« السابقةمتابعة »
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Astronautics
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1961
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS
OVERTON BROOKS, Louisiana, Chairman GEORGE P. MILLER, California
JOSEPH W. MARTIN, JR., Massachusetts OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas
JAMES G. FULTON, Pennsylvania VICTOR L. ANFUSO, New York
J. EDGAR CHENOWETH, Colorado JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota
WILLIAM K. VAN PELT, Wisconsin KEN HECHLER, West Virginia
PERKINS BASS, New Hampshire EMILIO R. DADDARIO, Connecticut
R. WALTER RIEHLMAN, New York WALTER H. MOELLER, Ohio
JESSICA McC. WEIS, New York DAVID S. KING, Utah
CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio THOMAS G. MORRIS, New Mexico
RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, Indiana BOB CASEY, Texas
ALPHONZO E. BELL, JR., California WM. J. RANDALL, Missouri JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia WILLIAM FITTS RYAN, New York JAMES C. CORMAN, California
CHARLES F. DUCANDER, Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Dr. CHARLES S. SHELDON II, Technical Director
PHILIP B. YEAGER, Special Consultant
FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel
RICHARD P. HINES, Staff Consultant
Statements of —
Connally, Hon. John B., Secretary of the Navy - .
Weapons (for Pacific Missile Range and Astronautics)-
Trudeau, Lt. Gen. Arthur G., Chief of Research and Development,
Wakelin, Hon. James H., Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Re-
search and Development.
White, Gen. Thomas D., Chief of Staff, United States Air Force---
Ad Hoc Committee on Space, report to the President-elect (the
Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board Agreement of
DOD-NASA, September 13, 1960..
No. 17, of December 1, 1960.---
No. 3, of February 1, 1961.-
General White memorandum on Air Force-NASA relations, April 14,
Secretary of Defense memorandum, coordination of satellite and space
vehicle operations, September 18, 1959..
space vehicle operations, June 16, 1960.-
History of the Advanced Research Projects Agency
DOD new release on ARPA, February 7, 1958..
DOD directive, Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, February 7, 1958.
Public Law 85–322 (excerpts)
Public Law 85-325 (excerpts)
Public Law 85-599 (excerpts)
DEFENSE SPACE INTERESTS
FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1961
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., Hon. Overton Brooks (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
This morning we are opening hearings on the subject of space organization in the Department of Defense, and its implications for relations to the national space program as a whole including NASA and the Space Council.
This is a matter which goes to the very heart of this committee's jurisdiction, as set forth in the Rules of the House, over "astronautical research and development, including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities," and over “outer space, including exploration and control thereof." These same rules assign us responsibility to exercise continuous watchfulness over policies of concern to the Space Council and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The internal organization of the Department of Defense for space activities is a vital
factor in our total United States space effort which includes both military and civilian applications of space technology. This committee has demonstrated its concern for the military portion of astronautics research and development as recently as last month when it held its annual review of such programs in the Department of Defense. Approximately half the funds for our total space program are assigned within the Department of Defense.
The immediate occasion for these hearings is to evaluate the Department of Defense directive of March 6, 1961, on the development of military space activities. This directive deals with only one segment of the total cycle required for assuring "the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology" in accordance with the National Aeronautics and Space Act. The directive is concerned with the "research, development, test, and engineering" of satellites and space probes. It does not of itself tell very much about its implementation; nor does it concern itself with operational responsibilities.
It is my view that such a directive cannot be considered apart from the broader context of the effects such a directive may have on the choice of projects to be pursued, our system of priorities, and ultimate applications in both the military and civilian spheres. When one views the entire cycle from the first research idea through to the final operational responsibility, a directive of this nature inevitably has ramifications not confined to the Department of Defense, but in