صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

DEFENSE SPACE INTERESTS

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EIGHTY-SEVENTĘ CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

[merged small][ocr errors]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Astronautics

[merged small][ocr errors]

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
SPENCER M. BERESFORD, Special Counsel

PHILIP B. YEAGER, Special Consultant
JOHN A. CARSTARPHEN, Jr., Chief Clerk

FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel
RAYMOND WILCOVE, Staff Consultant

RICHARD P. HINES, Staff Consultant
Capt. HOWARD J. SILBERSTEIN, USN, Staff Consultant

[ocr errors]

CONTENTS

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Statements of—

Connally, Hon. John B., Secretary of the Navy -----

Connolly, Rear Adm. Thomas F., Assistant Chief, Bureau of Naval

Weapons (for Pacific Missile Range and Astronautics)-------

Gilpatric, Hon. Roswell L., Deputy Secretary of Defense

---------

Hayward, Vice Adm. John T., Deputy Chief of Naval Operations

(Development) --------

Hitch, Hon. Charles J., Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).

Lemnitzer, Gen. Lyman L., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff -----

Morse, Hon. Richard S., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research

and Development -----

Schriever, Lt. Gen. Bernard A., Commander, Air Research and De-

velopment Command, U.S. Air Force-----

Stahr, Hon. Elvis J., Jr., Secretary of the Army-----

Trudeau, Lt. Gen. Arthur G., Chief of Research and Development,

United States Army---

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-----

Insertions in the record-

Ad Hoc Committee on Space, report to the President-elect (the

Wiesner report) ------

Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board Agreement of

DOD-NASA, September 13, 1960.----

Air Force information policy letter for commanders:

No. 17, of December 1, 1960------

No. 3, of February 1, 1961.--------

Communications Satellite Agreement of DOD-NASA, August 18,

1960--------------------
DOD directive, development of space systems, March 6, 1961.

-----

DOD directive, reconnaissance, mapping, and geodetic programs,

March 28, 1961.------------

Excerpts, “The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age"
General White memorandum on Air Force-NASA relations, April 14,

1960-

Launch Vehicle Agreement of DOD-NASA, February 23, 1961..

Supplementary questions and answers:

Deputy Secretary Gilpatric-----

Air Force---

Army --------------

Navy ----------------------------------------------------

Secretary of Defense memorandum, coordination of satellite and space

vehicle operations, September 18, 1959---
Secretary of Defense memorandum, coordination of satellite and

space vehicle operations, June 16, 1960.-----

Appendix:

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) ----

[graphic]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

DEFENSE SPACE INTERESTS

FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCES AND ASTRONAUTICS,

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

« السابقةمتابعة »