The unique feature of operating at a latitude in the vicinity of the maximum orbital inclination in contrast to any other latitude is that the satellite passes over a localized area for three or more successive passes. The vehicle's utility as a military vehicle is greatly expanded.

From a reconnaissance standpoint, it covers this specific area much more thoroughly than any other area. Similarly, recovery of the vehicle is much less difficult at the phantom point because three or four orbits are available during which to initiate recovery. For example, retrorockets can be fired at a predetermined time during a particular orbit by a signal injected during the pass immediately preceding. Since there is very little motion of the orbital plane in relation to the phantom point, the primary error of the recovery impact will be caused by time programing of the reentry phase and by physical uncertainties.

Looking at the other side of the fence, satellites launched by an enemy with hostile intent in the localized area can best be inspected and neutralized near the phantom point. The inspection and neutralization problem is effectively reduced to a two dimensional problem.

I think it is clear that a fundamental requirement for developing the capability for limited war in the space age is that space operations be taken to sea. This means a requirement for developing all necessary data links for mobile bases; it means that launch and recovery operations must be capable of being performed from mobile platforms; it means that all aspects of military space operations must be capable of being performed over ocean area. Recognition of this fact and development of this capability will provide the United States with tremendous advantages in any limited war situations which may arise in the future.

Question 8. If NASA is developing Tiros, and Nimbus, why should the Navy have an interest in other weather satellite systems?

In

Answer. We, of course, have been quite interested in the provision of up-tothe-minute weather information to our fleet located throughout the world. the Tiros project conducted by NASA, we have contributed meteorologists to assist in interpretation of data at receiving sites, assistance in location and transmission of the data from the satellites, and photogrammetric analyses of pictures reecived from the weather satellites. Although greatly encouraged by the accomplishments of the Tiros satellite, we do not feel that it, nor its proposed successors, should be considered as operational systems which can be called upon to provide weather information at any place in the world. We wish to capitalize on the basic research and development performed by NASA to apply their techniques to a tactical application of meteorological satellites in support of Navy requirements. We have no desire to duplicate work that can be accomplished on someone else's money.

During World War II and Korea, poor information regarding weather conditions over enemy territory and fleet operating areas resulted in crippling damage to or loss of components of the fleet amounting to millions of dollars, disruption of plans, degradation of combat readiness, and reduction of combat effectiveness. Similar situations would be encountered in the future unless means are stablished to provide better weather information. This information is difficult to ascertain because of its unavailability or inadequacy over the vast océan areas.

The NASA meteorological satellite program has a stimulated technology such that it is now possible to build a simple, inexpensive satellite to provide meteorological data direct to fleet units which is obtainable in no other way. The Navy proposes to develop a tactical weather satellite-in essence a miniaturized Tiros. It would utilize many of the components of Tiros which have proved successful. These components include the videcon camera system, magnetic torque stabilization, power supply, telemetry, command and communication systems. Adaptation of NASA research will reduce development time and funding to a minimum such that the resulting benefits to operating fleet forces would be commensurate with cost.

Question 9. What is the reaction of other military services to Navy proposals for a joint space organization and to Navy offers to participate in space programs?

Answer. Although the Army had concurred in such proposals, the Air Force did not feel that such were necessary. There has been close coordination with NASA in such programs as Tiros, and the Navy is participating in Project Advent which is under Army management. We are providing, through the space

66947-61-10

surveillance system, data on satellites in orbit to the North American Air Defense Command and for use by the scientific community. The three military departments are coordinating a project for launching calibration payloads which are intended to improve determination of the size and shape of the Earth, for the use of all military and scientific agencies. Transit has been a very successful experiment which will lead to the development of a worldwide all-weather navigation system. We have made excellent use of the additional thrust available during launchings of our Transit satellites to carry additional pickaback experiments in connection with geodesy, very low frequency communications through the ionosphere, scientific investigations of solar radiation, and an experiment conducted jointly with the Canadian scientific community to determine background galactic noise in radio transmissions. Transit transmitters have also been carried on the Discoverer satellites and have contributed greatly to the early determination of precise orbits for the Discoverer satellites. We are pleased with that harmony which exists among the three services in connection with joint space efforts.

QUESTIONS FOR ADMIRAL CONNOLLY

Question 1. Admiral Connolly, you have mentioned Navy experience with nuclear reactors in ships. I understand these are very heavy devices. How might this Navy experience be applied to space where excess weight must be avoided?

Answer. The Navy did not mean to imply that an existing submarine or ship's reactor could be suitably altered to function as the heat source in a nuclear rocket. This would not be practical.

However in its development of submarine reactors, the Navy has assembled an outstanding cadre of military and civilian personnel that is well versed in the many facets of nuclear engineering that are required to initiate and prosecute a reactor development program. This is a functioning organization with a demonstrated background of many successful accomplishments to their credit. It is this kind of experience and capability that the Navy can draw on for the development of nuclear rocket reactors for space propulsion.

Question 2. Your list of Navy requirements involving space techniques is extensive. Can you illustrate which of these needs is not going to be met by planned developments in the Air Force or NASA? Does not the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board concern itself with these questions?

Answer. We like to believe that the fact that the Air Force or NASA advocated a development plan does not disallow consideration of a Navy proposal. There are two major reviewing groups which have broad powers to weigh service proposals and program progress. Within the Department of Defense, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, currently Dr. York, has broad review and program direction powers. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense. Within the past few months a joint service-NASA coordinating group has come into being. This group, the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordination Board coordinates the national space R. & D. efforts, reviews programs and provides an interservice source of current information.

In answer to the questions which of the Navy needs is not or will not be met by planned AF or NASA developments, the Navy astronautics program has evolved because of tactical and operational requirements which can best be met using the medium of space, and because neither the AF, Army nor NASA development programs fulfill our needs.

Question 3. Project Discoverer is now assigned to the Air Force. What role has the Navy played in the development other than standby sea pickup of returning capsules?

Answer. The Navy-supplied Transit oscillators are included in the Discoverer payloads and Transit tracking stations located around the world cooperate with the Air Force by providing orbit information and tracking the Discoverer payloads. This highly accurate tracking information is very useful in reducing reentry package dispersion and greatly increases the probability of recovery. The Navy is also host at the Pacific Missile Range and provides range support, tracking and housekeeping services to the Discoverer project.

Question 4. I understand that the Spasur fence for detection of dark satellites will have its gap plugged this year. Do I not recall that earlier the Navy wanted a second such fence running from Alaska to the West Indies to allow more complete coverage and orbit determination on á single pass? What happened to these plans?

Answer. In answer to first sentence-A centrally located transmitter will become fully operational between July 1, 1961, and January 1, 1962. This will close the gap between eastern and western complexes in Continental United States.

Second sentence-Plans were made earlier for a second "fence" covering a great circle route between Miami, Fla., and Nome, Alaska. Since that time plans have changed in favor of decreasing detection time for Soviet-launched satellites ***

Question 5. Is there not another feature of the Sea Scout plan that involves the use of A-1 type boosters surplus from the fleet when the A-2 types replace the A-1's for Polaris missile purposes?

Answer. When the A-2 motors have been qualified, Polaris A-1's in service will be recalled and backfitted with the 1,500-mile Polaris A-2 motors. It is expected that in this manner some 50 A-1 motors will become surplus to the Polaris FBM program. These motors are planned for use with the Sea Scout program. In like manner it is expected that an undertermined number of Polaris A-2 motors will become available as the 2,500-mile A-3 Polaris becomes operational. The use of motors surplus to the Polaris program represents a considerable saving to the Navy astronautics program.

Question 6. You have not mentioned much about air-launched satellites. Has the Navy lost interest in this approach?

Answer. The Navy is very much interested in the air launching of tactical satellites. We are conducting a study development program to demonstrate feasibility and solve the problems peculiar to air-launched satellites using our Naval Ordnance Test Station at China Lake, Calif.

To gage the Navy interest in the air launching of small tactical satellites, consider the number of aircraft carriers and airplanes in the fleet which could be used with only minor modifications as essentially free-launch platforms. During the past year two air-launched test vehicles have been flown which yielded valuable information and two more vehicles are now nearing completion.

GLOSSARY OF NAVY ASTRONAUTICS TERMS

Satellite launch ship (AGSL).—A ship which would provide for test and checkout of launch vehicle, launch, command and control during preorbital phase for launch of satellites and probes. This type of ship would launch the Sea Scout, Polaris, or Scout and permit growth of vehicle in size or complexity. Floating booster.-A rocket in launch position which derives support from direct flotation without requiring supporting structure such as a gantry, drydock, crane, or ship.

Read-out control ship.-A ship that obtains information from a satellite or performs actual control of the satellite trajectory.

Sea Scout.-A mobile space booster for tactical space operations achieved by combination of Polaris engines and autopilot with upper stages and guidance of Scout.

Space mobility.-Mobility as applied to space operations encompasses the separate areas of launch, control into orbit, tracking, monitoring, and recovery of capsules or boosters. All of these functions may be performed from mobile sites or from floating bases.

Launch mobility.—Launch mobility for space operations is the freedom to select without restriction the geographical location, the azimuth, and the time for space vehicle launch. These factors, plus the capability of the launch vehicle, determine the nature and scope of space operations.

Early Spring.-A test program associated with antisatellite operations. Renae. A tactical weather satellite program involving Tiros type sensors which which read out weather photographs directly to ships at sea.

Albatross.-A sea observation satellite.

AGM.-A missile range instrumentation ship.

CMR.-A system of communications by moon relay.

PMR.-The Pacific Missile Range.

Boost phase intercept.-An antimissile concept involving interception during the launch phase.

Privacy for space operations.-The ability to launch space vehicles without public knowledge. Such privacy can be achieved by launching in remote land areas or at sea.

Overflight problem.-The complications which are associated with launch of space vehicles by use of injection paths which cross inhabited territory on which impact of vehicle would result if a malfunction occurs. Solutions to this problem may be found through mobile launch or by dog-leg injection into orbit.

ARD:-An auxiliary floating drydock with launch capability to handle boosters up to 1.5 million pounds of thrust.

AFBD.-An auxiliary floating drydock with launch capability to handle boosters greater than 1.5 million pounds of thrust.

LOFTI-A very low frequency (VLF) transionospheric communications experiment. The first phase was carried pick-a-back on Transit III-A.

GREB.-A satellite experiment which measures solar radiation effects above the ionosphere. The first phase was launched pick-a-back on Transit III-A.

ANNA.-A joint geodetic satellite experiment utilizing a Secor radio beacon, Transit oscillator and a flashing light.

Phantom launch point or mirror launch point.-A small geographic area located at a latitude slightly less than the orbital inclination of a satellite and positioned 180° around the orbit from the limited area over which the satellite is performing military functions.

Orbital intercept.-The process by which one space vehicle passes within sufficiently close proximity of another to perform some required function such as data exchange or inspection.

Coorbital rendezvous.—A process in which the inspection vehicle maneuvers into orbital plane of the object satellite, then adjusts orbital parameters until rendezvous is achieved.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee won't meet tomorrow. But we will meet Wednesday. If there is no objection, then, we will recess to Wednesday morning, at 10 a.m.

(Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the committee recessed to meet again Wednesday, February 22, 1961, at 10 a.m.)

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR DEFENSE

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE 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, members of the committee, we have a meeting at 10:30 of the House Administration Committee. For that reason, the chairman will have to leave and go over there to see about our funds for investigations. I want the witnesses to know that that is the reason that I will have to be gone for a little while, until they pass judgment on our request for funds for investigations.

This is the final meeting of the current series of hearings on scientific and astronautical research in the Department of Defense. We have heard from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We have heard from the Office of Secretary of the Army and the Navy. Later hearings closely related to this series will cover other agencies and industry. But this morning we are to explore a key part of our defense effort, the program of the Air Force.

This promises to be most interesting. Our principal witnesses today are Hon. Joseph V. Charyk, Under Secretary of Air Force, accompanied by Lt. Gen. R. C. Wilson, Deputy Chief of Staff, Development; and Lt. Gen. B. A. Schriever, commander of the Air Research and Development Command.

We might say that we have been privileged to have these outstanding witnesses before the committee before, but their appearance brings zest and interest in the Air Force program for research and development, and especially space.

I suggest that we proceed with having Dr. Charyk's statement first. Following that we will have General Schriever's comment on a film the Air Force has. Then all three witnesses and their supporting staff will be available to answer questions.

Mr. Secretary, we are glad to have you all here again today. You have a prepared statement. I am sure the committee will fill up before you really get started on your statement, but it is our policy to proceed on time. I think in the long run we save time. If you will proceed with your statement, sir, the committee will be glad to hear from you. (The biography of Dr. Charyk is as follows:)

145