He wanted to know if my grandmother had died and I told him I had been elected to Congress. His comment was, "Why does this have to happen to my ship?"

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us get away from these career men now. Mr. Bell, you have a question?

Mr. BELL. Yes. Mr. Secretary, or anyone who wants to answer it. Perhaps you might not like to comment on it. But in view of the fact many of the decisions are going to be made who is to do which particular job as the years progress, by the Secretary of Defense, according to this new directive, I would like to ask you if feature in this that is developing toward the Secretary of Defense being a stronger body which may eventually result in a unified command?

you see any

Do you see anything in this that is developing in that direction? Secretary CONNALLY. It certainly could under the Reorganization Acts that have occurred, particularly the 1958 act. The Secretary of Defense has very broad powers. There is no question about his powers.

Mr. BELL. But does this increase

Secretary CONNALLY. What the exercise of those powers would result in we have no way of knowing.

Admiral HAYWARD. Mr. Bell, we have many unified commands today and have for some time but the Secretary of Defense has this authority and this has happened over many programs.

Secretary CONNALLY. We have many single management programs. A single program for petroleum-for all of the drugs and many others. Mr. BELL. But you do agree this strengthens the Defense Department's position somewhat-this directive.

Secretary CONNALLY. I think it does, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Corman?

Mr. CORMAN. You managed these other single management programs such as petroleum and so forth. I want to know if this is analogous to that, this directive in another field and if any of these other programs resulted in hardships to any branches of the Services or have they generally worked out efficiently? I am talking about these unified management directives in other fields.

Secretary CONNALLY. To my knowledge and I am not sure the two precisely are analogous, I would say they were not, because in the other cases of the single managers you are dealing with things, procurement as such, whereas here you are dealing with a great deal more than that. But in those areas where you have single managers to my knowledge there has been no great hardship on any of the Services. Would you disagree or agree with that?

Secretary WAKELIN. I would not disagree with it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anfuso.

Mr. ANFUSO. I just want to put in the record what has already been said regarding Rear Admiral Connolly, Dr. Wakelin, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Vice Admiral Hayward. They are the finest of men. I hope they will continue under you, Mr. Secretary, and they will not lose any of their great vim and vitality that they have demonstrated in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. Does anybody else have any remarks to put in the record on that point?

Mr. HECHLER. One final question: If you want to go beyond the preliminary research stage, and the Director of Defense Research and Engineering turns you down, do you feel you have a good channel there?

Suppose you feel very deeply about the necessity for a particular project to pursue it. Do you have a channel to the Secretary of Defense through which you feel free to go?

Secretary CONNALLY. Yes, sir, and let me say this, sir, and this may sound like a self-serving declaration on behalf of the Navy but we definitely feel we have an avenue directly to the Secretary of the Defense.

At some point someone has to make decisions and we are willing to abide by them when they are made but if I exude any spirit of confidence in the Navy pursuing its research and its programs it is because I am supremely confident that the Navy has within its scientists and within its laboratories the finest inhouse capabilities in this country. I think we have as fine a group of dedicated intelligent outstanding men in uniform as any country in the world and I believe given the type of personnel we have, given the brains and dedication that we have in the Navy, that we can sell anything that we really believe in.

Now, perhaps my confidence may not be borne out. But I think the accomplishments that the Navy already has in its record should be pretty tremendous proof that they are not only men of great knowledge and initiative, who can conceive projects of great value to this country, but that they have the dedication and the tenacity to pursue them to accomplishment.

Mr. HECHLER. You do not think this directive is going to hurt the kind of thing Admiral Rickover is doing or the people working with him?

Secretary CONNALLY. No, I do not. It should not have any effect whatsoever on it.

Mr. HECHLER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ryan.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Secretary, how do you feel this directive will affect the Navy's budget for space research?

Secretary CONNALLY. Well, I do not quite know how to answer that. I would hope it would not affect it at all. It perhaps will in isolated areas. But it simply means that perhaps our activities will be restricted in certain areas within our own-with our own choosing, that we might place more emphasis on one than another. It may well mean that beyond the point of preliminary basic research, that we will be able to channel more money into projects that we strongly believe in and advance that equally provided we get the same number of dollars. Whether or not we will I cannot say.

Admiral HAYWARD. Can I answer Mr. Ryan to let me give you a good example. The Navy started and did all of the shock tube work in the United States.

This was started years ago and without it we would not have had a successful re-entry body for the Air Force or anyone else.

It could not have been said at the time one started all this what its use would be. So when we defend a budget we realize that what we get for our research will depend upon our tenacity, our salesmanship, and how we sell research programs. In the large booster field,

we have no intention of competing or duplicating some of the really large boosters, or any of the really large systems. Any such attempts would certainly suffer. But the Department of Defense would make the decision which programs are going forward just as they do now anyway, in everything, not just space.

Mr. FULTON. Is it not a fact on Service cooperation, that while the Air Force has the Discoverer program, yet it was the Navy on the recovered capsule and the navigation and the Air Force could not have done it without the accuracy of the navigational system?

Admiral HAYWARD. That is right. We put the Transit oscillator on the Discoverer and everybody knows we were delighted because we are interested in a successful Discoverer program.

Mr. FULTON. I think it was so successful I would like the team arrangement continued with adequate room for research and development across the board.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions from anyone on the committee? If not, I would like to say this: We have plans to invite General Lemnitzer down here. He is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have asked Dr. Sheldon if he will contact the General and make arrangements. We have beginning tomorrow plans to resume the hearing on the NASA authorization budget, and we will do so at that time. When General Lemnitzer is available, we can set aside those hearings for the purpose of hearing him. That will more or less conclude our hearings.

I want to thank everybody who participated in the hearings. I think they have been excellent, and I believe, Mr. Secretary, and gentlemen, that I can voice the sentiment of the entire committee when I say this, that what the committee is interested in is to get along with the program of space, with the utmost efficiency, with speed, and with results that we can use to sell to our people out in the country. If we do that, and the directive bears it out, I believe it will go a long way toward satisfying the committee and the Congress. And I want to thank all of you gentlemen for coming here and helping this committee. We will recess now until tomorrow morning.

As I stated on the first day of these hearings, there are certain additional questions which together with their answers I wish added to the record.

(The questions and answers referred to are as follows:)

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE NAVY

Question 1. Can you trace for us how you visualize the operation of the directive of March 6: Suppose the Navy does preliminary research on a space project in which it is interested, and then development is turned over to the Air Force. Which service will fund the development? How will the Navy insure that its operational requirements are adequately reflected in detail in the development phase?

Answer: The Secretary of Defense has offered considerable assurance that the Air Force will indeed be responsive to the space requirements of the other military Services. It is anticipated that the manner of satisfying these needs will be similar to that which is employed in the operation of such facilities as the Natonal Missile Ranges. In such case, the requirements of all of the users are made known sufficiently in advance to the Service having responsibility for the provision of the service, who then provides the necessary funding to satisfy those needs. In the space requirements then, it would appear that the Air Force would fund for the developments which result from preliminary research performed by the Navy. Since implementing instructions for the recent directive

68138-61- -12

have not been issued, it is not known how the Navy will insure that its operational requirements are observed. The Navy will make its requirements clearly known to the Department of Defense and the Air Force to assist the Secretary of Defense in carrying out his expressed intent of insuring that its needs are met.

Question 2. To what extent will the Navy press for use of its facilities and personnel as subcontractors for Air Force space development projects? If such work is not forthcoming, would the Navy prefer to re-orient research efforts, replacing equipment and personnel, or would it recommend their wholesale transfer to Air Force control in the manner of the Vanguard team which transferred to NASA?

Answer: Navy laboratories are not primarily involved in space development projects nor do they pursue strictly space projects. Their capabilities and real value to the Navy lie in the functionally oriented generation of ideas and in the evolution of concepts for future systems based on their expert knowledge of Navy requirements and abilities. Therefore, it is not anticipated that any transfer of facilities or personnel would be involved since these laboratories would continue preliminary research under the terms of the new directive. Since most developments are carried out by industry whether sponsored by the Navy or the Air Force, there is now a primary contracting authority for space system development in the DOD.

Question 3. Explain how you would expect Navy interests to be protected in the fields of ocean reconnaissance and tactical weather systems under the terms of the directive. Would the Navy develop suitable satellites for launching by its own Sea Scout, or turn them over for Air Force launching, or would the Air Force develop and operate these devices for later Navy use, or would the Air Force develop and operate these devices, and merely supply the resulting data to the Navy?

Answer: The Navy would be the first to state that it has no desire to compete with or duplicate the efforts being undertaken by another agency which could be used to satisfy Navy needs. The approach of simply using the data provided by another Service is certainly acceptable as was demonstrated by Tiros, although the system certainly was not adequate to satisfy Navy requirements. There is an immediate need for a tactical meteorological satellite in advance of the National meteorological system which may meet Navy needs by 1965. Similarly, in ocean reconnaissance, it is conceivable that other reconnaissance satellites could perform this function although present developments in sensors, coverage, and data collection are not oriented toward Naval applications. This solution of having one Service provide essential services to another has been used in a number of instances previously with varying degrees of success. The efficiency of such arrangement appears to lie not in the wording of the directive which instituted the policy, but rather in the similarity of the users needs to those of the primary supplier. Since the techniques of sea reconnaissance differ so greatly from those of target surveillance, development of a Naval system under the "exceptions" provision may be warranted. As for the question of who performs launches, the Navy considers that the advantages to be gained from mobile space operations, using the sea environment, are so great that the U.S. space program should not be penalized by restricting it to existing facilities. Question 4. Please define "preliminary research".

Answer: "Preliminary research" is the first of the three phases of space systems as treated by the DOD Space Directive; it preceeds space systems development and operational status. "Preliminary research" then, is understood to include exploratory research, studies and anlyses of special problems, component research, experimental tests, and systems analyses. A liberal interpretation of the term preliminary research is essential to assure a broad attack on the space frontier by all potential users.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m. the committee recessed until 10 a.m.,. Wednesday, March 22, 1961, to open hearings on another subject; the remaining meeting on the Department of Defense directive was arranged for 10 a.m., Thursday, March 23, 1961.)

DEFENSE SPACE INTERESTS

THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., Overton Brooks (chairman), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order. We are going to be a little crowded here. Members will be dropping in. I am sure most all of them will be here this morning. They will be here in a few moments. I think we will go ahead in the interim.

At this time I want to say that we have one last witness on the hearing which we began sometime ago on the question of developing the scope and the effect of the order recently issued by the Secretary of Defense covering the assignment of research and development in space.

This morning we have General Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a very able soldier, certainly a fine Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a friend of this committee, a man who presented us with this battle flag here with 142 streamers, and the committee, General, still appreciates that fine sentiment that actuated you in bringing us that flag, so that we could have it here in our committee room during the sessions.

I understand you have just returned to Washington, that you have not had time to draw up a prepared statement; as a result of it, I am going to ask you this:"

The committee has asked you to come here. You voluntarily came but it is at the request of the committee. I would like to ask you if you want to make a short statement before we ask a few questions. (The biography of General Lemnitzer is as follows:)

GENERAL LYMAN LOUIS LEMNITZER

Lyman L. Lemnitzer was born in Honesdale, Pennsylvania, on August 29, 1899. He graduated from Honesdale High School in June 1917, and the following year entered the U.S. Military Academy, graduating in 1920. His assignments from that time until the outbreak of World War II alternated between duty with troops and service as student and instructor at Army schools. As a member of the Coast Artillery Rifle Team, he became known as one of the Army's outstanding rifle marksmen, winning the National Team Gold Medal, the First Place Gold Medal in the Philippine Department, and the Distinguished Marksman's Badge. He completed two tours at Fort Mills, Corregidor, Philippine Islands; he was twice assigned to the U.S. Military Academy as an instructor in the Department of Natural and Experimental Philosophy; and, following his graduation from the Command and General Staff School in 1936, he served three years as an instructor of tactices at the Coast Artillery School, Fort Monroe. Virginia,

191