonstration
and
experience
flight
supersonic
add
also
.Tomber
technology
in
advances
he
practicality
lift
powered
demonstrate
will
program
.AMST
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

TRANS
CONSI
NEW DERAT
PORT IONS

YEAR
75 80 85
T 90 95
1
1
CIAP MID
TERM
STUDIES FAR
TERM
ENERGY
PLAN
ENERGY
PLAN
C,AMST
ADVANC E
ONCORDED
CURR
TRANSPOR
ENT T
S ERVICE
B-1ENGINES
SERVI
LIFE CE
300
 NEW
CONSIDERATIONS
TRANSPORT
LONG
-
TRANSPORTS
RANGE

will
be
late80's
mid
the
nhoice
transport
ac.Imay
until
service
see
not
range
long
generation
next
The
severe
subsonic
be
should
airplane
new
this
whether
as
made
to
response
(ienergy
)onr
needs
conservation
.Or
supersonic
design
airplane
fuel
alternate
century
of
end
an
for
prepare
and
off
hold
to
be
might
option
the
301

).l(piquid
supersonic
powered
robably
he
Thypersonic
ahydrogen
be
to
appear
not
does
transport
,but
option
term
asnear
.rather
SST
generation
third
or
econd
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

NEW
TRANSPORT
CONSIDERAT IONS

YEAR

80 85 95
1 1
CIAP

90
MID
TERM FAR
STUDIES TERM
ENERGY
PLAN
ENERGY
PLAN
AMST
C
, ONCORDE ADVANCED TRAN
CURRSPOR
ENT T
S
B-1 ERVICE ENGINES SERVICE
LIFE

RANGE
TRANSP
LONG ORT
302

SELECTION
AND
A
-GO
HEAD
SUBSONIC SERVICE
SUPERSONIC

ALTERNATE GO
A
- HEAD
SERVICE
FUEL

HYPERSONIC
NEXT
GENERATION
SST
 SHORT
–
CONSIDERATIONS
TRANSPORT
NEW
TRANSPORTS
HAUL

be
could
design
Tthe
adlast
80's
of
half
.haul his
feasible
appears
serivative
Appearance
in
transport
hort
(werhaps
fleet
existing
the
),pof
wing
new
or
engines
amnewer
provide
to
application
lift
powered
with
ith
easure
new
.Itotally
capability
landing
and
takeoff
reduced
or
STOL
atof
be
may
advanced
incorporating
design
.
all
fields
in
technology
303

short
.A
place
market
haul
version
density
igh
hTwo
total
the
serve
to
needed
be
probably
will
airplanes
of
types
support
.A
traffic
capacity
high
medium
to
low
sismaller
can
cities
populated
highly
where
areas
many
in
likely
local
by
centers
population
lower
serving
for
needs
the
meet
to
anticipated
is
design
density
.
carriers
service
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

TRANS
CONSI
NEW DERAT
PORT IONS

YEAR
75 80 85
1 90 95
CIAP MID
TERM
STUDIES FAR
TERM
ENERGY
PLAN
ENER
PLAN GY
C
,AMST
ONCORDE ADVANCED TRAN
CURRSPOR
ENT T
SB
-1 ERVICE ENGINES SERVICE
LIFE

LONG
RANGE
TRANSP
.)(PASS ORT
SELECTION
AND
304

SUBSONIC
A
-GO
HEAD SERVICE
SUPERSONIC

GO
-AHEAD
ALTERNATE SERVICE
FUEL

HYPERSONIC
NEXT
GENERA
SST TION

SHORT
HAUL
TRANSP
.)(PASS ORT
HIGH
DENSITY GO
A
- HEAD SERVICE
MED
L
/ OW
DENSITY
/STOL
R TOL
 CONSIDERATIONS
-CARGO
AIRCRAFT
TRANSPORT
NEW

development
to
lead
will
aircraft
by
cargo
of
transportation
rapid
cost
low
for
demand
the
in
growth
Continued
,rthe
design
same
.Aeflecting
transports
cargo
new
of
range
long
to
medium
technology
advanced
n
hich
1980's
late
design
wcounterpart
,be
the
in
operational
ould
passenger
.Tccarrying
itshis
as
advances
technology
costs
lighter
operating
lower
offer
and
AMST
program
be
concepts
by
lift
powered
adopt
may ould
,wdeveloped
the
contemporary
than
transports
cargo
.

tvff
have
ais Aehicle
ake
transport
1990's
the
in
conceivable
uch
.Sadvanced
m-omay
capacity
cargo
large
ore
305

600,000
trans
for
pounds
-Abe
overtlantic
payloads
carrying
of
capable
1million
weight
,agross
nd
attractive
configurations
.be ,m
-Gwing
"aSas eorgia's
panloader
ay
Fircraft
sranges
concepts
Lockheed
lying
uch

emerge
may
that
vehicle
cargo
large
very
term
far
Another
and
support
proper
with
century
of
end
the
by
anadvances
is
.Tdevelopment
transport
;powered
manufacture
and
design
airframe
large
in
uclear
echnology
protection
ease
weight
low
for
design
,reactor
installation
nd
;ahof
development
exchanger
development
eat
must
materials
transfer
heat
of
much
in
out
carried
be
vehicles
such
before
detail
being
as
upon
looked
can
.
practical
 LOCKHEED
COMPANY
CALIFORNIA

NEW
TRANSPORT
CONSIDERAT IONS

YEAR
75 80 85 90 95
1
CIAP MID
TERM FAR
TERM
STUDIES ENERGY
PLAN ENERGY
PLAN
AMST
C
,ADVANC E
ONCORDED CURR
TRANSPOR
ENT T
S
B-1 ERVICE
ENGINES SERVICE
LIFE

AIRC O
CARGRAFT
306

SELECTION
AND
GO
AHEA D
NEAR
ADVA
TERMNCED SERVICE
TECH
TRANSPOR GY
NOLOT

MILLI AHE
GO AD
SERVICE
POUNDON
TRANSPORT

SELECTI
AND ON
NUCLEA
POWERER AHEAD
GO
D SERVICE
TRANSPORT
 P
D
&ROGRAMS
R
NEEDED

maintaine
continuou
.is
D
&
R rogram dsly
ambitious
pan
if
satisfied
be
will
needs
technolog y
transportation
air
Future
research
Oemissions
and
noise
is
priority
erm
near
thighest
f
-activity
of
.areas
five
into
categoriz
be
can
needs
The ed
for
future
the
to
look
also
should
efforts
.fleet
Texisting
the
with
problems
current
relieve
tohese
ways
find
.alleviation
further
increases
demand
passenger
.as
worsen
will nd
aproblem
,siserious
congestio n
airway
and
Airport
fuels
alternate
to
over
change
T
onhe
goes
time
.as
necessary
more
become
will
shortages
energy
the
meeting
for
Means
307

area
this
in
research
time
developm
long
requires
design
airport
and
aircraft
on ent
impact
a ajor
mhave
will
.
now
begin
should
only
not
will
gains
Tpursued
actively
.behese ity
should
productiv
aircraft
increase
that
refinemen
and
concepts
New ts
energy
conserve
help nd
emissions
.,aand
noise
alleviate
also
will ut
btransport
,air
efficient s
more
provide
research
.continued
requiring
priority
high
of
is
aconcern
item
,annd
always
Safety
the
in
shown
are
discussed
previousl
table
time
transport
future
the
to
needs yy
technolog
these
of
details
and
Timing
charts
.four
next
 LOCKHEED
COMPANY
CALIFORNIA

NEEDED
P
DR&ROGRAMS

NOISE
E
/ MISSIONS ENERGY
CONSE
. RVATION
FAN
AND
JET
NOISE ADVA NCED
ENGINES
HIGH
ENGINE
BYPASSS CONF
NEW IGURATIONS
AEROD
NOISE YNAMIC ALTE
FUELSRNATE
IMPROVED
COMBU STORS
ADDITI
FUEL VES
INCREASED
PRODUC TIVITY
CONTRO
ACTIVE LS
CONGESTION COMPOSITES
308

SUPER
CRUISESONIC
WAKE
VORTEX
ALLEVIATION
TERMINAL CRITIC
AIRFOI AL
SUPER LS
C
. ONTROL

SAFETY

CRASH
WORTHINESS
CLEAR
AIR
TURBULENCE
EVACUATION
TERMINAL
AREA
TRAFFIC
CONTROL
 E
APPLICATION
NMISSIONS
/–OISE
TECHNOLOGY

(n.Ooise
procedures
,t
off
take
abatement
perating
wo
priority
highest
is
transports
jet
early
the
of
alleviation
Noise
wall
treatment
)anoise
(hnacelles
retrofit
engine
qprovideuiet
igh
nd
will
approach
.Nsegment
relief
immediate
acelle
with
designs
combustor
revised
of
use
,atermnd
)isear
engines
.Nbypass
feasible
obtained
be
can
emissions
relief
Fperating
injection
,owater
program
retrofit
.any
compromised
seriously
be
not
must
economy
or

.Further
combustors
improved
with
designs
engine
quieter
newer
the
adopt
will
airplanes
Derivative
on
emphasis
ratios
thrust
)llower
emissions
.andoise
(naerodynamic
-devels
better
provide
help
will
concepts
lift
high
rag
309

(turbine
cycles
engine
advanced
new
incorporate
will
designs
tNew
,vpitch
fans
)stage
geometry
ariable
wo
powered
.Airframe
suppression
jet
with
and
shielding
will
performance
aerodynamic
improve
to
lift
means
likely
be
plants
.Lower
noise
reducing
for
power
smaller
with
aircraft
weight
,gross
burning
clean
using
possible
be
will
alternate
energy
.high
fuels

benefit
will
vehicles
cruise
Supersonic
practical
find
to
research
further
from
intensity
boom
sonic
reduce
ways
LOCKHEED
COMPANY
CALIFORNIA

TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION
E MISSIONS
/-NOISE

YEAR

1975 80 85 90 95 2000
I 1
2000

NACELLE
TREATMENT
OPERATING
PROCEDURES
HIGH
BYPASS
RATIO
ENGINES
COMBUSTOR
REDESIGN
FUEL
ADDITIVES
RETROFIT
A/C
ISTING
310

REFINED
ENGINES
NEW
COMBUS TORS
AERODY
IMPROVED
NAMICS

A/C
DERIVATIVE

ADVANCED
ENGINES
ADVANCED
SUPPRESSION
POWERED
LIFT
ALTERNATE
FUELS
SONIC
BOOM
RELIEF
A/
CNEW
 APPLICATION
TECHNOLOGY
-
CONGESTION

from
operation
airport
of
icontrol
area
terminal
precise
more
ndependensnce
,requires
congestio
airport
from
Relief
advancem
Aand
rates
.faster
at vionics sent
departure
and
arrivals
airplane
handle
to
ability
, nd
acondition
weather s
a,capability
land
auto
of
extension
she
Timprovem
significan ents
provide
can
airplane
.the
into
integratio tn
should
landings
blind
weather
all
permit
to
steps
the
and
aircraft
other
tTriStar
the o011
,-1Lby
employed
currently
may
changes
geometry
airplane
imple
possible
.be
should
transport
existing s
to selected
etrofits
Srdeveloped
;be
turbulenc
vortex
.wake
reducing
for
means e
provide
runway
decrease
will
that
designs
gear
landing
active
brakes
and
tires
advanced
employ
may
aircraft
Derivative
air
efficient
more
permit
could
wheels
P.relief
provide
also
turnoffs
runway
speed
. igh
Htimeowered y
occupanc
airplanes
current
of
length
fuselage
the
311

increasing
by
obtained
transport
capacity
arger s
handling
L.ground
plane
be
must
baggage
for
handling
means
N ew
.airplanes
fewer
with
flow
passenger
greater
handling
for
means
provide
.
examined
takeoff
automati
, ncludingc
iguidance
control
ground
airport
automate
further
employ
will
airplanes
transport
New e d
fuselage
reasonabl
within
capacities
large
provide
aircraft
deck ouble ing
Dmaneuver
groundond
alanding
,t.,and
vehicles
cruise
Sbe
have
will upersonic
explored
.to
evacuatio
emergenc
for yn
means
N ew
developed
be., ill
wlengths
congestio
relieve
can
that
.times
departure
and
arrival
new
adpot
can n
landing
and
takeoff
educed
Rrelief
airway
provide
therefore
nd
altitudes
higher
.a,at
operate
vehicles
cruise
Supersoni c
passenger
local
handling
for
means
new
and
facilities
terminal
available
make
STOL
)wand
R TOL
( ill
capability
.
transfer
and
commutat ion
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

TECHNO
-CAPPLIC
ONGESTLOGY
ATION
ION

YEAR
1975 80 85 90 95 2000
1
2000

TERMINAL
AREA
CONTRO L
AUTOLAND
LANDIN
BLIND G
WAKE
ALLEVIA
VORTEX TION
RETROFIT
STING
A/C

BETTER
BRAKES
T
/ IRES
312

VORTEX
SUPPRESSION
POWERED
WHEELS
IMPROVED
AIRPORTS
STRETCHED
FUSELAGE
A/C
BAGGAGE
HANDLING
DERIVAT
CA/ IVE

AUTO
TAKEOFF
L
&AND
COMPUTERIZED
GROUND
HANDLING
/C
A
STOL
DOUBLE
DECK
CA/
SUPERSONIC
TRANSPORT
GATEWAY
NEW
CITIES
NEW
A/C
 APPLICATION
TECHNOLOGY
-
CONSERVATION
ENERGY

development
consumption
fuel
minimize
to
study
millions
,of
and
design
hours
reflect
aircraft
transport
current
All
.Therefore
possible
operation
efficient
most
provide
and
fleet
transport
existing
the
to
changes
design
immediate
.Major
likely
not
needs
fuel
,reduce
procedures
management
flight
and
airport
refining
in
made
be
to
are
gains
,and
possible
much
time
wasted
.eliminate
practical
efficiency
maximum
to
close
as
airplanes
the
operate
313

,and
plants
power
refined
adopt
will
aircraft
Derivative
aero
and
structures
advanced
of
applications
limited
utilize
permit
will
.as
risk
practical
dynamics

(possible
cycles
engine
reflect
will
transports
generation
new
)aThe
concepts
cycle
variable
and
dvanced
nd
laminar
such
technologies
advanced
of
skins
asrompliant
,oapplication
control
(cflow
geometry
variable
assume
that
flight
various
for
shapes
drag
minimum
).Fossil
conditions
availability
energy
production
supply
of
sources
and
.
transports
future
influence
will
forms
energy
alternate
of
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION
E
- NERGY
CONSERVATI ON

YEAR

1975 80 85 90 95
2000

OPERATING
PROCEDURES
TRAFFIC
AIR
CONTROL

RETROFIT
EXISTING
A/C
314

IMPROVED
ENGINES
BETTER
AERODY
/STRUCTUNAMICS
RES
DERIVATIVE
A/C

ALTERNATE
FUELS
ADVANCED
ENGINES
LAMINAR
FLOW
CONTROL
COMPLIANT
SKINS
V( ARIABLE
)GEOMETRY
NEW
A/C
38-266 O - 74 - 21
TION
APPLICALOGY
TECHNO PRODUC SED
INCREATIVITY

dvancesity
.productiv
Aimprove
that
those
be
will
developm
transport
in
advances ent
term
long
beneficial
most
The
time
.developm
and
research
greatest
the
require
type
this
of ent
.fleet
transport
existing
the
by
employed
be
can
controls
active
and
structure e
composit
of
applicati
Limited ons
. tudies
Srelief
load
fatigue
for
upon
relied
are
dampers
.Y aw
fairings
and
spoilers
composit
use
already
aircraft
Current e
future
near
.the
in
occur
shall ons
315

these
of.M
for ore
underway
is
trijets
the
nacelle
material
capplicati
aomposite
of
lighter
and
efficienc
cruise
better
offer
will
that
designs
wing
airfoil
supercritiy
advanced
adopt cal
will
aircraft
Derivative
engines
turbofan
ratio
.bypass
high
efficient
more
newer
the
adopt
also
will
transport
. hese s
Tweight
structural
the
from
benefitin
controls
active
and
structure
composit
of ge
ons
applicati
extensive
employ
will
designs
transport
New
are
that
available
be
will
cycles
engine
Aairplanes
derivative
and
existing
the
.to
dvancedons
applicati
earlier
of
off
spin
productiv
.in
gains
substantia
offer
will
speeds
cruise
more ity
l
upersonic
Sefficient
nd
uieter
burning
.,aqcleaner
lighter
performa
.aircraft
efficienc
hdrag
lower
to,provide
employed
be
will nce
integratio
aof irframe yn
- igher
engine
concepts
New
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION
I
PRODUCTIVI
- NCREASED TY

YEAR
1975
1975 80 85 90 95 2000
1 I 1 1

COMPOSI
LIMITED TES
LIMITED
CONTRO
ACTIVE LS
RETROFIT
EXISTING
/CA
316

CRITICA
AIRFOIL
SUPER L S
IMPROV
ENGINESED

DERIVAT
CA/ IVE

TRANSP NIC
SUPERSOORT
STRUCT TE
COMPOSIURE
CONTRO L
CONFIGURED
VEHICLE S
ADVANCED
ENGINES
A/C
NEW
 EMPHASIS
MAJOR
NEEDING
PROGRAMS

underway
the
of
part
as
currently
are
development
transportation
programs
D
&
R
Many
air
future
for
required
.Iritical
efforts
program
Aeronautics
cNASA
areas
,bcertain
recognized
be
(1)tmust
near
are
needs
nhe
ecause
,(2)the
rewards
enormous
have
would
resolution
immediate
term
and
complicated
are
them
achieving
for
means
these
needed
seriously
are
areas
.technology
,oarge
time
development
long
(3)lneed
in
advanced
r

cportion
ecology
on
focus
to
need
efforts
term
,Near
conservation
alfuel
and
research
the
of
arge
ongestion
nd
.Future
direction
this
in
oriented
properly
is
effort
development
pheno
vortex
wake
of
studies
include
should
efforts
317

.More
menon
ideas
new
evaluate
help
to
exercised
be
should
vehicles
development
as
fleet
transport
existing
the
of
use
near
these
all
from
emerge
they
.as
programs
term

term
is
Propulsion
far
and
near
both
in ey
integration
efforts
/Aresearch
kart
.Eof irframe
ngine
apelement
forms
this
, specially
need
advanced
propulsion
concepts
e.for

supersonic
of
development
and
Research
be
should
vehicles
cruise
scontinued
auccessful
insure
ways
find
to
second
.
SST
generation
LOCKHEED
COMPANY
CALIFORNIA

PROG
ING
MAJO
EMPH RAMS
R
NEED ASIS

DEVE
TECHLOPM
USIN
CURR
TRAN GNOLO
ENT GY
SPORENT
T
FLEET
CAND
(ACTI
CONT SITES
VE
ROLS
) OMPO
UNDER
OF
WAKE STAND
VORTICES ING

IMPACT
OF
SUPPL
ENERGYY
318

AERODYNAMI
NOISE
OF
LARGE
AIRCRA FT C
ADVAN
ENGINE
RESEARCED
CH

ENGINE
A
INTEGR
- IRFRAATION
STUDIE SME

SUPERSONIC
CRUISE
VEHICL
RESEAR ECH
 TECH
PRIORRITY GIES
LOWENOLO

introd
, ince uction
priorit
high
be
snot
need
aircraf
VTOL
and
develo
transp
hypers
relatin
typment
gonic
Efforts
itemsut ort
toreduce
be
should
b, hese
Tintensi
.in ydty
centur
this
in
forese
not
is
operat
service
into ion
ten
aircraf
these
of
aband
not y
.entireloned
319

supply
energy
curren
of
light
in
. special
eproble
merit ly
talms
practic
any
,have
to
appear
not
do
transp
Transo
added
T
speed
cruise
.inheorts
nic es
increas
small
for
exhang
in
reduce
are
which
efficie
cruise
at de
delays
with
compa
when operat
design
These
red
cant sencies
signifi
not
are
reduct
time
block
warran
not
is ions
ted
e
- expens
and
compli cation
.
conges
of
becaus
today
encoun tion
etered
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

NEEDIN
MAJOR
EMPHA GAMS
PROGRSIS

DEVELO
USING
CURRE OLOGY
TECHNNT
TRANS PMENT
PORT
FLEET
(C
AND
ACTIVE
CONTRO ITES
) OMPOSLS

UNDER
WAKE
OF
VORTICSTAND
ES ING

OF
ENERGY
SUPPL
IMPACTY
318

AEROD
NOISE
OF
LARGE
AIRCRAYNAMI
FT C

ADVANCED
ENGINE
RESEAR CH

ENGINE
A
INTEGR
IRFRAATION
-STUDIESME
SONIC
CRUISE
VEHICL
RESEAR
SUPER ECH
 TECHNO
PRIORIT Y
LOWER LOGIES

introduct
not
need ince
spriority
high
,be
aircraft
VTOL
and
developm ion
ent
transport
hypersoni
to
relating
Efforts c
in ut
bintensity
,in
reduced
be
should
items
hese
Tcentury
this
foreseen
.not
operation
service
isinto
aircraft
these
of
entirely
.not
abandone d
319

problems
supply
energy
current
.of
light
in
emerit
practical
,any
have
toappear
notspeciallys
do
transport
Transonic
added
speed
cruise
.Tin
increases
small
for
exhange
reduced
are
which
efficienci
cruise
athe es
operate
designs
These
delays
with
compared
when
significan
not
are
reduction
time
block
warranted
not
is
expense
-
and
complicat
tsion
.of
congestio
because
today
encounter ned
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNI
COMPANY A

PRIO
TECH R
RITY
LOWENOLO GIES

HYPE
TRANRSON
DEVELOPM IC
T
SPORENT
320

0 AIR
VTOLCRAFT

TRAN
.=M SPORCTS
.4 SONI
()1- 98
 TRENDS
COST
TRANSPORTATION
AIR

oOne
Dn
&
R
impact
is
past
in
expenditures
development
and
research
from
returns
impressive
most
the
of
321

.Despite
operating
productivity
aircraft
transport
and
costs
development
airplane
in
increases
significant
changed
,the
aircraft
transport
of
price
unit
hardly
has
transportation
air
for
public
traveling
the
to
dcost
-omestic
fares
price
current
when
slightly
only
increased
have
air
)a(nre
increases
index
living
of
cost
for
corrected
ot
1950
.
with
of
those
compared
 LOCKHEED

AIR
TRANSP
COST
TRENDS ORTATION

C5
1000 2
7467
DEVELOPMENT 1011
COST
C141
100
DC8
DEVELOPMENT
DC6
COSTS 10 O
MIL
O
$
. F DC4 REL
.
Ó
DOMESTIC
1 FARE FARE

1.5

1930 40 50
60 80 1.0
YEAR

70
BENEFIT
AIRPLANE R
OF
&
D
322

1000 .5

T
COST

100
UNIT 1930 40 50 60 70 80
PRICE 747 YEAR
O
MIL
. F
$ 10 PO
1011
707
1649 727
1 DC6
DC4

.1
1930 40 50 60 70 80
YEAR
REF
R
: ADCAP
REPORT
 YEAR

W AIR
USES NSPORTATION

inter
.Inight
transportation
air
in
improvements
the
to
responsive
been
has
public
,sThe
-e1973
all
of
percent
eventy
percent
intercontinental
all
of
commercial
,nairlines
impressive
-fmore
.Ecitybyive
inety
ven
provided
was
miles
passenger
liner
recreational
luxury
for
save
airplane
ocean
by
travel
eliminated
virtually
has
.The
air
was
miles
passenger
transport
.
purposes
323

.Bver
airlines
commercial
by
traveled
have
age
years
18
over
population
U.S.
total
the
of
percent
fifty
,oOver
1985
y
eone
travel
for
airplane
an
boarding
be
will
passengers
U.S.
million
,is
.Ttvery
year
the
of
iday
define
to
proper
hus
as
system
transportation
air
used equired
nd
segment
rervice
)s(atoday's
small
some
than
rather
nation
whole
the
of
the
population
.of
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY WHO
USES
TRANS
AIR PORTATION

PASSEN TY
INTERCIGER
MILES
U.S.
AIRLINE
TRAVELERS
T
%
.POT
OPULATION
AIR
i10
OTHER 78
%
324

50
INTER
CONT
PASS
. INENT
MILES

AIR “THE
JET
"SET
95
%

1900 20 40 60
OTHER 1980
 SALES
POTENTIAL
AIRCRAFT
COMMERCIAL

.Sales
business
big
is
aviation
Commercial
yearly
dollars
billion
one
over
averaged
have
powerplants
and
aircraft
of
.Bver
40
tatals
1950
sales
cumulative
The
1960.
,osince
1990
and
now
dollars
billion
100
etween
325

acceptance
,to
equipment
new
on
expended
be
will
passenger
from
resulting
needs
increasing
ever
the
.meet
travel
air
of

mt's
has
industry
asThe
provides
trade
export
.Irole
ĢNP
in
element
and
nature
dynamic
ignificant
ajor
research
and
manufacturers
the
by
expenditures
development
heavy
continuing
requires
success
continued
NASA
.by
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

COMM
SALE
POTE SRAFT
AIRCNTIA
ERCILAL

10

YEARLY
SALES
~
BILLION
OF
$

0
326

200

CUMULATIVE
SALES
~ 100
BILLION
OF
$

0 1
1950 60 70 80 90
YEAR
 so

70

GO
ETIT
COMPOPE
EUR ANION

aircr
State
Unit
.of
purch
for aft
ed ase
sved
toreser
be
to
going
not
dolla
purch
areous rs
anxi
are
equi
and
airlin
poten
mark
Futur
futur e ease
tial
dpmen
tive e t
lucra
this
ofworleet
awar
well
327

indus
and
gove
The D
& tries
rnme
Rrogr
areactiv
foreipby
suppo ams
nts
rted
prog
airpl
forei
produ
gn eane
gn
ew ramscts
trans
air
valuetheir
with
.share
lown
aN
of captu
econ
total
the arger re
recog
who omic
gove
their
by rnme nize nts
espons
,and
unde ored
ndorsed
rway
are
.
natio
their
to
porta n
tion
air
comm
worl
the
in
domi derci
nanc al
toU.S.
conti
threa
poseeriou tnued
s e
prog
ns-aation
quasi
forei
Thes gnal
erams
tplace
.markeport
trans
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

COMP
EUROETIT
PEANION

B
4
$$
GOVERN
ILLION MENT
PROGRA M

今: 生 SUPP RNMENT
GOVEORT
CONCORDE
%100
A300B
328

85
3$ 0
BILL ION
MERCUR
|| E POTENTIAL
66
MARKET
VFW
614
80

EURO
FLEET
MIX PEAN
TODAY S
M
.%U
90ADE
《
TARGET
50
%
 FUT
THE UREMENT
IN EST
INV

trans
air portation
.in nded
expe
taxes
abeen
swill alari
nd ess
xport
,ehave
sales
in
dolla
of
billi
of ons
rseds
,
h1990
By undr
. 's
1990 the
exten
sales
to ze
reali
will dings
329

deriv
their
and
types
perce
25
trans
to ative
nt
the
be
will20
captu
? urren
to
share
U.S.
aimi
a, report
mark
CWhat re
tng
et
worl
the
intocaptu
penet
and
deepe
for inroa r re n
dratio
are these
striv
offse
T
ho
Euro
The fieldo
. pean
this
in ingtds s
ions
ambit
,w natio
have
today
also
posse
natio
. rnal sses
ns
it
Othe
posit
1980.
by super
sales
aircr
techn
of
ion
ior
aft
icall
the
maint
must
U.S.
he
the
by
mark et ain dy
spon
produ
newand
tthe
,endo
porti
prog sore
cts
ram
ajorrsed
on ent
asses aof
deve
and
mresea
sment
trans lopm
rch
portal
and aritica
prior
natio comm
ity l erci
aggre
nal
requi ssive
res
chaof
given
bemust
D
&
pAeron igh an
rogr Thisams
RN. ASArnme auticnt
warra
is.
expen nted es
ditur Gove
resea
space
versu
aeron rch
sautic s
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

INVEST
IN
THE
FUTURE MENT

WORLD
WIDE
ECONOM
POTENTI
1)( 990 IC
AL

160

U.S.
SHA
? RE
SALES
120

BILLION S 100
$OF
EUROPEAN
80
330

80

-
EXPORTS
60
NEW
PRODUCTS
40 SALARIES 40 MARKET
CURRENT
U.S.
TAXES 20 AIRCRAFT

1970 1980 1990

YEAR

38
38-266 O - 74 - 22
&R
NASA BUDGET

and
wisdom
.T
D
b&
of he
udget
NASA.R
the
fraction
small
undesirab
an
are ly
funds
aeronauti
allocated
Presently cs
the
to
threat
off
sof
nature
changing
questione
not
-,tH.ishore d
activities
space
pursuing
owever ty
ofhe
desirabili
of
asuggest
rdevelopm
aircraft
military
of
levels
low
new
the
and
industry
transport
eview al
air ent
commerci
U.S.
allocatio
.budget ns
and
proprities
national
331

benefits
expenditu
space
in
reduction
pinsignific
1an
that
noted
be
may res
,itercent ant
context
in
data
the
put
To
belt
percent
50 /2
a4for
calls
only
enhancem
percent
.Aull
flevels
budget
current
at ent
11 percent
by
aeronauti cs
.
programs
space
our
in
tightning
wallocatio
to 73
FY
on
bstatic hile
ased
remaining
is
allocation
he
aeronauti
t,75 ffort ns
cs
),-e(m an
terms
real
In
technolo
parallel
,aisnd
increasing
competiti
verseas
oexpandin
are
services
and gy
gon
demands
transport ation
declining
.is
programs
military
from
effort

1
 LOCKHEED
COMPANY
CALIFORNIA

NASA
B
&DR UDGET

M
($
) ILLIONS
FY
73 FY
74 75
FY

AERONAUTICS
TECHNOLOGY 151 168 180
332

SPACE
M
S SF
,( PACE
SCIENCE 2,337 2,137 2,061
SPACE
TECH
.,SPACE
T
)APPL
., RACKING

2,488 2,305 2,241

R
1%
SPACE
IN
EXPENDI
BOOSTS
AERONA ON
EDUCTIUTICS
ELEMEN TTURES
BY
%
11
F
–Y
75
E
%
50NHANCEMENT
AERONAUTICS
OF
EXPENDITURES
TAKES
ONLY
46
R
%
INEDUCTION
SPACE
FUNDING
 PLAN ITIES
FACIL
NASA

1930-
the
in
up
built
equip 1955
nd ment
lwere
, aborat
tunnel
awind
major
the
tools sories
age
space
entere aerona
prime
NASA' utics
s
have
we
since
.the dd
applie
been
have
fundin g
of
levels
low
Very
period
.time
. zatio
utili
low
costs n
high
in
rand
,main
repai
of
state
poor
into ing nce
stena
esultng
falli
are
facili
avail
The
rties
able
333

obtai
being
not
is ned
. ility
capab
new ed
Need
aerona
to
budget
constr
the utics
uction
of
percen
6.4
with
trend
the tues
contin
allocat
faciliti
75
FY
The ion
es
.declin
to
tools
aerona
the e
permit
to es
facilitiutics
having
are
area ble
aoticeautics
aerona
nthe
in
allocat
faciliti
and
D
&
Rudgetsesions
.
family
NASA
the
levels
the
bof
effects
combin
The ed
within
scienti
aerona
key
the
of sts
effecti
morale
the
on
effect veness
and utical
 LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

PLAN
FACILITIES
NASA
-FY
75

M
)($ ILLIONS

AERONAUTICS SPACE

AMES 3.66 GODDARD 2.11

LANGLEY 3.51 JPL 8.82
LEWIS 2.58 JSC 0.94
LEWIS .66
MSFC 4.06
WALLOPS 1.37
VARIOUS
LOCATIONS 7.47
334

SHUTTLE
FACILITIES 86.02

9.75 111.4

AERONAUTICS 9.75 %
6.4
SPACE 111.4 73.7
MINOR
H- AB
.RE 14.9 9.8
P
FAC
D
& LANS
. ESIGN 10.9 7.2
MINOR
COF
F 4.5 2.9
151.4 %
100
 ENTERPRISE
FREE
NOT
IS
TRANSPORTATION
AIR

assistance
R ithout
wshould
D
&
own
its
,support
future
the
in
nIteeds
sector
commercial
that
argued
been
has
industry
subsidy
without
operate
should
."enterprise
,oree
a
of
nheme
fatfrom
NASA
as
such
agencies
government

regulated
partially
all
are
carriers
nd
,amanufacturers
.Tirport
enterprise
free
not
is
transportation
Air
operators
he
economic
insure
of
distribution
equitable
to
imposed
are
restraints
.These
decree
government
by
directed
and
protection
nation
these
for
service
of
reliability
and
,spassengers
the
parts
all
in
passengers
,afety
.All
practices
business
unfair
from
industry
the
been
have
transportation
mass
of
,aforms
regulated
be
should
re
nd
335

best
.
all
for
levels
service
possible
the
insure
degree
some
to

uccessful
under
operations
from
evolved
has
Straints
con
regulatory
the
transportat
air
present
The
.scenari
aff
D
&
R
aeronautics
NASA
of
benefits
the
from
resulted
has
leadership
world
and
-ogrowth
spin
.military
nd
,combined
aeronautics
NASA
of
emphasis
reduced
Any
D
R&
military
in
reductions
planned
the
with
and
transportation
commercial
to
applicable
,will
sources
energy
future
over
concerns
disastrous
about
bring
economic
burdens
air
transportation
on
segments
its
all
.in

aeronautics
,the
-pIndeed
well
increased
for
need
lanned
recognized
nationally
be
must
development
and
.research
commercial
essential
U.S.
advancement
future
the
of
element
are
D
&
R
in
programs
support
strong
Continued
an
markets
world
in
.aviation
LOCKHEED
COMPANY
CALIFORNIA

TRANSPORTAT
AIR
NOT
IS
ENTERPRISE
FREE ION

GOV'T
. TRAFFIC
AIR FEDERAL
FAA ANTI
T- RUST
AIRWORTHINESS CONTROL AIRPORT
/AIRWAY
LAWS .
REG'S CONSTRUCTION
FAA REQ'TS
AUTHORIZATIONS
CERTIFICATION
REQ'TS FAA
R'S
AIR
POR SECURITY
FAA M'F' TS .
REG'S
DIRECTIVES
336

CAB COMMERCIAL POSTAL

FARE SERVICE
AVIATION
REG'S REG'S
.

FEO
FUEL OPERATING
ALLOCATIONS CARRIERS
AIR ELCENSES
FAA CAB
OPERATING
ROUTE
PROCEDURES
ICAO EPA AUTHORIZATIONS
AGREEMENTS
.
REG'S
 B
D
&
RENEFITS
NASA

improvem
environme
enjoy
will
.who
tnon
-the
even
American
all ntal
sents
benefits
aeronauti
--inraveler cs
Research
in
employm
Aerospac
U.S.
the
in
transport
air
use
will
day
per
people ent
million
one
than
m1985
,By ore eation
ilitary
axes
mtexports
in
,widespre
are
benefits
ational
Nemployme
direct
in adnt
700,000
involves
.country
this
337

prestige
.internatio
and
o- ff
spin nal
an
in
aviation
world
leadershi
U.S.
of
preservat
assures
it
because
asset
ational pion
ais
aeronauti
in
nResearch cs
technical
isthe
D
R&
NASA
eand
NACA
from ffort
ilitary
ast
overseas on
competiti
;m.Pserious
increasing
of era ly
system
transport
air
commerci
.of ation
ne
today's al
cornersto
.priority
first
the
of
need
is ational
ndevelopment
aand
research
aeronautics
NASA
enhanced
--and
Continued
LOCKHEED
CALIFORNIA
COMPANY

DRNASA
B& ENEFITS

INDUSTRY MAINTAINANCE
IMPETUS
OF
U.S.
AERONAUTICS
LEADERSHIP

DEFEN NAL
NATIOSE
AIR
TRANSPORTATION
SPIN
OFF IMPROVEMENTS
338

RESEAR
AND
DEVELO CH
PMENT

IMPROVED
FLIGHT
SAFETY

ECOLOGY
BENEFITS

GOVERNMENT
INCOME
FROM
TAXES
AND EMPLOYMENT
AND
EXPORTS SALARIES
 339

North American Aircraft Group

Rockwell International
Dale D. Myers 1700 East Imperial Highway
President El Segundo, California 90245
(213 ) 647-5595

July 29, 1974

The Honorable Frank E. Moss

United States Senate
3121 New Senate Office Bldg.
Washington , D, C. 20510

Dear Senator Moss :

In my letter of July 1 , 1974 , which was in response to

your letter to Mr. Robert Anderson dated June 18 , 1974,
I indicated that we would be most pleased to provide for
the record our comments regarding advanced aeronautical
concepts . 1

As I mentioned, we are all quite enthusiastic about the

XFV - 12A advanced technology prototype program our
Columbus Aircraft Division is conducting for the U. S.
Navy . The enclosed paper provides highlights of the
integrated augmentation concept which is applicable to
this high performance V /STOL fighter as well as military
and commercial transport and utility aircraft. The proto
type is expected to fly next spring.

We consider this to be a very important program from a

number of a spects. It is truly an advanced aerodynamic
concept, totally new and unique ; not just a percentage
improvement. Although the basic principles of thrust
augmentation have been around for some time, it is the
integration of the augmented propulsive and aerodynamic
forces which , we feel, can add a new dimension to aircraft
operations . It provides a potential for practical point - to
point air operations without the constraints associated with
 340

congested airfields or large aircraft carriers. We also

feel that successful development of this concept will do
much to sustain the leadership of our country in the world
aircraft marketplace .

Another important advanced aircraft concept is under

study at our Los Angeles Aircraft Division . This program,
called AFTI ( for Advanced Fighter Technology Integration)
is managed by the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory.
Although the program is not as far along as the Columbus
V /STOL program, it has promise in bringing together in
one flight vehicle , several advanced technology ideas which
then can be tested as an integrated in - flight.test bed .

I have also included a short paper on the AFTI program ,

We are particularly pleased by your interest in advanced

aeronautical concepts and grateful for the opportunity to
submit the enclosed papers . I will be happy to provide
additional information as our program develops.

Best personal regards ,

Dace I guyen
Dale D. Myers
President
North American Aircraft Operations
 341

THRUST AUGMENTED WING CONCEPT

The desire to develop a high - performance fixed wing V /STOL aircraft has existed for over
two decades. Many configurations have been tried ; however, in nearly all cases the use of
multiple or oversized engines for vertical take-off has severely limited the range and payload
capability for a given sized aircraft. The helicopter has shown that the key to efficient
V /STOL operation lies in the integration of propulsion, life and control into a single
concept of flight. The helicopter, however, also has performance limitations primarily in
speed and range.
Recently a new concept in V /STOL operation has been developed which , like the
helicopter, integrates propulsion, lift and control for V /STOL operations as well as
providing the high - performance advantages of the fixed wing aircraft. This concept known
as the Thrust Augmented Wing ( TAW ) increases the vertical lift capability of an aircraft by
directing engine exhaust air through ejector type thrust augmenters integral to the aircraft's
lifting surfaces.
The principle of thrust augmentation has been known to physicists for some time; however,
test apparatus required to achieve augmentation was not readily adaptable to aircraft weight
and size restrictions. Recent technology incorporating the thrust augmentation principle
into an integrated aircraft propulsion /lift/control system has resulted in relatively small,
effective, lightweight augmenters capable of being folded into a conventional airfoil shape
for cruise flight.

11

Figure 1 .

Utilizing thrust augmenters in a wing/ canard aircraft configuration , engine thrust and
aircraft lift are distributed over four lifting surfaces. Modulation of these forces, either
collectively or independently, allows aircraft attitude control to be completely integrated
with the propulsion and high lift system .
 342

AUGMENTER OPERATION
This thrust augmenter configuration consists of movable flaps which are rotated to a near
vertical position for takeoff. Engine exhaust air is totally diverted and routed through ducts
to the augmenter flaps where it is directed downward through thin full span slot nozzles
into the diffuser area formed by the fore and aft augmenter flaps.

pero
Figure 2.

This flow creates reduced pressure between the flaps inducing large masses of outside air
through the augmenter. The resulting exhaust out the bottom of the augmenter is a
low -velocity, high -mass flow mixture of primary and secondary air. The total output of
primary and secondary momentum from the augmenter is greater than the input primary
momentum . The ratio of total momentum output to momentum input is termed
" augmentation ratio ."

AUGMENTATION CONTROL AND INTEGRATION

While maintaining constant engine RPM , the thrust generated by this augmenter can be
controlled by opening or closing the augmenter flaps. The resulting change in augmenter
exit area increases or decreases the amount of outside air allowed through the augmenter.
Augmentation

This geometry change controls secondary momentum and hence the augmentation ratio.
Ratio

NORMAL
CONTROL

MAXIMUM CONTROL
th
-8 -4 0 8 12 16
Diffuser Anglo - Degrees

Figure 3.
 343

The augmenter flaps may be rotated aft to allow the exhausted airflow to move rearward .
The resulting forward tilted lift/thrust vector provides a horizontal force for forward
acceleration . At slow forward speeds, a rapid buildup in circulation lift occurs due to the
acceleration of secondary air over the aerodynamic surfaces. The high relative air velocity,
particularly over the airfoil leading edge, produces lift far in excess of that attained by
airfoil movement alone. This feature provides exceptional short takeoff capability.

Total Lift

Circulation Litt
Lift

Augmented
Jet Litt

0 20 40 60 80 100 120.140
Velocity -Knots
Figure 4.

The utilization of the thrust augmentation system to perform the functions of vertical lift,
control and horizontal thrust provides the opportunity to develop an efficient integrated
concept for V/STOL aircraft operations.

XFV - 12A
The first application of the Thrust Augmented Wing concept is on the XFV - 12A technology
prototype V /STOL fighter/attack aircraft being built by the Columbus Aircraft Division of
Rockwell International for the U.S. Navy. This aircraft uses thrust augmenters in the two
forward canards and on either side of the rear-mounted wing to provide four lifting jets of
er air distributed about the aircraft's center of gravity. For the XFV - 12A , a combined
1. canard /wing augmentation ratio greater than 1.5 means that vertical lift can be obtained
with an engine only two-thirds the size required by a direct jet lift system .
The engine exhaust is diverted at the tailpipe and ducted to the augmenters as shown in the
illustration below .

Figure 5.
 344

The cool outside air induced through the XFV - 12A augmenters, at a rate of about eight
times the engine airflow , reduces the temperature and dynamic pressure of the engine
exhaust air to provide the aircraft with a " footprint" with a magnitude between one-sixth
and one-tenth that of direct jet lift concepts. This low -velocity downwash, with associated
decrease in noise level, is compatible with flight support personnel operating in close
proximity to the aircraft.

The lift generated by the four augmenters can be modulated collectively for vertical
acceleration and hover control, or may be varied independently using normal cockpit
controls to produce roll, pitch, and yaw. Pitch control is achieved by differential lift
modulation of the canard and wing augmenters, while roll control is achieved by differential
lift modulation of the wing augmenters. Yaw control is achieved by deflecting the wing
augmenter flaps in opposite directions. This eliminates the separate reaction control system
required for low -speed control in previous jet VTOL aircraft.

Conversion from vertical to conventional flight is accomplished as the pilot retracts the
flaps. The forward tilted lift vector provides a horizontal component of force and
accelerates the aircraft. During conversion, the wing and canard display characteristics
similar to a jet flap as air is accelerated over the aerodynamic surfaces and through the
augmenter. The supercirculation lift generated by this configuration builds up much more
rapidly than aerodynamic lift alone. As the flaps are continuously retracted, forward speed
increases until conventional wingborne flight can be maintained. At this point, the engine
exhaust is redirected from the augmenters to the conventional jet tailpipe, and the flaps are
fully retracted into a high -speed airfoil shape.

CRUISE

STOL /CONVERSION
HOVER

Figure 6.

A significant increase in payload may be obtained with take -off rolls of less than 300 feet.
With the augmenter fla preset to an intermediate position, approximately 600, the
circulation lift begins to build immediately upon brake release. Lift -off is followed by a
relatively steep climb as the total lift continues to increase. Steep approaches with either
vertical or short landings are advantageous in reducing noise and congestion at the landing
site .
 345

In the XFV- 12A , the augmenter flaps are designed to serve multiple purposes. Since the
wing and canard are both lifting surfaces, the fult span trailing edge flaps are used as
conventional aerodynamic control devices. Roll is obtained using the wing flaps, and pitch is
obtained with the wing /canard flap combination .

Figure 7 .

Potential for direct control of lift during conventional flight is acquired by simultaneously
deflecting the wing and canard flaps downward. Initial tendency of the aircraft then is to
move straight up .

LIFT
il
1

Figure 8.

By differentially deflecting the left and right canard flaps, it is possible to generate a direct
side force on the airplane. Interconnecting rudder and flap movement eliminates roll and the
airplane moves horizontally sideways.

taना
HJ: ID

Figure 9 .
 346

In addition to performing the V /STOL functions of lift and control, the fore and aft
augmenter flaps on the wings are used together during conventional flight to provide 90
square feet of speed brake area. This eliminates another separate system found on
high - performance aircraft.

Figure 10.

ADVANTAGES
The smaller XFV- 12A propulsion system made possible by this thrust augmentation
principle requires less fuel for take -off than prior jet V /STOL concepts, as well as offering a
more efficient propulsion /airframe match during conventional cruise flight. This advantage,
combined with the greatly enlarged short take -off (STO) capability delivered by super
circulation lift, furnishes a significant increase in the range and payloads normally associated
with nonintegrated V /STOL aircraft.

The large speed brake area available as well as the capability to maneuver using direct lift
control (DLC ) and direct side force control (DSFC), all using the same aerodynamic
surfaces, offers potential air combat advantages heretofore unobtainable in military fighter
aircraft.

FUTURE APPLICATIONS
The Thrust Augmented Wing technology may be applied to aircraft of varied sizes and
mission applications. Attack aircraft based at operating sites close to advancing troops
would ensure quick reaction to the ground commanders air support requests. The "deck
loitering” of these aircraft has inherent economical advantages over the airbome flight.

The military airlift capability of transport and utility type aircraft, unrestricted by airfield
availability , significantly increases operational flexibility . Resupply of Naval ships could be
accomplished directly from shore bases without the requirement to land aboard large
aircraft carriers and transfer cargo to helicopters.

Transport and multimission V /STOL counterinsurgency aircraft will be able to operate

anywhere in the world independent of runway availability. Civilians can be rapidly extracted
from potentially hostile areas where use of airfields has been denied.

As the cost of airfield construction and ground transportation networks continue to

increase , and as the congestion at these facilities continue to expand , the advantages of
V /STOL landing areas close to distribution centers become economically attractive.
 347

Figure 11 .

V /STOL transport aircraft able to supply high priority items to remote sites prevent lost
manhours and increase supply reaction time. Productive time lost while workers wait for
unstocked equipment to be trucked hundreds of miles to austere areas in Alaska, for
instance, could be extremely costly. Perishable products could be delivered by heavily
loaded STOVL ( short takeoff /vertical landing) transport aircraft directly to any point
having a parking lot size vertical landing area. Current delivery methods quite often require
several transportation modes with its attendant delays, increased administrative processes ,
and susceptibility to pilferage . Point-to -point air transportation tends to eliminate these
disadvantages.

Figure 12.

Range and payload capability independent of airfield facilities is the real parameter for
illustrating the advantages of V /STOL transportation . The concept of point- to -point air
transportation using fixed wing V/STOL aircraft offers attractive economical advantages
that are as applicable abroad as they are to the United States.

38-266 0.74 - 23
 348

ADVANCED FIGHTER TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

One of the major programs currently underway to advance technology

of modern fighter aircraft is the Advanced Fighter Technology Integra
tion (AFTI) program. The Los Angeles Aircraft Division of Rockwell
International is one of the contractors assisting the Flight Dynamics
Laboratory in this program .

The development costs for new aircraft systems have risen significantly
due to increasing complexity and performance required in modern war
fare . The problem has been aggravated by failure of some systems to
meet expectations after large expenditures of funds. The result has been
that new systems have featured relatively minor technological advances
in order to reduce schedule and cost overrun risks . Technical obsoles
cence will be a continuing problem in this environment because technology
risks will continue to be minimized . A number of new and promising
technologies have been developed to the extent that they show significant
potential for enhancing vehicle performance and effectiveness. If these
emerging technologies are to be incorporated into operational systems ,
and the potential synergistic benefits of integration of these technologies
realized, they must be demonstrated to a level of confidence that meets
the needs of low - risk systems.

The purpose of the AFTI program is to provide a mechanism for the

orderly and evolutionary transition of new technologies into a low-risk
status ready for transfer into future fighter systems. Flight demonstra
tion of selected integrated technology can bridge the gap between develop
ment and system application , and reduce the risks of incorporating
advanced technology without major program development. The ultimate
payoff for the advanced technology demonstration vehicle will be the
increased effectiveness and / or reduced cost of future operational aircraft
which employ technologies incorporated into the demonstrator aircraft
developed under the AF TI program,

Among those technologies being explored at Rockwell on the AFTI program

are variable camber , propulsive lift (jet flap ), direct lift/ side force ,
advanced composites and metallic structures , improved control through
integrated force management, and high acceleration cockpit.

Variable Camber - In the past, variable camber devices have provided

a simple deflection of the leading and trailing edge of the wing . Because of
discontinuities at the hinge lines, the usable lift has been limited . The
discontinuities cause flow separation and shock wave formation with resul
tant drag increase . If the leading and trailing edges are extended at the
 349

same time they are deflected , the desired camber line change is more
nearly achieved . Mechanical and structural design considerations are
the limiting factors on the amount of extension and deflection that can
be achieved for a given wing planform and thickness .
Propulsive - Life (Jet Flap) -
Our variable camber studies have shown
that, for the range of wing aspect ratios and thicknesses of interest to
the near - term AFTI, the range of attainable lift coefficients without
separation or shock wave formation is limited to less than the desired
levels, because, at transonic speed, the local lift outboard of 50 percent
span is greater than can be sustained; therefore , shock result and drag
increases . At constant total lift , the addition of a jet flap to the inboard
section of the wing results in lower lift outboard at the critical section
with the resultant elimination of the shock wave . It can be seen from
the relative drag polars that the jet flap is an effective variable camber
device, in addition to its propulsive lift, but the magnitude of improve
9 ment is a strong function of how well the mechanical variable camber
device attains low vortex and wave dra gs.

Exploring and developing the synergistic effects of multiple technologies

8
into a fighter - type demonstration air vehicle has shown the potentialfor
greatly improving combat performance and maneuverability at high loud
factors in the high subsonic and transonic flight regimes. In addition ,
it is suggesting that this technology can be employed to develop airctaft
concepts which efficiently cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of
afterburning power in the engine. This concept, if technically verified ,
could provide the capability of employing totally different tacts and
methods of fighter operations than are currently employed.

e
Therefore, it is anticipated that the AFTI program will transition new
technologies into a lower risk status and permit this technology into future
fighter systems .
eft
 350

PIASECKI AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

PRESENTATION TO THE COMMITTEE ON

AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT : ADVANCED AERONAUTICAL CONCEPTS

STATEMENT OF : F. N. PIASECKI
PRESIDENT
PIASECKI AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

JULY 1974
 351

STATZENT QP

1. N. PIASECKI
PRESIDENT

PIASECKI AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

before the

CONSTITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES

United States Senate

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee :

Plasecki Aircraft Corporation was incorporated Lord 1955 by the
founders of Plasecki Helicopter Corporation , which is 'now the
Vertol Division of the Boeing Company . Since its founding , Plesecki
Aircraft Corporation has been in the forefront of advanced alr
craft design and development , During this time , a member of unique
aircraft designs
sented herein .
have been built and tested . Some of these are pre
1. RING - TAIL

The PIAC Ring - Tall is an integrated system for converting a beli

copter into a Compound - Helicopter, with significant increases in
speed , range , altitude , maneuverability and reliability . A shrouded
propeller with slip -stream deflection vanes replaces the helicopter's
conventional tall rotor , and provides the anti - torque function in
hovering flight , as well as propulsion and stability in forward
flight. A small wing is also provided , which together with the Ringo

Tail greatly reduces the dynamic loads on the main rotor and its
drive system . Two models of Ring - Tail helicopters have been built
and flown by P1AC , the 16H - 1 , (Fig . 1 )and 16H - 1A , (F 18. 2. ) PLAC has
conducted a design study for the Navy to convert the SH - 2D helicopter
to a Ring - Tail modification (Fig . 3 ) which would make a significant
increase in its speed , speed at altitude and time on station in
the anti - submarine warfare and anti-surface missile detection missions ,
 352

The Ring - tail system for compounding can be applied to

new designs of compound -Helicopters or to existing helloopter dem
signs . The benefits received from this Compounding, can vary , de
pendent on where the emphasis is placed in the design characteristics .

mese Improvements fall into three major categories :

(1) Perlormance
(2 ) Flying qualities
( 3 ) Maintenance and reliability
Álstorically, performance has been the prime Interest in com
pounding belicopters for extending the high speed limits of hell
copters , range and endurance , In the Army's " Advanced Aerial Pire
Support System "" ( AAPS8 ) and in the Navy's ASW maneuvers for sabobuoy
and N.A.D. , operations , maneuverability of the Compound at high speed
has been emphasized.
Recent studies , " Ref . ( a ) ,have examined the effects of unloading
the rotor dynamic system , both in thrust and in torque , on the
fatigue /wear life of these components . The results show a large
potential saving in the maintenance costs or helicopters , not only from
the unloading , but from the reduced vibration levels in the entire
aircraft due to the lower blade forces and from the axial flow pusher
propeller in forward flight .
The practical value of the Ring - Tal1 Compound -Helicopter sys
tem to helicopter operations is significant from a safety standpoint.'
The compound -Helicopter cruises with its rotor collective pitch in
 353

a low setting and with the rotor in a plane parallel to the line
of flight . . Hence , upon a power failure , the time lag and the
pilot control motions required to enter autorotation with the
.co. minimum 10B8 of altitude are minimized , increasing the safety of
flight, especially at low heights above the surface .
The enclosed tail propeller eliminates much of the hazard of
the open tail rotor of the helicopter which has been dubbed the
highest score killer item in helicopters by the U. 3. Army .

10

fimo

her

ti

+
 354

Thus , summarizing , the Ring - Tail compounding of helicopters

offers multi - faceted improvements to existing and future helicopters
as follows :

Maintainability /Reliability
Reduced fatigue loads in rotor dynamic components
Reduced vibration

Performance
Speed
Range
Endurance
Cruise altitude
Increase in gross weight growth potential
Handling Qualities

Stability
Maneuverability
Level attitude
Safety low level flight
Safety ground personnel
Lower noise levels
These advantages are applicable to both small utility aircraft
as well as the larger transport aircraft . In the latter, the

vertical force available at all times from the external elevator

behind the Ring - Tail can provide a trim force to permit large
contor of gravity movement .
These improvements can make enough difference in the costs
of operations ( $ /passenger mile ), the produotivity ( passenger /
miles / year ) , and the safety and comfort to passengers and neighbors,
over current helicopter characteristics , that it is believed a
now level of VTOL utilization can be achieved .
 KI
PIASECKT AIRCRAFT
CORPORATI ON 42 ENNSYLVANIA
,- HILADELPHIA
PAIRPORT
INTERNATIONAL
,
ROAD
ISLAND

Palhlindor
NGH
355

AIRCR
TOL AFT
/SVCOMPO
16H
PIASEC UND
KI
 Pathfind
II er
NGIGH
356

ARMY
-NAVY
 Y
NAV
357

te

FRONTISPIECE SUB
FROM
V
,-T
R /2IEW
AIL
ING
SHD
 358

2. RING -WING

The P1AC Ring -Wing consists of a propeller mounted in .

a truncated shroud , with deflecting vanes in its exit aroa to 1

turn the slipstream downward . In hovering flight , the vanes

derloct the slipstream essentially vertically to provide
hovering capability . In forward flight , the Ring - shroud ,
itself , at a small angle of attack , acts like a wing and
supports the aircraft . The " Sky - Spy " design illustratos
( P18 . 4 ) this type vehicle as an RPV , unmanned surveillance
aircraft . High cruising speed for survivability , quick
reaction time , as well as a hovering capability to " take a
better look , " and to permit operation into and out or

unprepared sites would be the key feature of this aircraft .

A wind - tunnel model of an attack aircraft type utilizing

this configuration is shown in Fig . 5 .

.
359

AME
 360

ment

MIA
WiIV

mor
WIE

AN

anda:

pled

W.8

2 19812

end of

18 DE

and v

20,00

for a

copte

8871
Al

1
 361

3. MULTI-HELICOPTER HEAVY LIFT SYSTEM ( MHHLS )

Lifting loads far beyond the capability of the largest
current helicopter , without the necessity of developing new
teohnology or a nen , larger helicopter , 18 the objective or ..

this concept . Two or more existing helicopters are modified

80 that they can be rigidly Interconnected and flown as a
single vehicle , adding their lift capability , The rotor
drive systems are interconnected to provide a high degree of
redundancy against powerplant failure . The control systems

are also interconnected, so that the entire assembly 10

flown from one cockpit . (F1g . 10 ) shows two CH-53D helicopters
coupled in an assembly which , as shown in a design study
( Ref. i) for the Navy , could lift a payload of more than
18 tons . With the larger model CH - 53E it could lift 32 1/2
tons ,

In order to meet the USAF need for lifting minuteman

missiles in and out of $ 1108 , to altitude for free drops ,
and other missile transportation functions , a design study

was made of th18 MIILS concept in the 40 ton capaoity size

and with speeds in excess of 230 kts , and altitudes over :
20,000 ft .
The MHHLS system could be designed , built and tested
for a small fraction of the cost of a new Heavy Lift Hello
copter. In addition , the individual helloopters can be

418888embled into their individual entities and used for

smaller payloads during times when the heavy- lift capability
19 not required , or for stowage below decka .
 INTERCONNECTING
TE
SHAPT
.DP

LIFT
CABLE
INTER
CONTROLS

INTER
STRUCTURE
362

HELT
-
MULTI
(M
SYSTEM
LIFT
)HEAVY
HHLS
TANOEN
53D
-
CH
TWO
IN
UNITS

IT
39-X- 11
72,210
Foro

OOD

CA

And
Po

conty
IN DC
 363

AEROSTAT AND MULTIPLE HELICOPTER LIPT SYSTEM ( THE HELI - STAT )

For ultra large payloads , and without having to develop
a new technology , PIAC has conceived the Heli-Stat . Pour or

more existing helicopters are coupled by means of rigid

structure to a large , unpowered acrostat.of streamline shape .
The helicopters are free to pivot at their junctions to the
structure , so that they can furnish both lift and propulsion
to the assembly (F18 , 11 ) . The aerostat, has sufricient
lifting capacity to support the weight of the helicopters and
their interconnecting structure . Thus , all of the ' thrust
produced by the helicopter rotors is available to lirt and
propel the payload , Such a combination has a payload potential

greater than the aerostat alone would have , or the helicopters

in combination ( as in the MHHLS ) . PIAC has studied designs
with payloads from 65 tons to 280 tons . Still larger payloads

are possible .

The placement of the interconnected helicopters at

large distances from the center of the assembly with their
high contribution to the lift , provides large control moments .
Thus , the Heli-Stat with this precision and powerful
control eliminates the large ground crew requirement of past
dirigible , operations and allows this 111t to be utilized in
crane operations where placement or loads in their desired
final position 1 : required .
Thus , the Heli-Stat can land safely in unprepared areas ,
and in standard air rields without special equipment ,

38-266 0 - 74 - 24
364
./
1((
...
365
 366

The technology involved in the preceding developments are

DATE
represented by patents in the United States and foreign countries ,

and in -Company know -how , both of which are available for licens-

AUTHOR
ing , world -wide .

TITLE
 REFERENCES

AUTHOR DATE
TITLE
AGE
O R NCY
.CO
.
NO NO
. PORT
RE 1973ch
Mar
Me
D.
Sys
T aiye
tem
et
-of
alRi ng
l rs ion
pl icat
Airsecki
Pia and
He Ap
D li co pt er
7-X316 Pe SH
2-to
.
a Corp
craft. r ovementhe
in pr
Im
and Resu ltant ts
Ma nance
ance
rmte
foin
Safety
73
Nov
30
of Meyers
D.
Stu
Desdyigninary
lim al
Airsecki Pre ial et
6
3-X159 Pia (Tac
STA l al
maltic
SAer MP
Corp.
cra ft Pla
) ilirmty
Mobtfo

.
b
1 972
,Peb
Meyers
D.
367

Lif
Hea
H
tvycopter
Al - eli
Mul ti a
elt
1-X391
r eck1
Pias Stu
P dy
eas ibl
, tem ity
Cor
cr p.
af t Sys
Report
Fin al
 368

STATEMENT OF CHARLES EMERY ROSENDAHL gute.

Vice Admiral, USN, Retired

tenh
Mr. Chairman and Members 4,57 11
U.S. Senate Aeronautics and Space Sciences Committee :
an
ning pr

As one who has had operating experience and respons ibilities in the field of airships; dat fa
has studied their records and performances; and remains a believer in such craft , permit 022

me to express my gratitude to you gentlemen of this Committee for your willingness to take
an active interest in the current consideration being given to the revival of airships. air

The views and comments presented herein are strictly and solely my own . I have no
the

affiliation , actual or potential, with any concern of individual who stands to gain from air

an airship program should there be one . Moreover , I have had no part whatsoever in the 1) The
current airship propaganda being showered upon the public . oby

Furthermore , I see no use , at this moment at least, of " x - raying" such a surfeit of (1) Tor

propaganda as the volumes of spoken and written words and the assorted " artist's concep pre

tions" of the helium behemoths now aloose in the dreamworld , except to note a simultan (0) Res

eously inciled , legitimate curiosity as to whether such dreamboats could actually perform pas

the deeds being prophesized for them . ) ing

The public has the right to wonder why nearly three-score years after our country ser

first became interested in airships , we are now at a stalemate in both rigid airships tid

and nonrigid airships (blimps ) .

6) Pre
During World War II we operated blimps with marked success in their specified missions : an

on the Pacific Coast from border to border ; in the Gulf of Mexico ; along the full length ) Dec
of our Atlantic Coast ; in the Caribbean ; along Central and South American East coasts
re

down to below Rio ; and also in the Western Mediterranean . We evolved a very satisfactory
ty
blimp and its equipment , that could be revived and placed in useful services today. After
ty
deliberate nefarious chipping away at them even during the War , in 1962 the Navy Depart
) Re
ment on the flimsleft of pretexts abandoned blimps altogether . Im

With respect to the rigid airships , those in authority over them have shamefully (1) 70
let the world draw the utterly ridiculous conclusion that the United States lacked the

ability to design , manufacture , and operate such aircraft successfully in important fields. 818

No knowledgeable person disputes that in practically every new project of any con
sequence , a period of pioneering "trials and tribulations " is expected - or is " par for
the course " it might be said . But what is not generally realized is the great extent to
swhich human prejudices and unwarranted bias have been responsible for our present airsbtp
 369

stalemate . Let me assure you , however , that it has been of major significance . Having
witnessed so much of this first - hand , it is my opinion that this is a matter for recording
in written history . The bulging manuscript for this book is practically .complete , my one
remaining problem being what to leave out to keep it to one volume ,
10
What faces us at the moment is whether we should revive a rigid airship program ; so
CH
here are some of my thoughts on the matter :

(a) Remember that the field of air transport does not belong . solely to one form of
3 aircraft but can accomodate and utilize each of such specialists as the airplane ,
the flying boat , the airship and the helicopter . On land , at sea , and in the
air it is appropriate specialists that provide us transportation .
this

( b ) The rigid airship is primarily a transoceanic vehicle for long distances , though
obviously it has to cross some land to get to and from the sea from its terminals .
|
(c) Forg et regular transcontinental or overland service for rigid airships or be
be
prepared to come to grief .

(a) Resume airship service ( transoceanic ) on a freight or cargo basis .

In time some
passenger business too will come to the oceanic airship .

(a) Insure an adequate prototype or " shakedown " period before placing the ship ( s ) in
09
service . Knowing human nature , I venture that this will be the toughest condi
ho
tion to fulf111 .

(f ) Provide such safeguards , probably legal , that airship authorities cannot shirk
any portion of the airship program assigned to them severally or collectively .
16
(8) Decide on the inftial prototype ( s ) to be built , but provide for a continuing
research and experimental activity into which to direct promising speculative
types that may be offered , and to provide updated improvements in already existing
types . Don't waste years of dreamboats .
.

( h ) Resume rigid airship construction with an already proven type , making it legit
imately larger if practical and otherwise advisable .
11 (1) For purposes of (h) the HINDENBURG ( 12-129) was by a wide margin the best rigid
airship ever built and put into service .
The later LZ - 130 was probably even
slightly better .
AT
 370

Certain modifications , none too costly from any standpoint , would make the resultant 4

ship an even better one in important respects .

I have in mind certain modifications and would gladly pass them along to the
agency eventually to be charged with such production .
It would be very advisable to construct and operate two prototypes simultaneously.
(1 ) On the basis of past performance and attitudes , keep the Navy out of the airship
revival program .

(£) I stand ready , at your request , to supplement anything I have stid or indicated
herein .

(1) Starting from scratch , American technological talent startled the world by Its
amazingly successful program in space .
I for one refuse to entertain even the slightest thought that American technological
genius cannot make a success of modern airships too , particularly having the eminently
successful AINDENBURG type as the starting point .

Crossudahl
6. E. ROSENDAHL
July 1974
 371

Office of Vice -President

UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

31 July 1974
Honorable Frank E. MOSS
Chairman
United States Senate
Committee on Aeronautical and
Space Sciences
Washington , D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman :
4
United Aircraft Corporation welcomes this opportunity to
respond to the invitation issued by the distinguished
}
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and
Space Sciences , We are happy to submit some of our
views on Advanced Aeronautical concepts for inclusion
in the Record of your current hearings . These views
cover the areas of interest mentioned in your news
statement of June 14 , 1974 , with one exception
lighter -than -air vehicles which has not been a subject
of our immediate interest in recent years . We certainly
agree that the United States is not putting a suffichent
effort in advanced concept development areas to assure a
continued dominance of the conmercial aircraft market .

One such area is the development of technology necessary

for a viable contender for a future SST .
Both in Europe and in Russia , large scale efforts are
being underwritten to develop a supersonic transport for
commercial application , It is unlikely that the first
generation aircraft produced by these programs will be
fully acceptable or profitable . However , these programs
are developing the expertise and the experienced teams
that could provide the base for development of a viable
second - generation aircraft . If such an aircraft were
produced , it would capture a significant portion of the
future commercial long - range transport market . The question
we face is whether or not the U.S. can afford to leave it
self unprotected against such a threat .
The present NASA - supported Advanced Supersonic Technology
( AST) program was conceived as a low - cost means of pro
tecting the U.S. future in the long range transport
market . New concepts are being sought to overcome the
technical problems which contributed heavily to the 1971
decision to cancel the United States ' earlier SST effort ,

EAST HARTFORD O, CONNECTICUT

 372

Specifically , the NASA program aims to provide the tech 2001

nology to meet tomorrow's challenge of a profitable SST re
within acceptable ecology standards .
toine
New concepts are emerging from the NASA AST program . The
Variable Cycle Engine is one such con pt . The Variable
Cycle Engine will combine the best features of a turbojet
engine , which gives the best performance at supersonic
speeds , and a turbofan engine which has the best performance tect
at subsonic speeds and low noise characteristics . This will
the
significantly improve the performance of the overall aircraft
system , conserve fuel , and , we believe , permit engine
generated noise levels to be competitive with today's wide
bodied transport aircraft .
Funding of the NASA AST program to date has been adequate ater:
to conduct the initial conceptual and analytical studies
to provide the basis to our future SST technology programs .
However , a significant increase in this funding will be
required to make significant progress in developing the
technology needed for initiation of a new SST development
program .
Tese
A phased program is recommended to complete , verify , and alue
utilize the supersonic transport propulsion technology base . 25000
would
During the first phase , which would occur over the next two 1083
to three years , detailed design and evaluation studies coli
would be made of the most promising engine concepts . In
dura
addition , airframe / engine installation studies would be in We
conducted , and the necessary component technology programs
carried out . At the end of this phase , the viable component vill
devel
concepts would be identified and the cycle characteristics end
sufficiently defined to permit selection of a design for
experimental engine testing . The second phase would involve impre
a three to five year program to fabricate and test an ex parti
more
perimental engine . Particular emphasis would be placed light
on demonstrating the performance , noise, and emission the
characteristics . At the end of this phase , the viability
desi
of the candidate design approach would be established , with
thereby providing the desired technology base for initiation
of a supersonic transport engine development program . If
Stud
the results of Phase II and the competitive situation turb
warranted continuation , the third and final phase of the
program would consist of the final engine development . This pote
would result in a qualified engine for the second - generation engi
supersonic transport .
oper
to !
The results of this program would put the United States in
peri
a good position to compete worldwide for the second - generation 102;
SST by the end of this decade .
 373

A second area of concern is that of fuel conservation in

future subsonic aircraft . Looking at the historical pic
ture , we see that the fuel consumption of aircraft gas
turbine engines has steadily improved . We project that
this improvement will continue . This improvement will not
be easy to reach nor will it be inexpensive .
The main variables in a gas turbine engine design that
affect fuel consumption are ( 1 ) bypass ratio . ( the ratio
of the amount of air discharged overboard from the fan to
the amount of air going through the core of the engine ) ,
( 2 ) overall pressure ratio ( the ratio of the pressure of
the air leaving the compression system to the pressure of
the air entering it ) , and ( 3 ) the turbine temperature
(temperature of the gas leaving the combustion chambers and
entering the turbine ) .
The specific fuel consumption of future engines can be im
proved by a continued trend toward higher bypass ratios ,
higher pressure ratios , and higher turbine inlet temperatures .
Potentially , fuel consumption could be reduced by 15 per
cent if bypass ratios were increased to 10 : 1 ( from the
present values of 5 : 1 ) , pressure ratio to 40 : 1 ( from present
values of 25 : 1 ) , and cruise turbine inlet temperatures to
2500 °F ( from present values of 2200 °F ) . Improved technology
would be required to achieve these design objectives without
loss in component. efficiency , without increased amounts of
cooling air or air leakage , without compromising engine
durability or reliability, and without an excessive increase
in weight due to the large fan . This level of technology
will not be easy to each . A few of the key technology
developments required are : improved materials for the hot
end of the compressor ; more efficient cooling schemes and
improved materials for the turbine ; closer clearance control ,
particularly in the high pressure portion of the engine ;
more effective air seals through improved design and materials ;
lightweight fan blade and case structures integrated with
the nacelle and using composite materials ; improved burner
designs that will operate at the higher temperature levels
with acceptable levels of emissions .
Studies have shown that variable pitch fans, variable area
turbines and variable area engine or fan duct nozzles can
potentially provide improved fuel consumption in future
engines at off design conditions . This is accomplished
by adjusting the areas to provide more efficient component
operation and / or a better thermodynamic cycle . This needs
to be accomplished without a significant penalty in turbine
performance and durability , and without excessive exit
nozzle weight . Continued study of these variable features
in future engines is indicated . Design and testing is re
 374

quired to develop the technology needed for a practical,

durable , efficient variable area turbine to operate at :
future turbine temperature levels .
There are a number of more complex designs which have
potential for further lowering fuel consumption . One of
these is the regenerative engine , which uses a heat ex
changer to capture waste heat energy from the exhaust .
The present energy crisis and sharp increase in fuel costs
have created an urgent need to generate advanced technology
to reduce the amount of fuel consumed by the next generation
of commercial transport aircraft . An aggressive R & D funded
program in this area is needed to assure continuance of a
competitive U.S. position in the world market .

A third area of concern is that of intercity transportation

in congested corridors of activities becoming critical in
our country due to limitations of airport facilities . Since
it is difficult to obtain and develop real estate for new
and larger airports near to city hubs of interest , alternate
means must be sought to relieve this problem . Thus , an
unusual opportunity exists in the development of intercity
transportation systems based on aircraft capable of vertical
takeoff and landing .
To meet this requirement and assure continued American
dominance of air transportation systems, a two - phased
program is suggested . The first phase should be a demon
stration of the feasibility of high speed ( 150 knots ) VTOL
intercity transit using large tra sport helicopters such as
the Sikorsky S-65C . The second phase would be a longer range
development of a higher speed ( 230 knots ) compound VTOL which
would have higher productivity and lower operating costs .
Since large high speed ( 150 knots ) , economical ( $40 . ticket
cost for New York to Washington trip of one hour and 20
minutes ) . VTOL transports are available in the form of the
S-65C helicopter ; a means is needed to demonstrate these
attributes .

It is recommended that NASA finance and supervise a one - year

demonstration of VTOL airline service between two major
cities in the Northeast Corridor to demonstrate reliability ,
economics , ride comfort , customer acceptance , and public
service of a new mode of transportation .
Larger capacity , longer range , more economical VTOL trans
portation can be provided by a compound VTOL such as the
Sikorsky S-200 . Phe S- 200 fuselage contains 86 passenger
seats , two lavatories, 60 cubic feet of storage for carry
on baggage , and 450 cubic feet of baggage space below the
floor . The S-200 cruises at 230 knots and provides a 230
mile range . The external noise of the compound has been
minimized through unique design features .
 375

It is recommended NASA continue funding the rotor systems

research aircraft to develop the S - 200 rotor / propulsion
system by 1976 . To further minimize the technical risk of
the follow -on S-200 development program , it is reconmended
NASA fund further work in the large S - 200 compound such as
wind tunnel testing , propulsion system development , etc.
A fourth area of concern is associated with air traffic
control .Increasing the reliability and accuracy of an
air traffic controller's function ultimately improves the
safety of an air traffic system and allows operation under
extended circumstances . In the interest of improving
controller response time , research has been conducted on
the addition of color to air traffic control displays . We
have built a retrofit kit providing color for a government
furnished display . Laboratory evaluation of the safety
improvements provided by this display has been conducted
at the FAA'S NAFEC facility for the last year . Since these
experiments are expected to show a significant improvement
in safety of performance , we urge that field evaluation and
implementation begin as quickly as possible .
The fifth area of concern is associated with the basic
and advanced limited research being conducted in our
country . In order tomaintain our preeminencein the
worldwide aeronautical industry , we urge that the proven
capabilities and resources of NASA be supported in such
developments and research as :
A. Development of structural design criteria
of composite and compound materials having
non - isotropic properties . Non - destructive
methods of examination must be developed
to assure quality control consistent with
our safety requirements . The use of com
puters in the application of these new
materials .
B. Structural research is encouraged to pro
viđe a greater level of survivability in
the event of crash conditions . In parti
cular , research on energy absorbing
structural deformation should be encouraged .
C. A continuation of reserach leading toward
reduction of the seriousness of post - crash
fires . Research in areas of fuel and fuel
systems are encouraged .
Sincerely yours ,

WAK / W
da lahat
W. A. Kuhrt
Vice President- Technology
hnolo
c
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

3 9015 07806 0392