The CHAIRMAN. Outside of the Sea Scout programs, all other programs have been approved by the Defense Department to the Navy? Secretary WAKELIN. I would say essentially the major part-I would say "Yes" to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. If not, I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and you two admirals, for a very fine presentation to the committee. You are going to give information. We hope it will be good returns.

Secretary WAKELIN. We hope we will have affirmative answers. The CHAIRMAN. I would ask one more thing. You have used a lot of terms which I know are new to some of the newer members of the committee. We have a good many new members this year. Not through attrition, Mr. Secretary, but because of the normal turnover. If the Navy could give us, then, a glossary, in effect, of these symbols, and what they stand for, so that the new members could study them. I understand some of the new members want to do a little night work; would you fix it up so they wouldn't be classified? We would appreciate it.

Secretary WAKELIN. Particularly in the space part of the program. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Any other part that you want to put in. I would emphasize the space program, because that is new, generally speaking.

(The further questions with answers and glossary referred to are as follows:)

QUESTIONS FOR DR. WAKELIN

Question 1. Mr. Secretary, you have discussed the triservice program for VTOL aircraft, the first such joint development. Do you believe the same joint effort could be made to give this country a trisonic transport?

Answer. The development of a supersonic transport will be a very expensive project. Even with the cost shared by the services, each individual service's share would be a considerable amount of money. The Navy would not want to undertake such a venture at this time. At the present there are many aviation items of higher priority to the Navy (Missileer, new carrier on-boarddelivery transport, new ASW patrol seaplane) that are not funded in our R.D.T. & E. budget.

Question 2. You have spoken of materials research in all three services. The other day Dr. Ruina discussed materials research supported by ARPA. Are you discussing the same program in your statement, or are you identifying an additional effort?

Answer. No. A large part of materials research is applied to specific Navy needs such as the high temperature materials program. Another aspect of the program is backup on fundamental materials research.

Question 3. You mentioned an over-the-horizon radar called Madre. Does this have any connection with the Navy's Project Tepee? How is Tepee coming along?

Answer. Projects Tepee and Madre are both research projects in the over-thehorizon radar field. In many ways they are quite similar. Both have a potential to detect rockets at great ranges. Both projects are in the development stage. The heart of the Madre radar is its magnetic drum. The drum provides the sensitivity needed to make over-the-horizon detection feasible. radar depends on nuclear bomb or missile induced changes in backscatter from the ionosphere for its signal detection.

The Tepee

Tepee development is continuing and much is being learned upon which to base an eventual low-cost surveillance system design.

Question 4. You have mentioned the National Oceanographic Data Center. For the benefit of the committee, describe its location and scope.

Answer. As background to describe how the National Oceanographic Data Center came into existence a brief history of the Center is given.

In May 1960 the Interagency Committee on Oceanography recommended to the Federal Council for Science and Technology that a National Oceanographic Data Center be established to meet the scientific need for a central national repository for oceanographic data. The Center would make the data available to everyone desiring to use it. The Committee further recommended that the Center be sponsored, financed, and its policies determined jointly by the Navy, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Bureau of Commerical Fisheries, the National Science Foundation, and the Atomic Energy Commission. The recommendations were unanimously approved by the Federal Council on June 28, 1960. On July 8, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development and Chairman of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, I requested the Chief of Naval Operations and the hydrographer to undertake this new responsibility. The National Oceanographic Data Center was officially established on November 1, 1960, and was dedicated on January 16, 1961. It is located on the third floor of Building 160 at the U.S. Naval Weapons Plant here in Washington, D.C.

The center has a collection of approximately 2 million machine punchcards for about 100,000 oceanographic stations, about 3 million current observations, about 600,000 bathythermograms, and several millions of wave and sea surface temperature observations in various forms. Considerable more data in various stages of processing are available.

In addition to data storage facilities of various types, the data center has reproduction facilities so that copies of the data can be made available to requesting agencies or scientists. These reproduction facilities included photographic and machine card reproduction equipment. Standard types of automatic processing equipment as well as a high-speed computer are used for processing work. Library study rooms are available for study and inspection of the data.

The scope of the center is delineated in its charter which was entered into on December 23, 1960 and, in behalf of the sponsoring agencies, signed by the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Acting Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. The following excerpts from its charter describe the scope of the center:

"The National Oceanographic Data Center shall

"Receive, compile, process, and preserve appropriate oceanographic data submitted to it.

"Be responsible for acquiring by exchange, gift, or purchase oceanographic data of scientific value from domestic or foreign sources.

"Establish procedures for insuring that the accuracy and general quality of the data incorporated into the center's repository meet the criteria established by the Advisory Board and shall undertake analytical studies necessary for this purpose.

"Prepare data summaries and tabulations showing annual and season oceanographic conditions.

*

"Prepare and make available to requestors, indexes of its holdings * * perform or make arrangements for the performance of appropriation data processing services at cost.

"Promote and encourage the routine collection of time series and oceanwide survey data.

"Exchange or sell to the general public, in accordance with existing law, summaries and tabulations prepared by the center."

The center further states that the center operations shall be the responsibility of the Department of the Navy to be funded by reimbursements from the participating agencies. Management and support of the data center is to be furnished through the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office. In order to afford the sponsoring agencies an effective means of formulating, expressing, and transmitting joint policy and technical direction to the data center, an Advisory Board was created, consisting initially of one member from each of the following Government agencies: U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, National Science Foundation, Atomic Energy Commission, Weather Bureau, Office of Naval Research.

In addition, the National Academy of Sciences has been invited to name two nonvoting members.

Although the National Oceanographic Data Center has been in operation for only a short time the sponsoring agencies are well pleased with the facilities

and are confident that the center meets this country's long felt need for a national repository for oceanographic data.

Question 5. You have indicated that basic research is only 5.5 percent of the Navy R. & D. program. Is this adequate to the needs, in light of the fine examples of payoff which you have cited?

Answer. A recent report by the A. D. Little Co., shows that our leading industrial companies have been increasing their basic research to a point where it now represents some 20 percent of their R. & D. budget while the DOD has maintained its basic research level at slightly over 5 percent of its R.D.T. and E. budget. Basic research should be increased in the Navy but with rising costs and level funding this becomes quite difficult.

Question 6. Has the Department of Defense approved the space programs of the Navy? Are you satisfied with the funding which the Navy has had for this purpose, and is expected to receive in this new budget?

Answer. Transit and Spasur were originally sponsored by ARPA, and their continuation was approved by the DOD. Participation in Advent and specialized calibration payload launchings has been approved for fiscal year 1962. Development of a tactical weather satellite, and adaptation of the Polaris as a satellite launching vehicle received specific written disapproval by Dr. York and the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

I don't think anyone is ever satisfied with the funding level which is approved if he is authorized less money than requested. There just isn't enough money to go around to satisfy everybody's needs. The amount approved in our fiscal year 1962 budget does not allow for any expansion of the current approved programs in space and astronautics. It permits no growth. It does prevent space and astronautics research from dying, however.

Transit, Advent, and the calibrated payloads will be funded satisfactorily. Sea Scout will be funded satisfactorily provided that DOD approval is received. As examples of underfunding, the tactical weather satellite system, and development of a satellite launch ship and drydocks sections for launch purposes will not be feasible in the current budget even though these developments are sorely needed by the Navy.

Question 7. Are you fully satisfied with the present coordination between the services and NASA with regard to the space program?

Answer. I have testified previously that a number of organizational solutions could be found which would provide the necessary mechanism for collective coordination between the NASA and the Department of Defense. Several have been instituted: the Civilian-Military Liaison Committee, for example, was enacted by law with the provision that the National Aeronautics and Space Council should provide the overall policy direction to give the necessary guidance to major agencies involved in the area of astronautics. More recently the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board with subordinate panels was conceived and implemented to insure improved coordination at the technical levels of the two organizations. The AACB has been doing an excellent job in this respect; but the one ingredient that is missing in all the interchange of ideas is that of policy direction to guide the efforts of the AACB. An active NASC will solve this deficiency. In essence, as I have implied before, it is the desire and intent that will make the organization work.

Question. 7. (b) Have all agencies been responsive to each others needs? Answer. I believe that the NASA and the individual services which comprise the Department of Defense have gone out of their ways to be responsive to each others needs. There are areas, of course, in which difference of opinion or differences in motivation exists. NASA is not obligated to satisfy all military requirements for research, but should be responsive to and recognize needs of the individual services. Aeronautics research is being deemphasized in NASA. Question. 7. (c) What has happened to the Navy's earlier ideas for a joint military space organization?

Answer. I believe that the Navy's earlier suggestions for a joint military space organization is still sound. As a matter of fact, I think this concept is gaining increased support as time progresses. However, the increased emphasis being put on the National Aeronautics and Space Council by the new administration appears to have considerable promise for bringing about effective joint action. The Navy is quite willing and enthusiastic about going along with this action instead of creating a joint military space organization at this time.

QUESTIONS FOR ADMIRAL HAYWARD

Question 1. Admiral Hayward, you might mention for the benefit of the committee something about the location and development of the Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Center.

Question 2. Could you amplify a little on some of your remarks about fuel cells, their importance, and how they work. What kind of fuels would they convert to electricity?

Answer. A fuel cell is often referred to as a continuous feed battery. Fuel cells produce electrical power directly from the energy of a chemical reaction. In their present form, oxygen is fed continuously to one electrode; an oxidizable fuel is fed continuously to the other electrode. A catalyst is used on each electrode to promote the necessary chemical reaction. The conversion of chemical to electrical energy is achieved at efficiencies of as high as 80 percent, although 50 percent is more nearly the full power efficiency of today's cells—this is approximately the efficiency of the very best power generation plants. And whereas most plants lose efficiency when operating at less than rated power, the fuel cell increases in efficiency at lower power.

Their importance to the Navy lies in the field of submarine propulsion. There are no moving parts in the cell itself, hence it is entirely quiet. (The only moving parts are in auxiliary equipment-largely pumps.) The fuel cell will make possible the conversion of our diesel submarines to make them quiet and to increase very drastically their submerged endurance. Cost-both initial investment and fuel cost-will be substantially less than the cost of nuclear power. It will be possible to build smaller-hence cheaper-submarines with fuel cell power than with nuclear power. Of course, such submarines will not have the unlimited cruising radius of a nuclear-powered submarine, but a fuel cellpowered submarine can have all the cruising radius that its crew can use.

The fuel that we expect to use in the beginning is hydrogen. We do not need to store the hydrogen itself in the submarine-rather we will use a fuel containing hydrogen, such as methyl alcohol. Hydrogen will be extracted continuously, as required, by a catalytic process. The oxygen will be carried in liquid form. Oxygen tank insulation can now be made so efficient that the oxygen boiloff will be less than the crew needs to breathe. When snorkeling, the submarine will use air instead of oxygen to keep the cell going. Many firms are at work on cells that will take inexpensive hydrocarbon fuels and burn them directly. A practical, long-life hydrocarbon fuel cell is probably only a few years away.

Question 3. This committee has held hearings on both hydrofoils and ground effects machines. Can you describe any of the specific operational devices you plan for the Navy in these areas?

Answer. The Navy now has under construction a hydrofoil patrol craft, PC(H). Boeing Airplane Co. has the contract and the ship is being built in Seattle. This ship is a 110-ton hydrofoil designed for coastal patrol work. It will be capable of 45 knots, and will carry ASW weapon systems. Delivery date for this ship is October 1962.

The Navy has recently accelerated the hydrofoil program and has plans in being for two additional ships. A 280-ton research and experimental ship is being designed. This ship will be used to explore the many problems associated with large hydrofoils in an open ocean environment. The ship will be initially configured for 55 knots, but will be provided with a powerplant capable of about 80 knots with a reconfigured foil system at a later date. Although this ship is strictly a research vehicle, with an ultimate ASW mission in mind, it will be provided with an interim weapon system similar to that on PC(H). The final ASW weapon system has not been designed. It is anticipated that this ship, which is designated AG (EH), will be a forerunner of a prototype operational ASW hydrofoil vehicle.

In addition to AG (EH), the Navy is also designing a small, 15-ton, research hydrofoil craft for the purpose of exploring the very high speed region (60 to 90 knots).

Question 4. I would like to have you make more explicit the advantages of sea launch of space vehicles, and whether this would be cumbersome, difficult, or expensive. How would it compare with launching from Canaveral and Vandenberg and then putting a dogleg into the orbit for special purposes?

Answer. I'd like first to give a definition of what I consider to be launch mobility. Launch mobility is a question of degree, starting from zero mobility of a fixed land installation with a limited azimuth and launch direction to the unlimited mobility of a system capable of launching from any point on the globe and in any direction. Launch mobility for space operations is defined as the freedom to choose the geographical launch location, the launching azimuth, and the time of launch. Control of these three factors, plus the capability of the launch vehicle itself, completely determine the nature and scope of space operations.

The application of advanced U.S. maritime technology to satellite launching will fulfill special naval needs, will provide flexibility to the national space program and provide a unique advantage over Soviet capabilities in terms of national power and international prestige.

The achievement of a true mobile launch capability provides several critical operational advantages:

(1) Range safety

Inherent in all launchings of missile or space devices is the danger of unexpected explosions at the launching site or during the initial propulsion phase. This danger increases for larger and larger vehicles and becomes critical when those situations where radioactive materials are involved. Sites to handle these powerful boosters and nuclear upper stages will have to be expensive and isolated in order to provide the necessary safety.

(2) International considerations

The problem of booster fallout is a constraining factor in trajectory selection from fixed launching sites. Overcoming this objection by means of dogleg trajectories is expensive in terms of payload losses and system complexity. On the positive side a mobile launch facility could be used to launch payloads of friendly nations in a cooperative peaceful space program.

(3) Range facilities

The national ranges are primarily being operated to support research, development, test, and training. As the astronautics era unfolds, we must design operational facilities to consider the full spectrum of operational requirements. The mobility requirement dictates the use of a ship. Similar in operation to the U.S.S. Norton Sound, this launching ship would be able to operate in the environment of either or both the Atlantic and Pacific National Ranges. Its operation, however, is not predicated on the availability of this range environment when launching vehicles designed specifically for single ship operation, such as the Sea Scout. Therefore, as dictated by military or national requirements, the launching ship would operate either within or outside the present national ranges.

The cost of a mobile launching system will be considerably less than the cost of any of the present U.S. ranges. This is to be expected since the ground environment and instrumentation for the range has been designed for development and test launches. The conduct of operational launching from these ranges will unnecesarily congest these elaborate facilities, thereby introducing delays and interruptions in the research, development, and test program. The annual operating and maintenance costs of a satellite launch ship will run from $1 to $3 million. This low cost will offset in a few years the greater initial cost of a launch ship conversion by removing the operational launches from the expensive research and development environment.

A ship-launched satellite can be fired from any position in the ocean, after range safety considerations are met. The size of the launch vehicle is limited only by the size of the ship selected. The capability has been demonstrated repeatedly in the firings of Argus, Viking, Aerobee, and the V-2 and requires no invention. A ship is highly mobile, can go anywhere on the sea, and can contain all the launch functions.

Of course the ship could be a submersible. The size limitations are of a practical nature. It is possible to lunch a small satellite into orbit from a Polaris-firing submarine. Again, to eliminate the need for a large radar, the guidance must be self-contained. Submarines would provide for a launch with maximum secrecy.

Question. 5. You have made no mention of the Sugar Grove radio telescope, a very big project. What can you tell us of its prospects?