Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
- l0 - approximately $37 millions, of which the NASA program accounted for $20 millions. The information indicates further that support for rocket research is decreasing: The NASA FY l969 program is nearly unchanged in support level; the National Science Foundation is generally withdrawing from support of rockets; the Naval Research Laboratory and Air Force programs are active but apparently at the expense of exhausting their reserve supply of rockets with- out expectation of adequate replacements; the Atomic Energy Commission will probably continue its program at about the same level largely, however, on a closed basis and without sharp focus on problems of upper atmospheric or space research. (The U. S. Army program was not reported; it contributes significantly to the meteorological rocket program.) At the same time that rocket support available to the research community is decreasing, costs are rising steadily: the reduction of effort is even more pronounced than the reduction in funding. Rocket experimentets consider that inadequate financial support is the principal problem in rocket research today. Funding levels, far more than technological, scientific, or operational difficulties, are the determinants in rocket research of the rate of scientific advance. Recommendations A substantial number of scientific questions bearing on the upper atmo- sphere and space are either accessible only to rocket experiments or can be answered more efficiently by sounding rockets than by other methods. Despite the modest cost of rockets relative to artificial satellites and space probes, these research opportunities have generally not been exploited as vigorously as those involving use of the latter techniques. In a period of sharply reduced budgets such as now exists, the relatively low cost of rockets and hence of the scientific results they obtain causes rockets to be a partic- ularly attractive method of conducting space research. Opportunities for research using artificial satellites and space probes have recently decreased markedly owing to budget reductions for space activi- ties. The penalties are severe: reduced scientific productivity, disbanding of experienced research teams, reduced opportunities for graduate training, and loss of momentum in scientific and technological progress. The slow-down in space research using satellites and space vehicles has the effect of increasing the availability of research talent capable of utilizing sounding rockets productively. Many groups are involved in both rocket and satellite projects and the reduction in the number of flight opportunities for large vehicles will cause them to turn to other tasks. They can be kept productively engaged in space research for relatively small cost if the number of sounding rocket opportunities is increased. Obviously, when space budgets are being severely curtailed, there is reluctance to allow expenses in any area to increase. Nevertheless, a fiscal economy can be effected while maintaining a high level of research productivity if research workers can utilize rockets rather than more expensive vehicles. A substantial
- ll - increase in support of rocket research is required, however, to compensate for the far more substantial decreases in satellite and space probe support. It is unfortunate that such an adjustment has not been effected, and that attrition of space research capability in university groups has occurred. (l) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is to be com- mended for its support of rocket research. Over fiscal years l966 to l968, funding was increased by an average of l2.5 percent annually. We believe that this rate of increase is the minimum necessary to sustain the current level of effort, with barely minimum growth, in the face of escalating costs for hardware, launch support operations, and pointing systems of increased capability. Unfortunately, this rate of increase has not been sustained in the fiscal year l969 budget, when the impact of curtailed satellite flight opportunities could have been usefully mitigated by more emphasis on sounding rocket research. We recommend that NASA restore the previous rate of increase in rocket support, achieving roughly a 36-percent increase above the FY l968 level by l97l, and a l2-percent increase each year thereafter until l975. (2) Support for rocket research by agencies other than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has not been sufficient to keep pace with escalating costs of research. National Science Foundation support has been reduced markedly and programs previously funded by NSF are being assisted with NASA funds, to the deprivation of other on-going NASA programs. The level of effort of other agencies, including the Naval Research Laboratory and the U. S. Air Force, has been sustained only by using up inventories of rocket hardware without replacement. We recommend that, to compensate for the last several years of frozen or declining funding levels, support for rocket research by these agencies be immediately increased by 36 percent (equivalent to about three years' increment) and that sufficient additional funds be allocated for replacement of depleted rocket hardware inventories. We further recommend an average annual increase of l2-percent in total support by the National Science Founda- tion, the Air Force and the Navy until l975. (3) We believe that rocket-based research provides a partial substitute to satellite research, and an alternative means, at less cost per experiment, of maintaining scientific and technological productivity. Some groups that have been utilizing satellites can turn to rockets, reversing the trend of the last decade. We recommend that, in addition to the increases recommended above, support for rocket research be increased by an appropriate ratio to compensate for any reduction in satellite support. (4) A major new requirement for rocket technology development during the last several years is related to heavier classes of payloads for x-ray and ultra-violet astronomy including related pointing and stability control systems. Many experimenters now have a need for an economically feasible
- l2 - means of launching up to l50 miles altitude experiments and related systems weighing as much as 300 Ibs. Still others need lifting capabilities for payloads in the 800-l200 Ib class. We commend NASA for the progress made in developing the new Aerobee l70 for the 250 lb/l50 mile class payload and urge that these systems be made available to the rocket research community as soon as possible. If support for rocket research is substantially increased, we recommend further development of rockets, with optional stabi- lity and pointing control systems, to meet the needs for the still heavier classes of experiments at reasonable cost. If support cannot be substantially increased, we feel that the scientific opportunities accessible to present rocket systems are sufficiently large that increased expenditures for techno- logical capabilities can be deferred. (5) Up to the present time, with relatively minor exceptions, research projects using rockets have not been charged pro rata for use of the firing range. When funding is scarce, a direct charge to the project for range use is almost inevitably entertained. If such a charge should be imposed, a further substantial decrease in rocket research will result. If the decision is made to assess a charge against the individual experi- mental group for use of the firing range, we recommend that this charge be recognized and that the budget for sounding rockets be increased accordingly.
APPENDIX Rocket Results l965-l968
