STATEMENT OF JOHN H. RUBEL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Mr. RUBEL. I am Dr. York's deputy. The answer I was suggesting to Dr. York was that this special subcommittee which we have set up for life sciences, reporting to the Manned Spacecraft Panel of the AACB exists precisely for the purpose of bringing together those people in the scientific community who are concerned with the matters you spoke of, and for insuring their efforts are coordinated with one another. Mr. DADDARIO. Have you done anything at the moment beyond bringing them together so that everybody will be happy and allowed to do what they want to? Have you put direction, purpose and objective into the program? Have you cut out duplicative efforts? Have you assigned certain responsibilities? Have you prevented there being any overlapping in these programs? Mr. RUBEL. In the first place, I couldn't say yes absolutely to all those things. But I would observe that there is a self-regulating mechanism that applies. Nobody in the scientific activities desires to duplicate somebody else's work in a basic area, but rather to work with one another to complement the work of each other. In the first place, if the people in the scientific community have this opportunity to interchange information and exchange the progress on their work, exchange reports on the progress of their work, you share a multiple complementary program just by providing the coordination mechanism in the first place. In the second place, yes, we do have the assignment of specific responsibilities to the various agencies which you have named. As far as I am aware, at least, there is no evidence that any one of these is reaching out to attempt to take over those assigned to other agencies. Mr. DADDARIO. I am not going to continue this line at this time, but I can't agree with you that there is built within the scientific community a self-regulating mechanism through which there will be no duplication and overlapping. Just for this particular point, how can you justify the construction of a vivarium to keep chimpanzees and other animals in which we have such facilities at Holloman and we have chimpanzees floating all over? Dr. YORK. I can't answer you in detail. I could try to prepare an answer for you, Mr. Daddario. In response to discussion concerning the construction of a vivarium by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (p. 56, stenographic transcript of hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, 16 Feb. 1961), the following supplemental information is provided: The referenced vivarium is in direct support of the Mercury (manned space flight) program for which the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is responsible. This responsibility includes, of course, the vital conduct of necessary research and development to insure the adequacy of provisions for safeguarding the lives of the astronauts. The Department of Defense has supported and is continuing to support the NASA program to the maximum extent possible. However, in some cases, existing facilities do not always have sufficient capacity to fully accommodate all programed workloads within desired scheduled time periods for individual agency programs. In other cases, while existing facilities are adequate for individual agency programs, they are not adequate for combined programs. 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, 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. 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? 66947-61-3 |