May 30, 1995


Dear Colleague:

I write to you today to report on the results of the Agency's recently
completed Zero-Base Review (ZBR) and to report on the potential effects of
recent Congressional budget proposals on the Agency.  It is important to
understand that the ZBR is NASA's response to the President's request to
all agencies in the Federal Government to identify savings in their 5-year
fiscal year (FY) 1996 budget request to accommodate his proposed
middle-class tax cut.  NASA's share was identified as $5 Billion in savings
taken as 3 percent, 5 percent, 7 percent, and 9 percent of the Agency's FY
1996 budget level from the proposed budgets for the years FY 1997-FY 2000.
The Administration's budget submitted to Congress in February contained
these savings as unresolved against the programs proposed.  In order to
identify these savings, the NASA Administrator instituted the ZBR along
with the goal that all savings were to come from the institutional base of
the Agency and not from programs.

It was not at all certain at the beginning of the ZBR process that the
Administrator's goal to preserve programs could be met.  Consequently, the
ZBR process was an intensive and very penetrating look into the bottom-most
levels of the Agency's business.  The ZBR was successful, but will result
in a great deal of pain because it will require the loss of many jobs at
the Centers and at Headquarters--a total of more than 4,000 civil servants
and about 25,000 contractors.  The Agency found that it could sustain these
losses without major affect on programs through recognition that it has
been staffed at a level which has anticipated major new programs in space
exploration and budget levels approaching $20 billion at the turn of the
century.  Clearly this will not happen.  Such large reductions in
infrastructure require major streamlining of the way NASA is managing its
programs.  The ZBR team made a number of innovative proposals on how this
can be done, and these ideas will be evaluated and the cost savings
validated during this summer as the FY 1997 budget proposal is developed by
the Agency.

Space Science participated in the ZBR through direct representation on the
Center Assessment Review Team and also through a crosscutting team
consisting of the three Associate Administrators (Space Science, Mission to
Planet Earth, and Life and Microgravity Science and Applications) and led
by the Chief Scientist, France Cordova.  All of NASA science, including
aeronautics science, was a united participant in the ZBR process.

The Space Science program fared well in the ZBR process. There are no major
program changes, redirections, or cancellations nor did space science
suffer any disproportionate reductions to its budget as a result of the
review.  Resources available to the Space Science community, including
scientists at NASA Centers, have not been significantly impacted.  The NASA
Administrator has said about the ZBR that he did not want any cuts to
science and that science and technology are what NASA is all about.  The
Administrator accepted the ZBR team recommendation for NASA to sharpen the
focus of science at its Centers and ensure that each of these Centers has a
very specific, complementary, and well understood role in the space science
enterprise.  For reference, I have included a copy of the ZBR Science
Cross-Cut report on these Center Roles and Recommendations for Space
Science.

One major proposed change is that NASA fund its programs through full
cost-recovery accounting including the cost of civil servant workforce and
overhead.  There should no longer be separate accounts for Center workforce
and infrastructure.  All resources required to carry out programs should be
given to the five NASA enterprises.  Centers would have to pay for
infrastructure by recovery through programs funded by the Agency
enterprises.  This is exactly the way that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) operates.  This also means that NASA civil servant scientists should
propose full cost for their research, including the cost of their salaries
and other overhead costs related to their research.  The result would be a
better understanding of the full cost of research performed by civil
servants at NASA Centers--an accounting which would facilitate more
accurate comparability to the cost of research performed in non-Government
institutions.  The end state of these reforms as they are gradually put
into place would mean that resources in Government accounts currently used
to pay for civil service science salaries and overhead at NASA Centers will
be placed in Research and Analysis accounts and competed on an open basis
with non-civil service scientists.

The ZBR also recommended that the Agency form closer relationships between
science at its Centers and area universities and industry in order to
improve the content and quality of the current civil service component of
NASA's space science research.  The formation of science institutes has
been proposed for several of the NASA Centers to strengthen the quality of
science at those Centers.  These institutes would be privatized
arrangements of our current science enterprise at these Centers in which
Government-owned assets are managed by an external entity, such as a
university, industry, or a consortium of these.


The formation of these institutes is proposed in particular for those
Centers which will not have an in-house role in space science flight
mission hardware development:  Ames Research Center, Marshall Space Flight
Center, and Johnson Space Center.  There are many specific details that
will need to be worked out in the development of these institutes, such as
potential academic partners, competition for institute management, the
transition from civil servants to institute personnel, funding profile, and
the fraction of sustained funding for NASA mission-specific work allowed at
each institute.  Included with the enclosed ZBR Space Science Cross-Cut
documents are the proposed institutes and their science discipline areas.
NASA will proceed at a deliberate pace with the formation of such
institutes, and it is likely that one or two of these will be started soon
as pathfinders for the remaining candidates.

Space science will also be impacted by several other ZBR decisions.  The
planned move of all research aircraft to Dryden and proposed transition of
Ames out of the management of Moffett Field will change our approach to the
development and operation of the Stratospheric Observation for Infrared
Astronomy (SOFIA).  Wallops will not be closed but will be significantly
smaller, and this change will affect our approach to the privatization of
the rocket program.  There will be less in-house spacecraft development at
JPL and Goddard.  Science data archiving and distribution functions will be
privatized.  There will be significant changes in Headquarters management
as it reduces its workforce by 50 percent over the next several years.

There is much detail of the ZBR that is beyond what can be conveyed in this
letter.  You can get more information by accessing the ZBR item on NASA
Public Affairs Home Page at 
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/NewsRoom/today.html.  The Office of Space
Science will keep you informed as more details become available through
additional letters, mailings, and notices on the Space Science Home Page
when it is available.

All of the results of the NASA ZBR are dependent on obtaining the 5-year
budget levels proposed by the President.  The cuts proposed by the House
and Senate Budget Committees are independent of the ZBR and are much larger
than can be accommodated by restructuring the Agency.  The Senate has
proposed cutting an additional $3.4 billion and the House an additional
$5.8 billion over this same 5-year timeframe through FY 2000, including
more than $700 million from the FY 1996 proposed level.  Cuts of this
magnitude would result in devastation of the Agency, with closure of
Centers, termination of programs, and possibly even elimination of a whole
NASA enterprise.  The Agency will be working with Congress as the
budget process progresses through the Authorization and Appropriations
Committees to try and convince our budget decision makers that NASA has
acted responsibly and has led the Government in being responsive to the
need for Federal budget deficit reduction.

Sincerely,



Wesley T. Huntress, Jr.
Associate Administrator
  for Space Science





Enclosure:  Zero-Base Science Cross-Cut





ZERO-BASE SCIENCE CROSS-CUT:  CENTER ROLES IN SPACE SCIENCE


HEADQUARTERS ROLE

Strategic direction and planning is the function of the space science
enterprise.

Program definition, policy, integration, oversight, budget development,
external relations, and science selection are functions of NASA
Headquarters.  NASA Headquarters develops and defines partnerships with
internationals and other U.S. agencies.

ROLE OF CENTER SCIENTISTS

Program implementation is the function of NASA Centers and other
organizations (such as institutes) funded by Headquarters.

NASA will retain scientists at its Centers in key civil service positions,
especially with relationship to science mission management and selection.
NASA Center scientists must be firmly integrated into the NASA mission and
provide a binding interface between the NASA mission and the external
community of scientists.  NASA Center research quality must be excellent.
In order to maintain that excellence, NASA science groups must maintain
sufficient depth and foster their interdependency with the broader research
community.  NASA Center scientists must leverage the assets and
capabilities of the Agency for the progress of space science in a way that
cannot be done by scientists outside the Agency.

MISSION ROLES FOR JPL AND GSFC

Both the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the Goddard Space Flight
Center (GSFC) will have mission roles in their respective areas of
scientific specialization.  JPL and GSFC will be the only two NASA Centers
to build in-house science spacecraft, and then only for first-of-a-kind
technology.  GSFC will concentrate on earth-orbital missions, and JPL will
concentrate on deep-space missions.  All Centers and institutes may compete
as partners with academia and industry for Space Science flight missions
that are not designated to GSFC or JPL by NASA Headquarters.

SCIENCE ENTERPRISE THEMATIC AREAS AND DESIGNATED CENTERS

The space science enterprise has defined four thematic areas in science
which mark its contributions to the Nation's scientific research
enterprise.  Each of these themes is assigned to a Center.  The
responsibility of the designated Center is to support NASA Headquarters in
managing the health and progress of that thematic area.  In addition, JSC
is designated to support NASA Headquarters in integrating the space science
enterprise with the Human Exploration and Development of Space (HEDS)
enterprise.

CENTER ROLES IN THE FORMATION OF INSTITUTES

One of the key recommendations is the formation of closer relationships
between NASA Science Centers and area universities and industry.  In the
case of the Ames Research Center (ARC), the Marshall Space Flight Center
(MSFC), and the Johnson Space Center (JSC), it is recommended that new
institutes be formed that would integrate the civil space science workforce
on site with one (or more) universities in the area to constitute a richer
environment for science.  These institutes would incorporate space science,
earth science, and life and microgravity science at these Centers for an
interdisciplinary approach to the scientific exploration and development of
space.

SUMMARY OF CENTER/INSTITUTE ASSIGNMENTS:

Jet Propulsion Laboratory:

JPL will have prime responsibility for the Origin and Evolution of
Planetary Systems theme in space science.  JPL will be the lead NASA
Center for planetary science and exploration and will specialize in
planetary system science, extrasolar planets, the planetary geosciences
(including geology, geophysics, and geochemistry), and planetary
atmospheres.  JPL will have a role in astrophysics and space physics,
specializing in long-wavelength astrophysics, space interferometry, and
heliospheric physics.

Goddard Space Flight Center:

GSFC will have prime responsibility for the Galaxy and the Universe and
the Connection between the Sun, Earth and Heliosphere themes in space
science.  GSFC will be the lead NASA Center for astrophysics and space
physics, and will specialize in high-energy astrophysics, 
ultraviolet/optical/infrared astrophysics, magnetospheric physics, ionospheric 
physics, solar physics, and low-energy cosmic rays.  GSFC will have a role in 
planetary science, specializing in science instruments.  GSFC will manage space
science balloon and rocket programs.  GSFC should pursue more close
collaborative arrangements with local universities such as Johns Hopkins
and the University of Maryland.

Ames Research Center:

The space science program at ARC will be privatized by forming an institute
through a consortium of Bay Area universities, such as Stanford and the
University of California, and local industry.  This new entity will have
prime responsibility for the Origin and Distribution of Life in the
Universe theme in space science, and will be the lead NASA Center for
astrobiology and astrochemistry, areas in which ARC has developed unique,
world-class expertise.  Specialty areas include cosmochemistry, chemical
evolution, the origin and evolution of life, planetary biology and
chemistry, formation of stars and planets (space science), and expansion of
terrestrial life into space (HEDS).  ARC will continue to develop concepts
and techniques for the human-machine interface applied to space
exploration.

With the transfer of Moffett Field and the relocation of Agency research
aircraft to Dryden, options will be investigated to contract for SOFIA
operations--the contractor proposing airfield, operations, and science.

Johnson Space Center:

An institute model for the Planetary Astromaterials science program at JSC
should be examined in concert with any institute considered in life and
microgravity science for the HEDS enterpise.  The Lunar Sample curatorial
facility will remain at JSC, but the management of this facility will be
examined in order to insure close ties to such an institute.  The role of
the Lunar and Planetary Sciences Institute would need to be explored in
establishing such an entity.  This new entity would have prime
responsibility for integrating the HEDS and space science enterprises for
future exploration of the Solar System.  It will be the lead NASA Center
for Astromaterials, and will specialize in extraterrestrial materials
research, sampling, curation, and planetary resource development.

Marshall Space Flight Center:

MSFC will contribute to space science in a few specialized areas that make
use of unique facilities at MSFC.  These areas are X-ray imaging and
polarimetry, gamma-ray astronomy/bursts, high-energy cosmic rays, solar
magnetic fields, and low-energy plasma physics.  MSFC will phase out all
other space science to reduce breadth and increase strength in these
specific, unique world-class science areas.  MSFC should pursue a science
institute arrangement with local universities and industry in the same
sense as ARC and JSC.  MSFC will be a lead Center for space mirror
technology.

AXAF development must continue at MSFC.  Options for the AXAF operations
center will be explored.

Wallops Flight Facility:

Increase commercial involvement in the suborbital rocket program at WFF.
The balloon program has already been privatized.

This is the access to this page since May 31, 1995.