With so spectacular a set of achievements as a foundation, and with a substantial number of space projects underway, the U.S. space research enterprise should be healthy and flourishing. Yet discussions with researchers within NASA and in the university community reveal that there is significant discontent and unease about what the future may hold for U.S. space research. The reasons for these concerns have been documented in some detail in the 1986 report entitled "The Crisis in Space and Earth Science" issued by the NASA Advisory Council. They include such factors as (a) the widening of research horizons in response to past accomplishments so that there are now more opportunities than can be accommodated by the available resources; (b) the space technology required to support new advances is often more costly and sophisticated than in the past; (c) the growing complexity of interactions between NASA and its larger and more diverse research community; and (d) program stretch-outs, delays and cancellations that waste creative researchers time, squander resources, and decrease flight opportunities. We believe that many of these reasons continue to exist.

An underlying basis for the concern of the research community has been that the strategies, goals, objectives, and programmatic requirements of the research program have not been adequately distinguished from the parallel national objective of placing humans in space.

Mechanisms are needed which alleviate the more serious of these problems so that the talents and capabilities of America's space researchers, both inside and outside of NASA, can be focused on substantive future opportunities. We strongly affirm the central role of research in the U.S. civil space program, hence --

We note that this recommendation carries with it the responsibility for the research community and NASA to use these resources in a prudent manner to carry out pioneering research. To do this, the research community must understand and appreciate, as well as participate in, the planning and budgetary process. To facilitate execution of this recommendation, we propose --

The present strategic plan provides appropriate balance to the research program that must be maintained across the disciplines, as well as across the methodologies for carrying out the research. In particular, an appropriate mix must be achieved among small, medium, and large projects. A trend toward the development of large projects has developed in recent years, driven by several factors. These include the natural evolution in requirements of some research fields and the "new start" process employed by NASA, the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress for initiating projects to carry out research. This latter process sometimes encourages a "piling-on" of research objectives, as well as of researchers, in order to strengthen fiscal justification. An environment needs to be created that will encourage small, fast-paced projects as well as large projects and enable both to flourish.

Research support activities, such as mission operations and data analysis programs, as well as many portions of the advanced technology development program, represent the life blood of civil space research. These activities, together with sub-orbital balloon and rocket projects, are the centerpiece of university professor and student involvement with the civil space program. Such activities encourage substantial numbers of scientists and engineers, beyond those involved in hardware development for major space flight projects, to participate constructively and creatively in the space program.

We conclude, therefore, that Research and Analysis Programs, Mission Operations and Data Analysis Programs, and the Advanced Technology Development Programs should be viewed as equally essential to the overall research program as are hardware projects themselves; that a "fast track" procurement process be devised for such programs; and that the resources allocated to these support activities not be used as "contingency" resources for unexpected problems encountered on large flight projects.

We view the overall management of the research program to be a key part of the responsibilities of NASA headquarters, and consider that the portion of this activity aimed at the outside research and engineering community can be strengthened. Such strengthening includes a reappraisal of the balance between work performed in academia and that performed within NASA itself. At present, the process that allocates and transfers resources to non-NASA institutions can cause the university community to be at a disadvantage with respect to NASA center researchers and center-funded contractors, the later sometimes having "umbrella" type contracts for research support to the centers.

We urge that universities, other organizations, and their investigator teams be used increasingly as "prime" contractors for space research instruments and projects.

We recognize that the implementation of this recommendation will vary from one research discipline to another, as well as from project to project. But we submit that its implementation will considerably lessen the reporting burdens now required of researchers, will relieve NASA personnel of certain routine contract coordination functions, and will place the responsibility for the ultimate success of programs that fall into this category where it should be: squarely with the investigator team.

NASA planning for EOS as a contributor to the U.S. Global Change Research Program was reviewed by the National Research Council in early 1990 and found to be generally consistent with the scientific requirements of that program. However, the review also notes several issues that remain to be addressed. Our Committee emphasizes the importance of NASA's Earth Probes program, which includes smaller, precursor missions to EOS and missions complimentary to and contemporaneous with EOS. The Committee also emphasizes the importance of adequate funding for the evolution and operation of the EOS data and information system.

As regards design of the Earth Observing System, the Committee supports the concept of simultaneous flight of instruments to address natural processes occurring on short time scales, and to facilitate intercalibration and environmental corrections. This approach leads to the requirement for a large spacecraft -- which is less costly on a per instrument basis. NASA has thus proposed two series of relatively large platforms in polar orbit to implement EOS over a 15-year period.

The NRC report mentioned above generally supports the concept of simultaneity for a group of instruments, the accompanying need for at least one large spacecraft, and the general concept of long-term measurements. But the report also notes that many objectives could perhaps be achieved better and sooner with a series of smaller, independent satellites. Moreover, the Committee notes that the perception remains in the scientific community that the current proposal for a fixed configuration of two relatively large polar platforms may not be ideal for answering important questions yet to be clearly posed. Furthermore, compromises have to be made when many instruments fly on the same platform, and failures can lead to massive loss of data. Continuity and reliability of the data stream also are key factors for understanding global change, as is the considerable contribution of non-U.S. Earth-observing activities.

The Committee sees no reason to disagree with the NRC report, and concludes that the design of EOS must involve a variety of different spacecraft to meet so complex a set of requirements. In the end, a combination of different size spacecraft and surface-based platforms will be needed. Alternative approaches should be carefully examined so that the optimum approach can be selected to meet scientific objectives with continuity, reliability, and affordability. Particular diligence will be required to assure that the complexity of EOS is controlled.

Data from environmental satellites operated by the NOAA, the Department of Defense and EOSAT all provide basic environmental information valuable to the Mission to Planet Earth. NASA's coordination with these ongoing programs is an essential element of the civil space program.

The Committee recognizes that NASA's charter includes the development of new space capabilities, including remote sensing systems for environmental monitoring, but notes that NASA's role in the research and development for operational environmental satellites has diminished in recent years. In our view, this trend should be reversed. We note that EOS and other components of Mission to Planet Earth can serve as a valuable testing ground for pre- operational instruments. Thus --

The Earth Observing System combines the characteristics of research and operational missions. The overall importance of the program to the nation and its dual character taken together enforce the need for high-level management attention. Moreover, considering that EOS will be the centerpiece, at least in terms of resources, for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, it is essential that the planning and decision making process encompass the full range of relevant agencies and the federal Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES). The large size, broad scope and national importance of the program also suggest that the EOS funding be provided as a line item, separate from other science programs. This overall undertaking demands continued attention at the policy level by the National Space Council.

The Committee believes that a review of the decision-making process for Mission to Planet Earth, including its relation to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, should be carried out for the National Space Council by a group from government, industry and academia, headed by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The review should consider interagency aspects, the role of the CEES, and international dimensions, and make recommendations aimed at ensuring the success and continuity of the program.

It has been proposed to the Committee that the current civil operational satellites, including NOAA environmental satellites and Landsat, could be operated more efficiently and cost-effectively if aggregated under a single commercial entity (especially when considered on a global basis). In this case, the federal government would access the data it requires and carry out the needed research and development, rather than actually operating the satellites. The international dimension is of clear interest in that it might be possible to develop an international consortium for remote sensing similar to Intelsat or Inmarsat.

Consequently, the Committee urges that the National Space Council, together with OSTP and OMB, undertake a feasibility study to determine if a single commercial entity could provide more cost-effective management for operational environmental and land remote-sensing satellites. The prospects for an international consortium should be evaluated.

NASA's experimental Landsat program was transferred to the Commerce Department in 1983 with the expectation that the operation could be commercialized profitably. Virtually all parties to that expectation now agree, and international experiences verify, that full commercialization of Landsat is not feasible for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, the funding required to sustain the transfer has been subject to an annual threat of termination. Action must be taken to remedy this problem, or the U.S. shall lose both this important data and leadership in remote sensing -- the later already under serious challenge.

At some point, it will be necessary to set a specific date for the return to the Moon and, later, for the initial Mars landing. We believe that such a date can best be established at some future time. There is much planning yet to be done, enabling technologies be developed, key questions to be answered in the area of life sciences, and funding constraints to address. The question might then be asked: "If there is no timetable for the Mars landing, why is it necessary to establish a program and a set of goals at all?" We believe the answer is several-fold. First, any large organization, such as NASA, generally works best when it has an overarching and challenging objective to guide its long-term future. This provides a focus and rationale for the large series of otherwise somewhat disconnected technological efforts which not only enable the eventual program, but also offer the resulting developments to all of our nation's space and non-space activities. Further, the existence of a long-term and evident goal helps make real the work of researchers and technologists -- not to mention helping motivate talented young men and women to join NASA.

It is possible, of course, to conceive of a space program without a long- term vision such as the human exploration of Mars; significant science would still be accomplished and the Earth's environment would still be monitored. But we would lose the jewel represented by the vision of a seemingly unattainable goal, the technologies engendered, and the motivation provided to our nation's scientists and engineers, its laboratories and industries, its students and its citizens. Hence --

To respond to this long-range exploration challenge, NASA must establish the framework within which to develop at least six new technology bases and program elements: (1) a modern economical heavy lift launch vehicle; (2) a life sciences emphasis space station; (3) affordable, evolutionary interplanetary transportation systems; (4) automated lunar and Martian exploration; (5) extraterrestrial resource utilization systems; and (6) reliable closed loop ecological life support systems. The planning for this undertaking will be a challenge that will require adequate time and, most important, outstanding human resources. Later in this report we suggest that a new position, Associate Administrator for Exploration, be established. This person, supported by his or her on Conceptual Systems Design team, should be responsible for planning, overseeing and integrating the six new technology bases and program elements required to carry out the Mission from Planet Earth. The first task must be to prepare an evolutionary, flexible long-range plan that starts with 21st Century operations on Mars and works backward to critical initial steps and realistic budgets. Immediate attention must be given to establishing a vigorous now space life sciences program, and eventually to planning for international participation in the Mission from Planet Earth.

Space Station Freedom has now been in the design and development phase for three years and, if one includes the concept formulation phases, for eight years. Approximately $3.6 billion has been expended on the project to date. Nonetheless, debate continues over its design concept and even its basic purpose. This has been exacerbated by concerns over the ability of the Space Shuttle to support Space Station Freedom. As of October, 1990, the baseline plan for the initial block of Space Station Freedom required 18 Shuttle launches over roughly a four-year period, plus five logistics launches per year once the station is permanently occupied (five flights prior to the completion of the initial block).

Aside from its role in life sciences, it does not appear to the Committee that any manned space station can be justified based solely upon the science it enables -- nor has this been claimed in the case of Space Station Freedom. Microgravity research is a significant and promising field of endeavor, although of unknown potential. It justifies some form of space platform for experimentation, but it is not, of itself, a sufficient justification for a manned space station.

Likewise, we do not find compelling the case that a space station is needed as a transportation node for planetary exploration. First, many promising flight profiles do not appear to require such a node and, second, if they did, the need in our judgment is sufficiently far in the future that we would hardly know today what to ask of such a terminal today.

On the other hand, the Committee holds the strong conviction that if the U.S. is to have any significant long-term manned space program, a space station is the next logical and essential element of that endeavor. The most significant unknowns remaining in manned exploration reside in the area of life sciences. A manned, near-Earth laboratory is, in our judgment, the sensible place to begin addressing these crucial questions which sooner or later must and will be resolved -- by the U.S. or some other spacefaring nation.

The need for the Space Station thus rests squarely upon life sciences experimentation and the development and verification of long duration space operating systems. These, together with its uses for microgravity research and applications are, in our opinion, a more than sufficient justification for a space station. A space station is needed specifically to establish effective strategies to prevent or mitigate the debilitating deconditioning effects on humans of long stays in low gravity fields, and to establish absolutely reliable and efficient life support systems for extended human stays in unforgiving, hostile environments. A space station also can push the development and verification of durable robotic systems to monitor, maintain and repair complex hardware systems in such environments. Finally, a space station can provide essential experience in the effective operation of large, technically sophisticated remote-from-Earth inhabited outposts.

But do this needs demand a space station of the complexity of Space Station Freedom, particularly given the limitation which has been imposed on funds for its development? Our answer, reluctantly, is that they do not. We say reluctantly because one of the most debilitating diseases a space program can acquire is a tendency to keep stopping and restarting in search of the ever elusive ideal solution -- and we are disinclined to contribute to any such process. On the other hand, we concur that a modified design, along the general lines NASA is now considering, is mandatory. Thus, we propose --

The Committee believes that, wherever possible, integrated systems should be fully tested and verified on the ground. For example, the habitat and experimental modules should be tested and verified in their furnished and operational mode before launch. Systems that cannot be fully verified in one-g should be tested and verified on orbit before permanent human occupancy.

In addition, an assured crew return capability for use in an emergency must also be operational prior to permanent human occupancy. Finally, reasonable margins in weight, power, crew assembly time, and crew maintenance time must be provided.

Although warranting reconfiguration and probably rescheduling, the Space Station remains, in our judgment, the essential initial building block of the manned exploration program.

The next goal for the manned exploration program is the establishment of permanent (although not necessarily continually inhabited) outposts on the Moon. This step is needed to learn how to live and work on the surface of an alien planet, but will also provide opportunities for geological and astronomical research. Particularly important will be the testing of habitats, closed ecological life support systems, and remote space-rated power plants; learning to process and use indigenous materials; observing the effects of living in extreme heat, cold and dust in low-gravity fields; and developing reliable systems to provide radiation protection and surface mobility for humans and robots through 300 hour-long days and nights.

The moon's surface contains records of the ancient bombardment phase of planetary evolution in the solar system. Its cratered surface can tell us much about the Earth during the formative stages of the atmosphere and oceans. Erosion and plate tectonics have erased almost all evidence of this era from our planet. Lunar mineralogy, geochemistry, ant stratigraphy on the front and far side of the Moon, with its diverse lava flows and mass concentrations, are fertile fields for research in comparative planetology. The Moon's relationship to the Earth while our planet was forming may be discernable on the Moon. Many serendipitous discoveries will almost certainly be made, perhaps similar to the finding of meteorites in Antarctica.

While substantial knowledge has been gained about the Moon and Mars over the history of space exploration, unknowns still pose questions and potential risks to intensive human exploration, unknowns such as the high latitude geography of the Moon, the concentration of water and useful minerals in Mars soil, etc. Some robotic reconnaissance or prospector missions will need to be defined and executed prior to manned explorations. There are also life sciences and space physics missions that may be necessary. Thus we propose --

The serious technological challenge for NASA at the present time does not relate to issues of invention or creativity, but rather to the difficult sequence of taking an invention and turning it into an engineered component, testing its suitability in space; and then incorporating it into a spacecraft system. In its early years, NASA managed this "technology insertion" phase particularly well. But there is a widely-held opinion that although NASA continues to do excellent research, both in its centers and in its affiliated universities, the results of this work are not being efficiently transferred into applications -- a fault, it must be said, that is shared with U.S. industry at large. A prime responsibility of the NASA technology development activity must be to bridge the gap between technology concepts and application to space practice. Prototype developments can be particularly important in this regard.

Unfortunately, NASA has not been permitted to sustain an adequate level- of-effort program in space technology due in recent years to externally imposed budget reductions (Figure 8). We believe that this is a consequence of a lack of appreciation of the key role that technology development plays in enabling future missions, reducing future systems' costs and increasing America's competitiveness. It has, of course, been suggested from time to time that the budget for these activities is not spent effectively. Moreover, since most of the funding is expended within NASA, the university or industry constituency to provide political support for the program is limited. Both of these concerns can be alleviated if technology development programs are made competitive, such that they involve the best talent wherever it may reside -- including in other government agencies where appropriate. In any event, this under investing trend must be reversed. If the nation is to successfully undertake challenging space initiatives in the future, we must reestablish our technology base today.

Among the more critical technology topics that must be pursued are propulsion and aerodynamics including flight evaluations, advanced rocket engines that do not detrimentally impact our environment, aerobraking for orbital transfer, long duration closed ecosystems and life support systems, nuclear-electric space power, space tethers and artificial gravity, automation and robotics, information management systems, sensors, electric power generation, radiation protection and materials and in-space materials processing.

Technology development can be considered in three phases, each of which warrants attention. The first is advanced and/or generic technology that may have broad applicability, such as innovations in data management and storage. The second is technology tied to specific programs, such as nuclear propulsion for the exploration program. The third consists of flight qualification of new technology. Each of these aspects needs to be handled in a different manner.

NASA Space Technology Spending
by fiscal year from 1960 to 1990

In particular, we believe that technology which may have generic applicability should be developed under the auspices of the Associate Administrator responsible for advanced technology. The accompanying planning effort should involve other appropriate Associate Administrators having responsibilities for major future missions. These concerns lead us to --

On a related issue, the Committee is particularly concerned over the low priority that has been given to the development of the life support technologies, and to the fundamental medical aspects of long duration space flight by humans. The scientific community and NASA are now in substantial agreement as to the steps that must be taken to redress this shortcoming. However, responsibility for the conduct of research on these issues, which could affect the fundamental feasibility of space exploration by humans, currently is split between the Office of Space Science and Applications and the Office of Aeronautics, Exploration and Technology -- as well as between two principal centers and several supporting centers. Such fragmentation is debilitating to what should be an urgent and focused research and development program. All flight-related life sciences research that is pursued should be considered technology development, and treated as such within the NASA organizational structure.

The Associate Administrator for Exploration suggested later should be given the authority and responsibility for space human biology activities. Further, we advise that work in this important area be consolidated as far as possible into a single center, with research being contracted on a competitive basis wherever feasible.

The Committee finds that the most significant deficiency in the nation's future civil space program is an insufficiency of reliable, flexible and efficient space launch capability. The nation now needs to move ahead and attain a more robust launch capability.

Along with its impressive and unique capabilities, the Space Shuttle has shown itself to be a complex system that is expensive to operate and whose emergence from developmental status has not yet taken place (Figure 9). The presence of the crew adds to its cost and perceived risk. The combination of these factors drives manpower requirements up, complicates payload design, and brings about the high cost of its operation (Figure 10). Planned mission frequencies which are realistic and achievable are considered by the Committee to be essential to cost containment.

The nation is at a critical juncture as we look ahead to consider how future space endeavors will be influenced and limited by what we decide now about Earth-to-orbit transportation. There is general agreement in all recent space transportation studies (e.g. the Defense Science Board and the NASA Advisory Council studies) that the nation needs a new heavy lift launch capability, but no implementing decision has resulted. These reports, combined with our concern about the heavy dependence upon the Shuttle, point to the unalterable need for the initiation of a major national effort to develop a new launch system that can provide a flexible heavy lift capacity. Not only will an evolving space station need heavy lift support, but other missions also will benefit from reduced dependence upon the Space Shuttle.

The first goal for a new Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) system should be to augment support of the Space Station. While the Shuttle might carry out some early Space Station deployment, alternative transportation should significantly reduce the cost and risk of that program. The time to make a commitment to this end is now, for the longer the nation delays the building of a new launch system, the greater is the risk that it will embark upon a space station and a subsequent manned exploration program that eventually could prove unsupportable.

There is a range of choices available for a heavy lift vehicle (circa 150,000 pounds to near-Earth orbit). One candidate would be some form of a Space Shuttle-derived ELV, but there are others. At the extremes, a dilemma lies in choosing between starting the heavy lift system design from a "clean sheet," or selecting a design closely related to the current Shuttle (e.g., a Shuttle-C). The later provides an earlier capability with less initial cost, but the former provides an opportunity for the revolutionary design of a completely new launch system incorporating up-to-date propulsion and support system technology. Assessment of the economics, the lack of firm Department of Defense requirements, the need to further define lunar/Mars payloads, the status of advanced launch system technologies, and long propulsion lead times are all important considerations as the choices are weighed.

On balance, the Committee concludes that the prudent choice -- with an eye toward both the Space Station and the long view -- is an approach that begins with a new ELV system that meets the following criteria:

• Operational capability must be achieved in time to support at least the latter stages of Space Station deployment and relieve its Shuttle dependence as soon as feasible.
• Launch support manpower must be reduced.
• Provision should be made for updating with new components as they become available from the joint NASA-DOD Advanced Launch System (ALS) technology development. In particular, the Space Transportation Main Engine should be introduced into the new launch system at the earliest appropriate time.

This should be the first phase of a continuing effort to upgrade Earth-to- orbit transportation. Some time hence, further advancements in lift capability can be achieved when justified by requirements and technical developments. In particular, this second phase should involve ongoing application of technologies developed in the ALS program, and should lead to the design of an advanced launch vehicle and support system of enhanced efficiency and reliability.

The Committee believes that the U.S. should not plan to depend on any foreign launch capability (such as the Soviet Energia, as some have proposed) to support critical U.S. space programs.

The following summarize our conclusions with respect to launch capability --

NASA and the Air Force should continue a vigorous Advanced Launch System technology program to support both near-term and follow-on heavy lift requirements. Highest priority in the launch vehicle technology effort should be assigned to the Space Transportation Main Engine (STME). Once a better definition of the lunar and Mars architecture and mission requirements is established, this advanced technology can be infused into a new vehicle design.

In the meantime, because of continued dependence upon the Space Shuttle, NASA should execute its plan to enhance the reliability and safety of this vehicle and to reduce launch costs. The examination already underway of the launch preparation process should be pursued with vigor. Consideration should be given to the possibility that a stable flight rate planning factor including greater margins might, of itself, facilitate the implementation of cost (manpower) savings.

The issue has arisen as to whether NASA should procure another Space Shuttle Orbiter to provide a more robust five-vehicle fleet. The Committee does not support such a procurement at this time. The Committee appreciates that we may lose another orbiter before the proposed new unmanned heavy lift launch vehicle is completely developed, and that this would once again result in a fleet of only three operational Space Shuttles, as has been the case since 1986. But as of the present, we conclude that any decision to procure another orbiter should be deferred and funding for the unmanned launch vehicle given priority. In the meantime, the current NASA practice of procuring structural spares should continue in support of the existing Space Shuttle fleet.

In spite of the NASP's long-term potential, the Committee generally endorses the view of the Defense Science Board which, in March, 1990, suggested that, at least in the foreseeable future, the NASP's single-stage-to-orbit concept may have been over-emphasized. The more important aspect of this program is its development of air-breathing hypersonic propulsion capability.

We believe that the management hierarchy of the Civil Space Program, within the Executive Branch should be: the National Space Council, to provide policy direction; NASA headquarters, to provide executive management; project offices to provide specific project direction; and centers to offer day-to-day program implementation and supervision of supporting contractors from the private sector and academia.

Various models were examined by the Committee whereby major responsibilities might be shifted from NASA to other organizations, somewhat along the lines of the Department of Defense's Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, government corporations, the Department of Energy Laboratories, etc. With the possible exception of the expanded use of Federally Funded Contract Research and Development Centers, discussed later, the Committee believes that such action would be counterproductive. The fact is that NASA remains the world's greatest repository of space knowledge and experience. Thus, efforts should be devoted to its improvement, not its dismemberment. The Committee concludes --

In the heady days of the early space program, with its emphasis on catching and surpassing the Soviet space program, NASA was afforded extraordinary latitude by the Congress. Exceptions were made to the generally applicable civil service regulations to permit NASA to attract and retain the very best of the nation's technical talent. Financial and budgetary controls were designed to give the Administrator the flexibility to operate fast-moving programs, e.g. "no-year" funding. Similarly, the agency was granted important powers for procurement, unfettered by such later controls as, for example, the act which now places stringent constraints on the agency's ability to acquire computer systems.

Various ad hoc groups have wrestled with the matter of setting space policy. One of the more thoughtful recent analyses was conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This study recommended that the NASA Administrator also serve as Director of Civil Space (DCS -- somewhat equivalent to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) in the intelligence community). While implementation of this proposal would not change the role of the Space Council, it would accentuate the important role the head of NASA could and should perform in assisting with the establishment of overall policy, coordinating vital national security interfaces, and integrating all civil space activities (Figure 11). This arrangement recognizes that virtually no governmental civil space pursuit can succeed without the support and participation of NASA, but it also recognizes the importance of coordination with the space endeavor of other government agencies. Indeed, as applications of space capabilities increase, coordination will become more and more essential.

Although the "DCS concept" has many attractive aspects, we do not believe that it has received sufficient scrutiny to warrant endorsement at this time. Instead, we propose it for consideration by the Vice President in his role as Chairman of the Space Council.

We are also persuaded that the membership of the Space Council, as provided for in the Executive Order of 20 April 1989, is sufficiently large that its treatment of many relatively routine issues could be facilitated by the establishment of an executive committee. Hence --

The Committee notes also that, because of the increasing potential for contributions by NASA to America's economic competitiveness, it may be appropriate for the Administrator of NASA to serve as a member (or ex-officio member) of The President's Council on Competitiveness.

We believe NASA should develop a 10-year plan to provide Congress with sufficient information on objectives and implementation approaches to permit sound initial budget decisions. Most importantly, this plan should provide cost information, based on straightforward and understandable assumptions, including the costs of development, launch and operations.

Once a program is approved, however, the Congress can and should help provide program stability through consistent and adequate funding. The successful management of multi-year development programs is extremely sensitive to this continuity. Thus, we strongly endorse the use of multi-year funding and "no-year" appropriations whenever appropriate, to provide program stability and reduce costs.

The Committee strongly believes that the internal management structure of NASA is best determined by those having the ultimate responsibility for the Agency's performance. Therefore, we do not offer firm recommendations in this area. Nevertheless, there are a number of observations that we consider worthy of serious consideration by NASA management, and these are offered below.

It will be difficult to recruit this senior systems engineering and analysis capability entirely from within NASA given the constraints on personnel transfers, and almost impossible to recruit it from outside of NASA due to the constraints of current civil service salary regulations. Accordingly, we propose --

Such a center could possibly be affiliated with a university, or not-for- profit institution but an industrial affiliation would not be appropriate under most circumstances. The practices of the Department of Defense in using such centers should be considered.

As will be noted in the next section, we suggest that operations be separated from development. Accordingly, we propose that the Space Station program be grouped with other space flight developments such as the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM), the Alternative Crew Recovery System (ACRS) and the development of a new heavy lift launch vehicle. With regard to Space Station mission requirements, we suggest that the Associate Administrator for Exploration serve as focal point. Thus, it it proposed --

A clear statement of the problem appears in a 1988 National Academy of Public Administration report entitled, "Effectiveness of NASA Headquarters", as follows: "We have...concluded that the term "operational" as applied to commercial aircraft, to ships, or to mass-produced articles of defense will most likely never apply to space systems in the same context. What we do see, however, are large, complex space systems such as the Shuttle and the Space Station that are or will be largely driven by operational issues -- turnaround time between flights, manifesting, retrofitting of design changes for safety, cost or payload capability purposes, logistics, training of basic and science crew members, and so on. There are not the basic work of research and development leading to new concepts and ideas for future space systems, nor for expanding knowledge of the universe and discerning the implications of that knowledge for life on this planet or elsewhere." The report goes on to recommend an organizational separation, from the top of the agency down, on the two matters of space flight operations and space system development.

We endorse this approach, including the establishment of an Associate Administrator for Space Flight Operations. The responsibility of this individual should include Space Shuttle operations, ELV operations, and the Tracking and Data Systems organization. This Associate Administrator should have the institutional responsibility for injecting operational requirements into new programs to assure that they can be effectively operated over their lifetimes at reasonable cost. At the appropriate time, the responsibility for Space Station operations would also be assigned to this office. It is thus proposed --

Current and possible headquarters organizational alignments are summarized in Figures 12 and 13.

Project Management. There is general agreement that projects should be assigned to, and largely performed by, a single center whenever possible. Nevertheless, there will always be some projects that demand assignment to more than one center because of the size of the projects and the necessity to draw on diverse expertise.

Center Management. As NASA evolved during the decade of the 1960's, the missions of each center were relatively crisp and their respective capabilities developed into centers of excellence. To a large extent, these roles still exist and in many cases centers of excellence still prevail. But the focus has become somewhat blurred, for reasons that are generally well understood. With the phase-down following Apollo, several centers found their future prospects greatly diminished and sought additional work that could keep their talented staffs employed. As significant competence built up across centers in a variety of fields, diversification was sometimes even encouraged by headquarters program managers seeking competition between centers for new work.

Internal/External Division of Labor. Over the years, NASA has developed a characteristic management style in the conduct of its research and development activities. Its approach was originally nurtured by the groups from which NASA was formed (primarily the NACA centers and Army space activities) and was institutionalized during NASA's first decade, when external space expertise hardly existed, and an aerospace industry had yet to be developed from airframe companies, their suppliers, and a nascent electronics industry. A supportive academic infrastructure also had yet to be generated. In this period, it was necessary for NASA to perform a great deal of work in-house, and to provide a substantial degree of oversight to the newly formed "space-industrial-academic complex."

Procurement Policy. The critical issue of federal procurement policy has been addressed repeatedly by numerous panels and commissions for at least a quarter of a century. The Committee concludes that were the findings of these past reports to be implemented, a sufficient basis would be provided for improving the procurement system. Hence, no further detailed recommendations are made here. Worthy of note, however, is the fact that since 1965, more than 60 new procurement-related public laws have been enacted. In addition, 25 Executive Orders, 16 Office of Management and Budget Circulars, and 24 Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letters have been issued, all of which affect the procurement process directly.

Commercial Programs. At the time of its formation in 1958, NASA was assigned responsibilities extending well beyond the conduct of individual space missions. These responsibilities included enhancing the technical competitiveness of the U.S. in space-related industries, and the transfer of space derived technologies into all appropriate elements of American industry.

International Programs. Various elements of the U.S. civil space program have for a number of years involved the participation of international partners. In the case of the science program, collaborative efforts have included instrument design and construction, the interpretation of data, and the provision of entire instruments by groups of interested individuals.

Another human resources concern relates to the expected future reduction of experienced managerial talent at NASA. Today, a very large number of personnel are relatively new to the agency (Figure 16). This is illustrated by the "bimodal" age distribution of NASA employees (Figure 17). Within the past ten years the distribution of age and experience at NASA has moved from a maximum share appearing within the age brackets of 35 to 50 years to maximum occurring at 25-29 years and 45-54 years. While it is encouraging that the average age of NASA employees is decreasing, it is of concern to the Committee that the pool of talent in the 35-49 year bracket, from which future senior managers are usually drawn, is decreasing significantly.

Based on historical attrition rates, NASA will lose over half of its senior-level managers in the next 5 to 10 years. Not only must the Executive and Legislative Branches address the total compensation system to recruit and retain talent to fill these and other key positions, it must also ensure that adequate resources are provided for career development of individuals already within NASA, not only to increase the size of the talent pool, but also to grow the capabilities of persons in the pool so that they may compete most effectively for increased responsibilities.

The Space Act of 1958 provided NASA with flexibility to hire up to 425 "critical-position" personnel, but NASA has not in recent years fully utilized this flexibility. The Office of Personnel Management also has the authority to allocate an additional 800 "critical-skills" personnel to various government agencies, and NASA should ensure that it receives an appropriate share of these positions. In addition, OPM has recently increased NASA's authority to hire special non-manager "Scientific and Technical" personnel at more competitive salaries. These all are steps in the right direction -- although impacting only a small fraction of NASA's work force.

A further possibility arises from consideration of the arrangement between NASA and the California Institute of Technology for management of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In the Committee's opinion, this has provided an enormously effective means of obtaining needed technical expertise unfettered by the adverse civil service restrictions. It is a model that could have wider application as the U.S. space program expands, although its broader use requires very careful planning in the transition process.

Such possibilities lead to --

The Committee notes that current statistics on technical and scientific education within this country reveal that U.S. high school students are taking fewer science and mathematics courses than their peers in any advanced nation in the world. Further, the number of U.S. college graduates pursuing careers in science and engineering has decreased by nearly 50 percent over the past 30 years. Because NASA must draw heavily upon the engineering talents available in the U.S., we applaud NASA's active role in helping reverse these trends and encourage its continued effort in this regard.