tirely within the State of New Mexico, beginning approximately 40 miles north of El Paso, Tex., and extends from that point to approximately 100 miles northward and is approximately 40 miles wide.

Dr. YORK. I have gotten through the paper to the extent of talking about the percentage of Air Force programs being 91 percent. This division of effort is in keeping with the policy I expressed earlier in terms of minimizing duplication and assigning management responsibility to the military department which has primary interest or special competence. For example, maximum advantage is taken of the Army Signal Corps communications know-how in the Advent project; the Transit project assignment to the Navy recognized the unique requirements of its fleet task force elements for precise global navigation; and the responsibility for boosters and launching is assigned to the Air Force because of the experience and capability derived from its ballistic missiles programs.

With the exception of the Defender project I have not talked about the program of the Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Jack P. Ruina, the newly appointed Director of this Agency is here to discuss the ARPA programs with you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor. We will look forward to hearing from the others in a few moments.

I think that you stated you had some other engagements. It might be better then to finish with you before we turn to Dr. Ruina. Dr. YORK. That would be very good.

The CHAIRMAN. From your statement, which is a most comprehensive statement, I judge that your office now feels that a great deal more of space has a military value than you felt last year, when you testified before us?

Dr. YORK. The impression may be conveyed. I feel about the same as I did last year about it, namely, that there are many important military applications of space flight. I thought so last year and I think so this year, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel that most all of space between this Earth and the Moon has a military value?

Dr. YORK. It is possible.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your limit? How far do we go?

Dr. YORK. I really don't know.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Venus probe have a military value?

Dr. YORK. Not in terms of its direct application, namely, going to Venus. And not that we can foresee. But there is always room for uncertainty in any discussion of the future.

The CHAIRMAN. In developing your projects and assigning them, the Air Force has gotten, as you state, more than 90 percent, which really means from your testimony, the Air Force is handling space. Dr. YORK. For the Department of Defense.

The CHAIRMAN. For the Department of Defense, yes. Of course, NASA is handling peacetime developments. Have you any clear delineation between the work of the Defense Department and NASA?

Dr. YORK. All of the things we are doing in the Defense Department fit one of the two criteria which I gave in my paper, and that is, they are something where we can see that the use of space flight is of direct advantage to solving the defense problem. The defense problem is what we are interested in solving. Perhaps it is a little

extreme. You might say that is the only problem we are directly concerned with solving is the problem of providing maximum defense.

When space flight is useful for that, we wish to exploit it. One can see what this exploitation would be. In other cases we are not quite so sure. But because we are not sure, and because we want to have all of our bets covered, so to speak, we support certain other programs where we think there is a good chance that we are going to need them.

The Dyna-Soar program is such a program. By and large, there is a reasonably obvious division between what we do and what NASA does. In some cases it has been necessary to use arbitrary decisions, and these have been made in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. You have those with the proper designation to ARPA and NASA?

Dr. YORK. ARPA has none of them. The Air Force has the bulk of the space programs for the Department of Defense.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you give us, for committee purposes, put it in the record, a list of those programs which you feel are defense programs, and a list of those programs which you feel are properly NASA programs?

Dr. YORK. I am in agreement with the present division that we have. So the list of defense programs is the list which is given, I think-I think it is complete here—

The CHAIRMAN. Nondefense programs.

Dr. YORK. The NASA program

The CHAIRMAN. What?

Dr. YORK. The only space programs that I am aware of in the United States which are nondefense are the NASA programs. The CHAIRMAN. What are they?

Dr. YORK. Do you want me to list NASA's program?

The CHAIRMAN. I would think so, because you accept those as nondefense, and to that extent

Dr. YORK. I understand they are coming to testify on what their program is. But perhaps I can talk some about it.

The CHAIRMAN. I see no difference whether you here, as head of the military development programs, list them, or whether Dr. Dryden lists them.

Dr. YORK. I can proceed to list some, though, I think it more appropriate for them to talk about their own programs. They have, for example, the Mercury program, which is a man-in-space program. They have the passive communications relay satellite programs. They have the weather satellites, the Tiros and related systems. They have a whole host of scientific satellites of all descriptions and for all purposes. Exploration of the environment around the Earth. Exploration of the environment around the Moon. Eventually probes landing on the Moon, and so on.

Their 10-year program has been, I think, very well described in the past, and publicized.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you, what about the big booster program? Is that a military program, or is that a NASA program, the big booster?

Dr. YORK. The very big boosters, which are the Saturn and the Nova boosters, are NASA programs. They are of potential interest to the Department of Defense. And therefore, as I stated in my prepared remarks, and as I have always stated before this committee, we support these programs. If there are any questions in the Congress, in the White House and the Bureau of the Budget with regard to these programs, we always state the same thing, that we believe it is necessary for the United States to have a big booster program of this sort; that there may very well be military applications. There are certainly civilian applications in space explorations. If there were no NASA and there were no NASA program we would be developing these boosters, but we are satisfied in having NASA doing it.

The CHAIRMAN. What about the Nike-Zeus program; is that a military program?

Dr. YORK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you support that program?

Dr. YORK. Yes. We always have. It is one of our largest research and development programs, and it has the highest national priority.

The CHAIRMAN. Last year, as I recall, you were not completely sold on the Zeus program.

Dr. YORK. I was not sold on going into production or deployment of the Zeus system.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you feel about it this year?

Dr. YORK. The same.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not yet sold on production?
Dr. YORK. No.

The CHAIRMAN. You are sold on speeding up the program?

Dr. YORK. It has been on the highest national priority for the last 2 or 3 years. That is the highest national priority we have got. The CHAIRMAN. You don't think it should be pushed any harder than it is?

Dr. YORK. The research and development is being pushed as hard as it can be. I don't believe it is appropriate to go into deployment. The CHAIRMAN. I am not going to go further at this time. There are too many other questions that I and the other members want to ask you. I would like to ask you about the B-70 and the trisonic. transport, because this committee did take an active interest in that last year. That is a part of your program, isn't it?

Dr. YORK. The B-70 is part of the defense program.
The CHAIRMAN. How about the trisonic transport?

Dr. YORK. We in defense do not have a program for a trisonic transport.

The CHAIRMAN. Isn't it of vast military importance?

Dr. YORK. We don't have a program in that field. We have a program in the development of a Mach 3 bomber, or bomber-type aircraft.

The CHAIRMAN. My colleague here suggests that those matters are matters for the Armed Services Committee. But I think the trisonic transport, on the contrary, is, or should be developed as a peacetime program. It has a possibility as a commercial vehicle; isn't that right?

Dr. YORK. I believe so. Not all commercial applications are sponsored by the Department of Defense. Sure, there are a great many things of interest going on in the United States that are outside the Department of Defense.

The CHAIRMAN. What about the chemical and biological warfare program? Can you tell us whether that is moving apace? Dr. YORK. I believe so.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you satisfied with the developments?

Dr. YORK. Reasonably well satisfied. I think it could be going better, but I am reasonably well satisfied.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you amplify a little?

Dr. YORK. Most of the details of that program would be classified, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. I would just like to say that I am very happy to see my distinguished constituent, and I hope he is still a constituent, looking so well. I always enjoy setting here and hearing him. I hope, though, that after your experience last year you will kind of put on the brakes, because we can't

Dr. YORK. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER (continuing). In the interest of national defense.
Dr. YORK. I presupposed that advice.

Mr. MILLER. I would like to refer to a statement on page 9—

Through the medium of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board, the NASA-DOD working relationship has become considerably better coordinated.

I think this is important, and I hope that you will coordinate and work without friction.

I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Pelt.

Mr. VAN PELT. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anfuso.

Mr. ANFUSO. I want to say right here and now, Dr. York, that I heard you pay some wonderful compliments about your Congressman Miller the other day. So the feeling is mutual.

Mr. MILLER. Let's not

Mr. ANFUSO. I am glad to see you looking well, that you have lost a great deal of weight, because this country certainly needs you, and you have done a very fine job. I understand your views, perhaps better now than I ever did before, regarding the Nike-Zeus. You want to see the thing perfected. There are still a lot of flaws that must be overcome, and you are not ready to go into production until these flaws are corrected; is that correct?

Dr. YORK. Yes. I perhaps should remind you that I am not responsible for the question whether we do or don't go into production. That is not an D.D.R. & E. decision, really. It is one on which I make certain recommendations. It is not something I am directly responsible for.

Mr. ANFUSO. In the Venus project-if anything I ask you is classified, please don't answer, and submit it for the record later on-in the Venus project a probe was fired from a satellite, the probe which is now on its way to Venus was fired from a satellite. Do you see any military significance to that?

Dr. YORK. That is a technique which is useful. We in fact plan to use it in some of our own programs for launching, for getting things into very high orbits, for example. This is referred to as launching from a parking orbit. It is used as a means for getting one more degree of control over exactly where you go and at what time. It is a useful technique which we plan on using.

Mr. ANFUSO. That second rocket could be a missile, couldn't it, the one that is fired from a satellite?

Dr. YORK. It could.

Mr. ANFUSO. And it could be directed toward Earth?

Dr. YORK. It could.

Mr. ANFUSO. That would present a serious danger, wouldn't it? Dr. YORK. Any missile directed toward Earth presents a serious danger. To my mind it is much less serious than the danger with Soviet missiles already in Siberia.

Mr. ANFUSO. Is there any research being made in that direction to detect a satellite which is fired from another satellite?

Dr. YORK. We have programs for the detection of satellites. Of course, they can detect in principle satellites fired from satellites. Mr. ANFUSO. I understand we are not getting any signals at all from the second satellite and we have no way of tracing it?

Dr. YORK. I suppose that is because it is at a very large distance by now. Our systems-where is it? It is out around the Moon somewhere. I am not sure of the facts with regard to whether we are getting cooperative signals from it or not. It is pretty far away to be detected, say by a radar system at this time. It would be unlikely to go clear to the Moon and then fire a missile back. You woudn't normally have systems that would be at that great a distance. Mr. ANFUSO. Do we have any system now capable of tracking that from the moment it is fired?

Dr. YORK. All of the details, especially those relating to how soon we pick up Soviet satellites, are classified. But we do have systems for tracking the satellites, yes.

Mr. ANFUSO. Dr. York, some day the Nike-Zeus will probably be perfected. That will take several years. When it is perfected can it be strategically located in different parts of the United States so that it can hit a missile emanating from any part of Red China, the U.S.S.R., or behind the Iron Curtain?

Dr. YORK. In principle; yes.
Mr. ANFUSO. In principle-
Dr. YORK. In principle; yes.

Mr. ANFUSO. În principle, that is

Dr. YORK. In principle, the Zeus doesn't depend on which direction the missile comes from. On the other hand, warning is very helpful and

Mr. ANFUSO. The type of the warning, then, of course, will become very essential?

Dr. YORK. A Zeus should be able to work with minimal warning. The objective is a virtually automatic system, so that the amount of warning to Zeus is not necessarily of great importance.

Mr. ANFUSO. At most now we have a 15-minute warning. You think that when the Nike-Zeus is perfected, that will be sufficient? Dr. YORK. In principle.