STATEMENT OF DR. HUGH L. DRYDEN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL G. DEMBLING, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Dr. DRYDEN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and counsel, less than 72 hours ago, I was high above the Atlantic Ocean, returning from a busy week in Europe.

As we flew westward, my thoughts ranged far beyond the comfort of the pressurized cabin, and, because they may be pertinent to the matters being considered by your committee, I should like to mention two of the subjects that came to mind.

My airplane was traveling at an airspeed of more than 300 miles per hour. The earth-some 20,000 feet below-was revolving at about 1,000 miles per hour.

Simultaneously, the earth was traveling in space, in orbit around the sun, at the rate of about 66,000 miles per hour. At the same time, the sun itself was moving at the rate of 630,000 miles per hour, within our galaxy that we call the Milky Way.

The star nearest our Sun is Alpha Centauri. It is more than 25 trillion miles away.

We have to reach about 25,000 miles per hour to escape from the earth. To travel outside the solar system, we will have to escape from the gravitational pull of the sun. That will require a minimum speed of about 70,000 miles per hour. A space craft journey from the Earth to Alpha Centauri would take over 40,000 years at this speed.

As those increasingly large numbers flashed through my mind, I was reminded how enormous is the task ahead: of learning more about our solar system and the myriad galaxies which comprise the

cosmos.

At the same time, I was impressed with the need for urgency to get on with the job, to use the new tools that we have just fashioned that, for the first time in history, enable us to probe the secrets of the universe, to see things as they really are, and to begin man's exploration of space.

The second of my thoughts on my homeward flight was based upon happenings of the previous week.

Everywhere I went, especially in Madrid and in Munich, where there were opportunities for conversation with others of the scientific community, I had been met with the following questions:

Was the United States really going to provide world leadership in the scientific, peaceful use of our new-found ability to send space craft far beyond the atmospheric envelope that encircles the earth?

Would the United States be willing to spend the hundreds of millions annually necessary to accomplish such explorations into space, even if the military advantages were not clearly foreseen and there was no demonstrated prospect of new scientific information that could be immediately translated into dollar-producing projects? Fortunately, I was prepared for such questioning.

I could and did note that our national leaders in the administration and in both Houses of Congress had been virtually unanimous in declaring that the United States should promptly blueprint a wisely bold national space program, and that it should be directed toward exploration and exploitation of space for peaceful purposes. I told

my questioners how the leaders of both the House and the Senate had taken on the task, in addition to their already burdensome duties, of studying intensively the ways and means to insure that those intentions should become actualities.

As I flew westward I could not help but think how important it will be that as a nation we carry forward these plans for the peaceful use of our new ability to move into space.

I realized, of course-and I believe this point of view is shared by even the most anxious of my European friends-that the United States will have to be alert to every possibility of using the new space technology to strengthen our military powers of deterrence. But the important, the vital point, is that we need to put our national emphasis upon the civil aspects of space technology.

The simple fact is, in addition to being a peaceful Nation composed of citizens who hate the thought of war, we must so conduct ourselves that our friends around the world-and our enemies as well-will know beyond mistake that, although we are amply strong as our national interest requires, we are striving by word and deed for peace.

Last week, Dr. James H. Doolittle, Chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, appeared before your committee. Since my return, I have read his statement and-except for his comments about me-I concur completely.

I have also reviewed, hurriedly I must admit, the comments of the other gentlemen who testified last week before your committee.

In the light of that previous testimony and keeping in mind some of the questions which you gentlemen have asked, I should like now to make several comments that may be helpful and then attempt to provide answers to such further questions as you may have.

First, may I say I believe that the administration is far more interested in the accomplishment of a national space program that— except for the space technology efforts of the Military Establishmentwill be under civil direction, than it is in the precise language of any part of Senate bill 3609.

In the early stages, when the administration was studying how best to formulate its national space program, the NACA made recommendations.

As I understand it, the bill was purposely written in general, rather than specific, terms because the entire subject of space technology isand for some time to come will remain largely an assortment of unknowns. Today, we simply do not know what we will find, or what good it will be, when we venture into space.

There is a distinction between the situation today respecting space legislation and the situation at the end of World War II when the Atomic Energy Act was drafted.

In that earlier undertaking, the fearful possibilities of atomic energy for military purposes had already been demonstrated. The possibilities of civilian use of atomic energy were at least partially known.

In other words, in 1946 the atomic energy prospects-what needed to be done respecting both civilian and military research and development, and the necessary precautions that had to be taken-were sufficiently clear to make desirable the drafting of legislation in very specific and detailed form.

STATEMENT OF DR. HUGH L. DRYDEN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL G. DEMBLING, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Dr. DRYDEN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and counsel, less than 72 hours ago, I was high above the Atlantic Ocean, returning from a busy week in Europe.

As we flew westward, my thoughts ranged far beyond the comfort of the pressurized cabin, and, because they may be pertinent to the matters being considered by your committee, I should like to mention two of the subjects that came to mind.

My airplane was traveling at an airspeed of more than 300 miles per hour. The earth-some 20,000 feet below-was revolving at about 1,000 miles per hour.

Simultaneously, the earth was traveling in space, in orbit around the sun, at the rate of about 66,000 miles per hour. At the same time, the sun itself was moving at the rate of 630,000 miles per hour, within our galaxy that we call the Milky Way.

The star nearest our Sun is Alpha Centauri. It is more than 25 trillion miles away.

We have to reach about 25,000 miles per hour to escape from the earth. To travel outside the solar system, we will have to escape from the gravitational pull of the sun. That will require a minimum speed of about 70,000 miles per hour. A space craft journey from the Earth to Alpha Centauri would take over 40,000 years at this speed.

As those increasingly large numbers flashed through my mind, I was reminded how enormous is the task ahead: of learning more about our solar system and the myriad galaxies which comprise the

cosmos.

At the same time, I was impressed with the need for urgency to get on with the job, to use the new tools that we have just fashioned that, for the first time in history, enable us to probe the secrets of the universe, to see things as they really are, and to begin man's exploration of space.

The second of my thoughts on my homeward flight was based upon happenings of the previous week.

Everywhere I went, especially in Madrid and in Munich, where there were opportunities for conversation with others of the scientific community, I had been met with the following questions:

Was the United States really going to provide world leadership in the scientific, peaceful use of our new-found ability to send space craft far beyond the atmospheric envelope that encircles the earth?

Would the United States be willing to spend the hundreds of millions annually necessary to accomplish such explorations into space, even if the military advantages were not clearly foreseen and there was no demonstrated prospect of new scientific information that could be immediately translated into dollar-producing projects? Fortunately, I was prepared for such questioning.

I could and did note that our national leaders in the administration and in both Houses of Congress had been virtually unanimous in declaring that the United States should promptly blueprint a wisely bold national space program, and that it should be directed toward exploration and exploitation of space for peaceful purposes. I told

my questioners how the leaders of both the House and the Senate had taken on the task, in addition to their already burdensome duties, of studying intensively the ways and means to insure that those intentions should become actualities.

As I flew westward I could not help but think how important it will be that as a nation we carry forward these plans for the peaceful use of our new ability to move into space.

I realized, of course-and I believe this point of view is shared by even the most anxious of my European friends-that the United States will have to be alert to every possibility of using the new space technology to strengthen our military powers of deterrence. But the important, the vital point, is that we need to put our national emphasis upon the civil aspects of space technology.

The simple fact is, in addition to being a peaceful Nation composed of citizens who hate the thought of war, we must so conduct ourselves that our friends around the world-and our enemies as well—will know beyond mistake that, although we are amply strong as our national interest requires, we are striving by word and deed for peace. Last week, Dr. James H. Doolittle, Chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, appeared before your committee. Since my return, I have read his statement and-except for his comments about me-I concur completely.

I have also reviewed, hurriedly I must admit, the comments of the other gentlemen who testified last week before your committee.

In the light of that previous testimony and keeping in mind some of the questions which you gentlemen have asked, I should like now to make several comments that may be helpful and then attempt to provide answers to such further questions as you may have.

First, may I say I believe that the administration is far more interested in the accomplishment of a national space program that-except for the space technology efforts of the Military Establishmentwill be under civil direction, than it is in the precise language of any part of Senate bill 3609.

In the early stages, when the administration was studying how best to formulate its national space program, the NACA made recommendations.

As I understand it, the bill was purposely written in general, rather than specific, terms because the entire subject of space technology is— and for some time to come will remain-largely an assortment of unknowns. Today, we simply do not know what we will find, or what good it will be, when we venture into space.

There is a distinction between the situation today respecting space legislation and the situation at the end of World War II when the Atomic Energy Act was drafted.

In that earlier undertaking, the fearful possibilities of atomic energy for military purposes had already been demonstrated. The possibilities of civilian use of atomic energy were at least partially known.

In other words, in 1946 the atomic energy prospects-what needed to be done respecting both civilian and military research and development, and the necessary precautions that had to be taken-were sufficiently clear to make desirable the drafting of legislation in very specific and detailed form.

The success of that congressional effort is apparent from the manner in which, for more than 10 years, the act has stood the test of time.

The Atomic Energy Act dealt with problems that were, relatively at least, finite.

The problems of the new era of space are more nearly infinite; at the very most, they are largely unknown today. That is why, to the best of my knowledge, the language of the bill was written so flexibly: to permit formulation and prosecution of a wise and vigorous national space program without the necessity of early, major revision of the bill, perhaps on an annual basis.

One of the most difficult problems in the drafting of the legislation for space is how to spell out which of our country's space activities shall be under civilian control and which shall be the responsibility of the Department of Defense.

My reading of the earlier testimony before your committee brings an awareness of a problem that I, who am not greatly experienced in legislative matters, had not anticipated from my reading of the bill. On page 2, beginning on line 4, the bill states, and I quote:

The Congress further declares that such activities should be directed by a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space research sponsored by the United States, except insofar as such activities may be peculiar to or primarily associated with military systems or military operations, in which case the agency may act in cooperation with, or on behalf of, the Department of Defense.

Now, I find that this language has been interpreted as meaning, on the one hand, that the role of the National Aeronautics and Space Agency could be reduced to the point of becoming inconsequential; and, on the other, that the Department of Defense could be unduly limited in the development of space technology for military purposes.

I believe that the Director of the Budget, Mr. Maurice Stans, will, in his testimony before your committee later today, make a specific suggestion for a change in wording to clarify the intent of this provision.

Over the 43 years of its existence, the NACA has managed to work closely and well with the military services, without being dominated or absorbed by them. Historically the armed services have been first to make use of the aeronautical advances that the researches of the NACA scientists and engineers have made possible. However, the commercial side of aviation has not been overlooked and also has made consistent use of these aeronautical advances, some years after the military services.

In the case of space technology, it is my opinion that the requirements of the scientists for data-gathering projects may in many instances be more clearly known than those of the military services. In other words, it may well be that the advances we make in our capability to move instruments-and men-farther into space, for the accomplishment of scientific missions will prove to be militarily useful.

There has been considerable discussion about the composition of the National Aeronautics and Space Board, and about the fact that, as the bill is presently drafted, the Board will be advisory, rather than governing. It is my understanding that there were two reasons why the administration preferred that authority for operation of our