99 



Questions For the Record— McDougaU, page 6 



6. Based on your extensive research of the United States and 

 intematiDnal space programs, what conclusion do you draw about the effect 

 of international cooperation in the area of ^)ace programs and space 

 science? What changes in our current ^)ace pdicy, if any, wouM you 

 recommend? 



Now that most developed countries have assimilated the basics of 

 launch and satellite technology, we have little to lose commercially from 

 cooperating widely in space science. The wonderful thing about a space 

 telescope, a reconnaissance of Mars, or a mission to Halley's Comet, is that 

 they are relatively free of commercial applications. Robotics and software, 

 e.g., pose certain problems, but can be isolated up to a point. Joint 

 endeavors in space science, therefore, are an exciting, high-profile 

 opportunity for cooperation. Their political effect, however, should not be 

 overestimated. Good-will missions such as the ApoDo-Soyuz Test Project are 

 the result, not the cause, of detente. Furthermore, sharing of infrastructure, 

 such as the space station, raises far thornier problems due to the potenti a l 

 for military and commercial applications. We should not let ourselves be 

 talked into sharing the station on the premise that it would prevent the 

 Europeans from building their own station or from going over to cooperate 

 with the Soviets. The Europeans will be participating in our station in large 

 part IN ORDER TO prepare themselves for their own station and shuttle 

 system. They wiU make their own pcQicy according to their own lights; we 

 cannot make their policy for them. 



As for our own space policy, it appears that the Congress will 

 soon have to update existing arrangements on the division between military 

 vs. civilian spaceflight, on military service rivalry in ^>ace, and on public vs. 

 private enterprise in ^sace. The National Commission on Space will be a 

 useful planning and study tool, as is the Office of Technology Assessment. 

 But there seems to be a growing consensus that a revision of the 1958 

 structure is now needed. D: seems to me, however, that a first step might be 

 precisely to RESTORE the structure originally provided for in 1958: a 

 National Aeronautics and Space Council to coordinate departments and 

 advise the President, and standing Space Committees in Congress to oversee 

 the expanding rcQe cf ^)ace£light in coming decades. Such a structure might 

 su ffi ce to force the release cf technology with commercial applications from 

 the Department of Defense, coordinate policies among NASA, Commerce, and 

 NO A A on appLLcations satellites and commercialization of launch vehicles, 

 and divide responsibilities for R&D and operation. If Star Wars should ever 

 reach the deployment stage (and/or long-range bombers be phased out), a 

 major reform of the Pentagon will also appear necessary. 



7. What does "world leadership" mean in a field of science mean? 

 What particular benefits accrue to the "world leader" versus "number two"? 

 Why should national policy makers care whether or not the nation is first, 

 second, or third in a given area of science? 



"World leadership" in science is a state of mind based loosely on 

 quantifiable measurements of achievement, Nobel prizes, and budgets, and on 

 expectation of future progress. In short, it's an ego-trip at best and a trap 

 at worst. When we let the half-informed impressions of others (Third World 



