Skip to main content

Full text of "SPACE: Enhancing Life on Earth. Proceedings Report"

See other formats



12th National Space Symposium 


United Statof Snoce Foundarion 

A Symposium on 
"Home Improvement 


The Space-Based Infrared 
System (SBIRS) addresses 
critical national needs: 

♦ missile warning 

♦ missile defense 

♦ technical intelligence 

♦ battlespace characterization. 

I lughes and TRW are designing 
the next-generation space-based 
IR system that meets these needs. 

We bring proven experience and 
high performance across a broad 
spectrum of space and ground 

1 lughes and TRW. ...strengthening 
the warfighter's ability to deter 
tomorrow's threats. 





SPACE: Enhancing Life on Earth 

The most comprehensive compilation of civil, 

military, commercial, and international commentary 

by the key space policy decision makers. 


Beth Ann Lipskin 
Director of Communications, Marketing & Development 

U.S. Space Foundation 

Publishing Consultant 

Mike Royal 


Alan & Beverly Hobden 


Martha Lancaster 

Production Assistants 

Jennifer Fagala 
Marcella Hughes 


2860 South Circle Drive, Suite 2301 
Colorado Springs, CO 80906-4184 



Toll Free 

(800) 691-4000 

Technical Editors 

Larry Bagley 

Program Manager 

System Technology Associates, Inc. 

Maj. Ed Bolton, GSAF 
Chief, Spacelift Vehicle Branch 
Air Force Space Command/DR 

Lt. Col. Len Campaigne, CP 
Vice Chief, Requirements & Programs 


Ron Cole 

National Security Agency Rep. to 

Air Force Space Command 

Capt. Marty France, C1SAF 

Space Support Lead 

Air Force Space Command/XP 

Lt. Col. Rich Hand, GSAF 

Chief, National Missile Defense 

Air Force Space Command/DRDC 

Maj. Cynthia McKinley GSAF 

Strategy & Policy Analyst 

Air Force Space Command/XP 

Chuck Zimkas 

Director of Operations & Plans 

U.S. Space Foundation 



The United States Space Foundation is dedicated to the memory 
of Astronaut and Congressman Jack Swigert, who dedicated his 
life to the objectives and purposes for which this Foundation was 
exclusively created: to promote national awareness and support for 
America's space endeavors. 

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be 
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, 
electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, 
or any information storage and retrieval systems, without 
permission in writing from the publisher. 

Copyright ® 1996 by: 

United States Space Foundation 
ISBN 1-889475-00-9 

Additional copies of this publication are available from the 
address below. See the order form on page 199. 

Printed in the USA by McCormick-Armstrong 

Published in 1996 in the USA by: 

United States Space Foundation 
2860 South Circle Drive, Suite 2301 
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 
(719)576-8000 Fax: (719)576-8801 



March 14, 1996 

Warm greetings to everyone gathered in Colorado Springs for the twelfth National Space 
Symposium, sponsored by the United States Space Foundation. 

America's endeavors in space have been among humanity's greatest achievements. 
Space exploration has offered us new knowledge of the universe, new rewards in 
technology, and new opportunity to bring our world closer together by developing strong 
relationships and shared goals among nations. As we reach for the stars and beyond, our 
accomplishments in space will help us to advance peace and prosperity on Earth. 

I applaud the organizers and participants of the National Space Symposium for your 
commitment to the future. Sharing your leadership, participation, and successes in 
America's space program will pave the way to new and even greater achievements. 
By spurring interest in space exploration in our youth — the scientists, mathematicians, 
engineers, and leaders of tomorrow — you are making a long-term investment in 
America's future and in the future of the world. 

Best wishes for a most productive symposium and every continued success. 

\i\S~A CisULKJ&U^.^ 


April 7-13, 1996 


the United States Space Foundation is dedicated to carrying out its mission of 
promoting national awareness and support for America's space endeavors; and 


the world's space policy decision makers will gather at the 12th National Space 
Symposium in Colorado Springs, April 9-12, 1996, to discuss and focus on how 
space enhances life on Earth; and 


three innovative technologies, Fire-Resistant Aircraft Seats, Radiant Barrier and the 
Anti-Shock Trouser System, developed for America's space program and now widely 
used in the industry, the medical field and purchased by the consumer, will be 
inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame on April 11, 1996; 


I, Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, proclaim April 7-13, 1996, as 


in the State of Colorado. 


under my hand and the Executive Seal of the State of Colorado, this nineteenth day 
of March, 1996 


On behalf of the United States Space Foundation, welcome to 
the 12th National Space Symposium and the beautiful Pikes 
Peak region. The week's schedule is packed with exciting topics 
and events that will contribute substantially to our understanding 
and cooperation as the world becomes more engaged in space 
— in all its many dimensions. 

The theme for our meeting this year — Space: Enhancing 
Life on Earth — is most appropriate as we come together 
representing government, industry, nations and indeed, interests 
from around the globe to explore how space is improving our lives. Many of the world's 
foremost space authorities and decision makers are on hand to discuss and debate the 
critical issues facing our space-faring societies today. 

The experts will stimulate your thinking and improve your ability to succeed by offering 
insights into all aspects of contemporary space issues. Each year, participation in the 
symposium and surrounding events becomes more international which merely reflects 
the nature of research and business in the world today. 

In recognition of this important trend, we are hosting concurrently with the 12th National 
Space Symposium, the United Nations/United States International Conference on 
Spin-off Benefits of Space & Technology. Focused on developing nations, the theme for 
this meeting — Challenges and Opportunities — complements the other sessions and 
activities perfectly. The Foundation is delighted and proud to be integrating this 
international event into our exciting schedule of activities this week. 

Please take full advantage of all that is happening here at the five-star Broadmoor Hotel 
this week from the superb professional sessions and first rate industry exhibits to the 
entertaining opening ceremony and very special Space Technology Hall of Fame dinner. 


James E. Hill, General, CJSAF (Ret.) 

Chairman of the Board 

United States Space Foundation 

United States Space Foundation 

12th National Space Symposium 1996 
Table of Contents 




Bill Clinton 

President of the United States 

Roy Romer 

Governor, State of Colorado . 



General James E. Hill, GSAF (Ret.) 
Chairman of the Board 
United States Space Foundation v 

Co-Sponsored Events 

The U.S. Launch Vehicle Industry — 

Will It Survive? viii 

GPS International Association Second Annual 
Meeting ix 

G.N./G.S. International Conference on Spin-off 
Benefits of Space and Technology x 


Gnited States Space Foundation Mission . . . . xii 

Board of Directors & Officers xiii 

Gnited States Space Foundation Awards . . . .xviii 

Corporate Members xx 

Contributing Sponsors & Members xxii 

United States Space Foundation 

Volunteers and Staff xxiv 

Tuesday, April 9, 1996 

Opening Ceremony 


Dr. Jerry Brown 1 

E.P. Flemyng 1 

Alia Pfauntsch 1 


Richard R MacLeod 3 

Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 Twenty-Fifth 
Anniversary Tribute 

Gen. James E. Hill, GSAF (Ret.) 4 

Public Outreach Award 

Capt. James A. Lovell, GSM (Ret.) 5 

First Space Shuttle Flight Fifteenth Aniversary 
Thomas H. Kennedy 6 

Joint Venture in Space 

Dr. Buzz Aldrin 7 

Mission Home 

Capt. James A. Lovell, GSN (Ret.) 8 

Wednesday, April 10, 1996 

Morning Session 
Keynote Address 

Dr. Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan 11 

Space Applications and Cooperation 

Master Moderator 

Steve Scott 21 


Hon. Edward C. Aldridge 21 


Dr. Arturo Silvestrini 22 

Robert Minor 23 

Michael Gianelli 26 

Akiyoshi Takada 30 

Afternoon Session 

Earth Sensing, Communication, and 
Navigation Applications 

Master Moderator 

Steve Scott 39 


Roy Gibson 39 


Dr. John S. MacDonald 41 

Dr. Murray Felsher 44 

David T. Edwards 46 

Vice Adm. William E. Ramsey 51 

W. David Thompson 54 

Faster, Better, Cheaper 

Master Moderator 

Steve Scott 63 


Hon. Hans Mark 63 


Peter Wilhelm 68 

Dr. Edward Stone 72 

Thursday, April 11,1996 

Morning Session 

Global Security Interests in Space 

Master Moderator 

Steve Scott 81 


Gen. Joseph W. Ashy 81 


Hon. Robert Davis 82 

Brig. Gen. Willie B. Nance 86 

Maj. Gen. Robert Dickman 88 

Rear Adm. Katharine Laughton 90 

Maj. Gen. David Vesely 91 

Jeffrey Grant 93 

Symposium Luncheon Presentation 

Featured Speaker 

Hon. Daniel S. Goldin 109 

Afternoon Session 

International Space Station and Space Launch 

Master Moderator 

Steve Scott 117 


Lon L. Rains 117 


Prof. Ernesto Vallerani 117 

Dr. Alexander N. Kuznetsov 125 

Mac Evans 129 

James RNoblit 132 

Michael W. Wynne 136 

Thomas F Rogers 140 

Space Technology Hall of Fame Dinner 

Featured Speaker 

Joseph T Gorman 145 

Friday, April 12,1996 


Hon. Lionel S. Johns 149 

"TechNation" National Public Radio / Voice 
of America Radio and TV Program 

Master Moderator 

Steve Scott 153 


Dr. Moira Gunn 153 


Hon. Robert Walker 154 

Hon. Joel Hefley 154 

Hon. Lionel S. Johns 154 

Dr. Edward Stone 154 


Hon. Jake Gam 163 


Featured Speakers 1 68 

Program Participants 171 

Space Technology Hall Of Fame 179 

1 996 Symposium Volunteers 1 82 

1996 Symposium Attendees 183 

Abbreviations & Acronyms Glossary 197 

Proceedings Order Form and Membership 

Application 199 




MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1996 

8:30 AM Welcome and Introduction to Launchspace 

8:45 AM Introduction to Launch Vehicles and How They Function. 

10:00 AM Mass Ratio Limitations and the Difficulty in Getting to Orbit. 

10:45 AM Launch Vehicle ingredients and How They Go Together. 

1 1 :30 AM Launch Vehicle Design Drivers. 

12:00 Moon Lunch 

1:00 PM The Connections Between the Payload and the Launch Vehicle. 

1 :30 PM Worldwide Survey of Launch Vehicles and Sites. 

2:30 PM Cost Elements of Expendable and Reusable Vehicles. 

3:15 PM The Truth About America's Developing Launcher Programs. 

4:00 PM Adjourn 

Instructor: Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D., is the chairman of Launchspace, 
Inc., an education services company endeavoring to offer the broadest 
selection of relevant, high quality, professional development and 
continuing education courses and seminars to the space community. 
Dr. Kaplan is a specialist in the development of new launch vehicles and 
space flight concepts and programs. He has served as the Chief 
Engineer on a fully reusable launcher system in its early stages of 
development and on the Conestoga expendable launch vehicle. Dr. 
Kaplan is also a co-inventor of a new mobile, small expendable launch 
system for military applications, and he is involved in a number of other 
new booster concept developments. Your instructor is a member of the National Research 
Council's Committee on Reusable Launch Vehicle Technology Development and Test Program, and 
he has over 30 years of academic and industrial experience with launch vehicles, satellites, and 
space technologies. He was a Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the Pennsylvania State 
University and the Director of the space Research Institute. Dr. Kaplan enjoys an international 
reputation as an expert and lecturer in aerospace vehicle design, dynamics, and control. In 
addition to publishing some 75 papers, reports, and articles on aerospace technologies, he is 
the author of several books, including the text, "Modern Spacecraft Dynamics and Control." 
Dr. Kaplan holds advanced degrees from MIT and Stanford University. 





8:30 AM 

9:00 AM 

9:45 AM 

10:30 AM 


12:00 PM 

1:30 PM 

2:00 PM 

2:15 PM 

2:45 PM 

3:15 PM 

3:45 PM 
4:00 PM 

4:30 PM 

Opening Remarks 

Dr. Francis X. Kane, GIA Founding President 

"The GPS Program Status" 

Col. John P. Caldwell, USAF, Deputy Assistant 

Program Director, NAVSTAR GPS Joint Program Office 

"Geographic Information System and Mapping Management with GPS" 

Jeff Allen, GPS/GIS Project Manager, GEO Research, Inc. 

"GPS Vehicle Location for Personal Security and Recovery" 

Steven W. Riebel, President, ATX Research, Inc. 

"Japan's View of GPS" 

Thomas Kato, Director, Japan Institute for Future Technology 


Speaker: Dr. Bonnie J. Dunbar, NASA Astronaut 

Keynote Address 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, 

Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee; Science Committee, 

U.S. House of Representative 

Questions and Answers with Congressman Sensenbrenner 

Special Address: "The Global Positioning System: Assessing National Priorities" 

Dr. Scott Pace, RAND-CTI 

"New Direction in Atmospheric Remote Sensing at NOAA's 

Boulder Laboratories" 

Dr. Russell B. Chadwick, Chief-Demonstration Division, NOAA Forcast 

Systems Lab 

"Equipment Location Systems — Providing Intermodal Terminal Operators 

with Information Accuracy" 

Ken Kelley, Vice President, STC Applications 

Questions and Answers with Dr. Pace, Dr. Chadwick, and Mr. Kelley 

GIA Annual Meeting 

Dr. Francis X. Kane, Founding President and GIA Staff 


Moderator: Dr. Francis X. "Duke" Kane is the president of the GPS International 
Association and participates in government committees concerned with civil users and 
GPS technology including consulting for the Office of the Secretary of Defense on 
development of long range strategy and policy. He has served as director of strategic 
systems, Advanced Systems Development, for Rockwell International; manager of 
requirements analysis for TRW Systems Inc., which included performing studies of 
national security policy and strategy and application of technologies to emerging business 
opportunities; deputy for development plans for Air Force Space and Missile Systems 
Organizations;and special assistant to the deputy chief of staff of research and develop- 
ment in the Office of the Secretary for the Air Force. He initiated and conducted internal 
analyses of the impact of SALT and SALT II on Minuteman and MX missiles and provided 
the data to OSD and the Air Force. He holds a BS form the U.S. Military Academy, West 
Point, NY; an MA and a Ph.D. from Georgetown University. He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics 
and Astronautics and of the International Academy of Astronautics and its Space Safety and Rescue Committee. 


United Nations/United States International Conference on Spin-Off Benefits 
of Space Technology: Challenges and Opportunities 

Monday, April 8 - 

Friday, April 12, 1996 

Participating Organizations: 

National Aeronautics and Space 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 
U.S. Department of Commerce 
U.S. Department of Energy 
U.S. Federal Laboratory Consortium 
U.S. Information Agency 
G.S. Department of State 
American Institute of Aeronautics and 

United States Space Foundation 
United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs 

Monday, April 8 

6:00-7:30 p.m. 

Welcoming Ceremony & Remarks 

Richard R "Dick" MacLeod, President, U.S. 

Space Foundation 

John G. Hazlehurst, Member, Colorado 

Springs City Council 

Beth A. Masters, Director, International 

Relations, NASA Headquarters 

Adigun Ade Abiodun, Expert on Space 

Applications, United Nations Office for Outer 

Space Affairs 

Tuesday, April 9 

9:00 a.m. 

Welcome, Introductions, and Opening 


Chair: Dr. Brenda Forman, Director, Federal 
Planning & Analysis, Lockheed Martin Corp. 
Richard P "Dick" MacLeod, President, U.S. 
Space Foundation 

Adigun Ade Abiodun, Expert on Space 
Applications, United Nations Office for Outer 
Space Affairs 

9:30 a.m. 

Space Technology Applications: Evolution 


Speaker: Dr. Robert Norwood, Director, 
Commercial Development & Technology 
Transfer Division, NASA 

10.15 a.m. 
Benefits of US-Federal Research and 
Development to Society, Role of Federal 

Keynote Speaker: Dr. Catherine Woteki, 

Deputy Undersecretary for Research, 
Education and Economics, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture 

10:35 a.m. 
Panel Discussion 

Chair: Frank Penaranda, U.S. Department of 


Panelists: Dr. Catherine Woteki, Deputy 

Undersecretary for Research, Education and 

Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Dr. Robert Norwood, Director, Commercial 

Development & Technology Transfer Division, 


W. David Thompson, President, Spectrum 

Astro, Inc. 

Frank Stewart, Manager 

Golden Field Office, U.S. Department of 


James A. M. Muncy, Legislative Assistant for 

Space to Congressman Dana Rohrbacher 


12:00 p.m. 

U.NAI.S. Conference and Global 
Positioning System International 
Association (GIA) Luncheon 

Speaker: Dr. Bonnie Dunbar, NASA Astronaut 

1:30 p.m. 

U.NAI.S. and GIA Conference 

Chair: Francis X. "Duke" Kane Ph.D., GIA 
Founding President 

Introduction: Richard R "Dick" MacLeod, 
President, U.S. Space Foundation 
Keynote Address: 
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 
(R-WI), Chairman, Space & Aeronautics 
Subcommittee of the Science Committee, 
U.S. House of Representatives 

2:00 p.m. 

2:15 p.m. 

The Global Positioning System: Assessing 

GPS National Priorities 

Speaker: Dr. Scott Pace, Critical Technologies 
Institute, Rand Corporation 

2:45 p.m. 

New Direction in Atmospheric Remote 

Sensing At NOAA's Boulder Laboratories 

Speaker: Dr. Russell B. Chadwick, Chief, 
Demonstration Division, NOAA Forcast 
Systems Lab, 

3:10 p.m. 

Equipment Location Systems-Providing 
Intermodal Terminal Operators with 
Information Accuracy 

Speaker: Ken Kelley, Vice-President, STC 

Applications and Consultant to Amtech 
Systems Corp. 

3:30 p.m. 

Dr. Pace, Mr. Chadwick, and Mr. Kelley 

4:00 p.m. 

U.NAI.S. Conference Resumes 

Chair: Dr. Brenda Forman, Director, Federal 
Planning & Analysis, Lockheed Martin Corp. 

High Resolution Imaging and Data 


Speakers: Jim Frelk, Vice President, 
Government Operations, EarthWatch, Inc. 
John Neer, President, Space Imaging Co. 
Ted G. Nanz, President, SPOT Image Corp. 
M.G. Hammann, Head, Asesores en Biologia 
Pesquera S.A. de C.V, Mexico 

5:00 p.m. 

7:00 p.m. 

12th National Space Symposium Opening 

Ceremony (See Symposium Program) 

Wednesday, April 10 

8:30 a.m. 

Using Space to Enhance Life on Earth 

Keynote Address: 

Dr. Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan, Chairman, 
Government of India, Departmentof Space, 
Indian Space Research Organization 

9:10 a.m. 

Space Applications and Cooperation 
(See Symposium Program) 

1:30 p.m. 

OPTION I - Tours to aerospace technology 

firms in Colorado Springs 

OPTION II - Earth Sensing, 

Communication, and Navigation 

Applications (See Symposium Program) 

3:45 p.m. 

Faster, Better, Cheaper 
(See Symposium Program) 

Thursday, April 11 

8:30 a.m. 

U.S. Commercial Use of Space: Industry vs. 

Government Roles 

Chair: Frank Penaranda, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, U.S. Commercial Space Policy 
Speaker: Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director, 
Office of Air & Space Commercialization, 
Department of Commerce 


8:50 a.m. 

U.S. Commercial Ventures and Trends 

Speakers: Dr. George May, Director, ITD, 
Space Remote Sensing Center, Center for the 
Commercial Development of Space, NASA, 
Stennis Space Center 
Mr. Herb Satterlee, President, Resource 2 1 

9:30 a.m. 
Q& A 

Mr. Calhoun-Senghor, Dr. May and 
Dr. Satterlee 

9:50 a.m. 
International Trends 

Speaker: Ms. Anne-Marie Hieronimus-Leuba, 
Head, Office of Space Commercialization, 
European Space Agency, France 

10:10 a.m. 

Roles/Opportunities for Developing Nations 

in the Utilization of Space Derived Products 

Speaker: Dr. K.VC. Rao, Managing Director, 
ABR Organics Ltd., India 

10:30 a.m. 

Ms. Hieronimus-Leuba and Dr. Rao 

10:50 a.m. 

Successful Mechanisms for Establishing 
Commercial Partnerships & for 
Transferring Technology within a Country 

Speakers: Brenda Karasik, Far West Regional 
Coordinator, Federal Laboratory Consortium, 
Naval Command, Control Ocean Surveillance 
Center, San Diego, CA 

Gary Sera, Director, Mid-Continent Region, 
Regional Technology Transfer Center 

11:20 a.m. 

Licensing Domestic and International 

Intellectual Property 

Speaker: John Paul, Finnegan, Henderson, 
Farabow, Garrett and Dunner, LLP 

11:40 a.m. 

Ms. Karasik, Mr. Sera, and Mr. Paul 

12:00 p.m. 
Symposium/Conference Luncheon 

Speaker: The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin, 
NASA Administrator 

1:30 p.m. 

Space Technology Spin-off Sectors of 

Potential Benefit to Developing Nations 

Chair: John J. Egan, President, Egan 

1:50 p.m. 

Heathcare Telecommunications 

Speakers: Dr. W. Ferguson, MD, Director, 
Aerospace Medicine & Occupational Health, 
Division, Office of Life and Microgravity 
Sciences & Application, NASA 

Dr. A.M. House, MD, Chairman, Telemedicine 
Program, Memorial University of 
Newfoundland, Canada 
Alok Garg, Director, OPTOMECH Engineers 
PVT Ltd., India 

2:30 p.m. 

Dr. Ferguson, Dr. House, and Mr. Garg 

2:45 p.m. 

Global Monitoring and Human Health 

Speaker: Dr. Arnauld Nicogossian, M.D., 
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Life 
& Microgravity Sciences & Applications, NASA 

3:05 p.m. 

Monitoring Crop Conditions and 
Assessment of Yields Using Satellite and 
Ground-Based Observations 

Speaker: Dr. Paul C. Doraiswamy, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 
Research Service, Natural Resources Institute 

3:25 p.m. 

Telecom Africa: An Indigenous Initiative 

Speaker: Dr. Joseph Okpaku, Sr., President, 
Okpaku Communications Company, Nigeria 

3:40 p.m. 

The SALSA (Semi-Arid Land-Surface- 
Atmosphere) Program: A Multi-national, 
Multi-disciplinary Program Utilizing Remote 
Sensing and In-situ Observations with 
Speaker: Dr. David C. Goodrich, Research 
Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Department of 

3:55 p.m. 

Dr. Nicogossian, Dr. Opaku, Dr. Doraiswamy, 
and Dr. Goodrich 

5:15 p.m. 

Space Technology Hall of Fame Reception 

6:30 p.m. 

Space Technology Hall of Fame Dinner 

Speaker: Joseph T Gorman, Chairman & 
CEO, TRW Inc. 

Friday, April 12 

9:00 a.m. 


Developing Country's Involvement and 

Benefits from Space, Applications and 

Chair: Dr. Mazlan Othman, Director General, 
Space Sciences Study Division, National 
Planetarium, Malaysia 

Spin-off Benefits of Space Technology: 

Specific Industry Experience 

Speakers: Joseph Elbling, President/CEO, 
Digicon S.A., Brazil 

Professor Janusz Bronislaw Zielinski, CEO, 
Polspace Ltd., Poland 

Morteza Hosseini Abkenari, Managing and 
Technical Director, Solar Power, KGALAGADI 
Resources Development Co., Botswana 

10:30 a.m. 

Human Resources Development 

Speaker: Adigun Ade Abiodun, Expert on 
Space Applications, United Nations Office 
for Outer Space Affairs 

Dr. Jerry Brown, Director of Education, United 
States Space Foundation 

11:15 a.m. 
Featured Address: 

The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin, NASA 

12:00 p.m. 
Conference Luncheon 

1:15 p.m. 

Breakout Sessions on Space Technology 
and Spin-Off Opportunities 
Concurrent Sessions: 

1. "Space Technology in Health, Biomedicine 
and Education Applications and Human 
Resource Development" 

Breakout Chair: John J. Egan, President, 
Egan International 

Vice-Chair: Professor Boris 1. Bonev, President, 
Bulgarian Aerospace Agency, Bulgaria 

2. "Communications for Development: 
Development of Communications 
Infrastructure with Emphasis on Applications 
Opportunities in Agriculture, Natural 
Resources and Global Information Systems" 
Breakout Chair: W. David Thompson, 
President, Spectrum Astro, Inc. 
Vice-Chair: Engr. Gilbert O. Uzodike, 
Chairman, ADSWITCH PLC, Nigeria 

3:30 p.m. 

Plenary - Summary and Recommendations 

for Sessions 1 and 2 

Chairs: John J. Egan, President, Egan 

M.G. Hammann, Head, Aseores en Biologia 
Pesquera S.A. de C.V, Mexico 

4:15 p.m. 

Plenary - Summary and Recommendations 

for Session 3 

Chair: Dr. Mazlan Othman, Director General, 
Space Science Studies, National Planetarium, 

5:00 p.m. 
Closing Remarks 

United Nations-Speaker: Adigun Ade 
Abiodun, Expert on Space Applications, 
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs 
United States of America-Speaker: Beth A. 
Masters, Director of International Relations, 
NASA Headquarters 



A vigorous, successful American Space Program leading the world; that ensures 
American business leadership in space technoloqy; that requires American educational 
excellence, particularly in math, science, and technology; that produces pride in 
America, and public involvement and support of space. 

Thai l'Ronrci-s 


To promote national awareness and support for America's space endeavors 


Promote the romance and relevance of space to the public with information, 
entertainment, and products. 

Prepare K - 12 educators in using space science and technology in the classroom to 
inspire students and enhance learning. 

Provide access to information on space policy, programs, and current issues for space 
and business professionals. 

Develop and operate a Space Discovery Center theme attraction in Colorado Springs to 
support, distribute, and deliver the Foundation's programs, products, and services. 



GENERAL JAMES E. HILL, (ISAF (Ret.), Chairman 

General James Hill served as President of the Colorado Springs-based Olive Company from 
1986 to 1993, and President of the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce for several years 
after his retirement from the U.S. Air Force. He is a graduate of the University of Maryland and 
the Royal Air Force Flying School in England. Former Commander-in-Chief of the North 
American Air Defense Command, General Hill was a Air Force combat fighter ace in WWII and 
the Korean Conflict. 

WILLIAM B. TUTT, Vice Chairman 

William Tutt is principal of Tutco and Chairman Emeritus of the Colorado Springs Sports 
Corporation. He served as Vice President of the U.S. Olympic Committee and President of the 
Broadmoor Management Co. Mr. Tutt is now the the Chairman of the U.S. Olympic Festival 
Committee and Co-Chairman of the Colorado Thirty Group. Mr. Tutt serves on the Board of 
Directors for the Air Force Academy Foundation (Vice President), Norwest Banks of Colorado, 
Colorado Interstate Gas Company and previously served on the Board of Directors for U.S. West 
Communications Colorado. 

W. BRUCE KOPPER, ESQUIRE, Secretary-Treasurer 

Bruce Kopper is President of the investment counseling firm, Kopper Investment Management, 
Inc.. in Colorado Springs. Mr. Kopper is a graduate of Washington University in St. Louis, 
Missouri, with degrees in economics (A.B. 1958) and law (J.D. 1959), and is licensed to practice 
law in Missouri and Colorado. He practiced law for 28 years before entering the investment 
management business in 1987. He is a member of the Denver Society of Security Analysts and 
the Association for Investment Management & Research. 


Executive Committee Member-at- Large William Hudson's entire professional career of 31 years 
was with Coming Glass Works, now Corning Incorporated. When he retired in 1985, he was 
President of the Glass and Ceramics Group and a member of the Board of Directors, the 
Executive Committee and the Management Committee. Prior to the Group Presidency he was 
Senior Vice-President and General Manager of the Technical Products Division. Mr. Hudson lived 
in Paris, France for more than six years where he was Chairman and CEO of Coming's largest 
overseas subsidiary. He is now a Director of Analytical Surveys Inc., Colorado Springs. CO, and 
investor/advisor in several start-up companies. Mr. Hudson has a degree in Physics from 
Carnegie Institute of Technology and attended the Harvard Business School Advanced 
Management Program. 



Edward C. Aldridge, Jr. is President and Chief Executive Officer of The Aerospace Corporation, a 
nonprofit organization dedicated to the objective application of science and technology toward the 
solution of critical national problems. Previously, Aldridge served as president of McDonnell 
Douglas Electronic Systems Company. He also served in many government positions, including 
Secretary of the Air Force. Aldridge received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M 
University and earned his graduate degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology. 



Robert Anderson is Chairman Emeritus of Rockwell International and past CEO. He earned a 
Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Colorado State University, a Master's degree in 
Automotive Engineering from the Chrysler Institute of Engineering and spent 22 years with the 
Chrysler Corporation, rising to Vice President of Corporate Automotive Manufacturing. Under his 
direction, Rockwell snared the 1982 Collier Trophy for the company's work on the Space Shuttle 
Orbiter, awarded by the National Aeronautic Association for "the greatest achievement in 
aeronautics or astronautics in America with respect to improving the performance, efficiency or 
safety of air or space vehicles". He has served as Chairman of the Business Higher Education 
Forum and the Board of Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIAA). 

JAMES M. BEGGS, Director 

James Beggs is the former Chairman of the Board, SPACEHAB, Inc., and is a principal in Beggs 
International. As Administrator for NASA ( 1 98 1 ■ 1 985) he was responsible for initiating and 
obtaining President Reagan's support for the Space Station program. He was Administrator during 
22 successful shuttle flights and was responsible as the President's representative for obtaining 
cooperation in the Space Station Program of the European Space Agency, Japan and Canada. 
Mr. Beggs graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and Harvard Graduate School of Business. He 
holds six honorary degrees and was awarded the Robert H. Goddard Trophy by the National 
Space Club in 1988 


Colonel Frank Borman, USAF (Ret.) is the Chairman, CEO and President of Patlex Corporation. 
He was the commander of the 1968 Apollo 8 Mission and led the first team of American astronauts 
to circle the moon. After his retirement from the Air Force, he joined Eastern Airlines and became 
Chairman of the Board before he retired from Eastern. He is currently a member of the Boards 
of Directors of The Home Depot, AutoFinance Group, Thermo Instrument Systems and American 
Superconductor. He earned a B.S. from the U.S. Military Academy, West Point and an M.S. 
in aeronautical engineering from the California Institute of Technology. He has received the 
Congressional Space Medal of Honor and the National Geographic Society's Hubbard Medal. 
He was inducted into the International Aerospace Hall of Fame in 1990, and the U.S. Astronaut 
Hall of Fame in 1993. 


Captain Eugene A. Cernan is President and CEO of The Cernan Corporation and The Cernan 
Group, Inc. In a recent acquisition, Captain Cernan became Chairman of the Board of Johnson 
Engineering Corp. Captain Cernan was an Executive Consultant for Aerospace and Government 
for Digital Equipment Corporation from 1986-1992. From 1976 to 1981, he was International 
Executive Vice President, for Coral Petroleum, Inc. Prior to 1 976, he was a naval aviator and 
NASA astronaut. He flew three separate space missions, Gemini IX, Apollo X, and holds the 
distinction of being the last man to leave his footprints on the surface of the moon as commander 
of Apollo XVII. Captain Cernan received a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from 
Purdue University and a Master of Science in Aeronautical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Post 
Graduate School, honorary doctorates of engineering from Purdue, Drexel and Gonzaga 
Universities and an honorary doctorate from Western State College of Law. 


E.J. "Jake" Garn was named Vice Chairman of Huntsman Chemical Corporation in Salt Lake City, 
Utah, in 1993 after he retired from the U.S. Senate where he served three terms. During his 18 
years in the Senate he served as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and 
Urban Affairs, VA, HUD and the Independent Agencies Subcommittee. He received a B.S. in 
Banking and Finance from the University of Utah. He served in the U.S. Navy as a pilot and is a 
retired Brigadier General in the Utah Air National Guard with more than 10,000 hours of flight 
experience. He was invited by NASA to fly as a payload specialist on the space shuttle 
Discovery, flight 51-D, in 1984. During his 109 orbits of the earth he conducted various medical 
tests. In 1992, he was honored with the Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy. He serves on several 
boards including Dean Witter Funds of New York City, The Aerospace Corporation and the Salt 
Lake City Airport Authority. 


JAMES B. HAYES, Director 

James B. Hayes is president and CEO of Junior Achievement Inc., a nationwide non-profit 
organization which provides economic education to over 2 million students in the U.S. and an 
additional 600,000 young people in more than 85 countries around the world. Hayes has been a 
board member of that organization since 1987. In 1994, following a 35-year career at Time Inc., 
Mr. Hayes founded The New American Revolution, a not-for-profit organization. The mission of 
The New American Revolution is to rally the efforts of the U.S. business community to address 
the social, economic, and educational needs of children. An advocate for improvement of the 
U.S. public education system, Mr. Hayes established the Fortune Education Summit. Held 
annually in Washington, D.C. from 1988-1993, the Summit brought together government, 
business and academic leaders to discuss the role of the business community in education 
reform. In September of 1990, Mr. Hayes was one of 1 5 U.S. executives selected to join a presidential mission to the 
Soviet Union to discuss new business development and economic cooperation. Mr. Hayes is a former chairman of the 
board of Morehouse School of Medicine. He continues to serve on the board as well as the board of trustees of the New 
York Hall of Science, Mr. Hayes received his education at the Canterbury School and Georgetown University. 


Sam F. lacobellis is former Deputy Chairman and former Executive Vice Chairman for major 
programs for Rockwell International. He worked with key customers and Rockwell businesses 
on large government programs including the Space Station, Space Shuttle, B-1B, National 
Aero-Space Plane, Ground Based Interceptor, Brilliant Eyes and Joint Primary Aircraft Training 
Systems programs. He joined Rockwell's predecessor company, North American Aviation, in 
1952, as an aircraft design engineer. He also has served Rockwell as President of Aerospace 
Operations. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering at the University of 
California at Los Angeles. He is a Fellow of the International Academy of Astronautics and a 
Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 

DR. JOHN L. McLUCAS, Director 

Dr. John McLucas is an Aerospace Consultant, Chairman of the Board of External Tanks Corp., 
and on the Board of Directors of Orbital Sciences Corp. Dr. McLucas was Secretary of the Air 
Force from 1973 to 1975. He has served as Chairman of the International Space University, as 
NATO's Assistant Secretary for Science, President and CEO of MITRE Corporation, Under 
Secretary of the Air Force, FAA Administrator, Executive Vice President of COMSAT, President of 
COMSAT World Systems Division and President of COMSAT General. A space authority, Dr. 
McLucas is the former U.S. Chairman of the International Space Year Association and Chairman 
of NASA's Advisory Board. He is the author of the book, Space Commerce, published in April, 
1991 , by Harvard University Press. He earned his bachelor's degree from Davidson College, his 
master's degree from Tulane University and his Ph.D. from Penn State University, all in Physics. 


Bill Nelson was recently elected Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner of the State of Florida. 
He has been a practicing attorney since 1970, graduating from the University of Virginia Law 
School, J.D. in 1968, and until his election was an attorney with Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. in 
Melbourne, Florida. He served in the U.S. Army as a Captain from 1968-1970. Nelson trained 
and flew with the crew of STS-61 C, Columbia, the 24th flight of the Space Shuttle in 1986. 
Among his publications is his book, MISSION: An American Congressman's Voyage to Space. 
Nelson served with the U.S. House of Representatives from 1979 to 1991 , representing the 1 1th 
Congressional District in Florida and the Florida House of Representatives from 1972 tol978. 


Jaime Oaxaca is vice chairman of Coronado Communications Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif., 
in charge of public relations, marketing, and research. He has 37 years of experience in the 
fields of engineering, engineering management, and program management. He held various 
administrative positions including director of international and domestic marketing and long 
range planning; Vice president or missile programs and vice president and assistant general 
manager of the Northrop Corporation, Electromechanical Division; and president of 
Northrop- Wilcox Electric, Inc. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from the University 
of Texas, El Paso, and is a graduate of the School of Business at Stanford University. He is a 
Distinguished Fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of Engineering. He was the first 
recipient of the "Jaime Oaxaca" award for excellence in engineering and dedication to the 
community from the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, the Business and Industry Award from the 
Mexican-American Opportunities Foundation, and the Outstanding Engineer Merit Award from the Institute for the 
Advancement of Engineering. 



Richard D. O'Connor is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lintas:Campbell-Ewald 
Company and aBoard member of Lintas Worldwide, an international advertising agency. Mr. 
O'Connor joined Campbell-Ewald in 1956, as a trainee on the Chevrolet account and held various 
positions with the company. Mr. O'Connor is Chairman of the American Advertising Federation, 
and is a member of the Menninger Foundation Board of Trustees. He is a graduate of the 
University of Michigan. 


General Pete Piotrowski retired from the U.S. Air Force as Commander in Chief of the North 
American Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Space Command. The General 
has logged more than 5,000 flying hours, including 100 combat missions and 210 combat flying 
hours. He has received numerous awards, to include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, 
Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit and the Eugene M. Zuckert Management Award for 
1979. He graduated from the University of Nebraska at Omaha in 1965, with a Bachelor of 
Science degree. He completed postgraduate work at the University of California and Auburn 
(Ala.) University and attended the program for management development at Harvard University. 


Dr. Wesley W. Posvar is Professor of International Politics and President Emeritus of the University 
of Pittsburgh. He is a founding member and former Chairman of the Business-Higher Education 
Forum, an organization composed of the chief executives of about 30 of the nation's most 
powerful corporations and a like group of presidents of leading universities. In this capacity 
he leads efforts to improve national awareness and action in such areas as capital formation, 
international competitiveness, science and technology, research and regulatory reform. He was 
founding chairman of the Federal Emergency Management Advisory Board and of the National 
Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology. He is presently Trustee Chairman of 
the Czech Management Center in Prague. He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy where 
he graduated first in his class. He was a professor at West Point and the founding chairman of the 
Political Science Department of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Dr. Posvar is a command pilot. He flew as a test pilot at the 
Air Proving Ground in the Berlin Airlift and in combat in Southeast Asia. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, a Littauer 
Fellow at Harvard and Research Fellow at the MIT Center for International Studies. 


A former four-term United States Representative, Ken Kramer is an Associate Judge for the U.S. 
Court of Veterans Appeals. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois and the Harvard School of 
Law. Judge Kramer was a founding member of the United States Space Foundation. He served 
as a Colorado State Representative from 1973 to 1978. Mr. Kramer is a former Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Financial Management. He also served on the U.S. Air Force 
Academy Board of Visitors. 

DR. SIMON RAMO, Director Emeritus 

Dr. Simon Ramo, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of 
Science, is co-founder of TRW Inc. He has been Chairman of the President's Committee on 
Science and Technology and Chief Scientist in the development of the U.S. Intercontinental 
Ballistic Missile. He has been a member of the Advisory Council to the Secretary of State on 
Science and Foreign Affairs, the White House Council on Energy Research and Development, the 
Advisory Council to the Secretary of Commerce and the National Science Board. A visiting 
Professor at Caltech, he has been a Fellow of the Faculty of the Kennedy School of Government 
at Harvard University and Chairman of UCLA School of Medicine Planning Committee. He is the 
author of tests widely used in the world's universities. 



RICHARD P. MacLEOD, President 

Dick MacLeod was named president of the United States Space Foundation in 1988 
after serving as Executive Director since 1985. Under his leadership the National 
Space Symposium has become a premier event that provides broad pro and con 
space policy dialogue, the Foundation established, with NASA, the Space 
Technology Hall of Fame, and launched Getting Comfortable Teaching with Space, 
the cornerstone of the Foundation's educational programs. MacLeod is well known 
to many space organizations as a cooperative innovator and has served on the 
Space Policy Advisory Board for the Vice President. While a senior research fellow at the National 
Defense University, he co-authored Space — A National Security Dilemma. He concluded his 24-year Air 
Force career as chief of staff, NORAD and the first chief of staff, Air Force Space Command. He 
received a bachelor of arts in government from the University of Massachusetts and a master of arts in 
international relations from the University of Southern California. He is also a graduate of the Armed 
Forces Staff College, the National War College, the State Department Interdepartmental Seminar on 
Foreign Policy and is a distinguished graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. 

JACK FLANNERY, Executive Director 

Jack Flannery joined the U.S. Space Foundation as executive director in January 
1 99 1 . Responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Foundation he has brought 
new focus and efficiency to the organization through strategic and operational 
planning. Under his leadership, the Foundation's education programs have 
expanded dramatically and new and innovative public outreach and education 
programs have been developed. Previously vice president of Flight Safety Services 
Corporation, he was responsible for the company's Space Training Systems and 
Instructional Systems Divisions providing state-of-the-art training solutions for government and industry 
clients. Mr. Flannery, completed a 27-year U.S. Air Force career as Air Force Space Command's 
Director of Training, Standardization and Evaluation where he introduced a completely redesigned 
architecture for space operations missions training systems. He holds a Master of Business 
Administration from Auburn University and a bachelor of science in electrical engineering from the Air 
Force Institute of Technology. 


1996 United States Space Foundation Awards 

President Ronald 

Reagan congratulating 

Doug Morrow on his 

successful efforts to 

promote America's 

space programs. 


Douglas S. Morrow, born in 1913, was best known for his work in the 
entertainment industry. Among the numerous awards bestowed upon him, 
Morrow received the Academy Award for Best Screen Play in 1949 for writing 
"The Stratton Story," staring Jimmy Stewart and June Allison. Morrow also 
received the Golden Dove Award and NAACP Image Award as producer of 
the year and motion picture of the year for "Maurie" in 1973. Additionally, 
Morrow produced over 200 television programs. 

In 1984, at age 71, Morrow climbed Mount Everest to an altitude of 21,000 
feet. Interested in Morrow's physical abilities for a man his age, NASA 
approached Doug to study the physiological factors involved in such a feat. Morrow entered Astronaut 
training and a year later was NASA certified for space flight. Morrow went on to serve on NASA's Advisory 
Council and as Co-Chairman of its Subcommittee on Communications. For this work, Morrow was honored 
by both NASA and the United States Congress. 

In 1991 , the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awarded Morrow its Public Service Award 
for his outstanding efforts in supporting the national space program. 

Doug Morrow created and produced the United States Space Foundation public service television and radio 
campaign, Space Technology - This is What's In It For You. This series of public service announcements 
promoted the Earthly benefits of the American space program. 

The Douglas S. Morrow Public Outreach Award is presented in memory of the late Douglas S. Morrow; 
renown writer, film producer, space advocate and former (J. S. Space Foundation Director; to an individual or 
organization for outstanding achievement in the promotion of America's space endeavors. 


The 1996 Douglas S. Morrow Public Outreach Award is presented to the Apollo 13 movie team — Imagine 
Entertainment, MCA Universal Studios, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Astronaut Jim 
Lovell and actor Tom Hanks — for producing an extraordinary film about America's early years in space and 
its national resolve under pressure. 

The Apollo 13 movie brought American space awareness to the highest levels since the great space race of 
the 1960's and the Challenger tragedy in 1986. Director and master story-teller Ron Howard and actor Tom 
Hanks joined forces to produce an exceptionally emotional and inspiring film. Apollo 13 is about America, 
NASA, and the remarkable men and women who dedicated their lives to making this country number one in 
space. This story represents all that makes America great and proud, and astronaut Jim Lovell represents 
the best of that team. The film would not have been possible without NASA and its tremendous cooperation. 

The film was a smash hit because people see adventure in space. It generated significant interest and activity 
from the grass-roots to the U.S. Congress. Ron Howard, Imagine Entertainment, Universal Studios, and 
Tom Hanks are to be commended for this extraordinary achievement. The United States Space Foundation is 
proud to recognize Apollo 1 3 The Movie with this prestigious award. 



The United States Space Foundation Education Partnership Award was established to recognize exceptional 
achievement in promoting excellence in education. If America is to remain competitive in the global 
marketplace by retaining a position of leadership in science and technology, our educational systems must 
become more effective. 

Our young people must be motivated to achieve in education to prepare themselves to live and prosper in the 
high-tech society of the information age. 

To meet this challenge requires significant direct involvement of others in partnership with educational 
institutions. The Education Partnership Award is presented to those who have demonstrated this involvement 
working with the United States Space Foundation and who have achieved extraordinary results. Previous 
winners are: Allied Signal, 1991; U.S. Air Force Academy, 1992; NASA, 1993; The Aerospace Corporation, 
1994; and Team Vandenberg, 1995. 


The 1996 Education Partnership Award is presented to ESTES Industries for its strong support of K-12 
education programs across the country. ESTES Industries has been providing easy-to-use and exciting model 
rockets and supporting materials for educators since 1957. ESTES Industries is dedicated to improving 
science awareness and education, and largely thanks to their efforts, more than 15,000 science curricula 
across the country use model rocketry. 

ESTES Industries recently signed a partnership with the United States Space Foundation to work 
cooperatively towards improvements in space and science education across the United States. 


The United States Space Foundation Space Achievement Award is established to recognize outstanding 
achievement in space policy, space professionalism and/or space-related business. 

The future of space exploration and exploitation will require the best ideas in technology, industry, and policy. 
As humankind leaves earth to inhabit space and other worlds, the lessons of history, science, and the 
principles of law and government must go with them. 

The Space Achievement Award is presented to those who have demonstrated their dedication to the evolution 
of America's space endeavors. Last year's award was presented to Air University. 


The 1996 Space Achievement Award is presented to the American Astronautical Society for taking the lead 
in establishing a Mational Committee on Space that produced the Space for America statement. This 
statement will assist our national leaders in setting a strategic course for our nation s space activities over the 
next century and show why we should facilitate growing space activity to help meet our future needs. 

The American Astronautical Society is a national professional society exclusively devoted to astronautics. 
Through their publications, meetings and symposia, the AAS provides for a continuing exchange of interest 
among those whose careers and interests are with astronautics. 


The United States Space Foundation is proud to have the strong support of corporations and individuals who 
share the vision of an aggressive, successful American space program leading the world. They believe this 
vision is an essential component in ensuring American business leadership in space and technology critical 
to keeping our nation successful in an ever more competitive global economy. 


PARTNERS ($10,000 AND UP) 

The Aerospace Corporation 
Bechtel National, Inc. 

Hughes Space & Communications 
Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space 
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace 
Orbital Sciences Corporation, 
Space & Electronics Systems Group 

Space Age, Japan Inc. 
Spectrum Astro 

TRW Space & Electronics Group 
United Technologies Corporation 

MEMBERS ($5,000 ■ $9,999) 

Analytical Graphics, Inc. 


Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. 

Boeing Defense & Space Group 

CTA, Inc. 

Harris Corporation 

Honeywell, Space Systems Group 

KPMG Peat Marwick 

Litton Computer Services 

PRC, Inc. 

Woodmen of the World 

ASSOCIATES ($1,000 ■ $4,999) 



Kaman Sciences Corporation 

OAO Corporation 


El Pomar Foundation 
Sophron Foundation 
Strake Foundation 


FOUNDERS ($50,000 AND UP) 

Omni Magazine 

PARTNERS ($10,000 • $49,999) 

General Growth Properties/Chapel Hills Mall 

Space News 

MEMBERS ($5,000 - $9,999) 

Final Frontier Magazine 
Hystar Aerospace Corporation 
Technology Utilization Foundation 
Pasha Publications 

ASSOCIATES ($1,000 ■ $4,999) 

Estes Industries 

Kopper Investment Management, Inc. 



Frank Aries William D. Cammarano 

John W. Armstrong, Jr. Frank S. Day 

Edward G. Austin Keith Ketelsen 

Bahman Batmanghelidj Dr John L n ^^ 

James C. Berger Donald E Smith 

Shirley Brown 

Spencer Brown j ] earn how to participate as a corporate or indi- 

Howard H. "Bo" Callaway vidual contributor, please contact the United States 

Robert J. Callow Space Foundation. We will work together to 

Joseph Coors achieve mutual goals. 

J. Berry Craddock 

John Denver 

John Egging 

Richard H. Faulkner* 

Jack Flannery 

Dr. Brenda Forman 

John E. Fuller 

David I. Gies 

William J. Hybl 

Walter F. Imhoff 

John H. James 

Gilbert E. Johnson 

Ralph W. Kiewit, Jr. 

Waiter W. Krueger 

William H. Langenberg 

O.R LeCompte 

Martin List 

Harry G. MacLeod 

Richard P. MacLeod 

Scott A. Manatt 

Eugene Mitchell 

Joseph Moquin 

Jerry Novak 

John M. Olin 

Robert P. Osborne 

Janet B. Pettigrew 

Harold A. Poling 

J. Gary Seyster 

John M. Sommer 

Alvin A. Spivak 

George W. Strake, Jr. 

Virginia Swigert* 

Ruth Taylor* 

Vernon Taylor* 

Sal J. Valentino 

Jules Watson 

* Deceased 




Aerospace Industries Association 

Air Force Space Operations Association 

American Astronautical Society 

GPS International Association 

International Space University 

NASA Alumni League 

National Space Society 

National Security Industrial Association 


Ad Astra 

AT&T Wireless Service 

Broadmoor Hotel 

Earth Space Review 

Ferguson Pontiac 

Final Frontier 

Freeman Decorating Company 

Lewan & Associates Office Technology 


Phillips Business Information 

Sky & Telescope 

Via Satellite 


Air Force Space Command 

NASA Johnson Space Center - for Moon Rock 


U.S. Air Force Band of the Rockies - Moods in Blue 

United States Space Command 


Aerospace Industries Association 

Air Force Association 

Air Force Space Command 

American Astronautical Society 

American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics 

International Space University 

NASA Ames Research Center 

NASA Headquarters 

NASA Johnson Space Center 

NASA Office of Advanced Concepts & Technology 

NASA Stennis Space Center 

National Security Industrial Association 


Space Calendar 

Space Center Houston 

Space Transportation Association 

United States Space Command 

Women in Aerospace 




The Aerospace Corporation 

Allied Signal Technical Corporation 

Analytical Graphics Corporation 

The Boeing Defense & Space Group 

Computer Sciences Corporation 


Honeywell Space Systems Division 

Hughes Aircraft Corporation 

Hughes Electronics Corporation 

Hughes Information Technology Systems 

ITT Aerospace/Communications Division 

Litton Computer Services 

Lockheed Martin Corporation 

Loral Federal Systems 

McDonnell Douglas 

PRC, Inc. 


Rockwell - Space Systems Division 

Systems Technology Associates, Inc. 

TRW Space & Electronics Group 

TRW Systems Integration Group 

United Technologies Microelectronics Center 

Wang Federal, Inc. 

Westinghouse Electronics Systems 




■ % mmm 



'1* Rockwell 


Tuesday Opening Reception 



Wednesday Reception 


Space Propulsion Operations 

Thursday Symposium Luncheon 

ASTRO ===== 

Thursday Space Technology Hall of Fame Reception 







Aerospace/Communications Division 




Volunteers are key to the success of the United States Space Foundation's endeavors. Hundreds 
of volunteers work with the Foundation throughout the year. Nearly 200 volunteers are assisting in 
the 12th National Space Symposium. We salute and thank them! 


Dave Brescia 
Keith Calloway 
Diane DeGeer 
Bob Ewell 
Dean Feller 
Marty France 
Rick Hargrave 
Sheila Lemberger 
Cynthia McKinley 
John Neri 
Jim Rix 
Pat St. John 
Bret Stoneking 
Vicki Stoneking 
Brad Thome 
Frank Wisneski 

Speaker Response Team 
Transportation Co-Chair 
Transportation Co-Chair 
Question and Answer 
Speaker Response Co-Chair 
Speaker Support Co-Chair 

Speaker Support Co-Chair 
Student Tours 
Information Booth 
Space Support Forum 
Security Co-Chair 
Security Co-Chair 
Speaker Response Co-Chair 
Exhibit Support 



Richard P. MacLeod 
Jack Flannery 
Chuck Zimkas 
Doris Ralston 
Jerry Brown, Ph.D. 
Darlina Swartz 
Beth Ann Lipskin 
Holly S. Roberts 
Barbara Lauriski 


Executive Director 

Director of Operations & Plans 

Assistant Director of Operations & Plans 

Director of Education 

Assistant Director of Education 

Director of Communications, Marketing & Development 

Director of Finance & Business 

Space Discovery Store Manager 


Carol Butler 
Barbara Colclough 
Fred Colclough 
E. Penryn Flemyng 
Debbie High 
Laurie Johnson 
Pam Matthews 
Faye Nicholson 
Jane Rasplicka 
Nicola Sanchez 
Jason Theen 
Sarah Tozier 
Chris Walker 
dj Williams 

Assistant Space Discovery Store Manager 

Budget Manager 

Computer Systems Manager 

Education Program Manager 

Customer Service Representative 

Public Relations Manager 

Executive Secretary 


Staff Accountant 

Accounting Intern 

Education Resource Assistant 

Administrative Assistant 

Communications Intern 

Volunteer Coordinator/Administrative Specialist 


Opening Ceremony— A Dramatized Montage of Tributes 


Dr. Jerry Brown 

Director of Education 
U.S. Space Foundation 

Alia Pfantsch 

Russian Instructor 
U.S. Air Force Academy 

E.R Flemyng 

Education Program Manager 
U.S. Space Foundation 


Richard R MacLeod 


CI.S. Space Foundation 

Tribute to Apollo 14 & 15: 

General James T. Hill, CJSAF (Ret.) 

Chairman of the Board 
U.S. Space Foundation 

Editor's note: The moderators for the opening cere- 
mony (in astronaut suit costumes — one U.S., one 
Russian) are: cosmonaut Katya (Alia Pfauntsch), and 
astronaut Roger (Dr. Jerry Brown). Mission Control is 
an off-stage "big voice" (E. Penryn Flemyng) that 
helps with announcing and dialogue. An educational 
skit is performed for the audience that includes a golf 
cart masquerading as a lunar rover 

Roger: Fore! 

Katya: Four? Roger, you had at least a six! And the last 
two holes you had three over par. 

Honoree for Apollo 13 Movie Team: 

Captain James A. Lovell, Jr., USN (Ret.) 

Commander, Apollo 13 


Lovell Communications 

First Shuttle 15th Anniversary Tribute: 
Thomas H. Kennedy 
Center Director 

L.A. Basin Data Services Center 
Rockwell Space Systems Division 

Joint Venture in Space: 
Dr. Buzz Aldrin 
Lunar Module Pilot, Apollo 1 1 

Mission HOME: 

Captain James A. Lovell, Jr., CISN (Ret.) 

Katya: Well that may be an American first, Roger, but 
Russia was the first nation to put a satellite into orbit in 
1957. And this week, by the way, is a special anniver- 
sary for the space program. Do you remember which 
one that is, Roger? 

Roger: Of course I do. It's the 15th anniversary of 
America's first Space Shuttle flight. 

Katya: Oh, you Americans have such a short view of 
history, Roger. April 12th is the 35th anniversary of the 
first man in space. Yuri Gagarin, a Russian, made that 
historic mission. 

Roger: Well Katya, here in America, fore is a golf term, 
and that means watch out, 'cause my ball's gonna be 
coming somewhere in your area. 

Katya: In Russia, cosmonauts do know how to count 
and they do not forget how many shots they had on 
the last two holes. 

Roger: Oh, yeah. Well, we're really lucky that Alan 
Shepard on Apollo 14 taught us how to play golf in 
space. He was the first man to play golf in outer 
space. Great interstellar golf! 

Roger: You're right, Katya, and when we stop to think 
about it, that wasn't all that long ago. As they say in 
America, we've come a long way, baby. 

Katya: Hey! Mission Control, who are all these people 
and why are they listening to us? Are they cleared? 

Mission Control: Well, Travolta One, you have strayed 
off course a bit (no pun intended) and you've ended 
up at one of America's finest golf resorts. But in 
America, we tend to mix business with pleasure — 
which you and Roger seem to have caught onto very 
well — and here tonight, is the opening ceremony for 
the 12th National Space Symposium. These people 


are among the world's leaders in space and have gath- 
ered to discuss the important issues of our future in 
space. It might be something you two would be inter- 
ested in. 

Katya: That sounds pretty heavy! But, who's in charge 
of all that? In Russia, always there is someone in 

Mission Control: The United States Space Foundation 
is sponsoring this program, and all the key participants 
from government and industry are represented. This 
year is extra special because we also have the United 
Nations Conference on Space Technology Spinoff 
Benefits, with representatives from countries around 
the world here with us. 

Roger: Hmmm. That sounds even more impressive. 
Mission Control, who is this United States Space 
Foundation? Do you have something that can tell us 
about them? 

Mission Control: Roger, Roger. Here is a short video 
to do just that. 

Editor's note: The video, Promise of Space, is shown. 
Following are quotes and a narration from that video: 

"Space encompasses everything that you think 
about. " 

"Space is just such an exciting topic. " 

"NASA can be so professional in the way it does its 
business that it makes the exciting mundane. We're 
trying to make it exciting again for the American 
people. " 

The United States Space Foundation was founded in 
1983 with the goal of promoting national awareness 
and support for space endeavors. Most of the people 
in America today don't wake up thinking about space. 
That wasn't true 25 or 30 years ago. 

"As a child I was enraptured with the Mercury, 
Gemini and Apollo missions, and assumed every- 
body else carried that level of excitement." 

"I think we need to work on the next generation. " 

To reach the next generation, the U.S. Space 
Foundation reached out to America's teachers with an 
innovative, one week course. 

"My kids love space. " 

"More than 5,000 teachers have been through our 
training program. " 

"So the questions that I was thinking about and 
learned about the answers to in "Getting Comfortable 
Teaching With Space, I was able to bring to the stu- 

"How do you get into space? Can we live in space? 
Would you like to go to space when you grow up? 
How do you think you'll get there? And it starts them 
thinking about those ideas." 

"Kids need role models. Astronauts are great role 
models. They're real heroes and heroines. They risk 
their lives for what they believe in. " 

"This is where it starts. Their creative ideas that start 
now will grow. " 

"When you've got excited teachers and excited kids, 
you get excited parents. It works. " 

Many people don't know much about space beyond 
Neil Armstrong landing on the moon. So the U.S. 
Space Foundation opened a space store to reach out 
to the public. Here people can learn about spinoffs, 
technologies that were developed for use in space and 
adapted for use here on Earth. 

"Cordless drilb originally were designed by the Black 
and Decker Company for use on the moon. What we 
wanted to do was drill down through the moon's 
soil, but we didn't have any electric lines ninning 
across the surface of the moon. So what they did 
was put batteries in these drilb and use them on the 
moon. " 

"The American people experience everyday tremen- 
dous benefits from the space program and most don't 
even know about it. " 

"If you look at medical science, for example, one of 
the main spinoffs that has recently come about is the 
cool suits. Cool suit garments which were designed 


to keep the astronauts cool in the high heat space 
environment are now being adapted down here on 
Earth for individuals with multiple sclerosis, [or indi- 
viduals who work in high heat environment like fire- 
fighters. " 

"Spinoffs have far exceeded what NASA thought they 
would originally do. " 

"The best example of using space for national securi- 
ty recently was the Gulf War. It was one of the most 
intense wars we've had in this half century, and it 
was decisive and it was space that made it possible. " 

Space technology spinoffs have reached every corner 
of the globe and now the U.S. Space Foundation 
reaches space professionals around the world. 

"Conquering the final frontier is drawing experts from 
the space industry to Colorado Springs. " 

"The National Space Symposium has become the 
mecca for the professionals in space throughout the 
world. " 

"Our annual National Space Symposium is a Who's 
Who in space. The top people are there. They're 
speaking, they're accessible, you can come and hear 
the latest thinking, the latest controversies. " 

"The visionary people who started the Space 
Foundation believed that the American people had to 
know more about their own program. " 

"The U.S. Space Foundation is about excitement, it's 
about realism. It's about what really happens in our 
daily lives. " 

"I think space opens for us a huge vista of energy 
and resources, and it allows mankind to do what 
mankind does best, which is to explore the unknown. 
That's why we should be looking toward the future in 
space. Space is our future. " 

Katya: Wow! That was pretty good. In Russia, we also 
believe space is our future. You know, maybe we need 
a space foundation over there to bring all these people 
together to play golf. 

Roger: Katya, I think you missed the point. They are 
here to mix business with pleasure, not to mix pleasure 

with business or pleasure with golf. Anyway, you'd 
think this United States Space Foundation would have 
somebody here to tell us about who they are and what 
they do, wouldn't you? 

Katya: Yeah. Mission Control, what about that? 

Mission Control: Roger, Roger— and Katya. Ladies 
and gentlemen, the president of the United States 
Space Foundation, Mr. Richard R MacLeod. 

Mr. MacLeod: Thank you, Mission Control, and good 
evening, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of our distin- 
guished board of directors and our staff and many vol- 
unteers, welcome to the 12th National Space 
Symposium. It's called "Space: Enhancing Life on 
Earth." That's our theme of this year's symposium. 
International cooperation is the underlying principle. 
As exemplified by our dynamic duo of cosmonaut and 
astronaut who are moderating this evening, space has 
become more than ever, a global endeavor. It is truly 
an international pursuit. 

As Neil Armstrong said when he made that first 
step onto the moon, "It's a giant leap for mankind." 
Space indeed holds the future for all of humankind 
and now, nearly 40 years after that first Sputnik, we are 
at the threshold of some marvelous adventures in 
space. And the most exciting part is that we have 
made this transition from the early days of the great 
space race between competing superpowers, to inter- 
national cooperation so more resources are focused in 
a truly global effort. 

On that note, I would like especially to wel- 
come our United Nations Conference participants and 
other international guests here tonight. With a special 
welcome to the conference host, Dr. Adigun Ade 
Abiodun of the United Nations' Office of Outer Space 
in Vienna. We're also honored to have with us U.S. 
Representative Douglas Peterson from Florida. 

A special welcome to our Colorado Springs 
community guests. The support for the Foundation 
locally is important and we offer this evening as a 
small token of our appreciation. 

I'd like to recognize now, Lt. Gen. Paul Stein, 
superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy, and his 
wife, Carol. 

Reflecting the community support that we 
have, and perhaps representative of a great spirit, I'd 
like to give special recognition now to Mr. John 
Thorpe, chairman of Analytical Surveys Inc., and his 
wife, Rosemary. They established a charitable remain- 
der trust to equally benefit three universities and the 
United States Space Foundation. This is a great exam- 
ple of the tangible financial support as well as the 


moral support we receive from our community and 
which we prize. We hope that others will follow their 

Of course, the participants of the symposium 
are what this is all about, so a warm welcome to all of 
you. We have an impressive line-up of sessions with 
the leading space decision-makers from around the 
world. They're here to challenge your preconceptions 
over the next few days. And with all the available space 
sold out last September, the exhibits this year are big- 
ger and better than ever. You can see them during the 
reception following this program. 

The U.S. Space Foundation is fortunate to 
have a truly distinguished board of directors, many of 
whom are here tonight. They give their time and 
finance their own travel to come and help us with their 
own thoughts and with their introductions to others. To 
each of you, our directors, thank you for everything 
that you continue to do and will do in the future. 

Finally, America indeed needs real heroes rather 

than just sports figures and movie stars. 

Kids need role models. Kids and adults need 

examples of courage and dedication. 

Finally, America indeed needs real heroes 
rather than just sports figures and movie stars. Kids 
need role models. Kids and adults need examples of 
courage and dedication. History is full of examples of 
heroes who have influenced the outcome of world 
events. Well, we have some of those people here 
tonight — our American astronauts. A warm welcome 
to all of you. They will be introduced to you tonight in 
the course of the program. 

With that, Mission Control, over to you. 

Mission Control: Roger, Roger. Katya, Mission 
Control. Dick mentioned the early days of the space 
program and the race to the moon. In keeping with 
the symposium tradition of recognizing the anniver- 
saries of those milestones in space history, we have 
some of the family members of the Apollo 14 and 15 
missions here tonight. Would you and Roger please 
escort them onto the stage? 

Katya: Roger, Mission Control. Perhaps you could 
show this very distinguished audience a brief summary 
of those exciting times. 

Editor's note: At this point a video of the Apollo 14 
and 15 missions is shown with Mission Control nar- 
rating. Following is that narration. 

Mission Control: Well Katya, Apollo 14 launched in 
January 1971 as the fifth American mission to the 
moon, with Alan Shepard, Stuart Roosa, and Ed 
Mitchell. It made the third landing on the moon in the 
Fra Maro Highlands, the intended destination of Apollo 
13. Everyone remembers Alan Shepard's golf swing in 
which he tried to set a record for the longest drive. In 
fact, he only had a 20-yard drive. 

Then Apollo 15 departed for the moon in July 
1971 with Dave Scott, Al Worden and Jim Irwin. Jim 
Irwin and Dave Scott landed at Hadley Rille and were the 
first two to drive the Lunar Rover around the surface. 

Roger: It's hard to believe that was just 25 years ago. 
Mission Control, Roger here, do we have anything to 
help these people remember this fine mission and 
commemorative event? 

Mission Control: Roger, Roger. Ladies and gentlemen, 
the chairman of the board of the United States Space 
Foundation, General James E. Hill, USAF, (Ret). 

Gen. Hill: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Let 
me add my warm welcome to all of you and reinforce 
what Dick has already said about the exciting program 
we have lined up for you this week. 

But as we deal with contemporary space issues 
and debate how best to meet the challenges of the 
future, it is important to pause and remember those upon 
whose shoulders we are building our future in space. 

The great space race of the 60s and 70s was 
exciting. It was thrilling. It was adventurous. And it was 
dangerous and costly. We owe a great debt of grati- 
tude to those who ran that race and to the people who 
supported them — especially their families. 

Tonight, although the Apollo 14 and 15 astro- 
nauts themselves could not be here, some family 
members are. I am proud to present them with the 
U.S. Space Foundation commemorative trophies for 
their courage and true dedication to the ideals of our 
space program. The others will receive their mementos 
later. Joan Roussa, wife of Stuart Roussa and her 
daughter, Rosemary. 

Mrs. Roussa: Thank you. On behalf of my late hus- 
band, who thought there was nothing more important 
than the exploration of space and was so pleased to be 
a part of it, I thank you. 

Rosemary Roussa: It's a pleasure for us to be here 
tonight and honor my father on the Apollo 14 twenty- 
fifth anniversary. We're glad that we can represent him 
here tonight. Thank you. 


Gen. Hill: And Joe Irwin, Jim Irwin's son. 

Katya: That was really pretty good. You know, you 
Americans are really into celebration and recognition. 
But the 60s and 70s were pretty exciting times for us 
as well. Something about competition gets people 
stirred up — right Comrade General? 

Gen. Hill: That's right, Katya. But you know, public 
awareness is important even when we aren't in a fierce 
competition. The public should know what's going on 
in space today just as much as they did back then. 

The U.S. Space Foundation encourages that in 
several ways, one of which is through the Douglas S. 
Morrow Public Outreach Award. This annual award, 
created in the memory of one our late directors, is pre- 
sented to the people and organizations that have made 
a significant contribution to increasing the public 
awareness of space. This year's award is being pre- 
sented to the Apollo 13 movie team. 

Mot since the heydays of the 60s and 70s has 
such enthusiasm for space been generated as with the 
remarkable film directed by Ron Howard and starring 
Tom Hanks. The film epitomizes the spirit of the space 
race and the character of the men and women who 
dedicated their lives to its success. It shows the team- 
work and resourcefulness that is present even today as 
we cooperatively pursue each greater space achieve- 

Here is a reminder of the film I am sure you all 
have enjoyed this past year. 

Editor's note: A short clip of the Apollo 13 movie is 
shown at this time. 

Here tonight to accept the award on behalf of 
Universal Studios, Imagine Entertainment, NASA, and 
the entire team is Apollo 13 Commander, Navy Capt. 
Jim Lovell. 

Jim, you and the Apollo 13 movie team 
brought America's space awareness to new levels with 
that marvelous film. More than that, the film's mes- 
sage reminded America of its greatness and reinforced 
its leadership role in this rapidly changing world. 

We all need to be reminded regularly of who 
we are and where we are headed, lest we become too 
engrossed in the day-to-day matters and, as a society, 
lose sight of the important role space plays in our 

On behalf of the United States Space 
Foundation, please accept this recognition of the 
extraordinary contributions you, Imagine 

Entertainment, Universal, and NASA made to the 
cause of space awareness. 

Capt. Lovell: Thank you Jim Hill. I agree, the Apollo 
13 movie was successful beyond my wildest dreams. 
When Jeffrey Kluger and I decided to write the book, it 
was to keep a commitment to Jack Swigert. As many 
of you know, the U.S. Space Foundation was originally 
dedicated to Jack's memory. Then, when Imagine 
Entertainment decided to make a film from the book, 
of course we really got excited. 

Only master storyteller Ron Howard could bring 
the story to life and recreate the drama as it really hap- 
pened. And I don't know anyone that could have put 
more heart into being a young Jim Lovell than Tom 
Hanks. The thrill of working with those two — and all the 
others, too — rivaled the actual mission many years ago. 

Of course, neither the mission nor the movie 
would have been possible without NASA and all the 
professionals who continue to dedicate their profes- 
sional careers to the important business of keeping 
America moving in space. We are indeed fortunate to 
have that kind of leadership and drive as part of our 
American heritage. 

On behalf of all those I just mentioned, thank 
you very much. 

Not since the heydays of the 60s and 70s has 

such enthusiasm for space been generated as 

with the remarkable film directed by Ron Howard 

and starring Tom Hanks. The film epitomizes the 

spirit of the space race and the character of the 

men and women who dedicated 

their lives to its success. 

Mission Control: Katya, Mission Control. 

Katya: Roger, Mission Control, go ahead. 

Mission Control: We Americans do seem to view that 
Apollo era as the heyday of the space program. What 
was Russia thinking at the time? 

Katya: Well, we of course had planned to be the first 
on the moon. But then, we refocused our efforts to 
much longer-term experience, learning how to live and 
work in space. Our Soyuz spacecraft was very much 
like your Apollo module. And we were perfecting our 
automatic docking capabilities in space. 

Roger: It was only a little over 20 years ago that 


America and Russia accomplished the historic first 
handshake in space. Yeah, I remember it was Tom 
Stafford, Vance Brand and Deke Slayton, and they 
were in an Apollo capsule with a Soyuz spacecraft 
docking up there in orbit. But in those days neither 
country really had much trust in the other one. 

Katya: And it would be years later before true cooper- 
ation happened. 

Roger: Well, while the Russians were concentrating on 
living and working in space with their cosmonauts in 
their space station, we were really working on a 
reusable space vehicle. America focused on this space 
vehicle which we now call the shuttle. But as with most 
pioneering efforts, it took until 1981 before John 
Young and Bob Crippen could actually get that shuttle 
into space — Columbia — and it was a marvelous 

Mission Control, do we have anything to 
remind this fine group of people about the excitement 
that mission caused? 

We are living in very exciting times for space 
exploration. Not just because we are becoming 

more capable in getting there, but rather 
because we are no longer competing in non-pro- 
ductive ways, we are now cooperating on an 
international level better than ever before. 

Mission Control: Roger, Roger. House lights are com- 
ing down. 

Editor's note: A video clip on the 15th anniversary 
of the first shuttle flight is shown. 

Mission Control: Ladies and gentlemen, from 
Rockwell Space Systems Division, Mr. Tom Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy: It's hard to imagine but it's true. That 
first shuttle flight took place 15 years ago this coming 
Friday — and what a thrill it was. 

In the 1970s our national space interest had 
shifted from space exploration to space use, and the 
translation of technology into practical products and 

To do this new job, NASA needed a new vehi- 
cle — one that could fly over and over and carry work- 
ing crews and tons of cargo into Earth orbit. Reus- 
ability, versatility, reliability, and efficiency were the 
requirements. Space Shuttle was the answer. 

The Rockwell team was given the major task 
of producing a new breed of spacecraft for the nation. 
We developed and built the six shuttle orbiters and 
main engines, but that's only the beginning of our 
contributions. We also helped NASA integrate the 
shuttle system, maintain the technical integrity and 
configuration, meet the logistics requirements and 
provide operations support for the shuttle fleet. 

The 76 shuttle missions since April 12, 1981, 
attest to Rockwell's unique role in America's space tri- 
umphs as the premier supplier of space systems and 
services which have substantially advanced the fron- 
tiers of space. 

And now, Dick will you please join me on the 

In commemoration of this 15-year milestone, 
Rockwell is pleased to present to the United States 
Space Foundation this 1:50 scale model of America's 
Space Shuttle to use in advancing its important mis- 
sion of promoting national awareness and support 
for America's space endeavors. 

Editor's note: The shuttle model is unveiled at this time. 

Mr. MacLeod: Thank you, Tom. Rockwell has been a 
key partner in America's space effort and we appreci- 
ate all the great support you've given the U.S. Space 
Foundation over the years. We will certainly put this 
newest contribution to good use. 

Katya: Wow! 1 thought the Russians spent a lot of time 
looking back at the past. Do you spend lots of time 
looking into today and the future? After all, that's 
where we're all going to spend the rest of our lives. 

Roger: That's right, Katya, but remembering the past 
is important to doing the future right. And this has 
been sort of setting the stage for what I understand 
Mission Control has in store for us next. 

We are living in very exciting times for space 
exploration. Not just because we are becoming more 
capable in getting there, but rather because we are no 
longer competing in non-productive ways, we are now 
cooperating on an international level better than ever 

Mission Control, are you still there? 
Mission Control: Roger, Roger. 

Roger: Can you pull up another video and inform the 
folks what I'm talking about? 

Mission Control: Roger, here's another video. 


Editor's note: At this time a video, 'Joint Venture in 
Space" is presented. Following is the narration from 
that video. 

Mission Control: Ladies and gentlemen, one of the 
first two men to walk on the moon, Astronaut Buzz 

These groups of engineers are more than 
8,000 miles apart, working together on the same prob- 
lems, to devise and build a docking system that will 
join America's Space Shuttle Atlantis to the Russian 
Space Shuttle, MIR, in an historic series of missions 
that have already begun. 

A rendezvous and docking in space has all the 
elements of a graceful ballet, until you consider the 
size and weight of the dancers and their fragility in this 
hostile environment. Current plans for Russian and 
American cooperation in space are long term. This 
time, the rendevous and docking of Atlantis and MIR 
will join Russia and the United States in the greatest 
international joint venture of all time. Multiple space 
missions between American shuttles and the MIR 
Space Station that will lead to construction of the 
International Space Station, with partners from a num- 
ber of nations around the world. And this time, Bruce 
Brandt and Vladimir Syromiatnikov are working togeth- 
er again to design and build the vital docking system. 
Brandt as chief engineer of the Oribter Docking 
Module for Rockwell, the U.S. contractor, and 
Syromiatnikov as chief of large deployable space struc- 
tures and electromechanical systems for the Russian 
RSC, Energia, a sub-contractor to Rockwell. 

Perfecting such a sophisticated device across 
half the world has not been easy. Both the shuttle and 
MIR are equipped with the Russian designed system. 
Development testing of dynamic performance led to 
modifications for damping, to accommodate the large 
masses of the orbiter and the MIR. Mechanical cycling 
and loadings revealed several problems that resulted in 
redesign, and the system electrical integration required 
changes so that existing U.S. and Russian hardware 
could be compatible. 

The Space Shuttle commander must align the 
shuttle docking mechanism with that of the MIR, 
maneuvering the massive shuttle with its thrusters and 
using this docking target as his guide. The mechanism 
is in the ready-to-dock position. As the shuttle 
approaches the MIR, thrusters on the shuttle acceler- 
ate the big craft to bring the docking quarts into con- 
tact at the final moment. Hundreds of hours of simula- 
tion and tests by both American and Russian engi- 
neers and technicians are helping guarantee mission 
success and to bridge the huge separations of time, 
distance and language. 

There are no boundaries in space, and from 
space no boundaries visible on Earth. Russian and 
American spacecraft will meet in friendship and coop- 
eration in this joint venture in space. 

Dr. Aldrin: Thank you, Mission Control. Good evening, 
everyone. We've spent some time looking back at our 
brief history in space tonight and as our good friend, 
Roger the astronaut, here said a few minutes ago, 
that's important to doing the future right. That video 
did a marvelous job of demonstrating how we are 
indeed learning from the past and doing better in the 
future. International cooperation is how our human 
species is going to advance in space. And I couldn't be 
happier to see America's finest up there docked with 
the MIR Space Station working and learning together. 
As most of you know, Colorado Springs' own Ron 
Sega and his wife Bonnie Dunbar have both visited 
MIR in this last year. Ron just returned from his last 
mission there a week ago Saturday. He really tried to 
be here tonight but his debriefing schedule just would- 
n't allow that. And Bonnie was here — I talked to her 
earlier today— but she's now en route back to Houston 
for an early work call tomorrow morning. 

A rendezvous and docking in space has all the 

elements of a graceful ballet, until you consider 

the size and weight of the dancers and their 

fragility in this hostile environment. 

On their behalf, and really I think I speak for all the 
astronauts, current and of my generation, let me say 
what a marvelous thing it is to see Russia and the 
United States cooperating today, rather than compet- 
ing as we did in the past. I can't stress enough the 
importance of our continued pursuit of space accom- 
plishments as a human species. 

And no event does it better than this National 
Space Symposium. The theme, Enhancing Life on 
Earth, and the international flavor this year, particularly 
with the United Nations Conference integrated into the 
program, is what it's all about. And I must commend 
the Gnited States Space Foundation for its great work 
in pulling it all together. Working together toward a 
brighter future is what it's all about. Not just for the 
fortunate few like Ron Sega, Bonnie Dunbar, Jim 
Lovell and me, and, of course, Katya and Roger, but as 
nations of this global village so that someday the 
human species will have a much better life. As the 
theme of this symposium puts it so well, space is 
enhancing life here on Earth. And our living and work- 
ing there is what will continue to make life better and 
better. It's a pleasure and a privilege for me to be here 
tonight, and I'm looking forward to the next few days 
of discussions. Thank you very much. 


Katya: That was just beautiful! I couldn't have said it 
better. I couldn't have said it at all just a few years ago 
because our countries didn't have the openness and 
interest in cooperation, right? 

In any case, it's such a shame more people 
don't have an opportunity to hear and understand how 
important it is for us — for all of us to work together 
and push the boundaries of technology. If there were 
only a way to get the story to more people . . . 

Yes, Apollo 13 brought three astronauts home 
safely. But for average Americans, what does the 

space program today bring home to their fami- 
lies, to their world? What promotes their values? 

Capt. Lovell: Well, Katya, There is a program 
designed to do just that. Planning for it was initiated by 
the United States Space Foundation here at this very 
symposium last year. An alliance, including the CI. S. 
Space Foundation, the National Space Society and 16 
of the leading aerospace companies, is implementing 
this program through an international professional 
communications firm, Fleishman-Hillard. I am the 
chairman of this new multi-year program called 
Mission HOME — Harvesting Opportunities for Mother 
Earth — and we just had the kick-off event starting this 
program at the Air and Space Museum in Washington, 
D.C., two weeks ago. 

Katya: That sounds wonderful. Can you tell us more 
about that? 

Capt. Lovell: I'm glad you asked. America's space 
community — civilian, military, commercial — has com- 
mitted itself to a new, multi-year program of apprecia- 
tion and support called Mission HOME. As an astro- 
naut who had some pretty exciting times up there, I 
know the American public finds the space program 
very exciting. But after a shuttle launch, or a dramatic 
new discovery by the Hubble Telescope — or even after 
a couple of white knuckle hours watching Apollo 13 — 
for most Americans it's back to the real world, their 
jobs, and their hectic day-to-day lives. 

Yes, Apollo 13 brought three astronauts home 
safely. But for average Americans, what does the space 
program today bring home to their families, to their 
world? What promotes their values? 

Those of us in the space community, know the 
answers. We know that every dollar spent in this day of 
strict priorities and stricter budgets returns much more 
to our lives and to our society. But do others know 
that? Have we made ourselves clear? Have we demon- 
strated our value well enough to earn the support we 

deserve? We owe it to ourselves and the public to be 
sure the answer to those questions is a resounding 

This program is a challenge to all of us. It is 
our call to action. Space is critical to our future. Our 
challenge is to show that however far we reach, howev- 
er distant the frontiers we cross, the mission of the 
U.S. space community can be found right here at 
home. Every mission outward is a mission home. 

Bringing home a richer, better, safer, healthier, 
more secure life. Predicting local weather. Assuring 
national security. Providing news from around the 
world and supporting business transactions between 
global markets. Hastening advances in medicine and 
technology. These are the everyday dividends of space. 

However, now more than ever . . . the space 
community must prove its value to a skeptical 
American public, distracted by competing priorities 
and accustomed to the miracles of space. Only by 
engaging in a national dialogue can our mission suc- 

That is what Mission HOME intends to do — to 
take space to the American people — to build under- 
standing, enthusiasm and support for our G.S. space 
efforts. Our goal is not only to teach Americans about 
space, but to learn from them how space endeavors 
can do a better job of increasing human knowledge 
and improving life on Earth. 

As chairman of the Mission HOME program, I 
am confident that we will be able to earn America's 
support as we move into the 21st century. And we will 
have a lot of help in this cause. We are in the process 
of assembling an advisory board that represents a true 
cross section of America from all walks of life — medi- 
cine, sports, business, education, science, politics, 
defense, and entertainment. And 1 plan to work with 
this group to achieve three key goals. 

First, to inform Americans of the many ways 
space improves our lives here on Earth. 

Second, to rekindle the excitement of discovery 
and the desire to push back the edge of our knowl- 

Third, through the town halls and other public 
dialogues, to give the American public more input into 
the programs and goals of the space community. 

If America backs away from space, in any way, 
we will pay a high price. We will cede leadership to 
others in perhaps the No. 1 can't-miss growth industry 
of the 21st century. We will jeopardize our ability to 
protect G.S. priorities in the new world order. Space is 
the greatest bridge to a peaceful world that we will ever 
know. Space technology — and its potential to improve 
human life — is the Peace Corps of the 21st century. It 
is perhaps the most valuable tool America has to offer 
developing nations. And we should do that. 


The teachers of this nation have found that 
space is a great educational tool. Their programs are 
not designed simply to make future astronauts or 
space scientists, but to take advantage of the natural 
fascination that kids have for space. If we don't use 
space effectively at home, we will deny ourselves a vast 
opportunity that is improving life in many, many ways 
here on Earth. But perhaps most important of all, we 
will back away from the single biggest challenge of all 
time — the ultimate quest to take humankind far 
beyond our planet. We cannot default on our pioneer 
legacy — we must continue to lead the quest for knowl- 
edge that defines humankind. 

And, with this Mission HOME program, we are 
taking specific steps to ensure that space endeavors 
remain an integral part of the American experience. 

Now here's a short video that captures the fla- 
vor of this exciting new program — Mission HOME. 
Mission Control, can you run that last video clip here 
for us, please? 

Mission Control: Roger, Jim. Here it comes. 

Editor's note: The Mission HOME video is shown at 
this time with quotes from John F. Kennedy, Ronald 
Reagan, newsmen and astronauts, plus newsclips 
from various launches. 

Capt. Lovell: To conclude this evening's opening cere- 
mony, we want to have a little fun. When I travel 
around the country talking with the American people, I 
have found that space is still fun and is very exciting. 
And when we did the kick-off event at the Air and 
Space Museum a couple of weeks ago, we had some 
fun with a countdown. A group of school children were 
on hand to help. 

Mission Control, since kids represent our 
future, can you help me get a group of them out here 
to assist me with a countdown? 

Capt. Lovell: OK, kids. You ready for the countdown? 

Mission Control: Jim, shouldn't everyone join in on 
this one? 

Capt. Lovell: Absolutely. Why don't we start with one 
of my personal heroes, one of America's first moon 
walkers. Buzz, why don't you come up here? 

Katya: And Gen. Jim Hill, the chairman of the U.S. 
Space Foundation. General, come up here. 

Roger: And Mr. Dick MacLeod, president of the United 
States Space Foundation. 

If we don't use space effectively at home, we 

will deny ourselves a vast opportunity that 

is improving life in many, many ways here 

on Earth. 

Mission Control: The families of the Apollo 14 and 15 

Katya: Mr. Tom Kennedy from Rockwell Space 
Systems Division. 

Capt. Lovell: Mission Control, as chairman of the new 
Mission HOME campaign, I'd like to ask you to initiate 
the countdown to "Take Up Space." 

Mission Control: Roger, Jim. Ladies and gentlemen, 
boys and girls, please join astronaut Jim Lovell and all 
his colleagues on stage with him in a countdown to 
"Take tip Space." Ready? Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, 
five, four, three, two, one, zero — take up space! 

Mission Control: There is nothing Mission Control 
wouldn't do for you, Jim. You know that from personal 
experience, don't you? OK, kids, let's get on out here 
and help Capt. Lovell with his latest requirement. 

Editor's note: At this point group of children form 
Foothills Elementary School in Colorado Springs sur- 
round Jim, Roger, and Katya at center stage. 

Roger: This is our future — kids, children of all ages, 
from all countries. This is the future looking at you 
and we hope for them a better life just as your parents 
have worked for a better life for you. 

Editor's note: A slide saying "Take Up Space" on 
screen flashes as the countdown finishes. 

Mission Control: (Ah, oh! Colorado Springs, we have a 
problem. All personnel must immediately evacuate the 
stage area. I say again, all personnel must immediately 
evacuate the stage area. And everyone remain calm 
and remain in your seats. We have just received notice 
of an alien spacecraft making an approach to the 
stage landing site. 

Editor's note: A spacecraft (Hystar) appears from the 
back of the room and flies to center stage where it is 


engulfed in smoke and light. 

Mission Control: tin, Roger, Katya. We are receiving 
signals that they want you to join them on some galac- 
tic links to improve their understanding of this strange 
earthly activity called golf. 

Editor's note: The moderators "board" the spacecraft. 

Mission Control: Ladies and gentlemen, boys and 
girls, We need one more countdown to launch this 
craft with our two wonderful moderators, Roger and 
Katya, to Take Gp Space please. Ten, nine, eight, 
seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero. 

Mission Control: Ladies and gentlemen, that con- 
cludes the opening ceremony for the 12th National 
Space Symposium. Thanks to all of you for joining us 
here tonight. Thanks to some of America's true heroes 
for taking part in our tribute to this country's achieve- 
ments in space. And especially thanks to Rockwell for 
co-sponsoring the opening to make it possible to give 
meaningful tribute to those we honored tonight. 

Now please join us next door at Colorado Hall 
for a reception among the latest aerospace exhibits on 


Using Space to Enhance Life on Earth 


Opening Steven R Scott 

Remarks: Program Development Manager 

Rockwell Space Systems Division 

Introduction: Richard R MacLeod 
U.S. Space Foundation 

Keynote Dr. Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan 

Address: Chairman 

Government of India, Department 

of Space, 
Indian Space Research Organization 

Mr. Scott: Good morning. On behalf of the United 
States Space Foundation and all of our sponsors, wel- 
come to the 12th National Space Symposium. I'm 
Steven Scott from Rockwell Space Systems Division, 
and I'll be your program moderator over the next three 
days as we explore this year's exciting theme of 
"Space: Enhancing Life on Earth." The Foundation 
would like to thank our sponsors for last night's activi- 
ties, Rockwell for the opening ceremony, and Hughes 
for co-sponsoring the reception. But first, a message 
from one of our sponsors. 

Editor's note: A video on Rockwell's space related 
industry is shown. 

Mr. Scott: Thank you. Now let's take a quick look at 
what's in store for us for the rest of the week. This 
morning, in our keynote address and first session, we'll 
take a macro look at space applications. This after- 
noon we'll take a more detailed look at Earth sensing, 
communication and navigation applications, followed 
by a very interesting session on why it's important to 
reinvigorate the space industry with "better, cheaper, 
faster" methodologies. Our reception this evening will 
be co-sponsored by United Technologies and the 
Space Foundation. 

Going onto tomorrow's agenda, Gen. Joseph 
Ashy has assembled a number of key Department of 
Defense leaders who will guide us through discussion 
of global security interests in space. For lunch our fea- 
tured speaker is NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, who 
no doubt will have some provocative insight on the 
future of the U.S. civil space program. The afternoon 
session will start off with a look at the International 
Space Station, as well as some space launch capability 
issues. The evening reception will be sponsored by 
Lockheed Martin, as well as the U.S. Space 
Foundation. Then we have the Space Technology Hall 
of Fame dinner and induction ceremony, where the 
address will be made by the distinguished chairman of 
TRW, Joe Gorman. Capping off our session on Friday 
we have presentations by Lionel Johns, better known 
as "Skip," and Sen. Jake Gam. We will also be record- 
ing a radio-TV program called "Tech Nation," hosted 
by Dr. Moira Gunn. 

Before we begin, let me open with this 
thought. In the early '60s there was a cartoon family 
that epitomized the theme of this conference, which is 
"Space: Enhancing Life on Earth." For this family, 
space and everything associated with it was mundane. 
They had conquered the final frontier. People lived and 
worked in orbital stations, honeymooners went to 
Venus instead of the Poconos. The family I'm talking 
about of course is the Jetsons. For a generation the 
Jetsons helped shaped America's views of space and 
what life would be like in the 21st century. Computers, 
communications robotics and access to space would 
clearly play a dominant role in our day-to-day exis- 
tence. As we now look back over the last 30 years, we 
can chart our progress. We've made unbelievable 
strides in computer technology, satellite communica- 
tions, and robotics, but easy access to space is still 
slightly beyond our reach. Maybe our early visions of 
space were too grandiose, but with the accomplish- 
ments of Apollo, the nation believed anything was pos- 
sible. These cartoon characters may seem fictitious, 
but they helped form our early visions and thoughts. 
And that's exactly what we're doing here — helping to 
shape a vision, looking ahead. Over the next three 
days, we'll take a realistic look at what we're doing in 
space today as we work to constantly reshape our 
vision of the future. With that, let us begin the 12th 
National Space Symposium. Here to introduce the 
keynote speaker is the president of the United States 
Space Foundation. Ladies and gentlemen, please wel- 
come Dick MacLeod. 

Mr. MacLeod: Thank you. Our first speaker today is 
Dr. Kasturirangan. For simplicity I will call him Dr. 
Rangan. He will expand on the conference theme in 
his keynote address. He's currently the chairman of 
the Indian Space Research Organization, chairman of 
the Space Commission of India, and secretary of the 
Department of Space of the Government of India. Dr. 
Rangan is a well known space scientist and technolo- 
gist of international repute. He has led the Indian 
Space Program through a series of successful launch- 
es. These include four communications satellites, five 
remote sensing satellites, and a scientific satellite. The 
latest being the successful launch of IRSP3 aboard the 



"The gods 

did not revedl to men 

all thingsin th^fceginning, but, 

in the course; ot^time, 

by searching, 
they find out better" 

Using Space to Enhance Life on Earth 

Fig. CIS-101 

Indian polar satellite launch vehicle. As a gifted leader, 
he has placed a strong emphasis on orienting the 
Indian Space Program towards socio-economic devel- 
opment of his country, making it a model for develop- 
ing nations. When I visited last September, we talked 
exactly about that, the fact that they have representa- 
tives from every department of their government in 
their own agency, and vice versa. They work hard at 
applications, enhancing life on Earth. Dr. Rangan. 

Dr. Kasturirangan: Thank you, Dick, for the kind 
introduction. Mr. Aldridge, Dr. Silvestrini, Mr. Minor, Mr. 
Gianelli, Mr. Takada, distinguished members of the 
audience, ladies and gentlemen, I believe it is my 
proud privilege to be invited to the G. S. Space 
Foundation to address this very distinguished gather- 
ing today as the keynote speaker. I would like to 
express, using this opportunity, my gratitude to the 
(J.S. Space Foundation and the other co-sponsors of 
this meeting, and in particular, Dick, for giving me this 

The theme for this talk, "Using Space to 
Enhance the Life on Earth," is certainly timely. 
Something which is of concern, and we need to really 
emphasize this aspect of the concern, as well as the 
strategies and directions one should look for to deal 
with this issue of enhancing the quality of life on Earth, 
in the context of several emerging technologies. 

Man, whose ancestry could be traced across 
the whole geological era into a creature not greater 
than the diminutive rat, and whose intellectual powers 
began to be strikingly prophetic only during the last ice 
age, deserves the generic title he has given to himself, 
"the homo sapien" — man-the-wise. While primitive 
man was happy when his basic needs were taken care 
of, using what was available in nature, the increasing 
demand on natural resources along with the instinct 
to improve the quality of life forced man to use his 
intelligence and skill. Quests for scientific exploration 
followed; important discoveries were made. The use of 





Ufa Expectancy 
Infant Mortality 
Calorie Intake 
Purchasing Power 
Living Conditions 

Peace & Harmony 
Justice & Fairness 

People's participation 

Level of satisfaction 
Infrastructure! Development 


Resource availability & Accessibility 
Environmental safety 
Disaster preparedness 
Suit a inability 
Carrying capacity 

Fig. US- 102 

science and technology for improving the quality of life 
became a pattern. In the 20th century, one of the 
greatest and most significant acts of humans has been 
the use of space in this context, not only for scientific 
exploration, but also for such other areas like meteo- 
rology and weather systems, extracting information on 
other sources, improving human connectivity, and so 
on and so forth. It is in this context that we look at 
what we are doing currently, particularly in the case 
of developing countries. We have adopted these tech- 
niques for ensuring national development. I could not 
do more, at this stage, to do justice to this aspect 
of aspiration than to quote from the observations 
of Xenophanes, who made this statement 2,500 years 
ago: "The gods did not reveal to man all things in the 
beginning, but in the course of time, by searching, 
they find out better [Fig. CIS-101]." So that is the con- 
stant drive to Earth's improving the quality of life. And 
in that case, then we should really look at: what is the 
quality of life? The quality of life, of course, in a differ- 
ent era and a different context assumes a different 
meaning. It can be as varied as an individual and a 
society, or as complex as the human body itself. What 
we'll try to do here is to bring out some aspects of this 
[Fig. US- 102]. In fact, for the primitive man, the quali- 
ty of life was nothing but meeting his basic needs. The 
standards of measurement of the societal well-being, 
as well as means of improving the quality of life, has 
undergone dramatic changes with time. A look at the 
global scenario brings this aspect — the variation and 
the quality of life due to varied reasons, ranging from 
cultural and socio-political factors, to environment and 
technological considerations. That's what we tried to 
put in this particular slide, the human indicators that 
would define the quality of life, some of the social 
aspects, the natural resources aspect, things like the 
life expectancy or the infant mortality, the living condi- 
tions, or in the case of natural resources, the resource 
management, the environmental implications, disaster 
preparedness, and when it comes to socio-political 
aspects, peace and tranquility and infrastructure and 
so many other aspects. We have tried to put together 


here a kind of scenario which puts the quality of life 
and the perspective which most of the people would 
accept as possible indicators. 

Taking from this, what kind of challenges today 
does humankind face? We go through a set of chal- 
lenges that humankind is facing, the context of which 
we will look into many of the aspects of the space 
techniques today. The first in that series of challenges 
deals with the human population. The world popula- 
tion, as we all know, doubled from 2 billion to 5 billion 
in the 1950 to 1987 time frame. It is expected to reach 
6.4 billion by the end of this century. What is interest- 
ing is the fact that the 300 million population in the 
beginning of the 1st century would have increased 21 
fold by the time we enter the 21st century, and half of 
it will turn out to be in the urban areas. Apart from the 
increase in numbers, the proper development of this 
human resource is a major issue. In developing coun- 
tries, on an average, student enrollment is less than 70 
percent, and only 50 percent of them reach the sec- 
ondary level. The percentage of students who reach 
the tertiary level is hardly 6 percent of the primary 
enrollment. Added to these are the poor student- 
teacher ratio and the low investment in education. 
While UNESCO recommends 4 percent of GMP as 
educational expenditure, in reality it varies from 0.5 to 
12 percent. The fact that the population in 2000 AD 
will consist of 2.5 billion children in the age group of 5 
- 24, calls for the adoption of modern technologies 
such as space based distance education to realize the 
goal of universal education. 

While concentrating on formal education to the 
children, we need to recognize the need for informal 
education to other sectors too, particularly women. 
There are a number of examples where women's edu- 
cation has brought tremendous improvements. For 
example, in an assessment that has been made with 
respect to Brazil, the uneducated women have some- 
thing like 6.5 children each, whereas women with sec- 
ondary education have only 2.5 children. Similarly, in 
Liberia, it was found that women with secondary edu- 
cation are 10 times more likely to use family planning 
services. In another study among Kenyan women, it 
was observed that education of farmer women could 
increase agricultural production by 24 percent. Thus, 
informal education is an important element in our 
struggle towards enhancing the quality of life. 

Let us take the resource consumption sce- 
nario, again coming out of the population increase. 
One can see that the ground water withdrawal in- 
creased almost 36 times in the period 1800 - 1990, 
whereas sediment load in the major and small river 
basins went up by 3 and 8 times respectively around 
the same period. Then we have degraded land, which 
increased 3 times from 1700 - 1990. During the last 
90 years, industrial production was increased by 100 
times, whereas the forest cover got reduced by 15 

Fig. US- 103 

percent. Accordingly, there was considerable increase 
in methane and CO2 emission. These statistics 
depict only a glimpse of the adverse impact of re- 
source consumption on the environment and ecolo- 
gy. This is another major problem that faces human- 
kind today in the context of the increasing popula- 

On the dependence of mankind on the land 
resources, no explanation is required [Fig. US- 103]. 
On the one hand, 19 percent of the world's population 
is not getting enough food. On the other side, we have 
30 to 50 percent of the GDP which is totally accounted 
for in terms of agriculture in many of the developing 
countries. What is more significant is the fact that con- 
tinued use of land with poor agricultural practices, like 
the use of fertilizers, and improper irrigation systems, 
and so on, have resulted in considerable land degrada- 
tion. It is significant to note that something like 1.2 bil- 
lion acres of land over the last 45 years have become 
degraded, which is roughly the area of India and China 
put together. Further, water logging, salinization and 
alkalinization reduce productivity of 1.5 mha annually 
while 6-7 mha of agricultural land is turned unproduc- 
tive each year because of erosion and 15 percent of 
the total land resources is affected by human induced 
degradation. Protection of the land resources, particu- 
larly to meet the food requirements, assumes para- 
mount importance. 

Management of our water resources is yet 
another formidable task in ensuring a better quality 
of life. Global water withdrawals has increased 36-fold 
in three centuries, and it is projected to further 
increase by 30-35 percent by 2000 AD. It is surprising 
to note that the irrigated agriculture accounts for 70 
percent of the withdrawal and more than 60 percent of 
irrigation water is wasted. There is an urgent need, and 
considerable scope exists to conserve water by adopt- 
ing a more scientific approach to water resource devel- 
opment and management. 

Let us look at a similar impact of the human 
endeavor and proposed activities in the context of the 



Fig. US-104 

biosphere [Fig. CIS- 104]. We saw the increase in the 
carbon dioxide — almost 33 percent over the last few 
decades. The increased methane production from rice 
fields and other sources by fossil fuel burning 
increased by a factor of two. If one looks at the impli- 
cations of this, the model shows the that global warm- 
ing is expected to be around 0.3 degrees celsius per 
decade over the next century or so, and then the glob- 
al mean sea level may rise by 8 to 29 centimeters by 
the year 2000 to 2020. Another possible implication of 
increased greenhouse gases and the corresponding 
increase in the global temperature is interestingly the 
local increase in the temperature that could force veg- 
etation and associated animals to shift their altitude of 
habitation. In fact, there's an interesting study which 
shows clearly the projections based on species area 
relationships in the U.S.A. that the resulting decrease 
of the habital space will result in the loss of 23 percent 
of butterflies and 24 percent of mammals for moun- 
tain ranges. So that is a kind of implication in the bio- 
diversity that such shifting factors found would hap- 
pen. And there results a need for a periodic monitoring 
of this aspect of the changes in the biosphere. 

Yet another challenge in our efforts towards 
improving the quality of life is providing necessary 
health care. It is an astonishing fact that three-fourths 
of the diseases that affect people in the developing 
countries are preventable. On the other hand, average 
health expenditure of developing countries is just 4.2 
percent of GDR If one looks at the population per doc- 
tor, it is something like 6,670 in most of the develop- 
ing countries, and contrast this with something like 
380 per doctor in developed countries. Then we have 
the problem of unhygienic environments leading to 
serious health hazards affecting over 60 percent of the 
urban population. It's interesting to note that in these 
underdeveloped countries, only 54 percent of the pop- 
ulation has access to the health care. A number of dis- 
eases like malaria are spread by insect vectors that live 
in typical ecologies. And lastly, almost half a billion 
people, 1 out of 10, are now suffering from some kind 

of tropical disease. This scenario calls for adequate 
health care to cope with the large population and also 
the problem of degrading environment, sanitation, and 
so on. 

It is in this context we look at where we stand 
today against these challenges that face humankind. 
The preamble to the Agenda 21 says, "Humanity 
stands at a defining moment in history. We are con- 
fronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and 
within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill- 
health and illiteracy and the continuing deterioration of 
the ecosystems on which we depend for our well- 
being. However, integration of environment and devel- 
opment concerns and greater attention to them will 
lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living 
standards for all, better protected and managed 
ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No 
nation can achieve this on its own; but together we 
can — in a global partnership for sustainable develop- 
ment." So this is the message, and it is against this, 
what do we see as a promise that space holds? 

At the outset, under this promise, we look at 
some of the educational aspects. We have operational 
space systems today that offer at least four ways in 
which education has been propagated: the distance 
education, the developmental communication, interac- 
tive training, and community education for better 
resources management. There are a number of exam- 
ples where space systems have been used effectively in 
the context of these four classes of education such as 
the use of tele-education in the G.S.A. Of course, my 
country's own educational television programing is 
another great example. In India, already more than 24 
hours of educational television programs a week are 
now done through the space system, and more 
recently we also have had one dedicated communica- 
tions transponder which is used for training and devel- 
opmental communication. In fact, this has been used 
for several aspects of training and developmental com- 
munication such as adult education, education and 
application of the skills of the shop floor people, the 
education and the application of middle school teach- 
ers, and so on. So in all this context, this kind of train- 
ing and developmental communication system 
transponder has been used. Another important exam- 
ple of education using the space system is China. 
Twenty-two hours of television programs are offered for 
college students in the current system. There are 
1,200 local television relay stations, 7,600 satellite 
ground receiving stations, and 66,000 community 
viewing centers. So there is a massive program in 
China to deal with educational and literacy issues, and 
the use of space system today is one of the potential 
ways in which China is moving forward in meeting its 
ever increasing demand with respect to education and 
literacy. Something like 1.175 million students, or 37 
percent of the total, have graduated from "television 



broadcasting college" in 10 years. So this is one 
aspect of the promise that we have in the use of satel- 
lite systems. 

Now let us see the space technology option to 
address the agriculture related issues [Fig. CJS-105]. 
We saw earlier the problems of land degradation, prob- 
lems of poor agricultural yield and productivity, and 
problems arising out of this in terms of the lack of 
availability of food for almost 19 percent of the popula- 
tion today. So here there are several issues which 
could be tackled by space systems. Some of the issues 
that are being addressed are the identification and 
reclamation of cultural wasteland, diagnostic analy- 
sis/monitoring for scientific management of irrigated 
commands areas, crop monitoring, etc. We now have 
systems which can monitor the crop with respect to its 
yield, area, and so on. Space systems could be effec- 
tively utilized to get advanced indications regarding the 
crops that would affect the overall crop yield, and for 
monitoring the degraded wastelands. Then there are 
other areas related to the land classification according 
to their capability/suitability to ensure that the land use 
practice adopted is in tune with the terrain characteris- 

However, integration of environment and devel- 
opment concerns and greater attention to them 
will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, 
improved living standards for all, better 
protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, 
more prosperous future. 

I will dwell a little bit on what we have done in 
India with respect to some of the problems related to 
land use as well as agriculture. Thanks to the remote 
sensing capabilities, we have today a system by which 
we have a classification of the wasteland in the coun- 
try. Roughly about 16 percent of the area of the coun- 
try is what is classified as wasteland. This 16 percent 
of the area is classified into 13 categories. And it is 
found that at least 60 percent of this 16 percent is cul- 
tural wasteland which could be reclaimed for produc- 
tive agriculture. We find that with this classification 
today, a massive program of reclamation of wasteland, 
which is at least 60 percent of the total wasteland of 
the country, is in progress. Then we have a crop yield 
prediction system, which provides acreage and expect- 
ed production, at least one month before the harvest 
with an accuracy of 90 percent level, for the large 
wheat growing areas as well as rice growing areas, 
which constitute something like 80 percent of the 
country's crop area. Diagnostic analysis of the 64 
command areas is in progress, and this is a very 
important aspect of remote sensing applications aimed 
at scientific management of our command areas, par- 

fig. US- 105 

ticularly to reduce the gap in irrigation utilization, to 
arrest degradation as well as to arrive at optimal crop- 
ping pattern. So these are some of the important 
aspects on which today an agricultural system using 
space is becoming a reality. It is in fact used routinely 
in the context of India for many of these aspects which 
I just mentioned. 

Space technology has been an effective tool to 
address the issues related to water resources. We have 
several aspects of the water resources problem, rang- 
ing from extremely high withdrawal of ground water, 
improper management of surface water, and so on, 
and the question is how does one deal with this in the 
case of optimal utilization along with exploration of 
alternate sources for the water. Here are some of the 
aspects on which the remote sensing systems have 
been operationally used. One is the water resources 
assessment. We have in India a major effort towards 
mapping of surface water bodies. This is now being 
routinely done — both in order to estimate the extent 
of the area of water coverage and also to compute the 
total storage capacity. The ground water targeting is 
another major area in which quite a lot of work has 
been done in India, particularly with respect to the cre- 
ation of hydro geo-morphological maps, and these 
kind of maps have been used to identify ground water 
potential zones where we are likely to have a high 
probability of tapping the water. I should say that from 
conventional means our success rate was something 
like 40 to 45 percent, whereas when the hydro geo- 
morphological maps generated out of space imageries 
were used along with conventional geophysical sur- 
veys, our success has gone up, almost up to 95 per- 
cent today, and this is based on something like 
200,000 wells that have been dug all across the length 
and breadth of India. The snowmelt runoff is another 
thing in which quite a lot of countries have difficulties. 
In the context of India, we have a full operational snow 
melt run-off prediction system. They're able to predict 
the total amount of water that will flow into reservoirs, 
with certain accuracy, which is acceptable to the 



Fig. US- 106 

hydrologists and is done well ahead of the actual 
event. Then water quality mapping, water conserva- 
tion, and harvesting, which is another major thing by 
which we have been also able to identify areas where 
the harvesting is possible by constructing appropriate 
structures so that water can be channelized for ground 
water recharging. And then the better water use for irri- 
gation efficiency through scientific management of irri- 
gated command areas. These are some of the impor- 
tant aspects of the work on which today the remote 
sensing is being used on a routine basis, and most of 
these have been of a very high satisfactory nature and 
are being routinely used by several of the user agen- 
cies in the country. 

We have seen the extremely complex problems 
associated with health care that are related particularly 
to developing countries and many of the least devel- 
oped countries [Fig. US- 106]. It is gratifying to note 
that space capabilities have been efficiently used in 
addressing some of these issues. But I must mention 
in this context that 25 years back, through three 
adorned telecommunications satellites, NASA set off 
the first experiment in tele-medicine and that was a 
pathbreaking effort which has been later taken by sev- 
eral countries. And in today's context, at least in three 
areas, space for health care becomes relevant. One is 
the use of remote sensing and the GIS system to mon- 
itor the ecologies that support insect vectors which 
spread vector borne diseases such as malaria, lym- 
phatic paralysis, and so on. The second is the develop- 
mental communication, of which we mentioned earlier, 
which could be effectively used to bring back health 
consciousness in the poor and uneducated. And the 
third is what tele-medicine offers — new vistas to over- 
come the inaccessibility of expert treatment. So in all 
the three areas today there have been successful 
efforts, even though much needs to be done in this 
context, and the U.S. has taken a lead in implementing 
one of the very important projects that was carried out, 
that of creation of the space bridge to Moscow during 
the Armenian earthquake. Norwegian tele-medicine 

Fig. US- 107 

policies are examples of what has been possible with 
space tele-medicine. The prospects for the future on a 
wider scale are there — particularly in the context of the 
availability of conventional systems to provide health 
care at the required level — with the quality as well as 
the quantity that one needs in the global context. 

The next is a promise that comes with respect 
to the environment [Fig. US- 107]. The environmental 
impact assessment and preservation of environmental 
integrity is one of the important things. In fact one 
could use the space system today to assess the envi- 
ronmental impact, particularly when you want to start 
industries that may have an adverse impact on the sur- 
rounding ecosystem, especially on the ground water. 
Then is the management of the fragile ecosystem for 
which identification of the biological species and quan- 
tification of the changes become essential. In the case 
of the forest resource management, today we have 
quite a number of operational systems which have 
been cleared all over the world. We have examples in 
Brazil, and we have in India today a monitoring system 
for the forest, by which every two years we update the 
forest extent of the country. We have now extended this 
capability of the forest mapping to timber volume esti- 
mation, identification of forest species, forest density 
mapping, and so on. So the periodic and the timely 
assessment of the forest wealth today has become pos- 
sible with the requisite precision and accuracy, thanks 
to the space borne systems for monitoring this. And of 
course we have the civil systems on the satellite today 
which monitor atmospheric trace gases. And particular- 
ly in context of the integrated geosphere, biosphere 
program where the long term implications of these kind 
of greenhouse gases is being looked at from the angle 
of the changes in terms of the climatic systems and the 
resulting impact on the biodiversity. But this is a very 
important element of input that is today generated by 
the space system. On the environmental front, there 
are substantial things which are currently being carried 
out in the context of using the space system for envi- 
ronmental monitoring and quantification, as well as to 



Fig. US- 108 

arrive at preemptive steps to arrest further environmen- 
tal degradation. 

The adverse impact of the increased anthro- 
pogenic activities on the environment is compounded 
by natural disasters [Fig. US- 108]. In 1991 alone, if 
want to see the numbers in terms of the impact of 
such kinds of natural disasters, the economic loss due 
to disasters was something like $44 billion, and 
according to the International Red Cross, the number 
of people who have been killed because of various dis- 
asters is really astonishing: in the case of drought it is 
1.3 billion from 1967 to 1991; in the case of cyclone, 
it is something like 0.8 million; in the case of earth- 
quake it is 0.6 million; and in the case of floods it is 
something like 0.3 million. But the maximum number 
of events are flood events which have a tendency to 
affect many countries. According to the Red Cross and 
Red Crescent Societies, 1400 flood events were 
recorded between 1967 and 1990. So it is a known 
fact regarding the need for warning, monitoring and 
relief, in disaster prone areas. The relief agencies need 
the communication capability of space systems to 
reach quickly the disaster affected areas. In the case of 
monitoring one uses the remote sensing satellite. For 
example, satellite based early warning of drought is 
something which has always had an impact in India. 
We have a drought monitoring system around the 
satellite using the vegetative index. And then you have 
the relief related activities where the communications 
related capabilities like the mobile search and rescue 
satellites come into picture. In India, disaster warning 
systems have been set up on the eastern and the west- 
ern coasts of our country, both of which are susceptible 
to large cyclonic systems. We have a cyclone warning 
center in the east coast of India near Madras, which 
tracks this kind of cyclone up to 400 kilometers. But 
the INSAT system, which carries a very high resolution 
radiometer, starts tracking the cyclone much ahead of 
time, and since it has the capability to take the mea- 
surements every half an hour, one can track the devel- 
opment of the cyclone as well as its path to make a 

Fig. US- 109 

reasonable computation of the region along the coast 
where it is most likely to affect people and property. 
CIsing the communication capability of the same satel- 
lite, we selectively address those areas of the popula- 
tion where the cyclone is likely to hit so that preemptive 
action with respect to the protection of life and property 
could be taken. So this is a perfect example of the way 
we have been using space system for disaster manage- 
ment. During one of the cyclone events in May 1991, 
on the east coast of Andhra Pradesh, something like 
170 thousand people were evacuated in time to save 
their lives as well as their property, using the IMSAT sys- 
tem, both using the space imaging capability of the 
VHRR, as well as the space communications capability 
of the INSAT satellite. 

While looking at the issues and the space 
capabilities to address them, it is a matter of extreme 
happiness that the global community has started look- 
ing at many of these problems together. The serious- 
ness which most of the governments have been follow- 
ing these kinds of problems is very well evident from 
the number of Earth summits we have been having 
[Fig. CIS- 1 09], which include the International 
Convention to formally combat decertification, the 
Vienna Convention and its model Montreal Protocol 
dealing with ozone. And then we have the Social 
Summit itself, the Biodiversity Convention and the 
Committee for Earth Observation Satellites. This glob- 
al concern and unity provide us ample opportunity to 
work together towards improving the quality of life. 

Having discussed the issues and the capabili- 
ties of space systems in addressing these issues 
towards enhancing life on Earth, we need to look at 
the emerging global scenario in space technology 
development and its applications. Mo doubt, Earth 
observation and monitoring as an integrated system, 
space exploration, global connectivity, and space colo- 
nization are going to be the frontier activities. Many 
countries have adopted the satellite based systems for 
Earth observation and monitoring, and it is going to be 
only increasing, and one can see here the results in 



Fig. US- 110 

terms of resource information, which will be more 
detailed, more frequen, and over a wider range to 
enable sustainable natural resource management at 
cadastral level. Today most of our mapping is done not 
in the scale in which one can generate cadastral maps, 
and if one looks into the planning aspect and one has 
to go down to the lowest administrative entity, there is 
a need to go to the cadastral level, which is today 
becoming possible thanks to the resolution capabilities 
of the space system. The space systems are going to 
be more effectively used for frequent and accurate 
monitoring of the environment, management of natur- 
al disasters, and so on. So these systems will get 
strengthened and expanded as the years go by with 
several of the satellites or big systems monitoring 
these kinds of problems. And then you have the global 
connectivity. We didn't say much about it, but one is 
very familiar with the connectivity in the context of indi- 
viduals, community, national, and international sys- 
tems, the increasing personal and mobile communica- 
tion use, the use of communication for education and 
tele-medicine and interactive tele-training, which will 
end up in a vibrant small-office/home-office market, 
and so on. Space systems will become active carriers 
of information leading to things like information super- 
highways and it is a matter of happiness that a lot of 
research is going on in this country as to how to 
strengthen these systems so that they become much 
more effective and are able to meet more of the 
demands that are being projected in the context of 
several other activities. And one doesn't stop at this. 
One is looking much further ahead in the context of 
space exploration and space colonization where the 
zero-g processing of materials would become relevant 
in the context of several special materials, including 
pharmaceuticals. The spirit of exploration will never 
die, and one has here the space exploration which will 
deal with all the aspects of the universe beyond us, our 
planetary neighbors and the planetary systems. So 
these are the frontiers which would take us further as 
the years go by, keeping in mind the fundamental 
questions which are clearly addressed by these two 

areas towards the enhancement of the quality of life on 
the Earth. 

I did mention that many of the activities in our 
country use remote sensing as well as communication 
satellites. I should also mention that establishment of 
space systems in our country had its precursors in our 
cooperation with NASA. In fact, three major experi- 
ments which we did in the 70s were the reasons why 
we could confidently get onto these systems. One is 
the use of the advanced technology satellite, the ATS- 
6, which NASA located over the Indian Ocean for us to 
conduct one of the most important sociological experi- 
ments, the satellite instructional television experiment, 
which brought for the first time in our country an 
aspect for later developmental communications using 
satellites. So that was a major experiment conducted 
over a year, highly successful, well evaluated by the 
sociologists, and it fully justified a total system, consid- 
ering the length and breadth of the country. The area, 
as you know, is 3.2 million square kilometers and has 
a population which is today more like 900 million, so 
to that extent there was justification for a system and 
that gave us the INSATs, and the earlier satellites in the 
INSAT series were bought from Ford Aerospace. The 
second generation INSATs today are built by us, and 
four of them are currently in operation. They provide 
the wider telecommunication and television services 
and from the general sector dealing with only the 
development of communications. Today the INSAT 
system also provides quite a lot of entertainment. In 
fact, currently the INSAT system services the needs of 
something like 85 percent of this 900 million popula- 
tion, spread over around 65 percent of the area of the 
country, and at present we are building the INSAT-2D 
and more advanced versions like the INSAT-2E. These 
are multi-purpose systems. Besides the television 
broadcasting and telecommunication capabilities, they 
also have the very high resolution radiometer which 
can take pictures with respect to the cloud movements 
in that part of the globe in half-hour intervals, so that 
the information related to the cloud movements, tem- 
peratures, precipitations, and many other meteorologi- 
cal perimeters can be derived. An equally important 
aspect is related to remote sensing. Here again the 
pioneering cooperation that we had with NASA, first in 
the use of a Hasselblad camera system to look at the 
coconut wilt diseases in the southern state of Kerala. 
Subsequently, India was one of the first few countries 
to go to the use of Landsat for more sensing applica- 
tions. Both gave insight into the importance of remote 
sensing systems for India to deal with problems 
of management of natural resources. 

Today we have an operational system, and five 
of the Indian Remote Sensing satellites are in orbit: 
IRS-1A, IB, 1C, P2 and P3. These five form a constel- 
lation of satellites which provide information both with 
respect to the land related applications, the ocean 


Fig. US- 1U 

related applications, and to some extent, the environ- 
ment related applications [Fig. CIS- 110]. And what is 
significant is that this started as a cooperation with 
NASA in the use of Landsat. Today we have come 
back, and in cooperation with EOSAT we are trying to 
see how best the information that is available from 
these satellites can be made available to the global 
remote sensing community. Here are some of our 
future programs. These satellites primarily will address 
more demanding requirements from the ocean as well 
as a cartographic applications community, and finally 
looking into the possibility of going for a high resolu- 
tion space based system for applications related to 
soil, agriculture, and many other areas. This is general- 
ly the pattern. One of the interesting aspects of the 
use of these satellites particularly relates to the use of 
remote sensing for local specific development. Here 
what we tried to do is to adopt an integrated 
approach. Over the years, we have successfully opera- 
tionalized a number of applications on a thematic 
basis using the satellite data, like the applications for 
forestry, geology, hydrology, and so on. In this particu- 
lar case we integrate all this thematic information for a 
particular area and then try to look at the soil condi- 
tion, the moisture level, the ground water availability, 
the surface water availability, the vegetation status, and 
so on, and then try to view local specific prescriptions 
which will deem more how to harvest water, how to 
improve the water management, what kind of vegeta- 
tion, or what kind of use of the land would enable the 
land to be used on a sustainable basis. This kind of 
information then is integrated along with other infor- 
mation, like the meterological information, as well as 
the socioeconomic parameters using a geographic 
information system. The developmental plans are user 
friendly, and are used directly by the lowest administra- 
tive levels in the states, and the kind of transformation 
that has been seen over the last two years in the appli- 
cation of this concept to some of the areas in the 
country is tremendous. The biggest problem was water 
availability, the land misuse, and the scarcity of water 
harvesting structures, including those for ground water 
recharging. They were identified using the satellite 
imageries and the carrying capacity of the land in this 
region was also evaluated using satellite imagery. The 
vegetative cover and the dynamics of that was also 
evaluated using satellite imagery. The prescription was 
given to the local people and has been implemented 
by the district administration along with the local peo- 
ple who own the land, so that there is no conflict 
between a suggestion that is made and its implemen- 
tation [Fig. CIS- 11 1J. And this concept we have now 
extended to something like 174 districts in our country, 
which is almost 45 percent of the area of the country, 
and these are all problem area districts, whre there are 
large amounts of degraded land, non-availability of 
water for agricultural activities, and so on. Nearly 45 
percent of the land area today is being covered under 


this integrated mission for sustainable development 
[Fig. CIS-112]. This is one of the very good examples 
of the grassroot level of application of space for devel- 
opment in the context of the country's needs. 

Let me summarize here. As the years go by, 
how does the system emerge? The technological push 
adopted by some of our countries has really slowed 
down their efforts towards improving the quality of life. 
It is very clear that going for an application-driven 
approach is extremely important and relevant in the 
context of enhancing life on the Earth. The future is 
also moving towards more inter-connectivity between 
space systems, which means the use of communica- 
tion and remote sensing together in looking at specific 
problems. So the inter-connectivity and cooperation 
between disciplines, as well as synergy, need to be 
achieved. The cooperation among nations should 
expand to identification of priority areas for concerted 
global efforts. This is another major area that is cer- 
tainly going to be there on the international agenda, 
and already there are quite a good number of things 
that are being done. For example, under the interna- 
tional geosphere, biosphere program that looks at the 
Earth as a total system with biological, chemical and 
physical characteristics, considerable efforts are being 



made to arrive at an integrated way of looking at the 
system. But similar things will happen in the case of 
the global connectivity and space exploration, and in 
India we'll just not be left behind in the context of 
global efforts and international cooperation. One 
should also keep in mind that a large number of peo- 
ple still do not have the benefits of space capability 
and the benefits in the context of using the space 
capability for their own special needs. Like some of the 
needs that we saw in the context of India. There is cer- 
tainly an urgent need to build an indigenous capability 
in developing countries, particularly with respect to 
their ability to use existing space systems for their own 
developmental efforts. When this has to be done many 
times, the problems are the ones which are related to 
the political will — and equally important is the question 
of availability of funds. The suggestion of setting up a 
global fund to assist less developed counties assumes 
significance. Looking towards a future vision, in the 
past the visions have come from countries like the U.S. 
The space vision. I cannot do anything better than 
quote some of the fine space pioneers in this country 
and also in the erstwhile Soviet Onion. Neil Armstrong 
said, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap 

for mankind." And the first astronaut of the Soviet 
Union said, "And tomorrow, settlements on the moon, 
voyages to Mars, scientific stations on asteroids, con- 
tact with other civilizations. We shall not envy the peo- 
ple of the future. They are lucky, and things about 
which we can only dream will be ordinary for them." 
So between them they're really pregnant with meaning 
with respect to the vision for present as well as vision 
for the future. Many of the countries have picked up 
elements of this vision through their own visionaries to 
make sure that the best capabilities of space are used 
in the context of their own developmental needs. But 
then we have said this, which is a broad vision, and 
when it comes to a down to Earth kind of a thing, I 
can only say with respect to what Carl Sagan, one of 
the famous planetary scientists in this country, said, 
"There are worlds on which life has never arisen. There 
are worlds that have been charred by cosmic catastro- 
phes. We are fortunate: We are alive. We are powerful. 
The welfare of our civilization and our species is in our 
hands. If we do not speak for Earth, who will? If we are 
not committed to our own survival, who will be?" That 
is a sense of enhancing the life on Earth. Thank you. 



Space Applications and Cooperation 




Steven R Scott 

Program Development Manager 
Rockwell Space System Division 

The Hon. Edward C. "Pete" 
Aldridge Jr. 

President and CEO 

The Aerospace Corporation 

Dr. Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan 


Indian Space Research Organization 

Speakers: Dr. Arturo Silvestrini 

President and CEO 

Robert Minor 


Rockwell Space Systems Division 

Michael Gianelli 

Vice President and General Manager 
Government Operations, Hughes 
Space & Communications 

Akiyoshi Takada 

Deputy Director General of the 
Communications, Policy Bureau 

Ministry of Posts and 
Telecommunications, Japan 

Mr. Scott: Now let me introduce the chair of our first 
session. The Honorable Edward C. Aldridge, better 
known as Pete, is the current president and CEO of 
The Aerospace Corporation. He's also a director of the 
United States Space Foundation and is widely recog- 
nized as having been a leader in shaping our nation's 
unmanned space program for the past two decades. 
As such he is a natural candidate to lead our session 
on current and future space applications. Ladies and 
gentlemen, please welcome Pete Aldridge. 

Mr. Aldridge: Good morning and welcome to the 
panel on Space Applications and Cooperation. We 
have four very distinguished and knowledgeable peo- 
ple who can speak with authority on this topic. But 
before introducing them I'd like to set the stage for 
their presentations. We are in a new and ever changing 
environment with regard to new directions in space 
and the prospects for expanded international coopera- 
tion. We're more dependent than ever upon each other 
for success in space, from the sharing of launch vehi- 
cles, launching satellites built and used by many 
nations, to the use of components and technology 
from all parts of the world for several of our missions, 
especially the International Space Station. 

And we're depending on resupply to the Space 
Station for successful launch and deployment from all 
of our Space Station partners. The expanding global 
marketplace for space systems and the information 
that these systems provide will give new opportunities 
for economic expansion of the space industry directly 
and of other industries indirectly by the application of 
information supplied from space. We're on a superson- 
ic trip into the information age which will result in 

worldwide requirements for interoperable and intercon- 
nected networks, communications platforms, and 
standards of communication among the various sys- 
tems and the various nations that supply them. 

Cooperation among the industries will be 
inevitable as we search for the best products at the 
cheapest prices from this growing worldwide market- 
place of rapidly advancing technology. 

One of the more interesting aspects of interna- 
tional cooperation in space is evolving from the nation- 
al security imperatives. As worldwide interests merge 
and coalition forces become more commonplace in 
areas of mutual interest, we are seeing a growing 
acceptance of the use of national space assets of sev- 
eral nations being combined in support of international 
peacekeeping operations. The recent report on the 
intelligence community by former Secretary of Defense 
Harold Brown confirmed the validity of an integrated 
and international space intelligence system for support 
of global awareness and peacekeeping operations. I 
hope tomorrow's session on national security will have 
some discussion about this topic. 

Last year the American Institute of Aeronautics 
and Astronautics (AIAA) held a workshop on interna- 
tional space cooperation, in which some 15 nations 
participated, and stated as one of its findings that, and 
I quote: "The global political, industrial, and social 
economic climate makes wide-ranging cooperation 
not only possible, but what is new is that international 
cooperation may now may be a necessary strategy to 
achieve the goals set out for space-related projects." 

With this background, I would now like to 
introduce our speakers. The first speaker will be Dr. 
Arturo Silvestrini, president and CEO of EOSAT, who 



will speak on Earth sensing. Dr. Silvestrini has more 
than 40 years of professional experience, most of 
which is in aerospace-related industries. He was bom 
in Italy and received his doctorate degree in electrical 
engineering from the University of Rome. 

The second speaker is Robert Minor, president 
of Rockwell's Space Systems Division, who will speak 
on the subject of navigation satellites. Mr. Minor 
received his bachelor of science degree in electrical 
engineering from Southern Methodist University and 
continues to study at UCLA's graduate school of engi- 
neering. He joined Rockwell in 1963, initially working 
on the Apollo program. Then he joined the Space 
Shuttle program at its inception. He became vice pres- 
ident and general manager of Rockwell's Houston 
operation, providing on-site support to NASA for shut- 
tle operations. In 1988 he was appointed to his current 
position, where, in addition to shuttle support, he is 
responsible for advanced technology programs. 

We concluded it was time to encourage 

governments to exchange more information 

and resources in Earth sensing. 

— Dr. Silvestrini 

Third is Mike Gianelli, vice president and gener- 
al manager of Hughes Space & Communications 
Company. Mike is replacing Don Cromer, who was 
originally on the program, who very happily launched 
one of the Hughes satellites on the Soviet Proton rock- 
et just yesterday — successfully, I understand. Mike will 
speak on communications satellites. 

Mr. Gianelli earned his bachelor's degree in 
aerospace engineering from Notre Dame, his master's 
degree in mechanical engineering from University of 
South Carolina, and a master's degree from Pepper- 
dine University. He has been with Hughes for 23 years 
and currently has responsibility for government opera- 
tions, including business development and programs. 

And fourth is Akiyoshi Takada, deputy director 
of the communications policy bureau, Ministry of Post 
and Telecommunications in Japan. Mr. Takada will also 
speak on the subject of communications satellites. Mr. 
Takada obtained his education from Tokyo University 
Law School and immediately entered the Ministry of 
Post and Telecommunications in 1968. He moved 
through the organization until reaching his current 
position in 1993. 

Editor's note: The introduction of Dr. Silvestrini was 
made by Mr. Aldridge in his opening remarks 

Dr. Silvestrini: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 
I will speak on Earth observation but I would like to 
give you the feeling of why we have this panel — and 
actually why we have the panel that will follow us. 
Three years ago, under the leadership of Pete Aldridge, 
we had a conference symposium, in beautiful Hawaii, 
to talk about international cooperation in space. This 
was the first one, in which we talked about which 
space applications we considered most likely to be 
enhanced by space cooperation. 

I was on the space applications panel led by 
Roy Gibson, who is going to be the chairman of the 
following panel, and co-led by John McLucas. We con- 
cluded that three applications must be considered: 
communications, which was already well developed, 
Earth sensing, and navigation. Earth sensing covers 
disaster monitoring as well. We concluded that there 
was not enough attention from the governments of the 
space-exploring nations to applications of Earth sens- 
ing which were not just scientific. We concluded it was 
time to encourage governments to exchange more 
information and resources in Earth sensing. We con- 
cluded that without the participation of industry in 
Earth sensing, there would be no way for Earth sens- 
ing to be a real application to benefit mankind. We 
invited ourselves (everybody was represented in our 
group: academia, government, United States, and of 
course, industry) to organize meetings to implement 
the recommendations. 1 tasked myself — and Roy 
Gibson did the same thing — to work to expand the 
vision for industry, and for industry to participate with 
industry in other countries and with other govern- 
ments. Three years later we have seen some results of 
that. Some are due to our activities and some, of 
course, were naturally occurring. Where are we now? 

CEOS, the Committee for Earth Observation 
Satellites, which is basically formed by representatives 
of governments, has opened its door, at least to some 
extent, to private industry. Not completely, but they 
have shown the sign that they will do it. We have had 
many initiatives, especially in the United States, in 
Earth sensing, new systems for most (I am talking 
about Space Imaging, Orbimage, Earth Watch, and 
the like), where you have seen that partnership extend- 
ed outside the United States significantly, in Europe, in 
Asia, in the Middle East. You have seen multi-national 
cooperation between government and industry of sev- 
eral nations. We, EOSAT — with the U.S. government — 
started 12 years ago in this cooperation. EOSAT was 
only American, was between Hughes and RCA at the 
time, but now with Lockheed Martin and the U.S. gov- 
ernment for Landsat. We have seen SPOT also with 
the government in France. We have seen Radarsat. 
Now we are seeing the best of them all, the Indian 
Program. EOSAT started with Landsat and EOSAT is 
again at the forefront. We are cooperating with the 
Indian Space Agency in distributing the most 



Arrival Of Space Navigation 

Space Navigation Architectures 

Augmented GPS 

Augmented GPS 



*> Rockwell 

Fig. SA-101 

advanced Earth sensing data to the users. 

In terms of participation of private industry in 
the activities of the space-training nations represented 
by CEOS, I would like to mention that EOSAT has 
started the formation of associations of private users of 
Earth sensing in Europe and North America, and is 
doing the same in Asia, South America, and Australia. 
Roy Gibson will give you a lot more details on the 
activity we have done. And this is a common activity 
between us, Roy Gibson, and SPOT. Yes, SPOT our 
so-called enemy, that is not an enemy. 

Let me conclude with a couple of observations 
on the India Space Program — on things that Dr. 
Kasturirangan has not said because he's probably 
modest. First of all, I have heard several times in the 
past comments asking how can a country like India 
afford a space program. I have been there many times 
and let me tell you, I have never seen a country that 
has the space program so integrated with their life — 
not politics, but life. And I think that is the reason the 
Indian space program there, at least the part I have 
seen better — Earth observation — is so strong and so 
mature. It is not like ours. Every year we don't know if 
Landsat will go up or down, or if we will lose the 
money or somebody invents something else. The 
Indians have a long-term program because the life of 
their nation depends on space. What they do every 
year is to adjust maybe 10% of their budget for that 
year, but they don't cancel things. Governments may 
go, but not the space program. That's serious. 

That satellite they launched just a few months 
ago is giving us the best results that we've ever seen in 
commercial satellites. There is an exhibit outside, you 
can look at it. It is the most advanced non-military 
satellite and is going to be available for everybody. This 
is the conclusion of my speech, don't worry about its 
length. When I saw their centers I saw thousands of 
young people, well dressed, extremely well spoken, 
well educated, and enthusiastic about the space pro- 
gram, working eight, 10, 12 hours a day. Do you know 
what I thought? Because I worked with NASA, even 

Positioning Service Accuracy Augmentation 

H Precise 

16 meters H 

100 meters ■ 

H Wide Area 
H Local Area _ 

H Standard 

_ .6-3 meters 

V Rockwell 

Fig. SA-102 

before NASA at the beginning, I saw NASA again. 
They like the old, real NASA. I wish we had here the 
enthusiasm that these guys have. Thank you. 

Editor's note: Introduction of Mr. Minor appeared in 
Mr. Aldridge's opening remarks. 

Mr. Minor: Good morning. I would like to talk to you 
this morning about the way we see the direction of 
space navigation, well into the next decade. This vision 
is a compilation from interviews and discussions with 
system users, system architects, and system operators, 
as well as considerations from the many studies of 
GPS and congressional hearings. 

Our company has a long standing commit- 
ment to space navigation and GPS, dating back to the 
early 1970s. Two weeks ago we successfully launched, 
and are in the process of deploying, our 25th Block II 
operational satellite. All 25 satellites are still operating, 
some dating back almost seven years. The entire GPS 
team, including the (IS. Air Force, Aerospace, U.S. 
Naval Observatory, IBM, and Rockwell was honored 
with the presentation of the Collier Trophy in 1992. 

Focus your attention on two main areas today: 
the future applications and our challenge to maximize 
the system utility. Looking at navigation history [Fig. 
SA-101], even the past few years have seen orders of 
magnitude improvement in accuracy and availability, 
compared to terrestrial-based systems, such as Loran. 
We will look at some of the ways space navigation is 
revolutionizing life on Earth. The Presidential Decision 
Directive of March 29 reaffirmed continued (IS. sup- 
port for free access to the signals, calls for an annual 
determination on continued use of selective availability, 
and established a permanent Interagency GPS 
Executive Board. 

Let's just briefly define some terms for our talk 
[Fig. SA-102]. There are many architectures for space 
navigation, and all vary depending on the application. 
Basically they fall into two architectures: the basic GPS 



Battlefield of the Future 

Military Missions 

Featureless Environment 
Ultra Precision Strike 

4* Rockwell 

Fig. SA-103 


Future Military Missions 

of GPS navigation signal 
against jamming 

* Threat induced 

» Self induced 

" Noise and other 
non-intentional sources 

Prevention . . . 

- of use of GPS navigation 

- generation and use of 
augmentation signals 

Ground based 

* Space based 

Studies Will Develop An Integrated Architecture 
That Addresses Above Issues 

4^ Rocfrwetf 

Fig. SA-104 

GPS IIF Procurement 

Current plan 

- JPO Streamlined Procurement - Contract is for Space and 
Control Segments 

- Award Date - Late April 

What IIF brings to user community 

33 satellite buy supports the space segment to 2015 and beyond 

- System has capability for future growth - Flexibility 
Second civilian frequency brings greater accuracy 

- New military capability 

Signal strength raised to current satellite (II / HA) performance 

9 Rockwell 

Fig. SA-105 

and augmented GPS. 

As originally designed, the system was and still 
is a stand-alone system. However, because of the ter- 
rific appetite for accuracy and profits, new ingenious 
architectures have driven the system way beyond any- 
one's imagination of just a few years ago. 

Some of these augmentations represent con- 
cerns to the U.S. military and our allies because of the 
global availability of precise accuracy. For example, the 
wide area broadcast for the Eastern CI.S. air space also 

Fig. SA-106 

provides 7-meter accuracy to all the Near East coun- 
tries, including Iraq. This presents a dilemma that I will 
touch on later. 

I'm going to talk about three categories of GPS 
applications: military, civil, and commercial. Because 
of the limitation of time, I will not be able to talk about 
all the important applications but will focus on those 
that seem to have the greatest promise into the next 

Let's first take a look at some military missions. 
Theater conflicts of the future [Fig. SA-103] will be 
fought in unfamiliar featureless terrain, much like con- 
flicts and wars of the past. GPS provides a new force 
multiplier, as was proven in the Gulf War. Precision 
guided munitions will enable more effective strikes and 
less civilian collateral damage. 

All of this will need to be accomplished in an 
environment of what is now being called NAVWARS. 
NAVWARS [Fig. SA-104] is a solicitation out of the 
GPS joint program office. This will begin as an archi- 
tectural study to define ways to protect the U.S. 
Department of Defense and allied interests, as well as 
preventing use of GPS by our adversaries, while still 
providing access to allied and civil users. 

At this point let me mention something about 
the next block of GPS satellites [Fig. SA 105]. The 
GPS joint program office is currently in source selec- 
tion for the next 33 satellites and ground segment. An 
award later this month will demonstrate to our allies 
and the rest of the world our commitment and leader- 
ship to this system. 

The new functional capabilities contain the fol- 
lowing. The system will have built-in added capacity, or 
flexibility, for new capabilities for added missions in the 
future. It will also contain a second civilian frequency 
that will improve civilian accuracy. And, finally, it will 
increase signal strength. 

This is a great picture up there [Fig. SA-106]. 
This was a very happy day for the military — a GPS- 
aided rescue. Rockwell was recently awarded a con- 



Future Commercial Applications 

Precision Farming 

Combining GPS and Remote Sensing 

Fig. SA-107 

Land Transportation 

Communications, provides Navigation Units 

a C'i, asset location sim " 

1995 2005 

& Rockwell 

Fig. SA-108 

tract for production of the Combat Survivor Evader 
Locator (CSEL) to enable more effective rescues, such 
as that of Capt. O'Grady in Bosnia. 

CSEL had been under study for several years — 
Capt. O'Grady brought this idea home. The first pro- 
duction calls were for 11 ,000 of these units to be built. 
And I am sure there will be more that will follow. 

Let's now look at how space navigation is 
affecting our lives in the commercial arena [Fig. SA- 
107]. Two areas of land transportation [Fig. SA-108J 
are currently benefiting from GPS: trucking and auto. 
However, for units to become part of our everyday 
lives, the cost must come down — and because of sup- 
ply and demand the cost probably will. In less than 10 
years, the cost of GPS auto receivers will enable this 
system to be optional equipment on every auto at an 
affordable price. With GPS, navigating complex central 
cities of the world will be much easier. 

Combining GPS with remote sensing enables 
something called precision farming [Fig. SA-109], 
which places the right amount of nutrients in the right 
place. This will improve crop yields, reduce ground 
water pollution, and reduce costs of farming. While the 
concept of precision farming is in the proof-of-concept 
and demonstration phases, it appears that this is a 

500 1000 1100 2000 MOO 

*> Rockwell 

Fig. SA-109 


breakthrough technology for the farming community. 

A residual benefit of GPS is the global accep- 
tance of it for time transfer [Fig. SA-1 10]. The time 
accuracy of GPS enables the isolation of line breaks to 
the nearest utility pole. Telecommunications is relying 
on GPS for timing on a global basis as digital commu- 
nications become prevalent. This enables an increase 
in system capacity. 

Civil Applications [Fig. SA-1 11] represents an 
area where rich rewards of GPS are taking place, in 
lives saved and dollars saved. A couple of years ago in 
southern California there were some devastating fires. 
As we tried to apply GPS to other applications we went 
and talked to the firefighters and asked them, "How do 
you keep up with your resources? Your trucks, your air- 
planes, your people?" They pulled out a 3X5 card and 
said, "This is the way we do it." And we said we have a 
better idea for you. We are in the midst of working with 
these people today for an application of GPS and other 
products to make sure the firefighters are as techno- 
logically advanced as we see in some of the other 
applications that are coming up. 

Applications to aviation have been under study 
for 15 years [Fig. SA-1 12]. The FAA's Wide Area 
Augmentation System (WAAS) and Local Area Aug- 
mentation System (LAAS) have architectures that will 




Wide Area Enroutc Through Cat ! 


Local Area Cat II SHI 

GPS Deployment For Aviation 

Saves S5B Annually 

*> Rockwell 



I Positive Train Control (PTC) 

*> Rockwell 



meet future system capacity needs, improve safety, 
and return cost savings in fuel and time. However, 
there remain large development, deployment, and 
political challenges in this arena. This is an area where 
cooperation between government, airlines, and GPS 
providers will enable sole means service by the year 
2010 or before. 

The railroad system [Fig. SA-1 13] is in the 
proof-of-concept phase. It faces the same challenges 
as aviation applications, that is, government regulation 
for safety reasons and military signal protection. 
According to the Federal Railroad Administration, sev- 
eral recent railway accidents could have been prevent- 
ed with Positive Train Control using GPS. I think we will 
see that in the future. 

I've presented some of the applications that we 
believe will grow significantly in the next decade. 
However, to do so they need to contend with the GPS 
dilemma: expanding system utility while protecting the 
military mission. The resolution of this dilemma is 
through continued U.S. system leadership, providing 
free access in order to discourage other countries from 
developing their own system, developing methods to 
protect the U.S. military signal, and preventing use of 
the signal by the threat. 

Let me briefly summarize [Fig. SA-1 14] by presenting 
a timeline of some of the major applications that we 
have talked about. First, surveying was the first wide- 
spread use of GPS and has already made the transi- 
tion from its old technology to GPS. Transportation 
applications have been under study for years. The 
major transformation will occur with the introduction 
of WAAS in the late 1990s and LAAS in the early years 
of the next century. Full sole means use is planned for 
2010. Rail services are still in the proof-of-concept 
phase but will likely catch up by 2010, forced by safety 
considerations. Highway usage will be driven by the 
reduction in user equipment cost with widespread use 
by 2005. Commercial applications and time transfer 
services are virtually in place at this time. GPS is truly a 
great system, and Rockwell is proud to be a part of it. 

Editor's note: Introduction of Mr. Gianelli appeared in 
Mr. Aldridge's opening remarks. 

Mr. Gianelli: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It 
is a real pleasure to be with you this morning to 
engage in a dialogue about a subject that we all hold 
near and dear . . . SPACE. 



Fig. SA-201 

In this morning's session on Space 
Applications and Cooperation, I've been 
asked to discuss communications. Let me 
begin by stating, without equivocation, that 
communications and navigation are the 
only viable commercial uses of space in 
existence today. Of the two, communica- 
tions is the space application that continues 
to shrink our world and drive international 
cooperation as few commercial undertak- 
ings can. 

You might say that the globe began 
shrinking in the 15th century with the 
advent of movable type and the printing 
press. Ocean liners, and later air travel, 
accelerated the narrowing of the geographic 
gaps that separate the nations of the globe. 
The telegraph, telephone and eventually 
transoceanic cable drew the world into an 
even tighter circle. 

It wasn't until 1963, however, with 
Hughes' invention of the geosynchronous 
communications satellite that a truly new 
millennium in telecommunications capability 
emerged. Syncom, from its position 22,300 miles 
above the equator and moving at the same speed as 
the Earth rotates, forever changed our lives. Today, 
the phrase "live via satellite," is seldom used even as 
we witness the world's events in real time, because 
satellite communication is so commonplace that is 
almost taken for granted. So we don't say "live via 
satellite," any more than we would say "calls via 

It is this concept of a shrinking world that has 
created the global village that encourages, in fact 
demands, that the peoples of the world cooperate for 
their mutual benefit. I'm pleased to say that communi- 
cations satellites have fueled the concept of the global 
village as few other inventions have, and they have 
thus played a major role in creating a world without 

Before addressing the issue of cooperation, I'd 
like to spend a few minutes discussing the various 
applications which communications satellites serve. 
When you say communications satellites, the first 
thing that comes to mind is television program distrib- 
ution. News, sports and weather. . .all staples on the 
information and entertainment menus of people 
around the world. 

While it's easy enough to comprehend that 
television programming is one of the primary uses of 
satellites, we don't often think of satellites as being the 
source of a number of newspapers and magazines. 
Nor do we often think that when we put down a credit 
card to make a purchase at a department store our 
transaction is likely being approved via satellite. 

Likewise, thousands of stock and bond trans- 
actions each day, as well as numerous hotel and airline 
reservations, are transmitted via satellite. And a num- 
ber of large corporations around the globe use satel- 
lites to control inventory, conduct training and conduct 

Here in the United States, the Commonwealth 
of Virginia and several other states use sattlelites for 
distance learning, and a number of satellite-delivered 
learning programs are offered for elementary school 
students to enhance educational opportunities for our 
nation's children. One such program, the Galaxy 
Classroom, is sponsored by Hughes. Satellite-based 
telemedicine programs are enabling expert medical 
diagnosis and treatment assistance for those living in 
remote areas that are medically under-served. 

The blueprint for the future is being created 
today and without question, the three fastest growth 
areas for satellite communications are direct-to-home 
television, mobile communications, and broad-band 
services. Few, if any, Americans haven't heard of 
DIRECTV or the DSS System [Fig. SA-201]. With the 
small 18-inch dish and DSS set-top receiver, more 
than 1.3 million American families are receiving up to 
200 channels of television programming in their living 
rooms direct from spacecraft flying 22,300 miles over 
the equator. Viewers can select pay-per-view hit movies 
that start as often as every half-hour and sports pro- 
gramming along with news, financial and market infor- 
mation, history, travel, crafts instruction, etc., when 
they want it. 

In Europe, the Society of European Satellites is 
providing direct-to-home delivery of television and 
radio programming through its Astra fleet of satellites. 



And direct-to -home services are emerging in Latin 
America, Japan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. 

The first satellite dedicated solely to mobile 
communications in North America was launched last 
year. Later this month, another Mobile Satellite will join 
it, providing seamless mobile communications capabil- 
ity for travelers in automobiles, trucks, boats, and air- 
craft throughout the United States, Canada, and 

Last year ICO Global Communications, an 
Inmarsat affiliate company, ordered 12 high-powered 
satellites that will provide hand-held mobile communi- 
cations services around the globe. That system will 
become operational in 1998, a little more than two 
years from now. 

And remote sensing imagery will tell farmers the 

best times to plant crops to increase crop yields. 

By understanding long range weather patterns, 

these farmers could avoid planting seeds that 

would be washed away by heavy rains before 

they have a chance to take root. 

Hughes and several other companies have 
applications pending before the FCC to build and 
operate fleets of high-powered Ka-Band satellites that 
will provide high-speed data transmission and a full 
range of interactive services, including personal tele- 
conferencing and medical imaging, to a global com- 
munity. When these satellites are launched, the Global 
Information Infrastructure will be in place. Here, once 
again, we see on-board digital processing technology 
developed for the military being used as the backbone 
for a highly complex commercial application. 

Collectively, these new applications hold 
tremendous promise for the world's developing 
nations. The technology that enables mobile commu- 
nications and private networks can be used also to 
provide instant communications infrastructure to 
developing nations. 

For example, using satellites and a small Earth 
station, a village in central Africa can establish eco- 
nomically viable telecommunications links with the 
outside world in a matter of days, instead of the years 
and millions of dollars it would take to lay cable to 
establish similar capability. A regional government can 
use small inexpensive dishes linked to digital satellite 
systems to establish multi-site educational facilities. 
(Jsing such systems, governments can provide 
enhanced educational opportunities to their children 
by offering a wide range of subjects taught by a small 
core of master educators. 

Medical imaging technology that will be avail- 

able through Ka-Band satellite systems I mentioned 
earlier will serve as the backbone for telemedicine ser- 
vices for remote regions. Through the use of such sys- 
tems, doctors, nurses, and other paramedicals can 
obtain expert advice from specialists around the globe. 
With microcameras and small affordable uplink dishes, 
surgeons could remotely guide procedures that save 

And remote sensing imagery will tell farmers 
the best times to plant crops to increase crop yields. 
By understanding long range weather patterns, these 
farmers could avoid planting seeds that would be 
washed away by heavy rains before they have a chance 
to take root. 

Thus far, I've talked about some truly exciting 
and promising new applications. Global cooperation, 
however, is required in order to maximize these ser- 
vices, and cooperation is the second part of my dis- 
cussion with you today. 

Cooperation is not new in civil and commercial 
space activities. Certainly foreign scientists and engi- 
neers have been frequent passengers on the CI. S. 
Space Shuttle fleet, often conducting experiments that 
could lead to full-blown commercial uses of space. 
And American astronauts have also flown in the MIR 
Space Station. 

Likewise, other nations have cooperated to 
provide emergency landing options for shuttle crews. 
And a number of nations have participated in joint 
operations with NASA. 

In the commercial communications satellite 
industry, international cooperation was present from 
day one. The world's first commercial communications 
satellite, Early Bird, did, in fact, belong to the world 
community. Operated by Intelsat, the international 
telecommunications satellite consortium, the Early 
Bird satellite, which was launched in 1965, ushered in 
the new millennium I referred to earlier. Today, Intelsat 
is made of more than 120 of the world's nations, in 
cooperation to serve the communications needs of the 
world's peoples. 

The Intelsat consortium was created to provide 
satellite communication services to the nations of the 
world. It was quickly realized, however, that ours was 
also a global maritime community and that satellites 
could also provide communications services to ships 
at sea. 

In 1976, three Hughes-built Marisat spacecraft 
were launched creating the world's first non-military 
mobile satellite communications system. Today, 
Inmarsat's global commercial mobile satellite commu- 
nications fleet provides telephone, telex, facsimile, and 
data transmission services, including distress and safe- 
ty communications services to ships at sea and to 
mobile users both on land and in aircraft aloft. 



Headquartered in London, Inmarsat is a consortium of 
more than 60 member countries. 

In the cases of both Intelsat and Inmarsat, the 
satellites purchased by the consortia have been built 
using components from around the globe. 
Cooperation, however, is not solely the province of the 
international communications consortia nor should it 
be the tool that enables technologically advanced 
nations to exploit the developing world. Cooperation 
must provide global benefit. 

For example, as part of the contract to build 
Indonesia's first domestic satellite system, Hughes 
agreed to train Indonesian engineers and technicians 
in satellite design and assembly. That cooperation has 
carried over through each of the two successive gener- 
ations of Palapa satellites. Today Hughes is involved in 
an effort to upgrade the science curricula of 
Indonesian universities to enhance the country's tech- 
nology development plan. 

In fact, engineers from Canada, Brazil, Mexico, 
Thailand, China, Japan, Malaysia, Australia, Hong 
Kong, and Indonesia have all worked alongside 
Hughes personnel in our facility in El Segundo to pro- 
duce the satellites we have built for their countries. 

The explosion in satellite communications 
applications I spoke of earlier is driving cooperation in 
ways previously unthought of. As the world moves 
rapidly toward the privatization of telecommunications 
infrastructure, new opportunities provide — often 
demand — a new kind of cooperation between suppliers 
and service providers. 

While it may be immediately clear that few ser- 
vice providers have either the engineering expertise or 
the facilities to build their own hardware, we often 
overlook the fact that this rapid expansion requires 
greater access to space than at any other time since 
satellite communications began. Not only do we need 
more launch vehicles, we need different kinds. More 
efficient, more affordable access to space is the linch- 
pin in every model for the expansion of satellite com- 
munications services currently on the drawing board. 

Fortunately, in the last few years we have seen 
ventures emerge that promise to meet this increasing 
demand. But these new ventures, while challenging 
from an engineering perspective, are also extremely 
expensive, and that is where cooperation is helping to 
accelerate this trend. 

McDonnell Douglas has decided to build a new 
version of its venerable Delta rocket called the Delta III. 
To make that decision economically viable, McDonnell 
Douglas needed a guaranteed initial market for its new 
product. Last year Hughes entered into an agreement 
to buy 10 Delta III launches and to take options on 
more. That decision allowed McDonnell Douglas to 
proceed with this project and now the first launch of a 

Delta III is planned for 1998. 

Likewise, when Boeing decided to develop a 
totally new launch concept called Sea Launch, it could 
do so only with the cooperation and participation of an 
extensive team of international partners. But again, 
predictions for success required a guaranteed initial 
market. In December, Hughes struck a deal with Sea 
Launch to purchase its first 10 launches and took 
additional options. 

These deals don't represent corporate benefi- 
cence. They are the foundation upon which we are 
securing our future as a satellite manufacturer and ser- 
vice provider. We will use some of these launches to 
expand our current service business, while others will 
provide prospective customers an economical, efficient 
route to orbit. 

As the world moves rapidly toward the privatiza- 
tion of telecommunications infrastructure, new 
opportunities provide — often demand — a new 
kind of cooperation between suppliers and 
service providers. 

Just as new launch vehicle development 
requires cooperation, the increasingly private service 
provision industry also often depends on cooperative 
alliances for success. Earlier I mentioned AMSC and 
ICO Global Communications as providers of new 
mobile communications services. Both of these orga- 
nizations had capital-intensive establishment and 
expansion plans. In order to pass the first hurdle on 
the path to long-term financing, both needed a series 
of initial investors. The same was true of Motorola's 
Iridium project. In each case satellite manufacturers 
provided some initial funding guarantees to jump-start 
those projects. 

Just as it was in the early days of satellite com- 
munication, international cooperation remains the cru- 
cial ingredient in the recipe for the future success of 
the commercial communications satellite industry. 

For the world to enjoy the rewards of the tech- 
nologies I have described will require international 
cooperation not just among the manufacturers and 
service providers, but cooperation among and within 
governments as well. 

As international systems such as the global 
mobile personal communications system come on 
line, the satellite communications industry finds itself 
where the airlines were years ago — in the position of 
having to negotiate landing rights. For these systems 
to be most effective, they must be available to the 
world's citizens without border considerations. 

Which brings us to the point of standards. 



Global systems can only work if the user community 
adopts product and system standards which apply 
internationally. Mobile telephones that work in New 
York should also work in Tokyo. Data transmitted from 
Senegal should be easily received and used in Istanbul. 
The challenge facing our industry is the design and 
delivery of seamless end-to-end systems. 

To help bring focus and attention to these 
cooperative issues which we face as we move toward 
global mobile personal communications systems, the 
International Telecommunications Onion will hold its 
first World Telecommunications Policy Forum this 
October in Geneva. 

The primary focus of the forum, a three-day 
gathering of private and public sector leaders, is to 
reach agreement on policy and regulatory measures, 
at the national, regional, and international levels, 
required to facilitate deployment of the systems and to 
promote access to the services they offer at the most 
reasonable rates possible. 

Communications applications and cooperation 
is truly a closed loop system. The applications drive 
cooperation and cooperation can in turn drive the cre- 
ation of even more effective beneficial applications. 
While we may be a world of many nations, we are, in 
fact, a global village created under the umbrella of 
communications. Thank you. 

Editor's note: Introduction of Mr. Takada appeared in 
Mr. Aldridge's opening remarks. The text following 
was provided in the paper/presentation entitled, 
"Development of Satellite Communications and 
Promotion for International Cooperation in Japan" by 
Akiyoshi Takada. 

Mr. Takada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 
your gracious introduction. I'd like to start by thanking 
my U.S. Space Foundation hosts for inviting me to this 
beautiful city, Colorado Springs. 1 am very pleased to 
be given the chance to speak on Japanese satellite 

In today's presentation, first I'd like to explain 
about the development of Japanese satellite communi- 
cations. Next, I'll speak about the international joint 
satellite experiments related to Gil (Global Information 
Infrastructure) and about the importance of the role of 
satellites for human resource development and the 
improvement of infrastructure in developing countries. 
Last, I'd like to talk about trends in the promotion of 
advanced R&D in Japan. 

The history of satellite communications in 
Japan started with the launch of CS (Medium-capacity 
communications Satellite for Experimental Purposes) 
in December 1977, which was 15 years behind the 
United States. This satellite was developed by NASDA 

(The National Space Development Agency of Japan). 
However, most of its parts were based on technology 
introduced from the (IS. Moreover, the satellite was 
launched by a Delta 2914 rocket. As the following 
chart shows, Japan has acquired the technology of 
satellite development and has developed satellite com- 
munications while learning from the U.S., especially 
from NASA. 




Price (hundred 
million yen) 


CS — 3a 





CS — 3b 





1989. 3. 7 





1990. 1. 1 










1992. 2.27 





1995. 8.29 





1996. 2. 5 





1995. 8.29 




Concerning the use of satellite communica- 
tions in Japan, until the first half of 1980, NTTPC 
(Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public Corp.) and 
government bodies such as the National Police Agency 
were the main users of satellite services. In 1985, when 
the principle of competition was introduced in the field 
of telecommunications services, two satellite commu- 
nications carriers newly appeared. 

Currently, JCSAT of Japan satellite systems 
and SCIPERBIRD of SCC and NStar of NTT are under 
operation. N-Stars has started to provide a domestic 
mobile satellite communications service. A digital 
multi-channel broadcasting service is just around the 
corner. We are now entering a second development 
era for satellite communications as illustrated in the 
following chart. 




Price (hundred 
million yen) 


BS — 3a 





BS — 3b 




BS — 3N 

1994. 7. 9 




BSAT— 1 a 

1997. plan 




BSAT— 1 b 

1998. plan 




On the other hand, concerning the world, as a 
result of the initiative taken by the Gnited States vice 
president, Mr. Al Gore, in advocating Gil, many coun- 
tries are now in the process of establishing their own 
national information infrastructures. 

The significance and importance of the Gil is, 
I believe, that anyone can take advantage of an ad- 




Fig. SA-301 

vanced info-communications services any- 
where, helping to increase communications 
between people and people, and between 
country and country. The goal is that mutual 
understanding will grow all over the world and 
contribute to world peace. In addition, the 
advanced information infrastructure will bring 
about a new multimedia industry and con- 
tribute to more employment opportunities 
[Fig. SA-301]. 

In this context, much is expected of 
satellite communications because of the testi- 
fied advantages, especially regarding wide cov- 
erage, flexibility of establishing communication 
links, mobility, and so on. Satellite communi- 
cations are sure to play an essential role in the Gil. 

During the G-7 Information Society 
Conference in Brussels in February 1995, 11 interna- 
tional joint projects were adopted towards a speedy 
establishment of the Gil. 

In Japan, we promote each project in cooper- 
ation with other G-7 countries, and above all in satel- 
lite communications, we are promoting the Japan-CJS 
Transpacific High Data Rate Satellite 
Communications Experiments Project under the 
framework of GIBN, Global Inter-operability for 
Broadband Networks, which is one of the 1 1 joint pro- 

A configuration of these experiments is shown 
(Fig. SA-302]; Japan and Hawaii are connected by 
INTELSAT, Hawaii and the (IS. mainland are connect- 
ed by ACTS (Advanced Communications Technology 
Satellite.) The first experiments on this project are 
ATM-LAN interconnection at 45 Mbps and High 
Definition Video post production processing at 45 
Mbps and 156 Mbps. 

We think it is important that such projects are 
promoted not only bilaterally like Japan-CI.S. but also 
globally. In this context, the quadrilateral meeting on 
International Joint Experiments for Satellite High Data 
Rate (HDR) Communications proposed by my ministry, 
was held in Hawaii in November 1995 with participants 
from Japan, U.S., Europe, and Canada. In this meet- 
ing, we agreed to cooperate in establishing the Gil 
through satellite communications. As a result of this 
meeting, we are to promote Japan-Europe High Data 
Rate Satellite Communications Experiments Project, 
and we are now in the process of holding discussions 
with ESA [Fig. SA 303]. 

As everybody is aware, 1992 was selected by 
the United Nations as "International Space Year" (ISY) 
and a motion was approved suggesting that advanced 
countries should transfer developed space technolo- 
gies to the developing countries. Based on the spirit 
of ISY, Japan started the PARTNERS Project among 
the countries in the Asia Pacific Region aimed at 

Future Image of Space Communications System 
and R&D Act i vit ies (1) 

F j xed-Sate I Lite_serviceJFSSl 

To provide hi gh data 
rate and high 
performance satet 1 ite 
communications Seryicr 

el lite already launched or planned 
litiologies to be developed in next 10 years 

Trans-Pacific High Data Rate (HDR) Satellite Communications Experiments 



The United States 

Fig. SA-302 

.lapan-liurope High Data Nate (Hl)(\) Satellite Communications Experiments 




Fig. SA-303 

developing human resources among other objectives 
[Fig. SA-304]. 

This project was conducted using the 
Engineering Test Satellite Type-Five (ETS-V), launched 
in 1987. The L-Band transponder was used on many 
experiments such as for Distance-Medicine, 
Distance-Education, Technical-Science, etc. The fol- 
lowing chart shows past and planned launches. 

Engineering Test 




Price (hundred 
million yen) 



1987. 8.27 


1 50 


E T S —VI 

1994. 8.28 


4 1 5 



1997. plan 


32 1 



1997. plan 






PARTNERS PROJECT (Apr/92 - Mar/96) 

C ) Satellite Radio Wave Propagation Tests, 

Distance Education Trials 
# : Distance Medicine Trials 


[University, Laboratryl 



Fig. SA-304 

In the U.S., there is a similar project conducted 
by the University of Hawaii called the PEACESAT 
Project, which covers the South-Pacific region. These 
two projects are closely related. Over the past three 
years, experiments conducted as part of the PART- 
NERS project indicate that satellite communications 
are effective in the fields of Distance-Education, Dista 
nee-Medicine, etc. In addition, the PARTNERS project 
was highly regarded by the participating countries. 

The ETS-V is coming to the end of its life. The 
experiments were finished at the end of March 1996. 
However, there are many expectations for a continua- 
tion of the experiments in the countries of the Asia 
Pacific region. Therefore we have decided to conduct 
the next project called Post-PARTNERS project, which 
will utilize a private sector satellite, and we are now in 
the preparing stage [Fig SA-305]. 

Image of POST - PARTNERS system 


< outlines til 
A*itf-Parific region 




Fig. SA-305 

The Information Society Ministerial Conference 
will be held in South Africa this May, with participants 

from developing countries. It is true it is very 
important to build a future Global Information 
Infrastructure using advanced techniques, but 
communication systems that are inexpensive and 
simple are required for developing countries which 
do not have sufficient public telephone lines. For 
example, a system which can be connected to the 
Internet conveniently might be of more importance 
than a high-tech system. As a result, systems such 
as the PARTNERS Project Systems have a role to 
play in the future Gil. 

The progress made to date in satellite commu- 
nication technology is outstanding. It is not only 
quantitative, such as the increase of the capacity of 
Intelsat, but also very qualitative, which can be 
seen from the appearance of global satellite com- 
munication networks using non-geostationary 

Future Image of Space Communications System 
and R&D Act i vi ties (2) 

Mub i (e-Satel lite Service (MSS; 

Fig. SA-306 

Japan has been promoting research and develop- 
ment of satellite communication technology for 20 
years. Based upon that experience, my ministry asked 
the Telecommunications Technology Council in 
January 1995 to report on the future direction of 
space communications systems and R&D promotion 
reflecting the changes now taking place around the 
world. The conclusions will be made public in May. 
The council notes that the meaning of R&D for satel- 
lite communication is: 

• to create new services; 

• to make revolutionary progress over a wide area 
of technologies; and 

• to contribute not only to domestic but also 
global information infrastructure. 

The council also predicts the future images of fixed-, 
mobile-, and broadcasting-satellite services. The sum- 
mary is as follows [Fig. SA - 306]: 

• With fixed-satellite services, the capacity and 
performance will be high. And Gbps class satellite 


technology and on-board ATM switching technology 
will be developed. 

• In the mobile-satellite service, the non-GSO 
system which provides global services and the GSO 
system which provides domestic or regional services 
will be operated. And a multimedia system including 
visual communications will be promoted. 

• In satellite broadcasting [Fig. SA-307], high 
performance systems such as HDTV and ISDB which 
can provide multimedia service will be operated. 

Japan shall try to improve its technology to create 
new services, to promote R&D, and to contribute inter- 
nationally, based on the conclusion of the council 
which will issue its report in May. 

In closing, I would like to express my great appre- 
ciation once again to the CIS Space Foundation for the 
privilege of taking part in this famous symposium. I 
would like to use this occasion to express my sincere 
wish that satellite communications continue their swift 
development, along with ever-advancing space tech- 
nology. Thank you very much for your kind attention. 

Future Image of Space Communications System 
and R&D Activities (3) 

Satellite Broadcast ingiBSS) 

I'NutBS) E rs-* Emir; 

Fig. SA-307 

cy coordination, which the lower altitude systems are 
not immune from. I think anyone who's been following 
these systems in the press sees that there's a lot of 
negotiations that have to go on to ensure that the 
spectrum is available and that there aren't any interfer- 
ence issues that are raised. I think it really depends on 
the economics of the application. 

Mr. Aldridge: Mr. Takada, would you like to comment? 


Mr. Aldridge: First question I'll read — I'll just come to 
them as I go — "due to the limited area in the geosyn- 
chronous belt, is the future of global communications 
moving to larger constellations of smaller more-capa- 
ble payloads such as Motorola's proposed Iridium con- 
stellation?" I think what you're asking is that, again, are 
we going to think about lower altitude distributed com- 
munications systems — is that the future of global com- 
munications? Is there anyone in particular who would 
like to respond to that? 

Mr. Gianelli: The answer is: It depends. I'll cut to the 
chase. I think for each application and for each busi- 
ness endeavor, the choice of the constellation is really 
going to be driven by the application and the econom- 
ics. For example, the current systems of low altitude 
systems — the Big LEOS and the Little LEOS — are real- 
ly driven to provide worldwide mobile communica- 
tions. Those systems in and of themselves are going 
to be rather expensive to put up and we'll have to have 
a fair amount of the constellation in place prior to the 
revenue stream starting. In contrast, those with some 
of the GEO-mobile systems, those areas will provide 
very focused geostationary mobile communications 
over particular regions. And again, each one of those 
systems is attempting to solve a slightly different prob- 
lem. Now with respect to the issue of coordination or 
the overcrowding of the geosynchronous arc, I think it 
really boils down to that of landing rights and frequen- 

Mr. Takada: I believe that communication policy 
should provide anyone the opportunity to communi- 
cate anywhere and anytime. Two, as an objective, we 
should develop communication links to anyone and 
anywhere, in the car, on the street, and so forth. To 
that end, we would have to develop a variety of com- 
munication networks using satellites or terrestrial 
mobile systems fixed optic fiber networks. 

Mr. Aldridge: Next question is, "Dr. [Krishnaswamy] 
Kasturirangan discussed how satellites could improve 
irrigation and water and snow sensing; specifically 
what satellites are being used for this purpose? 

Dr. Kasturirangan: We are currently using the optical 
remote sensing data for this purpose. What we try to 
do is to look at the extent of cover, the recessional fea- 
ture of the snow as the snow level melts, and then 
there is a model which is used to estimate the 
snowmelt runoff that gets into the reservoir. Of course, 
the questions related to the personal distinction of the 
snow with respect to its age is another thing for which 
we need to look at different developments, particularly 
thermal, IR, and microwaves. The other thing, the we 
use only optical sensing. Here is actually the question 
of estimating the level of water, the availability on a 
periodic basis and then pontification of that using, 
again, the question of looking at the surface area with 
the models converting it into volume, and then trans- 
ferring it into context of the in the downstream for 
radius agricultural related activators. So this is also 
done with optical sensing. 



Mr. Aldridge: Before we go on to the next questions, 
Dr. Kasturirangan and Dr. Silvestrini have a press con- 
ference and are leaving in just a few more minutes. 
Are there any questions from the audience that would 
be specifically addressed that we could respond to 
now before they have to depart? There are no more 
here in my stack of questions that I can see. Maybe 
there are a few coming up. These are specifically for 
them. OK, Arturo, what will be the future of Landsat 7? 

Dr. Silvestrini: I hope that it is going to go up. I have 
been associated with Landsat 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'd like to 
see a 7. I'm sure that somebody in the administration 
and Congress will make sure that that thing goes up. I 
don't know more than that. 

Mr. Aldridge: Dr. K., worldwide dissemination of edu- 
cation via satellite requires inexpensive television 
reception, especially in underdeveloped areas. Is India 
conducting research into development of very cheap 
TV receivers? 

But there is one aspect which we are looking 

into, and that is with respect to the use of the 

communication transponder and the capacity 

for the communication transponder. 

Dr. Kasturirangan: Right now we're in the process of 
proving of methodology for conducting education 
experiments, particularly, as I've said, in those three or 
four areas including developmental communications. 
And these, of course, do require massive deployment 
of receiver systems. The current level of receiver sys- 
tems utilization are on a community basis, for exam- 
ple, a total village consisting of say 300-400 popula- 
tion will use one television for this kind of program. 
This is the approach so that we can cut down the 
number. But, still, if you talk of India, you are talking of 
600,000 villages — so that is a kind of number then 
that one talks of. The current system certainly is a little 
on the higher side, economically. We are not making 
any special efforts to look into the cost reduction of 
television, but we are convinced that the first thing we 
will actually use will be black and white TV. Secondly, if 
we are able to produce enough numbers, there are 
probably production methods by which we should be 
able to cut down the cost. But there is one aspect 
which we are looking into, and that is with respect to 
the use of the communication transponder and the 
capacity for the communication transponder. Here we 
are looking into the compression of data since we are 
not really looking into the dynamic aspects of a scene. 
The compression ratio of between 8 and 16 or even 
higher is quite feasible for this kind of application. On 


that part, certainly we are doing some work. 

Mr. Aldridge: OK, here's one for Arturo. What sort of 
effect has been expended for multi-spectral mapping 
of the ocean? How can we use that data for better 
ocean resource management, such as fishing, coral 
reefs and so forth? 

Dr. Silvestrini: There are several initiatives that are 
going on right now, several satellites with ocean sen- 
sors. None of them, however, has reached the point 
where we can say that we are totally confident. 
Everybody's starting it and I think it's the next step in 
terms of ocean sensing. Even the Indian satellites have 
sensors to do that, or will have in addition to what they 
have now. 

Dr. Kasturirangan: I would add a word to what Arturo 
said about this. Currently on board IRS-P3 we are flying 
a modular opto -electronic scanner system, which is a 
13 channel spectrometer designed and developed by 
the German Space Agency. This is basically for ocean 
applications. The more advanced version of this, in 
terms of an ocean color monitor, is currently under 
development and that will be followed by a multi-fre- 
quency scanning microvave raiometer. This is a 500- 
meter resolution sensor which is also under develop- 
ment. These we plan to fly in the IRS-P4 satellite. 
Currently the forecast of potential fishing grounds has 
been operationalized in India using the NOAA thermal 
data, and that is very effective because the fish catch 
has gone up many times. We have recieved reports 
from the fishermen claiming fish catches increased by 
a factor of 3 to 4. What this ocean monitor will do is to 
extend this for deep sea fishing because you really deal 
with the parameters related to ocean primary productiv- 
ity. So this we propose to have in the next satellite in 
the form of an ocean color monitor. 

Mr. Aldridge: This one is also for Arturo. What are the 
major obstacles to the effective commercialization of 
remote sensing? Very simple question. 

Dr. Silvestrini: Believe it or not, I think that the world 
is going towards commercialization of Earth-sensing 
much more than it was before. If you look around 
France, Russia, Canada, and now the Indians, they are 
all commercializing their data, all of them. We have 
been doing it for the United States. Mow there is a 
problem here in the United States only. But, thank 
God, it's limited to a very restricted group of people in 
the administration who believe somehow that data are 
distributed free for everybody. And the rest of the world 
is going the other way. Are they dangerous? Yes and 
no. For us, no — now. Because we have the data, they 


don't. But later, they might. They might flood the world 
with free data, which will kill the commercial efforts of 
the Indians, the French, and of everybody else. That is 
the major problem we have. Thank you. 

Mr. Aldridge: OK, I think we ought to let Dr. K. and 
Arturo go. They have a press conference and we'll get 
on with it. Thank you very much. OK, Bob Minor's got 
off easy, so far. So the next one goes to him. The GPS 
system has clearly established a track record for Earth 
navigation, but what is the future of accurate positional 
data for space navigation, such as docking, Space 
Station support, rendezvous or return to the moon? 

Mr. Takada: I'm not representing the Japanese gov- 
ernment on foreign policy. But of course China is an 
important country in Asia, and we always are seeking 
to strengthen economical and cultural relations with 
China. But, unfortunately, up-to-date, in the satellite 
communications field, we have not heard any news 
related to future cooperative projects. Thank you. 

Mr. Aldridge: Mike Gianelli, you mentioned that the 
only viable uses of space were communications and 
navigation. I think you meant commercial in that case. 
Do you believe that there is a need for continued 
access to space for other basic scientific research? 

Mr. Minor: I don't think there's any question if you 
read all the trade journals and you see what the plans 
are for the future, and I'm sure for many of these gen- 
tlemen here whose companies build a lot of satellites 
that many space navigation are going to be a very big 
part. I can give you one that I personally have some 
knowledge on. On the Space Shuttle today we use 
some of the traditional methods of doing space navi- 
gations, and I know very shortly we're already flying 
GPS receivers on the shuttle, and very soon we hope 
to have on board a triple redundant navigation system 
on the shuttle and I think most of the applications and 
many future applications on satellites is certainly going 
to be the navigation of choice also in the satellite world 
and I don't think that's going to be measured in 
decades. I think it's in years. Maybe somebody else 
here would like to add to that, but that's the way I 
would see that. 

Mr. Aldridge: Another question for you, Bob. Will the 
CSEL system communicate via satellite or ground to 
air radio? The second part is, if via satellite will there 
be a civil version for backpackers, hunters, etc.? 

Mr. Minor: First, the CSEL — which is a new product 
and, as we mentioned earlier, Capt. O'Grady helped 
demonstrate the need for such a thing — is going to be 
an item that is two-way communications. To give you a 
little comparison, Capt. O'Grady knew where he was, 
but the only way that he could tell other people where 
he was was from an open radio communications. With 
respect to what we're going to be doing with CSEL, is 
that this will be a two-way communications. It will be 
encrypted. It will have an encrypted mode that will keep 
that person very well protected. It will be via satellite. 

Mr. Aldridge: Mr. Takada, do you expect to have much 
cooperation with the Chinese government in the next 
few years? 

Mr. Gianelli: The context of the remarks had to do 
with commercial uses, where independent commercial 
entities would actually be able to make a profit and 
stay in business long term. I think on the navigation 
side of this equation, in terms of commercial naviga- 
tion devices for everything from autos to yachts to air- 
craft, and the telecommunications industry, we've seen 
that. With apologies to Arturo here, I left out remote 
sensing because I think the jury's still out as to what's 
going to happen with remote sensing. There are a 
number of commercial ventures which are starting up 
and this is like where the commercial communications 
satellite industry was almost 35 years ago. Certainly 
there remains a need for access to space for scientific 
research, which is really going to define and help 
develop those new commercial applications. 

The GPS system has clearly established a track 
record for Earth navigation, but what is the 
future of accurate positional data for space 
navigation, such as docking, Space Station 
support, rendezvous or return to the moon? 

Mr. Aldridge: This is one that I think that you and Mr. 
Takada can answer. Due to the long acquisition and 
development process involved with developing a con- 
stellation, is it possible that the global information 
highway will outpace technological developments of 
space-based communication capabilities, such as how 
the 2.8 kilobit fax modem is out pacing conventional 
phone lines? 

Mr. Gianelli: There are a couple questions wrapped up 
in that. I think the first one has to do with the rate of 
returns on communication technology as compared to 
the lifetimes of some of the assets that we're putting 
into orbit. Your typical geostationary communications 
satellite will have a lifetime from 10 to 17 years, and if 
we look at the rate at which we're turning with 



telecommunications technology, one might argue it's 
almost every 18 months. So the question is, how do 
you balance that? And I'm going to submit that that's 
an architectural issue in terms of establishing the 
communications architecture and the business plan. 
You want to make sure that you insulate yourself from 
that technology wave. 1 don't see these things as 
being necessarily competitive, but 1 see them as being 
complementary. There's this real thirst out there for 
bandwidth for every consumer and user and we in the 
telecommunications industry have to be smart in how 
we plan these architectures to assure that we can try 
and stay a step ahead of that demand curve to pro- 
vide that bandwidth where it's needed and when it's 

Mr. Aldridge: When do you expect satellite bandwidth 
to become a limit to future growth? 

I think as the demand increases in urban areas, 

fiber will satisfy that demand, and in rural areas 

we have a more distributed user population 

for the high bandwidth, and satellite 
communications can provide that quite easily. 

Mr. Minor: That's a tough one to really answer. 1 think 
that the way that the capability is certainly going from 
a standpoint of what we're doing, the real issue is 
going to be: Can we keep up with the applications on 
the ground to how fast the satellite technology is grow- 
ing? Both are moving fast and I think both the ground 
and satellite technology are amazing everybody. I think 
they're going to stay fairly well in kilter for some time 
to come. 

Mr. Gianelli: If I could, I'd like to add something to 
that. If you look at what's changed in the satellite com- 
munications industry, it started out with point-to-point 
trunking services. We talked INTELSAT and Early Bird, 
and now with the advent of fiber, yes, you're going to 
hear a space telecommunications guy say that terres- 
trial fiber and space telecommunications are comple- 
mentary, because the strength of fiber is going to pro- 
vide an awful lot of bandwidth. The disadvantage is 
that it takes a long time to put that infrastructure in 
place. On the other hand, the strength of space com- 
munications systems is that it can provide that instant 
infrastructure to places which it's hard to reach with 
that mile of fiber. So I see these two technologies are 
complementary and that comes to the next point: 1 
don't really believe there's going to be a limit on the 
bandwidth. I think as the demand increases in urban 
areas, fiber will satisfy that demand, and in rural areas 
we have a more distributed user population for the 

high bandwidth, and satellite communications can 
provide that quite easily. 

Mr. Aldridge: I think you've also answered this ques- 
tion. Given the advantage in high rate for fiber optic 
links, what is the future of satellite communications 
between fixed points. It is a combination. There are 
cases where fiber is right, and there are cases where 
satellites are right. 

Mr. Takada: I think the relation between satellite and 
optical fiber is very difficult for us to foresee and what 
direction we are going. In my experience, three years 
ago my ministry made public a plan to establish 
nationwide optical fiber networks by 2010. After that, 
the satellite industry people came to complain about 
that strategy, saying that individual communications 
will be inevitable in the future. So now we are going to 
clarify volume of our policy prospective as I explained 
in my presentation, so next month we will have an 
intermediate target for the relations between terrestrial 
and satellite links. Thank you. 

Mr. Aldridge: Bob Minor, do you believe that the 
worldwide navigation system should be managed by 
the CIS. or be under the control of an international 

Mr. Minor: Consistent with the president's policy that 
he just came out with, I would certainly like to see it, 
because it can make economic sense to be basically a 
Cl.S.-driven system, but as the president said, I think 
he plans to open that up certainly to a policy board 
with, I'm sure, a broad area of representation. And 
hopefully in that respect there will be an international 
voice about one system that we can all enjoy across 
this world. 

Mr. Aldridge: How can international cooperation in 
space be accomplished while protecting the intellectu- 
al property rights of the participating companies? That 
is, technology transferred via an international coopera- 
tive space program can dilute a company's competi- 
tive advantage in the international marketplace. 

Mr. Minor: I think the foundation of the cooperation 
has to be mutually beneficial, and I see this protection 
of the intellectual property being no different than pro- 
tection of intellectual property when we do a business 
deal with a Rockwell or a TRW. When you enter into 
one of these deals it's because you're going to get 
more out of it than you're going to give. I believe that 
that's the spirit we have to enter the international 
cooperation. It really has to be a two-way street, it has 



to be a partnership, and there has to be mutual benefit. 
If there isn't mutual benefit, it's really not a partnership. 
I think those problems can be worked. They are thorny 
problems and they take a lot of soul-searching, but I 
think they're very workable. 

Mr. Aldridge: Anyone want to add to that? 

Mr. Takada: In trade negotiations, we have many times 
from the U.S. government themselves in text of prop- 
erty guides so I hope the intellectual property is some- 
thing like property of all mankind. But we have to 
respect that property, so I think it's better to have an 
environment to use more such property for the benefit 
of all mankind. 

Mr. Aldridge: The question of global communication 
standards is admirable. However, its implementation is 
extremely difficult, in light of the competition for busi- 
ness negotiations. Should companies developing new 
systems provide information in open forum to promote 
establishing standards? How much risk does this incur 
and how much return is there in doing so? I think what 
they're talking about here is, how can we best imple- 
ment these standards in this environment? 

Mr. Gianelli: I always start with the customer, and 
when we talk about these standards, most of the new 
applications are oriented toward or aimed at the indi- 
vidual consumer. I'm an individual consumer as well as 
you are. The thing that drives us all nuts is when box A 
doesn't play with box B. I think if we look to the mar- 
ketplace, we're going to see that that's what the mar- 
ketplace is really looking for: standards which are 
going to promote affordability. This is like the interna- 
tional cooperation question, in protection of intellectu- 
al property. These are tough issues to work. There are 
a lot of equities that get wrapped up here. I think the 
global mobile personal telecommunications standard 
is a prime example. I think there are four — or is it 
five? — mobile phone standards around the world. 
GSM, the one that's used in Europe, I think, is the 
most popular, and it sure would be great if you could 
take your little hand-held cellphone and truly roam 
worldwide. As a consumer that's what I would want to 
do. I think if we look to the marketplace, the market- 
place is going to demand those types of standards. 
The creation of proprietary standards or interfaces, 
while they may give a particular company an advan- 
tage in the short term, I think, in the longer term, stan- 
dards are going to be the way to go. If you look at the 
personal computer industry, you can see a pretty good 
example of that. 

Mr. Aldridge: Mike, since you're still on, the other 
question is, what are your views on the licensing 
approval allocation of radio frequencies for satellite 

Mr. Gianelli: We don't favor auctions, because that 
really puts the leverage in terms of folks that have the 
most money to put on the table up-front, and I think 
that's not what the telecommunications industry is all 
about. We'd like to see a little speedier process. There 
were some proposals made by the Australian govern- 
ment, or some interest groups in Australia, about actu- 
ally having some earnest money or due process 
towards using the slots. I think the orbital spectrum is 
pretty much like real estate. If you've got the corner 
lot, you're in control. The process is not perfect, it 
does seem to work, and I think there are some pro- 
posals on the table to improve it. 

Mr. Aldridge: Bob Minor, you're now experimenting 
with the idea of how firefighters can effectively use GPS 
to track their personnel and equipment. What limita- 
tions affect the GPS signal in the time of crisis — smoke, 
cloud cover, changes in weather, dust debris, etc.? 

Mr. Minor: From a GPS standpoint, those kind of situ- 
ations are very limited to us, and particularly as we 
look on to the next generation of 2-F satellites that will 
be, as we mentioned earlier, a second civilian frequen- 
cy that will help us even more from the ionosphere 
and those kinds of things that do detract from the 
accuracy. There are really no limitations there. It's a 
fantastic system. 

Mr. Aldridge: This is to our communications expert. 
We all see the explosion in communications around 
the world. The question is, what commercial or gov- 
ernmental activity is needed to ensure the privacy for 
individuals in satellite-based communications? 

Mr. Gianelli: I think what the question is poking at is 
the issue of export controls for encryption devices, and 
there has been some progress there. I think again it's 
an issue of standards and having a governmental poli- 
cy, and I believe the G.S. government at least does 
have a policy on export for encryption devices for busi- 
ness and personal use. 

Mr. Takada: I think the new technology has presented 
us with new problems, including the protection of the 
contents for privacy or protection of children from not 
getting information. In Japan there are many discus- 
sions related to the new services and new technology 
and so called convergence of communications and 



privacy. Broadcasting is a public communications. 
Now we are facing the phenonemon of convergence of 
communications and broadcasting, so maybe we shall 
develop a new scheme to deregulate communications 
in the broadcasting industry. 

Mr. Aldridge: I'm going to modify this question some- 
what to make it more intriguing. Will Irridium, which 
means the large LEO low-Earth constellations, put 
INMARSAT, which means GEO, out of business. I 
think the debate is that with all these large numbers of 
low-Earth orbit satellites for communications: Is this 
going to put the big satellites in GEO-orbit out of busi- 

Mr. Gianelli: The answer is: It depends. Both systems 
have some strengths and some not-so-strong areas. 
As I said earlier, a large system like Irridium will provide 
relatively disadvantaged users a relatively straightfor- 
ward way to communicate with the satellite system. 
Unfortunately, a system like that requires, because of 
the altitude, most of the constellation to be up and 
running to be able to provide initial service, so there's 
a great deal of infrastructure that has to be put up and 
has to be operating and replenished. On the other 
hand, I think the question was asking about ICO as 
well, which is an intermediate orbit satellite system that 
requires about 10 satellites to have the full constella- 
tion, and it can start operation with six of those satel- 
lites in orbit. It has some advantages over Irridium with 
respect to the look angle to the satellite position in the 
urban area. You'll have a higher elevation angle to the 
satellite. The investment to start a system like ICO is 
somewhat smaller than one like Irridium because of 
the amount of infrastructure that's required. Then if 
you go to geostationary orbit, you can focus the cover- 
age on a geographic region. When you put the first 
satellite up the revenue stream can start. There are 
some real economic and business differences between 
those three systems. Personally I think there's enough 
room for all of them to survive and thrive because 
there is a lot of demand out there for personal 
telecommunications services. 1 think the future for 
geostationary satellites is very bright. 

Mr. Aldridge: I have one last question that will be 
addressed to all three members of our panel. What do 
you see as the future of commercial space beyond 
Earth orbit? 

Mr. Minor: The first thing that we have to attack before 
we can talk about commercial applications beyond 
low-Earth orbit is transportation costs. And if we can't 
come up with significantly lowering the transportation 
costs, the opportunity for commercial applications 
beyond LEO are going to be severely hampered. 
Certainly putting that aside, we, like a lot of compa- 
nies, have looked at what are some of the applications. 
This question is a commercial one and 1 won't get into 
the military ones, but certainly things such as lunar 
mining — certainly as power generation there are some 
applications here that could be extremely advanta- 
geous to us here on Earth. But the major issue is how 
much does it cost to get there. 

Mr. Gianelli: I think Bob said it pretty well — and 
maybe I'm too pedestrian in my vision here and am 
maybe focused too much in the near term. I think that 
to really keep on fielding these applications, the cost 
for access to space has got to come down, and, as I 
said earlier, in my remarks that's one of the reasons 
why we're doing a number of these partnering deals to 
increase the competition and have different approach- 
es. 1 personally have not given a lot of thought to com- 
mercial applications beyond Earth orbit. 

Mr. Takada: I am not proficient in commercial applica- 
tions so my hope, from a policy viewpoint, is to pro- 
vide any kind of services cheaper and cheaper to the 

Mr. Aldridge: Well, in the tradition of the U.S. Space 
Foundation, we once again will end on time and we 
appreciate your attention. We appreciate your attention 
to the panel, and my appreciation to all the panel 
members for their time and efforts to present their 
views to this audience. Thank you. 



Earth Sensing, Communication and Navigation Applications 

Master Steven R Scott 

Moderator: Program Development Manager 
Rockwell Space Systems Division 

Session Roy Gibson 

Chair: Former Director General 

European Space Agency and 
British Space Agency 

Mr. Scott: Welcome back. Let's get going again with 
this afternoon's session. We'll now expand on this 
morning's theme of Earth Sensing, Communication, 
and Navigation Applications. Chairing this session is 
Roy Gibson. Roy has been director-general of both the 
European Space Agency and the British Space Agency 
and brings with him a wealth of international space 
experience. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome 
Professor Roy Gibson. 

Mr. Gibson: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I am 
grateful for the invitation to chair this panel and to 
make some short introductory remarks. Subsequent 
speakers here are all distinguished practitioners, and 
each one is going to give us some of his experience — 
the first three related to Earth observation, two more 
broadly, and Dave Thompson on communications. 
The speakers are very well-known, so to try to keep in 
our allotted time, I'm not going to repeat the introduc- 
tions. And by that I don't mean any lack of respect for 
my colleagues. So now let's get down to business. 

I want to talk, if I may, about public and private 
sector cooperation. Mahatma Gandhi was once asked 
by journalists what he thought of Western civilization, 
and after considering, he said he thought it would be a 
very good idea. 

We're not quite as bad off as that in public and 
private sector cooperation, but there is a thought to 
bear in mind. Space activities are often divided 
between those financed by the public sector, like space 

Speakers: Dr. John S. MacDonald 


MacDonald Detwiler, Canada 

Dr. Murray Felsher 

North American Remote Sensing 
Industries Association 

David T. Edwards 

Executive Vice President 

Vice Adm. William E. Ramsey, USN 

Vice President 

Corporate Business Development 

CTA, Inc. 

W. David Thompson 

Spectrum Astro, Inc. 

shuttles and science projects, and those in which the 
private sector has taken the lead — principally the vari- 
ous types of telecommunication satellite programs. 
But even in the extreme cases, the distinction between 
public and private is perhaps an oversimplification, 
because even when the program depends essentially 
on private sector money, there is generally and 
inevitably an important public sector involvement; 
however unwanted this may be. 

Even on a national basis, space programs these 
days can't really go ahead unless there is some contri- 
bution, in inverted commas, from the public sector. 
Even though the contribution may sometimes take the 
form of extorting for frequency slots, or, at the other 
end of the spectrum, of fairly altruistically help in show- 
ing compliance with international treaty obligations. 

Similarly, with international cooperative pro- 
grams, there's a need for a green light from the public 
authorities in virtually all cooperating states. When the 
program only concerns space agencies like NASA or 
the European Space Agency, they can generally be 
relied upon to deliver the necessary approvals from the 
non-space agency people, but it is a process that takes 
a long time. 

Noticeably, in many parts of the world, the 
authority of the national and even the international 
space agencies is much narrower than it used to be. In 
most regions, an increasing number of ministries, 
departments, and agencies have to be consulted, and 
this consultation is by no means just a formality. The 



services provided by satellites — particularly what we 
now call the applications satellite — nearly always fall 
into the legitimate bailiwick of an authority other than 
a space agency. It has thus become a most important 
function of the larger space agencies to attempt to 
educate their colleagues in the basic facts of space 
activities. All too soon these entities are setting up their 
own bureaus and have their own space gurus. You'll 
understand that I'm speaking on the basis of European 
experience, and I don't know to what extent my 
remarks are relevant in the United States. 

In Europe, the commission of the European 
Union, which is commonly referred to as "Brussels," is 
also taking a much increased interest in space affairs 
recently, not excluding defense matters. It's not, at 
least not so far as I am aware, an attempt to take over 
the European Space Agency, but simply that such 
things as industrial policy, industrial trade relations, 
and telecommunications liberalization which are all 
subjects that go well beyond the competence, in the 
legal sense of the word, of the European Space 
Agency. In fact, a new policy statement is expected 
very soon from the commission in Brussels outlining 
its future intentions in relation to all sorts of aspects 
of space. And I foresee a steady increase in Brussels' 

My feeling is, that unless European ministers 
get some real proof that Earth observation 

is moving in this direction, in the foreseeable 

future they are going to be reaching to turn 

off the funding tap. 

Mow whereas the communications space sec- 
tor has been dominated by the private sector people, 
with the public sector only involved peripherally, the 
Earth observation sector is still largely the preserve of 
the public sector. Remember, I'm speaking mainly of 
Europe. Earth observation satellites have been virtually 
all financed either by the European Space Agency or 
by EUMETSAT, which is the European organization 
that groups the meteorological services together, or 
else by the national space agencies, principally the 
French CNES with its SPOT family. 

Although for decades, governments have been 
encouraging space commercialization (I know it is a 
somewhat discredited term), the space element has 
been done by the public sector, and the private sector 
has been active practically entirely only on the ground, 
and thus we have developed private companies like 
French SPOT Image, Swedish SATTELITBILD, and in 
the U.K. the National Remote Sensing Center, Ltd. And 
all three of these are charged with processing, archiv- 
ing, and distributing satellite imagery, and they sell to a 
variety of customers. We should note, I think, at this 

stage that a large proportion of their sales are still to 
the public sector rather than to the private sector. 

These three companies, which have been 
formed in Europe, together with many other smaller 
value-added companies, seem to make a reasonable 
living, but we need to remember that their combined 
turnover is probably not more than $80 million U.S. 
Eighty million U.S. dollars doesn't go very far in terms 
of financing satellite systems such as SPOT or the 
European ERS. These companies have been doing an 
excellent job in showing how satellite imagery, includ- 
ing radar, can be used. They've certainly increased the 
user community, but they are still dependent on the 
satellites' being provided by space agencies. 

And this is a snag. In my view, many govern- 
ments, certainly in Europe, are getting tired of putting 
R&D money into satellites that are, in fact, operational 
or semioperational systems. And there is a real danger 
that this funding source will dry up before we've found 
an alternative. It would, I think, be unrealistic to expect 
the private sector to jump in straightaway with 100 
percent funding for follow- on systems, such as ERS. 
Nor am I really sure that we should be aiming to con- 
tinue with the same sort of multipurpose satellites. 

Continuity in my book can only be assured, 
first, by accepting a transition period during which 
the public sector provides part of the funding, either 
in cash or in the form of a bankable guarantee, that it 
is going to buy the service or the information when it 
has been produced, and, second, by moving to 
smaller satellites — smaller satellite systems designed 
to meet specific user needs. By this I mean, paying 

My feeling is, unless European ministers get 
some real proof that Earth observation is moving in 
this direction, in the foreseeable future they are going 
to be reaching to turn off the funding tap. 

This is a spirit, I think, in which Radarsat and 
its marketing arm, Radarsat International, have been 
conceived. I think Canada has once again got it right; I 
hope that we in Europe are going to be able to put 
something similar together. Because there are a lot of 
complicating factors, not least the fact that there is an 
increased call for Earth observation satellite data to be 
classed as scientific and essential for the many big 
international climate and related programs. It is good 
to see that these programs are getting such support, 
but it is extremely hard to reconcile the needs of scien- 
tific programs with the imperative to encourage the 
private sector to invest its money in Earth observation. 
Scientists are wonderful people but they're not gener- 
ally flush with funds to buy data. 

The Committee of Earth Observation Satellites, 
CEOS, which Arturo Silvestrini mentioned this morn- 
ing, is an organization that isn't really an organization. 
It is more of a club of all space agencies and those 


who put money into space agencies. It's only now 
starting to come to grips with the needs of the com- 
mercial Earth observation community. This isn't a criti- 
cism because it has been doing some excellent work, 
but thus far, CEOS has been concentrating almost 
entirely on scientific users. And some of us, like Arturo, 
people from SPOT Image and others, have been trying 
to open a dialogue with CEOS in the hope of having 
the views of the private sector taken into account by 
the big players in the public sector at a very early 
stage. Particularly in the field of Earth observation, the 
future to a large extent, in my view, depends on a bet- 
ter understanding between the two sectors. 

For the purposes of dialogue with CEOS and 
with regional authorities, European companies have 
joined together under the banner of the European 
Association of Remote Sensing Companies. And 
we're hoping similar organizations will be formed in 
the United States and in other regions, and I know 
that some progress has been made. In my view, it is 
only in this way that we can get the private sector to 
influence the international public sector in Earth 

There is of course a whole new field of space 
activity opening up for cooperation between the public 
and private sectors — that of defense, including interna- 
tional defense space programs. Progress has certainly 
been made nationally, at least in some countries, to 
effect a convergence between the two. I believe in the 
next year we shall start to see some international initia- 
tives for the same sort. It isn't that the Holy Ghost has 
come over these people and caused them to get 
together. It is that money is rather shorter than it was 
five years ago, and needs are rather larger. 

Certainly in Europe, there are signs that nation- 
al and bilateral or trilateral defense projects are going 
to give way gradually over the next 10 years to plan 
European defense space programs and possibly, hope- 
fully, transatlantic ones too. But before this can hap- 
pen, we've a lot of work to do understanding how best 
these two species, the civil and the military, can inter- 
breed without producing a monster. 

In brief, I believe that the implications in Earth 
observation by satellite are going to expand in the 
coming years through a more intelligent cooperation 
between different countries, but also by mixes of pub- 
lic and private entities. Mow we've got some useful 
examples of what can be done, but I suggest it 
behooves the private sector to step up the pace. 
Government departments and agencies have got very 
important functions and qualities. There is even one 
of them in England that pays me a pension, and so 
I shouldn't knock them; but we've all recognized, I 
think, over the years, that innovation and new style 
of joint ventures are more likely to spring from entre- 
preneurial companies than from a government depart- 

Earth Observation is a global 

It begins with a set of measurements which 

• taken by instruments which are: 

• carried on spacecraft 

Earth observation measurements combined 
with other data produce INFORMATION 

Fig. ES-101 

ment. And so far we have not been all that active. But 
it's getting really very late, and I hand over to John 

Dr. MacDonald: Thank you very much. In keeping 
with the theme of the symposium — "Space: Enhancing 
Life on Earth" — I think many of us believe, certainly I 
think the people in the first four seats on that panel 
believe, that spacebome remote sensing systems will 
form the backbone of the information system that our 
descendants will use to manage mankind's affairs on 
this planet in the future in a sustainable way. 

But today as Roy (Gibson) has already out- 
lined, remote sensing, at least in North America and 
Europe, is at an important crossroads. What I like to 
call the pretty picture phase of our field is hopefully 
behind us and the future success of spacebome obser- 
vation, at least in North America and Europe, I believe 
will depend on the degree to which we stop thinking 
about Earth observation as a space business and start 
thinking about it as an information business. 

Earth observation is a global information busi- 
ness [Fig. ES-101). Space is a means to an end; it is 
not an end in itself. This global information business 
begins with a set of measurements that are taken by 
instruments carried on spacecraft. On that slide in 
that first bullet the reduction in the size of the fonts 
as I move down through the sub-bullets is deliberate. 
The most important thing is the information; the 
least important thing is the vehicle that happens to 
carry the instrument there to get the information. 
Earth observation measurements, when combined 
with other types of data, produce information. I note 
combination with other types of data. It is very rare 
for a set of Earth observation measurements by 
themselves to solve a problem. 

The ultimate purpose of an operational Earth 
observation system is to deliver measurements, which, 
when combined with other information, can be trans- 
formed into useful information that serves the needs — 
remember that word, needs — of a community of users 



The Delivery System 

Other data and 

Information : 

Sd*ntiflc U**r 

Fig. ES-102 

who have an economic, social, or strategic require- 
ment for the information the system produces. That's 
the objective of an operational system. If, and there is 
a technical point to be made here, if these measure- 
ments are to be successful in accomplishing that 
objective, they must be accurately calibrated. This 
implies we must treat them quantitatively rather than 
qualitatively, and they must be accurately located in a 
predetermined coordinate system. 

I want to just digress for a moment to support 
something that Arturo Silvestrini said this morning. 
This is a concept that has always been understood by 
the Indian Space Agency, ISRO, the Indian Space 
Research Organization. Like Arturo, I have been inter- 
acting with the Indian people for more than 20 years, 
and I can tell you that they have always had their focus 
on this kind of concept. 

Let me begin the rest of the talk, then, with a 
couple of definitions. I think it is important that we 
understand the operational user and the scientific user. 
The operational user is one who uses information 
derived from Earth observation data for routine environ- 
mental or resource management, strategic or mapping 
purposes, and so on. Such a person participates direct- 
ly in the economy. Output from such a person has 
direct economic, social, or strategic value. Remember 
the word value. Information derived from Earth obser- 
vation data therefore has economic, social, or strategic 
value to such a user. The operational user is a genera- 
tor of wealth, one who directly tries to improve the 
quality of life on our planet. Considering the point of 
view of the system itself, the operational user is a cus- 
tomer, and those of us in the private sector all know 
that the customer is the most important person you 
deal with, because customers pay the freight. 

The scientific user, on the other hand, is one 
who uses Earth observation information and data to 
gain an understanding about how such data can be 
required and to gain an understanding of how the 
Earth system functions. Such a user is a generator of 
knowledge. Such a user is not a customer. The scientif- 
ic user isn't the customer. The scientific user — because 
he or she creates the knowledge base — is part of the 

delivery system. One problem we have here in the 
United States — and in Canada and Europe — is that we 
tend to regard the scientific user as a customer, but, as 
Roy (Gibson) has already mentioned, the scientific 
user doesn't have very much money. 

The next overhead illustrates this in diagram- 
matic form [Fig. ES-102J. Here you have the opera- 
tional user on the left, and that vertical purple line is 
meant to distinguish what is customer from what is 
supplier. You have the spacecraft up in the sky. You 
have the acquisition system, the archives, the process- 
ing, and the distribution systems, the scientific user sit- 
ting in there getting data from everywhere trying to fig- 
ure out how to use this stuff, creating the knowledge 
base — the knowledge base, by the way, upon which 
everything else in the system depends. 

On the left side, you have the operational user 
taking Earth observation data and information, trying 
to extract information by combining the data with 
information from other sources. There is value in the 
data and information that crosses that purple line. 
There should be money going in the other direction, 
which maintains an equilibrium in value. The concept 
here: If you're going to build a business, you have to 
have a market. A business is something that serves a 
set of needs that have a certain value for which it is 
compensated. What this concept of equilibrium of 
value leads to is a potential pricing policy, which is on 
the next overhead. And it's — what's sometimes 
called — a two tier policy. Many people in this country 
think this is a terrible thing to do, but it follows logical- 
ly from the arguments I have made. 

The operational user pays market price, in 
which the value and the price are in equilibrium. I have 
friends in the oil industry who think Arturo's prices are 
cheap, because as one of my friends put it, "If I can 
save two days on a seismic crew with a few thousand 
dollars for an image, it more than pays for itself, and I 
use only about 5 percent of the image." Scientific 
users, on the other hand, because they are creating 
the knowledge base, can pay cost of reproduction; 
they can't afford anything else anyway and the knowl- 
edge base has value, provided a) they're doing bona 
fide research, and b) they undertake to take the results 
in the public domain immediately. That's the quid pro 
quo for getting free or low-cost data. Remember, the 
scientific user is not a customer. The scientific user is 
part of the delivery system. 

I mentioned earlier that a technical aspect of 
all of this is often overlooked. And it is the fact that 
quantitative measurement is required for both scientif- 
ic and operational use. Why? Because in order to 
meaningfully combine Earth observation measure- 
ments with data and information from other sources, 
it must have some physical meaning. You must be 
able to integrate it into your models. You must be able 



to position it as accurately as you can, so you can get 
the information from the same location and compare 
it. Similarly, you must be able to reliably compare 
information acquired at different times, possibly with 
different instruments, and interpret the differences in 
the context of what else is known about the area of 
the globe that you are interested in. You can only do 
this if you calibrate and locate accurately. And finally, 
you express these quantitative measurements in terms 
of physical variables that have meaning in relation to 
the models used to describe the situation at hand and 
predict future trends. 

The next overhead diagrams this concept 
[Fig. ES-103]. Here you have, on the left, physical 
measurements from remote sensing sources, physical 
measurements from other sources, and other data — a 
description of what is. That's what a remote sensing 
system does; it looks at the Earth and tells you what 
is. A model of these Earth processes is your thinking 
space that you're trying to understand. Models are 
very often built by the scientific community and used 
by the operational community. The operational user, 
over there, is perturbing the model, understanding the 
response, and trying to understand the implications of 
these things so that action can be taken. 

I've mentioned a little about calibration and 
location (Fig. ES-104). This overhead is one that I put 
together a number of years ago to emphasize the 
importance of the digital elevation model. But it also 
serves — when you've got only 15 minutes — to talk 
about a couple of other things. On the left, it shows 
the importance of the elevation model in terms of 
reflectance modeling, but it also gives you an idea of 
the complexity of the process of making optical mea- 
surements from space. The atmosphere is what you 
have to look through. You must compensate out the 
atmosphere if you are going to calibrate the data. It's 
a solvable problem; it's a complex problem. Have we 
ever yet, at least in the civilian world, flown a sensor, a 
high-resolution optical sensor, and at the same time 
boresighted with it, flown an atmospheric sensor to 
sense the atmosphere so you could correct for it? The 
answer is no. I don't know why we're so stupid, but we 
don't do those things. 

The other two graphs up there simply show you 
the importance of the digital elevation model in getting 
the geometric correction of the data for the optical 
case and the radar case. These are vitally important in 
order to be able to integrate data, as I said before. Do 
we have elevation models of the world? Not many. Even 
the DTED-5 isn't good enough for many of the things 
we try to do even, with the civilian sensors. And it does- 
n't exist for very much of the world anyway. As for the 
digital elevation model, we know now how to acquire it 
from space using radar interferometry. The digital ele- 
vation model is absolutely critical to being quantitative 
about this stuff over the land. 

Modeling Process 

"What is" 


Physical Measurements 
from remote tenting sources 

Physical Measurements / 

from other aourees ~~~~~^J MODEL 

\ Response ^iHHm 

7 OF 

\ WP 



Other Data "^ \ 

/ Perturbations VlrliV 

/ Operational 

Fig. ES-103 

Importance of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 

Reflec la r>c e Mooel I i ng 

Reliel Distortion Correction 
(optical instruments) 

Fig. ES-104 

In closing, I'd like to leave you with three ques- 
tions, and I think we have to ask ourselves these ques- 
tions as we look to the future in developing Earth 
observation systems. And we have to ask them in the 
order illustrated in the callout. The first two go togeth- 
er: What are we going to measure? and Why are we 
going to measure it? If there is no need to measure it, 
there's no point in putting up a system. The answers 
to those two questions are not simple. It takes a long 
time to understand these things. But I think that now, 
as a result of more than 20 years of civilian remote 
sensing at any rate, we do have the ability to ask and 
answer those questions. 

Three Questions: 

• What are we going to measure? 

• Why are we going to measure it? 

• How are we going to measure it? 

• Instrument combination -*• Spacecraft configuration -*• Orbit (launch) 

Once you've answered those two, then you ask 
the question: How are we going to measure it? That 
leads to an instrument combination, which in turn 
leads to a spacecraft configuration to carry those 
instruments and an orbit to make the measurements in 
the correct way. And finally the launch system to get it 



all up there. That's the order in which you should think 
about these things. What have we been doing for the 
past 20 years? More or less the reverse of that. We fling 
something up into the sky and then say, "What are we 
going to do with it?" So those are my thoughts on the 
future of Earth observation. Thank you for listening. 

Dr. Felsher: The title of my talk this afternoon is "The 
Remote Sensing Industry," a title certain to elicit from 
you an appropriate combination of smiles, sighs, or 
smirks— and, angst, applause, or apathy — depend- 
ing on your current or past professional lives. In fact, 
some would insist that its 50-plus years, post-World 
War II gestation period has not yet come to fruition, 
and the remote sensing baby is not yet ready to birth, 
and there is no remote sensing industry. They are 
wrong, of course. 

The remote sensing space segment, those 
builders of launchers, constructors of spacecraft, and 
fabricators of sensors, many of whom are represented 
in this audience, can attest to that fact. Insofar as the 
ground segment is concerned, by our count — and 
here I'm referring to the Washington Remote Sensing 
Letter that I publish — in calendar year 1995 there were 
136 symposia, workshops, conferences, conventions, 
and other open meetings held throughout the world, 
dealing with remote sensing and GIS applications, 
research, and technology. 

Remote sensing space and ground segment 
applications cover as broad a discipline 
spectrum as can be imagined, literally. We deal, 
in the space segment, with all aspects of engi- 
neering and technology, from antennas, 
to materials, to photovoltaics, to propulsion— 
and everything in between. 

Note that the annual meeting of ASPRS — the 
American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote 
Sensing — our professional society, will take place in 
Baltimore in two weeks, and it will draw more than 
4,000 registrants to the Baltimore Convention Center 
filled with 140 remote sensing/GIS private sector ven- 
dors. That, ladies and gentlemen, is indeed the raw 
material for an industry. 

And perhaps of somewhat more significance 
to the audience before me, here sitting in the shadow 
of Cheyenne Mountain, is the annual AFCEA Con- 
vention — the Armed Forces Communications and 
Electronics Association's Technet '96, to be held this 
June at the Washington, D.C., Convention Center. 
That meeting includes a complete mini-convention, or 
track, as it's called, dealing exclusively with geospatial 
information. One portion of that "track" is five com- 


plete sessions devoted entirely to a private sector solu- 
tions, as related to GIS and Department of Defense 
activities. That, too, speaks eloquently to the reality 
of a remote sensing industry, a burgeoning industry 
whose existence can no longer be ignored. 

In that connection, the incorporation of 
private-sector input into DoD mapping and imaging 
activities has recently been certified by a report of the 
Defense Science Board "Task Force on Defense 
Mapping for Future Operations," released by DoD 
barely seven months ago. As a member of that DoD 
task force, 1 shared with the other members the 
vision, from the task force report, to "provide digital 
distributed databases of geospatial temporal informa- 
tion as the foundation for military information sys- 
tems." And we recommended, as forcefully as we 
could, that "DoD should shift from a paper map men- 
tality to a digital distributed system," and significantly, 
insofar as my comments this afternoon are con- 
cerned, that DoD should, "exploit the commercial 
marketplace for imagery, hardware, and software 
tools, and services." 

Beyond meetings, and thus further attesting to 
the universality of remote sensing, note that some 
264 individual short courses were offered last year, 
around the globe, on topics directly related to satellite 
remote sensing and GIS. The diversity of these meet- 
ings and these courses is enormous. Remote sensing 
space and ground segment applications cover as 
broad a discipline spectrum as can be imagined, liter- 
ally. We deal, in the space segment, with all aspects of 
engineering and technology, from antennas, to mate- 
rials, to photovoltaics, to propulsion — and everything 
in between. 

The space segment/ground segment linkage, 
represented by Earth station designers and builders, 
incorporates the whole range of computer sciences 
and engineering, from control and communications 
to image acquisition and data compression. 

But it's in the ground segment that our indus- 
try's diversity is so evident and prominent. In the 
ground segment we deal with all discipline applica- 
tions from agronomy to zoology. Pick up any general 
science textbook, look at the table of contents, and 
any subject therein listed has a remote sensing appli- 
cations component, one that somebody, somewhere, 
is today pursuing using overhead imagery. Mow, toss 
in the diverse aspects of multidiscipline and inter-dis- 
cipline applications of remote sensing, as environ- 
mental monitoring, or land-use planning, or facilities 
siting, or coastal zone management — now mix in the 
more esoteric political and social sciences, such as 
economics, demographics, and, dare I say, national 
security — and we begin to understand and appreciate 
the sense of incoherence that appears to emerge, 
penetrate, and permeate though this industry we call 
remote sensing. 


It is this sense of incoherence, stemming main- 
ly from the very diverse nature of remote sensing appli- 
cations, that has been the major contribution to the 
very erroneous perception that a remote sensing 
industry either does not exist, or, because of that very 
broad sweep of applications, it is so large and diver- 
gent as to make it impossible to put one's arms about 
it, and thus it cannot be grasped. 

But I'm ahead of myself. Getting back to the 
ground segment, indeed, there are more than 400 
companies, of all sizes, worldwide, that admit to being 
value-added remote sensing/GIS firms, and it appears 
that as a group they are willing to deal with every con- 
ceivable application. 

And parenthetically, lest the point be lost, allow 
me to emphasize the fact that as we moved from the 
79-meter spatial resolution of the Multispectral 
Scanner of LandSats -1, -2, and -3; to the 30-meter 
spatial resolution of the Thematic Mapper aboard 
LandSats -4 and -5; to SPOT's 10-meter panchromat- 
ic spatial resolution; to the 5-meter spatial resolution 
of India's IRS-1C — each leap in spatial resolution has 
been accompanied by a significant increase in sales of 
image information products and services by the private 
sector, with each step of refined resolution resulting in 
increased image purchases by existing market compo- 
nents. More importantly, whole new application mar- 
kets, hitherto not active space imagery customers, 
have been brought into the fold, as spatial resolutions 
reached the threshold where the resulting image infor- 
mation could capture events considered significant to 
these new customers. 

What new markets, then, can we expect to 
emerge over these next several years as the new com- 
mercial licensees as Earth Watch, Orbimage, and 
Space Imaging fly their more capable birds, and we 
have available 4-meter, or 2-meter, or 1 -meter 
imagery? Yes, these are exciting times. 

In addition, coupled with this increase of spa- 
tial resolution will be an enhanced multispectral capa- 
bility as well, promised by Resource21. And beyond 
these electro/optic enhancements has been the 
appearance and availability of radar imagery from 
ESA's ERS-1, and Japan's JERS-1 and MOS-1. Also, 
Canada's ambitious RADARSAT has successfully 
flown, and we can now expect a flood of radar imagery 
to add to our commercial archives. 

And of course, concomitant, but hardly sec- 
ondary, has been the rapid development of software 
designed to digitally fuse, and otherwise seamlessly 
merge images from disparate image sensors. Mow, 
couple all this with the computer revolution that has 
placed on our desktops an image interpretation and 
analysis capability reserved but a decade ago for main- 
frames, and we begin to truly appreciate the fact that, 
yes, the remote sensing industry baby is not only full 
term — it's here, it's hungry, and it's beginning to howl. 

Which brings me to NARSIA. The North 
American Remote Sensing Industries Association is 
brand new. We're just starting out of the blocks. We 
have a letterhead and we have business cards. And we 
are drawing corporate members from across that 
broad space and ground segment spectrum of indus- 
tries noted earlier. NARSIA membership includes 
spacecraft and sensor builders, such as Hughes 
Aircraft Company. It includes such current data 
providers as EOSAT and SPOT. It includes such future 
data providers as Space Imaging, Inc. And it includes 
value-added firms as diverse as Autometric, Inc., MRJ, 
Inc., PlanGraphics, Inc., and SAIC. 

I'm going to wind up this talk by telling you a 
little of what activities NARSIA plans to undertake. 
And if this sounds like an open and shameless solici- 
tation for corporate membership, rest assured that it 
is. My own introduction to remote sensing, though it 
wasn't called that then, was as a graduate teaching 
assistant in photo-geology at the University of 
Massachusetts in 1959, where I was introduced to the 
intricacies of the Kelsh Plotter. Technology has long 
since passed the Kelsh Plotter by, and the technologi- 
cal wonders that have, since those years been piled 
one upon the other, have served to move a once 
research- and national- security driven subject of eso- 
teric exotica full-speed into the public and commercial 
arena. Where yesterday there was no possibility of pri- 
vatization or true commerce in remote sensing, today 
there is no question but that the business of remote 
sensing is here to stay. 

Where yesterday there was no possibility 

of privatization or true commerce in remote 

sensing, today there is no question but that the 

business of remote sensing is here to stay. 

The big problem is that the very diversity of the 
industry and its applications has served to isolate the 
practitioners. Depending on your place in the space 
segment/ground segment/end user continuum, this 
has led to severe disconnects: 

• As an example, we have no standards for 
data acquisition, delivery, and analysis, and hence the 
topsy-like resulting adoption of ad-hoc data formats. 

• As an example, we have no clear definition 
of the boundaries of our related businesses, hence no 
feel for the lacunas, the interstices, and the overlap- 
ping activities within those businesses. 

• As an example, we have no industry-wide, 
industry-driven mechanism for market research into 
evolving user requirements; hence no clear industry- 
wide understanding of current market trends or future 
market expectations. 



• As an example, we have no recognized, influ- 
ential industry-wide spokesperson who could respond 
to legislative branch laws and executive agency fiats; 
hence we have no organized input into the laws and 
programs most affecting our industry; 

• As an example, we have no outreach activi- 
ties aimed at informing the general public of the bene- 
fits already derived through Earth remote sensing, and 
those yet to be derived by a strong commercial remote 
sensing industry; hence the historic lack of citizen sup- 
port as a public constituency and advocate on behalf 
of remote sensing; 

• And finally, as an example, we have no indus- 
try-wide formal interfaces with institutions of higher 
learning; hence no means of instigating, affecting, and 
assuring an ongoing source of properly trained entry- 
level professionals who could take their places in our 

The panchromatic data is the highest spatial 

resolution remote sensing data commercially 

available today, collected 

on a regular basis. 

The first step in alleviating these and other situ- 
ations facing the remote sensing industry is to orga- 
nize ourselves, en masse, as a group. And the larger 
the group, the more certain its voice will be heard. 
And if we define our group in the manner described 
earlier, that is, encompassing the space segment and 
the ground segment components of our industry, and 
including appropriate input from the end-user commu- 
nity, we will then have one significantly large group. 
And that group will be NARSIA. 

We recognize, of course, that so diverse an 
organization as NARSIA will grow to be, it cannot count 
on its membership responding in a uniform manner to 
every situation. We do expect to encounter sufficient 
differences of opinion within our membership. Indeed, 
some tenets may be diametrically opposed. But as 
there is strength in numbers, so is there strength in the 
recognition of divergent views within a convergent con- 
text. As long as aims, objectives, and goals remain con- 
gruent, the tactics and strategies developed to achieve 
those aims, objectives, and goals can differ, can be dis- 
cussed, and can be reconciled. 

Ultimately, NARSIA's business is the business 
of doing business in remote sensing. We seek your 
corporate membership. A past issue of Washington 
Remote Sensing Letter containing NARSIA informa- 
tion, and a NARSIA application form is available at 
the literature table outside this room. Please take one 
with you and convince your management to seek 
corporate membership in NARSIA. We will be con- 

vening our Second Annual NARSIA Congress this 
summer, on July 25 and 26 in Washington D.C., so 
please leave me your business card if you wish to be 
placed on our mailing list to receive more informa- 
tion. I look forward to welcoming you as new corpo- 
rate members of the North American Remote 
Sensing Industries Association. Thank you for your 
kind attention. 

Mr. Edwards: Good afternoon. EOSAT and Antrix 
Corporation Limited, the commercial marketing arm 
of the Indian Department of Space, have joined forces 
to make present and future Indian satellite image data 
available worldwide for at least the next decade. 
EOSAT collects Indian Remote Sensing System (IRS) 
data of North and Central America at its Norman, 
Okla., ground station. EOSAT is also the exclusive dis- 
tributor of IRS data outside of India's footprint. 

IRS-1C, the most robust IRS satellite yet, was 
launched on December 28, 1995. Three types of data 
are available: panchromatic data with 5-meter pixels, 
multispectral data with 25-meter pixels, and wide-field 
multispectral data with 180-meter pixels. The panchro- 
matic data is the highest spatial resolution remote 
sensing data commercially available today, collected 
on a regular basis. 

In this presentation, we will look at the Indian 
Remote Sensing system, learn how EOSAT is fulfilling 
its commitment to be your one-stop resource for Earth 
information needs, and illustrate our commitment to 
provide the international market with additional satel- 
lite image data and Earth information. 

The EOSAT-Antrix partnership provides major 
benefits for the remote-sensing community: 

• with one phone call, users have access to a 
comprehensive portfolio of data; 

• customers will benefit from more frequent 
coverage due to the availability of data from several 

• Indian and LandSat data are also compatible 
for use together in image processing systems because 
both data sets are in the standard fast formats. This 
means that both are easily imported to image process- 
ing systems; 

• with IRS-lCs advanced capabilities, the 
highest spatial resolution remote sensing data com- 
mercially available today provides new mapping capa- 
bilities demanded by all users; 

• expansion of the number of ground stations 
receiving Indian data promises users an expanded 
base of global coverage now and in the future; 

• similarities between data from the Indian 
satellites and LandSat 5 ensure a continuing supply 
of multispectral data into the next century. 



India has a 17-year heritage of using remote 
sensing satellites for management of natural 
resources, and you heard Dr. Kasturirangan talking 
this morning a little bit about the different examples — 
he used some water examples. Mow that they've been 
using remote sensing from their own satellites they've 
gone from 43 percent success rates with ground 
troop type work to 98 percent in terms of finding 
clean ground water. 

The IRS program provides the most reliable 
and continual source of satellite remote sensing data 
for today and tomorrow. 

The IRS satellite system was designed and 
developed by the Indian Space Research Organization, 
the research and development arm of the Indian 
Department of Space. The system is operated by 
ISRO, and data reception, recording, and distribution 
is handled by India's National Remote Sensing Agency 
[Fig. ES-201J. 

The IRS system includes a series of five oper- 
ating satellites [see table below] and four follow-on 
satellites to be launched in the next five years. IRS-A is 
decommissioned right now, but it still could collect 
data if there's a need in the marketplace for it. 
IRS- ID, identical to IRS-1C, will be launched in 1997 
or earlier if market demand requires it. Three more 
P-series satellites are planned for launch from now 
to 1999. 

Operating IRS Satellites 



March 21, 1996 



Dec. 28, 1995 



Oct. 1994 



Aug. 1991 



March 1988 

(can collect data; now decommissioned) 

Since the launch of IRS-1A in 1988, the IRS 
series has continuously collected high quality data. 
The data provide the synoptic view, repeat coverage, 
and multispectral information valuable for mapping 
and monitoring natural resources (water, vegetation, 
soils, and geology) and in helping to resolve resource 
management problems. 

IRS-1C data are currently being received at the 
Shadnagar station, which covers all of India, and all or 
portions of surrounding countries (portions of Iran, 
Oman, Cambodia, and Laos; all of Pakistan, 
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, and Thailand), and 
at EOSAT's Norman, Okla., ground station, we acquire 
data of nearly all of North America, including southern 
Canada, Mexico, and most of Central America [Fig. 
ES-202]. The German station up in Australia is going 
on-line this month; actually as I'm speaking now, the 

Data Types Pixel Size Swath Launch Date 

* IRS-P4, PS, & P6 Launch 1997 through 1999 

Fig. ES-201 

Fig. ES-202 

installation is going on for the software. We have com- 
plete coverage several times over of IRS- IB data for 
the Norman footprint and are beginning to build the 
IRS-1C archive. 

Ground stations that will be operational to 
receive 1C data in 1996 include Japan, Australia, 
South Africa, Thailand, and Ecuador, as you see illus- 
trated up here, to be receiving by the end of this year. 
EOSAT is holding discussions with the other members 
of the global ground station network and expects as 
many as 10 will be on-line in 1997. 

In addition, EOSAT's capability to deploy 
portable ground stations worldwide to collect IRS data 
(as well as LandSat and current radar satellites) will 
quickly expand the global archive of available data. 

The IRS- 1C satellite circles the Earth in a 
near-polar, sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of 817 
kilometers, crossing the equator at 10:30 a.m. [Fig. 
ES-203J It carries three types of imaging systems: 

• PAN: high resolution panchromatic data with 
23km and 70km swath 

• LISS-3: high resolution multispectral with 
142 km swath 



IRS Constellation of Satellites and Sensors 




Design life 






or revisit 



9:40 am 

3 years 






22 days 








3 years 






22 days 




A + B= 




3 years 





131 km 

24 days 




3 years 






24 days 






5 days 





<5 days 




3 years 



in 4 bands 

2.5 x 




in 13 bands 

720 x 



in 2 bands 

1 x .7 km 






5 days 

X-ray Astronomy payload 


3 years 


Ocean Sensor 





24 days 


3 years 




3 years 





1 0:30am 3 years 















24 days 

5 days 

5 days 



• WiFS: a low resolution multispectral with 
broad-area 774km imaging swath. 

The Panchromatic sensor has 5.8-meter reso- 
lution (pixel-to-pixel spacing). The LISS-3 sensor has 
green, red, and near-lR bands with 23.5-meter resolu- 
tion and a SW1R band with 70.5 -meter resolution. The 
WiFS sensor has a red and a near-IR band with 
189-meter resolution. Panchromatic products have 
5-meter pixels; LISS-3 products have 25-meter pixels; 
WiFS products have 180-meter pixels. 

The IRS-1C sensors provide a complete range 
of datasets for numerous applications: high resolution 
data with narrow-swath coverage combined with 
low-resolution data with broad area imaging. This 
design characteristic favors land use/land cover monitor- 
ing in parts of the world where small, fragmented agri- 
cultural fields are spread across expansive countryside, 
requiring both an overview capability to assess regional 
conditions, and a fine-resolution capability to monitor 
health of individual crops and estimate crop yields. 

With its first satellite launched more than eight 
years ago, the IRS program has documented thou- 
sands of data applications in experimental and opera- 
tional projects. Urban planners and environmental 
managers are expected to benefit immediately from 
the panchromatic sensor. The high spatial resolution 
of the panchromatic band will allow differentiation 
between small features located close together, as often 
is the case in urban areas. The five-day repeat cover- 
age, made possible by a pointing capability, will allow 
analysis of rapidly evolving environmental situations. 

The panchromatic sensor collects data in a vis- 
ible band. The products have 5-meter pixels with 
image sizes of 70x70 km and 23x23 km. Stereo 
images can be acquired with the off-nadir viewing 
capability. The repeat coverage is 24 days, or five days 
at the equator with the off-nadir capability (+/-26 
off-track viewing). 

Stereo imaging will interest those who use 
stereo pairs to create digital terrain models for 
three-dimensional analysis. Users will also be able to 
create digital orthoimages directly from the image 
sets. Orthophotographs, which are vertically and hori- 
zontally corrected images, are the most popular map- 
ping product produced from satellite images. 

LISS-3 data provide multispectral data users 
with yet another tool, very similar to LandSat TM [Fig. 
ES-204]. The similarities in spectral range and spatial 
resolution of data from LISS-3 and TM make it an 
excellent complement to TM archive data, providing 
data in nearly the same spectral bands with improved 
resolution. LISS-3 provides the continuity for future 
data acquisition. 

The two data sets can be used together by 
resampling and histogram matching techniques. Both 

Orbital characteristics 

Imaging Systems 

Fig. ES-203 







25 m 



25 m 



25 m 



70 m 

Swath 142 km VNIR, 148 km SWIR- Repaat- 24 days 

Fig. ES-204 

procedures are available on basic image processing 
systems. We expect new users of IRS-1C data will find 
its spectral and spatial characteristics ideal for several 
common applications, including discrimination and 
mapping of water, vegetation, and land-use and 
land-cover features. 

Like its predecessor, LISS-2, the new sensor 
has four spectral bands (comparable to TM bands 2-5). 
The short-wave band will provide significant ability to 
distinguish very subtle differences in plant species. 

WiFS sensor data will satisfy a user group over- 
looked in the recent flurry of high-resolution satellites 
planned — regional land managers, foresters, state 
planners, crop, and other monitoring services who 
oversee large tracts of land and require broad spatial 
coverage, and frequent temporal coverage, will be par- 
ticularly interested in WiFS data. The WiFS sensor has 
two bands designed for vegetation monitoring (these 
bands are used to calculate vegetation indices) — a red 
and near-infrared band — comparable to NOAA's 
AVHRR data. The pixel size is 180 meters. WiFS col- 
lects data of a 740-km wide swath, and has a 5-day 
revisit capability, at the equator. 



Fig. ES-205 

Fig. ES-206 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foreign 
Agricultural Service monitors crop conditions worldwide 
to determine changes in production and to assist in 
drought- and flood-related relief efforts [Fig. ES-205}. 

The Foreign Agricultural Service used IRS- IB 
LISS-1 data as their primary sensor in the U.S. during 
the 1995 growing season to monitor crop conditions 
[Fig. ES-206]. With its first satellite launched more 
than eight years ago, the IRS program has document- 
ed thousands of data applications in experimental and 
operational projects. With EOSAT's Norman ground 
station receiving data since April 1995, many agencies 
and companies in the U.S. have also used IRS data. 
The Environmental Protection Agency used IRS-1B to 
identify and characterize environmental conditions in 
areas of southwest Colorado (figure here) where natur- 
al resources are often damaged by contamination 
from abandoned or inactive mines, gravel mining and 
road construction and other activities. The IRS data 
were used to identify high-priority areas of waste cont- 
amination for focused evaluation. 

Panchromatic and multispectral data are avail- 
able in a variety of image sizes with several choices of 


Scene Sizes, Multispectral 

Scene Sizes, Panchromatic 

Custom options 

Fig. ES-207 


IRS Pan | 

KVR 1000 | 







5 m 

70 km 

5 days 

1996+ | 


40 km 


1984+ | 

25 m 
72 m 
36 m 
25 m 
18 x 24 m 

185 km 
148 km 

14 days 
22 days 

1984+ J 
1991 + 1 

145 km 

22 days 
24 days 

1991+ 1 
"\ 1996+ | 

75 km 

44 days 

1992+ | 

180 m 

774 km 

5 days 

1996+ I 

ERS-1 & -2 

' with off-nadir viewing 

Fig. ES-208 

map projection, ellipsoid, correction level (including 
pixel size) and format for direct input to GIS systems 
[Fig. ES-207]. Digital data is available on CCTs, 8mm 
Exabyte cartridges, and CD-ROM. WiFS is available in 
either individual scenes or as a continuous swath. 
WiFS can also be purchased as a subscription service, 
with the option for electronic data delivery. 

EOSAT's full product line includes a multitude 
of complementary datasets to provide clients with their 
specific data requirements [Fig. ES-208]. When you 
listen to what John MacDonald had to say earlier 
today, it is so critical if we're going to bring together 
this fragmented marketplace to one that becomes 
organized from the standpoint of the information, or 
like what Dr. Kasturirangan said this morning, pull the 
application needs for the information and not because 
of the technological push because we just feel like fly- 
ing a sensor. We need to be able to have organizations 
who work together very closely and offer datasets from 
a variety of satellite systems. Here you see datasets we 
offer from Japan, from ERS, and even when we don't 
offer it ourselves, we're one phone call away from help- 
ing you go to somebody like SPOT if its a SPOT data 
you need to solve your problem, RADARSAT and a few 


other people. And the reason is, we should all be 
sophisticated enough in this business to not treat it 
like a hardware competition but get more involved in 
pulling together a continuity of services associated with 
forming information from the datasets. 

EOSAT's full product line orders may be 
placed directly with our customer services or through 
one of our global representatives. VISA and Mastercard 
are accepted for convenient payment. We also have a 
global distribution network of more than 125 compa- 
nies to provide you with the full range of remote sens- 
ing data, services and training. Please call EOSAT or 
check our Internet home page for data samples and 
more detailed product and service information: 
http ://www. eosat. com . 

Sample IRS-1C data is available on EOSAT's 
home page at [Fig. ES-209]. 
The home page includes information on the IRS-1C 
satellite, products and prices, worldwide reference 
path/row maps, and browse services for viewing the 
sub-sampled images available (to determine the loca- 
tion of clouds) and metadata. 

IRS- ID, identical to IRS-1C, is currently slated 
for launch in 1997 [Fig. ES-210]. The satellite will 
carry tape recorders capable of storing data acquired 
over areas out of range of a ground station. IRS-P4, P5 
and P6 will be launched before 1999. 

EOSAT's partner, Antrix and the Indian Space 
Research Organization (ISRO) are committed to the 
IRS program, helping to bring yet another source of 
quality satellite data to users worldwide. EOSAT is 
committed to: 

• offering "one-stop shopping"; 

• providing users with more frequent coverage 
due to the availability of data from several satellites 
(for environmental or agricultural monitoring; as well 
as better chances of getting cloud-free data); 

• providing compatible formats so datasets 
can be used together in image processing systems 
(especially useful for merging data sets); 

• providing products of IRS-1 C — higher reso- 
lution data, increased spectral bands, and more fre- 
quent coverage; 

• expanding the ground network receiving and 
distributing Indian data (we will provide you with world 
coverage of data); 

• ensuring a continuing supply of imagery into 
the next century (so you won't have to worry about 
where to get your data). 

. . . which reaffirms EOSAT's commitment to opening 
ever more windows on your world. Thank you. I appre- 
ciate your time. 


products & prices 
path/row maps 
browse services 
technical information 
information updates 

Fig. ES-209 

to EOSAT online 



.Q J 

Fig. ES-210 

Vice Adm. Ramsey: Good afternoon. I am going to 
address applications in all three areas: Earth sensing, 
communication, and navigation. I suspected there 
were going to be quite a few academics, scientists, 
and engineers in the audience, so I have included lots 
of pictures. 

The focus of my comments is specifically on 
small satellites. Small satellites have contributed to 
demonstrate and provide applications that are compet- 
itive in the marketplace and will eventually result in 
lower cost to users. Now, what is small is in the eye 
of the beholder. For the purpose of my presentation, 
it includes satellites that are 150 pounds, like some 
communications satellites, and 1,000 pounds, like the 
STEP class satellite. 

Small satellite capabilities have significantly 
evolved over a relatively short period of time. We 
launched our first small satellite in 1985, and at the 
end of this year, early spring of perhaps next year, 
we're talking of launching a small satellite in geosyn- 
chronous orbit to provide direct broadcast service to a 
unique country — Indonesia. We've also, in the same 
period of time, demonstrated some of these applica- 
tions that are going to take on ever-increasing impor- 




Ocean Buoy Profiles 

Fig. ES-301 


Tropical Ocean 

Global Atmosphere 

(TOGA) Buoy 

♦ Ocean Meteorological and 
Oceanographic Measurements 

♦ Data Relayed by ARGOS 

♦ Position by ARGOS or GPS 

♦ Deployable 
by Ship or 

Fig. ES-302 


Ocean Current Tracker 

♦ Omnidirectional Sea Surface 
Wave Characteristic Sensor 

♦ Free Drifting or 
Moored Configurations 

♦ Hull Options for Sensor Flexibility 

♦ Gamma Radiation Sensor Option 

♦ ARGOS Datalink and Positioning 

♦ GPS Optional 



Fig. ES-303 

tance as we evolve into the world of low-Earth- orbiting 
satellites. We've demonstrated stack satellite launches. 
We've demonstrated co-orbital multisatellite launch- 
es — seven satellites in a common orbital plane of 82 

Now, Earth sensing really falls in two cate- 
gories, as we view it at CTA, and one of them is sens- 



GEO Buoy 

♦ Similar to Anti-submarine 
Warfare (ASW) Sonobuoy 

♦ Uses Geophone to Detect 
Acoustic or Seismic Waves 
Propagating Through 
Ground or Ice 

♦ Report Back by Aircraft or 
Satellite Datalink 

♦ Lithium or Alkaline Battery Packs 

♦ Standard "A" Size Hull for Parachute Deployment 

Fig. ES-304 

ing the Earth from space, from satellites, and the other 
is collecting data in space from sensors on the 
ground. The Lockheed Martin, CTA, Inc., and NASA 
team is currently building the Clarke satellite that will 
launch in late summer of this year. And the key point 
with respect to this symposium is that it will provide a 
stereo, three-meter, in-track on-pass and also off-track 
viewing. It will also sense clouds and map cloud cover 
throughout the world. It's a 620-pound satellite, and 
it's very low power, about 235 watts. It has a gimble 
device, which permits stereo in-track and also a sec- 
ond gimble device so you can view off-track, plus or 
minus 30 degrees. Commercial teammates will exploit 
this data for their particular areas of market interests — 
Bechtel, CH2M Hill, and Suel Corp. Remote sensor 
applications are conceptually unlimited. 

What of those applications that we are current- 
ly involved in? There is a growing need, it seems, for 
long-range remote collection of data. CTA has devel- 
oped a family of remote sensors. I will address in my 
following comments the TOGA, the TAD, the GEO 
buoys, and the BWIS (Battlefield Weather Information 
System). Currently, we have a family of 1 1 buoys; obvi- 
ously the fat ones on the left hand side of the view 
graph are erected or placed by hand (Fig. ES-301). 
The ones on the right, the thin-sized, fit sonobuoy 
tubes that can be dropped from the air. 

The TOGA buoy is one that's extensively used, 
and it measures meteorological and oceanographic 
parameters (Fig. ES-302). Last year was a very active 
season for hurricanes, as we all know, and we used a 
lot of these buoys. 

The ocean current tracker is a very inexpensive, 
frequently used tracker (Fig. ES-303). GPS is common 
in all of today's models. So as they drift around the 
world in the various currents, major currents, you can 
get a direct readout of the location very accurately. 

GEO buoys are designed to penetrate any type 
of soil, and they penetrate so that the sensor body, 
about six inches of it, extends above the soil (Fig. ES- 


304). We dropped it from atop a six-story building, and 
it went right into the asphalt without any problem at 
all. It detects acoustic and seismic waves. We've taken 
that capability and provided a variation on the theme. 
In one application, we've provided a different sensor 
package on the GEO buoy so that it can be used for 
local weather data collection. You could drop it behind 
the lines by CJAV or by a SEAL team, Rangers, heli- 
copter, or whatever, and it gives you local weather 
information that would be of an extreme value to land 
forces and possibly air forces in the area. Another vari- 
ation on the GEO buoy is a tactical surveillance sys- 
tem. This takes advantage of acoustic and seismic 
sensor packages through which you can detect possi- 
ble intrusion or movement and by discreet spectral 
analysis even provide a degree of discrimination as to 
what type of vehicle — tank, personnel carrier, etc. is 

The TIROS Arctic Drifter is somewhat unique 
(Fig. ES-305). It has a gimbled sensor package inside 
this globe. The impact bag on the bottom absorbs the 
energy as you drop it from an aircraft, then it just rolls. 
This gimble seeks its equilibrium, and it ends up being 
always vertical so that the antenna can pop up, and 
you can transmit. 

The next one, the Argos Data Communicator, 
has great potential. It's programmed for messages. It 
has GPS readout, and we put it on a merchant marine 
ship [Fig. ES-306J. Here it shows the plot of that ship, 
an hourly plot — hands-off operation. Just put it on the 
superstructure, forget about it. It comes on every hour; 
the Argos package on TIROS-N picks it up and reads 
it. Obviously, TIROS is not there every hour, so this 
can store seven to eight hours worth of data and mes- 
sages if you want it to, pump it out, and then when the 
package picks it you can make a specific plot. Lloyd's 
of London would love to have something like this to 
track all merchant marine ships around the world. 

Mow let's look at the prototype communicator 
(Fig. ES-307). Some of you may have seen the article 
in National Geographic; Will Steger used this on his 
trek across the Arctic. It has GPS readout, and he also 
files his dispatches. So the article that appeared in the 
National Geographic came via this communicator. 
Two of these communicators are currently being used 
down in the Antarctic by the chap who is trying to 
cross the Antarctic by himself. 

In the communication applications, I want to 
touch briefly on two systems. A max - sats were stack- 
launched, and we launched those in 1990 propitiously 
because they were up there when Desert Storm came 
about. And the Marines used this extensively in support 
of the 2nd Marine Air Wing. They used it for logistics, 
administration, personnel — that kind of traffic that 
wasn't operational. In fact, it was so effective that the 
intelligence community found out about it and took it 


TIROS Arctic Drifter (TAD) 

♦ Ice Flow Tracking 
(Position by 

♦ ARGOS Datalink I X^^E^^^HI 

♦ Temperature kW_ ir*^^^^^^^^H 
and Barometric p^ ^Vfl^^^^^^^H 


JES 1 ^^^^^fafl^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H 

♦ Deployable 
by Parachute 

Fig. ES-305 


ADC GPS Tracking 

US East Coast 1995 

Fig. ES-306 



Arctic Expedition Proven (1994-1996) 

January 1996 National Geographic, "Dispatches from the Arctic" b\ \S Ml Steger page 78. 

Fig. ES-307 

over, and the Marines had to find a backup system to 
get the information back. The co-orbital multiple satel- 
lite launch was in 1991, it was Micro-sat's. Seven of 
them were launched; unfortunately, the launch vehicle 
did not put them in the right orbit, so instead of living 
for three years, they lived for six months. But they did 
demonstrate the communications in an orbital plane, 





Compliments TSIDS 


Fig. ES-308 

from one footprint of the satellite, continuous footprint 
all the way around in that co-orbital plane. It's an 
application that we see being used by the ORB- 
COMMS, the Teledesic, etc. 

With respect to navigation applications, I'll talk 
about Racal, which was the forerunner of our utilization 
of GPS in the control loop for attitude control of satel- 
lites (Fig. ES-308). Racal was launched three years 
ago. It's up there performing very well. Racal was used 
to evaluate and test GPS attitude determination capa- 
bility. Subsequently, we have refined it, and Rex 2, 
which was launched last month, actually has GPS in 
the control loop for the satellite. The Clark satellite will 
also have GPS as a attitude control. I think what's 
most interesting about this symposium is that at next 
year's conference we're going to see the proof of the 
pudding. Mow a lot of the things that we're talking 
about today, in anticipation of, we're going to have 
actual commercial remote sensing experience. Earth 
Watch will be launched in late summer. Clark and 
Lewis will be both launched in late summer. LEO com- 
munications and ORBCOMM and others will be up 
there and operating. We'll have trackers on users that 
are moving, like semitrailers, tanks, etc., that are going 
to be able to give battlefield awareness capabilities, 
and navigation applications are going to be broadly 
used in a wide variety of satellite systems and controls. 
As Dick Vitale would say, "Wait until next year, baby." 
Thank you. 

Mr. Thompson: Hi. I'm Dave Thompson, the president 
of Spectrum Astro. I'm from Phoenix, Arizona. Our 
company is also a developer of high performance 
small satellites. We historically have primarily been 
involved in satellites developed for ballistic missile 
research, ballistic missile defense research for deep 
space planetary exploration, and for technology 
demonstration and validation. The thing that I'm going 
to talk about today is specific application for space- 
based user-to-satellite communications. 

As our company has been looking for diversifi- 
cation opportunities, one of the things that I became 
very interested in was this market for spacecraft-to- 
user voice operations. And I have been very fortunate 
having spent most of my time here in the United 
States, to have made four around-the-world trips in the 
past six months, visiting 15 or 20 countries three or 
four times. So 1 have sort of had a massive dose of for- 
eign exposure here for the past six months, and I find 
that it has been very interesting, because I know a lot 
of us who are based here in the U.S. and are involved 
in the U.S. space industry, haven't had the opportunity 
or don't have the need to go overseas and see some of 
these opportunities. What I'm here to tell you is there 
are tremendous opportunities for overseas export of 
our technologies, not only space-based but ground 
based as well. 1 want to talk a little bit about that today. 

In my very interesting trips, I found in almost 
every developing country I visited, on five different con- 
tinents, a booming economy. I can't tell you how sur- 
prised I was to find that every road was clogged with 
vehicle traffic, every hotel was jammed to the rafters, 
every airline seat was packed a month in advance. If 
you have the impression that some of these Second 
and Third World countries don't have an appetite for 
your type of technology, you need to shake up your 
international marketing department and have them go 
over and talk to these people, because it's a very broad 
market over there. And the interesting thing is that a 
lot of these markets are just opening for the first time 
to U.S. exports, because a lot of these people have 
had closed markets for investment. So I think there is 
a tremendous opportunity for our U.S. -based compa- 
nies to do this. 

At the same time, space is only one element 
of the solution, and 1 happened to be in India three or 
four times and met with some of the senior telecom- 
munications officials in India. One of the most interest- 
ing statistics that I heard while I was there is that there 
are 565,000 villages in India with no telephone service. 
First of all, I couldn't believe there were 565,000 vil- 
lages in India, but I suppose when you have a land 
mass that large and a number of small villages you 
can come up with those kinds of statistics. The other 
thing that was interesting to me was that one of our 
foreign partners is a prominent attorney in India. He 
was telling me a story that it took him seven years to 
get his first telephone line, took him four years to get 
the second line, and he applied for the third line two 
years ago and it took two years. So this fellow has 
three lines. Now I think most of us who have had the 
experience of building a home here in the United 
States recently — typically you're putting four to six tele- 
phone lines in that house, and if it takes the telephone 
company more than a week to get the phone lines in, 
you're on the phone screaming at them saying, 
"Where's my phone lines?" So it gives you some idea 



of the disparity in telephone service. The other statistic 
I ran across was that half of the world's population is 
not connected and it has never made a telephone call. 
So if you can imagine how often we use a telephone, 
imagine what the market must be, once these people 
get telephones in their hands. 

Now I have compiled some statistics which I 
am going to show you today. These come from a num- 
ber of sources. They come from Spectrum Astro's in- 
house research. They come from a company called 
Pyramid Research, which is a funded research compa- 
ny located in the Boston area. It comes from Federal 
Communications Commission and Securities Exchange 
Commission filings that are on public record, and it 
comes from a public report by the MITRE Corporation. 

It is just a top statistic in the developing world, 
excluding the Americas and Western Europe, by the 
year 2000 we expect a shortage of 350 million tele- 
phone lines worldwide [Fig. ES-401]. This is a tradition- 
al, voice telephone line, basic telephone service, 350 
million telephone line shortage. Now let's take a look at 
main-line penetration in some of these areas [Fig. ES- 
402]. A main line is one circuit from the central office 
to the subscriber, meaning it could go to a house 
where there would be one subscriber family or it could 
go to a business where there would be several hundred 
users. In the world in 1988, we had 463 million tele- 
phone numbers you could dial. I didn't know this. This 
is pretty interesting stuff. You'd have to have a pretty 
big phone book to call all these guys, but by the year 
1993, I think we had 612 million or 613 million. So it 
gives you an idea of the number of lines out there and 
the number of lines that are being installed by our 
World Telecommunications Administration in the 140- 
some countries which Pyramid Research monitors. 

You can also see the disparity between the 
developing countries and the industrialized countries. 
We have an average of 51 phone lines in the industrial- 
ized seven nations and an average of four phone lines 
per 100 in the developing countries. And some of 
these countries have very low telephone penetration 
rates, as you would expect. I just picked a few exam- 
ples which are shown there. Some of them are less 
than one telephone line per 100 people [Fig. ES-403]. 
Here it is shown graphically and you can see the 
graphic display of the industrialized seven nations 
again, which are all above 40 lines per 100 in direct 
telephone line penetration, main-line penetration, and 
then tapering back very rapidly as we move into places 
like Africa and Southeast Asia. And I have some more 
detailed statistics which I am going to show you [Fig. 
ES-404]. Basically, this is tabular data. On the left- 
hand side of the vertical line you can see the telephone 
penetration as of 1993, and on the right-hand side 
projected for the year 2000. And this happens to be 
the chart for northern and sub-Saharan Africa. You can 
see in the third column over there the numbers. The 


Developing World: 
PSTN Demand/Supply, Year End 20O0 

t-«tin Africa/Middle Easlem 

Amanca Eaal Europe /NtS 

Fig. ES-401 


Main Line Penetration 

Main Line" - 1 Circuit from Central Office to Subscriber 

World Tola I Main Lines (000) 

Developing Countries (OOO) 
Developed Countries (000? 




206 fb4 
40- 7 .05e> 

Average 51 Phone Lines per 100 People - Industrialized Countries 
Average 4 Phone Lines per 100 People - Devet oping Countries 

1993 Main Line Penetration Per 100 Population (Examples) 
Brazil 2 68 India . 88 

Sri Lanka 1 03 Indonesia 0.90 

Fig. ES-402 


Main Line Penetration 1993 
(Per 100 Population) 

Monti Amenta 


Centr* ft Eatern Europe 

Soul* Pacific 



■ 1 

South *n«.,c. 


Mp.»<i/On!r*l iiwnra 

1 f 

MmMIc fmt 

rturth Atnta 



S.E As. j 

^LiD Sanjrw Atnra 




u_ ,- . .. _; 




_■ _:__S 







Fig. ES-403 

United States' number here is more than 60 lines per 
100 people. I don't think there's anybody up there 
that's much above 10, except for maybe South Africa. 
And some of these countries are down as low as one 
and fractions, such as Ethiopia and Cameroon. 

And here is another chart [Fig. ES-405]. It is 
the same type of data. Again, current data is in 1993 




Main Line Penetration 
for Select Countries : 1993 and 2000 

HMnUnn PaputMMn **•»■ 


Siib SiUijrJfi *rnc» 

Fig. ES-404 


Main Line Penetration 
for Select Countries : 1993 and 2000 

boutfiant AM* 

MM HalnUnM 

Mrtn Lm*» PoputMWn *•»» H 

[000] IPOOJ 

fig. ES-405 

and future data in the year 2000, showing Asia-Pacific 
and Southeast Asia. Indonesia, the fourth most popu- 
lous country in the world, has more than 190 million 
people. I know most of us have probably never been 
there. I have been there two or three times in the last 
six months. There are more than 7,000 islands in the 
Indonesian archipelago. About 5,000 of those islands 
have no telephone service. So this is a perfect applica- 
tion for a space-based telecommunications system, 
because you can imagine the ground infrastructure 
cost associated with trying to wire a place like that. 

Now let's take a look at the mobile voice com- 
munications market [Fig. ES-406J. These are your tra- 
ditional cellular-to -cellular towers of worldwide cellular 
subscribers. And you can see, in 1993 we had 31 mil- 
lion people with traditional cellphones, and by 1999 
we're estimating 123 million will be using these. Now 
bear in mind a lot of these people may already have 
another type of phone — but the biggest growth ele- 
ment that we're seeing here is coming in the develop- 
ing world. Why is that? Because it's easier to go into a 
village or town and put in a central tower and hook up 
a few thousand users, or a few towers and a couple of 
thousand users, rather than having to wire the whole 


Mobile Voice Communications Market 

Worldwide Odutor Subscribers (Sources: Motorola. Pyramid Research) : 
1M3 - 31 Million 
IBM - 47 Million 
1990 (Eal)- 123 Million 

USA Cellular : 

19M - 1 Million 
1984 - 19 3 Million 

Western Europe Cetiular : 
1993-9 Million 
1996 12 Million 
2000 (EX) ■ 20 Million 

Developing World : 

1B93-S 5 Million 
2000 (Eel) - 33 Million 

Estimated Developing World Mobile Satellite System (MSS) Market : (Source : Pyramid) 

Low Estimate (Mil) : 2.05 

High Estimate (Mil) : 4.06 

20 06 


Fig. ES-406 

town. We're seeing this happen across big areas of 
Europe and are now starting to move into Asia and 
Africa. Pyramid Research looked at these numbers and 
said, "OK, if these are the numbers for worldwide tra- 
ditional cellular subscribers, (let me describe what that 
subscriber is; that subscriber is spending about $50 a 
month on his telephone, about $600 a year) what 
would be the base for a world space-based mobile 
satellite system, if we had such a thing?" [Fig. ES-407] 
And bear in mind there is no such thing that does that 
today. There are several systems, which I am going to 
briefly touch on here in a minute, which will do that. 
You can see that there is a low estimate to a high esti- 
mate, with somewhere between 2 and 4 million sub- 
scribers in the year 2000, and somewhere between 16 
million and 34 million subscribers by the year 2010. 
Now keep in mind this is thinking of a 50-cents-a- 
minute, $600-a-year subscriber. Imagine lowering the 
cost to a few cents per minute to a few dollars per 
month. Then you have a vastly expanded market. 

I want to make one clarifying comment when 
we talk about user-to-satellite space communications 
systems. A lot of our communications systems today 
use satellites, but of course we go through our local 
phone company to the switching office. We go up over 
a big dish, to something like IntelSat. The message 
comes down to another big dish, and goes to our local 
phone company [Fig. ES-408]. This next generation of 
systems will allow the handset to talk directly to the 
satellite. Basically you'll be carrying around a little 
satellite Earth station in your pocket and you'll be talk- 
ing directly to the satellite. Now this also has different 
versions — it will go in automobiles and mobile vehi- 
cles, it will go in telephone booths, which will be a so- 
called fixed-site. OK, that comes back then to the 
ground station and into the public switched telephone 
network, or the PSTN here. Then it can go to your 
home or back out to a cellular tower to your traditional 
cellular user. What we're looking at here is a growth 
from zero subscribers today — none of these systems is 
operational — to somewhere between 16 million and 34 



MSS Subscriber Growth 
Scenario A and Scenario B 

IMRtl«ianWMlUM7IMIM 2B10 

\ratM in *t_ 

MJ 1M 1 n 3.M «.M 

■ ?l »M 1 1 M 13 M 1«I3] 




■ Scenario A 

■ Scenario B 

■ ■ i ll 

I I I 4 1 ■ 

■ ■ 1 1 I I I 
1 1 1 I I I I I I 

Fig. ES-407 

million subscribers in about 15 years. And the revenue, 
I don't have the revenue chart here, but something like 
$11 billion a year to $22 billion a year in revenue is 
going to be generated from systems like this. 

Mow there are five systems — actually there are 
more than five — that have been proposed and are cur- 
rently before the FCC and International 
Telecommunications Union [Fig. ES-409]. These hap- 
pen to be the so-called "Big LEOS" or satellites that 
are in low-Earth orbit. They are called Big LEOS 
because their frequency is above 1 gigahertz. The little 
LEOS are below 1 gigahertz. There are five Big LEOS 
that have been proposed and are currently standing 
before the FCC. Three have been licensed, but basical- 
ly they come in all kinds of varieties, anywhere from 16 
to 66 satellites. The FCC has set very strict standards 
on the technical operation of these systems. One thing 
I wanted to call to your attention is the third column 
over. How many users are these systems going to 
address? You can see — and I want to caution about the 
use of these numbers because these numbers are very 
difficult to extract and they're dependent upon many 
factors in the analysis of the system — but if you don't 
lock onto the specific number, what you can see is 
these systems are going to handle a few hundred thou- 
sand users and maybe a million users simultaneously — 
a million simultaneous circuits. What I drew from this, if 
there are 30 million people currently on waiting lists 
around the world for telephones and there are 350 mil- 
lion lines short in the year 2000, my analysis says that 
every one of these systems is going to sell out as soon 
as it's launched, because these systems are going to 
be in demand. There are several geosynchronous sys- 
tems that have also been proposed. Each one of those 
geosynchronous satellites is projected to handle 
between 12,000 and 16,000 users. These satellites do 
not provide millions of simultaneous circuits. A lot of 
people in this industry have made fun of the Teledesic 
people. I have nothing to do with Teledesic, but I can tell 
you from this research that Teledesic is going to be a 


User - To - Satellite 
Space Communication Systems 

Fig. ES-408 



System Name 

# of Operating 



Orbit Planes/ 
3 Planes 
(2) 520 x 7646 km 
(1) 8066 X 6066 km 




Source: Analysis 



1400 km 

Source: MITRESQIobalstar 



760 km 

Source: MITRE/Motorola 



3 Planes 
10.000 km 




2,000 km 

Source: FCC Filing 

Fig. ES-409 

big hit. Because it's going to provide about 2 million 
simultaneous circuits and it is going to service maybe 
30 million users with that. Mow you go back to that 
number — 350 million line shortage — the whole situation 
is cost driven. So I think Teledesic and those guys like 
all these guys are going to be very successful. 

In conclusion, the analysis says that there is a 
tremendous need worldwide for basic communication 
services, not only space-based but ground-based as 
well. We're not talking about the enhanced services 
that are currently in use in the United States. We're 
talking about basic voice. When we add the enhanced 
services, we're going to see a greatly increased 
demand above that. And many types of affordable 
technology are available to address this. Several of the 
system solutions which I have talked about here today 
have been proposed and there are some others which 
I haven't had time to address. I think the predicted 
demand is going to absorb the entire supply. Also, I 
think the opening of these markets and the reduced 
interference by the exporting country — with free mar- 
kets and the ability to export the technologies we have 
here in the CInited States — it is going to be a tremen- 
dous opportunity for our companies here in the states 



and for the user countries that we have represented 
here today. That concludes my remarks. Thank you. 


Mr. Gibson: Ladies and gentlemen, we've had about 
25 questions passed up, and we're very grateful for 
you having sent them. What we've done is to divide 
them between the members of the panel, and I'm 
going to go along the row this way asking them to 
answer one question or to combine them, if it works 
out that way, and then we'll work until the 25 minutes 
are expired. For those of you who get your questions 
answered in the 25 minutes, I hope you'll be apprecia- 
tive, and for those who don't, I hope you'll be forgiving. 
Can we make a start then? To give Bill Ramsey time to 
come up, let us take two that are on launchers. Two 
people have asked whether the presentations that 
we've had mean that we should be going for small 
launch systems for small satellites, but I don't really 
think it's something that we can talk about in this par- 
ticular session, unless anybody's got another feeling. I 
think we're all sitting on the edge of our chairs on this 
one, so we're going to safer ground and ask John 

Dr. MacDonald: Thanks, Roy. All of the questions that 
Roy handed me have to do with pricing, in one way or 
another. I'll read you one or two of them, and then try 
to answer them in a sort of collective fashion. The first 
one says, "You mention the relationship between price 
and value and you used the example, the oil company 
client. How do you adjust the price to the required 
value for different potential markets as the only feasible 
way of flat price per scene?" That was one question. 
The other question that's kind of related is, "What cri- 
terion would you use to balance the need for free pub- 
lic access to remote sensing data and the need for 
providers to charge for access to that data?" 

Another one says, "Does the scientific user get 
hardware and software for cost of manufacturing?" No 
they don't. Why would they get data for cost of manu- 
facturing? I think one person here talked about criteria. 
I wouldn't get into criteria at all, but I'd get into mech- 
anisms. Create a market. A market is a mechanism 
which determines price value balances. Now in the 
remote sensing business, we are used to thinking 
about scenes as the unit of data. The real unit of data 
is the pixel. It's quite feasible today to sell data by the 
pixel. And 1 would suggest that one way around this 
problem of pricing and so on is to sell data by the 
pixel. And you can start giving quantity discounts for 
pixels, which means sub-scenes, scenes, and super 
scenes, all that sort of thing. The whole point about all 


of this is, let's not think about criterion, let's not think 
about government setting rules or something, but 
rather let's try to do the things that allow the creation 
of a market mechanism for this type of stuff. I just 
want to make one point about the person who asked 
about the scientific user getting the hardware and soft- 
ware, the cost of manufacturing. This is a point of view 
I tried to put across in various committees both here in 
the United States and Canada for years, and got 
nowhere because most of the committees were domi- 
nated by the scientific community. I finally gave up and 
came up with the idea that I put forward in my presen- 
tation. I do recall, though, that when I was a professor 
many, many years ago and could classify myself, I 
guess, as a scientist, I did get books for free. I did get 
hardware and software at what was termed an educa- 
tional discount, and if you look at the price lists of RSI 
or EOSAT, or SPOT Image, you will find certain types 
of data available at quite low prices that are quite suit- 
able for the scientific community. I can't speak for 
EOSAT, Dave certainly can, but I can for RSI since I'm 
involved with them, that's RADARSAT International by 
the way. RADARSAT International does give data away 
to scientists who are doing bonafide research for very 
low prices and sometimes for free, because it's in their 
commercial interest to do so. 

Mr. Gibson: Thank you. Murray Felsher? 

Dr. Felsher: One question reads, "Given the vast 
amount of remote sensing data that is and will be 
available, is there any national or international effort to 
categorize that data?" I'm assuming that the question 
meant not only categorize but catalogue data as well. 
To my knowledge there is no international effort to cat- 
egorize or catalogue the vast amount of data that's 
available, especially as it applies to remote sensing 
inter-commercialization. However, I happen to have 
with me here a pertinent Statement of Work. About 
four or five months ago, this consultant went over to 
NASA and said very much what this question asked, 
except he said, "How come there's no attempt to cate- 
gorize or catalogue the data, or is there an attempt? 
Do you people at NASA know what you've got, that 
the commercial remote sensing industry could use?" 
And they went around and I'm sure there may be one 
or two NASA folk here, and they came back and told 
me, "No. We don't know what we have." So I wrote a 
proposal and beginning May 1, 1996, there will be a 
study undertaken on the "compilation of existing soft- 
ware and data sets related to remote sensing applica- 
tions currently residing within and outside of NASA 
and the presentation of a plan designed to distribute 
this inventory to interested parties within and outside 
of NASA." We're going to work very hard to make a 
first crack at getting this kind of information. It's 


incredible to some that with all the data that is avail- 
able in the research community, in NOAA and in 
NASA, that no one has ever tried to put this together 
and show how we could use these data in the com- 
mercial arena. Hopefully we're starting along that road 
right now. Unless I'm mistaken, no attempt has been 
made to do this before. 

Mr. Gibson: Thank you very much, Murray. Dave 

Mr. Edwards: I've got two questions here having to do 
with receiving imagery, either real time or at least 
through a subscription service through the Internet. I'll 
address those two first. In essence, asking: When will 
that sort of service be available? That sort of service 
we're developing now to be available this summer. I'm 
unaware of other data sources, at least from a satellite 
imagery point of view, because of the bandwidth that's 
needed and how large those files are for scenes being 
available at this point in time. And for us we're starting 
with the WiFS data since with the low resolution, the 
file sizes are manageable so we actually use the inter- 
net connection. And pretty much with a PC that's at 
least a 386. Anything above that will help you. The 
reality is they'll all be in standard formats of GIF, TIFF, 
BMP types of formats, so you can plug and play with 
them as long as you've got that general image pro- 
cessing type software, you can be able to get that 
delivered. When would I expect LANDSAT, SPOT, IRS 
full scene data available? That's part of this question. I 
still think we're a couple years away from that. We 
don't have the bandwidth. The technology is out there, 
here and there, but from the standpoint of us com- 
mercially getting it ail consolidated and integrated at a 
cheap enough price so it could be worth the subscrip- 
tion and delivery, it's going to be a little longer way off. 
That's where I think we are with electronic delivery. 

Mr. Gibson: Bill? 

Vice Adm. Ramsey: The question is, "What is the 
power level and channel capacity of Endo-Star, and 
what is the cost of the user receivers?" Endo-Star 
direct broadcast satellite at geo-synchronous orbit is 
1,800 watts on orbit. There are eight transmitters, five 
of which are active at any one time. Generally each 
transmitter puts out 24 megabits per second data rate, 
and the power level is around 50 dBW The cost of the 
user equipment will come down to about $300 per 
unit. DirecTV is somewhat of a model that you could 
refer to now. DirecTV started, as I think most of you 
know, about $700 and already you can get it at 
WalMart and Sam's for $495. 

Mr. Gibson: You better take another one, Bill. That 
was too easy. 

Vice Adm. Ramsey: Will GPS attitude controls replace 
or simply augment current attitude determination sen- 
sors? It is a goal at CTA, Inc. to develop enough confi- 
dence and engineering reliability that you can eventu- 
ally replace attitude control systems with the GPS atti- 
tude control system. There's significant cost savings 
involved that you can do that. However, having said 
that, I think it's doubtful that critical satellites that need 
redundancy will ever give up the more conventional 
attitude control systems. 

Mr. Gibson: Thank you very much. Dave? 

It's incredible to some that with all the data that 

is available in the research community, in NOAA 

and in NASA, that no one has ever tried to put 

this together and show how we could use these 

data in the commercial arena. 

Mr. Thompson: I have four questions also. First one — 
the question says, "The survey data show that the 
largest growth of phone lines will be in undeveloped 
countries. Phones or lines will cost approximately $10 - 
$50 per month. This is the total income of most per- 
sons in undeveloped countries. Do you believe a per- 
son wants a phone instead of food for his family?" 
Now generally when I'm hungry I will eat before I use 
the phone, but I don't know about these guys. 
Obviously, I think this reflects a misunderstanding of 
what some of these markets are. First of all, take India, 
for example. India has almost 1 billion people, some- 
thing like 900 million people, and in fact 700 million 
of those people may not be able to afford a phone ser- 
vice like this. But there are 200 million people in that 
country alone, who you would call the so-called middle 
class of India, who could afford this service. I think you 
will find that across a lot of these developing nations 
that they have a very rapidly developing, maybe we 
would consider it a lower middle class, but a middle 
class that can afford some of these types of services. 
The other thing you should keep in mind is that in the 
case of villages where the income level is low, one 
might install a phone booth. A number of these 
providers have talked about satellite phone booths, 
which might service 500 or 1,000 users. So you could 
amortize the cost of installing the phone booth over 
many more users and therefore lower the cost of use 
of the booth. Then it gets down of course to the cost 
of calls per minute, and you get into things like differ- 
ential nighttime pricing, weekends, holidays, that kind 
of thing. There certainly will be some people who will 



not be a candidate for this type of service, but I think 
the market is large enough and statistics will bear this 
out, they'll be supported by the emerging middle class 
there and these phone booth type operations. 

Mr. Gibson: Thank you very much, Dave. We've been 
asked, "How are the security interests of governmental 
agencies being addressed with this push to output as 
much information to the civilian sector as possible?" 1 
don't think that, certainly in Europe, this has been a 
problem. Once the people in the civil agencies and the 
defense agencies agree that they're going to work 
together, there's enough imagination between them to 
draw the frontier in a way which doesn't impinge on 
security. I'm particularly impressed with what the 
French have done, whereby even some of the control 
of the actual development program has been done by 
the civilian space agency. I really don't think that this is 
a show stopper. I don't know if anybody would care to 
comment. I'm not saying that security isn't important, 
on the contrary, I'm saying it's so important that it will 
be looked after, but much more difficult as a show 
stopper is internal resistance. 

There are, as we all know, at least three 

organizations here in the United States that plan 

to launch various types of Earth observation 

satellites and appear on a commercial basis 

and charge for the data and thereby hopefully 

support the cost of the whole thing. 

Dr. Felsher: No matter what happens, this country has 
historically been far advanced technologically in Earth 
sensing for national security purposes, and that will 
never change, and that can never change. The release 
recently of Corona and Aurora early imagery happened 
with a lot of people saying, "It's got to happen," and a 
lot of other people saying, "It shouldn't happen, but 
we'll go no further than this." My own feeling is that we 
live in a more dangerous world than we did when there 
was an "evil empire." We must always maintain a tech- 
nological edge in remote sensing for national security. 
That's got to stay the way it is. I know a lot of people 
may disagree with that. Maybe some on the panel 
here, but I'll be happy to discuss it. 

Mr. Gibson: John, you're back on. 

Dr. MacDonald: I've got one here that says, "What 
criterion do you suggest for determination of when 
remote sensing data should cease to be publicly sup- 
ported and available and be privatized, for example, 
weather information?" You've got to look at this as a 


sort of multi-step process. First of all, it's beginning to 
happen already. There are, as we all know, at least 
three organizations here in the United States that plan 
to launch various types of Earth observation satellites 
and appear on a commercial basis and charge for the 
data and thereby hopefully support the cost of the 
whole thing. Something else is also happening, if I 
could have the first overhead. It was one of the ones I 
showed you before. If you look at the system from the 
spacecraft on through to distribution, if you look at 
what EOSAT does, and it's exactly the same now as 
what SPOT Image does, exactly the same as what RSI 
does. From the spacecraft down to the archive is basi- 
cally government supported. From there on is a private 
enterprise function. If you create the market at the left 
end here, and it gets back to this mechanism of creat- 
ing market, as you begin to egress people's real needs 
for information, as the volume increases, you can 
afford to move the private sector backwards through 
the chain. The mechanisms are already happening in 
all of remote sensing all over the world, either through 
private initiatives that companies are taking, or the 
kind of mechanism I'm showing here. As EOSAT, RSI 
and SPOT Image have all shown, you can operate that 
part of the system as quite a viable, profitable business 
today. It works just fine, and has been so for about five 
or six years. There's a role that government can play in 
this. There's another aspect to all this. If you could put 
up the second overhead, which is the one I didn't show 
you, it's two ways of government involvement in the 
business. The top one shows the space agency doing 
most of the funding. This is all government activity 
now in remote sensing. The space agency doing most 
of the funding of both the ground segment and the 
space segment. The user agencies like the C1SGS, and 
so on and so forth, not really supporting the system, 
getting the information, the data, paying a nominal 
price for it, and the guy with the red face up there is 
the taxpayer. The taxpayer of course in government is 
the ultimate source of all money. If you look at the bot- 
tom, it's the same diagram, except now the user agen- 
cies are funding the system. The space agency pro- 
vides a little bit of funding for technical support, and 
so on. If you think about it for a moment, that's the 
way DoD operates. It's also the way NOAA operates. 
But none of the other user agencies does. The weather 
system, for whatever reason, has always been a so- 
called public good or a public service. The defense 
system, of course, has to be. When you get into those 
bottom three boxes, the space segment, the ground 
segment and the user agency, particularly with the 
ground segment, in the NOAA case and of course in 
the DoD case, NOAA is also the performer in both of 
those boxes on the right hand side. But there's no rea- 
son that they have to be. Those services could be pur- 
chased by NOAA if they so chose to do, and I would 
suggest that as things evolve, we try to go to the bot- 
tom mechanism for government use and gradually 


move toward private sector performance of certainly 
the Earth segment box, and that's in effect what's hap- 
pening now in most cases, and ultimately in the space 
segment box. It's a mechanism, not a criterion. 

Mr. Gibson: Thank you. Murray? 

Dr. Felsher: How will NARSIA "balance" CEOS? I think 
that's a very perceptive question. What it pre-supposes 
is that there is a balance required. CEOS, you remem- 
ber, being the Committee on Earth Observation 
Satellites that's essentially an international body of rep- 
resentatives from the space-faring agencies. The key 
word here is government agencies, and indeed there 
is no, zero, zip representation from the private sector 
whatsoever. Dr. Silvestrini, who talked this morning, 
said that there has been some impact. That's not the 
word, Arturo, but it's close to it. A door has been 
opened. But my feeling is that there is some balance 
required. There is a necessity for providing true private 
sector input other than the lip service that we've been 
getting from CEOS in the past, and this may be a bit 
harsh, as to their considerations about what satellites 
will be built by the governments of the world. 
Historically of course, there was no reason to have the 
private sector there since in the past all of the Earth 
remote sensing satellites have been government satel- 
lites, and as a matter of fact, as we speak, it's still the 
same. Our expectation in the next several years is that 
it will change, and there has to be some means for 
providing input into CEOS' considerations and into 
their programs and priorities, and we look for NARSIA 
to be doing just that. 

Mr. Gibson: Thank you, Murray. David? 

Mr. Edwards: Last question I have here has to do with 
the price ranges for different scenes and how long 
does it take to get product to user? Typically the time it 
takes for somebody to get a scene is within the week 
they order it, unless there are special circumstances or 
something that requires some support service. But typ- 
ically that's starting to become the industry standard in 
terms of actual measured performance. Sometimes it's 
a lot quicker than that. When there's an emergency, 
typically a disaster, a lot of suppliers, including our- 
selves, have been known to put out a lot of products 
within the same day the orders come in. There's a lot 
of excess capacity from the standpoint of production 
in the industry. Nobody runs more than two shifts for a 
five-day work week in the industry, so there's at least 
excess capacity for one more shift, and I'm well aware 
of that. At EOSAT sometimes we don't even run two 
shifts. Throughput's not a problem. I'll just give you 
one price since I was talking about 1RS-1C. If you want 

to see a IRS-1C scene of Tucson, pick up your free 
coffee mug out in the hallway there for that data. For 
our 23 x 23(km) scene, $900, and for 70 x 70(km) 
you're looking at $2,500. Additional pricing you can 
get at our booth. Please visit our booth. We have a lot 
of imagery on display. That's about where it is. 

Mr. Gibson: Thank you. Bill? 

Vice Adm. Ramsey: The question is, "Which, if any, 
remote sensing systems can provide data in the GPS 
coordinant system or WGS-84 and at what level of 
accuracy can it be obtained?" EarthWatch, when they 
come on-line, will be providing data that is within the 
GPS coordinate system, and I believe everybody even- 
tually will, with the processing advances being made. I 
think that all of the remote sensors up there will even- 
tually use GPS coordinates and the accuracy level will 
probably, again because of the processing advances, 
be within the criteria of the GPS error probability bands 
of 15 meter (spherical). 

Mr. Gibson: Thank you very much. David, last 

There is a necessity for providing true private 

sector input other than the lip service that we've 

been getting from CEOS in the past, and this 

may be a bit harsh, as to their considerations 

about what satellites will be built by the 

governments of the world. 

Mr. Thompson: I have a question here that says, "Will 
wireless local loop (fixed cellular service) represent a 
tough competitive threat to space-based PCS or 
space-based personal communications systems in 
terms of pricing?" First of all, I want to tell you I'm not 
an expert on wireless local loop. I know enough about 
it to be dangerous. But I do know that we have to be 
very careful in the definitions of what we're talking 
about here, because you hear a lot of these terms that 
get thrown around, and for example, wireless local 
loop is not necessarily fixed cellular. There are wireless 
local loops that operate at other frequencies than our 
GSM, or other existing cellular services that are out 
there. I think, and I only know of one space-based PCS 
system, if you're familiar with PCS, PCS is the new 
trend toward smaller and smaller cells in the fixed 
based cellular service which will allow more capacity 
for users, mostly in cities. Let me say that I think there 
will be a tremendous demand for wireless local loops 
in these developing countries, unrelated to space, 
because the biggest expense of installing phone sys- 



terns is the local loop. That's running the cable down 
the street and into each house. There are some com- 
panies that had these wireless local loops that basically 
give you a little radio telephone that sits in your house 
and goes to the central office to help cut the cost of 
that wiring, and 1 think there'll be a tremendous market 
for that. That doesn't necessarily have to compete with 
the space-based cellular systems or other types of ser- 
vices, because that's basic local service. It turns out 
that these can actually work in very good concert with 
the space-based systems by having a wireless local 
loop, I described this phone booth earlier, which is sort 
of the central node in the village. You can have a wire- 
less local loop that's connected to the phone booth 
and then allowed shared access to that uplink that 
would allow a village to have international access 
through that space-based service. 1 think the bottom 
line is, it's a very bizarre marketplace right now. There 
are a lot of new services coming on-line, and you must 
be very careful in making analyses of these markets 
because the markets are rapidly changing, and the ser- 
vices that are being offered are combining a wide 
number of different sources from the existing terrestrial 
suppliers, from the space-based guys like we've talked 
about here, and from other services like VHF and CIHF 
services in the region and Irridium and things like that. 

There are a lot of new services coming on-line, 

and you must be very careful in making analyses 

of these markets because the markets are 

rapidly changing. 

My suggestion to the members of the audience would 
be make sure you do a very careful financial analysis 
before you get involved in these things because there 
are a lot of potholes that you can step into. My analy- 
sis of some of the things that have been done in this 
particular area is that they haven't necessarily been 
done with a lot of forethought. People jumped in here 
and said, "Here's my service," not knowing that right 
around the corner is coming a whole new brand of 
services from existing providers and things of that 
nature. So there's going to be a lot of market turmoil 
and we're only seeing the first generation of these sys- 
tems, so it probably won't settle out until we see the 
second generation, about the year 2005 or 2010, 
which is when Teledesic and guys like that are coming 
along. It will be interesting to see what happens. 

Mr. Gibson: Thank you. A final word of wisdom from 
Dave Edwards. 

Mr. Edwards: I wanted to do a bit of followup on some 
of the questions that came to John. He had to field 
them all for the most part in terms of both pricing and 
market. I think it's real critical to emphasize his point 
about the mechanism being the market — in creating 
the market. We have to get away from the paradigms 
and emotions of worrying about prices, prices-per- 
scenes and the paradigms associated with if govern- 
ment contributes towards a satellite system, if our data 
should be free. In the absence of that, there'll be con- 
tinued fragmentation. If there's a continued fragmenta- 
tion, you don't create the market. The market is the 
only mechanism which you can be sure is going to 
generate consistent funding no matter what the transi- 
tion time is, and how we come about getting those 
funds back towards paying for the data, that is again 
application driven and not a techno-push. That is so 
absolutely critical. If you look at the sleeping giant in 
terms of remote sensing being the Indians, they basi- 
cally said there was a lot of wisdom in the worldwide 
remote sensing community, western technology, west- 
ern utilization, but they keep fighting about the politics 
of it and the pricing of it. The Indians just started to do 
it. If you look at their history now, they continue to just 
advance the satellites and a continual sweep of sen- 
sors that there's a consensus by people needed for uti- 
lization of managing Earth resources, and they're just 
doing it, and they're just building it. In the meantime, 
we can continue to fight in the West, and we don't 
have any contribution at all except the one-sy, two-sy 
programs that may be good for the life of that one 
satellite. But you don't create a market and you don't 
bring this together. 

Mr. Gibson: This is all the time that we've got for our 
questions. We apologize very sincerely for those that 
we've not been able to tackle, but out of respect for 
the next session, we really must draw it to a close. 
With thanks to all those who've been on the panel. 
And thanks too for the technical help that we've had. 
Please don't go away because the next session starts 
straight away. There will not be another coffee break, 
you've already had it. Thank you very much. 



Faster, Better, Cheaper 

Master Steven R Scott 

Moderator: Program Development Manager 
Rockwell Space System Division 

Session The Honorable Hans Mark, Ph.D. 

Chair: Chair Professor 

Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and 

Engineering Mechanics 
The University of Texas at Austin 
Former Deputy Administrator, NASA, 

and Secretary of the Air Force 

Speakers: Peter WHhelm 


Naval Center for Space Technology, 
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory 

Dr. Edward Stone 


Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

Mr. Scott: Our final session for today is on applying 
the faster, better, cheaper methodology to space sys- 
tems. Leading the discussion is the Honorable Hans 
Mark, professor of aerospace engineering and engi- 
neering mechanics at the University of Texas at Austin. 
Prior to that he was both the undersecretary and sec- 
retary of the Air Force, as well as deputy administrator 
of NASA. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Dr. 
Hans Mark. 

Dr. Mark: Exploratory missions to the giants of the sol 
ar system, Jupiter and Saturn, were the subject of inte 
nse study by the scientists and executives of our plane- 
tary exploration program in the mid-1960s. It was rec- 
ognized very quickly that the outer planets would have 
to be explored by spacecraft rather different from 
those used in the case of Venus and Mars. First, the 
spacecraft would have to travel much farther than 
those used for the inner planets. The nearest outer 
planet, Jupiter, at its closest approach to the Earth, is 
more than 400 million miles away, in contrast to Mars 
which comes to within 50 million miles. A trip to 
Jupiter is therefore much longer than anything 
attempted in the case of the inner planets, and the 
spacecraft would have to be designed to last longer. 
A second important point is that in going to the outer 
planets it is necessary to move away from the sun. 
All of the spacecraft used to explore the inner planets 
obtained their electrical power from the sun. Solar 
panels were attached to the spacecraft or solar cells 
were actually mounted on the spacecraft body in order 
to produce electrical power. This could not be done 
with spacecraft designed to go to the outer planets. 
These would have to rely on nuclear thermal electric 
generators in order to provide the necessary electric 
power. These power supplies use the energy liberated 
during the radioactive decay of Plutonium-238. They 
have proven to be very effective and reliable and have 
been built to deliver up to 400 watts of electrical 
power. Finally, the long distances require a much more 
capable communication system than those used by 

the spacecraft discussed so far. Thus, all the space- 
craft that were ultimately designed to go to the outer 
planets are dominated in appearance by the presence 
of a large dish-shaped high gain antenna. 

One of the early ideas that emerged from the 
planning sessions of the 1960s was to use the gravita- 
tional fields of the planets, which were the targets of 
flybys, to alter the trajectory of the spacecraft so that it 
could reach the next planet. This principle was applied 
in the case of the voyage of Mariner 10 to Venus and 
Mercury, where the gravitational field of Venus was 
used to divert the spacecraft to Mercury. A much more 
ambitious mission was conceived for the outer planets. 
It was found that during the 1970s the large outer 
planets would be in a favorable position for a voyage 
that would use gravity assist methods in such a way 
that all of the large outer planets could be visited. 
Initially, this mission was called the Grand Tour, and 
had the voyage been started in the early 1970s, the 
"Grand Tour" could have included Pluto, which is the 
outermost known planet of our Solar System. (Pluto is 
not a large planet, being smaller than the Earth. It is 
probably a rocky planet whose origin is unknown.) As 
things turned out, this was not to be, but the idea was 
important and almost every mission to the outer plan- 
ets has used gravity assist methods to achieve its 

The considerations of a Grand Tour with a very 
sophisticated spacecraft to measure all the properties 
of interest resulted in the conceptual design of some 
very expensive spacecraft, and people were concerned 
whether the spacecraft would survive the trip. There 
were very real hazards that had to be overcome in 
journeys to the outer planets. One was the asteroid 
belt which lies between Mars and Jupiter. This is a 
region of space containing hundreds of thousands of 
small rocky fragments orbiting the sun, ranging in size 
from a few miles in diameter to objects of microscopic 
dimensions. The asteroid belt probably resulted from 
the breakup of a planet that originally occupied this 
space in the solar system. Collisions with the debris 



could destroy a spacecraft on the way to Jupiter and it 
was important to determine whether this would hap- 
pen with an inexpensive spacecraft, rather than a com- 
plex and sophisticated one that would be used for the 
Grand Tour. 

Another hazard was the very strong magnetic 
field that we knew surrounds the planet Jupiter. It was 
very likely that energetic charged particles were 
trapped in this field just as they are in Earth's magnetic 
field. Therefore, when the spacecraft approaches 
Jupiter, it would be subjected to very high levels of 
radiation that might very well damage it. Since there 
was no way of knowing the intensity of the radiation 
fields around Jupiter, this had to be placed in the cate- 
gory of an unknown hazard. Once again, a precursor 
mission with an inexpensive spacecraft would be 

In order to deal with these problems, it was 
decided to send a relatively inexpensive precursor 
spacecraft to Jupiter in order to provide the necessary 
design data for the spacecraft that would eventually 
execute the Grand Tour. These spacecraft became 
Pioneers 10 and 11. The precursor mission to Jupiter 
was given the go-ahead by NASA Headquarters in 
February 1969. Eventually, this would develop into the 
Pioneer Jupiter-Saturn project. The NASA-Ames 
Research Center was selected to manage the Pioneer 
Jupiter-Saturn Program. The center had already man- 
aged the development of the very successful plasma 
probes, Pioneers 6 through 9, which were orbiting the 
sun and collecting important measurements on the 
structure of the solar wind. At the time, I was serving 
as the director of the NASA Ames Research Center 
and I have to confess that I, along with everyone else 
at Ames, was elated when we were given the firm go- 
ahead to plan for two new Pioneer missions, which 
would be the precursors to the Grand Tour. We were 
given a very stringent budget limit for the performance 
of this mission. Specifically, the entire program con- 
sisting of the two spacecraft with all the systems on 
board should come in for a run-out development cost 
of less than $100 million, in 1970 dollars. (Compare 
this to the $1 billion program cost for the Viking 
Project, which was carried on at about the same time.) 
The TRW organization was selected to develop and 
construct the Pioneer Jupiter-Saturn spacecraft. The 
Ames Research Center had developed a strong rela- 
tionship with TRW through their work on earlier 
Pioneer spacecraft, and so this was a logical step. I 
was heavily involved in the planning for the Pioneer 
program, and, later on, in the execution. When faced 
with cost constraints of the kind I have mentioned, we 
had to adopt a strategy which would permit us to con- 
trol costs and at the same time do something useful 

In order to make certain that we could meet 
these very stringent requirements, we adopted some 


very clear management principles that we would 
adhere to under any and all circumstances: 

• There would be simple and clearly defined 
mission objectives. 

• There would be a small management team 
at NASA-Ames, not more than 20 people. 

• Broad delegation of authority would be given 
to the prime contractor. 

• Project managers would be carefully chosen: 
Charles F. Hall managed the program at Ames and 
Bernard J. O'Brien would do the same job at TRW 
Both were first class people. 

• Existing technology would be used wherever 
possible in the spacecraft development process. 
Engineering constraints would be imposed on the 
spacecraft design that would prevent escalation 

of requirements. 

The last point turned out to every much the 
most important. Normally in a spacecraft program of 
this kind, the scientific requirements dominate, and 
therefore the costs escalate if the requirements are 
such that they can command support from the politi- 
cal authorities. In the case of Pioneer Jupiter-Saturn 
(which later became Pioneer 10 and 11), we could not 
let the cost escalate beyond $100 million without risk- 
ing program cancellation. What we decided to do, 
therefore, was to place two arbitrary constraints on the 
spacecraft that would guarantee low costs. One of 
these constraints was that we would not provide a 
three-axis stabilized spacecraft platform, stabilizing a 
spacecraft with the appropriate control rockets to a 
high degree of accuracy is expensive. We therefore 
elected to use spin stabilization, which is achieved by 
rotating the spacecraft around an axis with a large 
moment of inertia. In the case of the Pioneer 
Jupiter-Saturn spacecraft, the spin axis was in the 
plane of the ecliptic, which permitted pointing the 
communication antenna always toward the Earth. The 
large moment of inertia which leads to a stable spin- 
ning system was provided by the heavy nuclear ther- 
mal electric power supplies mounted on long beams 
about 15 feet away from the axis of the spacecraft. 
This method of controlling the motion of the space- 
craft is inexpensive, but there is a price to be paid: It is 
impossible to obtain really good high resolution pho- 
tographs of the target planet. 

The second engineering constraint that we 
placed on the spacecraft was that we would not store 
any data on board the spacecraft. All data obtained 
would be transmitted back to Earth on a bitstream not 
to exceed 1,024 bits per second in real time. We rec- 
ognized that high capacity data storage equipment 
and high data rate transmission systems would be 
extremely expensive. Once again there was a price to 









> V 

- * \ 

\ ^r-"» 



Fig. FB-101 

be paid for 
placing this 
constraint on 
the space- 
craft. Low 
data rates 
meant again 
that high res- 
olution pic- 
tures could 
not be ob- 
tained. Also it 
would not be 
possible to 
secure high 

data of the plasma stream and other phenomena to 
be investigated. The scientists who were to build the 
experimental packages mounted on the Pioneer space- 
craft were given these constraints and were asked to 
live within them. While this situation was obviously not 
ideal from their point of view, most of them agreed 
that the constraints made sense. They reasoned that 
in a scientific investigation of this kind it was as impor- 
tant to be first on the scene than it was to get the very 
best data. 

A line drawing of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft 
showing the location of the experiment packages is 
shown here [Fig. FB-101]. Its sister ship Pioneer 1 1 
was essentially identical to Pioneer 10. This figure 
shows the Pioneer spacecraft as built by TRW Systems 
Group [Fig. FB-102]. Because of the engineering con- 
straints that were placed on the design of the space- 
craft before the scientific experiments were developed, 
we were able to control the cost of the program. And 
we did indeed successfully complete the development 
and construction phases for a runout cost of less than 
$100 million. Pioneer 10 and 1 1 were small spacecraft 
weighing about 550 pounds. The communications 
system uses approximately 100 watts of electrical 
power. The rest of the systems on the spacecraft were 
simple and rugged in design (see reference 1). Existing 
technology was used wherever possible. Advanced 
technology components and systems would be em- 
ployed only when absolutely necessary. The fact is 
advanced technology is both expensive and risky. 
Therefore, we felt it would be prudent to introduce 
advanced technology in an incremental manner. The 
principle of carefully calculated risk governed us in the 
design of the Pioneer Jupiter-Saturn spacecraft. 

The project management lessons to be drawn 
from this experience are that controlling escalating 
requirements — be they scientific in a program of this 
kind or military in projects related to the national secu- 
rity through some externally imposed engineering con- 
straint — is absolutely essential for cost control. 

The mission planning for the two spacecraft 

Fig. FB-102 

called for two very bold maneuvers. Pioneer 10 would 
fly by the planet Jupiter in such a way that it would be 
accelerated. In that process, Pioneer 10 would pick up 
enough energy to become the first man-made object 
to leave the solar system. Pioneer 1 1, on the other 
hand, would fly by Jupiter with a trajectory so that five 
years later it would be able to fly past the planet Saturn 
and become the first spacecraft to explore that beauti- 
ful planet with its rings and large satellite Titan (see 
reference 2). It is amusing for me to remember that 
our arch-rivals at the time at the Jet Propulsion lab 
vigorously opposed this mission plan. While they rec- 
ognized the necessity of a precursor mission to their 
much more expensive Grand Tour, that they would exe- 
cute, they did not want the precursors to become the 
first spacecraft to leave the solar system or the first 
one to fly past Saturn. I remember that there was 
some very heavy politicking at NASA headquarters 
before we were able to gain approval for this mission 
plan. (The engineering model of Pioneer 10 is now 
exhibited in the "Hall of Firsts" at the Smithsonian 
National Air and Space Museum in Washington — 
because the real article was, indeed, the first man- 
made object to leave the solar system. It shares the 
room with the Wright brothers' plane, the Spirit of 
St. Louis, and John Glenn's Mercury capsule). 

The "Grand Tour," as envisaged in the 1960s, 
was eventually carried out, but in a more limit manner 
with the Voyager I and II spacecraft. These were 
sophisticated stable platforms weighing almost 2000 
pounds. The Voyager project was managed by the Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory and was highly successful. A 
wealth of very important scientific information was 



'■"WMKT (OlffVlllXi 



Fig. FB-103 

""" °' '"' """ 

Voyager 11 
flew past 
the four 
planets — 
and Nep- 
tune — 

excellent pictures 
from all of them. 
(The Voyager pro- 
gram development 
cost was about $600 
million in then-year 

There is another 
amusing incident 
which I need to 
recount relating to 
Pioneer 10. 1 have 
already mentioned 
the fact that Pioneer 
10 would become the 
first man-made 
object to leave the 
solar system, About 
three months before 
the scheduled launch 
of Pioneer 10 on March 3, 1972, I received a tele- 
phone call form my old friend, Carl Sagan, whom I 
first met when he was a post doctoral fellow at the 
University of California in Berkeley in 1960 or 1961 
(Carl was not yet as famous as he is today because the 
Cosmos television series was still some years in the 
future). Carl asked me whether I realized that Pioneer 
10 would be the first man-made object to leave the 
solar system. I said, "of course," and then added some 
words to the effect of "so what?" Carl, with a trace of 
exasperation in his voice, replied that this was a most 
important event and that we should put a message on 
the spacecraft in case someone finds it. By 1972 we 
had begun to speculate in the problem of how one 
might look for extraterrestrial life, and Carl— his imagi- 
nation always being somewhat ahead of the rest of 
us — asked me to consider what would happen if 
somebody out there found our spacecraft. He pointed 
out that it would be good if we could put a message 
on Pioneer 10 which would at least provide the finder 
some information on where the spacecraft came from 
and who built it. 1 had to agree that Carl had a point, 
and so the idea of placing an appropriate plaque on 

Fig. FB-104 

Fig. FB-105 

the Pioneer 10 spacecraft was born. The plaque itself 
was designed by Carl's wife, Linda, and my job was to 
take that design and to get some of them manufac- 
tured so that we could put one of them on the space- 
craft. 1 remember going to a small engraving shop in 
Mountain View, Calif., to have Linda's design etched 
on some brass plates, (one of which would finally have 
the distinction of flying on Pioneer 10.) The plaque is 
shown here and the instructions for deciphering it are 
in the caption [Fig. FB-103J. (Some of my friends con- 
tinued to insist that absolutely no one, no matter how 
smart, could decipher what Linda and Carl Sagan put 
on that plaque. The Los Angeles Times had a some- 
what different viewpoint. Shortly after the plaque design 
became public, the editorial cartoonist pointed out that 
the finders would wonder whether all people on Earth 
walked around without any clothes [Fig. FB-W4]\) 
Pioneer 10 was successfully launched on 
March 3, 1972, just over three years after the project 
was approved. It flew by Jupiter on Dec. 4, 1973, and 
is now on its way out of the solar system. Pioneer 1 1 
was successfully launched on April 6, 1973, and it 
reached Jupiter on Dec. 3, 1974. Pioneer 11 then 
went on to achieve the first close encounter with the 
planet Saturn on Sept. 1, 1979. It was the first space- 
craft to send back to Earth pictures of the planet 
Saturn and of its absolutely spectacular rings taken 
from a point close to the planet (see reference 3). The 
Pioneers returned a number of important scientific 
results about Jupiter, Saturn, and about the nature 
of the interplanetary medium. They also achieved the 
objective of being the precursor missions to more 
sophisticated and expensive spacecraft. It was discov- 
ered by Pioneer 10 that the asteroid belt does not pre- 
sent a real danger. In fact, there was no noticeable 
increase in the number of meteorite hits on the space- 
craft as it passed through the asteroid belt. Pioneer 10 



was also the 
first spacecraft 
to measure the 
magnetic field 
and the radia- 
tion intensity 
around the 
planet Jupiter. 
Once again, it 
was discovered 
that, with an 
designed trajec- 
tory, a space- 
craft could 
Fig. FB-106 safely approach 

the planet (see 
reference 4). Pioneer 10 obtained the first good pic- 
tures of Jupiter. A sample is shown here [Fig. FB-105J. 
The spacecraft also made the first survey of the mag- 
netic field of Jupiter and the trapped charged particle 
distributions. A schematic diagram is shown here [Fig. 
FB-106]. Pioneer 1 1 was the first spacecraft to take 
close up pictures of Saturn and its ring system. A sam- 
ple is shown here [Fig. FB-107J. 

Pioneer 10 is now on its way out of the solar 
system. In 1990, the spacecraft passed beyond the 
orbit of Pluto. At the present time, Pioneer 10 is more 
than four billion miles away from the Earth. What is 
most remarkable about this little 550-pound spacecraft 
is that we are still receiving signals from it. The power 
now available to transmit these signals is a little bit less 
than 50 watts, or what you might get from a weak 
electric light bulb, and yet the signals can still be 
heard. It is really a remarkable technical achievement. 
Pioneer 10 will hopefully still be within earshot when it 
actually passes the boundary of the solar system. This 
boundary has been defined as the point where the 
solar wind no longer exerts any pressure. It is expected 
that a plasma discontinuity will be observed at that 
point. This will be the last piece of scientific informa- 
tion we receive from Pioneer 10. Hopefully, we will 
receive it soon, since it is now 23 years after the 
spacecraft was launched. Once the spacecraft passes 
that plasma discontinuity, it will be the first man-made 
object to truly arrive in interplanetary space. 

The example of the Pioneer Jupiter-Saturn 
program is encouraging. The program was executed 
according to the principles that we evolved 25 years 
ago to assure "better, cheaper, faster" space vehicle 
developments. One question that is most important is 
to consider whether it is possible to apply the same 
principles now. The fact is that we were able to enforce 
our constraints only because the Pioneer program was 
indeed a precursor to something much more elabo- 
rate. The scientists working with us were therefore will- 
ing to accept the management discipline that we 

Fig. FB-107 

imposed. It is not at all clear that we could have 
imposed our constraints and our discipline had we not 
been able to look forward to the Voyager program. It is 
important to make this point here to hedge the con- 
clusion that the prescription I have outlined here for 
doing things "better, cheaper, faster" will work today. 

Speaker's note: References for the preceeding pre- 
sentation by Dr. Mark. 

1. Charles F. Hall, Hans Mark and John H. Wolfe, 
"The Journey to Jupiter." Endeavor, Vol. 35, No. 
124, pp 9-14, January 1976. 

2. "Pioneer: First to Jupiter, Saturn, and Beyond," 
Richard O. Fimmel, James A. Van Allen and Eric 
Burgess, (NASA SP-446, 1980, Washington, D.C.). 

3. "Pioneer Saturn," Journal of Geophysical 
Research, Vol., 85, No. All, November 1, 1980. 

4. 'Jupiter: Studies of the Interior, Atmosphere, 
Magnetosphere and Satellites," Thomas Gehrels, 
Editor, The University of Arizona Press, (Tucson) 1976. 

Dr. Mark: I'd like to now introduce our speakers. I 
want to apologize just a little bit, we have decided to 
reverse the order, because as they appear on the pro- 
gram it wasn't quite as logical. I'm going to ask Pete 
Wilhelm to be our first speaker. Peter G. Wilhelm is the 
director of the center for Naval Space Technology at 
the CIS. Naval Research Laboratory, which is one 
of the nation's really distinguished technology develop- 
ment institutions. It is unique in the sense that it is the 
only institution within the Department of Defense that 
can actually build and develop space satellites, and 
when I was sitting in the Pentagon some 15 years ago 
I made use of that capability liberally as you will 
remember and that is still there. Mr. Wilhelm has been 
recognized by a number of awards. He holds the 



Extensive Experience Developing, Launching and Operating DoD Satellites 


Over 82 Satellites & 33 Launches 
To Date 

NH1_ I. A Leader in Space 

1 at Launch In 196g 


- 1st Communlcallona To/From Space 


1st Lanj* Scat* Photoa From Space 


On ft 

■ 1 at Space Object Tracking Syalem 

- tsl Multiple Satellite Launch From 
Single Rocket 

- let Demonatratton Of Global Positioning 
System (OPS) 

- 1 st Actively Stabilized Large Transfer 

Fig. FB-201 

Faster. Cheaper. Better 

■ "Shortened" Development Cycles tor Reduced Costs 

• "Optimization" At System Level vs Component Level 

• "Assured" Integration and Interoperability 
- Teaming of Government and Industry 

• "Responsive" to Sponsor's Needs 

Fig. FB-202 

Distinguished Civil Civilian Service Medal of the U.S. 
Navy, he's a fellow of the Institute for Aeronautics & 
Astronautics. Mr. Wilhelm is a graduate of Purdue 
University. And it is a great pleasure to introduce Pete 
Wilhelm, whose last and most important achievement 
really recently was the flight of the Clementine space- 
craft, which is our current example of what this panel 
is about. So Pete, please, the podium is yours. 

Mr. Wilhelm: I was asked to write an abstract and in 
that abstract I said 1 would describe the history of the 
space program at NRL. As you can tell by this view- 
graph it is a very, very long history [Fig. FB-201]. 
Fortunately for you I don't have the time to give you 
the unabridged version. So what I will do is select 
three particular spacecraft because I think they make 
the points that I will try to make in my brief talk. One 
of those satellites will be the navigational technology 
one. The second will be a satellite called LACE and, 
finally, Clementine. 

Proven Capability to Meet 
Aggressive DoD Schedules 

Task Requirements 

• On-OrtrtTMt 
of Advincad 

Fig. FB-203 

Now, "faster, better, cheaper" has become a recent slo- 
gan, but the point I would like to make is that it's 
something that we have practiced at NRL for the past 
35 years [Fig. FB-202]. It is inherent to our culture, if 
you will. As Dr. Mark mentioned on the Pioneer, we fol- 
low some of the same general ground rules. We try to 
establish a small project team, empower those people, 
use people with a wide variety of experience levels, 
from very senior people to junior level engineers and 
then challenge those people with aggressive peer 
review processes and support them with a robust test 
program. We have found that is the formula for suc- 
cess. Without a robust test program you don't catch 
the problems. The other thing is that if you can work 
faster, it is almost always going to be cheaper, but it is 
only with the skill level and experience of your best 
people that you can actually make it better. That is a 
very important point, I think. 

Lest you think that the satellites, the three 
satellites I've talked about, are the only things we've 
ever done rapidly, this chart gives you a couple of 
more [Fig. FB-203]. We've done some small high tem- 
perature superconducting space experiments in 14 
months. These four things on the bottom were all tac- 
tical terminals and tactical communication links that 
were done in a very short period. The one that holds 
our current record is one we call LIPS, which was done 
in six months. 

The other thing that's important in trying to 
work rapidly is to have access to all of the necessary 
facilities, test facilities, both space and ground [Fig. 
FB-204]. We have those at NRL. In fact the ones for 
space testing are all under one roof. And you see pic- 
tures of the major facilities there on the left. Recently 
those facilities at the NRL main campus have been 
linked together with our ground station, using fiber 
optic ATM links. That gives us the capability, for our 
people at the ground station who are going to have 



In-Place DoD Assets Support 
Space and Ground Systems 


Fig. FB-204 

to control the satellite when it goes into orbit, and 
can now actually interact with the spacecraft prior 
to launch, and we have found that to be a very effec- 
tive tool. And, on the right, this shows a number 
of our ground stations, both fixed and mobile ground 

I talked a little bit now about the past, but 
before I go any further I think we have to stop and look 
at what the future holds [Fig. FB-205J. You don't want 
to drive too far down the road while only looking in 
your rear view mirror. I think we see a pretty different 
situation, at least within the Department of Defense. 
As probably has been said a number of times, the 
Cold War is over. We no longer have a single enemy to 
worry about. In fact, in just the last couple of days we 
heard the North Koreans are starting to cause trouble 
on the demilitarized zone. Secretary Perry announced 
that we've caught Moammar Ghadafi with poison gas 
facilities being built in Libya. We've got peacekeeping 
missions in Bosnia. So it's really a very different world 
than it has been in the more recent past. Cost has 
more than ever become a major factor in what DoD 
will be able to do. 1 think the one thing that we can 
pretty well count on, though, is that DoD is going 
to have to be even faster on its feet, even more agile 
than it has been in the past. 

Mow, I would like to get to those three particu- 
lar satellite programs that I talked about. The first one 
is our navigation program [Fig. FB-206J. You'll see a 
number of satellites listed there: Timation I, 11 and III. 
In effect, those satellites were what we today call 
advanced technology demonstrators. They proved out 
and developed the three fundamental capabilities upon 
which GPS is founded: the stable clocks, the improved 
accuracy that you get from "passive one way ranging," 
and then the use of high altitude and high inclination 
orbits to give you global coverage. Those are the three 
fundamental things that GPS relies on. After those pro- 
grams had been completed, we are now up to 1977, 

Vision for 21st Century Space System! 1 ^: ^Efo 

mology Must Respond 

B War Is Over 
f> Single "Defined" Adversary 

New Missions (Drug Interdiction, f 
7~ Peacekeeping) 

Cost Is Ma|or Factor In New Spad 
Systems Development 

Commercial ■Off-the-Shelf'SJj 
Has Significant Mllltarj, 

Future Space Systet 
Cost vs Performarrc] 

Fig. FB-205 

Navigational Technology Satellites Were 
Prototypes for Global Positioning System (GPS) 

■ Geo-Location Using Orbiting Stable Clocks 

• Timation I Satellite (196?) 

- Stable Quartz Oscillator 

- 2 Year Lifetime 

• Timation II Satellite (1969) 

Ultra Stable Quartz Clock 
6 Year Lifetime 

■ Timation III / NTS I (1974) 

- 1 ,1 32 lb With 5 Year Lilelime 
Introduced Redundant Spacecraft Systems 
First Orbiting Rubidium-Vapor Atomic Oscillator 
Confirmed Einstein's Theory of Relativity 

■ NTS II (1977) Was First GPS Satellite 

Cesium Oscillator 

- 1,711 lb With 6 Year Lifetime 
First Flight of NIH ; Battery 

■ Technology Transfer For DoD and Commercial Uses ol Space 

Navigational Technology Satellite (NTS) II 

NRL Received the 1992 Collier Award tor Aero-Astro 
Achievement in Recognition of Program 

Fig. FB-206 

and we were ready to put up the first prototype GPS 
satellite. This was also done under a Joint Program 
Office. And I don't know if it was the first Joint Program 
Office, but it was certainly the most successful. 

In 1992, NRL, along with the Air Force's 
SAMSO organization, The Aerospace Corporation and 
Rockwell International, shared in the very prestigious 
Collier Award. I think as you look at the elements of 
this program, the advanced technology demonstrator, 
transitioning the technology to the industry, developing 
what has now become a major commercial off-the- 
shelf capability, there is a huge market place for GPS 
data products for this country. And it all came about 
because the Navy, the Air Force, and industry were 
able to cooperate as they never have before. And I 
think the results stand for themselves. 1 know in my 
career that there is no single thing that I was ever 
involved in that gave me more personal satisfaction 
than to have played a role in this GPS program. 

The second satellite 1 would like to talk about 
is called LACE (low-powered atmospheric compensa- 



| LACE Technology Demonstration For SDIO 



Army Background Experiment 
i Alamos Nallonil Labor a lory 

Fig. FB-207 

Government / Industry Teams Rapidly Produce 
High Payoff Space Systems Like Clementine 

... . „ »...»,_- _ . .1 Mission Operations Center 

Mission Sensors (LLNL) 2t Months Concept To Launch INCST1 

575 Million Mission Cost 

Fig. FB-208 

OpttcM Cowing Laboratory, inc 

Sanla floaa. CA 

OpitcM Flltara For UWC , HiHai 

Clementine Industry Participants 

Sdanca A Optical Tacnnkal 

LbgMmsM Optical Saoaori 


AmOar Engaiaartng, trie. 


Columbia, MO 

MR a LWIfl Focal Plana Array*. Dmr 


■aavranco Taclvnology Conmatton 

Spacacrafl Command Languaga 

Elactronfca Daaigna 
FarnUonlca Corporation 

NIK3 Common Piaaauia Voaaal Banvy 

Syatama Ellacllvanaoa A 


Garmanlown, MO 
Spacecraft Support Sarvlcaa 

Prov«tod HgCdTa Cryatai For LWIM 
LUton QuManu a ConOol Syatama. Inc 
Woodland HWa.CA 
Intainal Flbar OpUc Gyroacopa lnarllal 

McOonnofl Douglaa Aaroapaca 
Wwm a Electronic i Syatama 
SI. LauM, MO 
Laaar TianamWaf 

Atlantic Raaoarch Cotpor 
Niagara Falta. NV 
Si-PropaHant TanU 


ANiad Signal Tacnnkal Sarvica* 
Camp Spring., HO 
Mtaaton Oparathon* 
Tacrnlcal Aaalaianc* 

TMoaot Corporation 

Schaeltar UagnaUc*. Inc. -,,., ... 


Star 37 FV Solid 

Setar Array Dm** Aaaambh, FfMleiboi . 


RocWt Motor 

McLaafl, VA 

Opltca For UWC, SIC, HIRaa. SoUHa. 

Data HandHng Unit, DtgMaJ Ground 

NIR a lwir Sanaora HachaMama 



Imaging Syataina 

"i'm- Yiririarrti inr Kail Aai>uiw!>r:iiini>iaiiAiiy^^^^^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a^a1 

Appkad Coharonl TachnologHw Corp 

DaHaVWMor Ftaaedw 

■kjjjjjj^ a HlHaa aanaota 

knaga Procoaalng Tachnlcai Attlalanca 

AppttadSoMiEiwgyCorp Martin * 

Praita. ln« 

City W InduaWy, CA Danvai, 


OaAa Solar Colli Titan * 

Program Planning I Control, 

Tha Aaroapaca Corp. 
ElSagundo. CA 


on Davie*, thvialon MJ||<< 

Enolnaarmg, inc. 

Protaaia, Inc. 

AOVancad Compoaita Structuraa 
Spoe* AppWcaBona Corporation, Inc. 
El Sagundo. CA 

Ouidanca. navigation 1 Control 
FttaM Softnwa 

Syatama Englnaarlng 
ftarrloft Tocttnohogy, Inc 

Spacacrafl Simulation ■ 
■ttaawn Planning Sonwara 
Riaaarcli Support matrwnanii 

AJaiandria, VA 

Sciatica A Optical TochMcal 

HcDonnall Oougtaa Aaroapaca 
Engmaaring 4 Tachnelogy Camar 


Softwara Tacnitatagy, inc 

HunHngaon Saach, CA 

CompoatM IMoralaga Adaptai, 

Syatama Englnaorlng 

CornpoiHa Solar Array Sutoatralaa 

Mnanuntca, Inc 

SEAKR Ennlmarina. Inc. 

WHtamna. FL 
around Baftani* 

SHyof Eogtnaartng, Inc. 
Waat MaMourn*. R. 

Digital Syalama. Ground 

Qanaral Atomic 

Support Equlpmanl 

LORAL Corporallon 
San Mono. CA 



■ Location ■ Sorvtoa 

Me»ourna Saacn. FL 

A Radiation Hardanad Uomory 
Ring Laaar Oyroacopa Inarual 

Fig. FB-209 

tion experiment) [Fig. FB-207]. It was the first satellite 
that was done by us for the SDIO. It was a very suc- 
cessful program, also. The main thing with this pro- 
gram is that the sponsor was continuously changing 
the requirements. We had to always be adapting to 
new situations. I think it's one of the fundamental 
advantages of an in-house capability. When the spon- 
sor — government sponsor — says he wants to change 
the scope, if you're in-house you can react to that very 
quickly. You don't have to renegotiate a contract or 
anything. Things like the CIVPI instrument from Loral 
were added 18 months before launch. SDIO decided 
they wanted to launch another satellite with us and 
they changed the launch vehicle and we wound up 
using a Delta. There were a number of things that 
were very unique about that program. The thing that 
I think was probably most beneficial to us is we were 
given an award by SDIO for the best program of the 
year, but, more importantly, we had gotten their confi- 
dence in our ability. 

The next satellite that I'll talk about was award- 
ed to us because of the LACE satellite and that's 
Clementine [Fig. FB-208]. This viewgraph shows some 
of the main elements of the Clementine program: the 
spacecraft itself, the inner stage adapter, the sensors 
or the cameras which were provided by Lawrence 
Livermore National Labs, one of our NRL ground 
stations, a 100 foot dish that was used in conjunction 
with JPL NASA Deep Space network to take the data 
from Clementine as it was going around the moon, 
and then our mission control station, which some of 
you may have heard of, referred to as the Bat Cave, a 
very low cost operation. So the total Clementine satel- 
lite was done in 21 months for $75 million. 

Now this chart depicts one of the other impor- 
tant characteristics of this program and that was 
that it involved a very large team from the 
industry [Fig. FB-209]. There were 45 compa- 
nies and they were selected by us because we 
felt they had the best technology that was avail- 
able in the U.S. industry at the time. The next 
thing is the question of the funding and how 
that funding was divvied up. In spite of the fact 
that Clementine, for the most part, received a 
lot of good publicity, there was early criticism 
that we were taking work away from industry — 
and I think this chart shows that that's kind of 
a "bum wrap" [Fig. FB-210]. 

The small NRL team consumed only 16 per- 
cent of the total pie. The other 84 percent was 
consumed by industry. But the point is, that 84 
percent would have never occurred if it hadn't 
been for the enabling capability that the Lab 
brought to this program. Now I have to apolo- 
gize, this is a very busy chart, and I'll leave it up 
here while I try to explain some other things 



Clementine's Low Cost Resulted From 
Collaborative Government and Industrial Effort i 

Ground Segment 

Launch Vehicle 

Small Government and Industrial 

Fixed Price Contracts For "Standard" 

Industry Skills and Cadre Via 
NRL / DoD Support Contracts 

Integration and Test In NRL / DoD 

Government Laboi 

Industry Labor 

$55M Spacecraft and Ground Segment 

Unique and Appropriate Roles for Future Space 1 dfc , 
Systems Builds on Past DoD Successes ^H 

Fig. FB-210 

More Use of Advanced Technology Demonstrations 
Expand and Diversity aMM Industrial Base 
Transition Technology to US Industry 

Effective Use of Commercial Technology 
"Where and When to Use" 

Compressed Development Schedules 
Support the War-lighter 

Prove Operation Concepts for Space and Ground 

Partnerships With Broad Spectrum R&D Organizations 
to Lower Cosl and Improve Performance | 










\ V 








Fig. FB-212 

Clementine Qualified Advanced Technology 
for DoD / Industry / NASA 


• IM wIon Canwria 


■ eoMCTtm 



Plyty (NASA) 
* OaAttt* Solar C*ll 




Cpmfuetanc* Hut 


• Molt ■artwmanc* 

-auk (NASA) 

• {Mia 

' |MM|WlW*d 



about the Clementine program that aren't on the chart 
[Fig. FB-21 I]. And that is, the reason Clementine 
probably received so much favorable publicity was 
because it was the first C.S. mission to return to the 
moon in 25 years. It did completely map the surface 
of the moon. Probably the most significant thing that 
happened to the Clementine program, in my estima- 
tion, was that it made the front page of the Weekly 
Reader. Last night here the stage was full of a bunch 
of young children that I'm sure all read the Weekly 
Reader and they all know about Clementine. This chart 
points out the motivation of the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization and it was to qualify and transi- 
tion all of those technologies, and that has been done 
very successfully. All of the scientific data that got the 
good publicity was serendipity, really. That was not the 
purpose of the mission from the DoD standpoint. This 
is all hardware here, it's hard to show a picture of soft- 
ware, but there are a couple of software transitions 

that occurred. Our Comet software has been 
adopted by Motorola for the Iridium project and 
by the GPS program office. Also we had devel- 
oped a satellite control language which is ideal 
for automated spacecraft operations, and JPL is 
going to use that on its Pluto fast-flyby mission. 
So I think the transition of the technology was 
very successful. 

Mow I'd like to go back and make that bridge 
between what worked well in the past and what I 
think is going to be needed in the future. The 
rows on the left are the things that I think are 
going to be important in our future [Fig. FB- 
212]. The vertical columns are what we have 
been able to do in the past and I think you see a 
very good match there. I think the one thing I 
would highly recommend to our seniors is that 
we make more effective use of what we call 
advanced technology demonstrators to reduce 
the risk of some of these major space programs. 

The other thing is that we will continue to try to 
achieve compressed schedules because time is money, 
and there is no better way to do it cheaper than to do 
it fast. And maybe the last one is, I see the need to 
have more and more partnerships in the future to 
reach out to a broader spectrum of our community, 
because nobody seems to have enough money to do 
these things on their own. 

And there is one last viewgraph that I have. 
Bob Davis, who is the Deputy Undersecretary of 
Defense for Space, was kind enough to accept our 
invitation to give us his views on what the future issues 
in space would be. He took that opportunity to chal- 
lenge us to put down, in print, a vision statement: 
What is it you guys want to do in the future? And then 
to try to promulgate that throughout the aerospace 
community and debate it. And this is the first time it 
has really been shown in public. I can't think of a bet- 



Fig. FB-213 

ter place to do it than at this conference. I won't read 
the whole thing, but the simple statement that you can 
carry away with you is that we would like "to boldly fly 
what never has flown before" [Fig. FB-213]. 

In summary then, I have tried to show what we 
think has worked well in the past, why it worked well, 
and what parts of it will have applications in the future. 

Thank you. 

Dr. Mark: It's a great pleasure for me now to introduce 
our next speaker, who is a very old friend of many, 
many, many years' standing. He is the current director 
of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of California Institute 
of Technology, which also doubles as a NASA center. 
When I was serving as a NASA center director that dual 
role always gave me a little bit of trouble. But it is a very 
effective organization. 

Ed Stone was appointed to that job in 1988 
and has been the director since then. He also serves 
as a professor of physics at the California Institute of 
Technology, and I believe he's also the vice president 
to the institute. So, he has a least three jobs, all of 
which are eight-hour-a-day jobs, right? So he doesn't 
sleep very much. 

Ed has been — is known really and famous for 
being — the principal scientist on most of our out-of- 
planet exploration spacecraft. If there is anyone who is 
responsible for what has now become called the 
"Golden Age of Planetary Exploration," it's Ed Stone. 
I remember working with him in those years, and it 
was always a pleasure to watch him operate and how 
he did business. He is a graduate of the University of 
Chicago, from which he received his Ph.D., and is a 
member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow 
of the A1AA, and lots of other nice things. So with that, 
let me ask Ed Stone to come to the podium. 

Dr. Stone: Thank you, Hans. It is certainly my plea- 
sure to be back this year and to talk about quicker, 
better, cheaper and how that really fits well with what I 
call the next phase of planetary exploration. NASA's 
role is to do what hasn't been done before and to 
expand the frontiers of this new realm of human activi- 
ty — space — and not to do what others can do. In the 
past we've done that in many ways, but certainly one 
of the ways was the exploration of the planets with fly- 
bys and orbiters. 

All of the planets, except Pluto have been 
explored by using technology to build increasingly 
complex and capable spacecraft. And, as Hans Mark 
said, it was this promise of increasing capability for 
each succeeding mission that allowed one to constrain 
missions like Pioneer 10 and 11. The approach result- 
ed in the development of digital communications, 
digital imaging, and computer-controlled spacecraft, 
which in turn led to autonomous spacecraft. 

All of these technologies led to increased 
spacecraft capability and complexity. Voyager was the 
spacecraft of the '80s, and in the '90s, it's the Galileo 
spacecraft. The first decade of the next century will be 
the Cassini spacecraft, developed jointly with the Euro- 
pean and Italian space agencies, that characterizes this 
particular development path of doing what has not 
been done before. Those missions have done and will 
do very comprehensive surveys. 

The next phase of exploration really requires 
much more frequent access to space, which means 
much lower costs. We need to get closer to things; we 
need to get 100 kilometers from objects rather than 
10,000 kilometers. We need to get down into atmos- 
pheres. We need to get down onto surfaces. We need 
to actually bore beneath the surfaces, and we need to 
bring things back from the 
surfaces. That's the chal- 
lenge of the next phase of 
exploration, and that has to 
be done in an affordable way 
so that we can do it fre- 
quently, not just once every 
two decades, as was the 
case for the Mars program 
until a few years ago. 

We were at Mars in 
76 with Viking and we were 
going back in '93 with Mars 
Observer. We now have a 
Mars program through which 
we'll be going back every 26 
months, with two missions 
every time. You can't do that 
if every mission costs $1 bil- 
lion. You can do that only if 
the missions are much, much 

Fig. FB-301 



less costly and much more focused. You have to 
replace the promise of the larger, more complex mis- 
sion, which made possible the constraints on Pioneer, 
with the promise that there will be additional small 
missions to be able to cover the other science that you 
can't do on this current small mission. 

The Clementine spacecraft showed that you 
can build a modern spacecraft with the same mass as 
Pioneer, at a lower cost in constant dollars by using 
advanced technology to do things that could not have 
been done with 1970s technology. Applying advanced 
technology is an important factor in achieving quicker, 
better and cheaper missions. 

NASA now has three kinds of programs I want 
to briefly discuss. One is the Discovery program, in 
which each mission is constrained to cost no more 
than $150 million in fiscal year '92 dollars and take no 
more than three years to develop. The second is the 
Mars Surveyor program, which now is intended to take 
us back to Mars every time there is a chance at fund- 
ing level of about $100 million dollars a year. The third 
is the New Millennium program, which in many ways is 
to do for the planetary program, what Clementine was 
doing for the military program, that is, to serve as 
technology test beds so that the small missions will be 
able to rely upon new technology coming out of the 
New Millennium program. 

The first Discovery spacecraft, launched in 
February is the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous 
(NEAR) spacecraft built by the Applied Physics 
Laboratory in 27 months at a cost in FY '92 dollars of 
$112 million [Fig. FB-301]. NEAR planned to orbit the 
asteroid Eros at a distance of about 50 kilometers 
radius [Fig. FB-302J. The object itself is 40 kilometers 
long. So this is going to be a very complex orbit, as 
you might imagine. It certainly will provide a precise 
measurement of the mass of the object, because of 
the orbital dynamics, and of course, knowing the size, 
we'll know its density, and whether it's a composite 
with a density of 2 to 3, or has been melted and has a 
density on the order of five. 

NEAR has a number of very sophisticated 
instruments, for example, imaging at a resolution of 
several meters and infrared spectroscopy at the 300- 
meter level. It will arrive at Eros January '99 and return 
very strikingly new data during that time period. A very 
good example of quicker, better, cheaper. 

The next Discovery mission is the Mars 
Pathfinder mission. The last time we were at Mars was 
1976 when there were two Viking orbiters and two lan- 
ders. If we were to redo that mission today, just the 
same as it was but price it in today's dollars, it would 
cost $3.5 billion. That's the reason we haven't done it 
again. Mars Pathfinder will demonstrate a much lower 
cost way of landing on Mars [Fig. FB-303J. The cruise 
stage is the circular structure above the cone-shaped 

Fig. FB-302 


^^H. *<™PH^^H 




W^^^m W~ 


^^jj¥ AT 

l^toJifV - rfafrMr^" 1 


— ""^H 

^5«^.' ^ ^p*^ 

0, -• .. 

Fig. FB-303 

Fig. FB-304 

entry body, will land on July 4, 1997. Launched this 
December, it directly enters into the atmosphere of 
Mars with an aeroshell deploying a parachute, and 
finally airbags to absorb the final energy as it descends 
to the surface [Fig. FB-304]. 

Mars Pathfinder carries a small rover called 
Sojourner [Fig. FB-305J. The 12-kilogram rover runs 
on eight watts of electrical power on the average, and 
has an alpha, proton x-ray spectrometer, which can be 
placed against a rock to measure it's composition. It 
has stereo-imaging so it can look at rock structure. 
We're landing Sojourner in a place were rocks have 



been carried 
from a wide 
region on 
Mars by the 
floods 3.5 
billion years 
ago, down to 
the region 
where they're 
The cost of 
Sojourner is 
$25 million 
and the land- 
ing system is 
about $175 
That's the quicker, better, cheaper. 

The next Discovery will be the Lunar 
Prospector that is being developed by Lockheed 
Martin, with Allen Binder as the principal investigator 
[Fig. FB-306]. It's a 280-kilogram spacecraft, $51 mil- 
lion (FY '92 dollars). It will have a 100-kilometer alti- 
tude orbit and supplement and complement the data 
that came from Clementine by using gamma rays and 


Fig. FB-308 

Fig. FB-309 

X-rays to determine the composition of the lunar sur- 
face, and tracking the spacecraft will provide informa- 
tion on distributions. 

The next Stardust spacecraft will visit a comet. 
The ESA Giotto spacecraft flew by comet Halley in 
1986 and discovered that it was ejecting a lot of mate- 
rial so fine that it is not visible [Fig. FB-307]. These 
particles were mainly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and 
nitrogen, the building blocks of organic material. And, 
of course, the questions are "What is this material? Is 
it organic? Is it part of the material out of which the 
solar system formed? What role did this organic mate- 
rial possibly play in the origin of life here on Earth?" 

To answer these questions, we need to return a 
comet sample to Earth. Stardust is a discovery mission 
that will extend blocks of aerogel into the comet as it 
flies within 100 kilometers of the nucleus of the comet 
[Fig. FB-308]. The aerogel will capture the dust parti- 
cles as they impact at five kilometers per second. The 
aerogel will be retracted into a canister that will then 
be returned to Earth for analysis in the year Aerogel is 
a silicate material that is 99 percent empty by volume, 
so it will not destroy the fine dust particles as they're 
captured [Fig. FB-309]. So, here is a sample return 


mission that fits into the Discovery class, costing less 
than $150 million to develop in FY '92 dollars. 

So that is the Discovery program, and the 
intent is that there will continue to be opportunities. 
These programs are led by principal investigator teams 
that include industry with support by the Jet Propu- 
lsion Laboratory. For Example, Stardust will be devel- 
oped by Lockheed Martin Astronautics, with the Ames 
Research Center involved in the heat shield that is 
being developed for the return capsule. 

Another example of quicker, better, cheaper is 
the Mars Surveyor program. The first Mars Surveyor 
spacecraft is being built by Lockheed Martin Astro- 
nautics [Fig. FB-310]. This will carry six of the eight 
instruments that were on the Mars Observer, will be 
launched in November of this year, and will go into 
orbit around Mars in September of '97. A circular polar 
orbit will provide a complete high-resolution map of 
Mars as well as some very localized ultrahigh-resolu- 
tion so we can begin to look for some of the more 
interesting regions on the surface where we might 
want to send future landers and probes. The MGS 
spacecraft mass is about 600-kilograms, about half 
the mass of the Mars Observer, so it can be launched 
on a Delta launch vehicle rather than on a Titan III. 
Much lower launch costs come along with much 
smaller spacecraft. 

In 1998, there will be another orbiter and lan- 
der. The lander, built by Lockheed Martin, will land in 
the polar region next to the polar icecap. It will have a 
camera and a scoop so we can look at the layered ter- 
rain, which is presumably the result of the annual 
deposition of ice and dust, and we'll be able to do a 
residual gas analysis of the material that is collected. 
Again this fits within the $100 million a year budget for 
the Mars Surveyor Program. 

Advanced technology is clearly the key to mak- 
ing all of this happen [Fig. FB-311J. The early 
Discovery and Mars programs have benefitted from the 
Cassini project which has had the time and the money 
to develop a new space transponder that is being used 
by MEAR and will be used by Mars Pathfinder. The 
hemispherical resonating gyro, which Cassini devel- 
oped, is now on NEAR. But in the future, there will be 
no Cassini-class missions to fund the new technology. 
We need something like a Clementine program that is 
technology-driven and not science-driven, so that the 
new technology can be developed outside of the con- 
straints of the science programs that have to fit within 
their budget and their schedules and therefore cannot 
use any significantly unproven technology. That's 
where the New Millennium program comes in. 

There are four New Millennium missions under 
consideration [Fig. FB-312J: Deep Space 1, an aster- 
oid and comet flyby launched in '98; Deep Space 2, a 
penetrator probe, carried on the Mars '98 mission to 


Fig. FB-310 



New Millennium Program 

OS- 1 Ask'iokliiikU'nnk'i Hvhs 


I>S 2. M.iis Mkmpiolv 

l)S i. l-'av-l-'lymp Inlcilaomcloi l-O-l. l-.arlli lili.^ni}; Mis 

T ^ 

Fig. FB-312 

probe the surface of Mars; Deep Space 3, which will 
test some of the associated technology, putting an 
interferometer into space so that optical and infrared 
telescopes, separated by kilometers, can be optically 
phased. Similar approaches to developing the technol- 
ogy will reduce the cost and size of instruments for 
Earth observing. 

The New Millennium program brings technolo- 
gy from throughout the nation. There are integrated 
product development teams in six ares: communica- 
tions, autonomy, microelectronics, modular and multi- 




New Millennium Program 


i>i i r si'\i I \ \i iiimium 111,111 •-! r\sinii\ii ii i mm>i ik;ii s 


Fig. FB-313 










Fig. FB-314 



■Uiiii'ii,,! h\hm-!,^ii'^iu,i Muston \tuJtt: 

Fig. FB-315 

functional systems, in situ instruments, and microelec- 
tro-mechanical systems, and instrument technology 
and architecture. There are 44 organizations involved, 
including industry, other NASA laboratories, and feder- 
al laboratories, such as the Phillips Laboratory. Lincoln 
Labs and Sandia are part of this team because this is a 
national effort to press the technology to reduce the 
cost and size of future space systems. 

pioration Roadmap (2000 2015) 
by Goldin Huntress Rah;? 
al team led by I 

Fig. FB-316 

The Deep Space 1 will demonstrate a number 
of technologies: a flight computer that weighs 98 
grams and a multifunctional structure, which is more 
than structure, and others indicated in the figure [Fig. 
FB-313]. Deep Space 1 will be launched in '98, has a 
scientific objective to fly by comet Wild 2. One particu- 
larly fascinating technology demonstration is the ion 
thruster [Fig. FB-314]. After having talked about it and 
talked about it for decades, this mission will use an ion 
thruster to move about the solar system. Langley 
Research Center has led the development, working 
with TRW, the Hughes Electron Dynamics Division, 
and Spectrum Astro. This particular thruster has a 
thrust— a small thrust— of 30 to 90 mM, but a continu- 
ous thrust for the 8,000 hours lifetime for this thruster 
produces a V of 10 kilometers per second. It will 
change the way we fly within the solar system. By the 
way, the Mew Millennium program is funded at about 
$50 million a year. 

All of this will make possible a mission to Pluto, 
the only planet that has not yet been visited. The Pluto 
Express spacecraft is a 100-kilogram spacecraft, not a 
1 ,000-kilogram spacecraft, which is designed to fly by 
Pluto and its moon, Charon [Fig. FB-315]. We hope 
we can start development in '99, so that we can fly by 
Jupiter in the year 2006, arriving at Pluto in the year 

With the new focus on in sit explorations, we 
need a new road map for exploring the solar system, 
and such a study is underway [Fig. FB-316]. It involves 
a 56-member development group, including 13 indus- 
try participants, other NASA centers, and other federal 
laboratories. Again, the idea is to gather the best ideas 
so that we can lay out a general road map for the next 
phase of solar system exploration. We can then make 
investments in the technology that enable in situ explo- 
ration and the return of samples of the many bodies 
that share the solar system with Earth. 

Thank you very much. 




Dr. Mark: We have a number of questions, and some 
are for Pete (Wilhelm) and some for Ed (Stone). What 
I'll do is start myself and then go down the line. Do we 
have any more questions? Well let me start. 

Gsing lessons learned from Pioneer, what 
changes would you make to the next generation of 
manned launched systems? 

Right now I don't think there's going to be a 
next generation of manned launched systems. I don't 
think the current political situation will really permit the 
kind of investments to actually develop a new genera- 
tion. Therefore the lesson to apply is, what can we do 
with existing manned launch systems to improve 
them? In this country we have the Space Shuttle. The 
shuttle is a good air frame, but it ought to have new 
avionics, it ought to have new control systems, we 
ought to get rid of the hydraulic actuators, and we 
ought to perhaps put on new liquid boosters. There's a 
lot to be done to improve the existing Space Shuttle. 
In terms of management, NASA is already doing what 
really needs to be done, and that is to put the opera- 
tion of the Space Shuttle on contract. We should have 
done that a long time ago. NASA is not an operational 
organization. I think that this move will improve NASA 
and also improve the operation of the shuttle. The 
other manned launched vehicles around are the Rus- 
sian launch vehicles. We ought to take a good look at 
what American technology could bring to the Russians 
to improve their manned launched vehicles. I really 
believe that right now I would recommend that we do 
not think about a brand new generation of launch 
vehicles. I just don't think it's in the cards. 

Mr. Wilhelm: One question here I'll read: Clementine 
made a successful mapping of the moon but spun out 
of control on May 7, 1995, and failed to rendezvous 
with asteroid Geographos. What's the status of the 
orbit of Geographos, and will you send another space 
probe to attempt to map the object again? 

The short answer is no. We will not send one 
out to Geographos. There is another mission called 
Clementine II, which is an asteroid encounter mission. 
It was a plus-up in this year's congressional budget. 
The verbiage says that it should be done by the same 
Clementine team, which specifically means Naval 
Research Lab, Lawrence Livermore, and Phillips Lab. 
The funding for that program right now is being held 
up, as are a number of congressional plus-ups, be- 
cause of the need to pay the bills for Bosnia. Whether 
that money will be released shortly we can only hope. 
But it will be an exciting mission in that it will actually 
send probes out to intercept three different asteroids 
over a period of two years. 

Dr. Stone: My question reads: Will international coop- 
eration in satellite manufacturing create a longer 
acquisition process, increase cost, and reduce the 
threat of reduced capabilities to appease all countries 
involved; i.e. the major delays associated with the 
International Space Station? 

Our experience in the planetary program has 
been that the international cooperation, which has 
occurred now for some time, has really been very 
good. For instance, the main engine which put Galileo 
into orbit around Jupiter, was provided by Germany. In 
the case of Casinni, there is major European contribu- 
tion. The Huygens probe is an ESA development, and 
the main radio system and antenna are provided by 
the Italian Space Agency. Those cooperations have 
enabled those programs. We had a recent flight of a 
synthetic aperture radar system involving the German 
and Italian Space Agencies. So, international coopera- 
tion, at least in the programs I'm involved with, will 
grow. If there are more missions, which I hope will be 
the case as we reduce the cost of missions, there will 
be more opportunities for cooperative activity to really 
leverage the investment that each of the nations can 

Dr. Mark: Let me look at this question. The panel 
addressed specific cases of things that have been 
done well, but did not mention the launch costs asso- 
ciated with getting into orbit. What are your opinions 
on improving our launch capability? 

If there are more missions, which I hope will 

be the case as we reduce the cost of missions, 

there will be more opportunities for cooperative 

activity to really leverage the investment 

that each of the nations can make. 

You know, I have never believed the talk of the 
creation of a cheap launch vehicle — 17,000 miles an 
hour is an awful lot of kinetic energy, and it is always 
going to be expensive to get things into space. I don't 
think there is such a thing as a space truck or whatev- 
er people want to call it. Let me give you my opinion 
about what needs to be done to reduce launch costs, 
and I know this is one that perhaps may not be popu- 
lar. The fact of the matter, ladies and gentleman, is 
that Earth is awash in launch vehicles. We have thou- 
sands of surplus military rockets that could easily be 
turned into launch vehicles, and in a limited way we 
have already done that by taking the 50-plus Titan II 
rockets that we had and converted them. The Russians 
have 300 SS-18's that we could turn into very capable 
launch vehicles. Now, I know that there are some folks 
in the launch vehicle industry who are unhappy about 



that thought. But if you ask me how we lower the cost 
of getting into space, then the answer is to use what 
we've got. People say, well refurbishment costs are 
high. I don't believe that. I believe it is cheaper to take 
a Titan and refurbish it than to build a new one. Martin 
has done that. And I think that's what I would recom- 
mend if we were really interested in reducing launch 
costs in the near term. 

Mr. Wilhelm: There are a couple more questions 
relating to Clementine II. I think I've said about all I 
can about Clementine II right now. There is another 
one here, though, that makes a point about the multi- 
spectral imaging that Clementine was able to do of the 
Moon being very useful, and since warfighters can also 
use multi-spectral imaging, shouldn't we take some 
credit for supporting the warfighter? I'm always willing 
to take credit for supporting a warfighter, but 1 think, 
seriously, there are other programs that we're looking 
at that will use multi-spectral and hyper-spectral imag- 
ing to support the warfighter. It's pretty well established 
that hyper-spectral imaging is very effective at discern- 
ing camouflage and looking through camouflage, and 
things like that, so it can find man-made targets quite 
easily. That is another program, but multi-spectral 
imaging and hyper-spectral are very definitely some 
of those exciting new technologies. 

If you're going to do things faster and cheaper 

it almost forces you to use existing hardware, 

and that automatically reduces rather than 

increases the risk. 

Dr. Stone: Does "faster, better, cheaper" necessitate 
small, single-use, specialized payloads? Isn't this what 
the former Soviet Union has done since its inception 
which is antithetical to the traditional American 

I think we've discussed that. As Hans pointed 
out, the traditional program has been one of increas- 
ingly complex and capable systems, at the rate of once 
per decade. So you wanted it to do as much as you 
could since you have one chance a decade. With the 
approach of having many launches in a decade, it 
makes sense to have single-purpose missions, be- 
cause other scientists will have an opportunity to do 
what they think is important within a reasonable period 
of time, and not wait one or two or three decades. 

Dr. Mark: The near-Earth asteroid rendezvous mission, 
NASA's first discovery mission, was developed in 27 
months for less than $120 million by John Hopkins 
University's Applied Physics Laboratory. The paradigm 
for development was point for point with your first and 


second slides. Haven't we just realized that we've come 
back to the future? Can dedication and teamwork 
overcome politics and budget constraints? 

The answer is simple: yes. My hope is that 
once this thing is launched and flies it will be as suc- 
cessful as Pioneer 10. 

Mr. Wilhelm: One more question on Clementine II, the 
joint program with Phillips Lab. Please comment on 
status of program. Congress has provided a ringing 
endorsement of the program — in fact a mandate that 
it should be done. What is your prognosis for the pro- 
gram? Is it going to happen, or is it falling victim to 
inter-service politics? 

I've told you what the status is relative to the 
money being held up, but I can say it is not because of 
inter-service politics. The Naval Research Lab and 
Phillips Lab are absolutely in lockstep on this program. 
We both want to see it go, and it could be another 
example of the two services really operating and coop- 
erating together very well. I certainly hope the program 
gets unstuck. 

Dr. Stone: There are several questions here all having 
to do with how one can better convince Congress to 
fund these programs and how one can better engage 
the public to get public support for these kinds of pro- 
grams. That is a challenge. I think certainly in my dis- 
cussions in Washington it is clear that many of those 
who have some responsibility for the NASA program 
do believe that the direction of the source of things 
which I have described are the right direction for the 
space science program. It's just that we're all caught 
up in this environment where the discretionary part of 
the budget is the only place to go to balance the bud- 
get. And the NASA budget certainly seems to have 
been hit very hard. At least the projections for the year 
2000 — $11.6 billion — certainly constrains doing very 
much of what I've described in that time period. So it 
is a very serious problem. It's a problem which is tied 
up with much larger issues the nation's dealing with. I 
feel we have to make sure that decision makers, both 
in the administration and the Congress, understand 
the quest for investment. That this is for the nation, 
and somehow in dealing with the immediate issues of 
balancing the budget, some short-term decisions that 
are and aren't made, in fact, have a critical, long-term 
disabling effect on the program. 

Dr. Mark: Faster and cheaper almost always imply 
increased risk. The question then is based on that 
proposition. But before I get to the question, I want to 
talk about the proposition a little bit, because it's not 
at all clear to me that it's correct. The question of risk 
is associated with knowledge — knowledge of your 


hardware, detailed knowledge of your hardware. One 
of the major properties, in my judgment anyway, of 
doing things better and faster and cheaper is in fact 
to use hardware that you have already flown, that has 
already been used. We always did that when we did 
both the Jupiter Pioneers and Pioneer Venus. As a 
matter of fact, in the case of Pioneer Venus, all we did 
was cut up a Hughes communication satellite and use 
it as it stood. So I would have to say if you use existing 
hardware, I don't agree with the initial proposition of 
this question. If you're going to do things faster and 
cheaper it almost forces you to use existing hardware, 
and that automatically reduces rather than increases 
the risk. 

The question then is, of course, what risk miti- 
gation management approaches have we learned to 
add "better" to the equation? In my travels around the 
industry and the NASA centers and the military labs 
since I have left active building and operating of space- 
craft, I find that we have gotten a lot better in doing 
test programs. We have automated a lot of the testing. 
We have learned how to do many more tests in the 
same time. I saw that in your place, Pete, when we 
were doing Clementine. I went into that, as you know, 
in great detail. And I think we have learned a lot about 
how to do test programs cheaper, and I think that's the 
last answer to this rather interesting and complicated 

Mr. Wilhelm: My next question is, what aspects of the 
NTS LACE and Clementine projects would you like to 
see implemented by the current aerospace industries? 
I think the one common denominator across all of 
these programs was that they were all done on rela- 
tively compressed schedules, which as we've talked 
about quite a bit, saves cost. And 1 think many in 
industry have demonstrated their capability to do very 
fast turnaround, and I think unless companies can 
demonstrate that capability they're not going to com- 
pete very well in the future. So that would be my 
advice to them. 

Dr. Stone: What are the best ways to transition 
advanced technology, that is from the New Millennium, 
to the broad U.S. space industry, not just to selective 
program participants? 

I think that the whole point of the New Millen- 
nium Program is to focus a limited resource on some 
key areas and to do it so that development is then in 
the private sector and available for incorporation in 
other space missions besides the planetary science 
missions. So I think that is the basic approach in New 
Millennium. In general, for technology developed at 
JPL, we make it known through NASA Tech Briefs, and 
we have a Technology Affiliates Program. If you have 
other suggestions, please let me know how we can be 

more effective in transferring the technology which is 
being developed to industry so it becomes part of the 
economy more quickly. 

Dr. Mark: I have to confess I have another question 
where I am not sure I agree with the proposition, but 
let me read it to you. "NASA Headquarters could oper- 
ate with streamlined management in 1969. What hap- 
pened to NASA Headquarters and its centers in the 
1980s and the 1990s? Does NASA have a road map 
for returning to streamlined management? And will the 
centers empower industry to perform on contracts or 
continue to perform developments in house?" 

The question then is, of course, what risk mitiga- 
tion management approaches have we learned to 
add "better" to the equation? 

This is a good question and it is a complicated 
one. Whether you can execute something with a 
streamlined management depends really on how badly 
the political system wants to do it. I spent some years 
as the director of the National Reconnaissance Office 
and, as you know, the president is the chief customer 
organization. He badly wanted his pictures and his 
information so we could do things in a way that 
bypassed much of the political system that normally 
controls how federal money gets spent. The answer to 
the question of what happened between the 1960s 
and the 1990s is very simple. In the 1960s NASA was 
politically popular and today it's not. Whatever else you 
say there is a very small constituency for the kind of 
things we've talked about here. And if I listen, you 
know I get asked to testify before various congression- 
al committees, I would have to say that with few excep- 
tions most of the questions I get are hostile. You know, 
why are you spending so much money? Do we really 
have to do this? Why are we doing that and why are 
we doing this? And so 1 think that what is regarded as 
streamlined management really should be translated 
into political popularity. If what you're doing is some- 
thing that the political leadership wants to do, then 
you can have streamlined management. If it is some- 
thing that you are really doing kind of against the 
wind, which is the position we are in today, then 1 think 
you're going to have a problem. 

Editor's note: Due to technical difficulties in the 
recording process, the rest of the question-and- 
answer part of this session cannot be provided. 


ity for Mother Earth 



Global Security Interests in Space 




Steven R Scott 

Program Development Manager 
Rockwell Space Systems Division 

General Joseph W. Ashy, GSAF 

Commander in Chief 

NORAD/U.S. Space Command 

Air Force Space Command 

The Honorable Robert Davis 

Deputy Undersecretary for Space 
U.S. Department of Defense 

Speakers: Brig. General Willie B. Nance, Jr., 

Deputy Commander 

U.S. Army Space & Strategic Defense 


Maj. General Robert Dickman, CISAF 

Space Architect, Acquisition & 

U.S. Department of Defense 

Rear Adm. Katharine Laughton, USN 


Maval Space Command 

Maj. General David Vesely, CISAF 

1 4th Air Force 

Jeffrey Grant 

Director, Office of Plans & Analysis 
National Reconnaissance Office 

Mr. Scott: Good morning, everybody. I'm Steven 
Scott, and welcome back to Day Two of the 12th 
National Space Symposium. Yesterday we looked 
across a wide spectrum of space systems and dis- 
cussed the growing range of applications now and in 
the future, with the emphasis on commercial utility. 
Today we'll focus on several global security aspects 
of space. 

And leading this morning's panel is Gen. 
Joseph W. Ashy. Gen. Ashy is commander in chief, 
North American Aerospace Defense Command, the 
unique binational command that includes Canada and 
is responsible for the air and space security of North 
America. He is also the commander in chief of the 
U.S. Space Command and commander, Air Force 
Space Command. In his present position, Gen. Ashy 
has been shaping U.S. doctrine in the use of space for 
national security, and can speak from experience as he 
guides us through today's discussion of global security 
space issues. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome 
Gen. Joe Ashy. 

Gen. Ashy: Thank you very much and good morning 
everyone. First, I'd like to thank Gen. Hill and Dick 
MacLeod and the United States Space Foundation for 
including us in a very productive and very vital forum. 
The Foundation is a wonderful organization, and we're 
proud to participate again this year. I'm personally 
proud to represent the men and women of NORAD, 

United States Space Command, and Air Force Space 
Command as the moderator of this panel and discus- 
sions this morning. 

Before I introduce our distinguished guest 
speaker, let me tell you why his position is very impor- 
tant. The space community was rightly criticized in the 
past for not having all of the organizational elements in 
place to deal appropriately with policy, acquisition, and 
coordination issues, and so I'm proud to report to the 
Foundation this morning that we now have a deputy 
undersecretary for Space, Mr. Bob Davis, in place and 
functioning, I should say, very effectively. We have Maj. 
Gen. Bob Dickman, who is our new space architect, in 
place. We have a Joint Space Management Board 
(JSMB) that's now been authorized and is functioning, 
and we have a Joint Requirements Oversight Council 
(JROC) that's functioning and reviewing military space 
requirements. Specifically how our requirements fit, 
work and interact appropriately together. And those, 
altogether with our command, which has assigned 
missions given to us by the president through the sec- 
retary of defense and the chairman, have formed the 
beginnings of a very effective and very good team, I 
should say, teams within a team. 

That is what Mr. Keyhole, Mr. Bob Davis, Maj. 
Gen. Bob Dickman and I testified recently before the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact the Sub- 
committee on Strategic Systems, I think, sent the 
message back saying, "Hey, we got the message." Bob 



probably will talk about this a little bit in his remarks. 

Mot only did we get the message, we made it 
happen. So now, we need to move out, and 1 think 
again Mr. Davis will acknowledge that and in fact is 
moving out. 1 think all of you know him. He is a superb 
leader. In his new job, he deals primarily in policy and 
strategy, but he also gets heavily involved in acquisition 
and international cooperation matters as we come to 
grips with space related issues. Before coming to this 
very important leadership position, he was the senior 
professional staff member of the Committee on 
Appropriations of the G.S. House of Representatives. 
He is from Tulsa, Okla. A state that calls itself a state, 
but is really a northern county of the great republic of 
Texas. He went to the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology (MIT), and certainly has extensive experi- 
ence with our intelligence space entities and organiza- 
tion from the oversight perspective. Ladies and gentle- 
men, give a warm welcome to the Deputy Under- 
secretary for Space, U.S. Department of Defense, 
Mr. Bob Davis. 

Mr. Davis: Thanks, Gen. Ashy, for that kind introduc- 
tion. Let me say, it's a great pleasure for me to be with 
you here today and to be able to share my views with 
you on where I think the Department of Defense is 
headed in terms of space and our evolving global 
security interests. Actually, after eight straight months, 
it's a great pleasure for me to speak on any topic other 
than the "Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense 
for Space and its Role in Space Management." Since 
the G. S. Space Foundation asked me to address 
something new, I have to believe that after a dozen 
speeches, either I've finally made my role clear or, at a 
minimum, the audience has already heard that 
speech. Either way, it's nice to have a new topic. 

By the time we developed an effective strategy, 

the capabilities and systems that supported 

that strategy were also in the hands of not 

just our global peers, but the next lower 

tier nations as well. 

What I'd like to do today is to paint, with a 
pretty broad brush, what's going on in space — where 
we've been and where we're headed — and how it likely 
affects our national and our global security interests, 
our strategy, and our doctrine. I think it's telling that 
while I've been asked to give the remarks for this ses- 
sion, the podium will be filled shortly by folks who 
make a living by formulating space doctrine and strat- 
egy and conducting space operations. That's quite a 
mix of responsibilities. More than anything else, this 
demonstrates the close interaction between the capa- 


bilities and systems on one side of the space equation 
and the doctrine and strategy on the other side. 

About a month ago the National Security 
Industrial Association hosted a conference for me 
labeled "Space: Thinking Out of the Box." Some of the 
same people who were panel members there are 
speaking at this conference this week. 1 don't know 
how many of you were able to attend that meeting but 
I personally found it to be very thought-provoking and 
very stimulating. I learned a lot from the two days 
there and I want to continue that dialogue we began 
within the DoD, the intelligence community, and with 
our industry partners. I think the topic here today is 
linked directly to the sessions we held last month. 
Space is changing; how we manage space is chang- 
ing; the systems are changing; and the space actors 
are changing. The very fact that I'm standing here — 
my office just celebrated its first birthday — I think 
those are significant indicators of the change that is 
actually in place. The continuing revolution in military 
affairs is mirrored by a revolution in military uses of 
space. It is changing our global security landscape. If 
we don't begin thinking out of the box we won't be 
able to recognize the revolution; we won't be able to 
react to it; and we definitely won't be able to stay 
ahead of it, and it will happen without us. What does 
that mean? 

Let me explain by beginning with an unsup- 
ported assertion which is also my personal opinion. 
My assertion is this: Space power today is at a turning 
point comparable to where air power was near the end 
of World War II. Why do I say that? 

In 1903 the Wright Brothers made their first 
historic flight over the beaches at Kitty Hawk. Over the 
next 30 years we worked on developing aircraft and air 
power. We conducted tests, set records, demonstrated 
new capabilities, fielded new technologies. We used 
the airplane during World War I as a platform for 
observation and some force application. We engaged 
in counter air. The Billy Mitchells and Guilio Douhets 
developed early strategy and doctrine. Some of those 
strategies were right, some of them were ultimately 
wrong. It wasn't really until World War II, though, over 
30 years from that first flight, that we really began to 
integrate air power into our overall strategy. That inte- 
gration was hastened because we were forced into it; 
the Navy because it had lost most of its battleships, 
and the Army Air Corps because it was the only means 
of attacking the continent. Even after the war, the 
proper role of air power was not properly assessed. We 
had to learn some new lessons in Korea and again in 
Vietnam, as well as improve some technologies. We 
especially had to learn how the doctrine was affected 
by the existence of an air-capable adversary. We really 
hadn't completely integrated air power's role until we 
developed the Air Land Battle concept in the '70s. By 
the time we developed an effective strategy, the capa- 


bilities and systems that supported that strategy were 
also in the hands of not just our global peers, but the 
next lower tier nations as well. 

Compare that history to space and where we 
are today. In the late 1950s, the CI.S. headed into 
space. Over the next 30 years we worked on develop- 
ing space craft and space power; we conducted tests, 
set records, demonstrated new capabilities, fielded 
new technologies. We used space systems during the 
Cold War mostly as a platform for observation and 
force enhancement. Both Department of Defense and 
the national intelligence community have developed 
some strategy and some doctrine for how we should 
use space. Some of it is probably right; some of it may 
ultimately prove wrong. It wasn't really until the Gulf 
War, though, over 30 years from the first flight, that we 
really began to integrate space power into our overall 
strategy. That integration was hastened because we 
were forced into it. We had to deal with threats like 
SCUD missiles that we hadn't adequately planned for. 
And we had to operate in an area in the desert where 
the type of terrain and lack of communications infra- 
structure forced us to rely on space-based systems like 
communications, positioning, and reconnaissance. But 
even after that war, the proper role of space power is 
probably not fully appreciated. We will most likely learn 
some lessons in new conflicts, in future conflicts. And 
we'll continue to improve technologies. We have yet to 
learn how the doctrine will be affected by the existence 
of a space-capable adversary. And that's something for 
us to think about. The problem is, 1 don't know that 
we've got the time. I'd hate for somebody to be stand- 
ing here in 35 years — I guess at my age I'd actually be 
happy just to be able to stand here in 35 years under 
my own power — but I'd hate for someone to be stand- 
ing here telling you that by the time we developed an 
effective strategy the capabilities and systems that sup- 
ported that strategy were in the hands of not just our 
global peers, but the rest of the world as well. The rest 
of the world was watching our first space war; they will 
not mark time until the next one. In a nutshell, that's 
the problem that we all face, and the one I think we 
need to address today. 

The revolution in military space will have pro- 
found impact on the global security interests of the 
United States. We, as space warriors and space policy 
managers, need to recognize that fact and prepare for 
it. It's a two-sided challenge: First, how do we continue 
down the path we've just set out on and truly integrate 
space into warfighting doctrine and terrestrial opera- 
tions?; and second, how do we prepare for the time in 
the not too distant future when we face adversaries 
that use space nearly as well as we do? 

Integration of Space Into Warfighting Operations 

Before I begin, let me acknowledge that it's 

Gen. Ashy's job, not mine, to truly integrate space in- 
to our warfighting doctrine — but I do get a vote. I think 
there are some interesting possibilities that we need to 
consider. I'm told that about a year before the Gulf War 
there was an argument as to whether or not we should 
use DSP to give tactical warning for a SCGD-like mis- 
sile attack. Obviously, we decided to do it. When we 
were forced to make it work, we did. Through efforts 
like TENCAR and through the hard work of a lot of tal- 
ented people over the years, we've managed to take 
space capabilities designed for one purpose and use 
them for another. On the one hand, that's a monu- 
ment to initiative and ingenuity. On the other, it's a fail- 
ure on some of our parts to adequately incorporate 
space operations and doctrine into our thinking. 

I look at studies all the time about what we'll 
be able to do in and from space in the future, whether 
from the Defense Science Board, private industry, or 
New World Vista reports from the Air Force, and 
although we all recognize that new systems are right 
around the corner, we haven't been sufficiently aggres- 
sive in applying these capabilities to new doctrine and 
new strategies. Those capabilities that were fielded 
only in our imagination a decade ago will be into the 
hands of our operators a decade from now. What are 
we going to do with them? 

And we had to operate in an area in the desert 
where the type of terrain and lack of comm- 
unications infrastructure forced us to rely 
on space-based systems like communications, 
positioning, and reconnaissance. 

What's the effect on the battle if the comman- 
der can view the actions of his individual troops a 
hemisphere away in Clancy-esque fashion a la "Patriot 
Games?" We all remember how President Carter was 
patched through to Desert One during the aborted 
Iran hostage rescue. What would it have meant if he 
could have seen the action unfolding in real time, or, 
using a hand-held personal communications system, 
spoken directly to the commander? How would the 
plan have changed if we could have landed without the 
aid of deployed landing systems or the need to even 
see the ground? These things will be possible within 
the decade. Have we prepared for their impact? I'm 
not sure we really have. 

This past summer we in the Pentagon spent 
considerable time and energy building a consensus for 
a new Global Broadcast Service, or GBS. We got the 
program approved and we carved out nearly a half bil- 
lion dollars worth of funding with more to follow. We're 
already building the system. And yet, even today, when 
I ask what we intend to do with 24 mega bits per sec- 
ond of data, what echelon it should go to, and what 



information should be sent, I don't get a consistent 
answer. CJsing the combination of space assets, CJAV, 
Global Positioning, and the Global Broadcast, we 
could theoretically select a target, launch a Tomahawk 
from well over the horizon, guide it to the target, see it 
impact, and then re-engage that target or move on to 
the next one all in the matter of minutes. It's some- 
what easy to see how this kind of capability can 
change our tactics; it's tougher to envision how we 
change our doctrine and our strategic thinking. Now 
don't take any of this to mean that I'm unhappy with 
the Global Broadcast decision. On the contrary, I think 
it's great. Using capabilities like hand-held mobile 
communications, and smart weapons, we have gained 
an unprecedented capability to synchronize the battle- 
space. And yet I feel like the guy standing in his garage 
after inventing Velcro saying, "This is great! Mow what 
do 1 do with it?" 

The problem isn't in figuring out how to use 
the systems we're fielding; it's deciding which direction 
to head. If we don't understand the doctrinal impacts 
of the systems we deploy, we can't appreciate where 
we should be investing our dollars. What would it 
mean to the warfighter in the future if we could fly a 
reusable launch vehicle that gave him unprecedented 
access to space? Air Mobility Command knew the doc- 
trinal implications of access to the battlefield and so 
designed a C-17. How would an RLV affect our use 
of space? Could it tip the balance in usage from force 
enhancement to force application? How will small 
satellites affect the operational tempo? What new ter- 
restrial capabilities should we be planning, given the 
new space capabilities we intend to build? If I can't 
answer these questions— if the warfighter can't answer 
these questions — then we as a department can't plan 
the systems that will give us the most leverage not just 
for the next generation, but the generations to follow. 

The problem isn't in figuring out how to use the 
systems we're fielding; it's deciding which direc- 
tion to head. If we don't understand the doctrinal 
impacts of the systems we deploy, we can't 
appreciate where we should be investing our 

We faced the same problem after World War 11. 
The Air Force drew the lesson from the war that it was 
the age of the strategic bomber. SAC was king and 
tactical air was shortchanged. We didn't understand 
how air power should best be integrated into warfight- 
ing doctrine. That left us woefully unprepared for 
Korea and Vietnam, where tactical bombing, not 
strategic bombing, ultimately was the key. Our first 
space war may not be the model for future wars. We 
need to do the thinking if we hope to build the right 


mix of capabilities. 

Gen. Dickman, who will be up here on stage, is 
the space architect. He is wrestling with these issues 
right now in his Military Satellite Communication 
Architecture study. Previous studies looked at the exist- 
ing systems and put together an architecture that 
merely replaced them. We've got to do better. We need 
to understand how communication satellite usage will 
change as we move into the next century. We need to 
understand how these new communication systems 
affect the way terrestrial systems work and change our 
tactics or our systems to take best advantage of these 
new space opportunities. We're working on a National 
Security Space Master Plan to lay out the broad view 
of this structure and the Space Architect is working the 
individual system questions. But without a clear strate- 
gic view, our plans will consistently aim behind our 
possibilities. We must plan carefully for the integration 
of space into our warfighting operations. 

As I've outlined, integration of space into 
warfighting is our first challenge. It's important, but in 
the final analysis, if we fail to do it properly the worst 
we risk is an inefficient use of resources for an extend- 
ed period. The second challenge, the one that is in my 
mind more threatening, is preparing for the time when 
the adversaries we face will be able to use space to 
their advantage the way we use it for ours. That day 
may be arriving sooner than we had previously imag- 
ined. There are two factors that are hastening the 
arrival of that day: the commercialization of space and 
the rapidly growing international expertise in non-com- 
mercial space systems. 

We don't need to look much further than this 
room to understand the commercialization of space. 
Nowhere is that commercialization more evident than 
in the satellite communications arena. We all know the 
names— Irridium, Globalstar, Odyssey, ICO, Teledesic, 
Spaceway, and my apologies to any of you whose sys- 
tems I didn't mention— the list is becoming endless. 
During the next 10 years, there will be more space 
communications platforms and more space communi- 
cations capacity launched than in the entire history 
of satellite communications. In 10 years, through the 
commercial market I'll be able to buy Direct Broadcast, 
worldwide point to point hand held communications, 
private VSAT networks, space borne wide area comput- 
er nets, and processed switched bandwidth capacity at 
near EHF frequencies— all from the privacy of my own 
home, or from the local terrorist training camp. 

In the next 10 years there'll be imagery avail- 
able down to 1 -meter resolution or better as a com- 
mercial product. Within 10 years there will be access 
to GPS worldwide with the same degree of accuracy — 
or better — now reserved for authorized military users. 
Imagine, if you will, the scenario of any individual in 
the most remote corner of the world able to order and 


download a GPS benchmarked image of any target in 
near real-time from a deployed computer terminal 
hooked into the Global Information Infrastructure via 
direct satellite connections. What if that individual also 
has access to a GPS guided weapon, say a Cessna 
with GPS autopilot loaded with conventional explo- 
sives? What could he do? What should we be doing to 
counter that? 

Today, only the U.S. has the capacity to field- 
processed, crosslinked communication satellites. The 
rest of the world will soon be able to get access to that 
technology from the commercial marketplace. The 
same is true for highly accurate GPS using soon to be 
available wide area augmentation systems. But in the 
not too distant future these products will also be avail- 
able from non-(J.S. sources. Through industrial part- 
nering and outright purchases, the desert will be in the 
hands of both our allies and our foes in the near 
future. We can forestall this process — through export 
controls, licensing restrictions, and international coop- 
erative developments which give us some say in how 
our technology is used — but we have no hope of halt- 
ing it. We're in the mode of buying ourselves time. 

And it's time we must not squander. The chal- 
lenge for the G.S., the policy manager, and the 
warfighter, is to develop the mix of national space poli- 
cy and operational space doctrine that will allow us to 
operate the new space order as effectively as we did in 
the old. We need to develop the systems that can 
counter the hostile use of space, and tactics that ren- 
der that use ineffective. We need to do this while at the 
same time preserving and improving our ability to 
operate in that medium. That's not an insignificant 
task. And we need to do it soon. I don't know when it 
will occur, but 1 guarantee in the near future this threat 
will emerge. It's only a matter of time. 

What I do know is, we will not arrive at the 
answer to either of these questions — how should we 
best use space and how should we prevent it from 
being used against us? — unless we open our perspec- 
tive. We do not have the resources to develop space 
systems the way we have in the past, nor to wait until 
those systems are developed to create the doctrinal 
changes that make them useful. We need to relook at 
our entire approach to space system support and space 
systems operations to make sure we are poised to take 
advantage of the opportunities afforded us by changing 
technology and not to be hampered by the way things 
worked into the past. If this means breaking down the 
walls between intelligence and DoD space systems, then 
those walls must fall. If that means moving to reusable 
launch vehicles or contractor-run launch operations, 
then that's the direction we'll head. If it means relying to 
an ever greater extent on commercial communication 
systems tailored to our needs, then we need to put in 
place the policies to make it possible. We need to find 
the core competencies in space, determine how they 

affect the doctrine, and then put in place the policies 
which move us in that direction. 

My organization's already begun this process, 
as has Gen. Ashy's. But it's a task we must all 
embrace. I'm not certain the answers I'm coming up 
with today will be the ones that get us to the goal 
tomorrow. But lack of the correct answer certainly will 
not prevent us from asking the right questions. 
Thinking out of the box is not a solitary task. It is a 
group exercise in which we all must participate. In 
1945, when Arthur C. Clark envisioned a geostationary 
satellite through which earthbound communication 
occurred, he was definitely out of the box. Then the 
box expanded again 25 years ago when someone envi- 
sioned a signal from space that would eventually allow 
pinpoint navigation. The box continued to expand. We 
can stay ahead of it only by looking into the future, 
questioning our strategy and our doctrine, and plan- 
ning for space offense and space defense. Or we can 
remain anchored to our current ways of doing busi- 
ness and be swallowed as the limits of the box over- 
whelm us. If we let that happen, then we haven't done 
our jobs. 

I have a quotation from retired Adm. Bill 
Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, taped to the computer screen at my desk in the 
office. I probably read it a dozen times a day. It says, 
"Today, the real risk lies in hesitating, and the real pay- 
off will go to the bold, the innovative, and the inven- 
tive." I believe his statement is true not only for those 
of you here today who will almost certainly be called 
upon to fight real wars, but it is also true for those of 
us who must fight the bureaucratic wars necessary to 
change the way we do business to provide better 
space support to the warfighter. 

We need to relook at our entire approach to space 

system support and space systems operations 

to make sure we are poised to take advantage 

of the opportunities afforded us by changing 

technology and not to be hampered by the 

way things worked into the past. 

To those of you in the audience today who may 
still be entirely too comfortable with the way DoD and 
the intelligence community have conducted our space 
business in the past, I say, "Watch out." This is a time 
of change. It is our intention to make change a way of 
life for those involved in national security space activi- 
ties. For those who do not want to be "bold," "innova- 
tive," and "inventive," as Adm. Owens said, then I 
leave you with the admonition that you will not be part 
of our space future. To those of you who are already 
committed to change and helping to lead the way, I 
say, "Thank you." You are now and will continue to be 



Fig. GS-101 



Virm S..n. fonir Olliu 

■ Mini \t M \l' M..i«i!.'i> 

5JWR. <s«w;j#;5f *f" ill 

f , HiH^g, 

I .S. \ll.ll lti»il>l "K.^ 1 ,«I l.vt t .li'llll. 

■ M .« nwl \.1,«> H ^l*r.-.-.s,H, liihiii>h.L-»> 

Mitmlnhott Ltixl Vitalisis Iittegrjlion ( .-iiUi 


Fig. GS-102 

a critical part of ensuring the success of our national 
security mission in the 21st century. 

In conclusion, Gen. Ashy, I appreciate all of the 
help you have given me and my office as we were get- 
ting started. I look forward to continuing the close rela- 
tionship that you and I and our staffs have established 
in order to improve space support to the warfighter. 

Thank you for permitting me to share my 
thoughts here today. 

I'd like to now introduce our distinguished 
panel members. The first is Brig. Gen. Bill Nance, who 
is representing Lt. Gen. Jay Garner here this morning. 
Jay, as you know, commands U.S. Army Space and 
Strategic Defense Command and is dual hatted as the 
commander of Army Space Command. Bill is the 
deputy commanding general. We regret that Jay 
couldn't be with us this morning, and he sends his 
best to everyone. Bill certainly is a very capable repre- 
sentative, and we're honored to have him. Bill has a 
distinguished career; I won't go into all the details. He 
has extensive operational experience, coupled with an 
extensive background in the acquisition business. 
Before he comes up here, let me briefly explain how 
he fits into the panel. 

As you all know, NORAD has three regions. 
One in Canada, commanded by a Canadian officer, 
one in Alaska, and one in the continental United States. 
To go along with that organization, since the comman- 
der, yours truly, is dual-hatted, U.S. Space Command 
has three component commands. One is the Army 
Space Command, which I just described to you, com- 
manded by Bill and Jay Garner. They have a forward 
headquarters out here in Colorado Springs, and I tell 
you they do an absolutely fantastic job supporting 
warfighters and operating some space systems like 
DSCS, the defense satellite communications system. 

We have Rear Adm. Kathy Laughton here with 
us this morning who I will later introduce. She is the 
component commander for Naval Space Command, 
reporting to me as USCINCSPACE. And Air Force 
Space Command, delegated to 14th Air Force. Maj. 
Gen. David Vesely is the Air Force component to U.S. 
Space Command. 

Before these three speakers speak, 1 wanted 
you to know how they fit into the organization here. 
They are all three very key members, and they are the 
ones in fact that make things happen as Bob Davis 
described with regard to executing our military mis- 
sions, given to us by the president through the Unified 
Command Plan (UCP). Without further ado, help me 
welcome Bill Nance. 

Gen. Ashy: Thank you, Bob, for getting us on the 
right course. Just a recap of what we're going to do 
this morning in terms of our agenda. I'm going to 
briefly introduce our other panel members, in the 
order that you see them at the table, then we'll take a 
break, I'll come back and make a few remarks as the 
moderator to get things going. Our panel members 
will all come on stage. If you will write out your ques- 
tions for the panel, we have a system set up to distrib- 
ute them here to Col. Gary Dahlen. If you'll write your 
questions out, we'll have people pick them up. Gary 
will be sitting up here to help me put them in some 
sort of order so we can address your questions. 


Brig. Gen. Nance: Thank you, sir, and thank you for 
the opportunity to be here this morning. I have about 
five view graphs and the purpose of those view graphs 
is to share with you what the mission of the Space and 
Strategic Command is, how we support Gen. Ashy and 
the other war-fighting CINCs, and also to talk briefly 
about the Army Space Exploration and Demonstration 
Program and what we're doing with that to bring space 
capability and technology to the war-fighting CINCs. 

The Space and Strategic Defense Command is 
the Army's focal point for space and strategic defense 
matters [Fig. GS-101]. And in that role, we have two 
primary responsibilities. First, we're responsible for the 


exploitation of space and strategic assets and to get 
that capability into the hands of our soldiers and our 
war-fighting CINCs so that they can do their jobs. 
Secondly, we're also responsible for the technology 
base activity to support the development of space- 
based technologies and systems and missile defense 
technologies and systems. 

We have six commands within Space and 
Strategic Defense Command, and I'll spend some time 
focusing on the Army Space Command (ARSPACE), 
but I will also tell you how the roles of each of the 
other commands' play in our mission [Fig. GS-102J. 
The Army Space Command Office is located in 
Fairfax, Va. They manage the Army's TENCAP pro- 
gram. They have, over the course of time, developed 
and fielded 60 systems and deployed those to 26 sites 
worldwide to bring the information we get from our 
national capabilities to our warfighters. 

The Kwajalein Missile Range located in the 
Pacific certainly has the responsibility to support mis- 
sile testing, but is also responsible for supporting oper- 
ational activities in support of Gen. Ashy in space sur- 
veillance operations. They spend about 128 hours per 
week on their systems doing deep-space tracking 
operations. Additionally, they support NASA in tracking 
Space Shuttle launch and activities. 

The High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility 
(HELSTF) located at White Sands Missile Range, New 
Mexico, has a testbed capability and is available to 
DoD agencies for them to bring their laser systems to 
the test bed facility for experimentation, testing, and 

In Huntsville, Ala., we have a Missile Defense 
and Space Technology Center. Their primary activity is 
to focus on the technology-based activities that sup- 
port space technologies and missile defense technolo- 
gies. In Huntsville, we also have the Missile Defense 
Battle Integration Center. The center has a modeling 
simulation capability that can be used in a synthetic 
battlefield environment for analysis and provide oppor- 
tunities to look at the utility of space assets and missile 
defense assets. 

The Army Space Command, as Gen. Ashy said, 
is the Army's component support of him and the U.S. 
Space Command, and provides space capabilities to 
our war-fighting CINCs [Fig. GS-103]. They are head- 
quartered in Colorado Springs. They have civilians and 
soldiers deployed around the world who are providing 
that capability. A couple of their missions are shown 
here. They operate the worldwide defense satellite com- 
munications systems [DSCSJ. The soldiers belong to 
the First Satellite Communications Battalion. They, in 
conjunction with the Navy, operate the Joint Tactical 
Ground Stations [JTGS]. We currently have two sta- 
tions deployed, one in Europe and one in Southeast 
Asia. The ARSPACE is the parent command for the 


■ ll|VI.,l,.|„„|1„„l, V vl,.-|l, l.„ 

■ tlprr.Ur. ,r,l IV/./.if, N„< I I 

/ tiliiri I Hon. 

• I rixrnrlmr \m;, s r . K , v,p: | 

• ( I'rnr.tmv \.:..rVu n r> ..ui, 

• I ./..,.i,<i.^k,,l, M Utl SI 1W 

Command and Control Relationship 



xx a a: 

Fig. GS-103 

Fig. GS-104 

Army's astronaut detachment. Those astronauts are 
located at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. 

A capability that they have is that they are 
"green ramp" available, that is, ready to deploy when- 
ever required to wherever required as shown in this 
chart in Army Support Teams [Fig. GS-104]. Those 
teams have the equipment and the trained people to 
go wherever they need to go to provide this capability. 
The INMARSAT system provides small receivers and 
transmitters so that we can leverage commercial 
satellite capabilities for communications with our 
satellites. We use multi spectral imaging so that we 
can get up to date mapping and terrain data to our 
decision makers in theater and we can also take a 
multi-spectral image, load it into a computer, get a 
three dimensional picture and, in effect, produce a 
movie capability so that you can do mission planning 
and rehearsals. If you need to fly an air mission, you 
can develop a movie that will allow you to fly that; If 
you're doing convoy route planning, then you can use 
that capability to look at the terrain that the convoy 
will operate over. 

The capability that ARSPACE provides has 




Fig. GS-105 


— r \; -m 



'"""-^-f^ ARMY SgAeE"SUPPORT TEAM <ARSST><1«W1 \ 










>-^ * " 

92 93 94 95 96 

fig. GS-106 

been in existence for awhile. It has supported the Army 
and the war-fighting CINCs in the various missions 
[Fig. GS-105]. From Desert Storm, Somalia, Rwanda, 
and Haiti, our soldiers are doing a great job of sup- 
porting those requirements. 

One of the programs that we currently have 
that is doing a great job identifying space technology 
and performing rapid prototyping to bring that capabil- 
ity to military application, is the Army Space 
Exploitation and Demonstration program [Fig. GS- 
106]. This chart shows some of the success this pro- 
gram has had from 1990 through present day. If you 
look in 1990, just prior to Desert Storm, there were a 
couple of programs that were being demonstrated — 
the small lightweight GPS receiver and the satellite 
weather receivers. The units involved in the demon- 
stration of those programs requested those capabilities 
be deployed with them. We continue to operate that 
program on an annual basis. The structure by which 
we operate that is through the Commerce Business 
Daily. We seek good ideas from industry and acade- 
mia about space technologies that we can use for mili- 
tary application. When those ideas are provided, a 
panel of experts review them; and we then select tech- 

nologies to provide funding for demonstration and 
rapid prototyping. In summary, I would say that the 
Army's Space Command, Space and Strategic Space 
Command, and the Army serve as members of the 
joint team to ensure that space technologies and 
capabilities are available and provided to our warfight- 
ers. Thank you very much. 

Gen. Ashy: Before I introduce our next speaker, let me 
just say I recently visited Jay Garner at his headquar- 
ters in Washington, D.C., and I'm really proud of our 
Army Space Command and all they do for us, as Bill 
alluded to and we'll hear about later. They are heavily 
involved in the business of preparing us for a ballistic 
missile defense system in North America, our National 
Missile Defense System, and I'm sure we'll have some 
questions on that, and we can discuss that later. 

Our next panel member and speaker is no 
stranger to this forum. It's Bob Dickman. His new title 
is architect, and I don't know what that means. He's 
explained it several times. So has Bob Davis. He'll get 
up here and tell you what it means again, but I hope 
you all will ask him some questions about that. 

Seriously, what it means to me, after we've got 
a policy and a strategy and we've got a military 
requirement properly articulated, he is the guy. He and 
his people put this thing together so that we can build 
the house. We can build the capability. He's got exten- 
sive experience in the space business and certainly the 
acquisition business. I'm proud of him because he's an 
operational commander of a space launch wing out at 
Patrick, Cape Canaveral. He did a great job. I can per- 
sonally attest to that because he was in Air Force 
Space Command when he did it. We're really proud to 
have him and his office stood up, and we're proud of 
what he's doing and most specifically what he's about 
to do. Help me welcome back Bob Dickman. 

Maj. Gen. Dickman: It is a pleasure to be back. I have 
a lot of trouble holding a job, but the constant in my 
life seems to be that I get to come back to the 
Foundation every year, so it's probably worth it. 

We stood up in October last year. Our charter, 
as Bob Davis explained, is to provide space mission 
and system architectures. If you will, we are a line 
organization under Dr. Kaminsky, but at the same time 
we provide an awful lot of technical support to Mr. 
Davis' office and to other parts of the community that 
want to look at very detailed, specific things about the 
space business. We are not in the acquisition business. 
We support Bob Davis in that, as well as the service 
acquisition executives. We are not in the requirements 
business. Gen. Ashy is our requirer; the Joint 
Requirements Oversights Council is our validator of 
the requirements. 



In the best of all worlds we would have both a 
space master plan and a complete set of packaged 
and well-vectored requirements in place before we 
started any architectural work [Fig. GS-201J. That is 
not the case, as you are all well aware, and so we are 
in fact trying to nibble that elephant a bite at a time. 
Looking across the top part of that matrix for the vari- 
ous mission areas: communications, remote sensing, 
and the others as well and on the side to whomever is 
a space provider for this capability. It is becoming 
more and more clear, certainly to the component 
commanders for Gen. Ashy, that it is not military space 
programs themselves that will provide the capability 
that our warfighters will use but those that come out of 
DoD-driven programs, the intelligence community, the 
civil programs as well, and to a larger and larger 
extent, commercial sector. 

We are about six months into our first architec- 
ture [Fig. GS-202J. The first was military satellite com- 
munications. As Bob mentioned, a lot of fallout from 
last year's effort led us to take that on first. Second is 
space control, that is how we protect our own systems, 
how to deny space capabilities from someone else, or 
keep a third party from interfering in what we want to 
do. The third, which we're just kicking off, is satellite 
operations. How do we "care and feed" a satellite in 
orbit? Our commitment is to deliver an architecture 
nine months from start and start a new architecture 
about every three months, so we have MILSATCOM 
about two-thirds of the way through its process, space 
control about a third of the way through, and satellite 
operations just beginning. 

In the six months that we've been working on 
MILSATCOM, we've gotten some vectors, and what I'd 
like to do is spend a couple of minutes explaining what 
those are taking us toward in a couple of the areas 
and then we can leave the rest for the Q & A session 
or however you'd like to pursue them if you're interest- 
ed. As we do any architecture, our first step in general 
is to go out to industry and find out what the technolo- 
gy will bear, go to the services and try to understand 
the doctrines, work with Gen. Ashy's folks to put in 
place a capstone requirements document that gets 
above the level of the detailed databases of require- 
ments and actually can give us a vector against which 
to move space systems, and finally to deal with the 
actual customers themselves. Mot the warfighters — 
that's Gen. Ashy's role — but the troops that are out 
operating satellite communications terminals, what's 
important to them. From that we've got a number of 
trends, not at all firm. The Joint Space Management 
Board will pick an architecture from a number of alter- 
natives, and in fact some things are going to happen 
and some things aren't going to happen based on 
those decisions. 

The area I'll talk about first is terminals [Fig. 
GS-203]. It is one that is absolutely fascinating to us. I 

Fig. GS-201 







After Six Months 
What's New? 

1 ermiiiiih 



1 aunch 



Fig. GS-202 


Terminals May (Will?) Drive Future Space 

Reduce O&M Costs 
Platform Integration 
"... To The Cockpit" 
"... To Hverv Ship/Sub" 
".. To The Tank. Marine" 
"... To The Soldier/Marine" 
- Reduce Investment 

Fig. GS-203 

would assert to you that terminals "will," but — because 
there is still uncertainty — I'll say "may," actually drive 
future space missions. In the past, our space capabili- 
ties have probably been driven more by the technology 
that we could put on orbit. However, there's a number 
of factors that are driving the ground side of that. The 
first is simply the reduction of O & M costs. We are 
putting 900 soldiers, sailors, and airmen through a 34- 
week course at Fort Gordon every year to produce just 
satellite communications terminal operators. That's 
about 500 man-years per year training people who will 




All SATCOM Must Be Part Of DISN/DT1! 
End Equipment Must Be GCCS! 
Presume Everything Will Be Secure! 
Time/Location "Tag" All Traffic? 

Fig. GS-204 

leave the military on average within something like six 
years of completing that training. We're spending hun- 
dreds of millions of dollars on maintenance costs 
alone. If we expect space systems to be ubiquitous, 
across the warfare spectrum down to the combatant 
level, we simply have to change that paradigm of the 
level of training required and the maintenance we need 
to do for our operations. 

Taking that same step of the ubiquity of space 
to the space terminals themselves, without exception 
looking at service doctrines and the plans of the 
warfighters, the requirements that we get from CS- 
CINCSPACE, everyone tells us that the products will 
have to be delivered to the end customer, not the 
command centers, not the echelon above corps, not 
the Joint Forces Air Component Commander, but the 
airplane, the tank, the armored personnel carrier, the 
soldier, the marine. If we're going to do that, we have 
to have a fundamentally different way of building ter- 
minals. We have to have a fundamentally different way 
of looking at the data we're going to provide. 
Hundreds of megabytes to a wristwatch terminal sim- 
ply won't work. And yet the doctrine is pointing us in 
that direction. Warfighters are building their plans 
assuming that information is going to be available. 
We've got to change how we look at the satellite and 
how we look at the terminals as well. You can buy a 
terminal. Many of you have, for your house, for under 
$500, and it allows you to tune hundreds of channels. 
That is a satellite terminal. It is a highly sophisticated 
piece of equipment. We may spend 10 times that for 
our satellite communications terminals. We may spend 
100 times that for our satellite communications termi- 
nals. But we shouldn't spend 1,000 times that or 
10,000 times that, and that's what we're spending 
today. We've got to change that initial investment cost 
as well. 

The final vector that I'd point out is interfaces, 
and 1 apologize; it's a little bit of alphabet soup, but I 
hope it's one that's familiar to a lot of the audience — 
the Defense Information System Network and the 
Defense Information Infrastructure [Fig. GS-204]. It is 
simply an assertion by us that all satellite communica- 
tions, everything we do, every bit we pass has to be 
part of the larger DISN architecture, so it is absolutely 
transparent to the warfighter whether or not satellite 

communications is in that communications media. It 
may go "fiber." It may go twisted pair. It may go satel- 
lite. It has to be independent to the end customer. 
Taking that one step forward, we have to move away 
from dedicated terminals. A Milstar terminal that can't 
do anything else is almost useless to that person who 
has to carry it out with him. It's got to be GCCS, the 
Global Command and Control System compatible. 

We are assuming that everything we do will be 
encrypted. Whether that actually turns out to be the 
case or not I don't know. But from everything that 
we're hearing from information warfare says we simply 
cannot afford not to make that presumption. So the 
systems we buy, the systems we lease, have got to be 
secure. And I would also assert we will time-tag and 
location-tag every bit of traffic that comes out of a 
space system sometime in the not too distant future. 
So that warfighters and our data bases will not only 
include what it is, what the intelligence is, but when 
the data was collected, where it was collected — and 
so we have a three-dimensional view of the entire bat- 
tlespace that is always current and always logged. A lot 
of visions of where we're going. I look forward to talk- 
ing to you about them in more detail in the future. 
Thank you. 

Gen. Ashy: Our Naval Space Command, as I men- 
tioned, is commanded by Adm. Kathy Laughton. It's 
been a great experience for me being teamed up with 
her. She and her people do a great service for Naval 
services and Naval warfighters out there. I just visited 
her headquarters at Dahlgren, Virginia — and it's not 
the first time — but it renewed my view that they're 
doing a great job. They are a vital and superb compo- 
nent to (J.S. Space Command. Kathy in her own right 
is a superb leader, as she has proven time and time 
again in a superb career of service to the nation and 
the U.S. Navy and the Naval services. As you all I think 
know, her background is primarily in the communica- 
tions business. Ladies and gentlemen, would you help 
me welcome Kathy Laughton. 

Rear Adm. Laughton: I want to start by thanking the 
United States Space Foundation for inviting me, and a 
special thanks to Gen. Ashy for hosting this distin- 
guished panel. 

The subject of Global Security Interests in 
Space is a fascinating one for Naval forces. In many 
ways it represents the challenge faced by our maritime 
forces for centuries as they projected force around the 
globe [Fig. GS-301]. As this viewgraph clearly illus- 
trates, we are certainly global in deployment today. 

As Gen. Ashy said, space is a very powerful tool 
to be used by those forces in harm's way. We need to 
be innovative and proactive in our use of space in pro- 
viding all appropriate tools. The Navy has been leading 
the way for many years in this arena. The need 


Fig. GS-301 

remains, the complexities involved in meeting that need 
grow daily. We are now faced with a complex mixture of 
civil, commercial, and military space capabilities on a 
global scale. The capabilities available to us are only 
partially exploited. We need to squeeze every ounce of 
capability out of space-based resources that we can. 
The growth in space dependence and the related secu- 
rity considerations can be illustrated by looking at the 
loss of space capabilities. We are used to thinking in 
terms of air, ground, and maritime forces. The loss of 
any one of these in a conflict would radically change 
the strategic picture. I would encourage all of you to 
look at space in that same strategic way. 

If Desert Storm is used as a baseline for this 
examination, the results are remarkable. Ninety percent 
of theater communications relied on satellites. 
Particularly in this area, there was a rich mixture of civil, 
commercial and military satellites, some owned by 
other nations or as part of an international consortium. 
Could we communicate without satellites? Yes, but not 
at the level required to fight the war as well as we did. 

Without space-based navigation, our forces would 
have been forced to maneuver and fight in a feature- 
less terrain with inaccurate maps and charts. Lack of 
this capability would have affected gunfire support, 
strike planning, mine hunting, and the use of precision 
weapons — all of this using a GPS system that is 
become more commercial by the day. Could we have 
done our job without GPS? Yes, but at a cost. 

Gen. Ashy's DSP early warning system was the 
heart and soul of the SCGD alerting network. Would 
the Patriot batteries still have been able to counter the 
incoming missiles? Possibly. 

The air campaign in particular was highly sen- 
sitive to the weather conditions. Without the military 
and civil weather satellites, the highly accurate timely 
forecasting required would have been impossible. 

No space support means limited ELINT/SIGINT 
from national sensors, including the unique wide area 

images from commercial LANDSAT and SPOT sys- 
tems. Imagine relying solely on organic sensors 
for critical intelligence information. 

I want to congratulate each of you in this room 
today. Your collective efforts made sure that the 
resources were available to Gen. Norman 
Schwartzkopf. Now we need to look at the challenges 
that lie ahead of us. There are a lot of questions being 
faced by the members of this panel as we look to the 

• What is the mix of civil, commercial, and mil 
itary space assets? 

• How can we be assured of the ability to use 
those assets in time of conflict? 

• Will the "civilianizing" of space, as seen in 
GPS, impact our edge in using those precious 

• Are we capitalizing on all possible capabilities 
for the benefit of the warfighter? 

The capabilities available to us are only partially 

exploited. We need to squeeze every ounce 

of capability out of space-based resources 

that we can. 

These questions address our security interests in 
space and represent a huge challenge to us today. 
Thank you. 

Gen. Ashy: As I mentioned earlier we have three com- 
ponents in U.S. Space Command, and representing 
the Air Force component this morning is Dave Vesely, 
who commands 14th Air Force headquartered at 
Vandenberg Air Force Base. Dave has extensive opera- 
tional experience throughout the world as a fighter 
pilot. He has been in the intelligence business before, 
and before taking this job he was the commander of 
the Space Warfare Center out here at Falcon Air Force 
Base. He is certainly not new to this community. He is 
a very key member and a component to the CIS. 
Space Command. Would you help me welcome him 

Maj. Gen. Vesely: Thank you, Gen. Ashy. I am also 
from the state of Michigan, which is far enough north 
and cold enough that it is not claimed by either the 
republic of Texas or the state of Oklahoma. That does 
give me some relief. 

It is great to be here to discuss some perspec- 
tives on global security interests in space. What I'd like 
to do is take a few moments to familiarize you with 
how 14th Air Force is adapting to that changing world 



and a quick review of how we did the business in the 
past. As we all know, we were entrenched in a Cold 
War for many, many years, with the Soviet Union. 
Space in those days was postured to ensure that we 
had global access for the important surveillance warn- 
ing, communications, and other things necessary for 
the global conflict against the Soviets. We had strate- 
gic sensors and a strategic command and control sys- 
tem which was modeled after the Cold War paradigm 
that we all knew so well. Those systems basically met 
the needs of the day, but the space systems them- 
selves were not able to respond very well to a changing 
environment. Among other problems, the command 
and control system that we had was very cumbersome 
and stilted. It was not designed for war fighting, much 
less the full range of military operations that we were 
going to face after that Cold War ended. 

That became very evident when Iraq invaded 
Kuwait and we became embroiled in Desert Shield and 
Desert Storm. But what that conflict did do was high- 
light the immense potential for space systems to con- 
tribute to military operations. We also learned how far 
we had to come in order to take full advantage of 
space forces, and our previous speakers have alluded 
to that. We had changes necessary in organization, in 
doctrine, in our systems, in our operational con- 
cepts — and we are pursuing virtually all of those. 

Now this change may seem trivial, but it has 

really been pretty extraordinary. We are now 

organized to carry out the basic 

military tenet of centralized control and 

decentralized execution. 

Specifically, command and control is very, very 
cumbersome. At the time of Desert Storm it was very 
poorly structured to be very responsive to that war- 
fighter. So among the changes we've had to make to 
the force structure is the organizational change that 
Gen. Ashy had alluded to — an organizational change 
designed to be able to control and exploit space sys- 
tems for the good of the military operator. Now as 
Gen. Ashy explained, the U.S. Space Command now 
executes space forces through its component com- 
manders, much like in other geographic CINCs. Gen. 
Garner executes Army space forces, and Adm. 
Laughton executes the Naval space forces. As the Air 
Force component commander, 14th Air Force has the 
responsibility to command, control, and execute Air 
Force space resources. Now how do 1 do that? Well, it 
cannot be done by some central authority who does 
not have the responsibility for those forces. So 1 had 
to develop an operational center in order to do that: 
commanding, controlling, and executing. We are 
doing that. 

What I would like to briefly review with you is, 
what does that operation center do? it is very much 
like an air operation center that an Air Force compo- 
nent to a fighting CINC would have. It does four basic 
functions. First it is a fusion center to provide the sta- 
tus of space forces, because I need to know what my 
forces look like and how they are postured. That is not 
an uncomplicated process, when you are looking at 
131 units in 36 locations in 15 time zones around the 
nation. Much of that was previously done, by the way, 
in Cheyenne Mountain. The second function is a glob- 
al information center in order to provide me an under- 
standing of the environment that the commander I am 
supporting is facing. Whether it is in the intelligence 
order of battle or the weather system that he is facing 
or, in fact, the space environment that we almost face. 
The third is it has to be linked to a warfighter or a sup- 
ported commander. I do that through Air Force space 
support teams, because I have to know what that 
commander is trying to do to win his war or how he is 
going to pursue his objectives. What is his game plan? 
How can 1 support what he wants to achieve? And 
finally it's a decision and execution center to best con- 
figure and execute the space forces in support of that 
commander or in the direction that Gen. Ashy has 
given me as a CINC space. 

1 have an interim space operations center 
today. We started in December with a STCI-3 and a fax. 
It's getting far, far better and it's in 24-hour operation. 
This summer we will have a new facility with a robust 
crew, and we will be full up and running to do those 
four functions. How well is it working? Gen. Ashy 
asked me the same thing. He didn't trust my answer 
so he sent the Air Force Space Command Inspector 
General to give me an Operational Readiness 
Inspection and, oh, by the way, give the ORI to my 
subordinate wings at the same time. The ORI validated 
and the IG validated that in fact we were doing it pretty 
well, and we are certainly going to do better as we get 
our new systems and get full up and running. Now this 
change may seem trivial, but it has really been pretty 
extraordinary. We are now organized to carry out the 
basic military tenet of centralized control and decen- 
tralized execution. 

So, in summary, I would like to report proudly 
that 14th Air Force is leaning forward, always trying to 
improve how we're going to control and exploit space 
in support of CINC space and theater commanders 
worldwide. 1 am looking forward to the discussion a lit- 
tle bit later on. Thank you. 

Gen. Ashy: Our last speaker and panel member, cer- 
tainly not least, represents an organization that's 
absolutely vital to national security. I'm talking about 
the National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO). 
Representing the NRO today is a distinguished mem- 



ber, Jeff Grant. It's great to have him back, and we 
appreciate his being here to represent the NRO. Jeff's 
got extensive experience in that organization and in 
the intelligence business, and he is extraordinarily 
well-qualified to represent the organization and 
address us here today. Help me welcome him back. 

Mr. Grant: Good morning. On behalf of Keith Hall and 
approximately 3,000 men and women in the National 
Reconnaissance Office, I want to thank you for inviting 
me to address you today. It's a rare opportunity for the 
NRO to come to forums like this, but I think more 
often we're getting the call. 

I wanted to talk a little bit about our past in 
addressing the theme of today's conference, "Global 
Security Interests in Space." I wanted to give it from the 
perspective of the NRO and the intelligence communi- 
ty. I wanted to briefly go over our mission statement 
because I think many people don't truly understand 
that. I'll quote, "We're to ensure that the United States 
has the technology and the space assets needed to 
acquire intelligence worldwide. The mission is accom- 
plished through research, development, acquisition, 
and operation of the nation's intelligence satellites." 

Very simply, we see that as a worldwide respon- 
sibility, and cradle-to-grave responsibility. It's an orga- 
nization that has over three decades of history. We 
were born during the Cold War, and our focus during 
those three decades was the Cold War. I'd like to sort 
of reflect on how we did. The counterpart of the direc- 
tor of the NRO, Lt. Gen. Palchuk spoke at a confer- 
ence last May in Washington, and he said, "I am proud 
of my service and of yours. We both labored during 
the Cold War to keep our leaders informed. Every time 
our leaders feared the worst, our evidence showed the 
intentions of the other side were not so dire. 1 know 
that we both helped the Cold War from becoming a 
hot one." But those days are behind us. I think the 
speakers earlier have all reflected on the number of 
changes we've gone through, and so we're getting new 
direction and new focus. 

The National Security Strategy document that 
was recently signed out challenges us to continue our 
collection activities and to make them broader. To that 
end, the organization and its mission are declassified. 
Many of you may have been present in May of last year 
when we had the Corona program declassification, a 
large public celebration at the National Air and Space 
Museum. The result of that is that the many men and 
women who put together a remarkable program have 
for the first time been given the public recognition they 
so richly deserved. In addition, millions of feet of film 
have been declassified and are being archived and will 
be available on the Internet. 

Speaking of the Internet, the NRO has a web 
site now. It went operational within the last month, and 

we get thousands of hits a week now from many peo- 
ple who are interested in just what we're doing. We've 
received many compliments on the information con- 
tained in there, because we do believe the days of 
being a Cold War agency are behind us. 

We've been through a number of organizational 
reviews, and we continue to be under organization 
reviews. After an extensive one in the early 1990s, we 
went through a major reorganization. The result of that 
was to create a position called the deputy director for 
military support. That position is currently headed by 
Gen. Dave Baker, and as we've created an operational 
support organization and have representation in the 
unified commands, so we actually have NRO person- 
nel on site. We've changed our organization to align by 
functional responsibilities, not parent organizations. 
The legacy of programs A, B, and C, the NRO consist- 
ing of the CIA, the Air Force, and Navy are behind us. 
Now if you go to our web site you'll see that we're 
organized by "INT" (referring to the "INTS," i.e., 

"We're to ensure that the United States has 

the technology and the space assets needed 

to acquire intelligence worldwide. The mission 

is accomplished through research, development, 

acquisition, and operation of the nation's 

intelligence satellites." 

Just as we've changed organizationally, our 
missions and customers have grown and changed 
substantially. I think our systems have successfully 
responded in recent years to the diversity of the global 
threats we face, the rogue states that we face, and the 
broad variety of intelligence issues that are challenging 
us. As we have done that, we have not lost our focus. 
Our focus is clearly support to military operations and 
to the military. You'll see NRO systems providing key 
intelligence for indications & warning (INW), for map- 
ping, charting & geodesy (MCNG), supporting prepara- 
tion of the battlefield, precision strike, bomb damage 
assessment, and while we're doing all of those things 
in areas such as Bosnia, you will find us supporting 
key diplomatic efforts in areas of the Middle East, the 
Balkans, and Korea. You'll also see us monitoring the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, monitor- 
ing the trafficking of narcotics, supporting the activities 
against international terrorism, economic intelligence 
gathering, and more recently, environmental and 
humanitarian support with the systems that we build 
and operate. 

The National Security Strategy challenges us to 
focus our collection and our activities where open 
sources are inadequate (e.g. newspapers, periodicals, 
TV news reports, etc.), and we must consider changes 



in our intelligence-gathering techniques because of 
things like the Internet and CNN. We're challenged to 
have intelligence continuously available, not a rare 
brief sample product. And so we have committed to 
produce and operate systems that are timely and 
responsive to our customer base. We are allowing 
many more of our intelligence products (because of 
the change in classification of the products) to be dis- 
seminated across the world at a higher reliability level 
than ever before. 

I took a recent trip to the CAOC in Vincenza, 
Italy, where the IFOR forces were operating out of, and 
it was just remarkable for me to see over a dozen 
nations routinely using the products of NRO systems 
in support of the IFOR mission. The technologies that 
have allowed the better dissemination of the data have 
clearly allowed us to support a broad range of cus- 
tomers, and not those just in the Washington area, as 
we have done over the decades. 

In looking to the future, I see the challenge as 
maintaining our technical edge. Indeed we spy from 
space, and in order to spy from space, you have to be 
capable of doing things that people do not credit you 
with doing. And so our capabilities in space reconnais- 
sance in the future must continue to improve, and we 
must maintain the edge. Our challenges are doing this 
in a declining budget environment, and when there is 
a broad range of competing interests for other intelli- 
gence collection and processing exploitation. Just as 
defense and commercial communications coexist, I 
believe so shall the systems that the NRO builds and 
operates and the other commercially licensed space- 
imaging companies. Thank you very much for your 
time, and I look forward to your questions. 

The technologies that have allowed the better 
dissemination of the data have clearly allowed 

us to support a broad range of customers, 

and not those just in the Washington area, as 

we have done over the decades. 

Gen. Ashy: Ladies and gentlemen, before we begin 
the Q&A session, I would give you my perspective 
from a U.S. Space Command view. These remarks 
build on what the panel members have already said, 
and will help you frame your questions setting the 
stage for our discussions to follow. Talking to Gary 
Dahlen, who was sitting over there, he's already got a 
number of questions, and that's really good. We look 
forward to those discussions. 

I'd like to frame my remarks by referring to our 
missions, which I think is the key to our discussions 
with regard to this panel on national security. As Mr. 


Davis said, we need to look at these missions con- 
stantly. But assuming that we've got the missions 
down, and I think we're pretty close, certainly in 
today's world, then we need to allow the military 
requirements to flow from the missions and their 
objectives for accomplishment. No capability can exist 
without a military requirement first. I promised Mr. 
Davis and Maj. Gen. Dickman, when we all got togeth- 
er as this newly formed team, that we would do our 
absolute dead-level best to articulate properly from our 
missions what those military capabilities and require- 
ments should be. After Mr. Davis and his office look at 
the strategies and policies that go along with the mis- 
sions, then we can give it to the architect. After the 
architecture is planned, then the acquisition communi- 
ty can work with our support partners in the commer- 
cial sector and in the industry, to field a better, faster, 
smoother, and cheaper capability that is responsive to 
the warfighter and our national security perspective. 

I'll talk a little more about that later, but first let 
me go through the missions. We have given them a lot 
of thought, we constantly do. One of the first missions 
that we need to address from the U.S. Space 
Command perspective is to support NORAD, and, as I 
mentioned earlier, the commander is dual-hatted. 

The common command and control node is 
Cheyenne Mountain. We do this support primarily from 
the space surveillance business. As you know, we track 
over 8,000 objects very accurately with a worldwide 
capability, which Dave Vesely described earlier. The 
algorithms from observing objects go into a huge 
computer in Cheyenne Mountain so that we know 
exactly where space objects are. It's very important, if 
you're going to do space control, to ensure the capa- 
bilities of your own systems and deny the other side. 
You've got to start with space surveillance. We also, 
with space-borne systems and land-borne systems, 
perform the mission of attack warning and assess- 
ment. That's been a long enduring mission of NORAD. 

And by the way, while I'm on NORAD, I'm 
pleased to report to the forum that the secretary of 
state and the minister of foreign affairs of both nations 
(U.S. and Canada) just signed the eighth renewal of 
the agreement between two special nations. So we're 
good to go for five more years in NORAD. 

So attack warning and assessment on North 
America remains a very vital function. Of course we 
can't do that mission without the support of our com- 
ponents in U.S. Space Command. 

Turning to our specific Unified Command Plan 
missions first, let me describe them for you, and then 
I'll give you a short update. This will help in our discus- 
sion later, with regard to what are we doing about 
them, as Mr. Davis alluded to in his remarks. 

The first one is titled "Space Forces Support." 
Space Forces Support is the business of placing 


objects in space and then operating them. It's the 
logistics and the administrative activities of those func- 
tions. As you know, and we're going to hear from Mr. 
Goldin later on, the president has signed a policy that's 
been in force for some time that delegates the 
reusable business to our colleagues in NASA and 
expendable function to the Department of Defense. 
That's been delegated to the Air Force, and Dave 
Vesely in his role as the commander of 14th Air Force 
now performs those functions from the East and West 
coasts, specifically Patrick and Vandenberg Air Force 
bases, with expendable vehicles. 

That does not mean that we don't have overar- 
ching interests in reusables and expendables between 
the two entities, we certainly do. What it does, though, 
is designate who's in charge or who's in the lead for 
the expendable and reusable functions. Then once the 
satellite is placed into orbit we use the Air Force 
Satellite Control Network (AFSCN), a worldwide net- 
work to operate those systems. One of the key control 
nodes is Falcon Air Force Base, which is about 20 
miles due east of here. 

The next function is Space Force Enhance- 
ment. Space Force Enhancement is commonly 
referred to as space support to the warfighter. All 
of our speakers have alluded to that eloquently this 

These are the services that we provide to our- 
selves in U.S. Space Command and NORAD, as 
warfighters and the services that we specifically provide 
also to theater commanders. 

These services include space-borne warning for 
ballistic missile attack — both in theaters and in the 
strategic sense. I'll come back to that in a minute with 
regard to the extraordinary improvement that we will 
realize with Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS). The 
next one is the weather service that we do from space. 
Weather is extraordinarily important to warfighters for 
obvious reasons, but in today's modern battlespace, if 
you're going to attack something with precision, usual- 
ly it involves infrared systems. When you have mois- 
ture, infrared systems have limitations, so it's impor- 
tant that warfighters know exactly what the weather is 
in a very timely manner. 

The next one is the category of space-borne 
communications. All of our speakers, particularly Bob, 
have talked about space-borne communications, and 
I'll come back to that in a second. Space-borne intelli- 
gence is accomplished by Jeff and his people, and he 
spoke about that. Of course, navigation (read GPS) is 
a very important function in today's battlespace to pro- 
vide us the precision that we need to perform attack 
functions and other navigation capabilities. 

So those five things are the services that we 
provide under the category of Space Force 
Enhancement. I'll talk a little bit more about that later 

as we address how we have normalized and opera- 
tionalized our capabilities to deliver those capabilities. 
The next mission is Space Control. This has to 
do with space superiority. There are three functions to 
Space Control specifically, including space surveillance, 
protection, and negation. It's like air superiority; you 
have to know what's in the air space or the space, then 
you have to protect your capabilities, and you need the 
capabilities to deny the other side. We are working on 
technologies to field capabilities that ensure that we 
have space control and space superiority. 

And the last category is space force application. 
This is the business of applying force or capability either 
through space, like an ICBM, or from space. Currently, 
we do not have forces assigned in that category. 

It's like air superiority; you have to know what's 

in the air space or the space, then you have 

to protect your capabilities, and you need the 

capabilities to deny the other side. 

So those are the four GCP missions that are 
given to us as a unified command. We have two other 
missions. The first is to represent the other theater 
CINCs and functional CINCs in their requirements 
business. This is a very key point that I would like to 
make to the forum, because I think it's important to 
our colleagues in the civil sector and the commercial 
sector. It goes back to our obligation to Mr. Davis and 
Maj. Gen. Dickman, in that we must understand our 
missions and the capabilities that go with those mis- 
sions and then properly articulate them in require- 
ments. We have done that in a process called the 
Mission Requirement Process. In each of our four mis- 
sion areas we have listed the capabilities under each 
one. We have looked out 25 years into the future so 
that we can look back and merge those with possible 
technologies and get out of the boxes Mr. Davis has 
mentioned. This is important so that we can influence 
where we want to go instead of reacting to where we 
may be going, and make the appropriate changes. As 
a matter of interest to this forum, we do this through 
our chief of plans, who is Army Brig. General Joe 
Cosumano. You're all invited to access that process. I 
don't have his phone number, but you can find it, and 
we welcome your input. We're very proud of this. It 
allows us to suspense ourselves, if you will, in a 
process that leads to operational concepts that are 
pertinent and updated, ultimately leading to an opera- 
tional requirement that Bob needs, to be an architect 
of any program. He absolutely has to have that and a 
Mission Needs Statement. Those are our obligations, 
and those are our promises to the secretary and the 
architect. I might say that Maj. Gen. Lance Lord, who 
is out here somewhere in his Air Force hat, does some 



heavy lifting, if you will, in this category, because he is 
the chief of plans of Air Force Space Command. 
Lance Lord and Joe Cosumano are partners in this 
process because the Air Force contributes a majority 
of capabilities, TOA and people in terms of our space 

We have suspensed ourselves, in summary, in 
these four mission categories with the subcapabilities 
to ensure that we have a Mission Needs Statement, an 
ops concept, and an Operational Requirements 
Document so that we can proceed with our acquisition 
programs. While I'm on these requirements docu- 
ments, let me assure you again this year, as I did last 
year, that I think we understand two very important 
points. The first point is that the process needs to be 
coordinated with our partners in the commercial sec- 
tor. Your voice and your opinions do count. We want 
them, we can't field the equipment without them. 

This leads to the second major point, if we 
don't go through some pain and agony up front to 
produce a quality document, we will not successfully 
achieve the outcome. I'm talking about affordability, 
achievability from a technical perspective, and testabili- 
ty. If we write a requirement document that we can't 
test, afford, or technically achieve, we need, through a 
cooperative process in our relationship with our com- 
mercial partners, to go back and review it and change 
it, so that we get it right. This must be done before we 
give it to Bob, the secretary, and before the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council reviews it and vali- 
dates it, as Mr. Davis mentioned in his speech. 

It's vital to be able to afford our space control 

operations around the world as we operate 

our space-borne systems. 

That's a summary of representing the CINCs in 
these processes that lead to the acquisition programs 
and fielded capabilities — and we play very heavily in 
that. We take it very seriously, and I think we've made 
great progress in the last two years in this regard. 

The last major mission area that we're 
assigned is to plan for, and prepare to field, operate, 
and execute a system for the defense of North 
America. I'm talking about a ballistic missile defense 
system, referred to as National Missile Defense capa- 
bility. Out of respect for my Canadian colleagues, we 
refer to it in NORAD and U.S. Space Command as 
Ballistic Missile Defense of North America. There's 
obviously some debate going on with regard to when 
and what this system may specifically be, but it's our 
job as warfighters to be prepared to field and operate it 
from an operational perspective, and we want to be 
ready. As I've mentioned before in speeches and in tes- 

timony, we've done a lot of thinking about the opera- 
tional concept, and we finalized it in a draft concept of 
operation so that we can be ready to go when called 
upon. This is significant in that BMDO and Gen. Mai 
O'Neill can use this concept of operation as they 
model and simulate their technologies that will lead to 
a compliant and effective system. 

Going back through these missions, let me 
remark briefly about several requirements leading to 
programs that will improve our capabilities. First, in 
support to NORAD, our program to upgrade the capa- 
bilities out at Cheyenne Mountain, which is the com- 
mand and control node for both organizations, is well 
on its way. It's a four-phase program costing over a bil- 
lion dollars. We're well into the second phase, and it's 
on track. This is vitally needed to get us the capability 
to execute our forces appropriately. The mission of 
warning will be well-served by the fielding of SBIRS, 
and we're looking forward to the initial operational 
capability (IOC) of the low system after the turn of the 
century. As I earlier mentioned, we are thinking about 
Ballistic Missile Defense of North America in our con- 
cept of operations document. 

With regard to Space Force Enhancement, and 
I hope we get into questions about all of these mis- 
sions, the evolved expendable launch vehicle program, 
as we evolve it into a family of systems, will meet five 
mission area requirements. The first is that we need to 
safely get into space with expendable vehicles. We 
need assured access to space. We need to make sure 
that we can get the launch manifest up there and meet 
the requirements of all of our customers. We need to 
be able to do this responsibly, whether we launch from 
an orbit or we do it from the surface of the Earth. We 
need to do it in a timely fashion so that we can meet 
the needs of our military customers and our commer- 
cial and civil customers that share our launch infra- 
structure with us. And lastly, and most importantly, the 
real reason that we're doing this program is we need 
to get up there more cheaply, more inexpensively. 
We've articulated this in the requirements document. 
We're working with our partners in industry to finalize 
it, and 1 think we're well on our way. I should mention, 
and Mr. Davis mentioned this in his talk, we need to be 
able to operate our systems around the world more 
cheaply, and we're looking at doing that. It's vital to be 
able to afford our space control operations around the 
world as we operate our space-borne systems. 

With regard to Space Force Enhancement in 
the strategic sense and the theater sense, SBIRS 
remains absolutely vital. We've got the technology; we 
have a solid requirements program, and we're looking 
forward to fielding this system. Not only will it better 
serve us in the strategic sense as we execute our 
attack warning and assessment mission specifically in 
NORAD, but it will really help the theater commanders 
see the cooler burning and shorter burning tactical 



missiles around the world. We really need this system. 
As all of you know, these missiles continue to prolifer- 
ate. It will also give us some technical analysis capabil- 
ity of the battlespace as we look at it around the world. 
Since the last meeting when we were still finalizing it, 
we have consensus of a requirement and that was a 
big, big factor in getting this program going. 

I'm pleased to report that we have followed the 
administration's and Congress' guidance on conver- 
gence on our weather satellite programs between the 
NOAA and Air Force Space Command, with regard to 
how we operate, and become more efficient and thus 
save money on our weather satellites. That's well on its 
way and will happen in 1998. In the communications 
business, all of our speakers alluded to it, our com- 
mand is responsible for writing the overarching 
requirements document for the Advanced Military 
Satellite Communications program. We are about to 
finalize that, and in fact this summer Maj. Gen. Bill 
Donahue, Adm. Dave Frost, and I will take this to the 
Joint Requirements Oversight Council so that the 
architect and secretary can get on with their jobs. I 
think that's one of the first three major architectures 
that Bob Dickman has taken on. 

Let me tell you what the user wants. They want 
unlimited access and unlimited bandwidth. We're 
going to have to balance their desires with what the 
commercial sector and what technology can bring, but 
we're going to do our best to meet their needs. As 
Bob mentioned in his opening remarks, a Global 
Broadcast Service is a good example of what the com- 
mercial sector has offered. We need to get at it quickly 
— smoother, cheaper, faster. We plan on doing that. 
The secretary's working on this very hard, and hopeful- 
ly this spring we will test and prove this capability in 
the Joint Broadcast System that we will deploy in sup- 
port of our troops in Bosnia. 

To put this commercial sector technology and 
the need to leverage this technology in perspective, let 
me provide an illustration. Assume you are trying to 
get a high resolution photo to a strike pilot on an air- 
craft carrier. Using the GHF system to deliver this 
photo — as Kathy Laughton was talking about in her 
talk — it would take you all night and half the day to 
deliver one picture. That's not acceptable. If you use 
the high band with the DSCS system that our Army 
colleagues operate, it would take you maybe 10 min- 
utes to deliver this picture, but nothing else would go 
through the "pipe." With GBS, you would be able to 
deliver a picture in about five to six seconds. And not 
only will you be able to deliver photos, but you will be 
able to deliver motion or television and text and all the 
things that our warfighters need. It is really important 
to people in brigades, on bridges of ships, and even to 
the pilots in the cockpit that we get on this system, 
and we're committed to doing that. 

This is a part of the overall architecture and 
satellite communication system that we are writing a 
requirement document for. We have gotten the mes- 
sage with regard to commercialization and outsourcing 
and leveraging what our colleagues in the commercial 
sector bring. With regard to intelligence, being able to 
deliver intelligence is vitally important and I hope we 
can get into discussions on this subject. We'll deflect 
all the questions on the GPS policy to Secretary 
Davis. We've just had a new policy signed by the pres- 
ident, which I think sends a strong message to all of 
our civil and commercial partners that we need to 
leverage this wonderful capability in a cooperative way, 
while not giving up our military capability to deny the 
other side and protect our side. And that's what this 
policy basically says. We know that technology as evi- 
denced by three major scientific reports can lead us 
to alternative means to performing military capabilities 
of protection and assurance. We can use GPS while 
making sure that our commercial and civil partners 
can still use the system. So we have this new policy 
and that's good. 

Before we have our panel members come back 
up here, let me now talk a little bit about normalization 
and operationalization. I've tried to describe this to 
you, and all of our panel members have alluded to it. I 
think it's really important that we understand that we 
are warfighters and that we translate what we do into 
understandable accessible language to our colleague 
warfighters around the world through our component 

We know that technology as evidenced by 
three major scientific reports can lead us 

to alternative means to performing military 
capabilities of protection and assurance. 

Dave Vesely mentioned one step and that was 
to put our component commanders in the loop 
through their command and control nodes so that we 
can execute our missions appropriately and effectively 
and support those warfighters in the field. Our Space 
Warfare Center (SWC) at Falcon AFB continues to 
operate and serve not only the Air Force but all of our 
services with regard to procedures and doctrine devel- 
opment. We recently stood up a test squadron at 
Falcon. We still are heavily involved in TENCAP activi- 
ties so that we can leverage capabilities and translate 
them into usable concepts and capabilities. I'm proud 
to let you know — in my Air Force hat — we are going 
to integrate a space division into the weapons school 
at Nellis Air Force Base. This space division will not 
only teach space but will graduate space warriors 
along with their colleague airplane drivers and intelli- 
gence officers and their weapons controllers. That's a 



powerful message to this forum. The first class, as a 
matter of fact, is in session right now. In addition to 
the weapons school, we also have orientation courses 
and staff officer courses at Falcon AFB and Vanden- 
berg AFB. So we have tried to normalize our opera- 
tions so that we can effectively operate. 

Our three component commanders mentioned 
what they do for warfighters in the field, and we in U.S. 
Space Command have promulgated a policy that 
describes how we organize our space support teams. 
Let me just briefly mention this. We do it for the Joint 
Force Commanders from the Unified headquarters 
here in Colorado Springs. We have space support 
teams that support all the Unified CINCs. They plan, 
exercise, help them write their integrated war plans, 
and then they deploy with them. And that's very effec- 
tive, very well-received. 

I think people tend to forget that of the over 

450 satellites we've launched in our history, 

the vast majority of them have been very 

small satellites. 

Likewise, the three component commanders 
have space support teams — each for the respective 
theaters, so that we can deploy this knowledge, help, 
assistance and support respectively to theaters of oper- 
ation. To help us do this, we have animated constella- 
tions on a computer screen so that even fighter pilots 
can understand what they look like, what their cover- 
ages are, and what their schedules are. In my previous 
position, that service and that capability was not 
offered. We're very proud of that capability. It's called 
the Theater Support Operations Cell, or TSOC. We've 
also normalized our operation so that we have the 
proper training courses, flight manuals, and the proper 
focus on commanders' being mission-ready. Not that 
we're trying to copy the aviation model, but we're taking 
this a step forward, out of the box to make sure that we 
can deliver our capabilities in an effective manner. 

And last but not least, we have certainly gotten 
the messages that I've mentioned before, that we need 
to leverage what the commercial sector brings to the 
table. I want all of you to know that we have gotten 
that message again. 

Ladies and gentlemen, it's again a pleasure 
and an honor for me to be back and be your modera- 
tor today. I would like to now ask our panel members 
to come forward and take your places. Thank you very 


Gen. Ashy: We have a lot of great questions here, and 
the first one, I guess, will go to Jeff Grant and 
Secretary Davis, if he'd like, and perhaps Bob 
Dickman. It has to do with cooperation between DoD 
and the NRO with regard to small satellite technology. 
The question specifically is, are DoD and NRO really 
interested in small satellite technology? 

Mr. Grant: I think it's a matter of public record that 
Col. Pete Rustan, who was the successful program 
manager of the Clementine program, joined the NRO 
over a year ago. He runs an organization in the NRO 
that is focused on small satellites and their applicability 
to the intelligence problems we're confronted with 
today. We can't go into detail about the success that 
Pete's having, but from my perspective we are very 
serious about this activity, we're fully investigating the 
applicability of satellites of a variety of sizes to address 
the requirements that are coming out of the services 
and Gen. Ashy's organization, and I think we have a 
rich history of launching small satellites. I think people 
tend to forget that of the over 450 satellites we've 
launched in our history, the vast majority of them have 
been very small satellites. 

Gen. Ashy: Bob Dickman, do you want to go next or 
the secretary? 

Secretary Davis: It's really a two-part question. The 
first one is cooperation between NRO and DoD, which 
Jeff glossed over a little bit, but it's implicit in the 
question. The answer is yes, cooperation is alive and 
well and it's working. Specifically with regard to small 
satellites, and I'll steal this from Pete Aldrich, who 
taught me this long ago, small and large are units of 
measure. They're not moral judgments. I think what 
we really need to look at and focus on is not whether 
something is small or large but what the requirement 
is, what kind of technology do we need to satisfy that 
requirement, what's the operational utility of it, and 
then if the solution ends up being small, so be it. If it 
ends up being large or very large, so be it. 

One of the things that I think we sometimes 
tend not to focus on is, small does not necessarily 
mean inexpensive, Jeff. We need to keep that in mind 
as well. People usually think of small as being inexpen- 
sive, and I think there's a real role at this point, given 
how well we can do certain technologies now, and the 
inherent smallness of some of our launch vehicles. 
Capability to launch small satellites, we need to focus 
on that more. Again, I just remind you that small or 
large are not moral judgments. I used to be invited in 



my old job to an international small satellite organiza- 
tion panel every year, and after I kept saying that small 
was not inherently good, they stopped inviting me 
back, but we do need to focus on it. I think the short 
answer is we do need to do more in that area, and 
you're going to see more cooperation between the 
NRO and DoD publicly on trying to do that. 

Gen. Ashy: Bob Dickman, do you want to make a 

Maj. Gen. Dickman: We aren't trying to drive our 
architectures toward or away from small satellites as 
Secretary Davis just said. The solutions will lie where 
the solutions should be. Certainly large numbers of 
proliferated satellites are going to be small by today's 
standards and we're looking at that kind of concept as 

Gen. Ashy: As the moderator, I'd like to make a short 
comment. In addition to what has already been said, I 
recently got a clear message from one of the distin- 
guished persons sitting in the audience that we really 
need to look at the requirement, and what we do has 
got to be based on the requirement with regard to res- 
olution, etc. This drives the physics of what you're try- 
ing to do, whether it's constant steering, or resolution 
requirements, and so forth. My summary is, we all 
need to take a look at "smaller, better, faster, cheaper," 
but we also need to integrate our requirements very 
carefully in this process because it drives what we can 
and what we can't do. 

The next question is really not a question, it's a 
comment and I just want to acknowledge this to the 
person who wrote it because it's a very good point, 
and I certainly received the message, and perhaps, 
Gen. Hill, we can work on this. It has to do with com- 
plimenting the contractor display booths next door, 
and the suggestion is to next year have our compo- 
nents display what they deliver to the field and what 
the troops use. We'll take that on and try to make that 
happen next year, with your concurrence. 

The next question has to do with our space 
support teams, and I'm going to let Dave Vesely han- 
dle this question as our lead spokesman. The ques- 
tion: How do they coordinate specifically their activities 
in theaters of operations and will they ever work them- 
selves out of a job? I think it's a very good question. 
The answer is yes, I hope they will. 

Maj. Gen. Vesely: Let me talk to the Air Force side of 
this. Our Air Force space support teams belong to a 
squadron, the 76th Space Operations Squadron at 
Falcon AFB that reports directly to me. They have 
teams dedicated to each theater and so, for example, 

they have a team that is dedicated to Europe, another 
one to CENTCOM and they deal directly with those 
theater air component commanders, and we're focus- 
ing on the air component commander's problem. 
They are in the theater frequently, longer than they'd 
like to be, but that's the way the business is. They plan 
with them, they integrate space into their war planning, 
they actually write the space annex to the war plan, 
they train with them when they have training events, 
they exercise with them when they have exercise 
events, be it a blue flag, green flag, red flag, Ulchi 
Focus Lens, Internal Look, I can go on, and they really 
become an integral part of that team. They sit side by 
side with that air component commander in his air 
operations cell. 

I have team members today in Vincenza, Italy, 
sitting in the CAOC (Combined Air Operations Center) 
giving daily advice on space systems and what those 
systems can support. They also have an educational 
role. They will go educate air component staffs on 
what space can provide. They are positioned at Falcon 
for a good reason, and that is, they are co-located with 
the Space Warfare Center leveraging TENCAP projects 
and technologies that are ongoing. 

My summary is, we all need to take a look 

at "smaller, better, faster, cheaper," but we also 

need to integrate our requirements very carefully 

in this process because it drives what we 

can and what we can't do. 

The team members themselves have a very 
long and intense training and certification process. 
They have to certify to me that they can in fact repre- 
sent me in theater — and that's the relationship. They 
are my personal representatives to the air component 
commander in that theater and they are my tie to him. 
They help me know what that theater commander's 
facing, what his intention is, what he wants to do, so 
that we can help support them. When I stood the 
squadron up in December, 1 gave them the direction 
that Gen. Ashy gave me, and that is, work yourself out 
of a job. Make space such an integral part of military 
operations that every commander knows how to do it 
and how to exploit it, and we'll get out of the business 
and make it a normal, routine part of warfighting. 

Gen. Ashy: Kathy, you or Bill want to comment on 
that? You're very integral to this process. 

Rear Adm. Laughton: Yes sir. Of course, I'm very 
proud of our Naval support teams and we are certified 
by Gen. Ashy's people. Our process is a little bit differ- 
ent in that we start at the point in time that the battle 



group starts its initial work up. And our space support 
teams work with the Marines, and with the carrier bat- 
tle groups all the way through their pre-deployment 
work up into the deployment and post-deployment 
phase. We're hand-holding them regardless of what is 
going on. 

We also work with the battle group comman- 
der himself, and every battle group commander on the 
East coast comes to see me and goes through an 
intensive set of briefings on what our space support 
teams can do for him before he ever takes his battle 
group to sea. Just as Gen. Vesely mentioned, we are 
also working ourselves out of a job, primarily because 
we're standing up our operation center so that I can, 
through the use of video teleconferencing and other 
training mechanisms, hand-hold that battle group 
commander all the way through his process, and we 
can do it at any level, whether it's a C2W officer work- 
ing his problem or the flag officer himself. And we 
already have the tools and capabilities to do that. Gen. 
Vesely mentioned TSOC. TSOC has become a critical 
element to that and, in fact, in 1998 I put together a 
POM issue paper to buy TSOCs for every battle group 
and every Marine unit, so that they will in fact have that 
training tool with them, and will be able to diagnose 
whatever questions they have. We feel this will be a 
very effective training program for the Naval units. 

I hope that we train ourselves out of business 

so this culture will infuse itself into our various 

theaters throughout the world with trained people 

not only as specialists, but as knowledgeable 


Gen. Ashy: Bill? 

Brig. Gen. Nance: The Army's process is similar to 
what's already been mentioned. Bill Hoyman and his 
staff spend a lot of time getting into the theaters and 
providing information to the theater CINCs and the 
lower combat operating activities about the capabilities 
of the space support teams. I work with them identify- 
ing that capability, and 1 can support their operational 
plans. They also participate extensively in theater exer- 
cises and warfighting experiments that are conducted 
to ensure that that capability is demonstrated to those 
folks. Members of the various theater commands are 
invited to come to the Army Space Command and 
have an opportunity to witness the capability of the 
space support teams. Another thing that they're doing 
is actively looking at where the Army is going in the 
21st century, and the exercises and plans that are being 
set up to identify and demonstrate that. The Army 
Space Support Teams are providing systems and capa- 

bilities that can be demonstrated in those exercises. 

Gen. Ashy: I think it's appropriate to ask Jeff Grant to 
comment here, because he has a function that is simi- 
lar to Space Support teams that is absolutely vital for 
delivering a very key service to warfighters. Jeff, would 
you like to explain briefly how you all are organized 
there? You mentioned it in your talk. 

Mr. Grant: I mentioned at the intro, the Operational 
Support Office (OSO), an organization formed a few 
years ago that has as its focus exercise support. And we 
have supported OSO personnel on-site typically between 
70 and 80 exercises worldwide, and through a whole 
variety of levels of activity, supporting CINCS. Most 
recently you will find OSO employees being dispatched 
on teams so that the vagaries of how you task and use 
intelligence collection systems can be better articulated 
to the ultimate user. We have committed to providing 
personnel worldwide to support those kinds of efforts. 

Gen. Ashy: Very good. Just as a comment from me, it 
goes back to operationalization and normalization. I 
hope that if I don't do anything else on my watch, I 
hope that we contribute toward this notion — a change 
in culture with regard to understanding our war time 
tasks and how we support others with war time tasks 
and missions. As I mentioned, we created this from 
U.S. Space Command as a policy. Our component 
commands have organized themselves to deliver these 
capabilities, and 1 think we're doing it. It has to be a 
change in culture. The capabilities have to be assess- 
able and understandable. That's what TSOC is all 
about. That's what our warfighting schools and brief- 
ings are all about. The answer to the question is, 
absolutely yes. I hope that we train ourselves out of 
business so this culture will infuse itself into our various 
theaters throughout the world with trained people not 
only as specialists, but as knowledgeable warfighters. 

The next question goes, I think, to Gen. 
Dickman. The question is, what is the relationship of 
the Space Architect office and the NRO? 

Gen. Dickman: I think I'll share this answer with Jeff. 
We agreed some time ago as we tried to figure out 
how to work together, that our commitment would be 
to one architecture. The organizational structure to 
make that happen may evolve over time, but right now 
our commitment is to one architecture. Jeff has 
responsibility down into the NRO which does its pro- 
gram differently from the DoD. I work the white side, 
but we are in the process now of figuring out how to 
exchange people and exchange information on virtually 
everything we do so that when we do bring a program 
forward, to the Joint Space Management Board, it has 



the complete understanding from both Jeff and me, 
and the commitment from both organizations that we 
can execute the program. Jeff? 

Mr. Grant: I can only emphasize the comments that 
Gen. Dickman made. We both have bosses who have 
told us that we are going to work together very, very 
cordially and productively, and so to that end, Bob and 
I meet routinely. Our organizations have interactions at 
the working level as well as the senior level, and we 
meet at the JSMB with programs that we'll be dis- 
cussing within the intelligence community and the 
defense community. It's a new relationship, it's grow- 
ing, its gotten off to a slower start than either one of 
us would have liked, but it's clearly a relationship that's 
going to stand the test of time. 

to defense space policy — is that the same thing as the 
national security space policy? — and figure out what 
the merits are. Then the wordsmithing takes place, and 
back and forth staffing those through the Department 
of Defense and intelligence community. Then while that 
was going on, there's something called civil space and 
something else called commercial space, and so as we 
sit here, it's about finished, at least in terms of the 
national security side. It is up to the National Security 
Council at this point and to the White House — and 
hopefully we'll have this thing wrapped up by the end of 
the month. It's been dragging on, but we're about 
there. And then after that, there's a whole series of poli- 
cies that should spin off from that, a DoD space policy 
internally, an international cooperation space policy for 
Department of Defense, a whole series of others that 
will follow. 

Gen. Ashy: Secretary Davis, would you like to say a 
word about that? 

Secretary Davis: I agree with both answers. There are 
really two factors we need to keep in mind here. One 
is not necessarily any unique organizational relation- 
ship. That may in fact be part of the solution to the 
process to get to the solution. What we need, as Bob 
said, is a single architecture, and that's what we need 
to keep focused on. However, having said that, the 
actual charter of the Joint Space Management Board 
refers to a national security space architect, whatever 
that creature happens to look like, and that's the road 
we will slowly proceed down. The presumption is at 
some point we will end up with a single national secu- 
rity space architect. In the long term, it is, as they both 
said, it's cooperation, and that's going well. It is my 
clear judgment that ultimately we need to be focusing 
on the probable solution of a single national security 
space architect. 

Gen. Ashy: Thank you, and while the secretary has 
the floor, another question. You addressed this in your 
talk, but the specific question is, when will there be a 
new space policy? Since we're kind of on that, how 
about addressing that please, sir? 

Secretary Davis: A new space policy? Well, we've been 
fighting it out across the entire federal government for 
about a year to come up with a national space policy. 
Yesterday, I read on my mobile E-mail that there should 
be a meeting of what we call the deputies, and those 
are the deputy cabinet secretaries from each of the 
departments that are involved in space, toward the end 
of April. We have been going through a whole series of 
issues. When you think about national space policy, 
you have a mix of it sitting here at the table. We had to 
figure out what is intelligence space policy as opposed 

Gen. Ashy: Thank you, sir. Staying with Gen. Dickman 
and Secretary Davis, the next question has to do with 
space architecture and how it fits into the overall for- 
mulation of DoD space policy, doctrine and tactics. I 
could ask Maj. Gen. Dickman to lead off. 

Maj. Gen. Dickman: Sir, let me ask my policy mentor 
to do that if I may. We really feed into Bob. 

The presumption is at some point we will end 

up with a single national security space 

architect. In the long term, it is, as they both 

said, it's cooperation, and that's going well. It is 

my clear judgment that ultimately we need to be 

focusing on the probable solution of a single 

national security space architect. 

Secretary Davis: That's sort of like the old question, 
when you're in college and you're worrying about your 
exam and the question comes to define the universe 
and give 12 examples. I don't know quite how to answer 
that question. It's so inter-related. If you could really 
draw a sequence and do it right — and of course we 
don't live in a perfect world, so we can't — we should go 
to the warfighters and the warfighters would say here's 
how I want to fight my war in 20 years, 15 years, 10 
years. We'd sit down with the technology people and 
say, OK, let's go design the following systems and 
develop the technology we need to do it. We'd go to the 
comptrollers and get a blank check and proceed to 
industry and award a lot of contracts and, meanwhile, 
the military side of the house would be heavy in opera- 
tional exercises to be ready to use these things. 

Unfortunately, that's not the world 1 live in, 
certainly, and so what you end up with is an iterative 
process in terms of a national space policy. I 



addressed that. We have a good example of how the 
process has to work, the GPS policy that was 
announced two weeks ago tomorrow by the president. 
It's an iterative process. When the policy came to us in 
the Department of Defense, we voiced our concern 
about shutting off things like selective availability, the 
wisdom of that, and also the reality that the accuracies 
of commercial systems over time will rival or exceed 
what we're doing with the augmentation systems. So 
we have to take the reality then of, No. 1, the policy, 
No. 2, the world we're living in, and No. 3, the possible 
technology to counter the problems that may arise. 
When you look at the scenario that we may be fighting 
in in a given situation, the way the world exists today, 
we may have troops deployed in an area that is mixed 
with civilian forces, with friendly forces, and with hos- 
tile forces. And at the same time you may have aircraft 
flying over that area that are civilian aircraft, and you 
have to have the technology, and the policies, and the 
doctrine, and the operations in place to be able to 
continue to receive the signals that you're interested 
in. Use those and deny them to your opponents with- 
out grounding the airliners in the process. 

When you look at the scenario that we may be 

fighting in in a given situation, the way the world 

exists today, we may have troops deployed in an 

area that is mixed with civilian forces, with 

friendly forces and with hostile forces. 

That's a good case study of how we have to 
make all this work. Part of it is to go do architectures 
and think about it far enough in advance. In some 
cases we have to change the way we operate a system, 
and some of those are lessons learned from the down- 
ing of our pilot in Bosnia and how we put technologi- 
cal and in some cases operational fixes in place there. 
And others are things we have to address in the longer 
term. That's not, clearly, a precise answer, but it's a 
very hard question and if that were easy probably none 
of us would need to be employed or on this panel to 
try to fix the things that don't go right. Bob, let me 
pass it back to you. That's the context, and it's not 
something that's a yes or no question or an answer, 

Maj. Gen. Dickman: I think we are going to have to 
work through the next year over a very practical dilem- 
ma in that regard, and that is that Secretary Davis has 
set out as his own goal and has made commitments 
to the Congress to deliver a space master plan. What 
we have found as we've been through two-thirds of the 
first architecture for Military Satellite Communications 
(MILSATCOM) is that the dialogue that has to take 
place between the architect function and, for example, 


CI.S. Space Command to really work through the 
requirements, is not in the sense of how many two dot 
four circuits between two points, but in the vectors of 
what is the requirement that will support where we 
think the warfighters are going to evolve in 15 years, 
which is a much harder question to answer. That 
process of working through the requirements and 
working the technology is not something that happens 
very quickly. 

On the other hand, delivering a Space Master 
plan in a year will presume some overarching deci- 
sions or perhaps solutions with respect to where archi- 
tectures are going to head. And so, the person that 
Bob has working on that, Army Lt. Col. Sam Gemar, is 
closely aligned with my office. 1 have somebody work- 
ing with him to try to make sure that our architecture 
and what they are doing are consistent, but I think we 
have a very interesting challenge to marry my function, 
which is moving much more slowly than Mr. Davis! 

Secretary Davis: Let me just add one more comment. 
The way I would describe it typically is, you need a set 
of goals, and Bob alluded to this. We have the 
National Security Space Master Plan Task Force work- 
ing, but it's almost like driving down the road. You 
don't necessarily need to know precisely where you're 
going, but you need a general direction. If you want to 
head from here to LA., or if you want to head general- 
ly west, and if you're heading down the road, if you 
have no set of goals, every time you hit an intersection 
you have three choices. Do you go straight, do you 
turn right, or do you turn left? At any given time, if you 
have your set of goals in place, you may mess up one 
of those decisions at an intersection, but over time 
you'll head in the right direction. That's what we're try- 
ing to do at a general policy level. However, on a day 
to day basis, it is not necessarily wrong if we take a left 
or right turn because that's where the technology is, 
that's where the operational doctrines say we are. 
That's the world situation we happen to live in, but we 
simply need to do a better job of figuring out what our 
guide stars are for the long term. 

Gen. Ashy: Thank you, gentlemen. The next question 
is another great question. It reads like this: The Air 
Force provides the majority of the budget for space 
systems, so why doesn't the Air Force just fund it all? 
I'm going to ask my components to all comment on 
what I'm about to say is the answer, and then if they 
agree with me, they can say it, and if they don't agree, 
they can say that also. 

Let me give you somewhat of a lengthy answer 
to this. The answer to the question is integral to how 
we're organized. You have to look at how we're orga- 
nized. We've been through this with the Roles and 
Missions Commission. There have been some ups and 


downs with regard to this, but we have all concluded, I 
think, in a consensus manner between the services 
and the CINCs and certainly from our perspective in 
U.S. Space Command, that we've got it right. When 
you consider Goldwater-Nichols and the two options 
that the law gives you, you can organize a unified 
command in one of two ways; the first option is that 
you can do it as functional components, like air, land 
and sea. When you think of the operational medium 
of space along with the other operational media of air, 
land and sea, and by the way, it is recognized in our 
joint thinking that way, there are no air, land and sea 
portions in space. Space is space. Space is a place. 
It's a vacuum. So that leads you to rule out the func- 
tional componency, which leads you to the second 
option of service components of an Army Space 
Command, an Air Force Space Command and a Naval 
Space Command. Turns out it looks like a duck and 
quacks like a duck and that's the way we have it now. 

We have concluded that it not only meets the 
intent of Goldwater-Nichols but we've got it right. The 
reason that we have it right is that it respects the 
respective services, views, and core values and mis- 
sions, if you will, with regard to contribution. The Air 
Force desires to make a measured contribution and 
the Army and the Marine Corps and the Navy insist on 
having access to the requirements process and the 
operational processes by making some contribution. I 
will tell you as feedback from our services and CINCs 
that this arrangement is absolutely acceptable to the 
services and the CINCs. And so in summary, the Air 
Force can make a major contribution. The Army, the 
Navy, and the Marine Corps can also make a contribu- 
tion. The best part about this, it really ensures that all 
three entities can receive space benefits in a one-third, 
one-third, one-third fraction — those are not precise — 
but it assures access and it assures our customers that 
they can get the capabilities that are absolutely vital to 
winning in the battle space. That's my answer to the 
question. I'd like to let Kathy give her perspectives and 
see if she agrees or disagrees. As a component com- 
mander, I'm sure she'll agree. 

Rear Adm. Laughton: I absolutely agree, because 
quite frankly "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And the sys- 
tem "ain't broke." We have learned that through inten- 
sive study. The real issue and the real discussion that 
should go on is not who is funding what, but are we 
doing the requirements analysis in a joint fashion, and 
how are we doing that. And while we in the Navy don't 
have a lot of our Total Obligation Authority going 
towards space systems, we are absolutely committed 
to playing in the joint world, both with (JSCINCSPACE, 
also with the major programs such as SB1RS, and we 
have naval officers working those issues day in and day 
out alongside their Air Force and Army counterparts. 
And indeed, we have made a heavy commitment to 

Maj. Gen. Dickman's people so that we can leverage 
whatever we are spending in our TOA in joint fashion. 
That's really what we have to do. 

Gen. Ashy: Bill would you like to make a comment? 

Brig. Gen. Nance: Yes sir, I would agree also, and I 
would add, and really it's a compliment to the process 
of determining requirements, the way that that is being 
run, it gives the services the opportunity to come to 
the table and identify what the service specific require- 
ments are, and also to speak for what they believe to 
be the needs for the theater CINCs, and then in a joint 
community in a joint forum, have the opportunity to 
wrestle with those issues around that and come out 
with a program and a process that satisfies all of our 
requirements. Thank you, sir. 

Gen. Ashy: Dave, you can make a comment, but I 
think I can speak for both of us unless you want to 
override me. 

Maj. Gen. Vesely: I thought you put it superbly well, sir. 

Gen. Ashy: Let me just add, there were two other 
options with regard to organization that lead to the 
answer to the question. It was proposed a year or so 
before I got in this job that perhaps air and space were 
kind of the same. It was the aerospace and the Air 
Force was in charge, which I think was implied in the 
question. That absolutely did not sell because the air 
and the space are not the same. They're not the same 
operational media. And so having a specified service 
was not concurred on and I agree with that. I will tell 
you that the current Air Force Chief of Staff agrees 
with that view. 

And the fact that we have an architect and 

we have a long range planning process I think 

are testament to the way we are effectively 


There is one other option, and that is creating 
a new service. I think the consensus is that we ought 
not to do that, but certainly I predict that that will be 
looked at again in the future. However, I think it's in 
our interests now to continue with the unified com- 
mand with service components that access to the 
requirements process through the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council as promulgated by G.S. Space 
Command, working through their service components 
to come up with some excellent requirements so that 



Bob Dickman and Bob Davis can do their jobs. And 
the fact that we have an architect and we have a long 
range planning process I think are testament to the 
way we are effectively operating. So I hope that 
answers the question. Bob Dickman, you can say 
something if you want to. 

Secretary Davis: How about Bob Davis instead? Every 
time a question like that comes up I feel like asking, 
well, we may have an Air Force but they're not in 
charge of the air. I think the Navy would dispute that. 
The Marines and the Army have an awful lot of pilots. 
1 even hear debates that you need the best hand-eye 
coordination to be a helicopter pilot. At least that's 
what the Army guys keep telling me. It's an interesting 
question that keeps popping up. The answer is not to 
just give everything to the Air Force. The Air Force may 
have 90 percent of the people, and 90 percent of the 
funding, and even perhaps 90 percent of the expertise, 
but they do not have 90 percent of the use of space. If 
you had to pick somebody to be in charge of space 
and in fact be the space service, we'd have to look 
clearly at giving it perhaps to the Army. Mot because 
that's where the funding and the historical expertise 
have been, but that's where an awful lot of the com- 
munications get dumped to. That's where an awful lot 
of the data requirement is generated from. That's 
probably the wrong answer, too. 

While I acknowledge, of course, that we are 

the best in the world in space and will remain 

so, there are other countries that do have 

technological interests and capabilities that they 

bring to the table that they are willing to share 

in certain instances. 

The thrust of the question is interesting. The 
presumption is that the Air Force is the multi-user 
space acquirer. The Air Force steps up to that. On the 
Global Broadcast Service the Air Force volunteered, 
and we accepted their generous offer, to fund the 
Global Broadcast Service in the out years, which is the 
Air Force's responsibility. But they stepped up to the 
task. It doesn't, however, mean you take the other 10 
percent of the programs away from the other services, 
because it has to be imbedded in their thinking. As a 
matter of fact, I think it would be a mistake because 
one of the goals and challenges that 1 have is to try to 
get better imbedded in each of the services education 
and training, the way they recruit people, the way they 
assign people, the way they develop people to get 
space thinking into the very psyche of the service. And 
that would be a step in the wrong direction if we sim- 
ply said space belongs to the Air Force. 

Gen. Ashy: Thank you. In summary, we fight and exe- 
cute our military missions as joint, combined com- 
mands as supported or supporting. We are organized 
in the unified command of U.S. Space Command in 
accordance with Goldwater-Nichols with service com- 
ponents. All of the services and the CINCs are satisfied 
and comfortable with how the services can contribute, 
no matter what the portions are. They certainly all 
have access to do their missions of organizing training 
and equipping, and we can do our job to provide the 
services of combat capability either as supported or 
supporting. It's been a great debate. I'm sure it will 
continue a little bit, but 1 think we've got it right and 
I'm pleased to report that the Roles and Missions 
Commission agreed with us. Most importantly though, 
our customers, the services and the CINCs, are happy. 
The next question I think applies to the secretary and 
Bob Dickman again. The question has to do with 
international activities and arrangements and coopera- 
tive efforts leading to agreements in the overall master 
plan for space capabilities. I'll let you gentlemen han- 
dle this in your order. 

Secretary Davis: One of the priorities that I and Dr. 
Paul Kaminsky, the Undersecretary of Defense for 
Acquisition Technology — my boss — and the secretary 
of defense and the director of Central Intelligence 
Agency have is better international cooperation in 
space for a whole host of reasons. One is, ultimately 
it's cheaper. Other countries do bring money to the 
table, and in this environment that's important. 
Another reason is technology. While I acknowledge, of 
course, that we are the best in the world in space and 
will remain so, there are other countries that do have 
technological interests and capabilities that they bring 
to the table that they are willing to share in certain 
instances. Another reason is the world we live in today. 
It's coalition warfare, it's cooperative warfare. We have 
troops in Bosnia with our allies. We had somebody 
shot down in Bosnia, as did the French. We need to be 
able to communicate. Well, "no" is no longer an 
acceptable answer. I think that if we have somebody, a 
U.S. soldier in a foxhole, and a French or a German or 
British soldier in a foxhole down the road, and they 
physically can see each other, 1 don't think any of us 
want to be in the situation of trying to explain why they 
can't talk to each other. 

We need to fix those programs and the way 
you fix them is to plan ahead of time and not jury-rig 
it. We have had some discussions in the eight months 
I've been here with the French, the Germans, the 
British, the Canadians, the Australians — I'm probably 
leaving somebody out, but that's an awful lot of peo- 
ple — in how we better go about cooperating. A lot of 
these areas of discussion have focused on communi- 
cations, but not solely. We've talked about early warn- 
ing. Other countries are interested in that. We've had 



discussions on GPS and imagery proliferation around 
the world. The dialogue is very robust and I would 
expect we would see more of it, rather than less, in the 

The last point, the question that touched on pol- 
icy: Since we're about to have a new national space pol- 
icy and we have already started trying to write what the 
DoD space policy will be, it will be my intent to come up 
with DoD international cooperation space policy so the 
guidelines are clearly laid out for the entire Department 
of Defense about how we go about doing our business. 
And the presumption is that cooperation is to our bene- 
fit. To the extent that we come to agreements, we would 
pass those agreements in terms of cooperation to Bob 
as he's planning his architecture, because other coun- 
tries have different requirements. We would fold those 
requirements in his planning process. 

Maj. Gen. Dickman: I think a year ago we had the 
process a little bit backwards. We almost had a pro- 
gram that we were trying to embark on in the MILSAT- 
COM: an International Military Communications 
Satellite, and every MILSATCOM architecture that was 
brought forward had to be measured against whether 
IMMILSAT could fit into it properly. Mow we're working 
on what are the architectures, and then what are the 
technologies and the opportunities for international 
cooperation, And it gives us an awful lot more flexibility 
on both sides, both for Secretary Davis to work a num- 
ber of countries that we don't have to box out because 
they're not part of a specific program and for us to have 
a lot more flexibility on the architecture side as well. 

Gen. Ashy: Jeff? 

Mr. Grant: The Brown Commission Report that was 
recently released on looking at the intelligence com- 
munity and how it should be organized spoke to grow- 
ing international cooperation in the area of space 
reconnaissance, so this area will be clearly investigated 
in the near term. 

Secretary Davis: Let me just add one final comment. 
For those of you from industry that are out there, our 
intent is not to try to usurp your role. It's really to come 
more to government-to-government agreements, set- 
ting some ground rules as to what the requirements 
are, how we would want to proceed in an acquisition 
sense and then to the extent that using communica- 
tions systems, as an example, that we come to an 
international agreement on common communication 
systems within the bounds of the architecture that Bob 
Dickman develops. Within the agreements, we would 
go out with a request for proposal saying we have 
money and a requirement. Here's the document that 

we want you to go build something against, but 
embedded in that document it may well say, that in 
fact, you have to have participation from country X or 
country Y and that you must plan to produce some 
percentage of whatever the work share is in that coun- 
try and a certain percentage in the United States. I then 
see our role as simply getting out of the way and letting 
industry seek its own level, its own partnership with for- 
eign commercial firms in the other country. 

Gen. Ashy: I think related to this, just as a comment 
from Space Command's perspective — and perhaps the 
component commanders would like to comment 
briefly — and we've learned this lesson time and time 
again, is if we don't think through in this complicated 
world that we've evolved into, with regard to how we 
share data and communicate data not only amongst 
ourselves as we've talked about today, but with our 
allied partners, we will have a tough road to plow. I 
know I learned this in the theater of operations before 
I came to this job, and we see it day in and day out, 
whether we're supporting a theater of operations or 
we're executing our own mission. We need to think this 
thing through, and if we can't share data, or use com- 
mon communications systems, space borne or other- 
wise with our partners, then we will have a difficult 
task. Dave, you or Kathy or Bill want to mention that? I 
know you see that day in and day out in your support 
to the warfighters. 

One of the things that we've learned when 

we talk space assets is that we need to really 

understand what other nations bring to a table 

and how we in fact communicate. 

Rear Adm. Laughton: Yes sir. As you know, the Navy 
routinely exercises with allies of all nations. In my life I 
was very much involved with some of the international 
warfighting communications issues, the CCEB of 
course which runs out of the joint staff as well as 
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, O.K., and CI.S. One 
of the things that we've learned when we talk space 
assets is that we need to really understand what other 
nations bring to a table and how we in fact communi- 
cate. The key to that is to sign up to the international 
standards and to build them into all of our systems, 
both our space systems and our other communica- 
tions systems so that in fact we can take advantage of 
the inter-operability issues. The other thing that we've 
been very proactive on in terms of our own TENCAP 
program is refining projects which give us direct bene- 
fit to the allied problem, and one of them that we've 
worked through very effectively is a thing called radi- 
ant mercury, which in effect sanitized a lot of what we do 
helping us become very inter- operable with our allies. 



Gen. Ashy: Bill or Dave? 

Brig. Gen. Nance: Yes sir. 1 concur with the idea that 
we need to ensure that we have the ability to share 
capabilities with our joint partners in theaters. Whether 
it is communications or missile warning or intelligence 
information, we need to work to do that. And in doing 
that, look at the architecture and protocols that pro- 
vide us the opportunity to do that. 

Maj. Gen. Vesely: I would just emphasize that my 
dealing with those air component commanders around 
the world— they can't very well devise a scenario where 
they're not in a coalition. It really is something that's 
got to happen. And we're doing it day to day. 

Gen. Ashy: I think it bears comment here that in a 
cooperative way, following on the secretary's remarks, 
is that we here at U.S. Space Command are heavily 
involved with cooperating with our partners around the 
world with shared warning. This will be much improved 
when we get a Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS). 
From the theater perspective we have created this sys- 
tem as executed by our components, and they all 
referred to it in their talks on how we share ballistic 
missile warning in consonance with the political policy 
that is promulgated. So we've built this system, the 
Theater Event System, where we can easily and effec- 
tively share warning with partners when it's decided 
that we should. This gives us, going back to the ques- 
tion, stability and deterrence throughout the world and 
I, from a personal perspective, think this will become 
increasingly important as ballistic missiles proliferate. 
Thank you, lady and gentlemen on those responses. 
The next one goes to Jeff, 1 believe, and the question 
is, what is the risk associated to the downgrading of 
NRO-produced data? On the one hand, it is more use- 
ful to the warfighters, but are we jeopardizing the very 
sources and the methods on which we depend? 

Mr. Grant: That's an excellent question — and I may 
not be the right person to answer that from a number 
of perspectives, but let me take a shot. The systems 
that we've operated over the decades, traditionally with 
the Cold War mentality and the security systems that 
surrounded them, made the data very limited in their 
distribution, very limited. As we became more involved 
in not just the planning timelines— which have been in 
literally weeks, months, years— but started having sys- 
tems that were relevant in execution timelines, it 
necessitated the data to be available to a broader vari- 
ety of folks. We've tried to isolate the data from the 
systems that collect the data in terms of how the sys- 
tems are controlled and who has access to them, but 
indeed as time marches on and we find ourselves with 

many of our systems products very widely available, 
those delineations become less and less clear. The risk I 
think we face is that as more and more folks have 
access to more and more of our products then the very 
real opportunity to take reasonably small steps to limit 
their effectiveness is very possible. Those trades take 
place not within the NRO at all. Those trades take place 
between the people who use the data. The feedback 
that we get from our military users is that the trade is 
clearly for broader access to the information that comes 
from these systems, albeit at some risk, but those 
trades have been made, and that's what we're doing. 

The systems that we've operated over the 

decades, traditionally the Cold War mentality 

and the security systems that surrounded 

them, made the data very limited in their 

distribution, very limited 

Gen. Ashy: Thank you very much, Jeff. The next 
question, I believe, goes to the secretary. It is, what is 
the idea behind the Joint Space Management Board 
and when will it meet for the first time? 

Secretary Davis: The idea behind the board is that 
there has not been in the past a mechanism to formal- 
ly reconcile differences of opinion or fact, on issues 
that involve space. Nor has there been a formal mech- 
anism to prevent things from diverging and to make 
sure positive things happen up front because of a 
planning process. So the function of the Joint Space 
Management Board is to have all the stake holders — 
Gen. Ashy sits on the board, I do, Bob Dickman, the 
NRO, and all the services and intelligence organiza- 
tions are involved — to be involved up front in the space 
process. The board was created officially in December. 
The executive committee met on Dec. 20. The issue at 
that point was who would be the acquiring organiza- 
tion for the Global Broadcast Service. NRO had pro- 
posed doing it, the Army was interested to some 
degree in doing it, and so was the Air Force. That was 
the issue and that was the preliminary meeting. 

The executive committee is composed of four 
people, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Paul Kaminsky, the Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs— at that point it was Adm. Owens — and from 
the intelligence community it was George Tenet, the 
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Agency; and 
under his old job, Keith Hall, as Executive Director for 
Community Affairs in the intelligence community. The 
first full board meeting will be in early May. We're trying 
to get schedules worked. I'm excited about doing this 
because for the first time we have a mechanism in 
place where we can take issues to them up-front and 



say, "Here's the direction we want to proceed." And 
one of the examples is the National Security Space 
Master Plan. We have a team that's starting to work on 
it and we want to present to them the timelines, the 
direction we want to take. Then our intent would be to 
come back with a product for them in early December, 
saying, "Here's what we think the National Security 
Space Master Plan ought to look like," and get their 
approval or changes as necessary. The verdict as to 
whether this works and how well it works will be decid- 
ed over the next six months. 

I think everybody involved in JSMB is excited 
about using it. It sets the agenda, as I said before. The 
charter for the JSMB actually mentions something 
called the National Security Space Architect, and we 
have to grapple with that. Keith Hall, in his job as 
director of the NRO, and I have been tasked, and we 
have our staffs working to come up with the terms of 
references, to start looking at NRO programs and how 
we perceive their ability to meet Department of 
Defense requirements over the next 10 years. So 
there's a lot of things happening in the background, 
but in early May should be the first meeting. 

Gen. Ashy: Thank you, Bob. The next question I think 
could be led by Bob Dickman, with perhaps com- 
ments from Jeff Grant and the secretary. The question 
is, with the recent space industry mergers, are we in 
danger of a monopolistic problem for developing 
space systems and especially launch systems? 

Maj. Gen. Dickman: I think the competitive juices are 
flowing as well as ever. The number of competitors is 
an awful lot smaller, but my sense, especially in the 
launch area, in the small end, for example, is that we 
had so many competitors that two-thirds or three- 
quarters were doomed to failure because the launch 
manifest wasn't going to sustain anything like the 
number of companies that were coming forward. I'm 
not particularly concerned that we're going to lose 
either the industrial base or the competitive nature of 
being able to do acquisitions. 

Gen. Ashy: Jeff? 

Mr. Grant: I probably run hot and cold on the conse- 
quences of the merger activity we see taking place 
only because I'm concerned about some of the con- 
solidation of expertise into essentially just one compa- 
ny, in a number of cases. The mitigating factor to that 
is the explosion that we're seeing in commercial base 
business areas, which are being done by companies 
that have a tighter turning radius than some of the 
larger companies. And from our perspective in the 
NRO, most of our technology work is done at the 

unclassified level and so we encourage our folks to do 
business with a broad range of industry and are always 
willing to take in good ideas, whether they come from 
large satellite contractors or small satellite contractors. 

Gen. Ashy: Thank you gentlemen. We've just about 
run out of time. I'm told we can go over by a few min- 
utes and then the panel will be followed by a short 
video that Steve Scott will introduce. There are still a 
lot of great questions here. The next one has to do 
with EELV The question is, why fund an EELV program 
at all, and why not just purchase launch services 
directly from industry, or the French, for that matter? 
Go ahead, Bob Davis. 

Secretary Davis: That's a good question. I'd love for 
industry to just be willing to volunteer the $2 billion 
necessary to do EELV. So that would be my first 
choice. I don't see that happening. So the choices 
really are in front of us as you look across a range of 
launch capabilities we have out there, as Bob Dickman 
touched on. The small launch vehicle, 1 think, is a 
healthy enough industry and our policy is that we will 
not step in and try to develop or subsidize to any great 
extent the small launch industry. It's just not necessary 
for us to do that. When you look at the range of medi- 
um to heavy lift that we need for DoD and NRO pay- 
loads, we're slowly being eaten alive by the costs of 
launch. That is, the launch rate has gone down, the 
costs of launches are going up to unacceptably high 
rates, and as you look out beyond the turn of the cen- 
tury, some of the heavy lift payloads, given the launch 
rate, could potentially cost us three-quarters or a bil- 
lion dollars apiece to launch, and that's unacceptable. 

And from our perspective in the NRO, most 

of our technology work is done at the 

unclassified level and so we encourage our 

folks to do business with industry and are 

always willing to take in good ideas, whether 

they come from large satellite contractors 

or small satellite contractors. 

So what's the solution, since industry, and 
rightly so, is not going to step up to solve our problem 
(although they are to some extent, trying with 
Lockheed Martin and the Atlas development and 
McDonnell Douglas, with their Delta developments, to 
make their medium capabilities commercially viable) 
as a result of one of Tom Moorman's efforts, the 
famous Moorman option 2, the $2 billion option, is to 
go do EELV I've sat in on half a dozen briefings by 
vendors and people in the Department of Defense in 
the last month, and I think the program is going well. 



It will pay for itself very quickly, in terms of 
reducing costs. Given the potential, from a briefing 
that I saw yesterday, to reduce what is now costing us 
a lot on the Titan 4, is great. We could be launching 
things for a third or a quarter of the cost very quickly, 
once we get EELV up there. So it's being cost driven— 
we are not reinventing the wheel. These are technolo- 
gies that we know how to do. 

The next question usually pops up: Why do we 
want to do EELV when the salvation of all humankind 
is the RLV program? And while our salvation may in 
fact be RLV eventually, that's a fight for a different day. 
EELV will pay for itself before the RLV is ever realized. If 
NASA is successful in what they're doing, and 1 cer- 
tainly hope that they are, EELV will have paid for itself. 
And then there are intangibles that you can't really 
price out, in terms of the speed with which you can 
launch. You can launch on demand. 

I think we're all aware of some of the lengthy 
static displays of Titan 4 vehicles. It's a good vehicle, 
but it just takes too long to get some of these things 
launched. One of the most exciting outcomes of EELV, 
1 think, will be our capability to simply get things in 
orbit, reasonably quickly. 

Finally the question is, why don't we just buy 
launch services? It's a good question, and I have been 
asking the same question and frankly don't get anyone 
saying that that is not something that we should be 
aggressively pursuing as an option. I would think that 
the point that we would insert that into the EELV com- 
petition is still probably two years down the road, when 
we would go to the EMD selection process in the 
acquisition cycle and say in fact we do want to buy a 
launch service. That is a leading option at the moment. 
We're looking at it. It may be the right solution. 

One of the most exciting outcomes of EELV, 

I think, will be our capability to simply get things 

in orbit, reasonably quickly. 

Gen. Ashy: Bob Dickman, do you want to say anything? 

Maj. Gen. Dickman: I would reiterate what Secretary 
Davis just said. I think the DoD money, the govern- 
ment money, was a nudge that industry needed to do 
some things that they'd been looking at for a long 
time, but for whatever reason were unable to push 
themselves over the brink. The cryogenic upper stage 
for Delta, the integration between Atlas and Titan are 
clearly things that didn't come out of the EELV, but with- 
out an EELV they weren't happening. I think an area 
where EELV may be decisive and what we're going to 
struggle with very hard over the next few years is what 

happens at the heavy end. The commercial industry will 
sustain itself only to the point where a vehicle can carry 
the largest economically feasible communications satel- 
lite. That would mean if heavy is defined as anything 
over that, the Titan IV class, we will be the only cus- 
tomer for that, and there's a question whether we can 
afford that or whether that would force us to de-opti- 
mize an awful lot of satellites to be on a class vehicle 
that isn't consistent with the physics of the satellite. 

The other alternative to that is whether or not a 
heavy vehicle in our country can dual-manifest pay- 
load. We don't do that today. Ariane does it all the 
time. EELV may provide some of the impetus and 
some of the ability to spend some money looking at 
how we can make an economically viable commercial 
variant of an EELV so that those costs get amortized 
across the bigger spread. 

Gen. Ashy: Thank you, Bob. I would also like to com- 
ment perhaps slightly in deference to previous com- 
ments here. I think the question is a very important 
question. We need to remember what the mission is. 
We often say, in U.S. Space Command, when we're 
reviewing something, "It's the mission, stupid." We 
need to keep focused on the mission. This is an 
assigned mission. As I commented, and I think the 
secretary commented earlier in his remarks, we all 
respect the notion that we need to continually review 
the mission. But assuming that the mission is valid, 
and it's an integral part of space force support with 
regard to assured military access to space, that's what 
EELV is all about. 

It's an expendable vehicle that will assure our 
access as a cheaper way to space. That's the purpose 
and the objective of the program. This leads us to the 
question of ownership, not who does it and how we do 
it specifically. The ownership of this mission will be a 
military mission. That's delegated from DoD to the 
U.S. Air Force and that's why Dave Vesely coordinates 
all that and executes it. However, we have all gotten 
the message that we need to do this better, smoother, 
faster, cheaper. So we can out-source, privatize, and 
contract out. We are all for that, and 1 would argue 
that we do that now. It's not blue suiters launching 
these expendable vehicles, and blue suiters won't do it 
in the future. Contractors do. Our commercial partners 
do, as we have outsourced this owned, controlled mis- 
sion. And I predict that this will not only stay valid, but 
it will grow in the future. Ladies and gentlemen, you've 
been a great audience, we've had a great panel. We've 
run out of time here and I've gone over the time allot- 
ted and I apologize to the Foundation so that will have 
to be our last question. Would you join me in thanking 
a very great panel? 



Symposium Luncheon Presentation- 
NASA and Space: Enhancing Life on Earth 

Introduction: General James E. Hill, GSAF (Ret.) Featured 

Chairman of the Board Speaker: 

United States Space Foundation 

The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin 

NASA Administrator 

Gen. Hill: This is a person who needs no introduc- 
tion. And in most cases then they'll go ahead and 
introduce the speaker and say what they have to say. 
I'm not going to do that today because I am certain 
that there is not a single person in this room who does 
not know who Dan Goldin is. If you've had anything to 
do with space, or have been involved with NASA or 
industry or any of these activities that we talk about in 
this symposium and are here to take care of in this 
symposium, you know Dan Goldin. 

I will tell you a couple of things about Dan, 
though, that you may not know. He was appointed the 
administrator of NASA in 1992 after 30 years in the 
aerospace industry. Many of you would not realize that 
he was 30 years in the industry before going to Wash- 
ington. He doesn't look like he's that old. I see him 
quite often and he looks like a very young man so it is 
hard to tell how he could have been there 30 years, 
but he has. Before the appointment he served as vice 
president and general manger of the TRW Space & 
Technology group in Redondo Beach, California, and 
served 25 years with TRW managing the development 
of production of advance spacecraft, technologies, and 
space science instruments. He has led NASA through 
its most challenging years and he has brought new 
energy and strategy and efficiency to NASA. Please 
welcome Dan Goldin. 

Mr. Goldin: I am thrilled to be here. I want to talk 
today about the subject on this program, "Enhancing 
Life on Earth." Whenever people think of NASA and 
think of enhancing life on Earth, the first thing that 
comes up is Tang and Velcro. 

Well, let me dispel the fantasies about that. 
NASA did not invent Tang and we did not invent 
Velcro. We used them. It helped do what we do, but 
we touch people in unbelievable ways. And this came 
home to me during these last two weeks I've been 
traveling. The members have been on recess, and I 
have been visiting a number of their districts to interact 
with the children. I spent a good part of each day for 
the last few weeks talking to elementary, middle 
school, high school, and college students. And if any- 
one thinks there isn't excitement in America about the 
future, try it for a few weeks; you'll come alive. It's 

But there is one experience that struck me very 
deeply. I went to an elementary school in Sydney, 
Maine, to talk to the students, and I walked into the 
school with all the suits. There were about five suits 
walking into the school, and the kids said to us, "We 
don't want you to talk to us, we want to talk to you." 
Then for an hour they put on a computer display that 
was mind-boggling. These children, third and fourth 
graders, took LANDSAT images, SPOT images, and 
they were doing environmental and agricultural analy- 
ses to help the local community. 

A little third grader stood up and spoke with 
such poise and confidence. He had his classmates 
project computer images on the screen and would 
change the images. He told us how he took this big 
picture of Maine and narrowed it down to find a bog 
and to figure out where plowed fields were. That's how 
we touch America — not with Tang and Velcro and gim- 
micks. It's very, very important to understand that, 
because many people say, "Well in order to justify this 
space program, tell us what you're going to do for 
America today," but that's not what we're about. 

What I tell people is that NASA's not about 
tech-transfer. If you want a tech-transfer organization, 
go to private industry; don't come to the federal gov- 
ernment. Don't buy technology by the yard. NASA is 
about bold and noble tasks to open the air and space 
frontier. It's about research that goes 10, 20, 30 years 
out, and it's about the possibility of payoff that we 
don't even know about. We can't go testify and say, 
"Well, if you give us money for the Space Station, 
we're going to cure cancer." That would be inappropri- 
ate. Yet, there is this desire to survive in the near term. 
American corporations are under unbelievable stress. 
They can't have a research and development program 
that goes out much beyond three to five years for 
product development. They can't go back to their 
shareholders and carry investments on the books for 
20 years out. So people say, "Well, let's privatize space! 
Companies will go invest, and in 30 years they'll get 
money back from the moon." That's unrealistic. But 
what we will do is answer fundamental questions that 
the human species has worried about for centuries 
and millennia. In doing so, we will perform basic 
research and technology and then we can find the 
payoff. Let me give you an example, just one example 
of what I'm talking about. 



One need only pick up almost any newspaper 
in America or turn on to any major broadcast or cable 
news station, and you'll hear all about the cosmos with 
the images from the Hubble Space Telescope. In the 
last year, we have actually photographed a planet 
around a star within 30 or 40 light years from Earth, 
and that planet is in the life zone. That's important 
news that makes front page coverage. With the 
Hubble, we've gotten images of galaxies that we 
believe go out to the very beginning of existence. 
That's front page news. So we don't have to sell the 
American public short and say they need Tang and 
Velcro. They need intellectual nourishment, and they 
understand the impact of research. But while we have 
the Hubble Space Telescope, let me tell you what hap- 
pened. When you take pictures of galaxies and stars, 
you're trying to pick out very faint light from very, very 
high background noise. In the process of doing that, 
you need very advanced digital image processing. 

But the fundamental issue is, as a nation, 
we have got to go to the outer boundaries and 

we cannot apologize for our space program 
by talking about Tang and Velcro. We don't have 

to apologize because we are exploring the 

unknown. We don't have to apologize because 

we're doing research that won't have payoffs 

for 10 or 20 years. 

You need very advanced focal planes. Well, the 
medical community came to us and said, "You know, 
the images you take with the Hubble look exactly like 
mammograms, and what we want to do is find micro- 
calcifications in women before they get very big." The 
problem that the medical community has now is, when 
women go in for a mammogram, with the resolution 
they now have, growths must be pretty big to detect. If 
they have to do a biopsy, it's thousands of dollars and 
very, very painful. We transferred the technology from 
the Hubble to the medical community, and small com- 
panies and big companies are getting in on it. We 
believe the resolution is going to go way up for the 
mammogram, and because we could so precisely 
locate the microcalcification, they are using a needle 
instead of a biopsy to determine whether the women 
have cancer. 

When the Hubble Space Telescope was being 
sold to Congress, we couldn't stand up and say, "Hey, 
fund the Hubble and get a better mammogram." But 
the fundamental issue is, as a nation, we have got to 
go to the outer boundaries and we cannot apologize 
for our space program by talking about Tang and 
Velcro. We don't have to apologize because we are 
exploring the unknown. We don't have to apologize 
because we're doing research that won't have payoffs 

for 10 or 20 years. All one need do is ask almost any 
American, "Do you think we're going to have a robust 
country in the year 2020?" And almost everyone will 
say, "Of course. Yeah, we got problems now but we'll 
work 'em out." If we're going to have a robust country 
in 2020, it is legitimate that this nation expend a very 
small fraction of its resources on things that go out 
that far. So when I talk about tech-transfer and when I 
talk about R&D, I'm not talking about Tang and Velcro. 
I am talking about exploring the unknown. 

To explore the unknown, we had to restructure 
NASA. If you look at NASA, we were organized about 
constituencies. When I got to NASA, I asked our 
employees, "Who are your customers?" And with all 
due respect, they said, "Rockwell, TRW, and 
McDonnell Douglas." And I said, "You have got to be 
kidding." They said, "The scientists and the universi- 
ties." I said, "This is nonsense. The customers for 
NASA are the American people, the taxpayers who pay 
for the program, not the NASA scientists and engi- 
neers, but the people who need the benefits from this 
program decades out." As a result, we had the shuttle. 
The shuttle cost was at over $4.5 billion a year and 
was going to go up to five or six billion a year. And 
everyone — and again I don't want to be demeaning of 
the intent — everyone was happy making good profits 
on the shuttle. But we never asked the question: Do 
we have too many people on the shuttle and are we 
making the shuttle safer? That's the object. 

Then we took a look in the science area. I was 
told then, you must have 19 percent of the budget 
devoted to space science, that we have to have $400 
million a year for space physics and so much for astro- 
physics and so much for planetary science. Why? 
Because if we don't fund space physics at $400 million 
a year, they won't have continuity of funding in the uni- 
versities. That's poppycock! That's not what our role is; 
our role is to have free flowing, peer reviewed research 
and let scientist go after scientist to get the very best 
idea in front of the public. 

So the problem was, instead of asking funda- 
mental questions that were multi-disciplinary, that the 
American public could understand, we had constituen- 
cies in different areas. Good people, a system that was 
set up that didn't change with the times. So, we devel- 
oped the strategic management system and a strategic 
plan. It's available. We've made copies available to 
Congress, every NASA employee has one. Hopefully 
our contractors have them. We've worked with different 
societies; Arnauld Nicogossian and the American 
Astronautical Society have worked with us. We tried to 
talk to our customers across the country in town hall 
meetings. What we came to was a conclusion that we 
have to answer basic questions, and let me list them 
for you here: 

• Where did galaxies, stars, and planetary bod- 


ies come from and how did they evolve and interact? 
How does this knowledge enhance the quality of life 
on planet Earth? 

• Are there places that had an environment, 
have an environment, or might have an environment 
hospitable to life of any form — even single cell life — or 
to human commerce? 

• Is life of any form unique to planet Earth? 

• What technologies must be developed to 
open the air and space frontier to answer these basic 

That is the direction that we are going in at 
NASA. When you ask these questions and talk about it 
(I just talked to about 15 different schools, and thou- 
sands of people), everyone understands those ques- 
tions, but they didn't understand $400 million to space 
physics and so many dollars to planetary science and 
so many dollars to a shuttle. So, I think we are now 
beginning to connect with the American public. Life is 
not just about survival; it's about hopes and dreams, 
it's a search for the understanding of life. It's looking 
up at the galaxies at night and wondering, are we 
alone? Where does it end? 

We also need intellectual nourishment; that's 
necessary to fuel future endeavors. Let me give you a 
few examples. We have to understand the laws of 
physics, about the generation and transformation of 
energy and the generation and transformation of mat- 
ter. If you look up at the heavens, there is a lot of 
knowledge to be gained. We talked about building a 
super conducting super collider in the deserts of Texas, 
and I don't want to say that that's good or bad. I think 
that it was a very noble feat, but it didn't get funded. If 
you take a look out at the heavens, there are process- 
es that take place around heavenly bodies that we 
believe are 10 million times more energetic than any- 
thing we could have generated in that super conduct- 
ing super collider. Clearly, we couldn't have made the 
microscopic measurements locally for transformation. 
But we don't understand these phenomena, and if we 
want to rewrite physics textbooks, we must look up at 
the heavens across a variety of spectrums. 

We don't understand a lot about the formation 
of matter. We know and we believe that you can, in a 
chemical manner, generate the basic proteins that are 
the building blocks of life, some of the amino acids. 
But then a very funny process takes place when you 
build up from these building blocks into a living cell. 
We have a sense that comets and asteroids have these 
building block proteins, but what happened to cause 
life to take place? We just don't understand. We believe 
Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and after 
some hundreds of millions of years, single-cell life 
formed on Earth. We had single-cell life on Earth until 

about 500 million years ago, and then in a 10-million- 
year period, we theorized something magical hap- 
pened, and we basically went from single-cell plant 
and animal life into very complex life form. We don't 
understand. But if we are ever to effectively combat 
disease as we know it today, we need an understand- 
ing of that, and for that we have to look out at the 
heavens, at the stars, at the planets, and the planetary 
bodies. Doing this will allow us to rewrite physics text- 
books, biology textbooks, medical textbooks and 
chemistry textbooks. It is fundamental, and you don't 
have to justify to the American public day by day by 
day by day. We have to give you near-term benefits. 
America has to look over the horizon. That's what we 
are all about. We do things to understand our basic 
planet. How do the laws of nature interact so that 
when you look at the oceans, the atmosphere, and the 
land, you can understand that interaction? And is it 
possible to understand the naturally occurring forces 
and the human-occurring forces on our planet so we 
can create predictive environmental and long-term 
climactic models? 

Life is not just about survival; it's about hopes 

and dreams, it's a search for the understanding 

of life. It's looking up at the galaxies at night 

and wondering, are we alone? 

This is an unbelievable task, and our present 
computers are probably one million to one billion 
times too slow to do this. Our algorithms are inca- 
pable of doing it right now, but over a 15-year period 
we believe we are going to make it happen. Let me 
give you an example of one of the issues we are work- 
ing on right now — the El Nino condition. For some 
reason, periodically, there is a hot spot in the center of 
the Pacific Ocean. As this hot spot starts moving, there 
is a wave that moves across the Pacific Ocean toward 
the west coast of the United States. How do we know? 
We built the Topex Poseidon spacecraft and we mea- 
sured the surface of the sea level. We measured it in 
centimeters, and we saw this heat wave traveling. So 
you say, "Well, how does that relate to life in America 
or around the world?" Last year Los Angeles got 50 
inches of rain, when it should have normally gotten 12. 
And you go out to the Midwest and the farmers were 
dying on the vine, and in other places they had floods. 
If you could predict that a number of years in advance, 
think of the impact we will have on our society. You 
don't need Tang and Velcro to calculate what would 
happen to our society if we could predict the long-term 
climate — an accurate Farmers Almanac, if you wish. 

I was recently testifying before the Senate, and 
Sen. Stevens of Alaska came in. I thought he was 
going to beat me up over 10 different subjects and he 



surprised me. He said, "Dan, why aren't we moving 
faster on Mission to Planet Earth?" And I said, "Sir, we 
are moving as fast as we can." And he said, "Do you 
realize the insurance industry of America is unbeliev- 
ably concerned that they don't know the impact of 
what's happening to our environment on their future 
liens against the insurance policies they have. They 
worry about whether the sea level is going to rise a 
foot." Think of the impact of what would happen if the 
sea level rose a foot. Mow, I'm not being a hysterical 
environmentalist, but we're talking about trillions of 
dollars worth of impact. It could devastate the econo- 
my of this country. We at NASA will resolve this prob- 
lem. We'll do it for the lowest possible cost, but we will 
resolve this issue. That's not Tang and that's not 

Another major issue coming down the pike is 
information systems. Information systems are going to 
change everybody's life but people don't know it yet. 1 
was talking to farmers and people in rural areas of 
Montana. They have a low-value-added agricultural for- 
est products, mineral-based industry that is going to 
change radically. In 1860, 53 percent of Americans 
earned their living in agriculture. Just two days ago, 
USA Today reported that 1.9 percent of Americans 
earn their living in agriculture. But those who work in 
agriculture are going to be touched by information 

Information systems are going to change 
everybody's life but people don't know it yet. 

Let me give you another statistic. A few years 
ago 3 percent of Americans earned their living in infor- 
mation intensive technologies. Predictions say within 
30 or 40 years, 50 percent of Americans are going to 
earn their living in information-intensive technologies. 
It is going to change everything about everything on 
this planet. In 1984, 80 percent of a computer was 
built on a production line, 20 percent was information 
systems. In 1990, 20 percent of a computer was built 
on a production line, 80 percent information systems. 
Today, less than 10 percent is hardware. So, these pro- 
duction line jobs are vaporizing and everyone is won- 
dering, "What's happening to me?" No one is bad, but 
technology is marching on, and if we don't educate 
and we don't prepare for this revolution, it isn't going 
to happen. 

We are working with a number of farm imple- 
ment companies to put robots in their tractors with 
signals from a Global Positioning System and from our 
remote-sensing spacecraft. I hope they will be mostly 
commercial so farmers could farm by the yard. We're 
doing it right now, today. So think about a farmer who 
has his family farm, but he is not computer literate and 

1 12 

can't get on the Internet. He's not going to be able to 
manage that farm and get the productivity that he 
needs. So it's here, and it's coming. We asked an 
investment banking company to do a study for us. 
They believe there will be a $10-to-$20 billion-a-year 
industry in remote sensing. And that budget in remote 
sensing is a meager budget of a little over a billion a 
year. Rather than industry coming to NASA and look- 
ing upon Mission to Planet Earth as a place to gain 
profits, we really need to work in a partnership with 
industry to transfer technology, so industry takes the 
job over from NASA and we solve all these other issues 
I talked about. The finances and profits are going to 
be in the information technologies not just in the 
spacecraft area. 

Aeronautics — it is a $100-billion-a-year indus- 
try. For 25 years, the long-haul jet transport business 
in America dropped one point per year. We have lost 
25 percent market share. In the next 15 years there will 
be about $1 trillion worth of business in long-haul jet 
transports, not supersonic. Supersonic is another 
quarter of a trillion dollars, and hopefully, we'll work 
that as well. To turn this around, you have to have the 
most superior technology in the world, the best manu- 
facturing procedures at the lowest cost, and there are 
things that no one aeronautics company could do. It's 
not corporate pork when NASA develops new design 
tools that enable companies to cut their cycle time 
down by a factor of two. That's what we're about. It's 
not Tang and Velcro. 

Communications — 1 just picked up the Mew 
York Times, and read an article about a petroleum 
exploration company that was all excited about a new 
technique they had that was information intensive at 
the site, but there was no way of getting the data out. 
We made the Advanced Communication Technology 
Satellite available to them and they're using this at 620 
megabytes of data that you can get in pulses. They are 
using this to find new sources of oil. If you go back 
about six or seven years, before we launched the 
Advanced Communication Technology Satellite, the 
foreseers of doom and gloom said, "NASA just wasted 
a half billion dollars on technology that industry should 
have been working on." But industry didn't have the 
money to work KA band at that time. And now 
America has a leadership role in KA band technology 
because we didn't listen to all the people who knew 
with certainty what couldn't be done, and we plowed 
ahead. We are now in the process of signing an agree- 
ment with the American communications industry — 
not just people in space communications, but terrestri- 
al communications. So NASA is going to work in a 
team approach with the communications industry, 
such that we will have the same relationship as with 
the aeronautics industry. It is very exciting, and guess 
what they told me was the No. 1 priority for NASA? 
They said they are worried that with a seamless global 


information system, that they would not be competi- 
tive because space launch was much too expensive. 
They said they cannot live with $10,000 a pound. 
Their spacecraft had come down in cost by a factor 
of five and soon would be coming down a factor of 10, 
and launch has consistently been $10,000 a pound. 

Here's the greatest country in the world and we 
haven't developed a new rocket engine in 25 years. We 
spend billions of dollars on propulsion. Again, I don't 
want to be critical of the people, but the system is sick. 
Billions of dollars in government expenditures, signifi- 
cant profits, and NASA, the US. government, and 
industry did not develop a new rocket engine in 25 
years. We're willing to settle for second-rate perfor- 
mance out of our launch vehicles. The payload mass 
fraction of American launch vehicles today is about 2 
percent. Europe and Japan have about 3 percent. 
There are technologies that could get us to 10 per- 
cent, but we're so focused on a program that should 
be 10, 20, 30 years out, that all we want to do is push 
the near term. We're so afraid of failure that we're 
afraid to fly things because they may fail. We're going 
to change that. I'll talk about that in a minute. 

I could go on and on, industry after industry, 
but my point is, NASA is more than Tang and Velcro. 
We are going to answer fundamental questions, and in 
answering these fundamental questions we are going 
to be forced to develop technologies that no one even 
thought about. 

One of our goals is to send an armada of 
robotic spacecraft to every important planetary body 
within our solar system over the next 15 years. In 
1992, the average cost of a scientific spacecraft at 
NASA was $600 million. It took on average eight years 
to develop. In 1992 we had only two planetary space- 
craft scheduled for the rest of the decade. Each of 
these spacecraft was in excess of a billion dollars. But 
we just started 10 programs. I would like to just read 
these out loud and give you a little sense about it. By 
the way, the scientific community and many in the 
engineering community said, "You must have big 
spacecraft, because without big spacecraft you can't 
do good science." Well, in October of 1993, we started 
the NEAR spacecraft and within 27 months it was 
launched. It is on its way to an asteroid three years 
out. This fall we're going to launch a lander that is 
going to go to Mars. We're going to launch an orbiter 
that goes to Mars; it will get there in July. We're going 
to launch a lander in '98 and an orbiter in '98. We're 
going to launch a microprobe in '99 that's going to be 
a spacecraft about the size of my fist, with a seismic 
station that's going to go on to Mars. We're launching 
a lunar prospector next year to see if there is water on 
the moon. Clementine gave us some sense that there 
might be some water in the southern craters on the 
moon. Lunar Prospector is going to find if there is 
water there. We're then going to launch a spacecraft 

called Stardust. It's going to rendezvous with a comet, 
go into the comet's tail, and collect some of the 
comet's dust. Perhaps we'll get some building blocks 
of proteins and put it in one sample container. Then it 
is going to fly and collect some intergalactic dust, put 
it in a second sample container, and return it to Earth 
for analysis. I see a grinning fellow here who is building 
it. And it happens to be a small company. 

We have Deep Space 1; we're going to put in 
an electric propulsion system. We spent 35 years 
developing electric propulsion. We're going to fly it in a 
year or two and we are going to prove that electric 
propulsion works so we'll be able to enhance our plan- 
etary missions. We have Deep Space 3, which will be 
launched in 1999. We're going to put interferometers 
into space and, based upon knowledge on the ground, 
we're going to test out these interferometers to estab- 
lish that we understand technology so that we could 
be able to image planets within 100 light years of 
Earth, if they exist, that are Earth size. But let me tell 
you how difficult this problem is. In order to make 
these measurements, we're going to have to build light 
buckets that are meters in diameter, we'll have to sepa- 
rate these light buckets by kilometers, and we'll have 
to know their position to within a trillionth of a meter. 

So with the metrology techniques we are going 

to develop for programs like Deep Space 3, 

we are going to be working cooperatively with 

the lithography industry to help it develop 

leap-frog changes in fueling the information 

age for America. 

We'll have to physically place them to a fraction of an 
inch, and we're going to have to locate them in an 
orbit somewhere out by Jupiter. The reason we go out 
to Jupiter is, we have this dust in our atmosphere, and 
when the sunlight reflects off it you get what's called 
zodiacal light that saturates the sensors. That's a 
tough problem. And when you take a look at the sur- 
face finishes that we have to put on these telescopes, 
the surface finish will have to be 10 times better than 
anything we've had. But isn't it interesting, that the lith- 
ography industry is just panting to work with us 
because we are beginning to saturate out in terms of 
building next-generation semiconductors. So with the 
metrology techniques we are going to develop for pro- 
grams like Deep Space 3, we are going to be working 
cooperatively with the lithography industry to help it 
develop leap-frog changes in fueling the information 
age for America. 

Now, there are 10 spacecraft here; the sum 
total of those 10 spacecraft is $1.3 billion. We started 
the first one in October '93, that is when we began the 
design. The last one is going to be launched in 1999. 



So in six years we're going to launch 10 spacecraft. 
The average cost is $130 million. 

Now, that's not enough. Ed Stone [director of 
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory] has taken the challenge 
to cut the cycle time down to a year and a half for 
spacecraft and to get us well into the tens and millions 
of dollars, because the vision we have is not a dozen 
spacecraft a year — but we want to launch dozens of 
spacecraft a year. 1 submit, I went to the rendezvous 
of Galileo with Jupiter and at that time, 1 was beat up 
because we're stopping the big programs at NASA. I 
submit that that's one heck of a lot of science. Then 1 
asked the wonderful people out at JPL to do a calcula- 
tion: Using today's technology, how much would it 
cost to build Galileo? One-fifth the price. Using technol- 
ogy from the new millennium program in the year 
2000, one-tenth the price. My challenge is— don't mea- 
sure dollars going in to measure the vitality of NASA, 
measure the science that is coming out. And 1 chal- 
lenge everyone in the room to throw off your old habits 
and say, if it has to be big it doesn't have to be heavy. 
If it has to be big, it doesn't have to be expensive. 

So here's a second challenge I pose to the 
astrophysical community. I said I want a Hubble Space 
Telescope that's one-thirtieth the weight and one-thirti- 
eth the cost. They held a workshop down at NASA 
Goddard, and are actually talking about it. When we 
built the Hubble, we built it exactly like you build a 
telescope on the ground. We took glass and we 
ground the glass and we polished the glass and we 
ground the glass and then we set up a metering truss 
to get the primary and secondary mirrors together and 
we ended up with a 25,000 pound system that only 
cost $2 billion and took a decade to develop. Then we 
launched it into orbit, and we were a little myopic. A 
little astigmatism didn't work too well. So we had to 
spend a half billion dollars to go fix the Hubble. This is 
a day and age when we understand adaptive control 
systems. This is a day and age when we understand 
new materials. 

My challenge is— don't measure dollars going 

in to measure the vitality of NASA, measure 

the science that is coming out. 

So here is the challenge, and we have all the 
people in the room that know how to do this, use laser 
beams for stiffness and not materials for stiffness. 
Think about a membrane that's adaptively controlled 
so you never have to check it out on the ground, and 
you launch it into space, you deploy the thing, and 
have just a floppy structure with a membrane for the 
collector, and this country could have the most unbe- 
lievable telescopes for a variety of applications. But it's 
simple, and part of the problem we had at NASA is we 


got so enamored in having organic programs, pro- 
grams that took on a life of their own, that saving the 
programs was more important than answering funda- 
mental questions. So organic programs are out and 
technology is in, and what we're doing is, we have a 
technology program that's baseline. We're going to 
have test launches through the new millennium pro- 
gram, so we'll design a little, build a little, test a little, 
design a little, build a little, test a little. 

We now have renaissance in flight and our 
aeronautics program where we are building X-planes. 
We just rolled out an X-plane at McDonnell Douglas- 
two aircraft, piloted from the ground, $17 million — 
design, development, fabrication, and initial opera- 
tions, 18 feet long, wing span 10 feet, no tail. Now, 
that's one heck of a plane for $17 million. So I chal- 
lenge everyone: Get rid of your old habits, you don't 
need big bucks. 

The problem we have, there is such resistance, 
and people hold on so long that they — and again I 
value my relationship with members of Congress — but 
every time a corporation goes to the U.S. Congress to 
protect jobs and dollars in their district, you take life 
out of the nation's space program, and you don't 
answer fundamental questions. And, I ask you to go 
home and search your soul tonight and look in the 
mirror and see if maybe, maybe one or two people in 
this room do this. We're going to fight to the end, door 
to door and street to street. We are not going to 
destroy America's space program to protect jobs. 
We're going to generate a future for this country, and 
that's the direction we are going in. 

Now, 1 am very proud of the relationship that 
NASA has with our contractors and our scientists. And 
frustrated as I am, 1 am also happy. I'll give you a sta- 
tistic. The General Accounting Office did a study of 
NASA in 1992, and the average cost growth on our 
programs was 77 percent. We were sinning real bad, 
along with the Congress and the administration, 
because we kept changing things, and we would never 
identify the requirements in the beginning. We are now 
having a 5 percent underrun, after we descoped all the 
programs and in almost all cases held the schedules. 
The only place we're missing schedules is where we had 
problems with a new series of launch vehicles, and we 
fell behind on a few, but other than that, schedules have 
either held constant or been accelerated. That is one 
heck of a record for American industry, American uni- 
versities, and a government agency. We have Centers of 
Excellence at NASA. This is a very tough job. 

The president asked us to cut our budget with- 
out canceling programs, and I am proud to say in the 
last few years we have just slashed the budget; we took 
it out of overhead and bureaucracy, and we didn't cut 
programs. But what have we done? We found that at 
each NASA center, good people, government employ- 


ees had marketing teams that would stroll the halls of 
headquarters looking to start hot dog stands, scientif- 
ic hot dog stands, and technology hot dog stands. 
This didn't add value, and they had their industrial 
counterparts walking side by side with them. They had 
the Chamber of Commerce supporting these activi- 
ties; it takes life out of the program. Now we have 
some resistance, and 1 understand the human aspects 
of this, but America will never do the things I just 
talked about if all we do is protect scientific hot dog 
stands. We intend within the next few years to have no 
overlap within the NASA program. We had five centers 
doing similar things. We had five airfields with planes 
when we could operate with virtual presence on 
planes. We had five centers that were responsible for 
expendable launch vehicles. Fine, and good people 
are getting very concerned about their survival, but we 
all have to do is say we're here to support the 
American people. That survival is more important 
than anything else in our future. We had an imbalance 
in the space program. 

In 1992, 49 percent of the budget went to 
human space flight, and about 30 percent went into 
aeronautics, technology, and science R&D. We are 
now at 39 percent for human space flight and 43 per- 
cent for aeronautics, technology, and science R&D. 
We're getting a shuttle with a much higher reliability, 
while we took the budget down and cut the percent- 
age, and the budget came down. In 1989, on ascent, 
the shuttle had a 1 in 78 probability of not making it. 
Today it is 1 in 246, and it is going to continue to go 
up, and we're going to announce very soon a new 
investment program in shuttle reliability. That's how 
you get reliability, by designing it in, not inspecting it 
in. There is a very high concern that the shuttle is not 
going to be safe because we're changing it. You know 
people are saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The 
shuttle ain't fixed yet. And we're going to fix it even 
better. We intend to go from $10,000 a pound, where 
we are today, to $1,000 a pound in launch. This is a 
national priority. The budget came down; we repro- 
grammed a billion dollars; we didn't go whining back 
to Congress saying, "Hey, we want to start a new pro- 
gram, we need new money." We prioritized what we 
were doing, and we made a billion dollars available. 
There are RFP's (requests for proposal) out right now 
for the X-33 and the X-34. The X-33 will be about 
Mach 17, and the X-34 will be Mach 8. In May, we're 
going to fly the DC-XA with a whole host of new tech- 
nologies in it. We'll get some data back, and we will 
not have to wait 10 years and spend 10 billion dollars 
and have an organic program. We had a goal of hav- 
ing spacecraft not cost $600 million a copy; today 
they cost $200 million a copy. We want them to cost 
tens of millions a copy at the turn of the century. We 
don't want them to take eight years like they took in 
'92 or four years like they take now. We want the cycle 

time to be one and a half years from design to 
launch. This is the direction we are going in. 

Another thing we are proud of is we have con- 
verted 40 percent of our procurement budget, and we 
have taken NASA out of the role of being a system 
integrator. We have handed over to industry the Space 
Station. We're in the process of transitioning the shut- 
tle, and I know people are worried. They say, "How 
could NASA get out of the business of operating the 
shuttle?" Well I ask you, with the wonderful aerospace 
industry we have in this country — control rooms are 
being built, launch centers are being built, spacecraft 
are being launched with a very high precision — how 
are we ever going to open the space frontier if the gov- 
ernment does everything? How would you like to fly on 
American Airlines or United Airlines if the federal gov- 
ernment operated it? Why are people so terrified of 
going to the finest aerospace companies in the world 
and asking them to operate the shuttle? We can't be 
afraid of change in America. I want to tell you, good 
people are worried about non-problems. I also want to 
say we're going to make the shuttle as safe as 
humanly possible, but you can't go to the frontier and 
get the rewards if you're not willing to take the risks and 
your stomachs are not strong enough for it. I cannot 
stand up here and guarantee you that the shuttle will fly 
without a problem. But I'm also confident that America 
is not going to shirk and get all hot and sweaty if we 
have a problem. We'll fly again very, very soon if we 
have a problem, and we'll make it better and better. But 
we can't be afraid of turning government functions over 
to industry. We have got to open the space frontier. 

I also want to say we're going to make the 
shuttle as safe as humanly possible, but you 

can't go to the frontier and get the rewards 

if you're not willing to take the risks and your 

stomachs are not strong enough for it. 

We had a bidders conference at NASA because 
we are getting out of the space operations business. 
We're getting out of the space information business, 
and we're going to bring in industry. We thought about 
50 people would come, but more than 300 showed 
up. We're going to have a wild and crazy competition, 
and we're just going to get the government out of the 
operations business. All this adds up to about $4 to $5 
billion a year out of a procurement budget that's $1 1.5 
billion. I am very proud to get the government out of 
things it doesn't need to be doing and in the mean- 
time strengthen American industry. The president has 
been very supportive of this. 

We're downsizing NASA. We signed up to elim- 
inate one-third of our work force and roughly half of 
these people are gone, without any forced NASA-wide 



layoffs so far. We're going to go from 25,000 employ- 
ees to 17,000, give or take a few, and a total work 
force of 215,000 to 160,000. We are about halfway 
there on the contractors. The amazing thing is, our 
productivity went up 40 percent. It's unbelievable; we 
started 30 new programs while we cut the budget 36 
percent. We didn't do it alone; everybody in this room 
did it. We changed our attitudes; we changed the 
approach. So I am very, very optimistic about the 

I am optimistic that together we're on the right 
path and I want to read something to you. I was on 
talk radio on Tuesday in Kansas City, Missouri. 
Someone called up and said, "Dan, have you ever 
been to the Linda Hall Library?," and I said, "Mo, 1 
don't even know what the Linda Hall Library is." They 
said, "Do you realize the Linda Hall Library is the 
largest scientific library in America?" 1 said,"No." They 
said, "Why don't you go over there?" So I went over 

there and 1 met some fantastic people. I said, "Show 
me something really fun." So they took out a book for 
me. It had a deer skin cover, and the book was written 
by Nicholas Copernicus of Turin, printed in 1543— and 
these hands touched that book. It was unbelievable. 
Now Copernicus was exploring the unknown, and he 
wasn't trying to develop Tang and Velcro. He had 
unbelievable pain and suffering, as did Galileo, who 
followed him. And I touched Galileo's book also. 
Galileo took that book with him to his deathbed. 
Galileo had the courage to say that Copernicus was 
right. The Earth revolves around the sun; the sun does 
not revolve around the Earth. He had unbelievable 
pain and suffering. And the church absolved him just a 
few years ago. I hope it doesn't take that long for me. 
But in the book the publisher wrote— and it was really 
wild, I mean this is just a hundred years after they 
started printing books— the publisher said, buy this 
book, read it and enjoy. Thank you very much. 


International Space Station and Spe 


Steve P. Scott 

Program Development Manager 
Rockwell Space System Division 


Lon L. Rains 



Prof. Ernesto Vallerani 


Alenia Spazio, Italy 

Dr. Alexander N. Kuznetsov 

Deputy Director General 
Russian Space Agency 


William MacDonald "Mac" Evans 


Canadian Space Agency 

James R Noblitt 

Vice President & General Manager 
Missiles & Space Division 
Boeing Defense & Space Group 

Michael W. Wynne 

Vice President & General Manager 

Space Systems 

Lockheed Martin Astronautics 

Thomas R. Rogers 


Space Transportation Association 

Mr. Scott: Lon Rains will be leading the afternoon's 
session on the International Space Station and Space 
Launch Capabilities. Lon is the editor of Space Mews 
and brings with him a broad knowledge of internation- 
al space programs as well as an in depth understand- 
ing of current political and econmic issues. Lon, 
please come up to the stage. Ladies and gentlemen, 
please give a warm welcome for Mr. Lon Rains. 

Mr. Rains: The topics of this afternoon's session cover 
two of the costliest activities in space: the International 
Space Station and space launch. 

With political support in Europe and the United 
States now secure, the focus in the International 
Space Station program now shifts to getting the hard- 
ware built, launched, and assembled on time. Russians 
and Americans have had their bumps in the road this 
year — both in hardware development and in reaching 
an agreement on the amount of money to be paid to 
Russia and in getting that money transferred to the 
Russian organizations building the hardware. 

The challenge facing all of the Space Station 
partners over the next several years is a big one, and I 
look forward to hearing our panelists discuss where 
things in the program stand now and how well they are 
positioned to fulfill their mission on time and on budget. 

Space launch, which has always been the most 
expensive part of any space endeavor, is undergoing a 
period of profound change. Competition in the indus- 
try is growing, and as it does, the business is becom- 
ing increasingly international. Our panelists today will 
talk about the state of the industry today and where it 
is headed in the future. 

Our first speaker is Professor Ernesto Vallerani, 
chairman of Alenia Spazio. He was the local project 

manager and later the technical director for the space 
lab program for Air Italia. He became the general 
director of the space sector in 1980 and was appoint- 
ed to his current position in 1991. 

Prof. Vallerani: Thank you very much. Ladies and gen- 
tleman, I would like to speak about the Space Station 
as an opportunity to expand space activities and 
explore its utilization. After several years gestation and 
quite a number of difficulties that have greatly modi- 
fied its design, the International Space Station has 
passed the critical point in the decision process and 
now is finally facing the more technical difficulties that 
any space program has to suffer before the maiden 
injection into orbit. 

The start of operations of such a complex sys- 
tem, which comprises the contribution of so many dif- 
ferent countries, is undoubtedly going to mark a pro- 
found change in the way space activities will be con- 
ducted in orbit in the future. 

We all know the controversy originated in the 
United States by a part of the scientific community 
against the realization of such a costly program; the 
debate has spread around the world, and in many 
cases fierce disputes have arisen. 

The intention has been to make the Space 
Station the symbol of a "dividing element," with parti- 
sans in favor and others against. Mot only have differ- 
ent concepts on how better to accomplish the scientif- 
ic research in space have collided, but mainly interests 
of various nature have clashed. Notwithstanding that 
the echoes of such a battle are not yet fully softened, 
there is, at least with the exclusion of the most aggres- 
sive opposition, a widespread acceptance of the fact 
that the Space Station is going to be in short time a 



reality one has to live with, and the sooner its potential 
is understood the better. 

The availability of a large, permanently manned 
space base in low-Earth orbit, designed to become a 
laboratory to conduct a large variety of experiments in 
the yet unknown space environment, will prove to be a 
very powerful tool to expand and to spring the 
research in different fields. 

The utilization of the Space Station has the 
potential to stimulate the enlargement of research to 
different fields of activities not yet touched by the ini- 
tiatives so far undertaken in space. 

The number of hours during which working activi- 
ties and scientific researches have been performed in orbit 
is still limited, even if largely increased over the last years, 
to draw any conclusive assessment of the real value of the 
potential of operating in the space environment. 

Very encouraging results have been so far 
accumulated, and a number of promising perspectives 
are being unveiled; it is time now to engage systematic 
researches in different directions to be in the position, 
later on, to reap the reward. 

A fundamental feature of the actual Space 
Station is its international nature; the presence of the 
Russians — in addition to the Europeans, Japanese, and 
Canadians — has rendered the approach more complete 
and really worldwide. The United States has maintained a 
position of leadership that is needed in any enterprise, 
especially of such dimensions, but the weight of the part- 
ners has increased, leading to a more balanced situation. 

The enlargement of the number of countries 
involved in the construction of the International Space 
Station Alpha has introduced additional complexities in 
the design of the whole but has enlarged the commit- 
ment to utilize it to a wider community of scientists 
and researchers across the world. 

The challenge of the Space Station is moving 
from its design and construction to its utilization; it is 
true that a lot has yet to be done, to come to the com- 
pletion of its final configuration in orbit, but even more 
has to be conceived, planned, and definitively agreed 
upon on its utilization. 

The Space Station represents an extremely 
engaging enterprise requiring commitments over long 
periods of time. 

The front end of this endeavor is the design, 
development, and construction of the various elements 
forming the space base; of equal challenge and impor- 
tance are its utilization that requires the mobilization of 
the scientific communities and of the advanced tech- 
nology operators and its operations that implies a new 
integrated approach involving industrial capabilities 
and resources. 

Italy, from the very early dialogues with which 
the U.S. government was opening in 1984, the possi- 

bility of participating to the allied countries, has 
demonstrated a strong and continuous interest in par- 
ticipating in the Space Station. 

Participation, for us, has always meant a share 
of responsibility in providing elements at the level of 
hardware/software, that is to say, a participation in the 
construction of the Space Station. Our interest, from 
the very beginning, has gone beyond this point, 
having in mind the utilization and the operation of 
the Space Station as reflected in the NASA-ASI 

Italian Contribution to the ISSA 

For several years, the Italian government has had 
a positive attitude toward space activities, and our bud- 
gets have been progressively increasing, especially after 
the foundation of the Italian Space Agency in 1988. 

Space has been, and is, considered important 
for many aspects: for the potential of the applications, 
such as telecommunication, Earth observation, and 
meteorology as well as for the scientific opportunities 
opened in different fields, and last, but not least, for the 
technological developments space activities require to be 
developed to accomplish complex missions successfully. 

Fig. IS- 101 

It has been recognized that without a compe- 
tent and solid industry, specifically dedicated to, and 
deeply specialized in, space activities, no real progress 
can be achieved and no benefit from the investment 
made can be sought, and the spinoff from space pro- 
grams cannot be diffused to other fields. 

For that reason, selected aeronautical and elec- 
tronics industries have been favored in their specializa- 
tion to become an integrated space industry, as has 
been the case of Alenia Spazio that has progressively 
grown from subsystem-level entities to a system-level 
industry with full capacities to design and construct 
complete sophisticated systems with the support of 
other specialized industries [Fig. IS- 101]. 


MPLM Pressurized Shell 

Fig. IS- 102 

A constant line in the strategy of our country in 
dealing with space matters has always been to favor 
"international cooperation." 

Italy has supported the creation of the Euro- 
pean Space Agency and has largely contributed to 
funding the European programs; in parallel, our gov- 
ernment, recognizing the leading role of the United 
States in the space field, has favored, as much as pos- 
sible, cooperation with the CInited States. 

NASA and ASI, the Italian Space Agency, have 
enjoyed several bilateral cooperative programs, such 
as Tethered, Lageos, SAR X, and IRIS, that have 
strengthened the links between the two space agencies 
as well as the ones between the leading industries in 
the two countries. 

The attention of our governments to capture 
the opportunities of participating in new challenging 
ventures, full of potential for the future developments, 
and the willingness to reinforce the spirit of coopera- 
tion with the CInited States have, since the early phases 
of the initiative, made Italy a strong supporter of the 
Space Station. 

Our strategy of participation has materialized 
along two lines. Within Europe, Italy has been, together 
with Germany, very active in supporting the Columbus 
program, that, born as a bilateral German-Italian pro- 
gram, only successively was transferred to ESA to 
become the basis of the European contribution to the 
Space Station Freedom [Fig. IS- 102]. 

In addition to such an initiative, our country 
has conducted discussions and negotiations with the 
United States that have led to a memorandum of 
understanding between NASA and ASI, signed in 
December 1991, that has established a bilateral coop- 
eration between USA and Italy through which Italy pro- 
vides to NASA the pressurized logistic carriers named 
MPLM (mini pressurized logistics module) to serve the 
operation of the International Space Station Alpha 
[Fig. IS- 103]. 

In conjunction with the critical period our 
country has been experiencing in the last years, also 

Fig. IS- 103 

the space activities have suffered not only from finan- 
cial limitation but also, and even more, from the crisis 
which our space agency has been facing as a result of 
personal internal conflicts that frequently have had 
anything to do with the revision of the strategies that 
are by someone requested to happen. 

The old dispute on the scientific utility and jus- 
tification of the Space Station has been reopened, and 
an attempt has been made by few representatives — 
exponents of the scientific community — to raise the 
issue of blocking the continuation of our participation 
to the Space Station, proposing other programs con- 
sidered more efficient to respond to their scientific 
interest and to the ones of industries excluded from 
the agreed and approved programs. 

In view of the ministerial conference held in 
Toulouse in fall of 1995, these issues became very hot, 
but finally, as one could reasonably expect, the Italian 
government, through the voice of their minister of 
research, confirmed, even in presence of the financial 
limitations that are troubling almost all the countries, 
our support to the European programs and, in particu- 
lar, to Columbus that was fixing definitively the 
European participation in the International Space 
Station Alpha. 

Meantime, thanks especially to the action of 
our ministers of foreign affairs, continuity was ensured 
to the bilateral cooperation between NASA and ASI, 
and the full line of involvement in the cooperation 
effort in support of the Space Station was maintained 
and confirmed. 

The aftereffects of the polemics are fading, 
even if the results of the "Commission of Five," estab- 
lished by the minister to provide elements on the strat- 
egy for future space activities, have turned out not 
favorable to the Space Station and its utilization. 

Recently, at the end of March, ESA signed with 
DASA-RI, the prime contractor of the Columbus 
Orbiting Facility program, the contract for the execu- 
tion of the C/D Phases, finally authorizing the 



Fig. IS- 104 

go-ahead on the construction of the flight hardware. 
Meanwhile, Spazio Alenia is progressing with the final 
discussion with AS1 to obtain the contractual coverage 
for the completion of the MPLM program. 

The activities on the logistic modules are well 
in progress, and ASI, with our support, has actively 
participated the last week of March, to the NASA 1DR 
2A held in Houston. 

In our facility in Turin, the construction of the 
first full module of the engineering unit has been 
recently completed. The complex welding of the vari- 
ous panels of the outer shell has been performed with 
extreme success, after the process was qualified 
through a comprehensive set of tests on parts repre- 
sentatives of the various configuration. 

The design activities are progressing as well 
to match the planned delivery of the first flight unit in 
March '98, in order to satisfy the December '98 date 
for the first flight. From there on, the Italian logistic 
modules will serve the Space Station in its construc- 
tion phases and, later on, will be used to support the 
operation of the ISSA. 

It has to be understood that the three MPLM 
modules provided by ASI to NASA are the only pres- 
surized carriers foreseen to fly on board the orbiter to 
be utilized to service the International Space Station. 

The Italian pressurized logistic modules will be 
used to transport supplies and materials, including user 
experiments of mass up to about 10 tons; they are 
designed to provide two major features simultaneously: 
logistic carrier supporting passive as well as active, cap- 
able of being flown numerous times, and elements pro- 
viding habitable work space to allow operation in orbit. 

The high level of involvement of Italy in the 
ISSA program, as briefly outlined and recalled, is clear- 
ly the demonstration of the conviction that the Space 
Station is seen by us as an extraordinary opportunity to 
expand space activities. 

Not only has the government been investing in 

the Columbus and MPLM programs supporting ISSA, 
but industry, at least our industry that has for long time 
supported these initiatives also when lacking complete 
funding of the activities in progress, has also invested 
in production facilities and tools as well as in techno- 
logical developments to maintain and improve our 
position as leader in Europe in the design and con- 
struction of pressurized manned modules. 

Our conviction that the Space Station is going 
to represent a fundamental step in the enlargement of 
space activities worldwide has led us to engage our- 
selves, as much as possible in every venture linked 
somehow to its operation and development. An exam- 
ple, dating back several years, is the fundamental role 
our company has had in the development of Spacehab 
[Fig. IS-104J that now is successfully flying on board 
the orbiter in its mission to MIR. 

In the expectation that once operative the sta- 
tion will prove capable of further growth, we are con- 
tinuously searching for opportunities to support such 

In the last months, we have been engaged in 
proposals to offer to NASA derivatives from our basic 
logistic module to serve as housing of the centrifuge 
that is needed to expand the research capabilities of 
the existing ISSA in the growing field of life sciences. 

Our attention is as well focused on what are 
called space facilities, that is to say sophisticated 
equipment designed to serve a large community of 
users providing them with the efficient means to per- 
form their experiments in space. 

Space Station is quite a powerful laboratory, 
offering a large amount of valuable resources to the 
users; it is equipped with a variety of facilities to operate 
different types of researches and activities, but, for sure, 
once in operation it will require the development of 
many more of such facilities like furnaces, incubators, 
dedicated laboratories, and specialized equipment. 

Alenia Spazio has been working for several 
years in this field, developing for ESA the autonomous 
fluid physics module (AFPM) and the bubble, drop, 
and particle unit (BDPU) specifically dedicated 
to experiments in fluid physics that have successfully 
flown, respectively, on the Spacelab D2 mission (April 
1993) and on the Spacelab IML-2 mission (July 1994). 

Alenia Spazio is the candidate prime contractor 
for the fluid science laboratory (FSL), reconfigurable, 
multi-use equipment to carry out numerous different 
fluid sciences experiments as part of the ESAs micro- 
gravity program, to be launched with COF in the year 

In addition to these activities performed on 
agency contracts, we are evaluating the opportunities 
to develop specialized space facilities to be offered to 
the future users of the Space Station. 


If private capital has to be invested in space 
activities to prepare for an expansion of the sector, we 
believe this could be a promising area of high potential 
due to the positive effects it could have on the expan- 
sion of the Space Station utilization, in general for 
scientific, but also technological, purposes. 

Another outstanding opportunity to expand 
space activities beyond the area of design and con- 
struction of flight hardware is offered to industries by 
the need to ensure the Space Station all the services 
that are required to support, maintain, and operate it 
in orbit. 

As part of these activities to be conducted on 
ground, Italy is also engaged in the construction and 
implementation of an ASI center located in Turin, 
called ALTEC (ASI Logistic Technological Engineering 
Center), aimed at supporting the Italian and European 
utilization of ISSA by providing engineering logistic and 
payload integration services. 

Alenia Spazio is the leading industrial contrac- 
tor for the development and, later on, for the opera- 
tions of such a center. The center is already operative 
and has supported with success the Euromir 95 mis- 
sion, in particular the three Italian experiments (T2, 
Verification Approach for Microbial Contamination; 
T4, Human Posture Experiment; and T7, Robotic 

Perspectives of Expanded Utilization 

The many studies on Space Station and its uti- 
lization, the first dating back nearly 30 years, were tar- 
geted at identifying as many as possible fields of utiliza- 
tion of the permanently manned space outposts and 
promising areas that would justify the large investments 
expected to be made to develop the Space Station. 

There was a time when electrophoresis, protein 
growth, crystal formation were identified as potentials 
to generate the "none product" of extreme value that 
by itself would have justified the return of investment 
on the Space Station. 

Too much expectation was raised for such 
types of activities with strong commercial implications 
that, with only limited research background, would 
have immediately achieved striking results; we too 
often tend to forget that the amount of time dedicated 
to conduct research activities in space is quite limited 
and that a large number of different initiatives have 
surfaced without having the real opportunity to explore 
in depth the potential of each single research. 

The decision to embark into the development 
of the Space Station was taken in the United States 
without proof that its utilization would have led easily 
to definitive positive results; the same happened when 
Europe and the other countries like Japan and Canada 
decided to join. This attitude is absolutely correct; the 

Space Station is destined to become a multi-purpose, 
multi-discipline laboratory, able to operate in space for 
several years. It is a unique opportunity for research, in 
whatever field, to be conducted in the new environ- 
ment typical of low-Earth orbits; unique point of view 
of our Earth as a whole; unique point of view of the 
universe free from contamination of Earth's atmos- 
phere; unique point of experimentation of the 
absolutely new effects of microgravity; and last, but 
not least, unique opportunity to verify and to develop 
new technologies to be applied in the design and con- 
struction of the next generation of spacecraft. 

The presence of man on board makes the dif- 
ference with respect to what can be done with other 
space systems. The long duration of the mission and 
the unique factor that we can recover facilities, payloads 
as well as the products of the research introduces unpre- 
cedented possibilities and offers unique possibilities. 

Being afraid to be asked, as it is said, "to pay 
the bill," a number of scientists of disciplines for which 
the Space Station does not offer a unique possibility, 
instead of orienting new researches on the exploitation 
of the Space Station potential preferred to continue to 
utilize, in a conventional way, smaller satellites and 
payloads for which they are convinced they are in the 
position to control better. 

The presence of man on board makes the 

difference with respect to what can be done 

with other space systems. 

Meantime, also the military interest has largely 
been diminished, and the delays introduced by the 
Challenger accident have discouraged the few com- 
mercial enterprises so that, at the end, the Space 
Station utilization was largely identified only with 
microgravity research in the fields of life sciences and 
material sciences. 

It is time now to give vigorous support to an 
enlargement of the disciplines to achieve wider interests 
in Space Station utilization from different research com- 
munities, the scientific as well as the technological ones. 

Now that the space agencies have secured the 
development of the various elements of the ISSA and 
that industries are all at work to meet the schedules 
of the delivery of the many parts that will finally match 
into the gigantic mosaic of the flying configuration, all 
attention is moving toward the utilization more empha- 
tically than in the past. 

As said, in its long design evolution the Space 
Station was always intended to be a manned orbiting 
laboratory for microgravity research, other disciplines 
being considered to the extent compatible with such a 
primary focus. 



Although the various utilization studies so far 
undertaken by the involved space agencies have origi- 
nated already different application concepts, only 
recently have areas other than microgravity gained 
greater attention and weight in the utilization scenario. 
The evolution can be seen as a result, among 
other factors, of the changes in orbital characteristics 
and crew size that the new station has undergone. 

The ISSA's orbital inclination— planned today 
to be 51.6 degrees, instead of the 28.5 of the Space 
Station Freedom, and its altitude being lowered from 
500 kilometers to about 400 kilometers— make the 
station more attractive for disciplines such as Earth 
observation, remote sensing, atmospheric and ionos- 
pheric physics, and communication applications. 

The reduction of the crew size from eight to six 
astronauts, in the fully operational phase, has favored 
payloads with a higher degree of autonomy and has 
enlarged the potential of robotized applications and 
of tele-science. 

The Space Station redesign efforts have thus 
resulted in a sharper definition of the orbital complex 
capabilities and constraints and have prompted a 
reassessment of its utilization. As a consequence, 
though microgravity research still gets the lion's share, 
other areas, such as technology development and test- 
ing, remote sensing, and communications, have been 
included in payload increments at an increasing rate. 

Indeed, the very characteristics of the ISSA 
complex make it an ideal outpost for those remote 
sensing and communications applications which 
require neither extreme ground coverage nor extremely 
accurate pointing, but which definitely benefit from 
ground track and orbital condition repetitions. 

The prospect of enlarging interest to utilize the 
Space Station for different purposes seems to 
exist and to be slowly but steadily developing. 

Furthermore, remote sensing and telecommu- 
nications applications operate over long time periods 
with minimal crew involvement, a bonus in the sta- 
tion's crew-tight operational framework. Commun- 
ication and remote sensing equipment also takes up 
resources mostly at unpressurized locations and has 
moderate requirements that can be scheduled. 

Mainly for historical reasons, the Earth observa- 
tion and communications communities have only 
recently been involved in Space Station utilization pro- 
motion efforts, and, consequently, some catch-up 
activities are planned to review the potential applicabili- 
ty of payload elements being developed or envisaged 
in the EOB and COM fields to the ISSA scenario. 

Laser interference and scattering instruments 
as well as radar for atmospheric (wind and rain) moni- 
toring or for geodesy represent typical items matching, 
at first inspection, the ISSA constraints, as do instru- 
ments for atmospheric composition studies using opti- 
cal or radio signal absorption by the Earth limb and 
optical communications systems. 

It is worth pointing out that interference-based 
instruments accommodated on board the ISSA com- 
plex, as well as communications technology (e.g., 
laser- based, both transmitter and receiver) ones, 
would definitely benefit from the simultaneous pres- 
ence on orbit of other free-flying platforms with similar 
instruments, e.g., the Envisat platform. Other systems, 
such as tether-based ones, may test alternate trans- 
portation, attitude control, and rendezvous and com- 
munications (ELF/QLF) techniques and, possibly, sup- 
port station operations. 

They would also levy very moderate, if any, 
resupply requirements on the ISSA logistic (i.e., trans- 
portation) system and would most likely not perturb 
the station's dynamical environment in the bandwidth 
relevant to microgravity investigations due to their 
small masses. 

While the outcome of the assessments being 
carried out by the respective user communities and by 
the relevant agencies needs to be awaited before more 
detailed payload increment definitions can include 
EOB and COM payload elements, the relevance of 
ISSA for non-microgravity related, and for Earth obser- 
vation and communications in particular, cannot be 
overstated, as the typical instruments adopted by these 
disciplines are usually well-suited for long duration, 
high orbital inclination space missions, with low crew 
involvement, reduced logistics, and moderate resource 

The prospect of enlarging interest to utilize the 
Space Station for different purposes seems to exist 
and to be slowly but steadily developing. 

We can notice more easily what is happening 
in Italy; several years ago, immediately before the 
Challenger tragedy, we performed a wide spectrum 
survey of the potential interests of the Italian scientific 
community and of the national research centers as 
well as of the high-tech industries, collecting a largely 
positive response. 

The delays in the recovery of the flight opportu- 
nities and the continuous postponements of the Space 
Station operation have discouraged all the interested 
people so that up to some time ago there seemed that 
only very few were maintaining their interests. 

Today, as the time when the station will be 
orbited draws near, and also due to the revitalization of 
the utilization programs in ESA, we can detect a rather 
favorable situation: At least 12 organizations in Italy are 




MARS, Microgravity Advanced Research 
Centre, Napoli 

IFCAM, Italian Research Council 

Science Park S. Raffaele/DIBIT 

Astronomical Observatory of Turin 

University of Naples, Department of Engineering Services 

University of Genoa, Department of Earth Sciences 

University of Rome, Department of Medicine/INRCA 

University of Rome, School of Aerospace Medicine 

Italian Research Council/MASPEC, Parma 

University of Udine, Department of Medicine 

Polytechnic of Milan, Centre of Bioengineering 

University of Perugia, Department of Hygiene 

CARSO, Centre for Advanced Research in 
Space Optics, Trieste 

Main field of interest: Fluid Science 
Focal point: Prof. R. Montil 

Main field of interest: Material Science 
Focal point: Dr. A. Passerone 

Main field of interest: Human Physiology/Biotechnology 
Focal point: Prof. P.C. Marchisio 

Main field of interest: Solar Physics 
Focal point: Prof. E. Antonucci 

Main field of interest: Earth Observation 
Focal point: Prof. S. Vetrella 

Main field of interest: Crystal Growth 
Focal point: Prof. R. Bedarida 

Main field of interest: Human Physiology 
Focal point: Dott. F. Strollo 

Main field of interest: Human Physiology Cardiology 
Focal point: Prof. A. Scano 

Main field of interest: Material Processing 
Focal point: Dott. L. Zanotti 

Main field of interest: Human Physiology/Biomechanics 
Focal point: Prof. Di Prampero 

Main field of interest: Human Physiology/Biomechanics 
Focal point: Prof. A. Pedotti 

Main field of interest: Biology/Contamination 
Focal point: Prof. M. Pitzurra 

Main field of interest: Astrophysics 
Focal point: Prof. R. Stalio 

demonstrating sincere and definitive interest in the 
ISSA utilization (see table above). 

We expect that in a short time ASI will again 
take the initiative to give vigorous support in Italy to 
the utilization of the Space Station. 

At this time we believe the Italians are in a 
quite favorable position: it must be recalled that as 
part of the NASA/ASI memorandum of understanding, 
Italy will receive from NASA free access to the Space 
Station for its utilization as a counterpart for the supply 
of the three mini pressurized logistic modules. 

The wording of the agreement, under revision 
now to take into account the new situation after the 
extension of participation to the Russians, speaks of 
percentage of racks allocation, of external parts, of 
power, of crew time available for the Italian users. 

These valuable possibilities, that some in our 
scientific community seem not to have fully appreciat- 
ed—once properly advertised and transformed into 
real research plans — are going to stimulate vigorously, 
we believe, the research activities in our country in sev- 
eral fields. 



Some indications of interest, also from the more 
advanced industries, seem to be coming to the surface; 
recently the Ferrari car manufacturer has indicated its 
intention to conduct experiments on board the station. 
We hope that many more will demonstrate their interest 
for such a type of research; in particular, the space com- 
panies themselves surprisingly have not yet fully evaluat- 
ed the potential of utilizing the Space Station as a labo- 
ratory for their technologies and product developments. 
Several changes can be foreseen once we all will have 
available a fully operative laboratory in space. 

Utilization of the Space Station 

In past years, space programs have progres- 
sively become a test for international cooperation; the 
activities of ESA in Europe are by far the most elo- 
quent example of how up to 13 countries have joined 
resources to achieve common goals. On the CIS. side, 
cooperation with different countries has been going on 
for many years and has given quite positive results. 
SpaceLab, the European laboratory that has flown 13 
times so far on board the orbiter, is a remarkable 
demonstration that coordinated development of syner- 
gic flight products provide benefit on both sides. 

At a national level, we just mentioned the rele- 
vance that cooperation with the United States has had 
for Italy and is having to support our space programs. 
Now we have in front of us the International Space 
Station Alpha, the most spectacular example of interna- 
tional cooperation. Americans and Russians are working 
together to build the largest space complex ever con- 
ceived, and Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians are 
part of the same team, providing their invaluable contri- 
bution to form a "unicorn" that for years will remain the 
symbol of a joint effort encompassing three continents 
and involving all the most advanced and technologically 
powerful countries in the world. 

Let's not debate the way in which such cooper- 
ation has evolved and the reasons that have supported 
it; maybe we would discover that rather than a true 
willingness to join efforts in such an enterprise the dri- 
ving factor was the need to share the investments and 
the risks. In any case, here we are, with such a com- 
plex structure of agreements and such a difficult 
mosaic of contribution, let's appreciate the final result 
that is quite remarkable: We will have the Space 
Station and the beginning of the new millennium. 

The problem now is how the Space Station will 
be operated and maintained in orbit for its life, which 
is expected to last 20 or more years. The real cost to 
operate such an orbital complex will be one of the 
major, if not the major, factors affecting the success of 
its utilization. 

Starting from the U.S. government, which does 
have the largest involvement, new schemes are being 

discussed. The so-called industrialization of the Space 
Station operations and logistics is going to open 
extremely interesting and challenging opportunities in 
new type of activities. After having developed the hard- 
ware and software needed to construct the internation- 
al complex, industries must face, in the near future, 
the problem to offer services in support of the Space 
Station operations. 

The station's international nature requires that 
a selected team of aerospace industries make a large 
integrated cooperative effort to offer a viable solution 
that will satisfy the requirements and needs of the 
involved space agencies and nations. 

Initial contacts are being made to this extent 
among industries to prepare such undertakings that 
will have a fundamental impact on the equilibriums of 
the leading industrial entities all over the world. 

In order to prepare the advent of the Space 
Station properly and to exploit its full potential, a plan 
for its utilization has to be elaborated. A strategy of uti- 
lization needs to be conceived and agreed upon in due 
time; that means several years before the utilization 
comes to action. 

The complexity of the problem and the fact 
that a large number of actors are involved require that 
right now a highly coordinated effort has to be initiated 
by NASA and the other space agencies to mature the 
required solutions. 

This problem, of course, is well evident to the 
responsibilities of the various organizations in charge 
of preparing these plans. In different countries, with 
different levels of maturity, activities are going on at all 
levels, from the competent authorities and agencies to 
the leading research centers, down to the single 

The not too frequent opportunities to fly experi- 
ments on board Spacelab or Spacehab, and now on 
MIR, are used to advance research activities and to 
prepare for the oncoming Space Station era. 

Some form of coordination exists between the 
activities performed and in progress or under study in 
the various interested countries. What we are afraid is 
not sufficiently developed is a common strategy to 
jointly plan the future utilization. 

We must not forget that in a few months time 
the amount of payloads that can be operated on board 
of the 1SSA will correspond, more or less, to all the 
payloads flown before on board the shuttle. In order to 
plan for such large possibilities, there is the absolute 
need to consider the utilization of the Space Station, 
the next large international cooperative enterprise that 
is going to last for a minimum of 20 years and, hope- 
fully, more. 

The planning, coordination, and control of 
such a complex of activities that entail quite a variety 



of different interests is a continuous effort to be made 
by a competent independent entity that has the power 
delegated by the governments to overrule the single 

An international super agency can be the 
answer to such a problem that seems to be, if not 
unsolvable, or at least very hard to solve. 

The strategy for the partnership and for the 
promotion of non-partner utilization of the Inter- 
national Space Station, has been proposed as an 
argument of discussion in the international workshop 
dealing with "International Space Cooperation: From 
Recommendation to Actions" that the AIAA (American 
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) and CEAS 
(Confederation of European Aerospace Societies) are 
organizing next May at the ESA facility of ESRIN in 
Frascati, close to Rome in Italy. If not solutions, we 
expect at least interesting discussions on this topic of 
vital importance to plan the strategy of utilization of 
the Space Station properly. 

To build, to operate, and to utilize the Inter- 
national Space Station Alpha is the challenge of the 
many countries that have agreed to support this 
unique program. The availability of the Space Station 
is going to change the future of space activities the 
world over when, at the beginning of the new century, 
such permanent assembly of manned laboratories, 
continuously attended by expert researchers, will be 
orbiting. It will impose a new trend in how research 
and experimentation in different fields are done, like it 
or not. 

Mr. Rains: Our next speaker is Dr. Alexander Kuznetsov. 
He's a member of the Board of the Russian Space 
Agency and the director of the Space Agency's depart- 
ment responsible for development and production of 
launch vehicles and rocket engines for Russian non- 
military space programs. Dr. Kuznetsov's department is 
also responsible for operating the facilities at the 
Baikonur space complex which had been turned over 
to the Russian Space Agency. His department also is 
responsible for maintaining ground facilities used for 
testing space equipment. Let's welcome Dr. Kuznetsov. 

Editor's note: This presentation was titled 
Organization of Space Activities and International 
Space Projects in Russia, by Alexander Kuznetsov. 

Dr. Kuznetsov: In my presentation, I would like to 
describe the structure of Russian Federal executive 
bodies responsible for space activities in Russia, as 
well as existing regulations for foreign economic activi- 
ty in the area of space. 

The Russian Space Agency was established by 
a decree of the president of the Russian Federation in 






I "'•" 


genual machine 



nxANane or 






Fig. IS-201 

February 1992, shortly after the disintegration of the 
former Soviet Union. 

In the former Soviet Union, the creation of 
space technology was the responsibility of the Ministry 
of General Machinery, which had within its purview 
practically all the design bureaus and production facili- 
ties working in the area of space [Fig. IS-201 J. 

All of the government funds allocated for the 
development of space technology (both military and 
non-military), as well as rocket technology, were given 
to the Ministry of General Machinery. The ministry then 
used this money to finance all of the research and 
development programs carried out in the country. The 
Ministry of Defense of the USSR issued specifications 
and requirements for space systems and complexes 
which were developed for it , and participated in their 
testing. As far as non-military users of information 
obtained from space, such as the Academy of 
Sciences, Ministry of Communications, State 
Committees for Hydrometeorology, Mapping, and oth- 
ers, they were only informed of the parameters of 
space systems under development. Later such organi- 
zations received information from space systems, 
which they used for their purposes. 

In the Soviet Union, operation of all space facil- 
ities (for both military and non-military purposes), as 
well as acquisition of space technology was carried out 
by the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, which had 
within its purview all spaceports, and ground facilities 
for space flight control. 

Under such organization, non-military space 
technology received only leftovers from the country's 
space budget. Moreover, nobody even calculated the 
money assigned for non-military space programs. 

In the last years of the USSR existence, an 
attempt was made to increase the role of the users by 
allocating them some space budget money to pay for 
R&D. At that time the Users' Ministries and Agencies 
became responsible for the development of space 



Fig. IS-203 

technology for non-military application [Fig. IS-202]. 
However these ministries and agencies did not have 
qualified professionals capable of placing purchase 
orders, or controlling even satellite development pro- 
grams — to say nothing of launch vehicle production or 
launch site operation. By that time the defense budget 
had been much reduced, and the amount of space 
technology purchased by the Ministry of Defense had 
dropped considerably. As an example, in 1992, pro- 
duction of the Soyuz vehicle — the main launcher of 
non-military satellites — was completely stopped. 

In 1992, the government of Russia formed a 
commission headed by Yegor Gaidar, who was then 
prime minister, to evaluate the situation of Russian 
cosmonautics. The commission included leading sci- 
entists, designers, representatives of Russian ministries 
and agencies interested in the results of space activi- 
ties. As a result of this effort, a decree was signed by 
the president of Russia which established the Russian 
Space Agency, and Yuri Koptev was appointed as its 
general director. The decree also defined the Russian 
Space Agency's purpose and objectives as follows: 

• Carry out government policy in space explo 
ration and use. 

• Develop Russian Federal Space Program 

• Operate as main customer of space systems 
and space complexes, as well as facilities used 
for science and national economy 

• Provide coordination and support to com 
mercial space projects. 

• Cooperate with appropriate agencies in CIS 
and other countries in exploration and use of 

The main purpose in establishing the Russian 
Space Agency was to divide non-military and military 
space budgets, and to have a government structure 
that would manage all the activates related to space 
exploration and peaceful use of space [Fig. IS-203]. 

In 1993, main objectives of the agency were 
written down in the Russian Federation Law on Space 

Today, the Russian Space Agency has the fol- 
lowing structure [Fig. IS-204]: 

Fig. IS-204 

Economic Departments 

• Department for Creation of Federal Space Programs 

(Forms the agency budget and develops plans for 
the future) 

• Department for Implementation of Federal Space 

(Is in charge of financing of current contracts) 

Technical Departments are responsible for sign- 
ing and implementation of contracts (for R&D or for 
acquisition of space equipment), for coordination of the 
activities of companies working in space industry, and 
for operation of ground facilities in their specific areas. 

Technical Departments 

• Department for Manned Space Flight Programs 


• Department for Launch Vehicles and Supporting 

• Department of Space Facilities for National 
Economy and Science 

Support Departments. 

As a result of restructuring, in 1995 the 
Russian Space Agency took over the control of the fol- 
lowing assets: part of the Baikonur Space Complex 
(which accounts for about 60 percent of Baikonur total 
value); three ships of the space flight control, trajectory 
measurement and telemetry complex; cosmonauts 
training center. 

The biggest challenge was to maintain the 
required level of Baikonur operation (especially very 
active operation of the Soyuz vehicle) in the conditions 
when military professionals were being replaced with 
civilians. However, we have coped with that task suc- 
cessfully. Thus, at the latest launch of Soyuz the 
ground team included 70 percent of professionals 
from industry [Fig. IS-205]. 

Transfer of the Baikonur facilities to Russian 
Space Agency has given us guarantees for fulfillment 
of our international commitments. All Russian manned 
missions are accomplished only with use of facilities 
which are in our purview. Likewise, pre-launch opera- 
tions for the Proton and Soyuz vehicles to put into 
orbit foreign payloads will also be done at the Russian 
Space Agency facilities. 

The Russian Space Agency coordinates the 
work of 42 research institutes, design bureaus, and 
production plants. 

It should be mentioned that the relations our 
agency has established with industrial companies are 
absolutely different from those they used to have with 
the Ministry of General Machinery, in the times of the 
Soviet Union. 

In those times, industrial enterprises fully 
depended on ministries in all issues, such as produc- 
tion plans, levels of salaries, finance, and other funds. 
All materials and equipment were distributed by min- 
istries; directors of enterprises were appointed by min- 
istries, and so on. 

This situation has changed. Now the Russian 
Space Agency has contractual relations with Russian 
companies. That is, it contracts them for development, 
production, and other work as required by the Federal 
Space Program. According to Russian laws, interfer- 
ence into company operations is not acceptable. 

Now a few words about the attitude of the 
Russian Space Agency to the privatization of space 
industries. We are not trying to expedite this process, 
although we are not against it. Those company direc- 


Fig. IS-205 





Fig. IS-206 

tors who have realistic plans for cost reduction and 
attracting additional investments after privatization will 
always enjoy our support. Among Russian companies 
which have recently completed their privatization docu- 
ments are Energomash, Moscow Electromechanical 
Equipment Plant, Motor Design Bureau, and others. 
Gaining more independence is good primarily for large 
companies with high level of diversification embracing 
space and non-space products. In the long run, RSA 
should retain several government research institutes 
and design bureaus that would provide expert evalua- 
tion of space projects, and do research and develop- 
ment in key areas of space technology. 

Space industry companies also enjoy complete 
freedom in their foreign economic operations [Fig. IS- 
206]. The role of the Russian Space Agency consists 
of creating favorable conditions for their cooperation 
with foreign partners. As a rule, we act as guarantors 
in large-scale commercial projects. In addition, we 
make available for them our ground test stands, and 
space complexes. We also ensure quality control and 
reliability control during the manufacturing of space 
equipment to be used for commercial space projects. 

Russia participates in the Regime of Control 
over Proliferation of Rocket Technologies. In this con- 
nection, Russian laws establish certain export control 
procedures for space technologies and equipment 



Fig. IS-207 

coming under this regime [Fig. IS-207]. 

1 will not talk about the development and sales 
of weapons and munitions, as this is beyond the RSA 
competence. I will only address procedures established 
for international cooperation for peaceful use of space. 

RSA reviews proposals submitted by Russian 
companies, prepares drafts of Russian Government 
Decrees and sends them to appropriate ministries for 
coordination and approval. The MoD evaluates pro- 
jects and concludes that the project does not involve 
development or sales of weapons. In such cases, coor- 
dination with the Government Committee for Military 
Technology Policy (responsible for weapons trade) is 
not, as a rule, required. Russian Federal Commission 
for Currency and Export Control sees to it that the pro- 
ject agrees with Russian national laws for control over 
proliferation of rocket technologies. Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs verifies that the project agrees with Russia's 
international obligations. After all of these approvals 
are granted, the project is reviewed and approved by 
the Government Commission for Export Control, 
chaired by Oleg Soskovets, First Deputy to the Prime 
Minister of Russia. 

We have gone through the above procedure 
twice in connection with one of the largest commercial 
projects between Russia and the United States in the 
area of space technology — the one dealing with joint 
development and production of the RD-180 rocket 
engine by Pratt & Whitney and NPO Energomash. In 
May 1994, the Russian government signed a decree 
approving deliveries of the RD-180 engines to the 
United States for launching commercial payloads. 
Later, Lockheed Martin came with proposals to use 
this engine in the EELV program which require the use 
of the engine for launching U.S. government payloads. 
In this connection, it became necessary to form a 
CJ.S./Russian joint venture and eventually establish pro- 
duction in the U.S. The Russian Space Agency has 
worked these proposals with Russian Ministry of 
Defense, and other Russian agencies, and finally sub- 
mitted a draft decree to the Russian Government. The 

decree was signed by Russian Prime Minister Victor 
Chernomyrdin on March 25. This document provides 
the legal basis required for the implementation of the 
RD-180 development project. 

Delivery of data, (such as research, design, or 
manufacturing data), as well as delivery of space 
equipment (engines and other products) require a 
license from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Economic 
Relations [Fig. IS-208]. Such a license is granted 
based on an application which Russian Space Agency 
submits to that ministry after approval by the Ministry 
of Defense and Federal Commission for Currency and 
Export Control. 

Once again I would like to emphasize that the 
above procedures are established for commercial pro- 
jects in the area of space, that is, those which do not 
involve the development or sales of weapons. 

Weapons trade in Russia is under strict govern- 
ment control. All of it is carried out through the gov- 
ernment company named Rosvooruzhenije. In this 
case, license is granted by the Russian Government 
Committee for Military Technology Policy. 

1 have gone into that much detail describing 
the functions of the Russian Space Agency, export 
license procedures, and the role of Russian govern- 
ment organizations, because most of the questions 
asked by our foreign partners pertain to these areas. 1 
hope my presentation has offered you a clear picture 
of the organization of space activities in the Russian 

Mr. Rains: Our next speaker is Mac Evans, president 
of the Canadian Space Agency. He has worked in the 
Canadian Space Program for more than 22 years and 
led the Canadian team that negotiated the Space 
Station Inter-Governmental Agreement and Memo- 
randum of Understanding in 1984. Mac Evans. 

Mr. Evans: Thank you very much. It is indeed a plea- 
sure to be here at this symposium to talk about the 
Space Station Program. Particularly since 1 am one of 



a handful of people who helped give birth to this pro- 
gram more than 14 years ago, and one of the few who 
are still on the Program. It gives me great pleasure to 
be here to show you some of the concrete results that 
have been attained in recent years, particularly in the 
Canadian Program. 

This is a view of the Space Station which many 
of you have seen [Fig. IS-301]. You all know that the 
International Space Station is the largest international 
research program ever undertaken by mankind. 
Thirteen countries are participating: but only the United 
States, Russia, and Canada are providing infrastruc- 
tures. What I want to do is show you where the 
Canadian contribution is located, and it's the Mobile 
Servicing System, shown here in a semi-deployed mode 
attached to the mobile transporter which allows the 
robotic device to travel up and down the trunk structure 
to perform its assembly and maintenance tasks. 

Canada's role in Space Station is to provide 
the robotics and to be the predominant player in use 
of these robotics for the assembly and maintenance 
of the Space Station. Our contribution consists of a 
large robotic arm, which we call the SSRMS, the 
Space Station Remote Manipulator System [Fig. IS- 
302], to distinguish it from the Shuttle Remote 
Manipulator system or Canadarm. In fact, both these 
devices, the SSRMS and the Canadarm located in the 
shuttle, will have to work cooperatively in the assembly 
of the Space Station. This robotic arm is 17 meters 
long or roughly 51 feet. Unlike Canadarm, this robotic 
device is designed to be repaired in space, and so it 
consists of a number of ORCIs, or Orbital Replacement 
Units. The unique feature of the arm is its double 
ended nature; if you look at both ends of the arm 
you'll see that they are identical. This allows the arm to 
be able to walk about the Space Station as it grapples 
onto one fixture and lets go of another — it is able to 
inch worm its way along. So a key technological fea- 
ture of this arm is its duality and the latching-end- 
effector which makes this possible. 

I'd like to now show you a few pictures of actu- 
al flight hardware and you eill see that we are quite a 
ways along in our program. Here you see some of the 
booms that form the robotic arm [Fig. IS-303]. These 
are flight booms undergoing tests at a facility in 
Ottawa. We're actually building flight hardware. Here 
we see another piece of flight equipment [Fig. IS-304]. 
This is the yaw joint, and you can see located on the 
other side of the yaw joint the electronic boxes that are 
used to control it. 

I mentioned earlier that the latching-end-effec- 
tor is perhaps the most complicated and sophisticated 
mechanical unit on the arm, and this is a picture of 
the flight unit [Fig. IS-305]. It's this latching-end-effec- 
tor which will allow the arm to grapple onto the power 
and data grapple fixtures that are located around the 

Fig. IS-303 

station and allow it to firmly anchor itself. It is through 
this latching-end-effector and the power and data 
grapple fixtures, that the control system commands 
and the power to run the arm, are in fact transmitted 
[Fig. IS-306J. 

And here we actually see one of the flight units 
of the power and data grapple fixture. Canada is sup- 
plying these throughout the Station. They are installed 



Fig. IS-304 

Fig. IS-306 

in many locations on the Station and they in fact allow 
the arm to do its walking maneuvers. You can see the 
probe and some of the latching mechanisms. That is 
all flight hardware, and, at the present moment, our 
program is the integrational test phase. 

Another part of our contribution is The Mobile 
Base System, the structure that the arm will sit on as it 
moves up and down the trunk structure. This is an 

Fig. IS-307 

artist's rendition of the Mobile Base System structure 
[Fig. IS-307]. It will be installed on the mobile trans- 
porter NASA is supplying. It is the base for the SSRMS 
as 1 indicated and it also has a significant capacity for 
carrying payloads and ORGs. This is the facility that 
will allow us to take ORGs out to a location on the sta- 
tion that needs an ORG replaced, interchange the 
ORGs and return with the defective unit. You will see 
four of those power data grapple fixtures on this base. 

They are used for the arm and also for some of 
the ORGs. We're not quite as far along with the base 
as we are with the arm. The next picture shows the 
structural test article for this mobile base [Fig. IS-308]. 
It's a large unit. This is the qualification unit, assem- 
bled; it will shortly undergo structural tests. 

All of this robotics equipment has to be operat- 
ed. This is a mock-up of the robotics work station and 
we're showing it here in the Cupola where it will be 
installed [Fig. IS-309]. The Cupola is part of node one. 
NASA actually is prototyping the work station from 
Canada and that is a mock-up that we have done for 
NASA. So it is through a station like this that the arm 
will be used for its assembly and maintenance tasks. 

These statistics show where we are in the pro- 
gram. We have basically finished most of our engineer- 
ing and qualification articles (96 percent complete and 
90 percent complete respectively); and for the RMS 
itself, about 70 percent of the flight hardware is done 
and for the MBS, about 50 percent. The SSRMS is to 
be launched in December 1998, with the MBS being 
launched in July 1999. We are way ahead of schedule 
in terms of meeting those dates, and our equipment 
will be finished and delivered well in advance of the 
date it is required. We are not only providing hardware 
for the Space Station, the next slide will show some 
of the ground equipment that we are producing. 

This is the Space Station's operations and sup- 
port center which is located at the Canadian Space 
Agency in St. Hubert in the province of Quebec [Fig. 
IS-3W]. It's being shown here actually as it was being 



Fig. IS-308 

used during the STS-74 mission where the docking 
collar was attached to the MIR Space Station. This 
facility uses the same consoles that will be used at the 
Mission Control Center in Houston. It will be used as a 
backroom to the Mission Control Center during robotic 
operations on the Space Station. As we did for STS- 
74, this facility will be used to track and monitor the 
next shuttle flight STS-77, which will have a Canadian 
astronaut on board utilizing the Canadarm. It will be 
the second flight for Dr. Marc Garneau, the first 
Canadian in space. 

Finally, this is another view of the Space 
Station, and I just wanted to point something out here 
[Fig. IS-31 1]. The Cupola where the work station will 
be is located just about here on the Space Station. 
And you can see that the viewing angle from there to 
the trunk structure will be the primary home of the 
SSRMS. This means that artificial vision systems will 
be a critical component of this system. Canada has 
been leading the way in vision systems used in space. 
We've had several flight experiments, the most notable 
being the use of the space vision system during the 
docking maneuvers where the docking collar was 
installed on MIR during STS-74. The artificial vision 
system provided extreme accuracies in terms of align- 
ment and positioning of the unit, and we're quite con- 
fident that this vision system will meet the require- 
ments for the operation of the SSRMS; and in fact we 
are planning some additional flight experiments over 
the next couple of years to test out the flight equip- 
ment. The robotics components that we'll be supplying 
include the base for the system, the arm itself, the 
work station, and the artificial vision system that will 
allow the whole system to work together. We are on 
time, we are on budget. 

Canada, like other nations involved in the 
Space Station, a couple of years ago, went through 
cost reductions driven by budgetary requirements. I'm 
pleased to say that we've been able to maintain our 
program within the reduced dollar values that the gov- 
ernment has allocated to the program. Like Mr. Goldin 

Fig. IS-309 

Fig. IS-310 




was saying earlier today, the Space Station a few years 
ago represented more than 50 percent of the Cana- 
dian Space Program, it now represents about 25 per- 
cent. We are still able to meet our commitments to the 
international program. We are getting ready for the 
Space Station year. Our hardware is almost complete, 
as you have seen. Our ground facilities are being put 
in place. And our scientific community is flying pre- 
cursor experiments on the shuttle and on MIR. And the 



latest mission to MIR delivered some of our equipment 
to the Russian Space Station. 

But more importantly, when I look back at 
what I and many others felt at the time, was going to 
be one of the most significant outcomes of the Space 
Station program, namely the demonstration of the will 
and the skill of a large number of nations to work 
together to achieve something that we couldn't do 
individually. And when 1 see what we have accom- 
plished today, it is more than any of us could have 
dreamed more than 12 years ago. 1 think it's a great 
testimony to the international space community that 
the Space Station program has survived all its difficul- 
ties over these years. We have expanded the network 
of nations involved. It is clearly going to be a very suc- 
cessful, international science and technology and 
space program. The current shuttle-MIR missions 
which have taken place and the ones that are planned 
are proof that the space-faring nations of the world are 
capable and willing to work together for the benefit of 
mankind. That will be the legacy of the Space Station. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rains: Now, I'll introduce Jim Noblitt, vice presi- 
dent and general manager for Boeing, the prime con- 
tractor on the Space Station who is going to talk about 
the U.S. portion of the Space Station as well as give an 
overview of its progress. He's the VP and the general 
manager for the Boeing Defense and Space Group, 
Missiles and Space Division and the president of a 
subsidiary, Boeing Commercial Space Co. 

Mr. Noblitt: Thank you, Lon (Rains). Good afternoon, 
ladies and gentlemen. 

Hardly a week goes by that 1 don't read some 
report or hear a rumor about what's happening on the 
Space Station program. Sometimes the news is right 
on the mark, and sometimes it's off by a country mile. 
Today, I'd like to give Boeing's perspective on how 
things are coming along. I hope I'll be able to give you 
better insight into how the program is really progress- 

Not to keep you in suspense, let me say right 
up front that the station is progressing very nicely. Not 
perfectly — but pretty darn well. 

Before I back that up with some facts and 
data, let me step back a second and put my remarks 
in context. Boeing, as prime contractor, is responsible 
for leading the industrial team that is designing and 
building U.S. portions of the station and for acquiring 
the FGB from Khrunichev in Moscow. NASA, of 
course, is our boss and leader of the international 
team building the total station. NASA is also responsi- 
ble for what we refer to as the nonprime work associat- 
ed with preparing for the operation and utilization of 


the station. 

This is a computer illustration of the Inter- 
national Space Station after assembly is completed in 
2002. At a mass of more than 900,000 pounds, it will 
be without question the largest and most capable 
object ever placed in Earth orbit [Fig. IS-401]. 

It will be, by any measure, a world-class orbital 
research facility that is safe and very user-friendly — a 
facility where scientists can be highly productive. 

Right now, we have a large part of the station 
design completed and are well along in the fabrication 
of the individual parts and components for the initial 
elements. Assembly and integration activities have 
begun and are picking up speed very rapidly. 

Fig. IS-401— International Space Station with assembly 

I can also assure you that everyone on the team 
is totally dedicated to seeing it is delivered on cost and 
on schedule. We believe it is essential to do so and 
demonstrate to the public and our governments' that 
the space community can deliver on its promises. 

But no one is kidding themselves. This is an 
extremely sophisticated machine. 1 sometimes 
describe it as over 25 different spacecraft flying in for- 
mation. We know there will be problems and are being 
proactive in anticipating and dealing with them. 

One area we are currently working is what we 
call "horizontal integration"— the job of assuring that 
the station will perform as intended once all the pieces 
are assembled on-orbit. This job is complicated 
because of the phased development in which individ- 
ual elements are completed and launched over a four- 
and-a-half year time period. As a result, we can't 
assemble and check out the fully integrated station, or 
even many of the units, on the ground. This means we 
must be extremely rigorous in verifying that all inter- 
faces are correct, prior to launch. 


We are convinced that we have the right funda 
mental approach but are continuing to focus on the 
detailed plans to make sure we haven't overlooked 
anything. One encouraging fact is that the Russians 
have done this successfully on MIR. 

I'd like to spend the next few minutes telling 
you where we are in getting ready for the first few 
launches — the area where most of our efforts are cur- 
rently focused. 

The first element of the station to be launched 
will be the functional energy block, or as we normally 
refer to it, the FGB. It is scheduled for launch from 
Baikonur on a Proton rocket in November 1997 IFia 

This is a photo of the flight article in the 
process of being outfitted with equipment at 
Khrunichev in Moscow. When finished, this module will 
weigh about 20 tons and provide all the propulsion, 
attitude control, and power during the initial phase of 
construction. It is, in fact, a completely self-sufficient 

Fig. IS-402— FGB flight articles 

You've probably heard the reports about a 
bulkhead being damaged during proof pressure test- 
ing. Those reports were correct. However, that damage 
has been corrected, proof pressure retesting was suc- 
cessfully completed, and the unit is on schedule for 
completion in November of this year. In fact, FGB 
body manufacturing was actually completed three 
weeks ahead of schedule. 

I would add that Khrunichev is proving itself an 
excellent teammate. It is doing an outstanding job in 
building this unit and has my greatest respect. 

This photo is of the two nodes being built in 
Huntsville, Ala. Each node is 18 feet long, 14 feet 
wide, and weighs about 6,000 pounds. It has six 
hatches that serve as docking ports for other modules. 

Fig. IS-403— Nodes 1 & 2 in factory. 

The nodes are the connecting units between the vari- 
ous modules and docking ports. As you can see they 
have both completed initial fabrication [Fig. IS-403]. 

Node No. 2, on the left, is the structural test 
article being used to validate the node's structural 
integrity. Since this photo was taken some secondary 
structural elements have been installed, and the unit is 
presently in proof pressure testing at Marshall. After 
testing is completed, this node will be outfitted and 
become Node No. 2, which launches in October 1999. 

Node No. 1, on the right, has also completed 
structural assembly and secondary structural installa- 
tion. It is presently being prepared for proof pressure 
testing. Our schedule calls for the unit to finish initial 
testing in June and be turned over to McDonnell 
Douglas for outfitting. It will become the first U.S. ele- 
ment launched. This will occur from Cape Kennedy in 
December 1997 on the space shuttle. 

Node development has proved fairly challeng- 
ing with several problems encountered while building 
the units. The most difficult of these occurred last fall 
and winter when we were welding the large cylindrical 
sections together to form the hull structures. We found 
the original tooling wasn't stiff enough to hold the tight 
alignment accuracies needed. So we had to redesign 
the tool, and this put us a few weeks behind schedule. 
Since then we have implemented work-around plans 
and recovered most of our schedule slips. We still have 
a way to go in catching up, and if all goes well, we will 
meet the June date for turnover to McDonnell Doug- 
las. I'll have more to say about this in a moment. 

Another challenging area has been the common 
berthing mechanism, or CBM. These units include the 
power bolts that mechanically connect the various mod- 
ules together. They also provide the vacuum-tight seal 
needed to prevent leakage in space. There are six of 
these units on each node, one at each port. 



The CBM development difficulties were due to 
the criticality of the functions being performed and the 
complexity of the mechanism. Recently, AlliedSignal 
delivered the first two actuator and control assem- 
blies—the critical path item. A third unit is due shortly. 

We have also redesigned the seal to correct 
some earlier problems. We now have a design that 
meets all our requirements and will prevent air leakage. 

The current challenge is in node proof pres- 
sure testing. The stress analysts are concerned that a 
piece of secondary structure may, and 1 emphasize 
may, yield under design loads. It's a close call. To be 
safe, we have adopted a very cautious proof test 
approach. If initial tests to 40 percent proof pressure 
show there is a problem, we'll have to make a design 
change. However, in all but the worst case we expect 
to make the June completion date, and if the worst 
case occurs, we'll be no more than two weeks late— a 
delay that can be accommodated. In addition, we are 
presently working a schedule planning exercise to see 
if we can't build up some additional margin in the 
node flow. 

Also, on the second flight are two pressurized 
mating adapters or PMAs. One of these units will con- 
nect the node to the FGB and provide a pressurized 
passageway between the two. The other will serve as 
the shuttle docking port [Fig. IS-404J. 

The slide shows the engineering test article 
that was recently completed by McDonnell Douglas 
and is presently undergoing test. Fabrication of the 
first actual flight article has been started and is going 
very well. 

The third CIS. mission, for which I don't have a 
slide, takes place in June 1998 after the first three 
Russian missions in the spring of 1998. These Russian 
missions deliver the service module, a Soyuz, and the 
universal docking module to the station. 

On this third 
CIS. mission is 
another pressur- 
ized mating 
adapter, the Zl 
Truss with the 
control moment 
gyros, and the 
initial Ku-Band 
and S-Band 
gear. McDonnell 
Douglas has lead 
responsibility for 
this mission. 
Currently, the pri- 
mary risk is with 
the CMGs, which 
Fig. IS-404— Pressurized Mating Adapter. are somewhat 

Fig. IS-405— Integrated Equipment Assembly. 

behind schedule in completing assembly, but no seri- 
ous impacts are expected. 

This slide shows the integrated equipment 
assembly or IEA being assembled in Tulsa. It goes up 
on the fourth mission in September 1998. Doug 
Stone likes to say it's the size of a one-car garage 
[Fig. IS-405]. 

It's being built by Rockwell and will house 
much of the electrical power control system. This 
includes the batteries, battery controllers, and power 
distribution equipment. Also, on the flight will be the 
early external thermal control system and the first pho- 
tovoltaic array. 

Engineering models of most of this gear have 
been in development test for some time, and flight 
units are now in production. 

This is the solar alpha rotary joint that attaches 
to the truss structure and is used to keep the station's 
solar power array continuously aligned to the sun. 
Lockheed Martin is building one test unit and two flight 
units as a subcontractor to McDonnell Douglas. This 
work is on schedule [Fig. IS-406]. 

Shown here is the solar array mast, which is 
the structural member for the largest solar array ever. 
It's built by AEC-Able under subcontract to Lockheed 
Martin [Fig. IS-407}. 

The mast packs into a 7-foot long canister for 
storage on the shuttle. When deployed on orbit, the 
array will be 108 feet long by 37 feet wide. There will be 
eight such arrays on the station when it is complete. 
This photo shows the two primary CIS. ele- 
ments, the laboratory module and the habitation mod- 
ule in the factory at MSFC. Both units are made of alu- 
minum— 28 feet long, 14 feet in diameter, and each 
weighing about 6,000 pounds at this stage. As you 
can see, structural fabrication on both units is com- 



Fig. IS-406— Solar Alpha Rotary Joints. 

pleted. The laboratory module will be delivered on the 
fifth U.S. mission, in November 1998. This is the mod- 
ule in which most G.S. research and scientific experi- 
mentation will be conducted. At present, machining 
has been completed, and mechanical equipment is 
being installed in the laboratory [Fig. IS-408J. 

The top concern is associated with delivery of 
simulation software, which in turn affects development 
of the flight software. This area is also receiving con- 
siderable attention. 

Fig. IS-407— Solar Array Mast. 

The Hab, where the astronauts will eat and 
sleep, will undergo some machining and initial testing. 
Then it will be set aside to be processed later in the 
program. It isn't scheduled for launch until February 
2002, one of the last units to be launched. 

I put this slide in to make sure everyone knows 
what the station will look like at the completion of 
Phase II in March 1999. At this point, it will be func- 
tioning as the orbital research facility [Fig. IS-409]. 

Another activity that's very important to the 

Fig. IS-408—Lab and Hab Modules. 

International Space Station program is the Phase I 
Shuttle-MIR program. The missions are providing two 
direct, invaluable benefits. First, they are giving G.S. 
astronauts hands-on experience flying on a real space 
station. I'm sure Shannon Lucid will have a lot of expe- 
rience and ideas to share when she returns, as did 
Norm Thagard [Fig. IS-410J. 

Second, the missions are providing an opportu- 
nity to test equipment in orbit and see what works best. 
The knowledge from both these activities is being used 
to design a whole lot better station than would be pos- 
sible without the Shuttle-MIR missions. 

Fig. IS-409— International Space Station at Phase II Completion 

The bottom line is that the International Space 
Station is making excellent progress toward the first 
launch in November 1997 and the launches that will 
follow. Yes, we have encountered some problems and 
will face many more in the months ahead. That's to be 
expected on a program as large and complex as Space 
Station. But the really good news is that the team has 



Fig. IS-41 0— MIR- 1 docking chute with Shuttle. 

been able to overcome every problem, to meet every 
challenge. I'm confident that, by working together as a 
unified team toward a common vision and with fierce 
determination, we will surmount whatever obstacles we 
encounter. I am equally confident we will produce a 
magnificent orbital research facility, within the cost and 
on the schedule that has been committed [Fig. IS-41 1J. 
Thank you for you attention. 

Fig. IS-41 1— Earth view through the Copula of the ISS. 

Mr. Rains: Our next speaker is Mike Wynne, the vice 
president and general manager for Lockheed Martin 
Astronautics and Space Systems. He is responsible for 
Atlas and Centaur and was recently assigned responsi- 
bility for the Lockheed Martin Launch Vehicle and the 
multi-service launch system. And he also just returned 
from Russia where he was there for the first commer- 
cial Proton launch. 

Mr. Wynne: Thank you very much, Lon. It gives me 
great pleasure to represent all those designers, engi- 
neers and production people at Lockheed Martin who 
put together this array of launch vehicles, as well as 
Khrunichev Space Center, builders of the Proton, who 
we proudly count in our product area [Fig. IS-501J. 

The subject of my talk today is expendable 
launch vehicles and their trends. This slide [Fig. IS- 
502] presents a Lockheed Martin perspective on U.S. 
launch vehicles and trends. Existing families of ex- 
pendable launch vehicles are evoving to a more effi- 
cient fleet of expendable vehicles while technology is 
being developed to demonstrate the feasibility of a fully 
reusable system. This development should permit the 
introduction of an RLV vehicle in the 2010 time frame. 

My next chart presents a summary of the inter- 
national competitive environment and the response 
that we're trying to bring to the marketplace [Fig. IS- 
503]. At the top of the chart is the array of launch vehi- 
cles associated with Lockheed Martin and Khrunichev 

Fig. IS-501 

Space Center through our subsidiary for sales, 
International Launch Services. International Launch 
Services markets the Proton launch vehicle, and I'm 
proud to say that I was present for the first, which 1 
think was an historic event, launch of the Astra IF 
Satellite for Luxemburg, from the Baikonur 
Cosmodrome. This demonstrates that what we are try- 
ing to do is provide flexibility to the commercial. 

Our customers have a variety of requirements. 
You read about them, you see them, you understand 
them from a launch perspective [Fig. IS-504]. There's 
no doubt that vehicle ugprades and greater cost effi- 
ciency is a tenet of the commercial space satellite 
industry. That must go hand in hand, however, with 
improved reliability and greater performance. The 
customer expects 100 percent mission success and 
flexibility, but the bottom line is the industry wants 
lowest cost, on time, and reliable launch. 

This is a graphic view of the Lockheed Martin's 
fleet of launch vehicles [Fig. IS-505]. And though we 
are working on the laws of physics, we have not per- 
formed quite as well as this chart might indicate. To 



U.S. Launch Vehicles and Trends 

( Shutlki □□□t^> Contmuin 5 


Fig. IS-502 

Today's ELV Competitive Environment 


4 '} 

Pegasus | 


c_— ~ 




^mily ra(i[us 






Long March 

Fig. IS-503 

correct the chart, the MSLS performance is to low- 
Earth orbit, not GTO as shown. The commercial 
Proton, as you can see, fits nicely into this family. The 
other one that I'll go into more depth on is the Atlas 
IIAR, which is variously referred to as the Atlas Re-engi- 
neering program, or the Russian engine application. 

Our response to meet the customer's require- 
ments is through investment and the ability to increase 
performance at the same or lower cost is a tenet of 
our investment [Fig. 1S-506]. We are investing, not 
only in the Lockheed Martin launch vehicle family of 
three vehicles, but also in the Atlas II AR and in the 
evolved expendable launch vehicle program. Second, 
improvements must be transparent to the customer. 
We are a current provider of launch vehicles, and 
therefore need to provide the same characteristics and 
environments to our spacecraft customers that we 
have now. We are working to reduce costs by improv- 
ing our launch vehicle processing facilities and the 
launch procedures. We realize that schedules are extra- 
ordinarily important to satellite manufacturers and their 
community of users as they must meet performance 
guarantees. There is no doubt that 100 percent mis- 
sion success is the crowning achievement of launch 

Customer Requirements 

• "Refreshment" & Greater Cost 

• Improved Reliability & Greater 

• Highest Reliability at Lowest Cost 

• Schedule Reliability & Ontime 
Launch— Reliability Is a Qualification 
of Past Performance 

• Faster. Cheaper, Better 

• Flexibility 

• 100% Mission Success 



Fig. IS-504 

Lookh&fed Martin's Fleet of Launch Vehicles 


I J 



I li 





16 !3D 

LEO LEO- LEO 45,000 

I9QO0 20000 GTO 9.000 

GtO- GTO- 10.IBQ 

S 150 B.fiOO CS0 4 400 

LEO 39 100 

*? *00 

GTO- (Ecjui*^ 

mlPeilr,,™.;.,.. a,, a, ^..mK^, 


Fig. IS-505 


Our Response 

• Ability To Increase Performance at the Same or Lower Cost 

• Improvements Transparent to the Customer 

• Equivalent/Improved Spacecraft Environments 

• Synergy & Commonality Across Systems & Components Is Key to Cost 

• Improved Launch Processing Facilities & Procedures Critical To 
Reducing Cost of Space Transportation 

• Responsive to Customer Schedules 

• Flexibility 

• Reliable & Ontime Launch Is Critical to Program Success- 
New Orders Follow Successful Launches 

■ 100% Mission Success 

Wrv«y<wOrt»ftD > 1vMOurt<¥»t B^>vl»w>,Ev < warm 

Fig. IS-506 

vehicles, and we work very, very hard to make sure that 
happens. Delivery-on-orbit drives our quality at every 
level and at every step as we try to be the best in 

I'd like to go into just a little depth of where we 
are headed with the Atlas II AR program, and bring 
you a little bit of insight [Fig. IS 507]. Atlas II AR pro- 
gram has a baseline performance of 8,600 pounds to 



Atlas Evolution 

Atlas HAS 

. [ GTO P/L 
8.150 ftm 

• 4 Caslor 



■ 2MA-5A Boottf 


- IIM-M 


■ * SM0fl 


• Keep* Aila* Competitive 

• EnaMeaEELV 

fig. /S-507 

international Cooperation 

• Forms the Basis of Our Future 

- International Customers & Markets— 
PALAPA, Inmarsat, SAX . . . 

- International Launch Fleet— Proton 
Complements Our Launch Fleet To 
Expand Global Launch Services 

- Partnership with Pratt & Whitney & NPO 
Energmash (Russian Space Agency) on 
Rocket Engine Development for IIAR 

• Expands Our Marketplace & Theirs 

• Provides Enhanced Launch Availability & 
Automatic Launcher Diversity for Our 

• Combines the Best in Technology To Provide 
Efficiency for Access to Space 

Combining the Best To Bring 
Our Customers the Bast Product* 


Fig. IS-508 

international Cooperation 



First Commercial Proton Successfully Launched Astra IF 
Communications Satellite April 9, 1996 
A Combined Russian, American & European Team Made 
Space History with the First Launch of a Western Satellite on 
a Russian Rocket from Baikonur Cosmodrome in the 
Republic of Kazakhstan 

■ Proton Vehicle Is Manufactured by Khrunichev State 
Research and Production Space Center Facilities in Moscow 

■ Satellite Built by Hughes Space and Communications 
Company in 

El Segundo, California 

■ Proton Has Served As the Primary Heavy-Lift Vehicle for 
Russian Unmanned Space Program Since the Mid-1960s in 
More Than 230 Launches 

• ILS International Launch Services (ILS), a Joint-Venture 
Company of Lockheed Martin Corporation & Russian 
Companies (Khrunichev & RSC Energia), Was Formed in 1995 
To Jointly Market the Proton & American-Built Atlas Launch 

Fig. IS-509 

GTO. It moves from four castors, two MA5A booster 
engines, one sustainer engine, to two RL 10's on the 
Atlas II AS to one RL 10 engine, and one RD180 
engine. This simplification has dramatic impact on 
improved operability and reliability. But we're not stop- 
ping there. We're moving to a goal of 9,600 pounds to 

GTO with the application of two solid motor based on 
the Atlas heritage. The Atlas II AR's will still use one 
RL10 engine, and one RD180, but dramatically simpli- 
fies our move up the curve of performance and relia- 
bility. This vehicle will be available in the year 2000. 
This Atlas II AR will be available and has been sold for 
launch in December of 1998. Our purpose is to keep 
Atlas competitive world-wide, and of course, to enable 
our competitive posture in the evolved expendable 
launch vehicle program. 

Now I'd like to expand upon the bottom of this 
rocket, which is our relationship in the international 
community [Fig. IS-508]. It is appropriate that we are 
on this panel today with the International Space 
Station and the Russian Space Agency, because the 
world of launch vehicles has dramatically moved from 
domestic to international applications. The basis of our 
future is international cooperation. It is interesting to 
note that the first Atlas launches this year are for 
Palapa for the Indonesians, Inmarsat and Sax for the 
Italians, which should please Prof. Vallerani very much. 
Our international cooperation is currently focused in 
two areas. First, Proton complements our launch fleet 
to expand our global launch services. Second is our 
partnership with Pratt & Whitney and NPO 
Energomash, which is a Russian space company, as 
Dr. Kuznetsov indicated, developing a rocket engine for 
the Atlas II AR. International cooperation has the bene- 
fit of expanding our marketplace and theirs in a dra- 
matic and complimentary way. It provides enhanced 
launch availability and automatic launcher diversity to 
our customers. Finally, it combines the best in technol- 
ogy to provide efficiencies in the access to space. 

Introducing the Proton to the commercial mar- 
ketplace through our International Launch Services 
company has been an adventure [Fig. IS-509]. 
Lockheed/Khrunichev Energia (LKE) is the Proton 
marketing joint venture similar to Commercial Launch 
Services (CLS) which has been marketing the Atlas 
program. When combined, they form the International 
Launch Services team. It is interesting that, though 
we've been working collectively on this for some time, 
we did not realize how well we had established the 
International Launch Services name in the market- 
place. At the recent Proton launch of the SES Satellite, 
one of the board members turned to our COO, Dr. 
Vance Coffman, and said, "What is Lockheed Martin 
doing here?" It was probably the wrong guy to say that 
to, but Dr. Coffman was pretty pleased at the end of 
the day that we had established the ILS name in such 
a rapid fashion. 

Now a brief look into the RD180 [Fig. IS-510]. 
I think you all heard the basis of our search from Mr. 
Goldin's comments— that America has not invested in 
rocket propulsion in some 25 years. However, we 
found that the Russian space companies had in fact 
been working on and enhancing space propulsion, and 



could provide U.S. propulsion a leap ahead. The 
RD180 is really a "Freddy Krueger" approach to 
engine design, in that it is one-half of an RD170 with 
re-sized pumps and auxiliaries. What you see here are 
some of the new design and manufacturing products 
that have been completed by MPO Energomash and 
Pratt & Whitney. 

We will co -produce the RD180 in Russia and 
the U.S., as was indicated by Dr. Kuznetsov [Fig. IS- 
511]. Through his efforts and those of the Russian 
Space Agency we have been cleared for co-production 
which will establish a solid industry base for ourselves 
and NPO Energomash. It's a great partnership. We've 
got a long way to go, but trust and teamwork have 
been the hallmark of this partnership. Together with 
the Russian government, we know that we're going 
to make an interesting mark in the history of space 
to come. 

In summary, the merger of commercial and 
government business practices is key to U.S. launch 
vehicles' success in the future [Fig. 1S-512J. We have 
a wonderful, cooperative spirit from the U.S. Air 
Force and throughout NASA to allow the success that 
we have had in the Atlas and Titan programs. There's 
no doubt in our mind that continued launch success 
qualifies the market; schedule reliability and cost is 
what wins new business. The U.S. government's sup- 
port for the broad-based technology elements that 
you see here, including the RLV, has been marvelous. 
Our future is bright, the forecast is good, satisfaction 
of our customer demands and requirements is our 
objective. Our goal is to be the best in space. Thank 
you very much. 

Mr. Rains: Our last speaker is Tom Rogers, and I know 
Tom wanted me to keep everything short, and keep his 
introduction short. He's the president of the Space 
Transportation Association, and I know he's got a lot 
he wants to say about space tourism. 

Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Rains. Thank you, ladies 
and gentlemen. A short time ago, I was asked by the 
people here for the title of my paper. I quoted a presi- 
dent of the United States and now I find myself last on 
the agenda; there may be some causal relationship 
between the two. I quoted Harry Truman. He was 
asked at retirement by an enterprising reporter, "What 
was the most difficult thing, Mr. President, that you 
had to deal with when you were president of the 
United States?" — thinking that he had had to deal with 
Joseph Stalin, thinking he had had to deal with the 
dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and 
Nagasaki. He said, "Getting people to do what the hell 
they ought to have sense enough to do without my 
telling them." And that's the title of my talk today. The 
subtitle is "Space Tourism." 

1995 RD-1 80 Accomplishments 


RD-1 80 

(RO-170 Derivative) 

■ LOX Kerosene 

• High Performance 

• Throttieabie 

• U.S. Coproduclion 

RD-1B0 Migh-Fideltly Mock up 
■ 70% Actual Components 

RD-180 LOX Pump Water Testing 

- 75% Efficiency Estimated from Two Tests 

Fig. 1S-510 


U.S. Coproduction of the RD-180 Engine 

• Strategic Partnership with Pratt & Whitney for Rocket Engines 

■ Engines Will Be Manufactured by a Joint Venture of NPO Energomash & Pratt & 

■ Development 1 Production ol Engines Will Be Performed by NPO Energomash in 
Khimky (Moscow Region). Russia 

• Russian Government Supports the Manufacture of the RD-180 Engine in the U.S. 
4 the Use of the Engines To Fly U.S. Government Payloads 

• As Required by the DOD Policy, Second-Source Qualification & Coproduction 
(Including Acceptance Testing) by Pratt & Whitney in West Palm Beach, Florida, 
Will Support U.S. Government Payloads 

■ The RD-180 Engine U.S. Qualification & Coproduction Plan Fully Supports USAF 
& Lockheed Martin EELV & Atlas Program Plan 

• Establishes a Solid Industry Base for Russia & U.S. 

• Fusion of U.S. & Russian Technology for Atfas IIAR 




Merger of Commercial & Government Business Practices Is 

Key to U.S. Launch Vehicle Success 

Continued Launch Success Qualifies the Market: Schedule 

Reliability and Cost Wins New Business 

U.S. Space Command Cooperation Has Been Excellent in 

Helping Our Industry Plan & Execute Full Manifest 

U.S. Government Support for Broad-Base Technology 

Enhancement Has Brought Positive Industry Response 

Our Future Is Bright. Forecast Is Good, with Satisfaction of 

Customer Demands & Requirements Our Objective 

Common Core Concept 

Our Goal I* To Be the BMt In Space 

Fig. IS-512 

In 1996, Herman Kahn, one of the great schol- 
ars of the nuclear age, and I were talking in OSD, 
which is where I was at the time, and we came to two 
conclusions. The first was that we could not see that 
we would outlive the Cold War. And the second — recall 
that this was in the midst of the Mercury, Gemini, 



Apollo era— was that as soon as that war came to an 
end, all of this space technology would be used to get 
people up into space. Everybody wanted to go to 
space. Wrong. 1 did outlive the Soviet Union. Wrong. 
We're not sending people to space unless they are 
government employees. 

Now, why consider space tourism today? There 
are four reasons. The first: There is a very large busi- 
ness potential in the carrying of people to and from 
space for short visits. The best estimates that we have 
today is that this business could amount to some 10 
billions of dollars per year in gross revenues. Non-triv- 
ial. That is the amount of money in direct space relat- 
ed gross revenues in the entire satellite communica- 
tions business today, including launch. 

The second reason: What a wonderful market 
to add to the public market for the X33 follow-on vehi- 
cle-fleet market aspirations. That vehicle fleet will have 
to be privately financed, and therefore we will have to 
attract Wall Street investment of very large sums of 
money. And 1 can't help but believe that it will be very, 
very important under those circumstances to have a 
very large, straightforward, private sector market. 

The third: The Japanese are very deeply and 
actively engaged in the pursuit of the space tourism 
business. They have been at it now for about three or 
four years. 1 know some of the principals doing this 
work there, and they are working very, very hard. 

Let me show you the first viewgraph [Fig. IS- 
601 j. It's the one that looks a bit like an acorn. That is 
the first conceptual design in Japan of a vehicle that 
would be designed to carry people to and from space. 
Quite different from anything that we see here to date. 
The next view graph shows two kinds of seating 
arrangements they are giving thought to [Fig. IS-602]. 
We see nothing like this in the United States today. Nor 
do 1 know of any plans for seeing such things as this. 
Who are these people? They came from: ALL Nippon 
Airways, Fuji Heavy Industries, Kawasaki Heavy 
Industries, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nissan Motor 

Co., Shimizu, 
etc. Non-trivial. 

How can 
1 be reasonably 
sure that there 
could be a mar- 
ket of $10 bil- 
lion a year 
gross revenues 
in the space 
tourism area? 
Because the 
Japanese have 
done some- 
thing that has 
never been 

done before in the space tourism area: they've con- 
ducted market surveys. The first one was conducted in 
Japan over two years ago, and they asked, "How many 
people would be willing to pay how much, to do what, 
under what circumstances?" — and from that, derived 
the revenue figures. At that time 1 was convinced that 
the United States should conduct such a survey, and 
set out to try to see it come about, and I failed. 
Subsequently a survey was conducted of the United 
States market by the same Japanese interests. The 
results that they found were quite similar in most fun- 
damental respects to what they had found in Japan. 

Now as to the fourth reason. There is one thing 
that, over a long period of time, 1 have failed to per- 
suade the NASA administrator of. I'm going to keep on 
working on him because he's smart enough and he will 
learn, and then we'll be off to the races. Of all the 
things which Dan spoke about here earlier today, that 



Fig. IS-601 

Fig. IS-602 

NASA is doing and might do in space, all of the goals 
and objectives, let me ask you: which of them would 
you judge to be quintessential American goals? I 
would suggest to you: none. By the way, I'm a physi- 
cist, I love some of them. I'm a communications engi- 
neer. I love some of the others. But I'm also American, 
and I would suggest that by far the most important fed- 
eral civil space goal, and indeed the most important 
national goal in space, is to see space opened up to 
the general public. E pluribus unum. One among 
many. We the people. By the people, of the people, for 
the people. I'm not speaking chauvinistically. I'm speak- 
ing of the American character and relating it to space 

We Americans, when we find something that is 
interesting enough to us and important enough to us, 



1997 Dollars 

Fig. IS-603 

want to 
engage in it 
directly, per- 
sonally. We 
do it all the 
time. Mew 

But not in 
space. Mot 
in space. It 
is the con- 
sidered and 
position of 

our friendly federal government that the general public 
should not aspire to enter space. In my view, that is 
not simply a mistake, it is an out and out blunder. 

May I have the last viewgraph, please [Fig. IS- 
603 from Space Mews, page 1, March 25, 1996]? Look 
what's projected by the president of the Gnited States 
for the MASA budget for the years 1998, 1999, and 
2000. The first curve, the top one, is for a year ago. 
The second, this year. If you include a loss of purchas- 
ing power of some 3 percent per annum, by the year 
2000 the federal civil space program will be reduced in 
purchasing power by 25 percent. If that persists for a 
decade, it will be down to 40 percent. Mow I hope that 
we can get a lot more bang for the buck, as Dan is 
talking about, but I really don't think that we are going 
to be better off with a civil space program expenditure 
of $6 billion. And by the way, that last curve was laid 
out by the president of the Gnited States in a presiden- 
tial election year where he is very, very careful to 
choose his enemies, and to probe very, very sophisti- 
catedly in selecting his soft spots in the body politic. 

Why is this? I listen to Dan Goldin, and Dan 
waxes eloquently about all of the wonderful, exciting 
and interesting things that could go on, and finds large 
numbers of people a good part of the time who are 
interested in these sorts of things, and he talks about 
the stories in the newspapers and in the magazines. 
But there is no way to translate those vital intangibles, 
and I will agree that over the longer term they are vital 
to a quantitative exposition of an annual budget of $14 
billion, or $1.4 billion or $0.14 billion dollars. We must 
really understand that what has been going on for the 
past 10 to 20 years, is that the things which the federal 
government has chosen to do in our civil space pro- 
gram simply do not interest enough of the general 
public. The money is not coming from a Medici prince. 
It is not coming from Lorenzo the Magnificent, but 
from taxpayers, who must decide, each time, what is 
the value of the next dollar to be spent: criminal justice 
system improvement, education improvement, air traf- 
fic control improvement, the delivery of health ser- 

vices, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid . . . and 
when you compare these with what the federal govern- 
ment chooses to do in space — however interesting it is 
to scientists, technology developers, and engineers— 
our present civil space activities just do not find 
enough appeal in the American general public. 

Space tourism would find such an appeal. 
There is no question about it. A few space-related polls 
were conducted in the Gnited States in the 1980s of a 
slightly different character than most of the others. 
One further question was asked in three polls in the 
Gnited States and one in the G.K. After asking all of 
the usual questions, "What do you think about space? 
What do you think about what the government is 
doing in space?" — one other question was asked, 
"What do you want to do about space?" And the 
answer then was — and it's been born out by the 
Japanese market studies in Japan and the Gnited 
States since then — that 40 percent to 45 percent of 
the American adult population said, "I want to take a 
trip to space. " 

I submit that considerations of space — busi- 
ness, space transportation development improvement, 
competition from abroad, and expression of our 
national character — should see us building a space 
tourism business and thereby opening up space to the 
general public. 

Late last year a formal agreement was reached 
between MASA and the Space Transportation Assoc- 
iation. We are working cooperatively to address the 
question, "What should our country do to position itself 
to see a large space tourism business come into 
being?" We've been at it now for several months. We 
have a steering group now nearly completely identified, 
we are working on internal papers and you will be hear- 
ing something about it in the not too distant future. 

Thank you for inviting me here this afternoon. 


Mr. Rains: If I could get all of our speakers to come sit 
at the table now, we've got a number of good ques- 
tions. Our first question is for Dr. Kuznetsov. Can you 
say anything to ease concerns in the Gnited States 
about Russia's commitment to the International Space 
Station program? 

Dr. Kuznetsov: Within recent months, several events 
have taken place which clearly show that Russia will 
fulfill all of its commitments in the International Space 
Station Program. Last month the program status was 
reviewed by Russian Prime Minister Victor 
Chernomyrdin, who visited the Khrunichev Center for a 
detailed study of the project. The conclusion made by 



the prime minister is contained in his letter to Vice 
President Al Gore which was sent early April. 

Mr. Rains: Could you also please comment with 
regard to whether Russia will be on time with its pro- 
duction of its hardware for the Space Station? 

Russia will fulfill all of its commitments in the 

International Space Station Program. Last month 

the program status was reviewed by 

Russian Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin, 

who visited the Khrunichev Center for a detailed 

study of the project. 

Dr. Kuznetsov: Recently the schedules were reviewed 
once again. It was evident that whatever deviations 
from the master schedule were observed, they were 
normal. They were deviations which typically occur in 
programs. So we ensure that the schedules will be 
maintained and met. 

Mr. Rains: I'm going to skip around a little bit here 
and change topics. Tom Rogers, for you, in an era of 
increasing liability and lawsuits, what do you perceive 
as the insurance obstacles to space tourism, and are 
they prohibitive? 

Mr. Rogers: That's one of the questions that we're 
going to be addressing in the study. By the way, that 
allows me to make an observation that I trust is impor- 
tant. We are seemingly committed to the use of the 
shuttle fleet and the Space Station to making inquiries 
into the physical and the life sciences. I'm for that. But 
we ought to be making inquiries in areas that lead to 
more commercial and industrial businesses as well. 
There are many, many questions such as the insur- 
ance question, questions of fear, questions of food, 
questions of clothing, questions of all kinds that need 
to be addressed in an ongoing professional R&D 
fashion, and I believe that the study will articulate 
many of these and will suggest things that the country 
should do to address them. 

design. I think the reality was that there were cost and 
financial concerns that the administration believed 
needed to be addressed. What has happened during 
the program is that the overall cost of the program has 
been capped. The annual costs that were headed 
towards $3.5 billion a year have been capped at $2. 1 
billion a year. So 1 believe that we've come up with a 
program and design that meets all the original expec- 
tations, but at the same time lives within some cost 
realities that are essential for any program to live with- 
in. 1 would say that the program is as good as the 
Freedom program, and is a more affordable program. 
In addition I would point out that with the inclusion of 
the Russians in the program and the addition of their 
international participation, we've brought a lot more 
experience into the program that's been beneficial in a 
variety of ways. 

Mr. Rains: OK, another Space Station question — and 
Jim, if you could handle this one, too. When will the 
first crew board the International Space Station, and 
what kind of specialists and scientists will get to go? 

Mr. Noblitt: The first astronaut has been selected. Bill 
Shepherd is already in Moscow training as the first 
CIS. astronaut. I believe both the Russian astronauts 
for the first crew have also been selected. 1 believe they 
go up in about May of 1998— that's about the right 
time frame — aboard one of the three Russian launch- 
es. I believe it's the third one when the space vehicle 
acually comes up to the station so they have a crew 
return capability. They won't have much scientific 
capability at that point, but they will have astronauts 
on board at that time. 

Mr. Rains: OK, I just want to follow that up a little bit. 
I'd like Professor Vallerani and Dr. Kuznetsov and you 
to all answer this: Has it been settled yet what the 
makeup of the early crews will be as far as nationali- 
ties? Has that question been resolved? How many peo- 
ple from each country? 

Mr. Noblitt: The No. 1 crew has been selected. It will 
be two Russians and one G.S., 1 believe. 

Mr. Rains: I've got another Space Station question. 
I'm going to direct this one to Jim Noblitt. I think that 
the person that asked this is talking about Space 
Station Freedom, and the question is, were the initial 
designs of the Space Station flawed or improved or 
were all of the delays of a political nature? 

Mr. Noblitt: Well, I don't think that the design was 
flawed. I think we found a way to improve on that 

Dr. Kuznetsov: Unfortunately I am not involved per- 
sonally in selecting the crews for the Space Station 
project, so it's hard for me to answer. 

Prof. Vallerani: The other partners will be allowed to 
provide their own astronaut. If we just look to the 
Italian situation as part of our agreement, we have 
assured the presence of the Italian astronaut in the 
operational work, but downstream. 



Mr. Noblitt: Yes, I think you need to recognize that the 
first few missions are primarily U.S. and Russian mis- 
sions, so you would expect the predominant number 
of astronauts then to be operating the U.S. equipment 
and the Russian equipment. Later on downstream, I 
think you would find that more and more European, 
Canadian, and Japanese astronauts would be aboard. 

Mr. Rains: Somebody just asked if the Space Station 
is geosynchronous, and no, it's not. Not by a long 
shot. For Mike Wynne, how does the Titan IV program 
fit into Lockheed Martin's EELV development effort? 

Mr. Wynne: In providing assured access to space, the 
Titan IV program is really a foundation element. I think 
the challenge is to find better, faster, and cheaper ways 
to do that project, but clearly the goal of the evolved 
launch vehicle is to provide heavy lift through a modu- 
lar approach and common core approach to that pro- 
ject. So we have great respect for the customers out 
there in the Titan IV area, and we intend to provide 
them, as well as our other customers, assured access 
in the late 2000s. 

Mr. Rains: To Dr. Kuznetsov, there is a commercial 
launcher called Rocket. It is a cooperative arrangement 
between Germany and Russia. It has been successfully 
launched three times from Baikonur, I understand. Will 
it also be launched from Plesex? 

Dr. Kuznetsov: What took place at Baikonur had 
nothing to do with Russian-German activities. That 
was just a test flight. Commercial launches will also be 
made from Plessetsk, however the existing launch pad 
will have to be modified so that the vehicle could be 
launched from the ground surface rather than from a 

a way to increase efficiency. We say that between the 
combination of centralizing the NASA structure at 
Johnson and bringing us in with an Integrated Product 
Team approach, we were able to cut the cost between 
20 percent and 30 percent on the program. I think it 
really is proving true. Teams work very, very efficiently. 
We're big believers in them, as a lot of our partners are 
on Space Station, and it increases the communication, 
gets you a lot higher probability of taking into consid- 
eration the operational aspects, the manufacturing 
aspects when you design the original product and pro- 
ducing it right the first time at a lower cost. We're very 
much fans of Integrated Product Teams. 

We do what a lot of people call an Integrated 

Product Team approach, where all the specialists 

associated with one product area are located 

together and work together in a unified fashion 

to make sure the end product meets the 

requirements and expectations. 

Mr. Rains: For Dr. Kuznetsov, could you please discuss 
or explain the relationship between the Russian Space 
Agency and Energia? 

Dr. Kuznetsov: The relation between Russian Space 
Agency and the Energia Corporation (Russian Space 
Corporation Energia) are similar to those between 
NASA and the Boeing. The only difference is that one 
of the board members of Energia is a representative of 
the Russian Space Agency and he has the right to vote 
based on the RSAs shares, i.e., Government shares, in 
Energia. We are Energia's main customer. Our rela- 
tions are governed by the contracts that we mutually 
sign. We pay them for the products they develop for 

Mr. Rains: Jim, I'm going to throw this one to you. 
There's an acronym in here I'm not familiar with, but it 
says, please discuss Boeing's experience with the IPT 
organizational structure adopted for the International 
Space Station program. 

Mr. Noblitt: The term is Integrated Product Teams. I 
do know what it means. Basically, one of the real 
emphases in trying to downscale the program and fit 
within a cost cap of $2. 1 billion was working together. 
That's one of the things that we have really stressed. 
We do what a lot of people call an Integrated Product 
Team approach, where all the specialists associated 
with one product area are located together and work 
together in a unified fashion to make sure the end 
product meets the requirements and expectations. It's 

Mr. Rains: To anyone who can answer the question, 
will the International Space Station use a common 
telemetry protocol? If so, will it use the NASA CCSDS 
telemetry protocol pocket processing system? 

Mr. Noblitt: Not me. Can anyone out in the audience 
answer that question? I'm sorry. 

Mr. Rains: OK, I have a question that I'd like each of 
our panelists to address, and that is, thinking about 
what Tom Rogers had to say, would each of you assess 
what you consider to be the near-term potential of 
space tourism, and is it a business opportunity? 

Mr. Rogers: Are you asking me, Lon? 



Mr. Rains: No. I already know what you think, Tom. 
You're excluded. 

Mr. Rains: I'd like to do a follow-up there and ask 
when your prices are going to come down. 

Mr. Wynne: Since Tom was so kind as to be excluded, 
I would say that when the era of reusable launch vehi- 
cles dawns out in the year 2010 to 2020, the concept 
of seating as you saw across the many Apollo capsules 
may actually come into being. Until we conquer that 
aspect of physics, the aspect of space tourism is very 
limited. So I would say the near term would be 2020, 
and perhaps if we can do the reusable launch sooner, 
that will be the foundation technology that would allow 
tickets to be sold. 

Mr. Noblitt: I think 1 could subscribe to Tom's vision. I 
think, like Mike, it would probably be a question of 
when. What's the timing involved in it? There are a lot 
of technologies that have to be put in place. There are 
a lot of activities that have to be accomplished. There 
is some good news, however, in the whole idea, and 
that is that it is potentially a very large market that 
would provide a lot of revenue. And any business orga- 
nization finds that attractive. The question is, what is it 
going to cost to develop the capability and when will 
you have the technology to do it? I have seen some 
of the presentations that were made by the Japanese 
companies. I know Shimizu was at one time talking 
about 2050 as a target when they would have a hotel 
in space, which is a little more ambitious than what 
Tom showed. 

Mr. Evans: I don't pretend to be an expert on this mat- 
ter. But I have given it some thought and 1 do believe 
that such a market exists. The question is when. I hon- 
estly believe that if someone were to invest in changing 
space hab or space lab or something like that into a 
personnel carrier, there are enough very rich people 
around the world who would pay the price to go. 

Dr. Kuznetsov: We have some experience in the area 
of space tourism. Well, what I mean is the launch of a 
Japanese journalist in the Soyuz vehicle. We have not 
had any more applications since that flight. 

Dr. Kuznetsov: The more launches, the lower the 

Prof. Vallerani: I believe, conservatively speaking, 
space tourism does have a great attraction because it 
brings men into the scene, and whenever this is possi- 
ble, I believe that sooner or later mankind will just 
embark on these types of activities. I remember that 
already 10 years ago I was asked by an interpreter 
from the United States if it was possible to transform 
our space lab models that we were designing at that 
time to carry 20 people on board. We did a very brief, I 
won't say study, but a very brief survey of what was 
possible and we got our response: It was indeed possi- 
ble and feasible. The only problem, of course, was the 
cost of the transportation and the overall policy of 
authorizing. So sooner or later, in my opinion, this will 
happen. And it's really a difficult guess when this is 
going to happen. 

Mr. Rogers: I was addressing a seminar of young 
space students about six months or a year ago, and 
they must have been engineers. I started beating up 
on them, saying, "Let's go for it. Let's move it. Let's 
move it!" And finally they asked, "Gee, what are you 
beating on us so hard for, Mr. Rogers?" I said, "Think. 
At your age, you have a 50/50 chance of living two or 
three times my age. At my age, I have a 50/50 chance 
of living 10 percent more of my life. I'm in a hurry! 
That's the first thing. The second thing, more serious, 
I think we will see tourism begin with sub-orbital trips. 
I think we'll see people going up 30, 40, 50 miles, stay 
up there 10 minutes, and we'll gradually boot strap our 
way along. It will be some time before we have large 
hotels in orbit. 

Mr. Rains: OK. I'd like to thank all of our speakers. 
And I'd also like to thank all of you for sticking it out 
with us this afternoon. 



Space Technology Hall of Fame Dinner Presentation- 
New Strategic Vision for Space Policy and Programs 

Introduction: General James E. Hill, GSAF (Ret.) Featured 

Chairman of the Board Speaker: 

U.S. Space Foundation 

Joseph Gorman 

Chairman & CEO 
TRW Inc. 

Gen. Hill: Well, the man we're going to be introduc- 
ing to you — who until just recently controlled what 
kind of credit card you could get, because of the TRW 
credit thing — is a person who heads up one of the 
quality enterprises in America. It is my pleasure to 
introduce this evening's distinguished speaker, Mr. 
Joseph T. Gorman. 

Joe Gorman is chairman and chief executive 
officer of TRW Inc. He was elected to this position in 
December 1988 after serving as president and chief 
operating officer since 1985. TRW is a leading provider 
of automotive, space, and defense systems worldwide. 
The company is the world's largest independent sup- 
plier of occupant restraint systems, steering systems, 
engine components, and engineered fasteners and is a 
leading producer of automotive electronics. For space 
and defense markets, TRW is a leader in spacecraft 
and space systems, avionic surveillance systems and 
software based systems for defense and commercial 
markets. Mr. Gorman is a trustee of the Committee 
for Economic Development and is a member of The 
Business Roundtable's policy committee, the Council 
on Competitiveness, and the President's Export 
Council. In 1994 he received Japan's Prime Minister's 
Trade Award for his contributions to promoting 
improved U.S. trade relations. Mr. Gorman holds a 
Bachelor of Arts from Kent State University and a 
LL.B. from Yale Law School. A very warm welcome to 
Mr. Gorman as he comes up to the podium. 

Mr. Gorman: Thank you very much. I appreciate that 
very gracious introduction. 

This evening, I had the distinct pleasure of sit- 
ting next to Gen. Joseph Ashy's wife, better known as 
Sue. She said, 'Joe, as you go up there tonight, 
remember the definition of a good speech. It has a 
good beginning, a good ending, and they are very 
close together." I'll try to live up to this at this late hour. 

I am indeed honored to be with you this 
evening and to be asked to share some of my 
thoughts regarding a new strategic vision for our space 
policies and programs. The good news about this sub- 
ject, of course, is that we have a rich and highly envi- 
able record about which we can be enormously proud: 
all of our space accomplishments. The bad news is 
that we have absolutely nothing on the horizon that 

even remotely resembles a comprehensive, credible, 
affordable, strategic vision or plan designed to help the 
United States achieve its critical goals in a rapidly and 
vastly changing world. 

Moreover, in the beginning stages of contem- 
plating this task, we must be particularly mindful of 
one of H.L. Mencken's admonitions. He said that for 
every complex problem there is a simple solution — and 
it is wrong. For we naturally view space issues as part 
of a much larger set of interrelated issues that face this 
country and, indeed, the entire world. It is critically 
important at the outset to understand the massive and 
profound transformational changes that are taking 
place all around us and that indeed will drive much of 
what we do for the future. It is especially important to 
focus on the implications of those changes, the impli- 
cations for the world, the implications for the United 
States, and, yes, the implications for space strategies 
and programs. 

Now, in this dimension a lot of very good peo- 
ple, over many years, have missed the mark badly. 
Allow me a few illustrative quotes. "Heavier-than-air fly- 
ing machines are impossible." — Lord Kelvin, President 
Royal Society, 1895. "Everything that can be invented 
has been invented."— Charles Duell, director of the G.S. 
Patent Office, 1899. "Sensible and responsible women 
do not want to vote." — Graver Cleveland, 1905. "There 
is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the 
atom." — Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner in physics, 
1923. "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" — Harry 
M. Warner, Warner Brothers Pictures, 1927. And finally, 
"Babe Ruth made a big mistake when he gave up 
pitching." — Tris Speaker, 1921. 

What then would be some of the examples of 
the massive and profound changes that will drive 
much of what we do and will shape our thinking, our 
policies, our strategies, and our plans? One of the 
most pervasive and profound of our time is the global- 
ization of markets that were once regional — this is little 
short of phenomenal — in a relatively short period of 
time. Whole industries have gone elsewhere; major 
portions of industries have been taken away or been 
added. Let me give you a statistic. In 1974, the Big 
Three controlled 85 percent of the automobiles sold in 
North America. By 1994, 20 years later, that number 
was 56 percent, when you take into account the auto- 
mobiles sold through the Big Three that were built 



abroad. What a fantastic and astonishing change over 
such a short period of time. Now, that's the most dra- 
matic, perhaps, but what we have experienced is only 
the tip of the iceberg. We will continue the globaliza- 
tion of markets at dramatic rates. 

To me, the implications are clear. We must 
think globally, and we must act globally. It is clearly 
inexorable; there's no turning back. Indeed, we should 
see it as an opportunity, not a problem, and, of 
course, it means we must be globally competitive. 

The second major transformational change — 
and, again, it is astonishing— is the rise of Asia. We all 
know Japan's story, a $120 billion favorable trade bal- 
ance with the rest of the world. Of that, $65 billion was 
negative with the United States a year ago. Using the 
Department of Commerce's own standards of counting 
jobs per billion of dollars of exports or imports, that's 
1.3 million jobs. And, by the way, our trade deficit with 
the Japanese is $600 billion over the past 10 years. 
We're now approaching a $40 billion trade deficit with 
China. And we use to squawk like crazy when we were 
at $40 billion with Japan. So we have a serious problem 
there. In China there are 1.2 billion people. By the way, 
60 percent of the population of the world is in Asia, 40 
percent in China and India alone. We cannot ignore 
Asia. If we ignore Asia, it is at our peril. 

It was Alexis de Toqueville who said, "America is 

great because America is good, and America will 

cease being good when it ceases being great." 

What again are some of the implications? 
China is likely to become the largest economic power 
in the world— sheer numbers dictate it. You don't have 
to have a very large GNP per person when you've got 
1.2 billion growing to 1.5 billion perhaps over the next 
few years, which will exceed the economies of both the 
United States and Japan. 

One startling statistic: If we were to imagine 
that someday — it may never happen — but if someday 
the per capita automobile population of China were to 
equal today's per capita automotive population of 
Germany, there would be 500 million vehicles in 
China. To put that in perspective, there are 500 million 
vehicles in the world operating today. 

Imagine the implications militarily. If China is 
the strongest economic power on Earth, it is likely to 
be one of the strongest, if not the strongest, military 
power on Earth someday. Again, imagine what that 
tells us about what we ought to be doing by way of 

Now, to me several strategic imperatives stand 
out as a result of these changes. Economically and 
geopolitically we have to follow paths that create inter- 


dependence with China, not independence. It would 
be unthinkable not to have a situation where China 
needs us an ally, wants us as an ally, and where we 
want and need China as an ally. So imagine some of 
the geopolitical alliances that might result. I'll come 
back to that, particularly in connection with space 

Third, moving closer to our subject at hand 
today, what about defense, national security, and glob- 
al security? We are kidding ourselves if we think there 
is any chance of succeeding in preventing high-tech 
weaponry proliferation. It is not a question of whether 
high-tech weaponry capability will proliferate, but 
rather when. I'm not smart enough to tell you exactly 
when and who will have it, but we estimate 12 to 17 
countries that do not now have the capability will have 
ballistic missile capability within the next 10 to 15 
years. Half of those, maybe five to seven only, will also 
have intercontinental ballistic missile capability and 
nuclear warhead capability. If you accept the premise 
of the inevitability of the proliferation of high-tech 
weaponry, it doesn't take very much logic to say that 
implies clearly and distinctly a global overhead system 
that will monitor and detect what's going on in the 
launch business, and a global system, not just systems 
aimed at the former Soviet Union, that has the capabil- 
ity of knocking out an unfriendly launch — and over the 
territory of the sender, not the receiver, so the nuclear 
fallout falls on the sender, not the receiver. And that is 
a deterrent to launch in the first place. 

I believe there are clear implications for space. 
And even if you don't believe in the inevitability of pro- 
liferation, which I think is naive, you can't — we can't — 
for ourselves and for our grandchildren — afford to bet 

The fourth major change is that the U.S. 
increasingly will be, because it must be, to some sig- 
nificant degree, preoccupied with its problems at 
home. Why? In the aggregate, our social problems 
and our economic problems represent really and truly 
a crisis. And if they are not one, they certainly will do 
until a real crisis comes along. 

It was Alexis de Toqueville who said, "America 
is great because America is good, and America will 
cease being good when it ceases being great." Ladies 
and gentlemen, I submit to you that we are in grave 
danger of losing both our greatness and our good- 
ness. I know that's contrary to popular convention, but 
hear me out. On the social front, we have some of the 
most serious problems in the world. You're aware of 
them as well as 1: drugs, crime, teenage pregnancy, 
housing, a huge and growing gap between the haves 
and the have-nots, education, lack of opportunity — 
and the list goes on. If we don't do something about 
our social problems, we'll have riots in the street to a 
far greater extent than we do today. Our quality of life 

will continue to decline, and decline dramatically. So 
we have to address, and with a sense of urgency, those 
problems. Economically, where do we stand? We have 
a $5 trillion budget deficit, roughly. What's not talked 
about very often is the $14 trillion unfunded liability 

that we have, liabilities we've promised each other 

benefits, if you will, that we've promised each other but 
have yet to pay over and above the tax receipts that 
will come in. Of that $14 trillion, $12 trillion represents 
Social Security— or represents entitlements, half of 
which is Social Security and half of which is Medicaid 
and Medicare. We must address that because that's 50 
percent of the budget, and it's moving to 60 percent. 
We have in education 20 percent, at best, illiteracy, 40 
percent at worst. 88 percent of our 18 year olds can't 
consistently put fractions in the order of size. 80 per- 
cent can't write an understandable essay on an 
assigned subject. 

We estimate that by the time our 18-year-olds 
graduate from high school, they have watched 22,000 
hours of television and they have been in the class- 
room 1 1,000 hours. We've gone from the best educa- 
tional system in the world to the worst among 17 
industrialized countries. We're dead last among those 
17 in math and science, and we're almost dead last in 
every other subject. You say, what about the top 10 
percent of those kids? We're dead last, falling in 
behind Hungary, when we compare our top 10 percent 
with the top 10 percent of the rest of the countries. 
Don't let anybody tell you we don't have serious educa- 
tional problems in this country. 

I talked about the budget deficits. Our net sav- 
ings rates are the lowest in the industrial world, one- 
third that of Germany, one-fifth that of Japan. And we 
all know the economic growth is a function of produc- 
tivity growth. Productivity growth is a function of 
investment. Investment is a function of savings. So we 
must find ways to reward savings and penalize con- 
sumption. We have the perverse rules at this time that 
work in the opposite direction. It was Mark Twain who 
said, "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run 
over if you're not moving fast enough." We know our 
problems, but we are not moving fast enough. 

Fifth — and I'll try to condense some of these 
points — Europe is in much the same shape as we are, 
except worse. The Europeans are where we were eight 
to 10 years ago in terms of competitiveness, and 
they're worse off in terms of social costs. So we can't 
expect a whole lot of help from the Europeans in help- 
ing to lead the world because they also will be relative- 
ly preoccupied with getting their own house in order 
over the next several years. 

Sixth, several countries in central and eastern 
Europe are on the razor's edge as they try to convert 
themselves to a full-blown democracy and to a market- 
driven economy. We must do more to help. We've got 


to ensure their success, but that will be yet another 
drain on our resources. And, of course, all of you will 
know about the implications of their failure. 

Seventh, the environment. Dan Goldin talked a 
bit about that at lunch. Imagine the dire consequences 
that could befall our environment as the rest of the 
world industrializes as we did, and perhaps with far less 
stringent standards, and as literally hundreds of mil- 
lions of vehicles sprout around the globe. This implies 
placing a high priority on developing a much better 
understanding of likely outcomes and of, course, there 
is a critical role for space to play there. 

It was Mark Twain who said, "Even if you're on 

the right track, you'll get run over if you're not 

moving fast enough." We know our problems, 

but we are not moving fast enough. 

Eighth, and finally, technology. It was Mark 
Twain who also said, "It's a good idea to look ahead, 
but not farther than the eye can see." Dan touched on 
this at lunch as well. Now, I think that's particularly 
good advice here, not farther than the eye can see, 
because it is probably impossible, not just unlikely, to 
foresee with any real specificity the mind-boggling' 
pace or magnitude of the changes that will character- 
ize technology over the next 10, 20, or 30 years. 
Perhaps it is sufficient to say simply we know we are 
short on specifics, but that we also can predict with 
relative certainty that technology changes will dramati- 
cally affect what we do, how we do it and how we think 
about what we do, and all with an unknown but enor- 
mous implication for space. 

In summary and conclusion, that, of course, is 
not an exhaustive list of transformational changes, but 
it is a list that's highly illustrative and instructive of 
what we've got to do as we think through a new strate- 
gic vision for space. I've tried to weave in throughout 
the talk key implications for each of the identified 
changes, not because I know they are absolutely the 
right ones, but rather to illustrate the difficult but nec- 
essary process that is involved in crafting long-term 
strategic visions for the future. However, while difficult, 
it certainly is not impossible, and we do deserve better 
in the CJnited States. And, indeed, it is an indictment 
against all of us, all of us in industry, the public sector, 
and the private sector, that we haven't together forged 
and developed a consensus on a long-term vision and 
key strategic goals. Now, before you become overly 
concerned about this failing, allow me to remind you 
that these criticisms may also be levied against visions, 
policies, strategies, and programs centered on tech- 
nology in general, education, economic policies, trade 
competitiveness and, yes, even defense. And, in fact, 
most of what our government is doing. Sadly our poli- 



cies, programs, and priorities tend to be short-term 
and firefighting in nature. 

All of what we've talked about tonight virtually 
cries out for longer-term, comprehensive, integrated, 
affordable, strategic objectives, plans and programs- 
including, of course, space. We must decide our priori- 
ties in Earth observation, space sciences, planetary 
and lunar exploration, military space and, particularly, 
defense, launch capabilities, communications— the list 
could go on and on. 

We must streamline and be certain we are 
employing the right organizing principles to achieve 
our goals. While we, of course, must find ways to do 
more with less, we still have to have adequate funding 
on a sustained basis. We can't succeed on the cheap. 
Paradigm shifts are required. You all know that as well, 
both in the public sector and the private sector. 

Space must be an important integrated part of 
a well-defined national agenda, a national agenda that 
is comprehensive, overarching, integrated, coordinat- 
ed, affordable, credible— something we've not had in 
my lifetime. If we've had one, I certainly have not been 
aware of it. 

Now, why space? Space allows us to transcend 
humankind, to go beyond ourselves, as Dan said at 
lunch. It can help lead us, as the people in the TRW 
video said, to reach environmental harmony. Its com- 
munications potential could help unite the people of 
the world. Truly, its vast and magical mysteries stir the 
soul and spark boundless imagination, and we've got 
to do our part to keep the dream alive. Together I 
know we can make it happen, and together we will 
make it happen. For as 1 regularly remind our people 
at TRW, failure is not an option. 

Thank you very much. 



The Clinton Administration's View of Space 

Introduction: Steven P. Scott 

Program Development Manager 
Rockwell Space System Division 

Featured The Hon. Lionel S. Johns 

Speaker: Associate Director 

for Technology 
Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, 
The White House 

Mr. Scott: Today is the last day of the 12th National 
Space Symposium. We're going to start with the Clinton 
administration's view of space by Lionel "Skip" Johns. 
Mr. Johns is the associate director for technology in the 
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
which incorporated the responsibilities of the National 
Space Council three years ago. He is also responsible 
for coordinating technology research and development 
between federal agencies. Ladies and gentlemen, please 
welcome The Honorable Skip Johns. 

Mr. Johns: Thank you for that introduction. It's a plea- 
sure to return this year and be a part of the U.S. Space 
Foundation's 12th Annual Symposium. It is a real trib- 
ute to the success of the Foundation — and to the 
efforts of Dick MacLeod and his staff— that we have 
here so many leaders in business and government to 
discuss our future in space. And, as Dick has said, it's 
the courteous and thoughtful volunteers who make it 

In preparing for this talk, I sifted through some 
of my past comments to this group and others around 
the nation, and I began to realize that we have done a 
lot over the past three years in many areas that rely on 
the nation's space science and technology knowledge 
and thus assure the future importance of space. 

Within the space community, we sometimes 
tend to see any changes as unique or isolated occur- 
rences. What I want to do today is connect the dots to 
show a larger picture. I'd like to talk a little about some 
of this administration's policies from a "big picture" 
perspective and tie them back into the space pro- 
grams and policies we're discussing today. 

I will take four of the administration's high-pri- 
ority areas: reinventing government, investing in tech- 
nology, promoting dual-use technologies, and promot- 
ing and protecting the environment. When this admin- 
istration took office, the vice president was asked to 
take the lead in reinventing the way government works. 
Under Dan Goldin's leadership, NASA was at the van- 
guard of this movement, not only in terms of institut- 
ing organizational and management reforms, but also 
in terms of redesigning its largest program, the Space 
Station. You have to recall that when we took office, 
the Space Station was practically DOA — dead on 
arrival. Plagued with cost overruns and lack of focus, 

the program had a virtually zero chance of getting 
through to Congress. Even with a redesign, it carried 
by only one vote! 

The easy way out would have been to walk 
away from the program and forego manned space 
flight for decades. We did not do that. The president 
decided that the Space Station was a crucial invest- 
ment in our future, and he directed NASA to restruc- 
ture the program and seek to expand international par- 
ticipation in the project. Today, the Space Station is on 
budget and on schedule and continues to be a symbol 
of what nations can do in the post-Cold War era 
through peaceful cooperation. 

I'd like to turn to another theme that this 
administration has pursued very strongly — investments 
in science and technology. When we first took office, 
we published a technology policy to achieve economic 
growth. In that report, we made the observation that, 
in many ways, technology is the engine of economic 
growth. If you want economic growth, it only follows 
that you have to keep your engine running. Federal 
investments in science and technology fuel a competi- 
tive economy. 

When we took office, the Space Station was 

practically DOA— dead on arrival. Plagued with 

cost overruns and lack of focus, the program 

had a virtually zero chance of getting through 

to Congress. Even with a redesign, it carried 

by only one vote! 

We have stepped up to the plate, with indus- 
try's help, to defend these investments. And we've 
done so at a time in the budget process when propos- 
ing new initiatives in nondefense discretionary spend- 
ing is practically impossible. Our efforts in space trans- 
portation are a good example. 

I'll bet that if I were to ask 10 of you today, 
"What's our biggest problem in space today?" at least 
eight of you would say, "the cost of space transporta- 
tion." If we are going to ever fully exploit the potential 
of space, we have to find a more economical way to 
access the space environment. It was for this reason 
that we developed a national space transportation 



policy, to chart a clear course toward lower costs, both 
on the reusable side and on the ELV side. The NASA 
funding going into the RLV program and the DOD 
funding going into the EELV program are not merely 
isolated funding choices of the agencies involved. 
They are part of a conscious strategy to select and 
invest in technology for the future. That's what we said 
we would do, and we are doing it. 

What about on the satellite side of the equa- 
tion? If you look at the satellite industry today, you will 
see that the United States leads the world in satellite 
communications with, I believe, 85 percent of the 
world market. Our space industry provides 
the vast majority of the on-orbit assets as well as the 
ground terminals in use today for communications. 
This leadership exists due to the technological advan- 
tage from continuing investment that the United States 
has in space systems and satellite technology. 

Tomorrow's cars, trucks, trains, and ships will 

be guided by intelligent systems that will rely 

on GPS for timing, positioning, and navigation. 

And GPS is used in all sorts of recreational 

activities— from hiking and camping to fishing 

and sailing. 

On Sept. 12, 1995, leaders of the satellite 
communications industry met with Vice President Gore 
and senior government officials from the administra- 
tion, NASA, DOD, and the FCC to discuss their con- 
cerns about the future of their industry. This industry 
group represented 20 companies from satellite manu- 
facturers to service providers. 

Several issues were raised by industry. These 
issues included spectrum access, trade and security, 
access to markets, interoperability, and technology 
advancement. One of the clear messages of this meet- 
ing was a call for greater cooperation between the 
DOD, NASA, and industry in the investment in pre- 
competitive technologies needed to continue the U.S. 
global leadership in satellites and their applications. 

We are leading an effort to identify high priority 
R&D investments for satellite technologies. Working 
closely with DOD and NASA, we are reviewing each 
agency's road map for satellite R&D investment. In 
parallel, industry has embarked on an effort to identify 
its critical technology needs and to propose an indus- 
try-government-academia partnership model. Our 
hope is to identify critical technology areas that will 
enable the agencies to meet their crucial mission 
needs while providing the necessary long-term R&D 
that will promote U.S. technological leadership and 
industry's continued global competitiveness. We seri- 
ously support this effort. 

On the space science side, NASA's New 
Millennium Program lays the groundwork for an age 
of exploration and achievement — by developing and 
flight-validating innovative technologies for future mis- 
sions. In NASA's vision, future space exploration will be 
so extensive and comprehensive that a "virtual human 
presence" will extend throughout the solar system and 

Investing in technology is crucial, however. 
Now we must also capitalize on technology we have 
already developed. Here I want to talk about a third 
theme we have pushed hard — dual-use. 

In my view, one of our real success stories here 
is GPS. As we speak today, the U. S. leads the world in 
the development and use of global positioning systems 
and technologies. Originally designed by the Depart- 
ment of Defense to meet the navigation and position- 
ing needs of U.S. military forces, GPS is now being 
integrated into virtually every facet of our military oper- 
ations. It is critical to maintaining our national defense 

But like another dual-use defense technology 
with which we are all familiar — the Internet — GPS is 
also finding its way into our everyday lives. Today's 
communications systems use GPS timing signals to 
control the flow of information — in fact, the flow of 
information on the Internet is controlled by GPS (pre- 
cise time feature). Police cars, fire trucks, ambulances, 
and other emergency vehicles are using GPS to 
improve their response — saving time, and airlines are 
gearing up to use GPS to increase safety, enhance 
efficiency, and reduce costs. Tomorrow's cars, trucks, 
trains, and ships will be guided by intelligent systems 
that will rely on GPS for timing, positioning, and navi- 
gation. And GPS is used in all sorts of recreational 
activities — from hiking and camping to fishing and 
sailing. By some estimates, the commercial market for 
GPS equipment and services could exceed $8 billion 
by the year 2000, and the number of civil and com- 
mercial users will outnumber military users by more 
than 8-to-l. 

On March 28, the president approved a com- 
prehensive new U.S. GPS policy that seeks to support 
continued growth of commercial applications of this 
amazing dual-use technology, while, at the same time, 
protecting our vital national security interests. 

GPS is not the only example of dual-use tech- 
nology. Early on in the administration, the president 
directed consolidation of the DOD, DOC/NOAA, and 
NASA polar-orbiting weather satellite activities, elimi- 
nating duplication and saving taxpayers approximately 
$1.3 billion over 10 years with no degradation in ser- 
vice. Civil and national security agencies are working 
with the science and natural hazards communities to 
identify and use, as appropriate, valuable environmen- 
tal data gathered by national security assets. 



There's one last area I'd like to mention where 
administration priorities are driving significant achieve- 
ments in space, and that is protecting and preserving 
the environment. The president is committed to the 
preservation of environmental quality. But we realize 
that it takes more than just laws and regulations to 
protect the environment; it takes knowledge and 
understanding so that we can make effective deci- 
sions. This is where science and technology and the 
space program have so much to offer. 

Satellite measurements from space are a 
unique source of knowledge, permitting us to observe, 
monitor, and analyze the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, 
land surface, and their interactions on a global scale. 
They have vastly increased our understanding of such 
critical environmental issues as climate change, defor- 
estation, and ozone depletion; reduced our vulnerabili- 
ty to natural hazards; and given us new resource man- 
agement capabilities. Earth observations contribute to 
our national security and prosperity. 

This is why we have taken significant steps to 
strengthen and improve the satellite programs of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), the national security agencies, and NASA's 
Mission to Planet Earth. 

In Mission to Planet Earth, we are integrating 
the Landsat series of satellites with the Earth Obser- 
vation System (EOS), assuring that these critical land 
surface measurements will be continued into the 

future. EOS itself has been reshaped to save money 
and introduce new technologies, with no delay in 
launch dates and no reduction in measurement capa- 
bility. We are also pursuing new and creative procure- 
ment and program management practices, including 
purchases of data from the commercial sector and an 
innovative, low-cost small satellite effort called Earth 
System Science Pathfinder. 

I've outlined in this brief time just a few exam- 
ples of how the promises we made three years ago — 
whether on reinventing government, investing in tech- 
nology, ensuring that we get the most from dual-use 
technologies, or preserving and protecting the environ- 
ment — are coming to fruition today. 

Satellite measurements from space are a unique 

source of knowledge, permitting us to observe, 

monitor, and analyze the Earth's atmosphere, 

oceans, land surface, and their interactions 

on a global scale. 

I am convinced that, with the able leadership 
we have in this room today, both on the government 
and industry sides, the same drive that brought us 
successfully to this point will propel us into a bright 
tomorrow. Thank you very much. 








Better th 

an ever: 

April 1 -4, 1 997 

The Broadmoor 
Colorado Springs 


"TechNation" National Public Radio/Voice of America Radio and TV Program- 
The Future of the Space Program 

Master Steven R Scott 

Moderator: Program Development Manager 
Rockwell Space System Division 

Session Dr. Moira Gunn 

Chair: Producer & Host 

TechNation . . . Americans & 

Mr. Scott: Next up we have a real treat — a little point, 
counterpoint moderated by Dr. Moira Gunn. Dr. Gunn 
is the producer and host of "TechNation," which is a 
radio and TV program heard and seen on national and 
public broadcasting stations and armed forces radio 
and television. She will lead a discussion on the future 
of the space program, which will be recorded for an 
upcoming broadcast. As a reminder, there will be no 
photography during this session. Dr. Gunn is a former 
NASA engineer and scientist. As an engineering con- 
sultant, she specializes in engineering management, 
technology audits, systems testing, and robotics. 
Ladies and gentlemen, a warm welcome for Dr. Moira 
Gunn. (applause) 

Editor's note: The TechNation National Public 
Radio/Voice of America Radio and TV Program was 
videotaped live at the Symposium and is available 
on tape through Dr. Gunn. 

Dr. Gunn: Live from the 12th National Space 
Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado, I'm Moira 
Gunn, and this is "Tech Nation," Americans and 
Technology. Please welcome my guests today. First of 
all, Congressman Bob Walker, chairman of the Science 
Committee for the G.S. House of Representatives; 
Congressman Joel Hefley, chairman, Military 
Installations and Facilities Committee, G.S. House of 
Representatives; the Honorable Lionel Johns, associ- 
ate director for technology, White House Office of 
Science and Technology Policy; and Dr. Ed Stone, 
director of NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Thank 
you, gentlemen, for joining us. I have to tell you, last 

Speakers: The Hon. Robert Walker 

Chairman, Science Committee 
G.S. House of Representatives 

The Hon. Joel Hefley 

National Security Committee 
G.S. House of Representatives 

The Hon. Lionel S. Johns 

Associate Director for Technology 
Office of Science and Technology 

The White House 

Dr. Edward Stone 


Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

year many of you were here as well. We did a radio 
and television broadcast and on that broadcast we 
were fortunate to have Dr. Edward Teller, Dr. Buzz 
Aldrin, Dr. Hans Mark and Gen. Jay Kelly. And it was a 
wonderful, wonderful panel. The next day, I came 
through the front door of this building, and up came 
Dr. Teller with his big staff, and he said, "Now, tell me 
the truth. I am not embarrassed to ask. More or less, 
how was I yesterday?" And I said, "Well, Dr. Teller, you 
were magnificent. In fact, you stole the show." And Dr. 
Teller looked faintly pleased, and he said, "You know, 
but you were such a nice lady. I didn't want to say any- 
thing about that ridiculous idea that Buzz has about 
tourism in space!" And I said, "Well, Dr. Teller, what's 
the problem?" And he explained his problem, and I 
said, "Well you know, Dr. Teller, 1 don't think that's 
Buzz's idea. I think he had a slightly different intent." 
And I explained. And he said,"Oh, hmmmm." And he 
stood up a little higher with his staff, and he held his 
finger up to me, and he said, "You begin to have a 
point." And so while Dr. Teller could not be with us 
today, he shall be with us today in spirit, giving us the 
opportunity for you, gentlemen, to begin to have a 
point. And with that, I think some people do need 
some background on just exactly how, independent of 
your individual status, we all relate. Now, 
Representative Walker, if you would start by telling us 
about the Science Committee, and how it affects 
space legislation and policy. 

Representative Walker: Largely, the Science 
Committee has jurisdiction over all civilian research 
and development activities within the federal govern- 
ment. That includes work at the Department of 



Energy, it includes work at NOAA. But one of the 
largest jurisdictions is NASA. We have authorization 
authority for those programs, meaning that we are the 
committee that develops policy that relates to the 
space programs and other science-related efforts of 
the government. 

Dr. Gunn: Skip, the White House Office of Science 
and Technology Policy. How does that relate here? 

Mr. Johns: The White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy is in the Executive Office of the 
president. It is one of the mechanisms that the presi- 
dent has to have policy coordinated and carried out in 
the agencies that are in keeping with the administra- 
tion's policies. We are really a consensus-building 
organization that works as an honest broker to get 
agencies working together on common administration 
themes. It's challenging and it's exciting. 

The high ground today is space, and the ability 

to communicate, to navigate, to predict, 

to do all kinds of things in space 

that are so important to defense. 

Dr. Gunn: You bet. Representative Hefley, I realize 1 did 
not give the complete title of your committee. If you 
could say it for us and tell us what it does. 

Representative Hefley: It's the Department of 
Defense, the Military Installation and Facilities 
Committee of the National Security Committee, and 
I'm here to represent military space efforts today. It's 
become so enormously important to the defense 
structure of this country. You know, it's not a new con- 
cept that in military engagements you try to take the 
high ground and hold it. At Gettysburg, all of us who 
studied our history, we know the secret of the Union 
forces. They had the high ground, the Confederate 
forces came on against them on that high ground 
time and time again and couldn't dislodge them. The 
high ground today is space, and the ability to commu- 
nicate, to navigate, to predict, to do all kinds of things 
in space that are so important to defense, is why I'm 
here today. I was looking at our panel and I'm wonder- 
ing which one of us is taking Dr. Teller's place. I'm cer- 
tain it's not me. 

Dr. Gunn: Make no mistake, both of these congress- 
men, Representative Hefley and Representative Walker, 
also represent their entire constituencies on all issues, 
not just these committee policy types of things. Now 
Dr. Stone, tell us how NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory 


fits into this picture. 

Dr. Stone: JPL is one of the NASA centers and our 
main area of responsibility is deep-space missions — 
the planetary missions. We also have a role in Earth 
Observing Systems and in astrophysics, and some 
work for non-NASA agencies as well. 

Dr. Gunn: Skip, I was reading this week's edition of 
Space News, and Leonard David filed a story from 
Washington which begins, "A soon-to-be released 
White House space policy downplays the prospect of 
humans venturing beyond low-Earth orbit anytime 
soon." How soon is "soon to be released," and just 
what time frame does the White House envision for 
humans venturing beyond low-Earth orbit? 

Mr. Johns: First of all, with regard to the space policy 
itself, we have a space policy in effect that was a presi- 
dential directive of some years back. And this is to 
update that to better reflect what it is that the nation's 
space agenda will contain for the future rather than for 
the past. This is again a process of consensus building 
and we would expect it within the next 30 days. Our 
largest problem is getting deputies who are scattered 
around the world in the same room at the same time. I 
think our next meeting is probably later this month, 
during the week of the 25th of April, 1996. It's going 
to take probably the better part of the next month to 
get the last few issues that we need to get resolved, 

Dr. Gunn: Was that a correct report — that we might 
expect a downplay in humans venturing beyond low- 
Earth orbit? 

Mr. Johns: No, not at all. What it does is it puts the 
development of man's space exploration more in the 
perspective of the problems that we need to solve 
before we go further for long-term missions. A space 
station is a critical aspect in resolving problems we 
have of long-term manned space presence. There are 
problems with bone loss, there are problems with 
blood chemistry changes that we need to understand 
and solve before man can take long-term ventures into 
space. We are on a continuum of pursuing manned 
space exploration. We have to get our problems solved 
on the way. There's no point in misleading the 
American public that we are going to run off any time 
soon to Mars. That doesn't mean we're not going to 
explore in a manned way, but we'll do it when we get 
our problems solved and it's safe to do so. 

Dr. Gunn: Recently, Dr. Stone, NASA published a 


strategic plan, and one of the objectives was to estab- 
lish a human presence on the moon, in the Martian 
system, and elsewhere in the inner solar system. It 
seems to me at NASA, you just keep rolling along no 
matter what. 

Dr. Stone: Well, we have to have a vision. I think it's 
very important to have a vision, and I think that the 
public really shares the vision of humans in space. But 
that's a long term vision, as Skip Johns said. What we 
need to do then, is set in place the milestones that will 
make it possible, eventually, for humans to venture 
again beyond low-Earth orbit. 

Dr. Gunn: You know, people often say to me, "Are you 
talking about science or are you talking about technol- 
ogy?" I think I've said to you in the hallway, I defy you 
to separate science and technology. It can't be done. 
At the same time, when we focus on science, 
Representative Walker, where do you see the leading 
needs in science? 

Representative Walker: I think that what you have to 
do as a society is decide where scientific investments 
are going to be made and how you go about doing 
that in a way that makes sense. From my perspective, 
the way that it makes sense to begin to apportion sci- 
ence spending is to have the federal government do a 
lot of the basic science funding. The work that goes 
on in the universities, the work that goes on in places 
like JPL, where we are really pushing the envelope, 
where we're developing the new knowledge on which 
the technology and the economy of the future will be 
based. There are very few corporations willing and 
capable of doing that now. So the government has 
to make its investments there. But then what we ought 
to be doing is setting the kind of policy climate in 
which businesses and universities and others will take 
the new knowledge and apply it to solutions. Develop 
the technologies based upon the knowledge we've 
built. And that means, you've got to integrate not only 
science policy in what goes on in the rest of the econ- 
omy, you've got to look at the totality of your policy. 
For example, tax policy plays a role here. You ask any 
technology company what's the best thing that they 
could have — talking about small entrepreneurial com- 
panies — what's the best thing they could have in terms 
of getting up and going. They'll tell you a significant 
cut in capital gains taxes. When you're talking about 
how you have the kinds of things that blend science 
and technology, it involves the totality of your policies 
in government. 

Dr. Gunn: Representative Hefley, I'm not sure that sci- 
ence plays a role in the military needs and directions in 

space. How does that factor in here? 

Representative Hefley: With your earlier statement, I 
don't know quite how you separate them, particularly 
when you talk about space, but with a lot of things, I 
don't know how you separate science and technology. 
Is the GPS that Skip Johns talked about earlier, is that 
science or is that technology? Well, it's both, of 
course, and extremely important. You can go into 
Radio Shack to get those GPS receivers for your sail- 
boat at under $300, $400 nowadays. I suppose that is 
technology, but it was science that developed that, so I 
don't know quite how you separate those. I think one 
of the problems we have in Congress with our space 
program, and we've talked about it a lot at these sym- 
posiums and elsewhere, is the perception of the 
American people as to whether or not either the sci- 
ence or technology of space is very important. I had a 
meeting with a group of constituents this week and 
one of the statements, and it's not an uncommon 
statement that I get, is, "Why are we wasting all that 
money in space? If you're going to do science, why 
don't you study the oceans more? But why are we 
studying space, we're never going to colonize space, 
so why are we studying space?" It seems like no mat- 
ter how many times we repeat the benefits of studying 
space, or the necessity of it, the American people are 
not as excited about it right now as we would like for 
them to be, and somehow we have to change that. 

It seems like no matter how many times we 

repeat the benefits of studying space, or the 

necessity of it, the American people are not 

as excited about it right now as we would like 

for them to be, and somehow we have 

to change that. 

Dr. Gunn: What about your constituents, 
Representative Walker? 

Representative Walker: I would say that there is a 
similar kind of attitude among some of them, although 
I was in a high school this week with a lot of high 
school students who are using weather satellites to 
develop information for the classroom. You have a mix 
of students in there all the way from very academically 
oriented students to students that would be classified 
as among the slow learners. All of them were very, very 
excited about the use of what we've created in space 
for their learning process, and it leads them to math 
and physics and a lot of other things. I think some of 
the attitude of the older generation is that they basical- 
ly have come to the conclusion that space is never a 
place that they're going to go and so why should we 



spend any time there. The attitudes of the younger 
generation, who see it as a part of their future, are 
very, very different on this. I come down on the side of 
the young people. I think we ought to give them their 

Dr. Gunn: It's interesting. I've seen and heard a lot this 
week, and we keep talking about the education of the 
young people. Everyone was so excited 25 - 30 years 
ago about the space program, I feel like we've got a 
couple of lost generations in the middle. If we have to 
wait for all the young people to reach the age of 
majority and for them to vote in their representatives 
who support space, we could have a problem. 

It's now possible for everyone to participate, 
to have the same sense of discovery as the 
science team has. I think that's one of the mar- 
vels of the communication age, which itself 
was created by the space program. 

Representative Walker: We had a terrible down-peri- 
od, particularly in the mid-70s. In fact, in the mid-70s I 
had to be begged to go on the Science Committee. 
When I came to Congress in 1976, the Science 
Committee was at a low ebb. There was not much 
happening in the space program, there was not much 
happening in the energy programs, and they literally 
had to recruit people to go on the Science Committee. 
1 was one of the people who was recruited. I figured 
out in a matter of weeks that this is what 1 enjoy doing, 
and so I've been delighted to stay there, but I think 
that that low ebb really had an impact on us as a 
country and on a couple of generations of people, and 
we're still building back from some damage that we 
did at that time. 

Representative Hefley: You know, Bob Walker, the 
group 1 was speaking to was an older group, a young 
at heart group is what it was called, so 1 think you 
make a very good point about the generational differ- 

channel?" Unfortunately, it's the other way around. No 
Weather Bureau, no weather channel. On the GPS, for 
example, it's very difficult to parse science and tech- 
nology. In the GPS there are rubidium and cesium 
clocks that control this. The development of these are 
very much central to the science enterprise. The fact 
that they were needed was a technology need for 
worldwide navigational capability, and so there is this 
reinforcement process. With NASA you have the same 
thing. Astrophysics and astronomy at universities in 
this country is 80 percent funded by NASA. The value 
there is the feedback from the science community to 
NASA as a developing agency, which reinforces and 
keeps us very much in the lead around the world. 

Dr. Gunn: And while your GPS system on your boat is 
clearly a leisuretime activity, the whole GPS system is 
kept in place and maintained and controlled by the 
(IS. Space Command, the military. To think that we 
don't need the military space, you have to think again. 
They are all so interconnected efforts here in the 
United States. 

Mr. Johns: I'd like to get it straight, though. My boat is 

Dr. Gunn: I see. A lot of those JPL pictures that you're 
downloading come right out of your lab. 

Dr. Stone: That's right. I think another thing that 
makes it possible for everyone to participate is the 
World Wide Web. On the JPL home page we have mil- 
lions of hits whenever there's a major event — like the 
Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impacts on Jupiter, or last 
December when the Galileo probe dropped into 
Jupiter. This summer when we're flying by the moons 
of Jupiter we're going to be on-line so that anyone 
with a terminal can see the latest data coming back 
from space. It's now possible for everyone to partici- 
pate, to have the same sense of discovery as the sci- 
ence team has. I think that's one of the marvels of the 
communication age, which itself was created by the 
space program. 

Mr. Johns: It's interesting to look at what Bob Walker 
just said about seeing school kids looking at weather 
maps. These kids were downloading these weather 
maps from the Internet, which was built by defense 
spending originally. It was called the ARPA-net. The 
weather maps that they were pulling down come from 
the Weather Bureau. There was actually a question on 
Capitol Hill a couple of weeks ago where someone 
said, "Why don't we shut down NOAA and the Weather 
Bureau because we can get all that off the weather 

Mr. Johns: And you can find that from the White 
House home page, which was created in my office. 

Dr. Gunn: It's good to know you don't spend all your 
time on your boat. 

Representative Walker: I think another interesting 
thing about student participation, though, is this most 
recent shuttle flight where we had on it a camera 



called Kidsat, put on a shuttle just for students' use, 
and the students actually determined what images that 
camera would take, where it would take them around 
the world. There were three high schools around the 
country that were running 24-hour shifts to program 
this camera, the data would come back to the stu- 
dents in their classroom. It was a wonderful learning 
experience. A fifth grader I was talking to at JPL 
explained to me where the various nations in the world 
were. She showed me a little fuzzy blob in one of the 
pictures of the desert and said, "That's a little town. 
The name of that little town was Garden, because it 
was a garden spot in the middle of the desert." She 
was just ecstatic about having discovered this place 

Dr. Gunn: Now let me make a point. We all know what 
it's like to go to the lecture and listen to someone 
telling you something. As you were saying earlier, 
Representative Hefley, no matter how many times we 
repeat the benefits of space it's like, are you not hear- 
ing? Are you not comprehending? We know that when 
you do it yourself, you get the picture. We have been 
talking, do we send humans out there or just 
unmanned probes. What your example is, is telerobot- 
ics. A student, who is perhaps 12-years old, under- 
stands that she can direct sensors from space and 
what she can do with them. Mow this person gets it. 
Her parents may not get it, but they vote and pay 
taxes. I think that when we're talking about how does 
the American public get it, we've got to put some of 
that kinesthetic, that feel, into what they're doing so 
they can comprehend. 

Representative Walker: That's one of the reasons that 
Buzz Aldrin's idea of space tourism becomes very, very 
important. The moment that people think they have a 
real opportunity to go into space at some point in the 
future you will change the dynamic of how we discuss 
space on Earth, and you'll change the political discus- 
sion in a very major way. 

Dr. Gunn: Actually, that may have been what I told Dr. 
Teller, that he could go. I don't know if you gentlemen 
were here yesterday to hear Dan Goldin, the head 
administrator for NASA speak, but I know that you're 
all acquainted with him and his approach, so how do 
you feel about Tang and Velcro? 

Representative Walker: Obviously the spinoff benefits 
into the economy are an important part of all of this. 
As you develop and as these missions go forward and 
you find unique things, the fact is they are very, very 
important. It's one of the things we've tried to describe 
to the public, and the public just says, "Well, it would 

have been done anyway." That's not something that 
has made a real difference except that at town meet- 
ings where the issue comes up of why are you involved 
in the space program and why you spend all your time 
doing that and why are we spending all that money. I 
will go down through and begin ticking off things that 
are in their everyday life. I say to them for example, 
"Do you like the idea that you are able to sit down at 
your TV set in the evening and get the news from 
around the world instantaneously?" When I was grow- 
ing up as a kid, that was not possible. We had to wait 
for the film to be delivered, and sometimes it took 
days. And most people will say, "Yeah, that is a benefit, 
but that has nothing to do with the space program." 
And I say, "Where do you think the pictures are com- 
ing from?" 

Dr. Gunn: 1 thought he made some very interesting 
points, including when you get the idea that there are 
products and services coming from space, when a new 
program comes up, it seems that you've got to predict 
what those products and services are going to be. I 
think what he was asking us, in part, to say, is we know 
now that the space program of the past has produced 
positively for us, without prediction as to what it was 
going to do. We ask that you support the space pro- 
gram in the future without a psychic view of what is 
actually going to happen. Do you feel with your con- 
stituents that that would be a tough sale and also from 
the White House perspective? 

"Do you like the idea that you are able to sit 

down at your TV set in the evening and get the 

news from around the world instantaneously?" 

When I was growing up as a kid, 

that was not possible. 

Representative Walker: Well, there's an old story and 
it fits with this. It's been true of basic research forever 
that politicians like to know what it is. There's a story 
about an Israeli visiting a scientist in his lab. The Israeli 
was making a point, "What is it you're producing 
here?" And basic science was being done. And basic 
science was not of course going to give him the 
answer that he wanted. Finally, the scientist became so 
frustrated with the Israeli's question, he said, "I don't 
know what it is we're going to get, but whatever it is, 
I'm sure you're going to tax it." You've always had that 
kind of byplay between scientists and politicians on 
these issues. 

Representative Hefley: You know that the Persian Gulf 
War did a great deal for military space. It showed peo- 
ple a great deal about what can be done in space. 



When 1 first went to Congress, when Bob Walker first 
went to Congress, the big debate was, oh, let's don't 
militarize space. The fact that you could probably 
make a case that the V2 rockets had something to do 
with space didn't mean anything. Let's don't militarize 
space. You don't hear that argument anymore. You 
hear the argument about what you ought to do in 
space. You don't hear anyone saying, well, we don't 
want military communications satellites in space any- 
more, or observation satellites, or those kinds of 
things. From that standpoint, the Persian Gulf War was 
an asset, I think, to our argument from a defense 
standpoint about the need for space. 

Dr. Gunn: Representative Walker, you introduced HR- 
1953, the Space Business Incentive Act. Can you tell 
us about that legislation and the issues around it and 
what it's trying to accomplish? 

Finally, the scientist became so frustrated with 

the Israeli's question, he said, "I don't know 

what it is we're going to get, but whatever it is, 

I'm sure you're going to tax it." 

Representative Walker: What we're trying to do is get 
people more interested in putting investment dollars 
out of the private sector into space activities. I don't 
think anybody can analyze the space enterprise of the 
future and figure that the federal government is going 
to be able to make all the investments necessary. And 
so the more that you can attract investment from the 
private sector, the better off we are. What this bill is try- 
ing to do is to first of all begin to diminish some of the 
regulatory barriers that government has put in the way 
of investment. We have tried to get government out of 
competition with the private sector so that the private 
sector can flourish and not have a government-run 
program as a competitor. We are trying to make cer- 
tain that we have appropriate tax incentives. For exam- 
ple, we say that if in fact you are manufacturing some- 
thing in space, you will get 10 years of tax-free profits 
for that which you manufacture in space. It doesn't 
cost us anything because no one's doing manufactur- 
ing in space at the present time, but if you ever got 
there, just think of all the infrastructure that would be 
developed. It would be worth it to the country to pro- 
vide those incentives to people. We're doing a number 
of things and trying to attract more in the way of the 
investment of the total GDP of our country into space 
than we get if you simply depend upon government 
budget strings. 

Mr. Johns: I think one of the things that we can see in 
the immediate future is that communication is going 

to continue and expand considerably. The prospect of 
growing from 50 to 600 or even 700 of what we call 
LEO or MEO (low-Earth orbit or medium-Earth orbit) 
satellites put up in space by commercial operators is 
very likely. If that's the case, we're talking about dou- 
bling the number of commercial satellites that are put 
up relative to the number that the government puts 
up. The only way our companies are going to be able 
to have that launch business is to be competitive in a 
global market. The satellite folks who want those up 
are going to go for the lowest launch cost. We've 
already lost 50 percent of the launch market in the 
world on those communication satellites. We'd like to 
get that back. So we can see that there is a desirability 
in a partnership for lower cost access to space. It costs 
nominally $10,000 a pound. That would suggest that a 
person like me should lose a lot of weight before 1 plan 
to go spend a weekend in space. The ways that we get 
those costs down are in development programs that 
have to be joint efforts with industry. Industry alone 
can't afford the cost of those developments. The gov- 
ernment represents some part of that market, but we 
want the companies not to be stuck with a CIS. gov- 
ernment market that is not price-competitive with the 
rest of the world. The government gets a better price if 
it gets a world competitive price and our launch indus- 
try will be competitive with anyone in the world. We're 
striving to achieve that, and it's important to make 
those investments. 

Dr. Gunn: I have to say that I see a lot of JPL things 
on NASA Select, which is wonderful, and I'm frequent- 
ly engaged by others to discuss the pros and cons of 
NASA Select, NASA's own TV channel, and the issues 
mainly fall in two categories: that a good deal of the 
time is spent with cameras focused on sort of a near 
empty control room, and the joke is that there was 
more action when we let them smoke. People con- 
stantly ask me about that. Another is the fear that 
young people may not be watching. I've got some 
good news, and I've got some bad news. I have a 13- 
year old son, and every time he turns on the television 
he cycles through the major networks, MTV, and NASA 
Select. He's not alone. This is true of all his friends, 
without fail. Now we have the bad news. The other day, 
he was looking at an Apollo 13 documentary, it being 
the anniversary, and then they rolled right into 
Shannon Lucid's shuttle hooking up with MIR, and he 
said, "This is so great, she's up there right now." And 
then out of the clear blue sky he said to me, "We 
bought MIR, right?" I said, "No, no, no." He goes, "No, 
Mom, no, we bought the Space Station." I had to 
explain it to him. And when 1 explained it to him, he 
said, "What a good idea. This is really good." I said 
"Yeah, it is really good." Now with that introduction, I 
want to ask you, how do you gentlemen see the CIS. 
working with other national governments, and of 



course within that, however you want to discuss that, 
what areas should we be working in, and what share of 
the financial burden must the (IS. government expect 
to shoulder? 

Mr. Johns: Ability to pay has to have something to do 
with it. The good news is we're a $6.7 trillion dollar 
economy and growing towards $7 trillion very rapidly. 
That would suggest that if a nation that has a $1 tril- 
lion economy is going to participate, they can't afford 
to participate at the level we do. The Space Station is 
a 14-nation endeavor which shares those activities. 
Mot only is it an effort to pursue science, with the very 
companies that Bob Walker wants to see manufacture 
in space. What they're going to manufacture is what 
has been proven on the shuttle can be done. Once it 
has been established that something valuable can be 
produced in space, then you will go to the step to pro- 
ducing it and they will use those tax breaks to do that, 
or a tax holiday for a while. It's a complex process, but 
it's important that we have that station there, both for 
the human physiology things that I spoke of to enable 
us physically to go farther, but also as a science labo- 
ratory that is reliable. It will be there for a long period 
of time. You will be able to go back and do experi- 
ments the way the science community expects to do 
it. The industry from around the world is interested in 
pursuing those opportunities. That's how space is 
going to be further developed. Some of these things 
are quite long term — an industry, a company, can't 
afford to make these kinds of investments. There have 
to be in partnerships with other governments. 

Dr. Gunn: Representative Walker, is this an idea that 
the Congress finds receptive, or is there some disparity 

Representative Walker: I don't think so. I think 
Congress has come to the conclusion that if you are 
going to do very, very big engineering projects that are 
related to our science endeavor, in particular, if you're 
going to build the new machines that give you the 
basic science, whether they be a Space Station labora- 
tory or whether they be a new fusion machine, those 
are going to have be done internationally. No one 
country can afford to foot the entire bill. Plus the fact 
that all of these projects become international in char- 
acter anyway. You can't stop international scientists 
from participating in them, and so it's better from the 
outset to have the partnerships developed so that the 
entire world is involved in building the project as well 
as participating in the results from it. I believe that in 
Congress we are coming more and more to the con- 
clusion that as you look at these big projects for the 
future, that going the international route makes an 
awful lot of sense. 

Dr. Gunn: Representative Hefley, what we're talking 
about, though, is the science community. We're not 
talking about military corroboration in space. 

Representative Hefley: No, we're really not. In spite of 
the fact that I think that you're going to see more 
shared satellites between military and NASA and 
NOAA and so forth, we're not going to see much 
shared activity with other nations when it comes to 
military satellites. 

Dr. Gunn: At JPL, Dr. Stone, do you have affiliation 
with working outside the U.S.? 

The whole world benefits from those scientific 

achievements. So it's perfectly natural that 

in space those science endeavors would 

be undertaken in a cooperative manner. 

Dr. Stone: In the space science area, this is a long tra- 
dition. The Galileo spacecraft has a German-built main 
engine on it, the Cassini spacecraft that will be 
launched to Saturn at the end of 1997 carries the 
ESA-developed Huygens probe that will drop into the 
atmosphere of Titan. The probe carries both European 
and U.S. experiments. The main radio system which 
will be used to radar-map Titan and transfer data back 
is an Italian developed system. There has been a very 
strong tradition, and I think it will grow as we continue 
to open the space frontier. 

Representative Hefley: It's important to recognize 
there is a long tradition that all nations and all scien- 
tists always share scientific development. The whole 
world benefits from those scientific achievements. So 
it's perfectly natural that in space those science 
endeavors would be undertaken in a cooperative man- 
ner. The Internet allows them to talk more easily 
across the globe in that process. 

Representative Walker: An interesting piece of that 
was when we were in the midst of the Cold War. I was 
in Russia and was visiting one of the laboratories 
where they were building one of the Russian scientific 
satellites. They were very proudly showing me at that 
point an American experiment that was aboard that 
Russian satellite and, as I say, this was when we were 
in the depths of the Cold War, so that is a very, very 
long-standing tradition. 

Dr. Gunn: Again, getting back to the point I keep 
bringing up with Representative Hefley, is that every- 



body knows about the Internet. Back when I started at 
NASA, it was the ARPA Net, the Advanced Research 
Project Agency net, the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency network was a defense network, but 
then had civilian uses. So once again, we've seeded in 
the military and then proceed forward to a civilian use. 

Representative Hefley: We really are. I think this rais- 
es an issue. We've had a tremendous drawdown in our 
defense budgets in recent years. If you're drawing 
down the defense budget, where is the emphasis 
going to go? Is it going to go on barracks and training 
facilities at Fort Carson? Or is it going to go into 
space? Of course, some is going to go both places, 
but when you're talking about readiness of troops, 
that's going to have to compete with space. I think we 
need to look at our defense budget and determine 
whether or not we're really doing the right thing with 
the level of drawdown that we're doing today. Of 
course we can draw down, the Cold War are over, but 
there are still a lot of very real threats out there, and as 
we draw down I think the military space effort, which 
has contributed to the civilian community as well as 
you indicate, also will suffer. 

Dr. Gunn: I think what can affect military budgets is 
also the kind of thing that Dan Qoldin was talking 
about affecting a NASA budget. Now you would expect 
the military to go in and ask for more money. You 
would expect everybody to go in and ask for more 
money, including NASA. And what he's saying is that 
when we have a very large program, that perhaps may 
be aging, or perhaps there's a new way to go, can- 
celling that program, pulling it back means losing jobs. 
And when you lose jobs, there can be a fight in 

In an age when information is instantaneously 

transmitted globally, the nation that develops 

the base of new knowledge is going to succeed 

all the time. 

Representative Walker: It has its ramifications well 
beyond that. When you draw down the defense R&D, 
it also has an impact on civilian research and develop- 
ment because as I go out to the university campuses 
right now, they are complaining about the fact that 
they are not getting R&D money, but when you figure 
out where it is that they have lost most, it's been lost 
from military research and development. We have 
maintained the National Science Foundation and a 
number of those agencies that fund the civilian 
research, but the drawdown of military research and 
development has had a significant impact, which 

1 60 

means that researchers are not getting the kinds of 
money they need for a variety of activities going on 
across the country. So that has been a real problem 
for us. 

Representative Hefley: It's important to recognize 
that the Department of Defense, when it found some 
years back that there just wasn't the talent base, start- 
ed funding advanced degrees in engineering. DOD 
funds 65 percent of the advanced degrees in engineer- 
ing in the United States, directly in universities, that's 
nearly $1.7 billion. The reason is, we need that talent, 
and it's not going to be funded somewhere else. If you 
cut that back, NSF couldn't begin to pick that up. NSF 
alone is roughly a $3 billion budget. So you can see to 
try and pick up an extra 1.7 would be very difficult 

Representative Walker: The real danger here, I might 
say, to some of that military R&D is that it has been 
mission oriented. If you wonder why it is that the GPS, 
and a lot of these other things that we've cited today, 
are having the major spinoff benefits to the civilian 
economy, it's because they have been related to a mis- 
sion. They had to actually accomplish something that 
came out for real in the end, which, oh by the way, can 
then be adapted to fairly easily into the civilian econo- 
my, such as the Internet or GPS. When you do a lot of 
other kinds of technology development in the govern- 
ment, it is not necessarily related directly to a mission, 
and therefore does not have the same practical impact 
into the economy. 

Dr. Gunn: I'm going to ask Representative Walker and 
Dr. Stone, I'm going to ask you both, understanding 
that everybody always has lots of different opinions 
here, Representative Walker, from your point of view, 
what are the major areas in science that are a priority 
for the country? 

Representative Walker: You have to have new knowl- 
edge in order to sustain the economy. In an age when 
information is instantaneously transmitted globally, the 
nation that develops the base of new knowledge is 
going to succeed all the time. Therefore, I think your 
first time investment has to be made in the underlying 
basic science that gives you the knowledge from which 
to build your economy. Beyond that, I think we have 
missions that we want to do as a nation, and we ought 
to be investing in those things which are mission ori- 
ented, that give us a chance to move ahead. And then 
1 think we need to develop an interface that assures 
that the knowledge and the mission or work we do 
gets transmitted into our economy. We ought to build 
the kind of financial strength free from debt, free from 


deficits, so that you can in fact have a tax policy that 
makes sense and encourages investment over the 
broad base of the economy, so that R&D becomes a 
real practical help to people's lives and produces jobs. 

Dr. Gunn: Dr. Stone, you are a rocket scientist. From 
your perspective, what are the priorities for science for 
the country? 

Dr. Stone: Let me just focus on space science, 
because science is a very broad area, and there are 
very many important things to be done in science in 
general. In space science the focus of the future is in a 
general sense what it has been, that is, trying to under- 
stand how it all began, understand how things have 
evolved to what they are today, and therefore try to 
understand how they're going to continue to evolve. 
That's the case for the universe, for the solar system, 
and for Earth. I think another focus will be the origin 
and evolution of life. How did life begin? What were 
the conditions that led to the origin of life here on 
Earth. Did life begin anywhere else in the solar system? 
Is life anywhere else in the galaxy? I think these are the 
kinds of fundamental questions. In the process of 
developing the tools by which we can try to answer 
those questions, we get the technology investment 
that we've talking so much about this morning, tech- 
nology that has many other implications and uses 
which are not even imagined when we're trying to 
answer these very fundamental questions. 

Dr. Gunn: And if you could, so that people listening 
could hear, as a specific example, tell about the Mars 
program that's going on right now? 

Dr. Stone: We have now a Mars program called the 
Mars Surveyor Program. We're going to Mars every 26 
months, which is as often as you can go with the 
orbits of the planets. We know there was a lot of water 
on Mars 3.5 billion years ago, and we'd like to know if 
simple life actually evolved during that wet period on 
Mars? So we're beginning to explore the surface of 
Mars, and on July 4, 1997, we're planning to land a 
small micro-rover, about 12 kilogram mass, 8 watts 
average power, that will be able to image the surface, 
image the rocks, and analyze their composition. It's 
just the first step of what is hopefully a systematic 
exploration of a neighboring planet where life could 
well have originated some billions of years ago. 

Dr. Gunn: Skip and Representative Hefley, I didn't 
mean to leave the White House and the state of 
Colorado out of this. Do you want to add anything 
about the priorities of science for the country? 

Representative Hefley: I think that something 
Representative Walker said, tying in with what was just 
said, I am fascinated by the studies of the origin of the 
universe and that kind of thing, but that's kind of a 
subject for rocket scientists. The thing that really got 
the American people excited was what Representative 
Walker said, that defense is mission oriented. When 
NASA was mission oriented, America got excited. 
What was the mission? We're going to put a man on 
the moon in this decade and we're going to bring him 
home. Wow! This is a mission we can all get excited 
about. I'm sure we could all get excited about the Mars 
mission, as a matter of fact, too. That excites me when 
you start talking about that. Somehow or other the 
selling of that is something we need to do better. 

How did life begin? What were the conditions 

that led to the origin of life here on Earth. Did 

life begin anywhere else in the solar system? 

Is life anywhere else in the galaxy? 

Mr. Johns: In order not to have the rest of science set 
aside, we have to remember that in the late 1800s the 
average life expectancy of humans was 45. Today, it's 
76 for women, and 72 for men — we're going to have 
to work on that in the men's department. It is the 
investment in life sciences that has made us under- 
stand things just a whole lot better. We know that the 
resources that our economies depend on are finite. 
There is a finite amount of oil in the world. If, as we 
heard last night, 50 million cars are driving around in 
Japan, they're going to have to burn something beside 
fossil fuels, both for environmental reasons and for 
energy availability reasons. We need the science to 
develop new energy, and these are not investments 
companies can make. Yet they are headed towards 
technology solutions to problems on life on Earth. We 
need to continue to make those kinds of investments. 

Dr. Gunn: This has to do with what I call the business 
of science, the business of technology. Representative 
Hefley, you are right when we said, "Let's go. Let's 
send a guy to the moon, and let's get him back." 
Wow! I asked on a panel, and I think it must be two 
years ago, Skip and I were on the same panel, and Dr. 
Carolyn Huntoon, who was head of NASA's Johnson 
Space Center was there as well, as well as a number of 
other people, and I asked, "OK, first time we sent 
somebody to the moon and came back, it took 1 
years. How about if we sent somebody there today, 
how long would it take?" The shortest estimate I got 
was 15 years. I said, "How could that be? That makes 
no sense." But Dr. Huntoon said, in a very quiet, even 
voice, "You have to understand. We had no idea what 
we were doing to Buzz when we sent him out there 



and had him come back. And it's the life sciences that 
teaches this. It's great for the movie of the week to 
send somebody to the moon and come back, but 
they're not going to tune in next week when all we're 
doing is monitoring those type of things. We have to 
say what it is that involves people and that gets that 
benefit, and that's a tough sell. In closing here, I'm 
going to ask each of you gentlemen to do something 
a little difficult. I'm going to ask each of you, just for 
one minute, to put aside the fact that you may be con- 
gressmen or a member of the White House staff or a 
NASA scientist, and put aside policies and budgets 
and elections and even the media, this can be difficult. 
Each of you are individuals and you're American citi- 
zens, just like every American listening today. From 
your personal beliefs, why space? 

I think that we are at the unique point in history 

when we have a chance to step beyond 

ourselves and go where humankind will be 

going at some point in the future, and we've 

got to take advantage of that opportunity. 

Dr. Stone: I think space represents a sense of a future 
of opportunity. It really is a sense of being able to learn 
something new, to be able to go somewhere no one 
has gone before. In a very general sense, space is a 
symbol of a future of new opportunities, which I think 
is crucial for our civilization. 

Representative Hefley: I've always been very intrigued 
by the idea of pushing the envelope, pushing the fron- 
tiers of science. That somehow or other that's our des- 
tiny. We conquer diseases, there's not much smallpox 
in the world. There's very little polio, at least in this 
country, and there shouldn't be anywhere. That is kind 
of the mark of what we are in this country and many 
other countries, as a matter of fact. I get excited about 
any pushing of that envelope of science to try to dis- 
cover what we didn't know before. 

Mr. Johns: Suppose I said to you, "You have just 
elected me president, and I've decided we've sent 
somebody to the bottom of the ocean, so we're not 
going to do that anymore. We sent somebody to the 

moon so we're not going to do that anymore. We're 
just going to sort of make do with what we know 
today." What kind of world would that be? That's just 
not a place where I think any of us want to live. We've 
just got to keep looking for new challenges. That's 
what makes us all tick. 

Representative Walker: I've often said to myself, "Do I 
believe that humankind will at some time explore and 
populate space?" And I believe that at some point we 
will. Then you say to yourself, "If we have the capability 
of beginning that mission today, shouldn't we do it?" 
Wouldn't it be a failure of our generation not to move 
ahead on that which we know future generations will 
do? I think that we are at the unique point in history 
when we have a chance to step beyond ourselves and 
go where humankind will be going at some point in 
the future, and we've got to take advantage of that 

Dr. Gunn: Thank you, gentlemen, thank you for join- 
ing me, and could we have a warm round of applause? 
First of all, Representative Bob Walker, chairman, 
Science Committee, U.S. House of Representatives; 
Representative Joel Hefley, chairman, Military 
Installations and Facilities Committee, G.S. House of 
Representatives; Skip Johns, Associate Director for 
Technology, White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy; Dr. Edward Stone, director, Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory. I want to thank Dick MacLeod, 
president of the G.S. Space Foundation and the 
Foundation itself and its wonderful volunteers for invit- 
ing us today, and for their unflagging support of Tech 
Nation. Thank you, big round of applause for Dick 
MacLeod. I want to ask everyone listening to support 
the space program, today and in the future, based 
simply and solely on the knowledge that our past 
endeavors in space have positively benefitted every one 
of us... every part of our society, every nation on Earth, 
every member of the human race without fail, without 
exception. It is the space program of the past that 
enables Tech Nation to broadcast and to reach every 
person on this planet today. And to everyone listening 
to my voice now, ask yourself, "Why space?" And you 
will know, why we must go. For TechNation, I'm Moira 



The Emotional & Spiritual Aspects of Space: Enhancing Life Here on Earth 

Moderator: Steven R Scott 

Program Development Manager 
Rockwell Space Systems Division 

Featured The Honorable Jake Garn 

Speaker: Vice Chairman, Huntsman Chemical 

Former U.S. Senator and Astronaut 

Mr. Scott: Now we're ready for our closing address. 
We're very honored to have Jake Garn deliver it. Jake 
is currently the vice chairman of Huntsman Corp., and 
served in the United States Senate from Utah for 18 
years. While senator, he flew aboard the Space Shuttle 
Discovery as a payload specialist. In 1992, he was the 
recipient of the very prestigious Wright Brothers 
Memorial Trophy. Ladies and gentlemen, please, a 
warm welcome for Sen. and Astronaut Jake Garn. 

Sen. Garn: Thank you very much, and I'm certainly 
pleased to be with you today to take part in this sym- 
posium. I used to come to the symposium when I was 
still a member of the Senate. I never had the opportu- 
nity to stay very long — it was always come and appear 
and catch an airplane back to Washington — so I 
enjoyed the banquet very much last evening. 

What I'd like to do today is take a little different 
tact than we normally talk about, and I certainly don't 
in any way mean to diminish the technological spinoffs 
that have occurred through space exploration and 
development. But I would not take your time to repeat 
them because all of you know them as well as I do. I'd 
like to talk more about the emotional and the spiritual 
aspects of enhancing life here on Earth as a result of 
flying in space, and to talk about the amazing speed of 
technological change. As a matter of fact, as I sit here 
looking at Buzz Aldrin, it reminds me of sitting with my 
father when Neil (Armstrong) and Buzz walked on the 
moon. My father was a real pioneer in aviation. He got 
his wings in April of 1917, and was a World War I avia- 
tor. I had to be a pilot or never come home. I had no 
choice whatsoever. "Don't ever darken my door again, 
kid, unless you become a military aviator." I'll never 
forget when my wings were pinned on, my wife 
stepped aside and let my father pin them on — and he 
was Utah's first Director of Aeronautics. He started to 
cry when he saw Neil and Buzz walking on the moon. 
I said, "Dad, why are you crying? This is not a sad 
event, this is an historic event." He said, "Oh, Jake, 
I'm not crying because I'm sad. I'm just overcome with 
emotion to think that here I am sitting with my son 
and watching a man walk on the surface of the moon, 
because when I was 10 years old your grandfather 
read me the story about the Wright Brothers' first 
flight." So when you think about that, my dad was 10 
years old, and he lived long enough, from the Wright 

brothers' first flight, to see Buzz walking on the 
moon — in just a period of 66 years. 

When I look at my own flying background, I'm 
sorry that I'm old enough to remember learning to fly 
with low frequency radio range stations. VORs did not 
exist. And the Morse code, di da's and da dit's, a's and 
n's and the bi signal zones, listening to hums in your 
ears and hoping it wasn't a thunderstorm. And I can 
remember being amazed when I'd shoot an instrument 
approach and break out of the overcast and there was 
a runway in front of me. It was always sort of a sur- 
prise. And now I've got a hand-held GPS which pin- 
points every navigational fix in North, Central, and 
South America, and I could buy the rest of the world 
for $39.95. I'm not going to because my airplane is 
not going to cross any ocean so I don't need the rest 
of the world. 

We live in a remarkable time and a remarkable 
age. When I hear that people are not excited about 
space, I dispute that. It's 1 1 years this morning since 
I had the opportunity to launch on Discovery, and I'm 
still doing a couple of schools a week after 1 1 years, 
talking to young people about space and the excite- 
ment of space. It's amazing how talented those young 
people are and how good their questions are. Much 
better in many cases than adults'. I wish Congress was 
as far-sighted as the grade school children of this 
country. They are not, and I can stand up here and 
criticize Congress because I spent 18 years there. 

We live in a remarkable time and a remarkable 

age. When I hear that people are not excited 

about space, I dispute that. 

I'm an insider so I can say it. Congress is not very far- 
sighted. They have a very good way of looking at what 
happens between now and the next election — but to 
look at something 10 or 15 or 20 years down the road, 
when they probably won't be there to take credit for it, 
is much more difficult to do. So we look at a space 
budget that continues to go down and down and 
down, and I can remember when I was a brand new 
freshman senator in January of 1975 and was 
assigned to the Space Committee in the Senate, which 
at that time was a separate full committee. I was chair- 



man of NASA's Appropriations subcommittee for six 
years, and 1 can remember over and over again mak- 
ing the promise that we could keep NASA whole for 
inflation. We couldn't promise them any more, but at 
least their purchasing power would not decline. No 
administration, no Congress has kept that promise. 
I am often asked this question, "Why do we 
waste money in space when there are so many prob- 
lems here on Earth?" Let's put it in perspective. When 
I hear people say, "Why don't we cancel the Space 
Station?" I say, "Why don't we go further? Let's cancel 
NASA. We simply can't afford a civilian space pro- 
gram." Boy, that would save a lot of money, about 
9/10ths of one percent of the whole budget. People 
are surprised when they hear that number. They're sur- 
prised when they hear that food stamps alone last year 
were double NASA's entire budget. We're hardly doing 
enough when we look to the future. We're eating our 
seed corn. We need a lot more vision. We need people 
in Congress and in administrations who can look to 
the future. I don't know, Bob, maybe term limitations 
would solve that problem, because the next closest 
thing to eternal life on this Earth is being a federal 
bureaucrat or member of Congress. Maybe term limi- 
tations would solve that and there would be a little 
more courage to look to the future. 

If anybody had told me when I was a kid growing 

up in Utah that I would have the opportunity to 

fly in a reusable spacecraft and orbit the Earth 

109 times, I would have smiled and said, "Uh 

huh, and what have you been smoking?" 

We do have some serious problems on fund- 
ing, and it's difficult to manage a NASA budget when 
Congress wants every program maintained: "Let's keep 
Mission to Planet Earth, let's build a Space Station, 
let's continue shuttle operations." Some people forget 
there's an aeronautical component of NASA as well as 
a space component. Super-critical wings, high bypass 
engines, all kinds of technology we use here on Earth 
in commercial airplanes that have nothing to do with 
space. We're spending 9/10ths of one percent of our 
whole budget on that entire effort, both in space and 
in aeronautics. A lot more needs to be done. 

Again, to indicate that there is interest in 
space, I had an exciting evening last October. The 
Space Shuttle Discovery stopped in Salt Lake City. It 
wasn't just because it was a Space Shuttle, it was MY 
Space Shuttle. It took two or three days of delays. 
They had problems with the chase airplane, and so on. 
They were taking it to California for a year of rehabilita- 
tion. But it was MY Space Shuttle, Discovery, and it's 
lucky the people were looking at the shuttle when it 
taxied up to the ramp, because I started to cry. I got 
1 64 

tears in my eyes. Do you know what happened? People 
say there's no interest in space? We didn't know what 
time the shuttle would show up. Finally it showed up 
on the third day at 8 o'clock at night and more than 
100,000 people in Salt Lake City showed up just to 
look at it sitting on the back of a 747. They were going 
to close it down at midnight but they couldn't, and 
they kept it open all night with spotlights on it so that 
they could accommodate the crowds. We had traffic 
jams on the freeway, people couldn't get to the airport. 
They'd abandon their cars on the freeways and climb 
the fences and walk over to see it. 

Somehow Congress has got to realize that 
these stories, these myths, that there isn't interest 
among the American people are wrong. Until both 
Republicans and Democrats recognize that you can't 
cut the one-third of a budget enough or raise taxes 
enough to solve the budget problems until you do 
something about the two-thirds that are entitlements 
programs and interest on the national debt, we're 
never going to solve the budget problem. In fact, there 
won't be any one-third left. 1 spent 16 years on the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, so I know some- 
thing about the budget. You simply can't do it. You 
can't cut NASA, you can't cut defense, you can't cut 
national parks, you can't cut all the discretionary pro- 
grams enough. You can eliminate the entire one-third 
and the budget still won't balance. Not until politicians 
have enough courage to say "no," no matter how 
unpleasant it may be with Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security, food stamps and all of those. We have got to 
restrain the growth of those programs. Maybe term 
limits would help that, too. 

Now I've wandered far off what 1 started to say 
and I'm going to get back to it right now. I've said 
enough, and I'm sorry people like Bob Walker are leav- 
ing because he's one of those who understands what 
I'm talking about and has been a leader for many, 
many years. I consider him a friend who has fought for 
the future. Unfortunately, too many of the good people 
in both parties are the ones who are leaving, while the 
ones who are staying are those who will put up with 
any indignity from the press just for the power and 
glory of staying in the Congress of the United States. 
It's the good guys that leave, unfortunately. But let me 
talk about the other aspect of enhancing life on Earth. 
If anybody had told me when I was a kid growing up in 
Utah that I would have the opportunity to fly in a 
reusable spacecraft and orbit the Earth 109 times, I 
would have smiled and said, "Uh huh, and what have 
you been smoking?" Because when I was a kid, noth- 
ing had flown in space. As a matter of fact, Sputnik 
did not fly until three years after I had graduated from 
college. So if anybody had even told me when 1 was a 
senior at the University of Utah, "You'll fly in a reusable 
spacecraft," I would have said, "Sure, uh huh." 

It's still the old Walter Mitty dream. 1 wake up 


many mornings and think, "Did I really get to do that? 
Did I really launch on Discovery 1 1 years ago this 
morning?" It still seems like sort of a wild, wild dream. 
I had a great crew that 1 still stay very close to. All of us 
on that crew had a lot of discussions while we were fly- 
ing up there. First of all, I don't think anybody who's 
ever flown in space feels that they have the ability or 
the vocabulary or the intelligence to describe how 
magnificently beautiful this planet is from space. Or to 
describe how peaceful it looks. But of course having 
lived on the surface you recognize that it isn't very 
peaceful and that's why, while recognizing the great 
beauty of this Earth and the marvelous feeling of trav- 
eling at 25 times the speed of sound and being able to 
do things that Mary Lou Rhetten couldn't even think of 
doing in zero gravity, that we discussed how angry and 
frustrated we were with what was going on on the sur- 
face of the Earth. At the time we were flying, the Iran- 
Iraq war was going on, and Ayatollah Khomeini and 
Saddam Hussein were killing hundreds of thousands 
of each other's people. You obviously recognize where 
countries are from your geography lessons and you 
can identify them, but you certainly don't see national 
boundaries and stars for national capitals from space. 
So you look down at that situation and you can't fly in 
space without recognizing that we're all God's children 
on this planet, traveling on Spaceship Earth together 
and it doesn't matter where we live, it doesn't matter 
what the color of our skin, and it doesn't matter what 
language we speak — we are children of God traveling 
on Spaceship Earth together. 

And the way we treat each other and the way 
we behave doesn't make any sense. I wish somebody 
could explain to this human being what is going on in 
Bosnia. I am not capable of understanding what ethnic 
cleansing is. Do these people think that killing each 
other and doing it in the name of God is pleasing to 
God? I have seven children. I like them to behave well. 
I can't imagine being pleased if they are arguing and 
fighting and killing each other. It doesn't make any 
sense whatsoever. I have often said that if I could take 
the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Ayatollahs, those type of 
people into space and let them see the perspective 
from this Earth that Buzz and I have seen, that I could 
turn them into nice people. But if I'm wrong, it would- 
n't make any difference, we'd just leave them in orbit 
and that would solve the problem as well. There are a 
lot of those intangible benefits that don't come in the 
category of spinoffs and technology and eight or nine 
dollars back in the private sector for every dollar we 

As we were flying too, you'd look down and 
you'd look at countries such as Korea, and you'd say, 
"What's the difference between North and South 
Korea?" They're all Koreans, for the most part. They're 
not an ethnic mix like I am. I'm Scotch, Welsh, Dutch, 
Norwegian, Danish, English and German. I'm more 

NATO than the NATO organization. What's the differ- 
ence? Why do you have a North Korea that's still a very 
sterile police state, compared to a South Korea that 
has shipyards and automobile factories and a dynam- 
ic, growing society? It's just like getting hit in the head 
with a two-by-four right between the eyes. You say, 
"The difference is freedom." The difference is freedom. 
Same experience flying over Europe and saying, 
"What's the difference between East and West Berlin?" 
The answer is freedom. You come to the conclusion 
that it's absolutely amazing, absolutely startling, how 
talented men and women are. How incredibly talented 
human beings are, how creative when they're free. So 
it's certainly enhanced my patriotism of this country, to 
think how fortunate we are to live in a country that 
gives us all of our free choices, to choose with whom 
we associate, where we go to school, what profession 
we follow. That's why we have produced so much, 
because we have been free. So I'm one of those who 
think we happen to have an obligation to our fellow 
citizens on planet Earth to help them be free. As criti- 
cal as I am in many areas, as different as I am from 
President Clinton on a lot of issues, I am not critical of 
trying to help solve the Bosnian situation. I am critical 
when we say God's other children don't deserve to be 
free, too. They deserve to be able to use their talent 
and be creative and choose what they will do with their 
lives. So those kind of feelings come as well, as you 
orbit the Earth. 

So you look down at that situation and you can't 
fly in space without recognizing that we're all 

God's children on this planet, traveling on 

Spaceship Earth together and it doesn't matter 

where we live, it doesn't matter what the color 

of our skin, and it doesn't matter what language 

we speak— we are children of God traveling 

on Spaceship Earth together. 

As a matter of fact I was in Germany in 
November of 1989 with Sen. Bob Dole and some 
other senators, and I thought I was knowledgeable, but 
I guess I wasn't really prepared to see on the ground 
the difference between East and West Berlin. It was a 
few weeks before Christmas, and in West Berlin there 
were Mercedes and Beemers running around, women 
in fur coats, beautifully decorated storefronts. It didn't 
look too much different than an American city at that 
time of year until I walked through Checkpoint Charlie 
to see block after block of areas that had not been 
rebuilt since the end of World War II, to see a very 
drab, gray society — a few of those Trabant cars run- 
ning around, spewing out pollution, very little street 
traffic. Our ambassador to East Germany invited our 
delegation to have dinner at the embassy and he invit- 



ed members of the new forum, the dissident group 
that started the demonstrations, and he invited mem- 
bers of the Politburo. Hoenecker was still running the 
country. They were allowing daily visas to people to go 
to West Berlin. We saw lines three or four miles long, 
people waiting in line just to see what it was like on the 
other side of the border. I sat next to a young man and 
I asked him to tell me about his life. He said he was 42 
years old, he had a doctorate degree in microbiology. I 
said, "What about your family situation?" He said, 
"When I was 17, my father made a very mild anti-gov- 
ernment statement outside that Lutheran Church you 
visited this morning. The secret police took him away 
and we didn't see him for 13 years. They finally let him 
out when he was dying. He lived about six months, 
and we lost him. But, let me talk about the good news. 
The good news is we saw our 21 -year-old daughter for 
the first time in seven years last week." 

And I said, "Where has she been?" "Well, we 
were lucky enough to smuggle her out under the floor- 
boards of a car so she could be free. Now maybe we'll 
be lucky. Maybe the wall will come down in four or 
five years and we can keep our other children home, 
because we're constantly looking for a way out for 

Russian cosmonauts are human beings just like 

us and I value the friendships that I have with 

astronauts and cosmonauts from other countries 

with different backgrounds on this Earth. 

He said, "You have children, Senator?" 1 said, 
"Yes I do. I have seven." He said, "Do you have any 
idea how hard it is to decide whether you give your 
children freedom or whether you keep them with you?" 
And I said, "No. I've never been faced with that kind of 
a choice, and I don't know what I would do. 1 don't 
know whether 1 could be unselfish enough to give up 
one of my children so they could be free." And he 
said, "Well it wasn't easy, Senator, it was not easy." And 
1 said, "How do you explain that you're so anti-com- 
munist, you were born under communism, you've 
never lived under any other system." He got a little bit 
irritated with me and he said, "Senator don't you 
understand? Don't you understand? God gave us free- 
dom. The communists have imprisoned my body for 
40 years. They have not imprisoned my soul." 

Well, I tell you, my wife and I came home, and 
got our teenage kids together, sat them down and told 
them some of these stories. We said that the next time 
you gripe because you haven't got the latest Reeboks 
or something from the Gap, or whatever it is, you're 
going to East Berlin. I don't think we realize how fortu- 
nate and blessed we are in this country. And that's a 
perspective I'm sure that Buzz would agree with me 


on — that you look back at this Earth and you have 
these emotional and these spiritual feelings and I don't 
know how you quantify that. I do sincerely believe that 
that is an enhancement of life on Earth to have that 
perspective and recognize we are traveling on 
Spaceship Earth together, and I happen to think 
there's a lot of solutions to our political problems on 
this planet as a result of having that experience. 
They're intangible. You can't quantify them like a heart 
pacemaker and an implantable insulin pump and satel- 
lites and communications and all of that. But maybe 
that aspect is even more valuable. I think it probably is. 
That's why if I sound a little irritated sometimes and 
why I spend so much time still trying to promote 
space, because 1 don't know where we can spend 
money any better than solving some of these social 
problems and political problems on this Earth. 

I do sincerely believe that more people ought 
to fly in space. People can laugh when we talk about 
space tourism. I don't laugh at all. I think more people 
should fly in space, and I'm sorry that it's still such a 
relatively few, a few hundred, I don't know what the 
number is now. I'm telling you, even during the height 
of the Cold War, when we would hold our association 
of space explorers meetings, we didn't have any prob- 
lems with the Russians. Russian cosmonauts are 
human beings just like us and I value the friendships 
that I have with astronauts and cosmonauts from other 
countries with different backgrounds on this Earth. 

That's what I wanted to present to you today. 
Those feelings that are not often talked about. 
Technological spinoffs are valuable, they've improved 
and enhanced our lives. But the emotional and spiritu- 
al aspect of recognizing how insignificant the Earth is 
in the overall scheme of things, that there are 100 bil- 
lion suns in our own galaxy alone, and galaxies billions 
of light years away — and I will upset some of the scien- 
tists here today by telling you there is no doubt in my 
mind whatsoever that there is life on other planets. 
And as a matter of fact, I happen to think they proba- 
bly look just like you and I. They don't have green skin, 
pointed ears or anything else. I made that comment to 
a Senate prayer breakfast not long after I came back 
from my flight, and one of my good Southern Baptist 
senator friends said, 'Jake, I don't believe that. God 
created the Earth and he created the universe and this 
is the only place he put his children. And I think it's 
silly that you would think he did it someplace else." 
And I said, "Oh, come on, even if you're an atheist 
mathematician, the law of large numbers ought to 
indicate to you that with billions of galaxies out there, 
billions of light years of away, that there might just 
happen to be a planet the right distance from its sun 
to have the proper temperature and humidity for life to 
evolve out of the sea." And he said, "I don't believe 
that evolution baloney. I believe that God created the 
Earth and the universe." And I said, "Well, you believe 


God is intelligent?" And he said, "Yes." And I said, 
"Well then, wouldn't that be a lot of overkill out there? 
It's not really quite necessary to build all of that." 

That's like me saying to all of you, I have built 
every house, every apartment building, every shopping 
center, every office building on this Earth just for this 
group. You'd say that's a little bit ridiculous. You're 
absolutely right, and that doesn't even begin to explain 
the disparity between planet Earth, this little speck of 
dust in this particular solar system, compared to the 
vastness of the universe. Yes, there are people out 
there. No doubt in my mind about it. That's why they 

called me E.T Gam when I was in the Senate and kept 
trying to fund SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial 
Intelligence project). I'm still trying to help fund SETI 
privately because government didn't have enough 
money to do that. Just remember, the technological 
spinoffs are there. But these other values enhance life 
here on Earth. And travel in space for men and women 
can provide solutions to a lot of the social and political 
and domestic problems we have on this planet. I 
appreciate very much the opportunity of being with 
you this morning. Thank you very much. 


Featured Speakers 

Gen. Joseph W. Ashy, (ISAF, commander-in-chief, NORAD, and 
the unified United States Space Command, and commander of the Air 
Force Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, 
Colorado. Ashy entered the Air Force in 1962 through the Air Force 
Reserve Officer Training Corps upon graduation from Texas A & M 
University. He earned his pilot wings in 1964 and began his flying career in 
the F-100. His military career includes assignments in England, South 
Vietnam, Washington D.C., Arizona, Texas, South Korea, Utah, Alabama, 
California, Nevada, and Virginia. Some of his military decorations include the Defense 
Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with oak 
leaf cluster, the Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster, and the Air Force 
Commendation Medal. 

The Honorable Robert V. Davis, Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Space, U.S. Department of Defense. Davis is responsible 
for all DoD policy, strategy and plans for DoD space and space intelligence 
systems, their acquisition and employment, space control, space 
cooperation with foreign governments and the integration of space 
capabilities into DoD force structure. DoD space activities involve the 
annual expenditure of over $13 billion and employ a total of 30,000 military 
and civilian DoD personnel. Prior to his appointment, Davis was a senior 
professional staff member of the Committee on Appropriations of the United States House of 
Representatives. Davis received his B.S. in Political Science from Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology and his Master's of Public Administration degree from American University. 

The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator. He was 
appointed in 1992 to his post after 30 years in the aerospace industry. 
Prior to his appointment he served as vice president and general manager 
of the TRW Space and Technology Group in Redondo Beach, Calif. Goldin 
served 25 years with TRW managing the development and production of 
advanced spacecraft, technologies and space science instruments. Under 

^ mumK _^^ his leadership at TRW, the group won the 1990 Goddard Award for Quality 

and Productivity and was a finalist in 1991 for NASA s highest quality award, the George M. 

Low Trophy. He earned his bachelor's of science in mechanical engineering from the City 

College of New York. 


■f ^^^_ Joseph T. Gorman, chairman and chief executive officer, TRW Inc. 
J^^^k He was elected to this position in December 1988 after serving as president 
^^j^R and chief operating officer since 1985. TRW is a leading provider of 
^3^^V automotive and space and defense systems worldwide. The company is 
J^H^^L the world's largest supplier of occupant restraint systems, steering systems, 
^^H^^^| engine components, and engineered fasteners, and is a leading producer of 
^^A4^H automotive electronics. For space and defense markets, TRW is a leader in 

spacecraft and space systems, avionics and surveillance systems, and 
software-based systems for defense and commercial markets. Mr. Gorman is a trustee of the 
Committee for Economic Development and is a member of the Business Roundtable's Policy 
Committee, the Council on Competitiveness, and the President's Export Council. In 1994 he 
received Japan's Prime Minister's Trade Award for his contributions to promoting improved 
(J.S.-Japanese trade relations. Mr. Gorman holds a Bachelor of Arts from Kent State 
University and an LL.B. from Yale Law School. 

Dr. Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan, chairman, Space 
Commission/Secretary, Department of Space, Govt, of India, and 
chairman, Indian Space Research Organization. He is the project director 
for India's first two experimental Earth observation satellites. He also 
oversaw the development of the second generation INSAT spacecrafts 
launched in 1992 and 1993 respectfully. He is a Fellow of the Indian 
National Science Academy, Indian Academy of Sciences, National 
Academy of Sciences of India and Indian National Academy of Engineering 
and Telecommunication Engineers and the Astronomical Society of India, life member of the 
Indian Physics Association, Fellow of the Astronautical Society of India and the National 
Telematics Forum. 

Alexander Nikolayevich Kuznetsov, the department head for 

launch and space support systems at the Russian Space Agency. He grad- 
uated from the military academy in 1977. From 1977 to 1995 he 
remained in the service and worked at the Institute for Quality Control. Mr. 
Kuznetsov conducted experiments and implemented the Meteor- 1 and 
Meteor-2 meteorological space satellites, and participated in the prelimi- 
nary testing of the Meteor-3 and Electro satellites. From 1985 to 1992 Mr. 
Kuznetsov worked in the central power structure of the military-space sec- 
tor, and was tasked with the creation of advanced aerospace technologies. The Russian Space 
Agency is responsible for the development of rocket engines, boosters, and upper stage 
motors, the maintenance of launch infrastructure for the federal space program, and the day- 
to-day maintenance and upgrade of launch facilities. This organization also maintains test 
stands for the development of space technologies at ground level. 


Capt. James A. Lovell, (1SN (Ret.), commander of Apollo XIII and 
the first man to journey to the moon twice. He also commanded the 
Gemini 12 mission with pilot Buzz Aldrin and has logged more than 6,500 
hours of flying time, 4,000 of that in jet aircraft. After retiring from the 
Navy and the space program he joined the Bay- Houston Towing company 
which is involved in harbor and coast wide towing, mining, and marketing 
of peat products for the lawn and garden industry, and ranching. He then 
served as chief executive officer of Fisk Telephone Systems until it was 
acquired by the Central Corporation where he became an executive vice president and a 
member of the board of directors before his retirement in 1991. He holds a bachelor's of 
science degree from the U.S. Naval Academy and eight honorary doctorates from such 
schools as Blackburn University, Rockhurst College, and Milwaukee School of Engineering. 
He is a Fellow of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots and the American Astronautical 
Society. His honors include the Presidential Medal of Freedom; the NASA Distinguished 
Service Medal, twice; and two Navy Distinguished Flying Crosses. He is the Chairman of the 
National Eagle Scouts Association and is an Eagle Scout himself. Captain Lovell is Chairman 
of the Advisory Board of Mission Home. 

The Hon. Robert S. Walker, (R-PA), chairman, Committee on 
Science, U.S. House of Representatives. Walker was first elected in 1976. 
Prior to his congressional service he was a congressional assistant to U.S. 
Representative Edwin Washleman. Walker began his career as a high 
school Social Studies teacher in Pennsylvania and while he taught school 
he was a member of the Pennsylvania National Guard. He is an author and 
co-author of several books and articles. Some of his key legislative 
accomplishments include: the Drug-Free Workplace Act; Growth 
Management Study, Omnibus Space Commercialization Act; and he is a strong advocate of 
research and development into hydrogen as an alternative fuel source. Walker earned his 
Bachelor's of Science in Education from Millersville University and his Master's degree in 
Political Science from the University of Delaware. 




The Hon. Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge, Jr. is the President and CEO of The 

Aerospace Corporation. From June of 1986 to December 1988, Pete Aldridge was 
Secretary of the Air Force. Prior to that, he served as Under Secretary of the Air Force. In 
1977 he was named Vice President, National Policy and Strategic Systems Group for 
System Planning Corporation. Pete Aldridge served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Strategic Programs from February 1974 until March 1976 when he was select- 
ed to be the Director, Planning and Evaluation, and principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense in the 
planning and program evaluation of U.S. military forces and support structure. Prior to his service in 
DoD, he was a senior manager with LTV Aerospace Corp. in Dallas for a year until he was named senior 
management associate m the Office of Management and Budget, Executive office of the President 
Washington, D.C. in 1973. From 1967 to 1972, he was with the staff of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for systems analysis as an operations research analyst and then served as Director of the 
Strategic Defensive Division. He also served as an adviser to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in 
Helsinki and Vienna. From 1967 and back, Mr. Aldridge held various staff and management positions 
with the Douglas Aircraft. Co., Missile and Space Division, in Santa Monica, CA and in Washington D C 
He received a bachelor of science degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Texas ASM and a Master of 
Science degree, also in aeronautical engineering, from Georgia Institute 
of Technology. 

Maj. Gen. Robert S. Dickman, USAF, Department of Defense Space Architect, 
Washington D.C. Dickman is responsible to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition 
and Technology) for space missions and system architecture development. He entered the 
Air Force in June 1966 as a distinguished graduate of the Reserve Officer Training 
Corps program at Union College, N.Y. He has had a varied career in space operations, 
acquisition, and planning, including headquarters assignments at the Pentagon, NORAD 
US. Space Command and Air Force Space Command. Dickman earned his bachelor s degree in 
physics from Union College, N.Y, and his master's degree in space physics from the Air Force Institute 
of Technology. He also has a master's degree in management from Salve Regina College, Newport R I 
Some of his military decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit Defense 
Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, and the Air Force 
Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster. 

I ^^ I David T - Edwards, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Earth 
^^k Observation Satellite Co. (EOSAT). He is responsible for all EOSAT domestic and 
^^m international operations, including marketing, satellite mission management, and follow-on 
I'^m satellite development. Before joining EOSAT, he served as director of Financial Planning 
jfl^^ and Decision Support Systems at Hughes Aircraft Corporate Headquarters in Los Angeles 
™™=^™ Calif. He also held the position of Chief Financial Officer at the Santa Barbara Research 
Center, a subsidiary of Hughes Aircraft where he developed the initial business plans in support of 
Landsat commercialization. Before joining Hughes Aircraft, he worked six years at Grumman Aerospace 
where he performed a number of duties in program business management and corporate planning He 
earned both his B.A. and M.S. in finance and accounting from Adelphi University in Garden City, N.Y. 

Mac Evans, president of the Canadian Space Agency. Mr. Evans has worked 
more than 22 years in the Canadian Space Program where his career has included 
extensive experience in research, project management, policy development, international 
relations, and senior management in a number of federal departments. With the formation 
of the Canadian Space Agency in 1989, Mr. Evans became vice president of Operations 
with responsibility for all of the Agency's major space programs. These included Canada's 
contribution to Space Station, the Radarsat Program which is Canada s first remote sensing satellite, and 
the Canadian Astronaut Program. His major accomplishments include: Development of the 1985 and 
1994 Space Plans that defined and obtained approval for the Canadian Space Program for the period 
from 1985 to 2004; negotiation of the arrangement for Canada's participation in the Space Station 
Program; and preparation of the proposal for the creation of the Canadian Space Agency. Mr Evans is a 
member of the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute and Fellow of the Canadian Academy of 
Engineering. He holds a Bachelor's of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Queen's University 
and a Master s of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Birmingham in Enqland 
which he attended as an Athlone Fellow. 



Dr Murray Felsher, president of Associated Technical Consultants (ATC) and 
director of North American Remote Sensing Industries Association. He began his career 
in remote sensing as a graduate research and teaching assistant in photogeology at the 
University of Massachusetts in Amherst in 1959 while pursuing a master's degree. He 
joined the Geology Department faculty at Syracuse University before moving to Washington 
D C to become associate director of a National Science Foundation-funded program at the 
American Geological Institute. With the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, he 
ioined the EPA as a senior staff geologist. He transferred to NASA where he served in various capac.ties 
including the originator and first program manager of NASA s Regional Remote Sensing Applications 
Program He left in 1980 to form ATC whose clients have included the FBI, Orbital Sciences Corporation, 
and the Eastman Kodak Company where he was hired in a permanent consulting capacity as director of 
Special Projects. As a consultant to the Department of Defense s Landsat Program Office he was 
responsible for establishing a civilian gateway to DOD's Landsat-7 imagery. He is the publisher of 
Washington Remote Sensing Letter, the oldest and largest subscription newsletter devoted to remote 
sensing/GIS. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and a senior member of the American 
Astronautical Society. 

Dr. Brenda Forman, has spent over a decade in the private sector first with the 
Lockheed Corporation in Calabasas, California, and currently as Director, Federal 
Planning & Analysis, for Lockheed Martin corporation in Bethesda, Maryland. Prior to this 
she spent twelve years in the federal government, first as a Senior Policy Analyst in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense and later as a Senior Technology Policy Advisor in the 

Commerce Department. At the University of Southern California's School of Engineering, 

she tauqht a qraduate level course that she originated, entitled "The Political Process in Systems 
Architecture Design," which some of her students have dubbed "Survival Skills for the 90 s Aerospace 
Engineer" She took her Ph.D. in political science at the City University of New York. She is a member of 
Phi Beta Kappa and a recipient of the Defense Department's Distinguished Civilian service Award. She 
was also an Honorable Mention Honoree at the 27th Annual Wright Brothers Banquet, The Wright 
Women " in 1989. She is well known in the space community for her monthly column, now in its ; ninth 
year for the United States Space Foundation. She also contributes frequently to Space News, OMNI, 
Verti'flite, Program Manager, Acquisition Review Quarterly and other national publications. 

E J Jake Garn vice chairman, Huntsman Chemical Corporation, Salt Lake City, UT. 
Former Utah Senator Garn served in the United States Senate for 18 years. He served as 
Chairman for both the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; and the 
VA HUD and Independent Agencies subcommittees. He flew aboard shuttle Discovery 
fliq'ht 51-D as a payload specialist. Senator Garn currently serves on the boards of Dean 
Witter Funds (New York City), John Alden Life Insurance Company (Miami), The Aerospace 
Corporation American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the United States Space 
Foundation (Colorado Springs). In December of 1992, Senator Garn received the very prestigious 
aviation award, The Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy. Senator Garn received his bachelor s of science 
degree in Banking and Finance at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Lt Gen. Jay M. Garner, USA, commander of the U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense 
Command headquartered in Arlington, Va. He began his military service in the Florida 
National Guard. He then enlisted as a Marine and was commissioned a second 
lieutenant in the Army. His military career has included assignments in Kentucky, Texas, 
Europe northern Iraq, Frankfurt, Germany and Vietnam. Before his current assignment he 

served as assistant deputy chief of staff for Force Development, ODCSOPS, Washington 

D C He has attended the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Marine Corps Command and General Staff 
Colleqe the U S Army Air Defense Artillery Advance and Basic Officer Courses, and numerous other 
military schools. He holds a bachelor's degree in history from Florida State University. His awards 
include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with 
four oak leaf clusters and the Bronze Star. 




Michael J. Gianelli is responsible for government operations including business development 
and programs at Hughes Space and Communications Company (HSC). Gianelli was named 
group vice president in May 1993. He had joined the Office of the President in September the 
previous year, leaving a position as interim division manager of the systems engineering and 
operation division.During the bulk of his 23-year career at Hughes, Gianelli has worked on 
government programs, rising to the position of assistant manager of the systems applications 
division in 1988. In 1989, Gianelli moved to the space vehicle electronics division where he was responsible 
for control system, software and technology development. In 1991, Ginanelli managed a comprehensive 
program aimed at reducing the length of time needed to build spacecraft.Gianelli began his collegiate career 
at Notre Dame University where he earned a BS in aerospace engineering in 1969. He went on to the 
University of Southern California, receiving his MS in mechanical engineering in 1971 and an engineering 
degree in the same discipline just two years later. In 1982, he received an MA in business from Pepperdine 
University, and in 1989, completed the UCLA Executive Program. He has received both the Hughes Masters 
and Engineering fellowships. 


Roy Gibson, special advisor to Director General of INMARSAT, and past president and 
vice-president of the International Astronautical Federation. Prior to his current position, 
Mr. Gibson was the DG of the European Space Agency and the British National Space 
Centre. He addition to his present position, he is a vice-president of the International 
Astronautics Academy. He is a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, a member of the 
British Interplanetary Society, and the American Astronautical Society, American Institute 
of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 

Jeffrey D. Grant joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1976 and worked as an 

analyst in the Office of Scientific intelligence. He joined the Office of SIGINT Operations in 1978, developing 
and installing collection systems. In 1980, he began work in the Office of Development and engineering, 
(OD&E) C Program Group, and worked until 1986, developing a series of new collection capabilities. In 
1 986, Mr. Grant joined the S Program Group as Chief of their Systems Analysis Staff. In March 1 988, he 
became the Program Manager for a major collection system in another group. Mr. Grant Rejoined C Program 
Group as Chief of the Systems Analysis Staff in March 1991, and in September 1991 moved within OD&E to 
become Chief of the Imaging Technology Division. He worked in the Community Management Staff as 
Director, Systems and Architecture Office from July 1993 to June 1994 when he returned to the National 
Reconnaissance Office as Director, Office of Plans and Analysis. Mr. Grant holds a Bachelors degree in 
Ocean Engineering from the Florida Institute of Technology, and has enhanced his education with numerous 
Agency-sponsored training courses. His engineering skills and technical leadership have been recognized by 
the presentation of the Agency Certificate of Distinction, the Meritorious Officer Award, the Intelligence 
Commendation Medal, the CIA's 1988 Engineer of the Year Award, and the Intelligence Medal of Merit. 


Dr. Moira Gunn, producer and host of Tech Nation.. .Americans & Technology and 
an adjunct professor at the University of San Francisco. A former NASA engineer and 
scientist, she is an engineering consultant, specializing in engineering management, 
technology audits, systems testing and robotics systems. Her robotics systems are in 
operation today at such diverse sites as IBM Corporation, Lockheed Missiles & Space, 
Morton Thiokol, and the U.S. Navy. She holds a patent, along with USDA nutrition 
scientists, on a computerized food intake measurement system. While at NASA's Institute for Advanced 
Computation, she managed the software development of large scientific applications including; global 
weather and climate models, satellite image processing, earthquake modeling and prediction, and 
real-time satellite tracking on supercomputers. She holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and a 
Master of Science in computer science from Purdue University. 


The Hon. Joel Hefley, U.S. House of Representatives, Fifth District, Colorado 
since 1987; House National Security Committee, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development. He is 
also currently in the House Resource Committee serving on the subcommittee on National 
Parks, Forests, and Lands as well as the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. 
Hefley also serves on the House Small Business Committee in the subcommittee on 
Government Programs. Joel Hefley has held the leadership positions of President of the Class (1987 - 
present), Theme team Member, and Assistant Minority Whip (1989-1994). He holds a B.A. from 
Oklahoma Baptist University, a M.S. from Oklahoma State University and a Gates Fellow from Harvard 
University Summer Program. He has had the honor of receiving the Watchdogs of the Treasury "Golden 
Bulldog" award, National Federation of Independent Business "Guardian of Small Business" award, 
National Taxpayers' Union "Taxpayer's Hero" award, American Security Council Foundation "National 
Security Leadership" award and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "Spirit of Enterprise" award. He has 
also received the Common Sense "Sound Dollar" award, the Christian Coalition Friend of the Family 
Award and the Theme team's outstanding Speaker award. 


The Hon. Lionel S. Johns, Associate Director for Technology, Office of Science 
and Technology Policy, The White House. "Skip" Johns is responsible for technology 
R&D policy coordination between federal agencies. This work is coordinated through the 
National Science and Technology Council, including space and aeronautics, industrial R&D, 
defense conversion, information and communications and education and training technolo- 
gies. He serves as co-chair of three NSTC committees: Information and Communication 
R&D, Civilian Industrial Technology R&D, and Transportation R&D. Johns reports to Dr. John Gibbons, 
Director of OSTP and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. Prior to this position, Johns 
has 16 years of management experience in high technology industries and served as an officer in the 
United States Navy as a carrier-based naval aviator. 


Rear Adm. Katharine L. Laughton, CISN, commander, Naval Space Command, 
Dahlgren, Va. Rear Admiral Laughton was commissioned as an Ensign in the United 
States Naval Reserve, June 1964. A specialist in information systems technology and 
transportation management, Rear Admiral Laughton has had a variety of tours in both 
disciplines. In 1979, she assumed command of the Military Sealift Command, Port 
Canaveral, where she was the first woman to have operational control of ships. Her 
responsibilities as commanding officer included support for the Space Shuttle and the Trident programs. 
She had several automated data processing assignments including two tours as a program manager for 
ADP systems, on the staff of the Chief of Naval Education and Training and of the commander, Naval 
Data Automation Command. She assumed her present position in April 1995. Admiral Laughton's 
awards include the Legion of Merit (two awards), the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious 
Service Medal (four awards), and the Navy Commendation Medal (two awards). In addition, she is a 
recipient of the William F. Parsons Award for Scientific & Technical Progress, the AFCEA Medal of Merit 
and Technical Excellence Award. She received a baccalaureate in Political Science from the University 
of California, Riverside, Ca. She is also a graduate of the Naval War College. 

HDr. John S. MacDonald, chairman of the board, MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates 
Ltd. His professional interests lie in the areas of advanced digital systems engineering, 
remote sensing, image processing, and machine vision. He led the design team for the first 
LANDSAT ground processing system produced by the company, was involved in the early 
development of synthetic aperture radar processing at MacDonald Dettwiler. More recently, 
Dr. MacDonald's technical activities have been in the areas of handling techniques, 
especially the use of integrated data sets as a means of increasing our ability to extract useful 
information from remotely sensed data. As a former assistant professor of Electrical Engineering at 
M.I.T., Dr. MacDonald was extensively involved in teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate 
levels. In the industrial sector, Dr. MacDonald is a Director of the Geosat Committee in the U.S., 
Analytical Spectral Devices Inc., of Boulder, Colorado, ST Systems of San Mateo, California, Radarsat 
International Inc., of Richmond, B.C., and Kinetic Sciences, Inc., Vancouver, B.C. He is a registered 
Professional Engineer, a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a Founding Fellow 
of the Canadian Academy of Engineering and a Fellow of the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute. 
Dr. MacDonald earned his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of British Columbia, and his 
Master's degree in Electrical Engineering at M.I.T. 

Hon. Dr. Hans Mark, professor, department of Aerospace Engineering and 
Engineering Mechanics, University of Texas, Austin, TX. Prior to serving in his current 
position, Mark was Chancellor of the University of Texas System. Mark also served as 
deputy administrator of NASA, and was the Secretary of the Air Force. He is the author 
and co-author of more than one-hundred-fifty scholarly articles as well as numerous books, 
including most recently: The Space Station: A Personal Journey, The Management of 
Research Institutions, and In Search of the Fulcrum. He is a member of the National Academy of 
Engineering, a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He obtained a B.A. degree 
in physics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology. Mark is the recipient of two honorary degrees, the honorary Doctor of Science 
degree from Florida Institute of Technology, and the honorary Doctor of Engineering degree from 
Polytechnic Institute of New York. 


B Robert G. M.nor, president of Rockwell International's Space Systems Division 
He directs the design, development, test, evaluation, and production of Space Shuttle 
orbiters. He is responsible for all orbiter logistics operations, integration support of the 
Space Shuttle vehicles, and Space Shuttle mission flight operations support He directs 
extensive aerospace independent research and development projects and is responsible for 
• i qiu n f Slgn ' f,cant advan «d technology programs. Mr. Minor was appointed to his present position 
in 1988 Before his present assignment, Mr. Minor served as vice president and general manager of 
Rockwell s Houston Operations and as president of Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company. He also has 
served as orbiter engineering leader in the Mission Evaluation Room at NASA's Johnson Space Center 
playing a key role in significant technical achievements of the early Shuttle missions Mr Minor has ' 
received several honors to include NASA's Distinguished Public Service Award, the NASA Medal for 
Exceptional Engineering Achievement, and NASA's Public Service Award. He is a member of the 
American Institute of Electrical Engineers and a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics. Mr. Minor received his bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from Southern 
Methodist University and continued his studies at UCLA's graduate School of Engineering. 

Brig Gen. Willie B Nance, Jr., USA, deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Space and 
Strategic Defense Command (SSDC). Nance shares the responsibility for SSDC's role as the 
Army s Advocate for Space, Theater Missile Defense, and National Missile Defense He 
entered the Army in 1968 and served 13 years as an infantry officer with assignments in 
Germany; Fort Benning, Georgia; and Korea. Nance has also served as a project officer for 
many of the Army s missile projects conducted at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. Nance 
earned his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Southern Mississippi 
and Florida Institute of Technology. He is a graduate of the Army Command and General 
Staff College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Some of his decorations 
include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters 
and the Army Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters. 

James P. Noblitt, vice president and general manager for the Boeing Defense 
and Space Group, Missile and Space Division. He is responsible for Boeing's work as 
prime contractor on NASA's International Space Station program. During the Apollo 
program, he worked on the integration team for the giant Saturn V rockets which took 
American astronauts to the moon. After a stint designing commercial jetliners, he was put 
in charge of preliminary design activities for air-launched cruise missiles. He directed the 
design and proposal efforts on advanced versions of the Short Range Attack Missile and the Air 
Launched Cruise Missile. In 1989 he was named vice president for Space Systems, then vice president 
and assistant general manager of Missiles and Space Division in 1992 and general manager in 1993 
He is an aeronautical engineering graduate of Purdue University and an active member of national 
organizations including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the National 
Space Society. 

The Honorable Jaime Oaxaca, vice chairman of Coronado Communications Corporation 
Los Angeles, Calif., in charge of public relations, marketing, and research. He has 37 years 
of experience in the fields of engineering, engineering management, and program 
management. He held various administrative positions including director of international 
^^^^ and domestic marketing and long range planning; vice president of missile programs 

and vice president and assistant general manager of the Northrop Corporation 
Electromechanical Division; and president of Northrop-Wilcox Electric, Inc. He holds a bachelor's of 
science in electrical engineering from the University of Texas, El Paso, and is a graduate of the School 
of Business at Stanford University. He is a Distinguished Fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of 
Engineering. He was the first recipient of the Jaime Oaxaca award for excellence in engineering and 
dedication to the community from the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, the Business and 
Industry Award from the Mexican-American Opportunities Foundation, and the Outstanding Enqineer 
Merit Award from the Institute for the Advancement of Engineering 





Lon Rains Editor, Space News. Rains is responsible for all of the newspaper s news and 
editorial coverage. He joined Space News in October, 1989, as the Advanced Technology 
and Soviet Space Program reporter. He was responsible for covering the Umon s 
military and civilian space programs and a number of civil and military space programs 
in the United States, including the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program and the work 

f the research labs of NASA, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. 

He holds a bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Maryland. 

Vice Adm. William E. Ramsey, USN (Ret.), Vice President, Corporate Business 
Development, CTA Incorporated, a leading aerospace company with corporate 
headquarters in Rockville, MD. Admiral Ramsey entered active duty in June 1953 with a 
commission as an ensign after graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy. He completed 
flight training in 1965 and has logged more than 4,700 flying hours in tactical aircraft, 912 

carrier landings, with 258 at night. Admiral Ramsey was the first commanding officer of 

the nuclear carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. He also was the commander, Carrier Group One 
embarked on the carrier USS Constellation. He became the first director, Navy Space Systems, Office of 
the Chief Naval Operations in 1981 . Some of Admiral Ramsey's awards include, the Defense 
Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with gold star, the Bronze Star w'th combat V device 
the Ai? Medal with two gold stars (8 awards), and the Navy Commendat.on Medal with comba V device. 
Admiral Ramsey was also awarded the 1986 Military Astronautics Trophy by tta .American A—cal 
Society. He earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in naval science from the US Maval Acad emy 
Annapolis, Md„ is a graduate of the Royal Air Force Staff College, Bracknell, Berkshire England, the 
Naval Test Pilot School, the Nuclear Power School, and the Nuclear Power Training Unit. 

Thomas F. Rogers, president of the Space Transportation Association which is interested in 
using space more by expanding and increasing efficiency in space transportation He is 
also a physicist, a communications engineer, a private investor, and the president ot his 
family's private operating foundation, the Sophron Foundation which is emphasizing 
low-earth-orbit life sciences and biomedical research. His experience in research and 
development is extensive and has included serving as deputy director of Defense Research 
and Enqineerinq in the Office of the Secretary of Defense where he was responsible for research and 
development supporting the command and control of our nuclear strike forceS ( Rogers J'd research 
and development^ during World War I. at the radio *^}*^ f^^^Sl senior 
later at the Bell and Howell Company and the Air Force Cambridge Research Center. He has held senior 
federal government positions, and professional positions with university industrial and non-profit 
organizations. He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences Inst.tute of ^Jcme/Robe t 
Wood Johnson Foundation group that created early emergency medical systems including the 9 1 
emergency number in over forty locations across the U.S. Rogers holds a bachelor s of science from 
Providence College and a master's degree in physics from Boston University and is a Fellow of the 
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. 

Steven P Scott, currently directs business development activities for Rockwell's Space 
System Division's DoD space programs. This includes responsibility for strategic planning 
in the areas of satellites and space defense, and program development on pursuits such as 
the Global Positioning System Block 1IF and follow-on programs to the P91-1 ARGOb 
Space Test Program satellite. Past assignments have involved business development 

— activities with Air Force Space Command, Space & Missile Systems Center, PhiHips 

Laboratory, Goddard Space Flight Center, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on both earth-orbiting 
systems and interplanetary probes. Prior to joining Rockwell, he was the Business Development 
Manager at Logicon/Ultrasystems for the satellite command and control and simulation and training 
program areas and site manager for Contel Federal Systems Division in Los Angeles. While on active 
dS as a captain in the Air Force, Scott was responsible for the site actuation and initial operation of the 
remote ground stations for the GPS Operation Control Segment. He received his undergraduate degree 
n electrical engineering from the University of Texas, and holds a M.S. in Engineering from Northrop 
University and a M.B.A degree from Pepperdine University. Scott ,s on the board o directors of the 
Natonal Space Club's West Coast Committee, and is a member of the Southern California Association of 
Professional Representatives. 


Dr. Arturo Silvestrini, president and chief executive officer, EOSAT. Dr. Silvestrini has 
more than 40 years of professional experience, including more than 35 years in 
aerospace-related industries. Most of Silvestrini's career has involved managing large 
business operations. He joined EOSAT in 1991 after electing to take early retirement 
from Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), where he spent more than 25 years of his 
professional career. Before his retirement, he was assigned to coordinate the commercial 
CSC initiative of acquisitions and rapid expansion in Europe. Before CSC, Silvestrini served at various 
technical, consulting, and managerial levels in companies such as Page Communications and Cubic 
Corporation, in both the U.S. and Europe. Silvestrini has authored textbooks and numerous technical 
and scientific publications. He is an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics and a Fellow of the American Astronautical Society. He serves on the board of directors of 
CTA, Inc. , of Rockville, Md, and is President of Teleos, a joint venture between EOSAT and Telespazio of 
Italy. Silvestrini received his doctorate degree in electrical engineering from the University of Rome. 


Dr. Edward Stone, Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Vice President and David Morrisroe 
Professor of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. Stone is the current chairman 
of the Board of Directors of the California Association for Research in Astronomy. Since 
1961, Stone has been a principal investigator on nine NASA spacecraft missions and a 
co-investigator on five other NASA missions. He is a member of the National Academy of 
Sciences and the International Academy of Astronautics. He is a Fellow of the American 
Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics. Stone also is a member of the American Astronomical Union, the American Philosophical 
Society, an honorary member of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a member of the California 
Council on Science and Technology. He received his Ph.D from the University of Chicago as well as 
honorary degrees from Washington University at St. Louis, Harvard University, and the University 
of Chicago. 

Akiyoshi Takada, Deputy Director-General, Communications Policy Bureau, Ministry of 
Posts and Telecommunications, Japan. In 1968 Mr. Takada entered the Ministry of Posts 
and Telecommunications. He then became Director of the Postal Savings Department, 
Kinki Bureau of Postal Services (Osaka Prefecture), in 1982. Between 1983 and 1985 
Mr. Takada was the senior advisor of General Coordination Division, Minister's Secretariat 
and in 1985 he became the director of Computer Communications Division in 
Telecommunications Business Department. Until 1992 Mr. Takada was the Director of Policy Division 
in the Communications Policy Bureau and Director of International Policy Division. Prior to his current 
position as Deputy Director-General in the Communication Policy Bureau he was Director-General for 
Sinetsu Bureau of Postal Services (Nagano Prefecture). Mr. Takada graduated from Tokyo University 
Law School in 1968. 

tW. David Thompson, founder and president of Spectrum Astro, Inc. The company builds 
small satellites and advanced technology components and subsystems for such diverse 
space applications as ballistic missile defense, planetary exploration, technology 
demonstration and validation, communications, and research instruments aboard the space 
station. Prior to starting Spectrum Astro, Thompson was assigned to HQ USAF SMC in a 
-■ wide range of capacities over a 10-year period, including positions in launch, six different 
spacecraft development programs, technology and advanced system design and development, Space 
Shuttle payload integration and training as DoD Manned Spaceflight Engineer/Payload Specialist. His 
last position was as chief of the Advanced Plans Branch for a major office where he was responsible 
for the conceptualization and development of a number of small and low-cost but sophisticated quick 
reaction space payloads. He is a senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics, and a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 

I ^m^ 1 Prof. Ernesto Vallerani, chairman, Alenia Spazio, S.P.A. Prior to his current position, 
^^^m Vallerani lectured on advanced Gasdynamics at Turin Polytechnic. He was the local 
^^^B project manager and later the technical director for the Spacelab program for Aeritalia. He 
J^V became the general director of the Space Sector of Aeritalia in 1980 and was appointed to 
^^^^■j nis current position in 1991 . He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
^•«™ Astronautics, and a member of the International Astronautical Federation. He is currently a 
member of the board of trustees for the International Academy of Astronautics. Vallerani graduated in 
Aeronautical Engineering (propulsion) from Milan Polytechnic. 



Maj. Gen. David L. Vesely, USAF commander, 14th Air Force, Vandenberg AFB, Calif. 
General Vesely commands the only space force conducting military operations and 
supporting global civil and commercial activities. The 14th AF supports warfighting 
worldwide with ballistic missile warning, command and control of DoD and NATO satellites, 
spacelift generation and range operations, global space surveillance/warning, and ballistic 
missile test operations. The general entered the Air Force in March 1966 as a graduate of 
the Michigan Technological University Reserve Officer Training Corps program. He is a command pilot 
and has flown more than 4,200 flight hours. He also is a Vietnam veteran, he flew more than 200 
combat hours in the Republic of Vietnam. The general has experience in special operations, strategic 
missiles, tactical fighters, electronic combat, intelligence, training and space operations. He has also 
held key staff positions at Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, the staff of the Secretary of the Air Force, the 
Joint Staff, and at North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) headquarters. His military decorations 
include the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, 
Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, Air Force Commendation, Vietnam Service Medal, and the 
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm. General Vesely received his Bachelor of Science degree 
in Electrical Engineering at Michigan Technological University, and a Master's degree in Business 
Administration from Auburn University, Ala. He's completed Squadron Officer School, Air Command 
and Staff College, and the Air War College. 

Peter G. Wilheim, director, Naval Center for Space Technology. The Center's mission is to 
preserve and enhance a strong space technology base and provide expert assistance in the 
development and acquisition of space systems which support naval missions. The Center 
is the only Defense Department facility that has its own in-house capability to design, 
fabricate, and fully qualify spacecraft. Mr. Wilheim is credited with contributions in the 
design, development, and operation of 82 scientific and Fleet-support satellites. He has 
been awarded five patents. His previous experience includes satellite system design, equipment devel- 
opment, environmental testing, launch operations and orbital data handling. Mr. Wilheim s awards 
include the Navy's Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the 
Presidential Meritorious Executive Award, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
Aerospace and Electronic Systems Group Man of the Year Award. Mr. Wilheim is a Fellow of the 
Washington Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics. He earned a B.S.E.E. from Purdue University, and has completed all course work for an 
M.S.E.E. from George Washington University. 


Michael W. Wynne, Michael W. Wynne is vice president and general manager of Lockheed 
Martin Space Systems, a business unit of Lockheed Martin Astronautics located in Denver, CO. 
In 1991 he became Corporate vice president and general manager of General Dynamics' 
Space Systems Division and in 1992 was named vice president of the Space Systems Division 
and in 1992 was named president of the Space Systems Division. In 1982, he joined the Land 
Systems Division in the President's office and was subsequently promoted to vice president of 
contracts and estimating. Wynne was then named vice president of business development, where he 
directed strategic and business planning functions, as well as domestic and international marketing. 
Wynne joined General Dynamics' Fort Worth Division in 1975 in the estimating department. He was 
promoted to corporate manager of pricing at corporate headquarters. Wynne graduated from the U.S. 
Military Academy at West Point. He has a master's degree in electrical engineering (MSEE) from the 
Air Force Institute of Technology and a master's in business administration (MBA) from the University 
of Colorado. 



SPACE SPINOFFS are materials and products originally developed for space program application which 
have made significant contributions to benefit all people. Spinoffs are nominated each year for induction into the 
Space Technology Hall of Fame. 

Sponsored by NASA and the U.S. Space Foundation since 1988, the Space Technology Hall of Fame honors indi- 
viduals and companies responsible for these remarkable products. Though the number of inductees is limited, each 
nominee is truly a winner in its innovation and practical benefit to humankind. 



(Health Care Products Category) 

A problem that has confronted aviators and astronauts alike is protection from 
the g-forces that occur during periods of rapid acceleration. Anti-g suits have 
been developed to help to control the shifting of body fluids during changing 
gravity conditions. At the beginning of the 20th century a physician observed 
that the use of controlled pressure could help reduce internal bleeding. 
Subsequently, others made similar observations and began to modify pressure 
suits for medical purposes. In 1969, a surgeon who was aware of NASA's 
work in this area requested their assistance in treating a patient. A special 
suit was developed and was successful in controlling bleeding in the patient. 
Subsequently, other patients also received treatment using the novel anti-g 
suit system. A similar effort was also occurring at a U.S. Army Post. That 
work led to patent and the first commercial Medical Anti-Shock Trouser. 
These garments can now be found in most trauma centers and ambulances 
and have been credited with helping save the lives of many seriously injured 


(Consumer Products Category) 

Space voyagers are subject to temperature extremes that range from 400' F 
above zero to 400' F below zero. Protecting equipment and astronauts from 
these extremes was an early requirement for NASA. Based on pioneering 
research, that continues today, a class of materials called Multi-Layer 
Insulation was developed. A key component of this insulation is a radiant bar- 
rier made from "metallized" plastics. These materials have been 
incorporated into virtually every item, for example, satellites, the lunar 
module, space suit, etc, that is exposed to space temperature extremes. 

Temperature extremes are not limited to space. They also occur on earth, 
although not over such a broad temperature range. Radiant barriers and 
multi-layer insulation are being used extensively on cryogenic tanks, food 
wrap, plus home and office insulation to name just a few applications. 


(Industrial Products/Processes Category) 

One of the early tragedies of the space program was a fire in an Apollo 
module that was undergoing flight preparations. Investigation of all aspects 
of the fire indicated that many of the materials used in the module were highly 
flammable. One solution to this problem was development and use of a 
novel fire resistant encapsulation technology that protected materials from 
direct ignition. 

It was found that this technology had another important application. It was 
for seats and fabrics in aircraft. Application of the fire-blocking material 
decreased seat flammability substantially, and also retarded smoke and 
toxic emissions sufficiently to allow passengers to safely exit the aircraft in 
emergency circumstances. All commercial airlines now utilize this technology 
in seats and some other applications in aircraft. 


(health care products category) 

Developed through the 

cooperative efforts of: 

NASA Ames Research Center 

David Clark Co. 

George Baldes (deceased) 

Alan Chambers (deceased) 

Burt Kaplan, M.D. 

Don Peeler 

Ralph Pelligra, M.D. 

Forrest Poole (deceased) 

Eugene Sandberg, M.D. 

Hubert Vykukal 

Bruce Webbon 


(consumer products category) 

Developed through the cooperative 

efforts of: 

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center 

Radient Technologies, Inc. 

Clark E. Beck, Sr. 

Robert Brown 

Peter E. Glaser, Ph.D. 

Eric Hyde 

Arthur D. Little 

David B. Shea 

Preston E. Smith 

James M. Stuckey, PAD. 

Hugh von Delden 


(Industrial products/ 
processes category) 

Developed through the cooperative 

efforts of: 

NASA Ames Research Center 

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Mosites Company 

John Bailey 

Richard W. Bricker 

James Burnett 

Fred E. Duskin 

John Gagliani, Ph.D. 

J. Lynn Helms 

Richard G. Hill 

Joseph D. Keating 

Demetrius Kourtides, Ph.D. 

Jack Owens 

John Parker (deceased) 

Matthew I. Radnofsky, Ph.D. (deceased) 

Constantine P. Sarkos 

David A. Stivers 

Daniel E. Supkis, Ph.D. 

Edward L. Trabold 




Fred Abatemarco 

Popular Science 

C. Michael Armstrong 
Chairman & CEO 
Hughes Electronics 

Norman Augustine 

President & CEO 
Lockheed Martin Corp. 

Rick Barnard 

Executive Editor 
Space News 

Frank Borman 

Chairman, CEO & President 
Patlex Corp. 

Donald E. Fink 

Editor-in-Chief, Aviation Week & Space 
Technology Magazine 

The Hon. Jake Gam 

Vice Chairman 

Huntsman Chemical Corporation 

Timothy W. Hannemann 

Executive Vice President & General Manager 
TRW Space & Electronics Group 

The Hon. Joel Hefley (CO) 
National Security Committee 
U.S. House of Representatives 

John Hendricks 

Chairman & CEO 
Discovery Communications 

The Hon. Lionel S. Johns 

Associate Director for Technology 

The White House Office of Science & Technology 

Capt. James Lovell. USN (Ret.) 
Lovell Communications 

Dr. John Mansfield 

Associate Administrator 

Office of Space Access & Technology, NASA 

Bill Schnirring 


Associated Business Publications 

Dr. Arturo Sirvestrini 

President & CEO 

The Hon. Robert Walker (PA) 
Chairman, Science Committee 
U.S. House of Representatives 

1 80 



Advanced Communication Technology Satellite 

has permitted on-demand allocation of satellite 
channels, re-use of bandwidth, and the 
opportunity for small user earth stations for direct 
interconnectivity. The petroleum industry, banks, 
and the Mayo Clinic have adapted the technology 
to develop new and improved services. 

Advanced Wire Resistance Strain Gauge is a 

technology critical to the design and development 
of advanced gas turbine engines and hypersonic 
aerospace vehicles. (Jsing the technology, 
companies developed the capability to manufacture 
a free-filament, weldable strain gauge for the 
commercial market. 

Automated Hydrogen Gas Leak Detection System 

produced a comprehensive approach that 
monitored leaks in hydrogen propulsion systems. 
In addition to its aerospace application, the 
system can be used to include safety monitoring 
of hydrogen facilities and hydrogen build-up in 
nuclear waste depositories. 

Bioreactor for Cell Culture Systems was 

created to study the effects of cell interaction, 
metabolism, and other cellular functions in 
microgravity, and to protect cultures from high 
shear forces present during space shuttle launch 
and landing. The commercial Bioreactor design can 
reduce the effects of shear and gravity while in an 
earth gravity environment, thus providing for the 
growth of such things as cancer tumors outside the 
human body for study — a vital step in the search 
for cancer cures. 

Ceramics Analysis & Reliability Evaluation 
Software is an enabling software technology that 
predicts the failure of ceramics parts which 
responds to a national need for developing more 
reliable ceramic parts. 

Database Management System allows for a system 
that could run on a small computer, permitting the 
manipulation of data and enabling users to write 
miniprograms simply and easily using basic 
commands. Many database products and millions 
of copies of software based upon this system are 
now in use throughout the world. 

Low Vision Enhancement System was designed to 
capture minute information by satellite camera by 
zooming in on the image and enhancing it with 
computer software. It is used today to enhance 
the vision of over three million visually impaired 
Americans who cannot readily discern low-contrast 
or who experience blind spots, tunnel vision, or 
suffer from macular degeneration. 

Ocular Screening System is a digital-imaging 
process designed to interpret Landsat satellite 
observations of Earth. It is now used to examine 
the human eye by photographically recording the 
eye's reflective properties. When analyzed, these 
properties provide details about the quality of 
the eye. 

Ground Processing Scheduling System is an 

artificial intelligence-based software program 
that models the temporal configuration and the 
resource constraints while performing schedule 
conflict resolution. 

Robotic Ultrahigh-Pressure Waterjet Stripping is a 

robotic-precision-controlled, high-speed waterjet 
cleaning system first developed for the space 
shuttles' external tanks and is now being used for 
several industrial cleaning applications such as 
paint removal from aircraft, railroad cars, tank 
farms, and shipyards. 

Telemetry Acquisition & Processing System is a 

technology that produced a ground station capabili- 
ty to receive and process data 1 times faster than 
existing systems and fulfilled the requirements of 
lower system's cost and high reliability. 

Underwater Location Aid (The "Pinger") is a 

system that can precisely locate submerged space 
objects (space payloads, spacecraft booster, etc.) 
and is now used by airlines and others to assist with 
location identification in the event of an accident. 

Water Purification is a small, lightweight water 
purifier that recycles and purifies water using 
minimal resources, processed in shorter periods 
of time, while being less costly than traditional 



1996 Symposium Volunteers 


Rick Hargrave 
Media Room 

Sheila Lemberger 

John Neri 
Student Tours 

Jim Rix 
Information Table 

Pat St. John 
Senior Support 

Bret Stoneking 

Brad Thorne 
Speaker Support 

Frank Wisneski 
Exhibit Support 


Keith Calloway 

Diane DeGeer 

Dean Feller 
Speaker Support 

Marty France 
Speaker Ready 

Cynthia McKinley 
Speaker Ready 

Vicki Stoneking 


David Abbey 
Hildie Aitken 
Trevor Alf 
John Anderson 
Thomas Angelo 
Rick Antinora 
Connie Armstrong 
Carl Arnold 
Jeff Bachmann 
Bonnie Bagley 
Larry Bagley 
Gary Bailey 
Kent Banks 
LaTasha Barbour 
Bryan Bayer 
Geoff Bednarsky 
James Begley 
Linda Belodeau 
Tim Bergmann 
Andy Bigelow 
Cyndi Bissett 
Frank Bittinger 
Allen Black 
Sara Bluestone 
Kelly Bobos 
Ed Bolton 
Jim Boyd 
Marna Brasili 
Dave Brescia 
Toni Brescia 
Tom Britten 
Kim Braun 
Johnnie Brown 
Michelle Buono 
Budd Butcher 
Len Campaigne 
Elvira Canzanella 
Daniel Cassity 
Jeff Caton 
Randall Clark 
Sally Claunch 
Fred Clutz 
Lulabelle Coggins 
Paul Coile 
Ron Cole 
Carolina Coll 
Phil Cooley 
John Corbett 
David Criswell 
Sharon Crouch 
Darrel Curry 
Martha Curtis 
Sharon Czeikus 
Jeff DeBolt 
Vic DePetrillo 
Kyle Deguire 

Andrew Dobrot 
Jose Dodd 
Larry Dozier 
Justin Dunker 
Mary Duran 
Len Esterly 
Tracy Estes 
Kenneth Ethridge 
Owen Eustice 
Marti Fallon 
Mike Farrell 
Karen Feckovic 
Adolfo Fernandez 
Sandra Follett 
Neal Fontana 
Taylor Garduno-Neri 
Lane Gilchrist 
Brian Glasgow 
Jeanne Glogowski 
Karen Grabowski 
Don Green 
Wynn Greene 
April Grey 
Mark Grisko 
Tom Groebner 
Ziwa Hampshire 
Rich Hand 
Bill Hansen 
Rob Harrison 
Jason Hebert 
Bev Heising 
Mark Henrich 
Bill Hibbard 
Jeff Hill 
John Hilyard 
Tom Holley 
Bill Hostyn 
Baron Jackson 
Ann Jacobs 
Al Jamerson 
Jammer Jamilkowski 
Norma Jenkins 
Susan Jennaway 
Mollie Jenson 
Dave Johnson 
Gary Johnson 
Louis Joniak 
Chris Kaes 
Paul Karch 
Kristi Katz 
Jeff Kenrich 
James Kerr 
Nobel Keyes 
Scott Koopman 
Dan Koveleskie 
Robert Kozicki 
Matthew Kozma 
Jon Kraemer 

Brandt Laird 
Michael Lakos 
Carol LeBlanc 
Matthew LeVasseur 
Tim Lewallen 
Harriet Lewis 
Walter Lewis 
Steve Lindemann 
Laura Linfield 
Andre Llano 
Kay MacDonald 
Eleanor MacLeod 
Kaipo McCartney 
Elle McCulloch 
Scott McGillvary 
Kevin McGinnis 
Earlon McGrew 
Carl Machemer 
Lee Maddox 
Srikant Mantravadi 
Storm Martin 
Walt Maston 
Joe Mertan 
Bob Meshako 
Betsy Meyer 
Todd Meyer 
David Miles 
Glenda Miller 
Marie Miller 
Bev Montera 
Carl Montera 
Manuel Mota 
James Munoz 
Robert Murphy 
Lisa Myers 
Francine Nelson 
Kathy Nelson 
Jerome O'Brien 
Kirk O'Connor 
Bradd Olsen 
George Pacheco 
Matt Palmer 
Ed Park 
Terry Parrott 
Vicki Parsons 
Jeff Pearson 
Wayne Peltier 
Greg Petrick 
Robert Pfeifer 
Maria Pimienta 
Raymond Plante 
John Prosceno 
Loretta Ramirez 
Kimberly Reeves 
Chip Regan 
Michael Reichard 
Karin Reifel 
Bob Reyes 

Randy Rickards 
Bob Robinson 
Dennis Rosas 
Darrell Ross 
Steve Ross 
Russell Rowland 
John Ryan 
Maria Ryan 
Kurt Schendzielos 
Robin Schendzielos 
William Schou 
Rich Schoonmaker 
Rick Schulte 
John Scott 
Sean Scott 
Derek Sebalj 
Todd Self 
Annena Shaffer 
Jerry Simmons 
Kevin Smogh 
Martin Smith 
Joe Snodgrass 
Kelly Snyder 
Chuck Somma 
Alan Sommerfeld 
Mary Sparrow 
Mark Stout 
Ralph Strother 
Chris Stuck 
Paul Summers 
Joe Swinehart 
Frieda Tata 
Mike Tennermann 
Julie Thorne 
William Tongue 
Marvin Treu 
Paulita Trezevant 
Scott Trimboli 
Wallace Turnbull 
Kevin VanderMolen 
Bill Vermilyea 
Gary Wagner 
Eileen Ward 
Michael Ward 
Christy Wasserburgei 
Rob Wasserman 

William Welborn 
Marcia Wells 
Vincent Westmark 
Bill Weston 
Jerry Williams 
Steve Wilson 
Forrest Witt 
Daniel Wolberg 



1996 Symposium Attendees 

Mr. Martin Abbott 
New Business Systems 

Allied Signal Aerospace 
1300 W Warner Rd. 
MS: 1207-5L 
Tempe, AZ 85284 

Mr. Jim Adamson 
Chief Operating Officer 
United Space Alliance 
1150 Gemini Ave. 
Houston, TX 77058 

Hon. Edward C. Aldridge Jr. 

President & CEO 

The Aerospace Corporation 

P.O. Box 92957 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957 

Dr. Buzz Aldrin Jr. 
233 Emerald Bay 
Laguna Beach, CA 92651 

Mr. James Aliberti 

Asst. Tech Mgmt. 

NASA Kennedy Space Cente 


Kennedy Space Center, FL 


Mr. James N. Allburn 

Vice President/General Manager 

SRS Technologies Washington 

1401 Wilson Blvd. 
Arlington, VA 22209 

Mr. Jeffrey Allen 
GPS/G1S Project Manager 
GeoResearch, Inc. 
7913 MacArthur Blvd. 
P.O. Box 220 
Cabin John, MD 20818 

Mr. Michael S. Allen 
Program Manager 
Computing Devices 

8800 Queen Ave. S. 
Minneapolis MN 55431-1996 

Ms. Monica Allevan 
Senior Editor, Wireless Week 
600 S. Cherry St 
Denver, CO 80222 

Mr. Robert Anderson 

Chairman Emeritus 


10877 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 10 

Los Angeles, CA 90024-4341 

Mr. A. L. Andrews 
Professor, University 

of Southern California 
RO. Box 2431 
Patas Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 

Mr. Michael L. Anna 
Product Line Manager 
TRW Systems Integration 

1555 N. Newport Rd. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80916 

Mr. Joseph C. Anselmo 
Space Technology Editor 
Aviation Week & Space 

1200 G St., Ste. 922 
Washington, DC 20005 

Mr. Victor Anthony 

Reporter, KKTV 

3100 N. Nevada 

Colorado Springs, CO 80907 

Mr. Shin Arai 
Director of Space 
Communications Research 

Ministry of Posts and 

3-2 Kasumigaseki Chiyadaku 
Tokyo, Japan 100-90 

Chris Aries 

National Test Facility-USAF 

730 Irwin Ave. 

Falcon AFB, CO 80912-7300 

Mr. Robert Armendiaz 
Editor, Hispania News 
2862 S. Circle Dr., # 122 
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 

Dr. James O. Arnold 
Chief, Space Technology Div. 
NASA Ames Research Center 
Moffet Field, Mountain View, 
CA 94035 

Mr. Richard P. Arras 

Vice President & Program Director 

GPS Prog. 

Rockwell International Space 

Systems Division 
12214 Lakewood Blvd. 
RO. Box 7009 - M/C 841-DA03 
Downey, CA 90241-7009 

Mr. Robert Arsenault 
National Test Facility 
730 Irwin Ave. 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Gen. Joseph Ashy, USAF 
250 S. Peterson Blvd. 
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-5001 

Mr. James Asker 
Washington Bureau Chief 
Aviation Week & Space 
Technology Magazine 
1200 G St. N.W, Ste. 922 
Washington, DC 20005-3802 

Mr. Roy R. Aydelotte 
Manager, Advanced Systems 

Honeywell Satellite Systems 

19019 N. 59th Ave. 
Glendale, AZ 85308 

Capt. Christopher B. Ayres, 

Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Larry C. Bagley 

Program Manager 

System Technology Associates, Inc. 

1631 S. Murray 

Colorado Springs, CO 80916 

Mr. Mark Bailey 
Marketing Manager 
Star Sys. Research Corp. 
6350 Nautilus Dr., Unit 3 
Boulder, CO 80301 

CoL William B. Bailey, USAFfRet) 


Bailey Associates International 

Aerospace Consultants 
339 Surrey Dr. 
Bonita, CA 91902-2352 

Dr. Boyd J. Baldauf 
2106 Mountview Dr. 
Pueblo, CO 81008-1516 

Mr. Larry J. Bamford 
Supervisor, Project Mgmt 
AlliedSignal Technical Services 
RO. Box 20 
Las Cruces, NM 88004 

Mr. Gerald R Banner 

Group Leader 

M I T Lincoln Laboratory 

244 Wood St. 

MS S4-600A 

Lexington, MA 02173 

Dr. Joseph N. Barfield 


Southwest Research Institute 

P.O. Drawer 28510 

6220 Culebra Rd. 

San Antonio, TX 78238-5166 

Mr. William H. Barnett 

Director Launch Services 

Johnson Controls, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1228 

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-1228 

Mr. Glenn Barney 

Manager, Business Development 

Com Dev 

18400-55 Overlook Rd. 

Los Gatos, CA 95030 

Dr. Deborah Barnhart 
Vice President, Business 

Hamilton Standard Space 

Systems International, Inc. 
One Hamilton Rd. 
M/S 1A-2-A66 
Windsor Locks, CT 06096 

Mr. Dominick Barry 
Director Worldwide Services 
Spaceport Systems Inc. 
3769-C Constellation Rd. 
Lompoc, CA 93436 

Mr. Kurt E Bassett 
Director & Deputy EELV 
Lockheed Martin Astronautics 
P.O. Box 179 
Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. Johnny Batache 
Manager, Advanced Programs 
Harris Corporation - GASD 
P.O. Box 94000 MS 22/4730 
Melbourne, FL 32902 

Ms. Joanna Bean 
Reporter, Gazette Telegraph 
30 S. Prospect St 
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Mr. Robert M. Bebee 
Director, Lockheed Martin 
Management & Data Systems 
935 First Ave., Room 13E18 
King Of Prussia, PA 19406 

Mr. Norman M. Beck Jr. 

DoD Customer Segment Manager 

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace 

Kennedy Space Center 

100 McDonnell Douglas Way 

Titusville, FL 32780 



Ms. Janice M. Bellucci 


Janice M. Bellucci, P.C. 

51 Monroe St, *506 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Mr. John Bendekovic 
Business Dev. Manager 
Loral Federal Systems 
9500 Godwin Dr. 
M/S 400/045 
Manassas, VA 22110 

Dr. John U. Beusch 

Asst. Head, Aerospace Div. 

Mit Lincoln Laboratory, Rm S4-511 

244 Wood St. 

Lexington, MA 02173 

Capt. William W. Bishop, USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Mark E. Bitterman 
Vice President, Government 

Orbital Sciences Corporation 
21700 Atlantic Blvd. 
Sterling, VA 20166 

Mr. Bruce Bjornstad 
Program Manager 
Johnson Controls, Inc. 
P.O. Box 1228-LBS 7500 
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-1228 

Mr. Richard W Blakley 
Director, Titan IV Business 

Lockheed Martin Technologies Inc. 
P.O. Box 179 
MS: L5004 
Denver, CO 80201 

Maj. John Blitch, USA 

Colorado School of Mines 

Dept of Math & Computer 


Golden, CO 80401 

Mr. Jay D. Blume 
Director Business 
Logicon Ultrasystems 
14175 Sullyfield Circle 
Chantilly, VA 22021 

Mr. George E. Boehmer 
Manager, Colorado Springs Ops. 
TRW Systems Integration Group 
1555 N. Newport Rd. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80916- 

Ms. Jill Bohney-Lang 
MLV Marketing Manager 
Alliant Techsystems 
M/S GE10 
Magna, UT 84044 

Mr. Richard A. Borowski 

Laboratories Manager 


White Sands Test Facility 

P.O. Box 20 

Las Cruces, NM 88004 

Mr. Roger A. Bossart 
Director of Programs 5 
Lockheed Martin Technical 

4450 E Fountain Blvd., Ste. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80916 

Ms. Jana Dawn Bott 
Director External Affairs 
Western Commercial Space 

3865-A Constellation Rd 
Lompoc, CA 93436 

Mr. David Bottoroff 
Writer, Sattellite 
2115 Ward Court N.W 
Washington, DC 20037 

Mr. Leo Boudreaux 


250 S Peterson Blvd., Ste. 116 

Colorado Springs, CO 80914- 


Capt Michelle Bowes 

1218 Hayloft Lane 

San Antonio, TX 78245 

Mr. Dave Bowling 
Air Safety Investigator 
National Transportation Safety 

825 Roberts Lane 
Batavia, IL 60185 

Mr. Dan Brandenstein 
Director, Program Development 
Loral Space Information 

P.O. Box 58487 
Houston, TX 77258 

Mr. William M. Braselton Jr. 
Vice President of Business 

Harris Corporation Government 

Aerospace Systems Div. 
P.O. Box 94000 
Melbourne, FL 32902 

Mr. John Bray 
Program Manager 
Litton Computer Services 
985 Space Center Dr., Ste. 105 
Colorado Springs, CO 80915 

Mr. David Brierley 
National Test Facility-USAF 
730 Irwin Ave. 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912-7300 

Dr. Frederick S. Brown 
Vice President Group 

TRW Space & Electronics 
Group El/5061 
One Space Park 
Redondo Beach, CA 90278 

Mr. Larry J. Brown 

Manager Program Development 

Honeywell Inc. 

13350 U.S. 19 North 

MS: 749 

Clearwater, FL 34624 

Mr. Larry Brown 

Program Developement Manager 


8201 E. McDowell Rd. H2242 

Scottsdale, AZ 85252 

Mr. Robert Brown 
Chief, Thermal Branch 
Houston, TX 77058 

Mr. Jay Brownfield 

Manager Space Systems 

Business Div. 

Allied Signal Aerospace 

1001 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W, 

Ste. 700 

Washington, DC 20004-2505 

Ms. Virnell A. Bruce 

Vice President Communications 

Lockheed Martin Corporation 

6801 Rockledge Dr. 

Mail Point 337 

Bethesda, MD 20817 

Mr. Kevin Bubach 
Reporter, KOAA-TV 
530 Communications Circle 
Colorado Springs, CO 80905 

Ms. Amy L. Buhrig 
Manager Business Dev. 
Boeing Commercial Space 

P.O. Box 3999, M/S 8X-58 
Seattle, WA 98124 

Ms. Angelia Bukley 

NASA Marshall Space Flight 

Space Science & Applis Office 


Huntsville, AL 35812 

Dr. Carlo Buongiorno 
Professor, University of Rome 
Corso Trieste 91 
Rome, 00199 

Maj. Edwin C. Bush Jr., USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Lt Col. Larry Bush, USAF 
Systems Engineer SC1TOR 
990 Point of the Pines Dr. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80919 

Dr. Peter F Bythrow 
Coordinator, Air Force 

John Hopkins University 
Applied Physics Lab 
John Hopkins Rd., Room 4-282 
Laurel, MD 20723-6099 

Col. John R Caldwell 
Deputy System Program 

Joint Program Office 
2435 Vela Way, Ste. 1613 
El Segundo, CA 90245-5500 

Ms. Isabell Camillo 
Vice President/General Manager 
Dawber & Company, Inc. 
One Tower Lane, Ste. 1700 
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 

Lt Col. Len O. Campaigne 
Vice Chief Requirements & 

250 S. Peterson Blvd., Ste. 116 
Peterson AFB, CO 80914- 

Mr. John Carlson 
Vice President, 
Aydin Corporation East 
700 Dresher Rd. 
Horsham, PA 19044 

Mr. Robert Carlson 
Market Manager 
Fiberite, Inc. 
P.O. Box 784 
Medford, NY 11763 



Mr. William Carter 
Manager Business Dev. 
Lockheed Martin 
LMA Deercreek Facility 
1299 Deercreek Canyon Rd. 
Mailstop DC 1155 
Littleton, CO 80127-5146 

Mr. Frank Cartier 
Manager, Surveillance Pro 

TRW Inc. Space & Electronics 

One Space Park 
Redondo Beach, CA 90278 

Dr. Ernestine Cary 

Director Marketing & Comm. 


4300 Forbes Blvd. 

Lanham, MD 20706 

Capt. James P. Cashin, USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Robert E Casner 

Director Business Development 

United Technologies Chemical 

Systems Division 
P.O. Box 49028 
San Jose, CA 95161-9028 

Mr. Marlowe Cassetti 

Director Rocky Mountain Region 

McDonnell Douglas Space & 

Defense Systems 
1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 108 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910 

Mr. James W Cates 
Proposal Manager, Allian 
LCLS Business Unit 
P.O. Box 98, MS X110 
Magna, UT 84044 

Mr. T. Michael Celley 

Systems Analyst 

U.S. Army 


Ft. George G. Meade, MD 


Dr. Russell B. Chadwick 

Chief, Demonstration Division 

NOAA Forecast Systems Lab 


3325 Broadway 

Boulder, CO 80303 

Mr. Roger A. Chamberlain 
Director Business Dev. Space Sys. 
Lockheed Martin Astronautics 
P.O. Box 179, MS5000 
Denver, CO 80201 

Dr. M G. Chandrasekhar 
Director, Indian Space Research Oig. 
Dept of Space 
New BEL Rd. 
Bangalore, India 560094 

Ms. Lee Ann Chappell 
Communications Manager 
Hughes Information Tech. 
1768 Business Center Dr. 
Reston, VA 22090 

Mr. Gerald J. Chodil 
Vice President Sensors, 

Cryogenics, P & T 
Ball Aerospace and 

Technologies Corp. 
RO. Box 1062 
Boulder, CO 80306 

Ms. Jackie Chrobuck 

Manager Program Development 


19019 N. 59th Ave. 

Glendale, AZ 85308 

Capt. Cary C. Chun, USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Todd Citron 
Program Manager 
Hughes Aircraft Company 
2260 East Imperial Hwy. 
El Segundo, CA 90245 

Mr. Jack C. Clark 

Manager Space Systems 

Lockheed Martin 

5933 W Century Blvd., Ste. 800 

Los Angeles, CA 90045 

Mr. B. W Clowe 

Director Sales & Marketing 

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. 

P.O. Box 25861 

123 Robert S. Kerr Ave. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

Mr. Mike L. Coats 

Vice President 

Loral Space Information 

P.O. Box 58487, Ste. 600 
Houston, TX 77258 

Mr. Jerry Cobb 

Director / LMLV Commercial 

Launch Services 
Lockheed Martin Astronautics 
P.O. Box 179 
M/S DC1155 
Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. Paul Coile 

5522 Wilkerson Pass Dr. 

Colorado Springs, CO 80917- 


Mr. Russell L Collier 
Director, Air Force Programs 
Lockheed Martin Washington 

1725 Jefferson Davis Hwy. 
Crystal Square 2, Ste. 300 
Arlington, VA 22202 

Mr. David E. Conrad 

Manager, Business Development 

AlliedSignal Aerospace 

1300 W. Warner Rd. 

P.O. Box 22200 

Tempe, AZ 85284 

Mr. Marc T Constantine 
Director / EELV Business 

Aerojet Propulsion Division 
P.O. Box 13222 
Sacramento, CA 95813-6000 

Mr. Stephen Cook 

Program Analyst, NASA HQ 

300 E. St S.W 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

Ambassador Henry Cooper 
Chairman of the Board 
High Frontier Inc. 
2800 Shirlington Rd., Ste. 405 
Arlington, VA 22206 

Mr. Kevin Corbley 

Writer, Corbley Communication 

P.O. Box 27584 

Denver, CO 80227-0584 

Mr. Joe Corvino 

Vice President Sales & 

S T Microwave Corp. 
340 N. Roosevelt Ave. 
Chandler, AZ 85226 

Dr. Gary R. Coulter 

Professor, Colorado State University 

c/o USRA 

11694 Bennington Woods Rd. 

Reston, VA 22094 

CoL Richard O. Covey, USAF (Ret) 
Unisys Corporation Space 

Unit 600 Gemini Ave. 
Houston, TX 77058 

Mr. Steve Crabtree 
Editor, The Woodmen Edition 
7691 N. Union Blvd. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80920 

Mr. Bruce Crandall 
Principal Scientist 
Hughes Info. Technology Systems 
16800 E. Centretech Parkway 
Building S75/MS 3501 
Aurora, CO 80011 

Mr. Richard W. Cress 
Vice President 

Kaman Sciences Corporation 
P.O. Box 7463 

Colorado Springs, CO 80933- 

Mr. Steven W Crowe 
Senior Systems Engineer 
Loral Communication Systems 
1150 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 240 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910 

Mr. Michael Crumlin 
Director of Marketing 
TSI TelSys Inc. 
7100 Columbia Gateway Dr. 
Columbia, MD 21046 

Mr. Danny R. Culbertson 

Asst. Tech Manager 

NASA Kennedy Space Center 


Orlando, FL 32899-0001 

Mr. Peter R. Dachel 

Vice President & Director 

Military Space 

AlliedSignal Technical Services 

One Bendix Rd. 
Columbia, MD 21045-1897 

A. L. Daily 

Product Sales 

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. 

P.O. Box 25861 

123 Robert S. Kerr Ave. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

Mr. Donald A. Dalton 
Regional Manager 
United Technologies 
Pratt Whitney Division 
7800 S. Elati, Ste. 300 
Littleton, CO 80120 

Mr. Thomas D. Damon 
Professor, Pikes Peak 
Community College 
5675 S. Academy Rd. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 

Mr. Donald L. Dandurand 
Manager, Lockheed Martin 

4450 E. Fountain Blvd. # 204 
Colorado Springs, CO 80916- 




Mr. Alan Darby 

Manager, Rockwell International 

6633 Canoga Ave. 
P.O. Box 7922 
Canoga Park, CA 91309-7922 

Mr. Vernon H. David 
Director, Mission 
Success/Product Assur. 
Lockheed Martin 
P.O. Box 179 
Bennett, CO 80102 

Mr. Greg Davis 

Executive Producer, Business 

News Network 

5025 Centennial 

Colorado Springs, CO 80919 

Mr. Mark J. Davis 
Satellite Dev. Sys. Engineer, 

155 Discoverer Blvd., Ste. 1062 
El Segundo, CA 90245 

Hon. Robert Davis 
Deputy Under Secretary of 

Space for Defense 
U.S. Department of Defense 
3900 Defense Pentagon 
Washington, DC 20030 

Mr. Max Decker 
Sandia National Labs 
P.O. Box 5800, MS 0965 
Albuquerque, NM 87185 

Maj. Steve DeLory, CF 
Space Flight Commander 
Canadian Forces School of 

Aerospace Studies 
CEB WinnipegWestwin, MB 

Mr. Kevin Dennehy 
GPS & Navigation News Editor 
Phillips Business Information 
Global Positioning & Navigation 

10225 E. Girard Ave., R105 
Denver, CO 80231 

Dr. Ashok R. Deshmukh 
Chairman, American 

Astronautical Society 
6352 Rolling Mill Place, Ste. 102 
Springfield, VA 22152-2354 

Maj. Gen. Robert S Dickman, USAF 
DoD Space Architect 
Department of Defense 
2461 Eisenhower Ave., Ste. 164 
Alexandria, VA 22331-0900 

Mr. Jim Dill 

Senior Product Line Manager 

ITT Industries 

100 Kingsland Rd. 

Clifton, NJ 07014-1993 

Mr. Eugene R. Dionne 
Manager, Technical Operations 
Lockheed Martin Astronautics 
P.O. Box 179 
Denver, CO 80201-0179 

Mr. Harold A. DiRamio 
Space Transportation Systems 

Boeing Defense and Space 

20403 68th Ave. S. 
Kent, WA 98031 

Mr. Richard Drennan 

Director Space & C41 Systems 

Hughes Space & 

Communications Co 
5886 Sierra Siena 
Irvine, CA 92715 

Dionn Duffy 
Space News 
6883 Commercial Dr. 
Springfield, VA 22159 

Dr. Bonnie J Dunbar 

NASA Johnson Space Center 

2101 NASA Rd. 

1 Mail Code CB 

Houston, TX 77058 

Mr. David T. Edwards 

Executive Vice President, 


4300 Forbes Blvd. 

Lanham, MD 20706 

Dr. Charles Eklund 

Vice President Operations 

Kaman Sciences 

P. O. Box 7463 

Colorado Springs, CO 80933 

Mr. Chris Elvidge 
Professor, Desert Research 

325 Broadway 
Boulder, CO 80303 

Ms. Erin Emery 

Reporter, Gazette Telegraph 

30 S. Prospect St. 

Colorado Springs, CO 80909 

Mr. Robert Emery 


13600 EDS Dr. 

Herndon, VA 22071 

Mr. Andy M Engelhardt 
Director Program Development 
Honeywell Satellite Systems 
19019 North 59th Ave. 
Glendale, AZ 85308-9650 

CoL James T. English, USAF (Ret) 
Director Business Development 
Expansion Rocky Mountain Region 
Logistic Specialties Inc. 
3175 Soaring Bird Circle 
Colorado Springs, CO 80920 

Ms. Ann Ervin 
Reporter, KKTV-11 News 
3100 N. Nevada Ave. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80907 

Mr. Mac Evans 

President, Canadian Space Agency 
6767 Route De L'Aeroport 
Saint-Hubert, Quebec J3Y 8Y9 

Mr. George R. Faenza 
Vice President & General 

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace 
Space and Defense Systems 
P.O. Box 21233 
Kennedy Space Ctr., FL 32815 

Maj. Marti Fallon, USAF 

Chief, Spacelift Readiness 


250 S. Peterson Blvd., Ste. 116 

Peterson AFB CO, 80914-3120 

Dr. Murray Felsher 

President, Associated Technical 

P.O. Box 20 
Germantown, MD 20875-0020 

Mr. Daniel D. Fennessy 
Manager, Colorado Springs Office 
Boeing Defense and Space Group 
1250 Academy Park Lp., # 134 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910 

Mr. Warren Ferster 
Staff Writer, Space News 
6883 Commercial Dr. 
Springfield, VA 22159 

Mr. Verlin Fisher 

Manager New Business 

Ball Aerospace & Technologies 

10 Longs Peak Dr. 
Broomfield, CO 80021-2510 

Mr. Matthew C. FitzGerald 
Director Business Development 
Applied Solar Energy 

15251 Don Julian Rd. 
La Puente, CA 91745-1002 

Mr. John W. Flanigan 
Director Field Marketing 
24140 Cruise Circle 
Canyon Lake, CA 92587 

Mr. Terry N. Fleener 

Director Business Development 

Ball Aerospace & Technologies 

P .O. Box 1062 
Boulder, CO 80306 

Mr. Gareth D. Flora 

Vice President of Business 

Lockheed Martin Launch 
Systems Advanced Programs 
P.O. Box 179 MS: DC3000 
Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. Lawrence Flynn 
Senior Buiness Rep. 
Loral Federal Systems 
685 Citadel Dr. East 
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 

Ms. Theresa Foley 

Editor, Space Business News 

P.O. Box 9913 

Santa Fe, NM 87504 

Dr. Brenda Forman 

Director, Fed. Planning & Policy 

Lockheed Martin Corporation 
6801 Rockledge MP120 
Bethesda, MD 20817 

Mr. Robert Forrest 
Reporter, KKTV-11 News 
3100 N. Nevada Ave. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80907 

Maj. Gen. Larry D. Fortner, 

USAF (Ret) 

Senior Rep for Colorado 

TRW Space & Electronics Group 
1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 202 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910- 

Mr. Dick Foster 

Reporter, Rocky Mountain News 

7 E. Bijou 

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Capt. Brad Fournier, CF 
Space Instructor 
Canadian Forces School of 

Aerospace Studies 
CFB WinnipegWestwin, MB 



Mr. James V. Franco 
CEO, EFX Communications 
2300 S. Ninth St 
Arlington, VA 22204 

Mr. Dean Frazen 
Director, Advance Programs 
Loral Space & Range Systems 
1260 Crossman Ave. 
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 

Mr. Greg Freiherr 
Contributing Editor 
Air and Space Magazine 
370 L'Enfant Promenade S.W 
Washington, DC 20024 

Mr. Allan M. Frew 
Deputy General Manager 
TRW Defense Systems Division 
One Space Park, R5/2090 
Redondo Beach, CA 90278 

Mr. Jack A. Frohbieter 
Exec. Vice Pres. & Gen. 

Orbital Sciences Corporation 
Space & Electronics Systems 

20301 Century Blvd. 
Germantown, MD 20874 

Mr. David L. Frostman 

Vice President Space Systems 

Ball Aerospace Space Systems 

P.O. Box 1062 
1600 Commerce 
Boulder, CO 80306-1062 

Mr. Paul N. Fuller 



146 Mira Mar Dr. 

Colorado Springs, CO 80906 

Mr. Bill Gail 
Manager of Business 

Ball Aerospace & Technologies 

1600 Commerce St 
Boulder, CO 80306 

Mr. Dennis Galvin 
Project Manager 
Rockwell International 
12214 Lakewood Blvd. 
Downey, CA 90740 

Mr. Nicholas J. Ganiaris 

Business Development Manager 


1100 W. Hollyvale St 

Azusa, CA 91702 

Col. Joseph C. Garbrous, USMC 
Deputy Director, Space 
Architect Office 
DOD Space Architect 
2461 Eisenhower Ave. 
Hoffman I, Ste. 164 
Alexandria, VA 22331-0900 

Hon. Jake Gam 

Vice Chairman 

Huntsman Chemical Corporation 

500 Huntsman Way 

Salt Lake City, UT 84108 

Ms. Lori B. Garver 
Executive Director 
National Space Society 
922 Pennsylvania Ave. S.E. 
Washington, DC 20003 

Mr. Robert L Gastineau 
Aerospace Engineer 
4180 Watson Way 
Dayton, OH 45433-5648 

Dr. William A. Gaubatz 
Director Program Manager 
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace 
5301 Bolsa Ave. A3-1370-46S2 
Huntington Beach, CA 92647- 

Sgt Kathy Gaundra, USAF 

Sr. Editor, Guardian Magazine 


Peterson AFB, CO 80914 

Mr. Theofanis G. Gavrilis 
V.R Special Programs 
Lockheed Martin Astronautics 
P.O. Box 179 MS: 8040 
Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. George F Gessler 
Director, Inertial Systems 
Honeywell, Inc. Space Systems 
13350 U.S. Hwy. 19 North 
Clearwater, FL 34624-7290 

Mr. Michael Gianelli 

Vice President 

Hughes Space & Communications 

Building S10/M-S S303 

Los Angeles, CA 90009 

Mr. Roy Gibson 
Former Director 
European Space Agency 
Residence Les Hesperides 
51 Allee Jean De Beins 
Montpellier, F 34000 

Mr. Robert M. Glaysher 
Vice President and General 

Rockwell International Satellite 

& Space Defense Systems 
12214 Lakewood Blvd., MS: 

Downey, CA 90241 

Mr. Bruce Goldberg 
Editor, Colorado Business 
Magazine Wiesner Inc. 
7009 S Potomac 
Englewood, CO 80112 

Mr. Stanley Goldberg 

Spec. Assist. Office of Space 

NASA Headquarters 
300 E. St., S.W 
Washington, DC 20546 

Mr. Daniel S. Goldin 
Administrator, NASA 

400 Maryland Ave. S.W. 
Washington, DC 20546 

Mr. Howard Goldstein 
Senior Scientist, NASA 
Ames Space Technology 

Moffett Field, CA 94035 

Mr. Phil Gomez 

Reporter , KRDO News 13 

399 S. 8th St. 

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Mr. Daniel R. Gonzales 
Senior C41 Space Systems 

Analyst Rand 
1700 Main St. 
P. O. Box 2138 
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 

Mr. Roman Gonzales, III 
Manager, Business 

Hughes Santa Barbara Remote 

75 Coromar Dr. 
Goleta, CA 93117 

Mr. Steven D. Goo 

Space Transportation Manager 

Boeing Defense & Space 

RO. Box 3999 M/S 84-16 
Everett, WA 98208 

Mr. William A. Good 
Editor, Vietnam Veterans 

of America 
P.O. Box 4321 
Littleton, CO 80126-4321 

Mr. Jim Goodhart 
Marketing Manager 
AlliedSignal Aerospace 
2525 W. 190th St. 
Torrance, CA 90509 

Mr. Jim Gorman 
Satellite/Ground Systems 

13555 Pinery Dr. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80908- 

Mr. Joseph T Gorman 
Chairman & CEO 
TRW Inc. 

1900 Richmond Rd. 
Cleveland, OH 44124 

Mr. Lance Grace 
Executive Dir., State of New 

Office of Space 

1990 East Lohman 
Las Cruces, NM 88001 

Mr. Allen K. Grant 

Program Development Manager 

8201 E. McDowell H2242 
Scottsdale, AZ 85252 

Mr. Jeffrey D. Grant 
Director, Office of Plans and 

Analysis National 
Reconnaissance Office 
1040 Defense - Pentagon 
Washington, DC 20301-1040 

Mr. Paul Graziani 


Analytical Graphics Inc. 

P.O. Box 61206 

King Of Prussia, PA 19406 

Dr. Lynn G. Gref 

Manager Flight Systems Office 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

Ms: 126-244 

4800 Oak Grove Dr. 

Pasadena, CA 91109 

Mr. James L Grogan, III 
Project Director 
Computer Sciences Corp. 
24229 Ward St. 
Torrance, CA 90505 

Mr. James Grohowski 
President Astrotech Space 

Westinghouse Electric Corp. 
12510 Prosperity Dr., Ste. 100 
Silver Spring, MD 20904-1663 



Mr. Stuart Grossberg 
Market Manager, Hydrazin 

Olin Corporation 
350 Knotter Dr. 
Cheshire, CT 06410 

Mr. Leonard H. Grove 
Director Space & Marine 

Systems Products 
Allied Signal Aerospace 
1300 W. Warner Rd. 
Tempe, AZ 85285 

Mr. Judson B. Grubbs, II 
Director Advanced Programs 
Lockheed Martin Missiles & 

1111 Lockheed Way 
0/M0-01 B/158 
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 

Dr. Moira A. Gunn 
Producer & Host, Tech Nation 
. . . Americans & Technology 
MogoTech Media 
P.O. Box 590607 
San Francisco, CA 94159 

Mr. Jon E Guthrie 
Vice President 
Business Development 
Loral Space Information 

P.O. Box 58487 
Houston, TX 77258 

Mr. Seth Gutman 
System Technlogy Associates, Inc. 
3100 Arapahoe, Ste. 300 
Boulder, CO 80303-1050 

Mr. Steven A. Haas 
Business Development 

Lockheed Martin Astro Space 
P. O. Box 8555 
Philadelphia, PA 19101 

Ms. Karen Haenke 
Trident Data Systems 
P.O. Box 5662 
Lompoc, CA 93437 

Mr. Ken Hamada 

Group Leader, Kanematsu 

Aerospace Corp. 

Space & Defense Electronics 

10F NOA Building 2-3-5 

Azabudai Minatoku 

Tokyo, Japan 106 

Mr. H. Neal Hammond 
Program Director, Government 

Rockwell Space Operations 

600 Gemini Ave. 
Houston, TX 77058 

Capt. David Hanak, USAF 

Winnipeg Westwin, MB R3J 

Ms. Claudia Hansen 
Manager, New Business 

Chem-tronics, Inc. 
1150 W. Bradley 
RO. Box 160A 
El Cajon, CA 92020 

Maj Gen. Donald G Hard, USAF 

President, Logicon UltraSystems 
14175 Sullyfield Circle, Ste. 700 
Chantilly, VA 22021 

Mr. Burt Harmes 

5302 Kissing Camels Dr. 

Colorado Springs, CO 80904 

Mr. Greg Harms 
Business Development 
Hughes Information Technology 

16800 E. CentreTech Parkway 
Aurora, CO 80011 

Ms. Rosemary Harris 
Reporter, Gazette Telegraph 
30 S. Prospect St. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80909 

Dr. Shelley A Harrison 
Chairman of the Board 
Spacehab Inc. 

1595 Springhill Rd., Ste. 360 
Vienna, VA 22182 

Capt. Mark E. Harter, USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Michael S. Hayner 

Manager Space Programs 

Bechtel National Inc. 

50 Beale St 

P.O. Box 193965 

San Francisco, CA 94119-3965 

Lt Col. Peter l_ Hays, USAF 
USAF Academy HQ 

2354 Fairchild Dr., Ste. 6116 
USAF Academy, CO 80840- 


Ms. Maureen Heath 
Program Development Manager 
TRW Inc. Space and 
Electronics Group 
One Space Park R9/1721 
Redondo Beach, CA 90278 

Mr. George Heffner 
Marketing Manager 
ST Microwave 
40031 Notting Hill Rd. 
Murrieta, CA 92563 

Hon. Joel Hefley, R-CO 
U.S. House of Representatives 
National Security Committee 
2351 Rayburn House Office 

Washington, DC 20515 

Ms. Sue E. Hegg 
Director of Liaison 
Office of Naval Research 
800 N. Quincy St. 
Arlington, VA 22217 

Mr. Charles E. Heimach 


30543 Rue De La Pierre 

Palos Verdes 

Peninsu, CA 90275 

Ms. Karen Henry 
Rockwell Space Operations 
600 Gemini Blvd. 
MC R04B 
Houston, TX 77058 

Ms. Robin Hergot 

Account Manager 

Sun Microsystems 

222 N. Sepulveda, 18th Floor 

El Segundo, CA 90245 

Ms. Jennifer Heronema 
Staff Writer, Space News 
6883 Commercial Dr. 
Springfield, VA 22159 

Capt. Scott M. Herrick, USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Douglas A. Heydon 


Arianespace, Inc. 

700 13th St. N.W, Ste. 230 

Washington, DC 20005 

Mr. Donovan B. Hicks 


Ball Aerospace & Technologies 

P.O. Box 1235 
Broomfield, CO 80038-1235 

Gen. James E. Hill, USAF (Ret) 


U.S. Space Foundation 

2860 S. Circle Dr., Ste. 2301 

Colorado Springs, CO 80906 

Mr. Shephard W Hill 

Vice President Aerospace Gov't 

Affairs & Marketing 
Rockwell International Corp. 
1745 Jefferson Davis Hwy. 
Ste. 1200 
Arlington, VA 22202 

Mr. Jacob R. Hodges 
Office of Naval Research 
800 N. Quincy St. 
Balston Tower *1 
Arlington, VA 22211 

Mr. Tony Hogan 

Director Domestic Bus. Dev. 

Rockwell CSD 

3200 E. Renner Rd. 

MS 460-302 

Richardson, TX 75082 

Mr. Don Holland 

Remote Sensing System Eng. 

Lockheed Stennis Operations 

Building 1210 
Bay Saint Louis, MS 39529 

Mr. Patrick M. Houston 
Manager, Business 


1100 W Hollyvale 
P.O. Box 296 
Azusa, CA 91702-0296 

Mr. William H. Hudson 

11 Westpoint Rd. 

Colorado Springs, CO 80906 

Mr. Don Hull 


S/W Analysis & Prod. Dev. 

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace 

13100 Space Center Blvd. 

Houston, TX 77059 

Mr. Howard L_ Hungerford 
Manager, Business Development 
Loral Space & Range Systems 
MS 01-B 9970 Federal Dr. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80921- 



Mr. Sam E lacobellis 
Former Exec VP & Deputy 

Rockwell Major Programs 
2201 Seal Beach Blvd. 
Seal Beach, CA 90740 

Mr. Charles H. Ide 
President, UTMC 
1575 Garden of the Gods Rd. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80907 

Hon. Robert M. Isaac 

Mayor, City of Colorado Springs 

City Administration Building 

P.O. Box 1575 

Colorado Springs, CO 80901 

Capt. Gordon D. Issler, USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Michael Jablonski 
Vice President, External & 

Automotive Communications 
TRW Inc. 

1900 Richmond Rd. 
Cleveland, OH 44124 

Ms. Rebecca Jaurequi 
Customer Relations & 

Rockwell Aerospace 
12214 Lakewood Blvd., AC88 
Downey, CA 90241 

Ms. Teresa Jay 
Director - Bus. Dev. 
150 N. Meramec, Ste. 620 
Saint Louis, MO 63105 

Mr. Chuck W. Jensen 
Program Manager 
Thiokol Corporation/Space 

P.O. Box 707 
Brigham City, UT 84302 

Hon. Lionel S Johns 

Associate Director for Technology 

White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy 
Old Executive Office Building 
Washington, DC 20500 

Mr. Darwin L. Johnson 
Program Manager, Bd Systems 

1615 1/2 University Blvd. N.E. 
Albuquerque, NM 87102 

Mr. David H. Johnson 

Vice President 

CTA Inc. 

Corporate Advanced Systems 

6116 Executive Blvd., Ste. 800 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Mr. Norman Johnson 
Manager, Honeywell 
Satellite Systems Operation 
19019 N. 59th Ave. 
Glendale, AZ 85302 

Ms. Shawana P. Johnson 

Director Worldwide Sales 


4300 Forbes Blvd. 

Lanham, MD 20706 

Mr. Steven G. Johnson 


P.O. Box 3700 

Ft. Wayne, IN 46801 

Mr. William W Johnson 
Executive Director 
GPS International Association 
206 E. College St. 
Grapevine, TX 76099-1808 

Dave Jonta 

Public Affairs 

The Aerospace Corporation 

P.O. Box 92957 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957 

Mr. Kenneth E. Jorgensen 
Raytheon Engineering 
P. O. Box 5888 
Denver, CO 80217 

Maj. Terri Jorgenson, USAF 
Air Force Space Command/PA 
Peterson AFB, CO 80914 

Dr. George Joseph 


Space Application Center 



Jodpur TekraAmedabad 

Dr. Francis X. Kane 


GPS International Association 

206 East College St. 

Grapevine, TX 76051 

Dr. Marshall H. Kaplan 

Launchspace Incorporated 
7235 1/2 Arlington Blvd. 
Falls Church, VA 22042 

Dr. K. Kasturirangan 

ISRO Department of Space and 
Space Commission 
Antariksh Bhavan 
New BEL Rd. 
Bangalore, 560 094 

Mr. Tom Kato 

559 E. Pikes Peak Ave., Ste. 320 

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Mr. Ken Kelley 
Vice President 
STC Applications 
P.O. Box 185425 
Ft. Worth, TX 76181 

Mr. Thomas H. Kennedy 
Center Director 
LA Basin Data Services 
Rockwell Space Systems 

12214 Lakewood Blvd. 
Downey, CA 90242 

Ms. Diane Kent 
Reporter, KKTV-11 News 
3100 N. Nevada Ave. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80907 

Mr. Ted D. Kerr 

Senior Manager, Business 

Allied Signal Technical Services 

1150 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 100 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910- 


Mr. George J. Kersels 
Vice President Unmanned 

Space Programs 
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace 
13100 Space Center Blvd. 
Houston, TX 77059 

Mr. Jason Kim 


Star, Inc. 

51 Monroe, Ste. 506 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Mr. Jason Kimbel 
Sensor Payload Engineer, 

155 Discovery Blvd. 
Los Angeles AFB, CA 90245 

Mr. William G King Jr. 


King Business Services Inc. 

36 Los Coyotes 

Pomona, CA 91766 

Mr. Jordon M. Klein 

Research Analyst 

J. P. Morgan Securities 

60 Wall St 

New York, NY 10260 

Lt. Col. Donald Knight,USAF 

Deputy Commander 

721st SPTG/CD 

1 NORAD Rd., Ste. 101-213 

Cheyenne Mountain 

Air Station, CO 80914-6099 

Capt. Michael T. Knight, USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Ms. Angie Knutsen 
Reporter, KOAA-TV 
530 Communications Circle 
Colorado Springs, CO 80905 

Ms. Krisstie Kondrotis 

Titan II Business Development 

Lockheed Martin 

P.O. Box 179 

MS: L5070 

Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. W Bruce Kopper, Esq. 
Investment Counsel 
Kopper Investment 
Management Inc. 
104 S. Cascade Ave., Ste. 200 
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Mr. Demetrius A. Kourtides 
Research Scientist 
10205 Parrish View Dr. 
El Cajon, CA 92020-9451 

Mr. Milos Krmelj 
Science Teacher Central 

Technical Library 
University of Ljubljana 
Trg Republike 361000 

Mr. Joe Kunches 

Lead Forecaster 

NOAA Space Environment Lab 


325 Broadway 

Boulder, CO 80303 

Dr. Alexander N. Kuznetsov 
Deputy General Director 
Launch Systems & Ground 
Facilities, Space Flights 
Russian Space Agency 
c/o Frank Verlot, Director 
Business Development, UTC, 
Box 49028 
San Jose, CA 95161-9028 



Ms. Vicky Labrecque 
Geodetic Engineer 
John E. Chance & Associates 
109 Inverness Dr. East 
Englewood, CO 80112 

Mr. Farzin Laiezari 

Manager, Passive Arrays 

Ball Aerospace & Technologies 

9675 W 108th Circle 
Broomfield, CO 80021 

Mr. William R. Lampe 
Marketing Manager 
Cincinnati Electronic Corp. 
7500 Innovation Way 
Mason, OH 45040 

Mr. Richard D. Lander 

President & COO 

Marotta Scientific Controls Inc. 

78 Boonton Ave. 

Montville, NJ 07045 

Mr. James E. Laney 
Manager, Business 
Lockheed Martin Astronautics 
P.O. Box 179 
MS: M-5030 
Denver, CO 80201 

Ms. Rayetta Lantzy 

Manager, Business 



1150 Academy Park Lp., *119 

Colorado Springs, CO 80910 

RADM Katherine Laughton, 



Naval Space Command 

5280 Fourth St. 

Dahlgren, VA 22448-5300 

Mr. Conrad A. Laurvick 
Space Systems Engineer 
Delfin Systems 

10326 Mockingbird Pond Court 
Burke, VA 22015 

Mr. John Lavrakas 
President, Advanced Research 

8145 Spire Ct 
Colorado Springs, CO 80919 

Mr. Andrew Lawler 
National Affairs Reporter 
Science Magazine 
1333 H. St N.W 
Washington, DC 20005 

Mr. Jeff Lawrence 
Associate Administrator 
NASA Headquarters 
Legislative Affairs 
300 E St S.W 
Washington, DC 20546 

Ms. Andrea Lee 

Media Rep & Special Projects 

Lockheed Martin Missiles & 

1111 Lockheed Way Building 

101, Dept 24-01 
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-3504 

Mr. Joseph D. Lehman 
Director, Government Affairs 
Lockheed Martin Astronautics 
MS: DC1130 
P.O. Box 179 
Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. Michael G. Leonard 

Manager, Program Development 


One Space Park, MS R9/1721 

Redondo Beach, CA 90278 

Mr. Larry Leppa 

Director of Aerospace Systems 

Signal Corporation 

4400 Fair Lakes Court 

Fairfax, VA 22033 

Mr. Roger Lesser 


Defense Security Electronics 

5300 S Syracuse Way, Ste. 650 

Englewood, CO 80111 

Mr. Kirk Lewis 

Sr. Analyst 

Institute for Defense Analysis 

Science and Technology 

1801 N. Beauregard St. 
Alexandria, VA 22003 

Mr. Robert C. Lewis 
Program Manager 
Lockheed Martin Astronautics 
P.O. Box 179 
Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. Scott Lindsay 
Manager, Space Command 

Thiokol Corp. Space 

P.O. Box 707 
Brigham City, UT 84302-0707 

Mr. Michael T. Lloyd 

Principle Project Staff Engineer 

Honeywell, Inc. 

13350 U.S. Hwy. 19 North 

MS: 263-3 

Clearwater, FL 34624-7290 

Dr. John M. Logsdon 
Director, Space Policy Institute 
George Washington University 
2130 H St. N.W 
Washington, DC 20052 

Mr. Tyler Lopez 

Reporter, KOAA-TV 

530 Communications Circle 

Colorado Springs, CO 80905 

Mr. Roger E. Loucks 

Director, Southwestern Region 


1150 Academy Park Lp., Ste. 119 

Colorado Springs, CO 80910 

Mr. W Jay Lovelace 

Vice President & Location 


Honeywell Inc. 

Satellite Systems Operation 

19019 N. 59th Ave. 

Glendale, AZ 85308-9650 

Capt James A Lovell, USN (Ret) 
Lovell Communications 
P.O. Box 8773 
Horseshoe Bay, IL 60045 

Dr. John MacDonald 


MacDonald Detwiller, Canada 

13800 Commerce Parkway 

Richmond, BC V6V 2J3 

Mr. Donald M. Mackenzie 
Manager Launch Services 
Hughes Communications, Inc. 
P.O. Box 92424 
Los Angeles, CA 90009 

Mr. Kevin Maki 
Reporter, KOAA-TV 
530 Comunications 
Colorado Springs, CO 80905 

Mr. Jim Mallory 
Reporter, The Denver Post 
30 E. Kiowa, Ste. 103 
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Mr. Scott A. Manatt 
Marketing Manager, Space 
ECS Allied Signal Aerospace 

2525 W. 190th St. 
Torrance, CA 90504 

Dr. John E. Mansfield 
Associate Administrator 
Office of Space Access & 

Technology NASA 
300 E St N.W. 
Washington, DC 20546 

Mr. Robert Manson 
Senior Development Officer 
Government of Manitoba 
Canada Dept of Industry & 

430-155 Carlton St 
Winnipeg, MB R3C 3H8 

Mr. George Manspeaker 
Manager, BMDO 
Hughes Aircraft Company 
1100 Wilson Blvd. 
Arlington, VA 22209 

Dr. Hans Mark 

Professor, University of Texas 

at Austin 
Aero Engineering & Eng. Mech 
Woolrich Labs 401C 
Austin, TX 78712-1085 

Mr. Don Markham 

Business Development Manager 

Hughes Space Systems 

Bldg El MS: A-190 

P.O. Box 902 

El Segundo, CA 90245 

Mr. Charles F Marshall 
Manager Titan Advanced 

Lockheed Martin 
P.O. Box 179 
MS: T300 
Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. Norman Martell 
Editor, Micro News 
6651 Metropolitan 
Colorado Springs, CO 80911 

Mr. Daniel Martens 
Asstistant Vice President 
Science Application 
International Corp. 
21151 Western Ave. 
Torrance, CA 90501 

Mr. James Martin 
President, Component Sales, 

7600 E Arapahoe, Ste. 306 
Englewood, CO 80112 

Mr. Joseph R Martin 

Line of Business Manager 


MS: R2/2094 

One Space Park 

Redondo Beach, CA 90278 



Ms. Martha S. Martin 


Spectrum Astro Inc. 

1440 N. Fiesta Blvd. 

Gilbert, AZ 85234 

Mr. Joseph D. Mason 
Vice President & General 

TRW Inc. 

Space & Defense Systems 
P.O. Box 1310 
San Bernardino, CA 92402 

Mr. Vince Mastroianni 
Manager, Business Dev. 
Teledyne Brown 
2111 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 900 
Arlington, VA 22201 

Mr. Roman J. Matherne Jr. 
Program Director MSLS 
Lockheed Martin Astronautics 
P. O. Box 179 
MS: M-5030 
Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. Guy Mathewson 
155 Discover Blvd., Ste. 1062 
Los Angeles, CA 90245 

Mr. Charles McCann 
c/o Dr. Wesley Posvar 
University of Pittsburgh 
1202 Cathedral of Learning 
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 

Mr. Randy McConaughey 

Director Cryogenics 

Ball Aerospace & Technologies 

P.O. Box 1062 
Boulder, CO 80306 

Ms. Judy McCoy 
Space Mews 
6883 Commercial Dr. 
Springfield, VA 22159 

Mr. Shawn McCoy 

Vice President Business Dev. 

BETAC Corp. 

2001 N. Beauregard St 

Alexandria, VA 22311 

Mr. Walbert G. McCoy 

Logistics Manager 


250 S. Peterson Blvd., Ste. 116 

Peterson AFB, CO 80914-3050 

Mr. Grady E. McCright 

Manager, White Sands Test Facility 


P.O. Box 20 

Las Cruces, NM 88004 

Capt. Donald W McGee, USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 
USAF Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Ms. Merle McKenzie 


NASA Jet Propulsion 


Tech Transfer & 

Commercialization Program 
4800 Oak Grove Dr. 
MS: 301-350 
Pasadena, CA 91109-8099 

Mr. Jack McLaughlin 
Director, Boeing 
8000 Towers Crescent Dr. 
Vienna, VA 22183 

Dr. Edward P. McMahon 
President, MRJ, Inc. 
10560 Arrowhead Dr. 
Fairfax, VA 22030 

Mr. Darrell McMurray 

Site Manager-GPS Operations 

Rockwell Space Operations 

8060 Cyprus Rd. 

Colorado Springs, CO 80908 

Dr. James J. McNally 
AEOS Program Manager 
Phillips Laboratory /Lll 
3550 Aberdeen S.E. 
Albuquerque, NM 87117-5776 

Mr. Lawrence McNamara 

Manager, Commercial Business 

Hamilton Standard Space Sys. 

International, Inc. 

One Hamilton Rd. 

MS: 1A-2-A66 

Windsor Locks, CT 06096 

Mr. Robert Meder 

P.O. Box 658 

La Coste, TX 78039 

Mr. David Melton 

Space Systems Engineering 

ITT Industries 

1919 W Cook Rd. 

Ft. Wayne, IN 46801 

Col. Dan Mercier, USAF 



625 Suffolk St., Building 863 

Peterson AFB, CO 80914-1730 

Mr. Thomas Messere 

Marketing Manager 

Ball Aerospace & Technologies 

20 Desert Inn Way 
Colorado Springs, CO 80921 

Mr. Donald L. Meyers 
Government Systems 
Marketing Manager 
Honeywell Inc. 

1250 Academy Park Lp„ Ste. 102 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910 

Col. Donald Miles, USAF 

Air Force Space Command/PA 

Peterson AFB, CO 80914 

Ms. Becky Miller 
Reporter, KOAA-TV 
530 Communications Circle 
Colorado Springs, CO 80905 

Mr. Steve Miller 
Business Development Analyst 
Honeywell Space Systems 
19019 N. 59th Ave. 
Glendale, AZ 85072-2199 

Mr. Walty Miller 
Freelance Writer 
The Polygon Group 
18615 St. Andrews Dr. 
Monument, CO 80132 

Chris Million 
Videographer, KTEH-TV 
100 Skyport Dr. 
San Jose, CA 95110 

Mr. Robert G. Minor 


Rockwell Space Systems 

12214 Lakewood Blvd. 
Downey, CA 90242 

Mr. Dennis Mitchell 

Manager Ground Systems Prog. 

Lockheed Martin 

4041 N. First St. 

San Jose, CA 95134 

Mr. Robert J. Molloy 
Zenith Star Director 
Lockheed Martin Corporation 
MS: DC8005 
P.O. Box 179 
Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. Robert R. Monroe 
Vice President & Manager 
Bechtel National, Inc. 
Government Operations 
1015 15th St. N.W, Ste. 700 
Washington, DC 20005-2605 

Mr. Marcus Montoya 
Reporter, Gazette Telegraph 
30 S. Prospect St. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80909 

Mr. D. Bruce Moody 
Assistant Deputy for Programs 

National Test Facility - USAF 
730 Irwin Ave. 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912- 7300 

Prof. R. Gilbert Moore 
Schriever Professor 
USAF Academy 
2354 Fairchild Dr., Ste. 6J71 
USAF Academy, CO 80840- 

Mr. William W Moore 
Director, Gov't Business 

Hughes Space & 

Communications Co. 
P.O. Box 92919 
Los Angeles, CA 90009 

Mr. Jeffery A. Morrow 
Manager of Government 

Rockwell Aerospace 
1745 Jefferson Davis Hwy. 
Arlington, VA 22202-3475 

Col. Nicholas Motowylak Jr., 

USAF (Ret) 
Sr. Business Development 

TSI TelSys Inc. 
7100 Columbia Gateway Dr. 
Columbia, MD 21046 

Mr. Doug Mount 
Bus. Dev. Manager 
Ball Aerospace 
9675 W 198th Circle 
Broomfield, CO 80021 

Mr. Peter J. Mulligan 
Industrial Specialist, Defence 

DCMC-IASO Building 6 
P.O. Box 7478 
Philadelphia, PA 19145-7478 

Ms. Diane W Murphy 


Federal City Communications 

1749 Old Meadow Rd., *340 

McLean, VA 22102-4310 

Mr. Walter T. Murphy 
Director of Engineering 


John F Kennedy Space Center 
Orlando, FL 32899 



Mr. James A. Myer 


Photon Research Associates, 

5720 Oberlin Dr. 
San Diego, CA 92121 

Mr. Joe Myers 
News Reporter, KVOR Radio 
2864 S. Circle Dr., Ste. 150 
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 

Mr. Nicholas Nadolsky 


Micropac Industries 

905 E. Walnut St 

Garland, TX 75040 

Brig. Gen. Willie B. Nance Jr., 

Deputy Commanding General 
U.S. Army Space and Strategic 

Defense Command 
RO. Box 1500 
Huntsville, AL 35807-3801 

Mr. Walter Natzic 


Aaron-Ross Corporation 

1132 Indian Springs Dr. 

Glendora, CA 91741 

Ms. Deborah Newberry 


Commercial Space Systems 

Computing Devices International 

8800 Queen Ave. S. 


Bloomington, MN 55431-1996 

Mr. Stephen B. Newman 
Launchspace Inc. 
7235 1/2 Arlington Blvd. 
Falls Church, VA 22042 

Mr. B W Neyman 
Senior Vice President 
Hughes Aircraft Co. 
Hughes Information Tech System 
16800 E. Centretech Parkway 
Aurora, CO 80011 

Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian 
Deputy Associate Administrator 
Office of Life and Microgravity 

Science & Applications / 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

Mr. James R Noblitt 
Vice President & General 

Boeing Defense & Space 

Group Missiles & Space 

20403 68th Ave. South, 

Building 1085 
Kent, WA 98032 

Mr. Larry H. North 
Manager Strategic Analysis 
International Launch Services 
101 W Broadway, Ste. 2000 
San Diego, CA 92122 

Ms. Sue Norton 

Associate Producer, Space Tech 
EFX Communications, Inc. 
2300 South Ninth St., Ste. 136 
Arlington, VA 22204 

Mr. Patrick M. O'Connell 
Director, Space Tech. & Liason 
U.S.N, Office of Naval Research 
800 N. Quincy St., Ballston 

Tower *1 
Arlington, VA 22211 

Hon. Jaime Oaxaca 

Vice Chairman 

Coronado Communications 

6658 Locklenna Lane 
Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 

Mr. Cal Ogata 

Director Business Development 

Cubic Defense Systems 

9333 Balboa Ave. 

San Diego, CA 92123 

Mr. Claude Oiknine 
Program Manager 
Israel Aircraft Industries 
Beer Yrakov, 70350 

Dr. Willard P. Olson 
Vice President & General 

McDonnell Douglas Space and 

Defense Systems 
5301 Bolsa Ave. 
Huntington Beach, CA 92647- 


SSgt. Brian Orban, USAF 
Guardian Editor, HQ 

150 Vandenberg St., Ste. 1105 
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-4500 

Dr. Rudolph G. Oswald 
Vice President, Business 

Honeywell Inc. 
Space Systems Division 
13350 U.S. Hwy. 19 North 
Clearwater, FL 34624 

Mr. Stephen Oswald 

Dep. Assoc. Admin, for Space 

NASA Headquarters 
300 E. St., S.W. 
Washington, DC 20546 

Ms. Teresa Owen-Cooper 
Reporter, Gazette Telegraph 
30 S. Prospect St. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Mr. Scott Pace 
Rand Corporation Critical 
Technologies Institute 
2100 M St. N.W. *800 
Washington, DC 20037 

Mr. Vito J. Pagano 

Director Business Development 

Lockheed Technical Operations 

Co. Inc. 
4450 E. Fountain Blvd., Ste. 200 
Colorado Springs, CO 80916 

Mr. Joe Palsulich 

Senior Manager 

McDonnell Douglas 

5301 Bolsa Ave. 

Huntington Beach, CA 92647 

Mr. Neil Palt 
The Palt Company 
3130 Skyway Dr., *408 
Santa Maria, CA 93455 

Mr. William D. Paramore 
Manager, Advanced Programs 
Harris Corporation-GASD 
P.O. Box 94000 
MS 19/4730 
Melbourne, FL 32902 

Mr. Robert Parizek 
Business Development 

Ball Space & Systems 
Engineering Division 
10 Longs Peak Dr. 
Broomfield, CO 80021-2510 

Mr. Don H. Parsons 
Lockheed Martin Astronautics 
P.O. Box 179 
Denver, CO 80201 

Mr. John A. Pasalevich 


Hughes Aircraft Company 

1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 138 

Colorado Springs, CO 80910 

Mr. Frank Patella 


Loral Federal Systems 

685 Citadel Dr. E., Ste. 400 

Colorado Springs, CO 80909 

Mr. Pat Patrick 

Owner, KWYD 

Box 5668 

Colorado Springs, CO 80931 

LCDR. David D. Pauls, USN 
C4 Systems Staff Officer, 
250 S. Peterson Blvd., Ste. 114 
Colorado Springs, CO 80914 

Mr. David L. Payne 
Manager, Spacecraft Technology 
TRW Space & Electronics Group 
One Space Park R4/1098 
Redondo Beach, CA 90278 

Mr.Thomas E Peoples 
Vice President Business 


RO. Box 13222 
Sacramento, CA 95813-6000 

Mr. Michael Peters 
USAF Cost Analysis Energy 
1111 Jefferson Davis, Ste. 403 
Arlington, VA 22202 

Mr. Robert G. Peterson 
Manager, Space & Ground 

Lockheed Martin Corp. 
4450 E. Fountain Blvd., *204 
Colorado Springs, CO 80916- 


Mr. Gerald Pfeifer 
Propulsion Specialist 
Rockwell Space Operation 
White Sands Test Facility 
Las Cruces, NM 88004 

Mr. Oren B. Phillips 
Director, Space and Launch 

Thiokol Corporation 
MS: 150 
P.O. Box 689 
Brigham City, UT 84302-0689 

Mr. Terry J. Piddington 
Executive Vice President 
CTA Inc. 

7150 Campus Dr., Ste. 100 
Colorado Springs, CO 80920- 

Mr. Denis M. Pirio 

Vice President 

Kaman Sciences Corp. 

P. O. Box 7463 

1500 Garden of the Gods Rd. 

Colorado Springs, CO 80933 

Maj. Donald Planalp, USAF 
Media Chief, 
Peterson AFB, CO 80914 



Dr. Wilford R. Poe 

Vice President & General Manager 

Honeywell Inc. Space Systems 

13350 U.S. Hwy. 19 North 

Ms: 835-1 

Clearwater, FL 34624-7290 

Mr. Steve Poizner 


Precision Tracking 

4040 Moorpark Ave., Ste. 250 

San Jose, CA 95117 

Mr. Thomas G. Politte 
Business Development Mgr. 
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace 
13100 Space Center Blvd. 
Houston, TX 77059 

Ms. Sonya Porth 
Corporate Development 
Photon Research Associates, Inc. 
5720 Oberlin Dr. 
San Diego, CA 92121 

Dr. Wesley W. Posvar 
President Emeritus, University 

of Pittsburgh 
1202 Cathedral of Learning 
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 

Ms. Judy Pray 

AssL Editor, Earth Space Rev. 

Gordon & Breach Science 

820 Town Center Dr. 
Langhorne, PA 19047 

Ms. Penny Preston 
Reporter, KKTV-11 News 
3100 N. Nevada Ave. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80907 

Mr. Ian Pryke 

Head of ESA Washington Office 
European Space Agency 
955 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W, Ste. 

Washington, DC 20024 

Mr. James Keller 

Boeing Defense, Missies & 

Space Grp. 
P.O. Box 3999; MS: 8C-37 
Seattle, WA 98134-2499 

Ms. Christine Purcell 
Computer Specialist, Silicon 

11845 W Olympics Blvd. 
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 

Mr. David A. Quinlan 
Director Space & Missiles, 

UTC - Pratt & Whitney 
Propulsion Operations 
P.O. Box 109600, MS: 702-54 
W. Palm Beach, FL 33410- 


Mr. Lon Rains 
Editor, Space News 
6883 Commercial Dr. 
Springfield, VA 22159 

Mr. William E Ramsey 
Vice President Corporate, 
Business Development 
CTA Incorporated 
6116 Executive Blvd., Ste. 800 
Rockville, MD 20852 

Mr. Richard Randall 

Reporter, KKTV-11 

3100 N. Nevada 

Colorado Springs, CO 80907 

Mr. Robert R. Rankine Jr. 
Vice President 
Hughes Space & 

Communications Co. 
1100 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 2000 
Arlington, VA 22209 

Dr. Robert A. Rappold 
Site Manager 

1250 Academy Park Lp., Ste. B0 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910- 

Mr. G. A. Reddig 

Advanced Programs Director 


2000 E. El Segundo Blvd. 

El Segundo, CA 90245 

Mr. Peter T Regan 

Vice President Director-Prog. 

ITT Industries 
100 Kingsland Rd. 
Clifton, NJ 07014 

Mr. Robert D. Rego 
Project Manager 
Trident Data Systems 
1330 Inverness Dr. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910 

Mr. Gordon Reichal 
Program Manager 
National Systems & Research 
5475 Mark Dabling, Ste. 200 
Colorado Springs, CO 80918 

Mr. R. H. Reinicke 

Director New Product 


Marotta Scientific Controls 

17671 Irvine Blvd. *208 

Tustin, CA 92680 

Mr. Mike Renzuli 
Business Manager 
Pratt Whitney 
P.O. Box 49028 
San Jose, CA 95161 

Ms. Marcia Resler 
Assistant Editor, Hispania News 
2862 S. Circle Dr., *122 
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 

Mr. John M. Reynolds 

Product Line Manager 


One Space Park 


Redondo Beach, CA 90278 

Mr. Jon F Reynolds 

Manager Program Development 

Hughes Space & Communications 

P.O. Box 92919 


Los Angeles, CA 90009 

Mr. Eric Rhodes 

Sr. Principal Systems Engineer 


RO. Box 868 

NCA-01 6218 

Nashua, NH 03061 

Mr. Jay Ricci 

Anchor/Talk Host, Business 

News Network 
5025 Centennial 
Colorado Springs, CO 80919 

Mr. Paul Richards 

Manager, Western Development 

Lockheed Martin 

4041 N. First St. 

San Jose, CA 95134-1503 

Mr. Steve Riebel 


ATX Research, Inc. 

10010 San Pedro, Ste. 200 

San Antonio, TX 78216 

Mr. David A. Roalstad 
Director NASA Marketing 
Ball Aerospace & Technologies 

Aerospace Systems Division 
1600 Commerce St. 
Boulder, CO 80306 
Mr. Chris Roberts 
Business Development Director 
CTA, Inc. 

1521 Westbranch Dr. 
McLean, VA 22102-3201 

Maj. Louis J. Robinson Jr. 


Space Tactics School (STS) 

Space Warfare Center 

730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 

Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Gary J. Rodriguez 

Sr. Editor, Vietnam Veterans 

of Americans 
P.O. Box 4321 
Littleton, CO 80126-4321 

Mr. Ronald L Roehrich 
Div. Chief./Space & Theater 

U.S. Space Command 
Space & Missile Analysis 
Colorado Springs, CO 80914- 

Mr. Thomas F Rogers 

Sophron Foundation 
7404 Colshire Dr. 
McLean, VA 22102 

Ms. Joan Roosa 
Gulf Coast Coors, Inc. 
13360 Seaway Rd. 
P.O. Box 2007 
Gulfport, MS 39505 

Ms. Rosemary Roosa 
Gulf Coast Coors, Inc. 
13360 Seaway Rd. 
P.O. Box 2007 
Gulfport, MS 39505 

Dr. Stanley G. Rosen 
Director of Strategic Planning 
Hughes Aircraft Company 
8004 Kentwood Ave. 
Los Angeles, CA 90045 

Ms. Gina Ross 

Principal, Aldrin Elementary 

11375 Center Harbor Rd. 
Reston, VA 22094 

Mr. Jules Ross 


Space Network 

Box 2778 

Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 

Mr. Ron Ross 

11375 Center Harbor Rd. 

Reston, VA 22094 

Mr. Axel Roth 

Deputy Director Program 

NASA Marshall Space Center 
Huntsville, AL 35812 

Mr. David J. Russo 
Deputy Assistant Chief 

of Staff, Space 
U.S. Army Space & Strategic 

Defense Command 
1941 Jefferson Davis Hwy, 

Ste. 900 
Arlington, VA 22202 

Capt. Carmia L Salcedo 

Delta II Integration Manager 


160 Skynet St, Ste. 1215 

El Segundo, CA 90245 



Mr. Gary R. Salisbury Sr. 
Program Manager 
Ball Telecommunications 
Products Division 
9675 W. 108th Circle 
Broomfield, CO 80021 

Mr. N. Sampath 
Director, Antrix Corp. Ltd. 
Antariksh Complex 
Near New BEL Rd. 
Bangalore, 560094 

Dr. Eugene Sandberg, M.D. 
1788 Oak Creek Dr., *407 
Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Mr. Tom Sandman 


2212 Vermont Dr., Apt. J102 

Ft. Collins, CO 80525-6185 

Mr. Jerald R. Sanford 

Vice President, Programs 

Litton Computer Services 

4747 Hellyer Ave. 

P. O. Box 210059 

San Jose, CA 95151-0059 

Mr. Rick Sarpolus 
Sales Manager 
Allied Signal 
1300 W. Warner Rd 
Tempe, AZ 85284 

Dr. L. S. Satyamurthy 
Counsellor Space Technology 
Embassy of India 
2536 Mass Ave. RTW 
Washington, DC 20008 

Mr. James S. Savarda 
Vice President Space 

Applications & Tech. 
Betac Corp. 

985 Space Center Dr., Ste. 24D 
Colorado Springs, CO 80915 

Ms. Shirley Savarino 

Product Line Manager 

TRW, Inc. 

One Space Park 

Ms Building R9, Room 1076 

Redondo Beach, CA 90278 

Mr. Marshall Saville 
Sr. Engineering Specialist 
AlliedSignal Aerospace 
2525 W. 190th St 
Torrance, CA 90504 

Mr. Robert R. Scagni 
Business Development 
United Technologies Hamilton 

One Hamilton Rd. 
Windsor Locks, CT 06096- 


Mr. Jack Scherrer 

Vice President Eastern Division 

Geodynamics Corp. 

11781 Lee Jackson Memorial 

Hwy. Ste. 400 
Fairfax, VA 22033-3309 

Mr. Terry L. Schilling 
Sr. Director Business 

Orbital Sciences Corporation 
20301 Century Blvd. 
Ms: B-17 
Germantown, MD 20874-1181 

Mr. Frank Schmidt 
Systems Analyst 
System Technology Associates 
1631 S. Murray Blvd. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80916 

Mr. Bill Schnirring 


NASA Tech Briefs 

317 Madison Ave. 

New York, NY 10017 

Ms Ann Schrader 

Medical and Science Writer, 

Denver Post 

1560 Broadway 

Denver, CO 80202 

Mr. Bill Scott 

Rocky Mountain Bureau Chief 

Aviation Week & Space Tech. 

6962 Los Reyes Circle 
Colorado Springs, CO 80918 

Mr. Steve P. Scott 

Business Development 



12214 Lakewood Blvd. 

Downey, CA 90241 

Mr. David Scripter 
Systems Analyst 
Vanguard Research Inc. 
5050 Edison Dr, Ste. 102 
Colorado Springs, CO 80915 

Mr. Richard Seebass 
Professor, University 

of Colorado 
Aerospace Engineering Sciences 
Campus Box 429 
Boulder, CO 80309-0429 

Mr. Carroll Duane Selby 
Director, Advanced Programs 
Harris Corporation - GASD 
P.O. Box 94000 
MS 22/4041 
Melbourne, FL 32902 

Mr. Henry E Senasack 


Naval Research Laboratory 

CODE 8200 

4555 Overlook Ave. 

Washington, DC 20375-5355 

Hon. F James Sensenbrenner Jr. 
U.S. House of Representatives 
Science, Space & Tech Comm. 
2332 Rayburn HOB 
Washington, DC 20515 

Mr. Orlando Severo Jr. 


Spaceport Systems International 

3769-C Constellation Rd. 

Lompoc, CA 93436 

Mr. J. Greg Seymour 
Business Development Manager 
E-Systems, ECI Division 
RO. Box 12248 
St. Petersburg, FL 33733-2248 

Mr. Ravi H. Shah 
Manager, Advanced Programs 
Harris Corporation - GASD 
P.O. Box 94000 
Melbourne, FL 32902 

Mr. William Sheehan 

Chief, Tech. Prgms & 


NASA Kennedy Space Center 

Kennedy Space Center, FL 


Mr. Larry Shelley 
Project Manager 
Computer Sciences Corp 
685 Citadel Dr. E., Ste. 400 
Colorado Springs, CO 80909 

Mr. James D. Shoemaker 
Director, Gov't Marketing 
Hughes Space & 

Communications Co. 
P.O. Box 92919 
Los Angeles, CA 90009 

Mr. Merton Short 
P.O. Box 180 
Durham, CA 95938 

Mr. Frank Sietzen 
Editor/Asst., Military Space 
1616 N. Ft. Meyer Dr., Ste. 1000 
Arlington, VA 22201 

Dr. Arturo Silvestrini 

President & CEO 


4300 Forbes Blvd. 

Lanham, MD 20706 

Ms. Susan A. Sinclair 

Director Worldwide Distribution 


1 Park Plaza, Ste. 600 

Irvine, CA 92714 

Mr. Patrick J. Skinner 
Director, Air Force Programs 
Litton Computer Services 
985 Space Center Dr., Ste. 105 
Colorado Springs, CO 80915 

Mr. Michael L. Skolnick 

Exec. Vice President, Rockwell 

Rocketdyne Division 

6633 Canoga Ave. 

P.O. Box 7922, MC: AA07 

Canoga Park, CA 91309-7922 

Mr. Dan Smith 
Host, Business Day 
Business Radio Network 
5025 Centennial Blvd. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80919- 

Mr. David B Smith 
Marketing Director, Space News 
6883 Commercial Dr. 
Springfield, VA 22159 

Mr. J. Michael Smith 
Hughes Info Tech. Corp. 
16800 E. Centretech Parkway 
Building S75/M/S 3501 
Aurora, CO 80011 

Mr. Skip L Smith 


Sherman & Howard 

90 S. Cascade Ave., Ste. 500 

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Maj. Terence W. Sparks, USAF 

Space System Staff Officer 

Department of National 

Defense DARC-T 4-6 

101 Colby 

Ottawa, Ontario CANADA 

Mr. Larry N. Speight 
Vice President 
Honeywell Inc. Space & 

Strategic Systems 
13350 U.S. Hwy. 19 North 
MS: 140-1 
Clearwater, FL 34624-2790 

Mr. Gregg Spendlove 

Marketing Manager 

Thiokol Corp. 

MS: 100 

P.O. Box 689 

Brigham City, UT 84302 

Mr. Steven Spilker 


Integrated AeroSystems 

2995 Airway Ave. 

Costa Mesa, CA 92626 



Ms. Barbara Sprungman 
Space Science Education 

Space Data Resources & 

306 4th St S.E. 
Washington, DC 20003-2044 

Mr. Randy J. Srba 

Vice President 

CTA Inc. 

7150 Campus Dr., Ste. 100 

Colorado Springs, CO 80920 

Mr. Bruce A. Stach 
Director Space Systems 
ITT Aerospace/ 

Communications Div. 
P.O. Box 3700 
Ft. Wayne, IN 46801 

Mr. Bruce W. Stanton 
Manager Business Dev. 
Hughes Aircraft Co. 
2000 E El Segundo Blvd. 
El Segundo, CA 90245 

Mr. Don J. Starkey 
Executive Director 
Space Center Alamogordo 
P.O. Box 533 
Alamogordo, NM 88311-0533 

Mr. W. N. Steele 
External Affairs Manager 
Boeing Defense & Space 

Missiles & Space Division 
P.O. Box 58747 
Houston, TX 77258-8747 

Ms. Kathleen Stempeck 
Program Manager NTF/TD 
730 Irwin Ave. 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912- 7300 

Mr. G. M. Stenovec 

Director, Business Development 

Boeing Defense & Space 

P.O. Box 3999 
MS: 84-16 
Seattle, WA 98208 

CMDR. George M. Stephenson, 

USN (Ret) 
Senior Washington Rep. 
TRW Inc. 

1001 19th St. N., Ste. 800 
Arlington, VA 22209 

Mr. Eric R. Sterner 
Professional Staff Member 
House Science Committee 
2320 Rayburn HOB 
Washington, DC 20515 

Col. Stanley S. Stevens, USAF 
Director of Logistics 
U S Space Command/J4 
250 S. Peterson Blvd., Ste. 116 
Peterson AFB, CO 80914- 

Dr. Grant H. Stokes 
Assistant Group Leader 
M 1 T Lincoln Laboratory 
244 Wood St. S4-600B 
Lexington, MA 02173-9108 

Mr. Michael G. Stolarik 
President & CEO 
Space Applications Corporation 
901 Follin Lane, Ste. 400 
Vienna, VA 22180 

Dr. B. A. Stone 
Manager, Engineering & 

Ext. Rel. 
Washington, DC 20546 

Dr. Edward Stone 
Director, NASA 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
Building 180, Room 904 
MS: 180-9044800 
Oak Grove Dr. 
Pasadena, CA 91109 

Mr. Gary Street 
News Director, KVOR-AM 
2864 S Circle Dr., Ste. 150 
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 

Ms. Karen Sucharski 

The Colorado Springs Business 

31 E. Platte Ave., Ste. 300 
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Mr. Arthur B. Sulkin 

Director Advanced Programs & 

Business Development 
Rockwell Space Operations 

600 Gemini Ave. MC: R01E 
Houston, TX 77058 

Mr. Keith C. Sullivan 

S & E.G. Manager 

TRW Inc. 

1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 202 

Colorado Springs, CO 80910- 


Mr. Robert Summers 
Program Manager. 
CTA Space Systems 
1521 Westbranch Dr. 
McLean, VA 22102-3201 

Mr. Ed M. Swallow 
Technical Director 
Space Applications Corp. 
300 Continental Blvd., Ste. 350 
El Segundo, CA 90245 

Mr. Kenneth R. Swimm 


Lockheed Martin Management 

and Data Systems 
P.O. Box 8048 
Philadelphia, PA 19101 

Mr. Akiyoshi Takada 

Communications Policy Bureau 
Ministry of Posts & 
Telecommunications 3-2, 

Kasumigaseki, Chiyodaku 

Tokyo, Japan 

Mr. David L. Taylor 

Director, Commercial Space Ops. 

Ball Aerospace Systems Ball 

Aerospace & Technologies Corp. 

P.O. Box 1062 

Boulder, CO 80306 

Mr. John B Taylor 
Director of Public Affairs 
NASA Marshall Space Flight 

Huntsville, AL 35812 

Mr. David L. Thomas 
Vice President of Marketing 
Gulton Data Systems 
6600 Gulton Court N.E. 
Albuquerque, NM 87109 

Ms. Karen G. Thompson 
Asst. Tech Engr., Ops Mgmt. 
NASA John F Kennedy Space 

Orlando, FL 32899 

Mr. W David Thompson 

Spectrum Astro, Inc. 
1440 N. Fiesta Blvd. 
Gilbert, AZ 85233 

RADM Paul D. Tomb, USN (Ret) 


Lockheed Martin 

1725 Jefferson Davis Hwy. 

Crystal Square *2, Ste. 403 

Arlington, VA 22202 

Mr. John S. Toniolli 

Director, Business Development 

GTE Government Systems 

1450 Academy Park Lp. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910 

Capt Max Torrens, USAF 

Chief, Guardian Magazine 


Peterson AFB, CO 80914 

Mr. Peter Torrione 
Director Space Systems 
100 Kingsland Rd. 
Clifton, NJ 07014 

Mr. Robert W Tribit 
Mgr. of Business Development 
Lockheed Martin Services Grp. 
2339 Route 70 West, S.W-2 
Cherry Hill, NJ 08358 

Mr. Bob Tucker 

Public Relations 


8600 Astronaut Blvd. 

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 

Mr. Rick Tumlinson 
Space Frontier Foundation 
51 East 11th St., 9th Floor 
New York, NY 10003 

Mr. Steve Turley 

Program Management Analyst, 

1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 223 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910 

Mr. Andrew Turnage 
Executive Director 
Association of Space 
Explorers, USA 
800 Connecticut Ave., N.W, 

Ste. 1111 
Washington, DC 20006 

Mr. William B. Tutt 



128 S. Tejon, Ste. 310 

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Mr. David M. Urie 
Technology Advantage 
3634 Woodcliff Rd. 
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 

Mr. Hilton Vail 
Vice President 
Chem-tronics, Inc. 
1150 W Bradley 
RO. Box 160A 
El Cajon, CA 92020 

Mr. Angelo Vallerani 
Alenia Spazio 
Corso March 41 
Turin, Italy 

Professor Ernesto Vallerani 


Alenia Spazio 

Corso March 41 

Turin, Italy 

Mr. Earl S. Van Inwegen 
Director Air Force/Civil 

Business Unit 
TRW Inc. 
One Space Park 
Redondo Beach, CA 90278 



Dr. Edwin L. Vande Noord 

Senior Vice President & 

General Manager 

Ball Aerospace Systems Div. 

P.O. Box 1062 

Boulder, CO 80306-1062 

Mr. Don Vanlandingham 
Vice President Electro-Optical 

Ball Aerospace Systems Div. 
P.O. Box 1062 
Boulder, CO 80306 

Mr. Howard R. Vasina 
Manager, Launch & Missile 

Lockheed Martin Corporation 
4450 E. Fountain Blvd., Ste. 

Colorado Springs, CO 80916 

Mr. Dean Venable 
Business Area Manager 
Lockheed Martin Management 

& Data Systems 
935 First Ave. 
King Of Prussia, PA 19406 

Mr. Joe Verrengia 
Science Writer, Rocky 

Mountain News 
7 E. Bijou 
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Maj Gen. David LVesely, USAF 
Commander 14th Air Force 
747 Nebraska Ave., Ste. A300-8 
Lompoc, CA 93437-6268 

Ms. Annette Visty 
Reporter, KOAA-TV 
530 Communications Circle 
Colorado Springs, CO 80905 

Capt. George S. Vogen, USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave, Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Jack M. Wade 
Site Manager 
MRJ Inc. 
P.O. Box 49663 
Colorado Springs, CO 80949- 

Mr. Jack F Wade 

Director Defense Subsystems 

Ball Aerospace & Technologies 

10 Longs Peak Dr. 
Broomfield, CO 80021-2510 

Hon. Robert S Walker 


U.S. House of Representatives 

Science Committee 

2369 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Prof. John Wallace 
Case Western Reserve 

Dept of Material Science & 

White Building, Room 418 
10900 Euclid Ave. 
Cleveland, OH 44106 

Mr. Bruce Wallachy 
Director Satellite Comm. 
Lockheed Martin 
1725 Jefferson Davis Hwy. 
Arlington, VA 22202 

Mr. Edwin S. Warrell 
Vice President 
OAO Corporation 
1150 Academy Park Lp„ Ste. 136 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910- 

Capt. Robert A. Wasserman, 

Space Tactics School (STS) 
Space Warfare School 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Laurence M. Weed 

Program Manager 


985 Space Center Dr., Ste. 105 

Colorado Springs, CO 80915 

Mr. Dave Wentworth 
Dep. Chief, Tech. Prgms & 

NASA Kennedy Space Center 
Kennedy Space Center, 

Mr. Larry H. Werner 
Business Devlopment 
IBM Government Systems 
525 N. Cascade Ave. 
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Mr. D T White 
EELV Program 
The Boeing Company 
20403 68th Ave. South 
Kent, WA 98032 

Mr. Gayle C. White 
Business Development 
Rockwell Space Operations 
1250 Academy Park Lp, Ste. 130 
Colorado Springs, CO 80910- 

Mr. Dave Wielandt 
Business Manager 
HITCO Technologies, Inc. 
1600 West 135th 
St. Gardena, CA 90249 

Mr. Peter Wilhelm 
Director, Naval Center for 

Space Technology 
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, 

Code 8000 
4545 Overlook St., S.W. 
Washington, DC 20032 

Mr. Richard H. Willey 

Deputy Director 

ITT Federal Services Advanced 

RO. Box 5728 
Lompoc, CA 93437 

Mr. James R. Williams 
Manager Business 

Lockheed Martin Technical 

4450 E Fountain Blvd., Ste. 200 
Colorado Springs, CO 80916 

Ms. Nancy Williamson 

Program Development Manager 

Rockwell Space Systems 

12214 Lakewood Blvd. 

MC AD91 

Downey, CA 90240 

Mr. James L Willis 

Director Business Development 

Loral Test & Information 

15378 Ave. of Science 

San Diego, CA 92128-3407 

Dr. Donald C. Winter 

Vice President & General 


TRW Defense Systems 

One Space Park 
Redondo Beach, CA 90278 

Mr. Loring Wirbel 

Western States News Editor 

Electronic Engineering Times 

P.O. Box 829 

Monument, CO 80132-0829 

Mr. Michael Woods 
Photographer, KKTV-11 News 
3100 N. Nevada 
Colorado Springs, CO 80907 

Mr. John Wos 

Director Innovative Technologies 

Loral Corporation 

1725 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 

Ste. 900 
Arlington, VA 22202-4159 

Ms. Janet V. Wrather 
Vice President of Comm. 
Lockheed Martin Missiles & 

1111 Lockheed Way 
Building B-101, MS/24-01 
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-3504 

Mr. Michael W. Wynne 
Vice President & General 

Lockheed Martin Space 

P.O. Box 85990 
San Diego, CA 92138 

Ms. Joyce Yamasaki 
Reporter, KOAA-TV 
530 Communications Circle 
Colorado Springs, CO 80905 

Mr. Richard T Yezzi 
Program Director 
Atlantic Research Corp. 
5945 Wellington Rd. 
Gainesville, VA 22065-1699 

Mr. Dennis Young 
Vice President 
Kaman Sciences 
P.O. Box 7463 

Colorado Springs, CO 80933- 

Col. Peter W. Young, USAF 
Program Manager Space Test 


3550 Aberdeen Ave. S.E. 
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776 

Ms. Carol Zelley 
President Space/Speculation 
P.O. Box 641 
Burlington, NJ 08016 

Mr. Joseph P Zimonis 

Exec. Vice President & General 

UTC Pratt & Whitney USBI 
P.O. Box 1900 
Huntsville, AL 35807 

Capt. Evelyn M. Zohlen, USAF 
Space Tactics School (STS) 

Space Warfare Center 
730 Irwin Ave., Ste. 83 
Falcon AFB, CO 80912 

Mr. Ron Zwerin 

Reporter, KRDO 

3395 S. 8th St 

Colorado Springs, CO 80905 



Abbreviations & Acronyms Glossary 


ARGOS Data Communicator 


Electronic Intelligence System / Signal 


Atomic Energy Commission 



Armed Forces Communications 


End of Battle 

and Electronics Association 


Earth Observation System 


Autonomous Fluid Physics Module 


Earth Observation Satellite 


Air Force Satellite Control Network 


European Remote Sensing (Satellite) 


American Institute of Aeronautics & 


European Space Agency 



European Space Records Information 


Automatic Link Establishment 


European Organization for Meteorological 


ASI Logistic Technological Engineering 




Fleet Ballistic Missies 


Aerospace Propulsion Laboratory 


Federal Communications Commission 


Space based Data Acquisition Systems, 


Fluid Science Laboratory 


Global Broadcast Service 


Advance Research Programs Agency 


Global Positioning System 


American Society for Photogrammetry and 

Remote Sensing 


Geo-Synchronous Orbit 


Anti-Submarine Warfare 


Geostationary Transfer Orbit 


Bubble, Drop & Particle Unit 


High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility 


Border Surveillance & Intrusion Detection 


Interim Design Review 


Battlefield Weather Information Station 


Integrated Electronics Assembly 


CombinedAir Operations Center 


International Forces 


Common Berthing Mechanism 


Inspector General 


NASA's telemetry protocol pocket 


International Military Satellite 

processing system 


Integrated Product Teams 


Confederation of European Aerospace 


Initial Operational Capability 



Indian Remote Sensing 


Committee of Earth Observation Satellites 


Italian Space Agency 


Commander In Chief 


Indian Space Research Organization 


Combat Identification System 


International Space Station Alpha 


Control Moment Gyros 


Japan Earth Remote Sensing 


Centre Nationale D'Etudes Spatiales 


Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

(National Center for Space Studies) 


Joint Requirements Oversight Council 


Columbus Orbiting Facility 


Joint Space Management Board 


Chief Operations Officer 


Joint Tactical Ground Stations 


Combat Survivor Locator 


Low Earth Orbit 


Defense Atomic Support Agency 


Laser Illuminator Subsystem 


Department of Defense 


Lockheed Martin Launch Vehicles 


Department of Commerce 


Mobile Base System 


Defense Satellite Communications Systems 


Medium Earth Orbit 


Diqital Terrain Elevation Data, Version 5 

3 ' 


Miniature Global One-Way Satellite 


Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 



Extremely Low Frequency 


Military Satellite Communications 



MoD Ministry of Defense 

MOS Marine Observation Satellite 

MPLM Mini Pressurized Logistic Modules 

MSS Mission planning system of a tactical Air 

NARSIA North American Remote Sensing Industries 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

NEO Near Earth Orbit 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

NRO National Reconnaissance Organization 

NTF National Test Facility 

NTS National Technical Systems 

ORI Operational Readiness Inspection 

ORG Orbital Replacement Unit 

OSE Operational Support Equipment 

OSO Operation Support Organization 

PCS Personal Communications Systems 

PMA Pressurized Mating Adapter 

PQE Path Quality Evaluation 

R&D Research and Development 

REV Revised or Revision 

RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle 

RMS Remote Manipulator System 

RSA Russian Space Agency 


























Strategic Air Command 

Space-Based Infrared System 

Theater Support Operations Cell 

United States Navy special forces team 

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence 

Societe Europeene des Satellites 

Satellite Positioning and Tracking 

Space Station Remote Manipulator System 

Space Technology Experimental Program 

Space Transport System 

Space Warfare Center 

TIROS Arctic Drifter 

Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities 

Television Infrared Observation Satellite 

Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere 
(Ocean Buoy) 

Tactical Surveillance & Intrusion Detection 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

Unified Command Plan 

Ultra Low Frequency 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Very High Frequency 

Visual Omni Range 

World Geodesy Standard, v. 1984 

Wide Field Sensor 

Wind Speed & Direction 


More windows to your world. 

EOSAT offers the most complete panorama of satellite data available. That's why we're the 
world's leading supplier of global geographic information. 

Providing you the right solution is important. One phone call to EOSAT 
links you to a worldwide network of satellites, ground stations, processing 
centers, and value-added suppliers. EOSAT's experienced Staff and 
Distributors will help you select the data type or combination that serves 
you best. Call EOSAT today to open more windows to your world. 

4300 Forbes HM • Lanham, Maryland U.S.A. 20706 • 1-S00-344-9933 • 01-301-552-0537 

Announcing STK 3.0 

Satellite Tool Kif is now expanded and upgraded. 

The leading commercial satellite analysis software 

is more intuitive, flexible, powerful and available 

for Windows 95 and NT. 

See our »> 

Analytical Graphics version 3.0 of 
Satellite Tool Kit* adds significant graphic 
plotting capability, more flexible reporting, an 
extensive satellite data base, more powerful 
orbital input capabilities, terrain elevation 
data and much, much more. 


660 American Avenue • King of Prussia. PA 19406 • Voice: (610) 337-3055/(800) 220-4 STK • Fax : (610) 337-3058 • E-Mail: Info(a;