« 이전계속 »
technology, ballistic missile defense, and other advanced research
Senator JOHNSON. Pardon my interruption there.
We have an organization down in Texas, the DOT, which is "Democrats of Texas," but this is the Department of Defense, DOD.
Proceed, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. The projects which have been assigned mainly required coordination with the Director of Guided Missiles, because existing vehicles, components, and facilities must be utilized.
This method of operation is a precedent which will set the pattern for future ARPA projects.
In other words, it is not the intent to expand to a large organization that will require extensive laboratories and other facilities.
Undoubtedly, however, there will be some modification of existing facility complexes in order to keep from impairing efforts which must be applied to weapons systems.
I feel the important point is that existing organizations can be utilized. This approach not only saves valuable time but also costs much less money.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering is the staff adviser to the Secretary of Defense on all military research, development, and engineering matters. He will be informed on the activities which have been assigned to ARPA, and he will utilize the ARPA staff for technical and administrative reviews to the extent necessary to fulfill his requirements,
Another way of explaining our actions is that we have and will be assigned specific projects which we will manage and provide funds for implementation.
This method of operation is the key to the important objective to be served by ARPA.
For instance, we will have the scientific capability to review, direct, and expedite research programs which in the past have been retarded because of the requirement that they be based on a military weapon system.
The scientific capability referred to will be provided mostly by a contract with the Institute for Defense Analyses with a staff of about 25 scientists. However, many of the staff are also members of other committees such as Dr. York's membership on Dr. Killian's committee.
In this manner, we will have access to the best scientific talent in the United States to assist in the acceleration of the national technological status.
In addition, such projects as the ICBM defense may become so large in the future that it would be advisable to consider a management-type contract in order to provide a means for tying together the many diverse developments required for the overall defensive system.
Our method of operation in the Department of Defense is to deal directly with the service agency that has the capability to accomplish our projects.
This naturally bypasses many established channels but has the decided advantage of saving valuable time and money. We realize that the military service agencies are already performing important missions. However, they are in the best position to state if our projects can be accomplished without disrupting other directed projects.
If our projects can be undertaken, then ARPA will write funding orders and are doing so—direct to the operating agency. We have already begun to function in this manner.
Some examples are the lunar probes, and the escape guidance experiment, and associated ground equipment. The Army, Navy, and Air Force all will participate in these experiments.
Of course, in addition to the service participation, ARPA coordinates with other agencies outside the DOD such as the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Science Foundation.
The President has authorized ARPA to proceed with the projects I have just mentioned for a period of 1 year.
In furtherance of his proposal for a National Aeronautic and Space Agency, he has directed that these projects be reviewed for responsibility. Our preliminary discussions with NACA on this subject have resulted in agreement on complementary budgets for fiscal year 1959 and general delineation of projects to be jointly pursued.
Last week the ARPA presented its fiscal year 1959 fund request to the Subcommittee on Department of Defense of the House Appropriations Committee.
Of the $520 million requested, we have proposed that $448 million will be utilized for military purposes associated with missile defense, military satellites, and space technology in the fields of propulsion, instrumentation, data handling, reentry phenomena, and so on...The remaining $72 million was requested to continue the nonmilitary space projects of the type which have been authorized by the President.
All of the funds requested represent our best judgment on what we can accomplish when all factors are considered, including the present status of technology.
On this planning basis, our overall objective is to expedite those projects which are of immediate national importance and interest and, at the same time, to project ourselves into the future as far as possible on other types of research.
All of this leads me to a discussion of the proposed National Aeronautics and Space Agency, which I believe should be created with its own funds for use in pursuing its programs. However, military programs already demand the use of outer space for many uses for the protection of our country.
The legislation setting up a civilian group should not be interpreted to restrict the DOD from pursuing those programs which are critical to our national security and upon which we have already embarked. Rather, the legislation should be so worded as to insure the necessary coordination between the total military and civilian programs we must as a nation pursue.
It is clear that the Department of Defense is, and must continue to be, engaged in a long-term program of space research and development. Surely our thinking in the Department of Defense must take into account developments and potential developments 5 or more
years ahead. We have tended to identify a threat and take immediate action to meet it.
We are now faced with a wholly new situation: We cannot clearly see the exact threat facing us, for we cannot know exactly where cascading science and technology will lead us nor where it will lead the Soviet Union. We simply cannot afford to be satisfied with military weapons systems within our present capability.
We must maintain a dynamic research program leading to an unknown future. In so doing, the Department of Defense must program and develop a succession of increasingly advanced space vehicles with an eye to their direct military application. To accomplish our military ends, we must push the frontiers of scientific technology beyond our present horizons.
Such vehicles, altogether aside from their utilization for war purposes, must also be utilized for necessary technological experimentation. Within this utilization there is an increasing potential for that experimentation which transcends the immediate requirements of the Department of Defense. It is within this area that support from a civilian space agency would be most helpful.
Surely this nation, confronted with a dual Soviet threat in the political and economic, as well as the military areas, cannot afford the luxury of duplication in basic space-vehicle research and production, nor can it safely accept the degradation of a necessary military program.
I would suggest that you might wish to give thought to considering the relationship between a civilian space agency and ARPA within the Department of Defense in somewhat the same terms as that which exists today in our IGY program.
I can perhaps best illustrate this relationship in the situation that exists in our Antarctic programs:
There, the United States scientific community has established program requirements, has obtained the necessary budgetary allocations, has indicated its specific geographic needs and provided the technical personnel to complete its IGY investigations.
The Department of Defense has made available the necessary resources, including ships, planes, logistics and support personnel, along with a substantial number of scientific components. Without either of these components, the very important national and international scientific programs in South Polar regions could not have succeeded.
We are at a point today where the world stood centuries ago when Columbus sailed far beyond the horizons of his day.
Our horizons are even more distant, but we are much better prepared with the technical knowledge for exploration into the unknown than was Columbus.
The program now in development for the exploration of our atmosphere and the solar system offers tremendous challenges and more than ample opportunity for any or all who would participate.
Since I have been associated with the Government, I have become convinced that there exists within the Defense Department, as well as within the United States scientific community, a tremendous capability to meet these challenges and to take advantage of these opportunities.
As we have begun to plan, I feel sure we can approach the new era confidently and hopefully. To this end, I believe that long-range planning must be undertaken both within the Department of Defense and nationally.
I believe that this planning must be integrated by representatives from such agencies as NSF, NAS, NACA, ARPA, and others, as deemed appropriate, under the guidance and overall direction of the President's Scientific Advisory Committee.
I am certain that a high order of cooperation must exist if the national program is to be accomplished.
Existing facilities and personnel must be utilized to the maximum extent.
All available scientific talent must be marshalled and properly directed if we are to obtain the maximum benefit.
ARPA is prepared to cooperate fully in the implementation of any system that is devised in order to expedite our national technical advancement.
I believe, however, that the key to effective operation is a wellplanned and coordinated effort. This must and will be a fast-moving business with daily decisions, with the dual objective of advancing our technological status and, as an end product, to maintain and increase our national security.
Admiral Clark, the Deputy Director of this Agency, and I, are prepared to answer any questions that we may or can.
LANGUAGE OF THE BILL
Senator Johnson. Do you participate, or were you consulted in the drafting of the so-called Johnson-Bridges bill that was submitted at the request of the administration?
Mr. JOHNSON. I was not, sir.
Senator Johnson. Isn't that a little unusual for one in your position—apparently from your statement the Department of Defense is now doing most of this work -to be confronted with a measure that you were not consulted about?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I had heard discussions of the intentions to present the bill and was familiar, I believe, with the idea that a NACA extension of activities was going to be proposed.
Senator Johnson. Who drafted the bill?
Senator Johnson. I notice you appeared before the House committee and suggested a change in the wording in section 2 beginning on page 2, line 7, of the bill.
Mr. Johnson. I did, sir.
Senator Johnson. This change would have the effect of deleting, "peculiar to or primarily associated with weapons systems or military operations,” in favor of, "in support of or presumed to lead to the use for national defense of weapons systems," and instead of the agency "may" act, you suggested that the "agency is authorized to act in cooperation with or on behalf of the Department of Defense if so requested by the Department of Defense.
What is your position on the wording at the present timo? Do you still prefer to change the wording to that which you suggested when you appeared before the House committee?
Mr. JOHNSON. I do, sir. Congressman McCormack and I discussed the possibility of changing the word “presumed,” to be “determined.” I would go along with either word.
Senator JOHNSON. If the Department of Defense declares that it has a military requirement for a particular space program and that it will not concur in transfers to the new Space Agency, does not that mean that the line between military and civilian space projects is being drawn by the Department of Defense?
Mr. Johnson. It would not be my intent in wording to say that categorically.
Senator JOHNSON. Speak a little louder, please.
Mr. Johnson. It would not be my personal intent that the Department of Defense would so determine. I believe that really important here is that the Department of Defense not be precluded from going into a scientific exploration for defense reasons if it should determine this to be for the interests of national security. I prefer the positive approach to this, rather than the negative.
Senator Johnson. Now, we are not legislating for you alone, Mr. Johnson. We are going to legislate for a long time, I guess you hope, after you are gone. This is a government of laws and not of men. We have to be extremely careful when we write this language.
TRANSFER OF AGENCIES
As I understand section 8:
For a period of three years after the effective date of this Act the Agency, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned and with the approval of the President, may transfer to itself any functions including powers, duties, activities, facilities, and parts of functions) of such department or , agency or of any officer or organizational entity thereof which relate primarily to the functions of the Agency as set forth in section 6 hereof.
That requires two things. It requires the concurrence of the agency and requires the approval of the President. Is that correct? Mr. JOHNSON. That is my understanding, sir.
Senator JOHNSON. Now, if you want to transfer one project out of the place you already had it in in the Department of Defense, you couldn't get it out if the Department of Defense didn't want to let it go, could you?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is right, sir.
Senator JOHNSON. Then the Department of Defense would, in effect, be the agency that would draw the line between civilian and military space projects by its decision, wouldn't it? It would be the decisionmaking agency on all projects within the Department of Defense?
Mr. JOHNSON. That is right, sir.
QUESTION OF AUTHORITY FOR MILITARY SPACE PROJECTS
Senator JOHNSON. You have stated thatThe legislation setting up the civilian group should not be so worded that it may be construed to mean that the military uses of space would be limited by a civilian agency. This could be disastrous. Is that a correct quotation?
Mr. Johnson. That is a correct quotation.
Senator JOHNSON. Does this mean that both ARPA and the new Space Agency will engage in basic and applied research in astronautics?