For example, the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board (AACB) recently reviewed DOD and NASA requirements for vacuum facilities. Initially, it appeared that the DOD environmental test chamber proposed for construtcion at the Arnold Engineering Development Center and the NASA environmental test chamber proposed for construction at the Goddard Space Flight Center were somewhat similar in nature. A detailed review was conducted to determine whether or not one facility could fulfill the requirements of both agencies. The review indicated that the projected workloads by each of the agencies are more than sufficient to keep the respective facilities in full operation and that the differences in the types of facilities proposed are warranted by virtue of the unique testing needs of each agency.

Unfortunately, in the relatively short span of time in which the AACB has been in operation, it has been impossible to review all areas of similarity or potential overlap among the many DOD-NASA space programs. Great strides have been made, but this is not to imply that all details of all programs have been or will be examined.

The vivarium in question has not been reviewed by the AACB, in detail, as a separate entity. However, the proposed NASA Life Science Research Facility of which the vivarium is a part was reviewed by the Coordinating Committee for the Life Sciences of the AACB. It was noted that the proposed vivarium is not expansive enough to accommodate chimpanzees although it could handle small primates. It is understood that NASA intends to continue to use existing DOD or National Institutes of Health chimpanzee facilities to fulfill NASA requirements in this area.

With regard to the proposed Life Science Research Facility itself, the Department of Defense view is that, considering the charter which has been given to NASA and the responsibilities associated therewith, that such a research facility is an integral part of the NASA capability to fulfill their responsibilities.

The CHAIRMAN. At this time may I suggest this: We have Dr. Ruina here. Dr. Ruina is Director of ARPA. He has a short prepared statement. Why not hear from him at this point and then we can proceed in the time we have left to ask questions of all three of these witnesses that we are privileged to have this morning.

If there is no objection, Dr. Ruina, Director of the ARPA, you have a prepared statement. The committee would like to hear it. (The biography of Dr. Ruina is as follows:)

BIOGRAPHY OF DR. JACK P. RUINA, DIRECTOR
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY

Dr. Jack P. Ruina was nominated as Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency on January 16, 1961. Prior to this assignment, Dr. Ruina served as Assistant Director of Defense Research and Engineering for Air Defense where he was responsible for the technical evaluation and integration of defensive weapons systems and for planning and supervising research and development of new systems including anti-aircraft, anti-missile missiles and interceptor aircraft. Dr. Ruina has also served as Deputy for Research to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Research and Development).

Dr. Ruina was born in Poland in 1923, and came to the United States in 1927. He graduated from the College of the City of New York in 1944, and subsequently received masters and doctoral degrees in electrical engineering from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. He taught at Brown University from 1950 to 1954, and is now on leave from the University of Illinois where he is professor of electrical engineering and research professor at the Coordinated Science Laboratory.

Dr. Ruina's technical activities have been concentrated in the fields of noise and communication theory, radar systems design, backscatter, and antennas and propagation. Prior to his Pentagon assignments, Dr. Ruina served on various technical panels and committees for the Department of Defense.

He is married to the former Edith Elster of Buffalo, N.Y. They have two children and live in Alexandria, Va.

STATEMENT OF DR. JACK P. RUINA, DIRECTOR, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Dr. RUINA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to outline for you briefly the role of ARPA and its presently assigned research programs.

ARPA functions as an integral part of the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, and I report directly to the Director, Dr. York. As you know, ARPA is a line agency directing projects which the Secretary of Defense and the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, deem to merit centralized management in the Department of Defense. As a rule, projects assigned to ARPA are either of interest to more than one of the military departments or lie outside the specific missions or interest of all of them.

In fiscal year 1961, the ARPA budget totaled about $250 million. The major ARPA projects are in ballistic missile defense, nuclear test detection, advanced propellant chemistry and materials research. ARPA no longer is concerned with major space programs. My predecessor, General Betts, informed the committee last year that preparations were underway to transfer the projects in navigation satellites, communications satellites, and satellite tracking to the military departments. These transfers have been successfully completed.

Ballistic missile defense is one of the most important and challenging problems facing us today. About half of the ARPA program is devoted to research in this area. The military departments, of course, handle the development of clearly defined defense systems, e.g., NikeZeus and Midas.

It is extremely important to sustain a strong, competent, and enthusiastic effort in ballistic missile defense research. We must look upon the entire effort as somewhat similar to basic research; that is, as a long-range investment to obtain important knowledge. Our program reflects not only the desire to solve adequately the ballistic missile defense problem, about which there is some pessimism, but also the importance of learning as much as possible about the many scientific and technical areas pertinent to ballistic missile defense.

Basically, Project Defender can be subdivided into three major categories; ballistic missile phenomenology, advanced techniques, and systems concepts. Research in phenomenology includes study of the environment through which a ballistic missile will pass during the various phases of its trajectory and investigation of the behavior of a missile in that environment. Work in advanced techniques is concerned with the development of instruments and techniques, for example, radars and other sensory devices, needed to collect experimental data and to prepare the way for the design and development of similar instruments and techniques which may be required ultimately in missile defense systems.

In the study of systems concepts, we seek to determine the intrinsic merit of any proposed concept. In addition, conceptual studies provide an invaluable framework or structure for our research as a whole. In the construction and critique of systems concepts, we analyze all currently available information in the field, and at the same time, gaps in knowledge can be identified with greater precision. It is likewise

significant that the knowledge gained in this exercise is of great benefit to those engaged in strategic weapons development.

Project Vela is the national program of research and development in nuclear test detection. It is designed to provide data enabling the design of an effective system for the detection of nuclear explosions underground and at high altitude. Acquisition of this basic scientific and technical information is fundamental to increasing our capability for detecting nuclear detonations and also to support the international discussions concerning nuclear test detection. Research in Vela is proceeding along several fronts. An important program in basic seismic research has been initiated, and a worldwide network of standardized seismic instruments is being established so that seismologists can measure earthquakes on identical sets of instruments and freely exchange comparable data.

In the area of systems development, a prototype model of the detection station recommended by the Geneva Conference of Experts has been built near Lawton, Okla., and is now operating. Others are planned this year. A program of detonations is planned to provide experimental data concerning detection and identification, but no detonations have occurred to date in this program.

Study of the use of ground-based and space-based instruments for the detection of nuclear explosions in space is continuing.

In materials research, ARPA is concentrating on the development of interdisciplinary laboratories for basic research in materials. Three of these laboratories were established in 1960 and others are expected to follow this year. In addition, $3 million has been provided for equipment grants ot some 56 universities for basic materials research. The ARPA program in advanced propellant chemistry research is progressing with work in fuel synthesis, oxidizers, thermodynamics, combustion, high temperatures, and the like.

In addition to these primary project areas, ARPA also conducts advanced research in toxicology, energy conversion, reliability, and the technical aspects of arms control.

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be glad to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor, for your statement. As I understand it, then, ARPA has discharged itself of these space programs and most of them are lodged now in the Air Force, that is, 91 percent of them.

Dr. RUINA. Not 91 percent of those discharged by ARPA.

The CHAIRMAN. Most of the ones of which ARPA has discharged itself are in the Air Force.

Dr. RUINA. Advent, the communications satellite went to the Army and the Transit program went to the Navy. The others went to the Air Force.

The CHAIRMAN. What do they consist of?

Mr. FULTON. Discoverer, Midas, Samos.

Dr. YORK. All these transfers happened before

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps you better put a seat down there for Mr. Fulton to help you out. Are those all the programs now that ARPA has given to the Air Force?

Dr. RUINA. Yes, there is one more, the Saint program.

The CHAIRMAN. The Saint?

Dr. RUINA. S-a-i-n-t (Satellite intercept).

Mr. FULTON. Systems management went, too, integration systems. The CHAIRMAN. You are concerning yourself now largely with the basic missile defense, and are you making substantial progress in that direction?

Dr. RUINA. Well, we are making progress in the direction. It is hard to measure what "substantial" is. We have nothing to measure it against.

The CHAIRMAN. You realize the Nation now is naked as far as defense against ballistic missiles is concerned?

Dr. RUINA. We realize that.

The CHAIRMAN. We have nothing to rely on. Can you give us as a committee, any idea of hope that we may have within the early future for some defense against ballistic missiles?

Dr. RUINA. In the sense of having a defense of all the United States, in area coverage of the United States against ballistic missiles, I would say the prognosis is rather poor for an early defense capability.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you set any time or any period during which we could hope for some defense, and what is the most promising defense at this time?

Dr. RUINA. If we had a very promising defense, I would say we would be implementing it. We don't have any system under development except Nike-Zeus. There is nothing else both conceptually promising and for which present technology permits implementation. The possible developments that might give us a greater capability in defense than we now have can't be anticipated.

We are working in those areas where we think there is possible payoff, but we cannot anticipate a date for invention and discovery. The CHAIRMAN. The only defense is our defense deterrent? Dr. RUINA. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any features of the ARPA program that this committee has not been advised of in the past that you would like to add to your statement, because your statement is short.

Dr. RUINA. The statement is short. I think I have covered every major program in ARPA. I didn't describe some of those which are rather minor, but as I mentioned, about 50 percent of the ARPA program is Defender. The other programs that are major are Vela, the materials program, and the solid-propellant chemistry program. Toxicology and reliability are much smaller programs in size.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not impressed with the use of solid propellants as I understand it; is that correct?

Dr. RUINA. No, I am not prepared to say that.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you consider solid propellants as of this hour superior for use to liquid propellants?

Dr. RUINA. I think Dr. York covered that fairly well. There is

no reason

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with him?

Dr. RUINA. I don't disagree with him. I don't think I know enough about that subject

The CHAIRMAN. Well, members of the committee, are there questions?

Mr. MILLER. I am very much concerned, as I think all people are, with some type antimissile defense. As I get it, the only thing you say we have positively today is Nike-Zeus and you are not too certain that it has been worked to the place where it is effective.

Dr. RUINA. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. There is nothing else.

Dr. RUINA. There is nothing else that far along. There is nothing else that we are sure can be implemented to the degree that NikeZeus can that is worthy of the investment that we have in NikeZeus.

Mr. MILLER. You don't feel Nike-Zeus should be abandoned?
Dr. RUINA. No.

Mr. MILLER. Do you think if Nike-Zeus originated in another department than in which is originated, in the Department of Defense, the prejudices that heretofore have been built up against it would be here, we would be further along than we are now?

Dr. RUINA. The decisions on the Nike-Zeus are based purely on technical aspects of Nike-Zeus and cost aspects of Nike-Zeus-I am not aware of where the origin of the Nike-Zeus had anything to do with its present status.

Mr. MILLER. I would like to feel as confident as you do.

Dr. RUINA. Perhaps you have a different perspective than I have. Mr. MILLER. I am not a scientist, and I am not as clever as some of my friends here. Shakespeare spoke of that. I am not requesting to pursue it further. Suffice to say in ARPA now you are working toward trying to develop Nike-Zeus

Dr. RUINA. No, Nike-Zeus is an Army program.

Mr. MILLER. Yes. That is right. ARPA is accepting it as the only thing. You are accepting it, as a scientist, as the most advanced program that we have.

Dr. RUINA. It is the only thing that we now have that is worthy of full-scale implentation for testing.

Mr. MILLER. I am very happy to hear that. I hope we go forward. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. The question with ARPA is not whether to go ahead on research and development; I think we all agree on that. It is a question when to make the cutoff point to put it into practical operation.

I believe when ARPA began, it was estimated it would cost $15 billion for some sort of a program. I won't go into the details. But since you have put a billion and a half dollars into research and development, the cost has come down to somewhere near $712 billion last year. Should we stop research and development at this stage in the estimation-I guess I better ask this of Dr. York-to DOD and put it into practical application, in part, or shall we start now manufacturing components which may take a 2- or 3-year leadtime before we get the system operational?

Is that the timing now, and what is your comment? That has been the Eisenhower administration and your position presently-go ahead with R. & D. and let this other hardware and practical application wait.

Do you say that?