The CHAIRMAN. Anyone on this side?

Mr. FULTON. I am glad to see you back, Doctor. I am glad you are over your illness. I think you look much better.

Dr. YORK. Thank you.

Mr. FULTON. It agrees with you.

The CHAIRMAN. He does look well. I have never seen him look better.

Mr. FULTON. On the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board set up by NASA and the Department of Defense, is there any statutory authority for that?

Dr. YORK. At the present time I believe the answer is no. I think it was introduced into the Congress last year but it didn't get all the way through.

Mr. FULTON. What does that do that the former civilian-military liaison group couldn't do?

Dr. YORK. It is organized in quite a different fashion than the CMLC might have been. It is made up to handle rather specific problems. Its panel structure is designed to handle a specific set of problems. Generally speaking, we have attempted to fix it so that the members of the panels, the cochairmen of the panels and the cochairmen of the Board itself are people who have sufficient authority within the organizations, once they come to agreement, to act without further coordination.

In other words, instead of having an individual who has within the two organizations involved no authority, it is cochaired by the Deputy Administrator of NASA, who has the authority of the Deputy Administrator within NASA, and me, who has certain statutory authority within the Department of Defense.

In general, when we arrive at a conclusion, we can carry it out without further check. If you have a third individual, he can't check it out. He can't carry out a decision without checking with somebody else.

Mr. FULTON. Does that operate under the Space Council? What are its relations with the Space Council?

Dr. YORK. The Space Council hasn't yet been reestablished or at least it hasn't been reactivated or whatever the right word is, Mr. Fulton. The AACB is an organization at an entirely different level from the Space Council.

Mr. FULTON. The point with that

Dr. YORK. It can work with the Space Council however the Space Council wishes to have it work with it.

Mr. FULTON. You still need a Space Council even though you have the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board between the DOD and NASA.

Dr. YORK. It is a different level of Government and would have an entirely different purpose.

Mr. FULTON. You would recommend then that the Space Council be filled out and put into living operation, wouldn't you?

Dr. YORK. Well, I am not entirely sure exactly what is the right thing to do here. I do see use for a reactivation of the Space Council, especially because we have a new administration and a Space Council is an excellent way to come to decisions needed at the very top of the executive branch and to establish policies for the guidance of everyone else.

Mr. FULTON. How many echelons of decision can say no to you before you can put a program into operation now?

Dr. YORK. Well, there are a great many places

Mr. FULTON. How many people can say no compared to the one yes you say?

Dr. YORK. There aren't very many that can say no and then that is final, except for the Secretary of Defense. I always have an opportunity to take up the question further with someone else. The Secretary of Defense is my boss. If he says no, then that is the way it is. Mr. FULTON. You go to the Secretary of Defense. Does he go to the Joint Chiefs and then to the scientific adviser of the President? Dr. YORK. No. He can do what he wants to. The Secretary of Defense reports to the President. If he wants to talk to somebody else, he can. He doesn't have to. I am not quite sure what all the laws relating to the Secretary of Defense are. He is a man of considerable authority.

Mr. FULTON. You would say then that there are just two steps between you and the President?

Dr. YORK. As far as I am concerned, in line authority, that is correct. There is the Secretary of Defense and then the President.

Mr. FULTON. You don't have to go through the Joint Chiefs, or through the National Security Council, or through the scientific adviser to the President, or through the Space Council?

Dr. YORK. No. But they may come in for some other reason. They are not in direct line authority with respect to me.

The Secretary of Defense is a member of the National Security Council, which is one body you mentioned, which is a body of which the President is a chairman. It is one of the mechanisms by means of which the Secretary of Defense works out what he is supposed to do. The President's adviser is an adviser to the President and his advice can be taken or not as the President chooses. He has no line of authority with respect to what I do.

Mr. FULTON. I remember the Von Braun team. I remember ABMA. When they were here first they had 12 to sometimes 15 levels of authority to go through where they had to get all "yeses" and if they got one "no" they couldn't get action.

Does that exist now?

Dr. YORK. I don't know. I don't know what the number would be from a similar organization, but that is an operating group which is organized at a lower echelon of Government. How many levels there are, I am not quite sure. It is probably not 15.

If you are asking me if the Government is complicated, the answer is yes.

Mr. FULTON. Some of us are trying to get action in advancing the space program and don't want it to bog down before it gets on the path.

I was interested in your explanation, Mr. Chairman, of ARPA, because some of us have wondered whether that is not getting to be the appendix of the Department of Defense, and there had been some moves previously to have it dispensed with.

You said that I will say what I think that Discoverer, Midas, and Samos have all gone to the Air Force.

Dr. YORK. Yes.

Mr. FULTON. And the Air Force is providing the boosters and vehicles and handle the launching, isn't that right?

Dr. YORK. Yes.

Mr. FULTON. The Transit went over to the Navy and the Courier and Advent went over to the Army and Spasur and Spacetrack went to Colorado Springs to the ADC at Colorado Springs.

Dr. YORK. To NORAD.

Mr. FULTON. That brings up to me a very pertinent question. What does ARPA have left? What does it do?

Dr. YORK. It has a great deal left. Dr. Ruina can discuss that with you now or this afternoon. The Department of Defense spends 15 percent of its research and engineering on space, to which category every one of the type of items that you mentioned applies, and 85 percent on nonspace.

The Department of Defense is not the space agency. We are the Defense Department. There is plenty of activity going on outside of space. You have named the space programs.

Mr. FULTON. We are looking to see whether your space programs are clogged by the agency and divided authority

Dr. YORK. ARPA is not in the space program.

Mr. FULTON. There are specific designations to specific groups for a particular weapons system or a program. The question then is, what does ARPA do, or could it be dispensed with? I think that is a very legitimate question.

Dr. YORK. I mentioned their major program here in terms of dollars.

Mr. FULTON. The Defender?

Dr. YORK. There are about 100 programs. I am not quite sure how many programs there are, perhaps 250. It is a collection of research programs. That is about one-half of the budget, as far as ARPA is concerned. Then it also works on solid propellants. It works on materials. It works on what is called the Vela program, which is a collection of research and development programs having to do with nuclear test detection. There are some other miscellaneous programs.

Mr. FULTON. My final question is this, and I hope this is just as pertinent: Why aren't those ARPA programs that you mentioned, outside of what I call the Defender programs, the very things that NASA should have jurisdiction over, because they are so general and they are in solid propellant investigation, they are in systems generally, they are in material investigation, they are in electromagnetic and other fields that are so general, why aren't they under NASA? Why isn't ARPA

Dr. YORK. Why should they be? NASA is not the repository of all general programs. We have the National Science Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Bureau of Standards. We have a great many organizations involved in basic research. Why NASA? Mr. FULTON. Isn't NASA working on these very things too, so that in a way you have two agencies doing the same kind of investigation? That is my point.

Dr. YORK. All agencies that are involved with modern technology are involved, for example, with materials. The solid propellant is a special case, but we have more need for solid propellants than NASA

does. All of our small short-range weapons are based on the use of solid propellants. It is absolutely essential that we have continuing programs in this particular field.

Mr. FULTON. Are they separate programs? I don't understand it. Dr. YORK. They are research programs in solid propellant chemistry. Ours are for the purpose of developing better and more useful solids for our purposes.

Mr. FULTON. They are the same things that NASA is doing.
Dr. YORK. NASA has similar programs, but not the same.
Mr. FULTON. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Daddario.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman.

Doctor, has the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board come to any conclusions, have they made any studies concerning man's military place in space?

Dr. YORK. They haven't studied the total question of what is or is not the value of man in space. There is a man-in-space panel of the AACB. It deals with those problems that are before us right now on how to get on with Mercury, Dyna-Soar, and things like that. It is not responsible for discussing the military role of a man in space. The question as to whether there is or is not, or what might be the role of man in space is a unilateral Defense problem. The same as our problem of what is the role of man at sea. We don't ask the Maritime Commission what is the role of man at sea. The Navy decides that. Mr. DADDARIO. When you have made that statement, then, it is a unilateral responsibility

Dr. YORK. That is the question of what is the role of man in space, which is a unilateral problem.

Mr. DADDARIO. You have not set out specifically any role, but you know that someday in the future man may be needed in space, and therefore you are making the preparations now in order to keep him alive under those conditions when they arrive, whatever those conditions might be?

Dr. YORK. Right.

Mr. DADDARIO. In the performance of this obligation you have science programs going on in the Department of Defense, as well as in NASA, NIH, and other places?

Dr. YORK. Yes. There are programs-I am not personally too well informed about the NIH. But I presume there are programs

there that are applicable in this field.

Mr. DADDARIO. I asked that because on page 8, when you refer to the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board, you also say

Space science efforts of both agencies have been reviewed to assure that there is no unnecessary duplication and to ascertain that the efforts are mutually supporting.

I ask you, then, if there is any duplication or if all of the efforts are mutual in the establishment of the life sciences section by the Navy at Point Mugu, the NASA at Ames, the efforts going on at the School of Aviation Medicine in Texas, at the comparable naval establishment at Pensacola, if the facilities we have for animal study and care at Holloman are going to be also taken into consideration with the building of a vivarium by NASA to keep chimpanzees and other

animals under study? Are all of these mutually supporting and is there no unnecessary duplication anywhere in existence in all of this wide effort aimed in this same direction?

Dr. YORK. I could never know for sure that there is no unnecessary duplication going on anywhere at all times. I don't know. We are doing the best we can. We have a special board set up to study that particular problem. You are talking not about science, you are talking about a particular subsection, the life sciences.

Mr. DADDARIO. Yes.

Dr. YORK. We have a board set up to study that particular problem. It is a continuing board. It is aware of every one of the things you have named, I am sure. As far as I understand, so far they believe that all these individual items going on is justified. Since it is an on-going effort, they could come in any time and report otherwise. All I am saying here is that we are very much aware of that problem. We haven't ignored it. We are doing the best we can about it.

Mr. DADDARIO. Doctor, the position we are now in at this moment concerning this subsection of life sciences, which comes under the space science efforts, is all of this which is going on is under study by such a panel. There have been no conclusions reached, there have been no directions offered, there have been no curtailments of effort within any of these particular areas which I have mentioned?

Dr. YORK. I don't know of any. Do you know of any?

Mr. RUBEL. I would say what we are really doing is keeping everybody together in the scientific community in this area. Mr. DADDARIO. May I have that answer, please?

The CHAIRMAN. This is Mr. Rubel.

(The biography of Mr. Rubel is as follows:)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF MR. JOHN H. RUBEL

Mr. John H. Rubel was appointed Deputy Director of Defense Research and Engineering on April 1, 1960.

Mr. Rubel had been Assistant Director of Defense Research and Engineering (Strategic Weapons) since May 19, 1959.

Mr. Rubel, who was born in Chicago, April 27, 1920, received his B.S. in electrical engineering with honor from the California Institute of Technology in 1942. Following his graduation he was associated with the General Electric Co., Lockheed Aircraft Co. and joined Hughes Aircraft Co. in 1946.

While with Hughes, Mr. Rubel contributed to the development of one of the earliest successful automatic celestial navigation systems in this country. He also was associated with the development of the Falcon family of missiles. In 1952 he joined the radar laboratories, later renamed the Airborne Systems Laboratories, of which he was named director in 1955. It was from this post that Mr. Rubel came to the Defense Department on May 19, 1959.

Mr. Rubel's industrial experience encompassed the field of airborne systems, including radar, digital and analogue computers, guidance and control systems, communications subsystems, etc.

With the Department of Defense, Mr. Rubel's responsibilities have included research, engineering and engineering management aspects of long range strategic strike forces currently in being, under development or contemplated for future development. He has also been concerned with related matters including operations analysis relating to the design of strategic weapons systems.

As deputy to Dr. Herbert F. York, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Mr. Rubel's responsibilities have encompassed the entire field of military systems. Mr. Rubel served as Acting Director of Defense Research and Engineering during Dr. York's recent illness.

Mr. Rubel is a member of Tau Beta Phi, the Institute of Radio Engineers and the American Society for Engineering Education.

Mr. Rubel is married and has three children. They were residents of Los Angeles, Calif., before moving to Washington, D.C.