« 이전계속 »
Dr. DRYDEN. The Director would receive the consideration of the people who are active in the field, who know the technical aspects, the military aspects, and the governmental aspects.
Senator JOHNSON. I assumed the intent was to give the President the Board's views in the matters.
Dr. DRYDEN. That was the intent.
Senator JOHNSON. The way you are wording it, it is not necessary that he receive that viewpoint. It is not a condition or requirement. He doesn't need to receive it at all. He can go on and act without it.
Dr. DRYDEN. I think with this language in the law, the President would act on recommendations of the Board. The other language reads like a restriction on the President.
Senator JOHNSON. Do you have any other suggestions?
Dr. DRYDEN. In section 6 (b) (6) on page 8, in line 23, it has been pointed out to us that the language as it now reads permits any governmental agency to transfer supplies, equipment, aircraft, missiles, to the Agency, and that this should be a two-way street. In addition to “transfer to,” add the words, “or receive from” so that it would be possible for the agency to turn 'over a space craft which it had developed to the military, as well as for the military, as it now does, to turn over to us aircraft and missiles for research and test purposes. So this would make it a two-way street, rather than a one-way street.
On the security clause, section 7 on page 13, there have been some reservations on the part of the Atomic Energy Commission. I believe Admiral Strauss testified about this before your committee. There is in process a working out of language on this provision which is mutually satisfactory.
Senator Johnson. So you expect some amendments on section 7 before we write up the bill?
Dr. DRYDEN. Yes, sir; we expect to have this in the next few days.
Senator Johnson. And conferences are now taking place between your group and Admiral Strauss' group?
Dr. DRYDEN. With the Atomic Energy Commission; yes, sir, that is correct. They are in the nature of perfecting amendments.
In section 7 (b), on page 14, line 12, there is a perfecting amendment. This deals with violation of regulations with respect to protection or security, and it is or should be amended to include equipment in the custody of contractors. It is a rather long sentence: "Whoever shall willfully violate, attempt to violate, or conspire to violate any regulation or order," down through other property or equipment in the custody of the Agency,” it is suggested in line 12 to add, after “Agency,” the words or any real or personal property or equipment in the custody of a contractor by virtue of a contract with the Agency.”
Then strike the words "shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and," on lines 12 and 13.
Senator Johnson. Do you have any other amendment?
Senator JOHNSON. Would you submit all of those suggestions in writing?
Dr. DRYDEN. I'll do that, sir.
Senator JOHNSON. Senator Green, will you preside for a moment? I must go to the phone.
Senator Mundt, you may proceed with any questions you have.
ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE BOARD
Senator Mundt. This first perfecting amendment in section 5 (a) on page 4, Doctor, I wasn't sure I understood your reasons for eliminating the necessity of the Board's making an annual report. It seems to me it is just a sort of orderly procedure for these various boards and commissions at regular periods to make these reports so you can compile a library of their recommendations and their activities. Unless there is some good reason why the Board should not write up an annual report, I would think this language is good.
Dr. BRYDEN. Well, again, I do not really object to the language. The reasoning behind it was that the Board the activities of the Agency--are reported to the Congress through the President by the Director. Now, a report of the Board would necessarily cover a great deal of the same ground, and it was felt that the Board has the prerogative, being advisory to the President, to submit a report at any time, a report on special matters, and they would not want to repeat the activities of the Agency in a separate report.
Now, as I say, I do not object to the language, but it was thought this was perhaps an unnecessary requirement.
Senator MUNDT. In other words, you have no particular objection if we leave the language as it is.
Dr. DRYDEN. No, sir; that is correct.
Senator MUNDT. Mr. Chairman, I think I have no other questions. You may proceed, as far as I am concerned.
Senator GREEN (presiding). The only thing I want to do is impress upon you the importance of finishing these records so that they may remain as complete as possible at as early a date as possible.
Dr. DRYDEN. I will very promptly, sir.
QUESTION OF RESEARCH AND/OR OPERATION IN NEW AGENCY Mr. WEISL. Dr. Dryden, the title of this bill reads, “To provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes.” Then the bill provides further that the Agency "shall develop, test, launch, and operate aeronautical and space vehicles."
Dr. DRYDEN. That is correct.
Mr. WEISL. Does this mean that the Agency will operate the test vehicles after they are perfected, or merely use them for research purposes?
Dr. DRYDEN. This means, Mr. Weisl, that the new Agency would take over the top responsibility for the satellite programs that are now going on, both the Vanguard program, if this is continued, and the Explorer program. This Agency would be responsible. It is my concept that the same people who are now engaged in these activities would continue to be engaged in them, that the bill is written in such flexible fashion, with such authorities for making contracts and making agreements, that it could be worked out so that no interruption would take place in the programs now going on.
Mr. WEISL. I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the operation of test vehicles after they are perfected. Suppose you
perfect a space platform. Who operates that platform? As I understand this bill, it deals primarily with research and not with the operation of the vehicle after it is perfected.
Dr. DRYDEN. I think, then, the reading of the title is perhaps somewhat misleading. I cannot answer your question fully because this is a part of the unknown, but I can at least give you a hypothetical example.
I believe it is the function of this Agency, for example, to continue the development of satellites for meteorological purposes. Now, I have conceived, and I believe that the intent, is that this Agency would operate such vehicles for the Weather Bureau, that you would not have 8 or 10 Government agencies independently putting up satellites; that this Agency would be the operating Agency: The Weather Bureau would work out the instrumentation it desired to use; we would work very closely with the Weather Bureau; but this Agency would be the Agency actually responsible for putting satellites into space as a service for the Weather Bureau.
Mr. WEISL. But after those satellites are in space and have been perfected, will this Agency continue to operate them and supply communications information, weather information, reconnaissance information, to the Weather Bureau, to the Army and Navy and Air Force?
Dr. DRYDEN. The Agency will have, must have, certain facilities all over the world for keeping track of satellites put into space.
Mr. WEISL. But I'm speaking of after a vehicle is perfected by research. Will this Agency have the responsibility of operating that vehicle permanently? There is no distinction between section 6 (a) (3) on page 6 and the definition of the title of this act on page 1 which deals primarily with research.
Dr. DRYDEN. May I say it this way? I do not understand the bill to provide that this Agency should operate all space vehicles. But I do believe that it is meant to provide that the Agency should be able to operate space vehicles.
Mr. WEISL. But who will operate space vehicles for a civilian or peaceful purpose after they are perfected?
Dr. DRYDEN. It is my understanding that, at the present time, if this law is passed, it will be the responsibility of this Agency to do it.
This is something that could be changed by Congress as the subject develops. I don't believe we can foresee the conditions of operation of satellites for more than a few years ahead to see what the problems will be.
Looking to the very distant future, there will have to be some provision, corresponding to that of the CAA, for traffic control, to the Federal Communications Commission for assignment of frequencies, to avoid interference, and so on. I don't think we can see quite that far ahead at the present time to know how to spell out in detail what is required for such purposes.
Senator MUNDT. Mr. Chairman, will counsel yield?
Senator Mundt. I wonder if the point you are getting at, Mr. Counsel, might not be covered in section 6 (b) (3) on page 7:
To acquire, construct, improve, repair, operate, and maintain laboratories, research and testing sites and facilities, manned and unmanned aeronautical and space vehicles
and so on.
The word “operate” is included there. So, I would think the Agency does have the power to operate.
Dr. DRYDEN. My understanding is that the Agency is to be set up as a central agency for the civilian uses of space, peaceful uses of space. This is my understanding of the intent of the legislation, which includes operation.
NACA AS AN OPERATING AGENCY
Mr. WEISL. Under Secretary MacIntyre testified before us the other day that the NACA is not only an advisory agency but an operating agency as well, and that it has already entered the field of outer space. Do you agree with that testimony?
Dr. DRYDEN. In the research way. We have not, in the NACA, fired any satellites. We have participated in projects to study the problems of space. We have fired experimental rockets to very high speeds and very high altitudes. The word “Advisory” in the name has been a misnomer since 1926. The last advisory action of the NACA was in connection with the Air Commerce Act. Since that time, it has been a research agency, research and development agency, supporting the military and civilian programs, advancing the technology of aeronautics. We have flown airplanes. Our pilots happened to be the first ones to fly at Mach 1, Mach 2, and Mach 22. We do fly airplanes; we do fly rockets. It would be very gratifying if some of the committee could visit some of our installations and see what is actually going on.
ADDITIONAL POWERS FOR NEW AGENCY
Mr. WEISL. If the NACA Act were amended to include and add some of the provisions of the Space Agency, could you operate satisfactorily?
Dr. DRYDEN. I do not think so, sir, because of the functions of operation and development, and I wish to repeat it is my interpretation that the NACA is abolished by this act; that its several hundred million dollars worth of facilities and trained research teams are used as a foundation, but that a new agency is being created which will take new people, new types of people, in many instances. You are starting a brandnew civil agency, except you are using the resources you already have, instead of beginning with nothing.
Mr. WEISL. But, by giving the NAČA this added authority to hire new people and to operate, wouldn't that perform all the objectives and aims of the present bill?
Dr. DRYDEN. No, sir. There are at least four principal things that I can think of immediately. We do not now have the power to procure airplanes or space vehicles, for instance.
Mr. WEISL. Suppose you were given that power.
Dr. DRYDEN. I do not understand the difference between retaining the name and giving the provisions of this law and establishing a new agency.
Mr. WEISL. You now have an agency that has functioned for 43 years.
Dr. DRYDEN. Yes.
Mr. WEISL. Everyone has testified that it has functioned satisfactorily and well.
Dr. DRYDEN. Yes.
Mr. WEISL. The question I ask is: If NACA were given the additional powers needed, could NACA carry out all of the aims of this bill?
Dr. DRYDEN. I think_that this is a question of semantics. You could retain the name. But if it gets these new powers of procurement and development, much larger contract authority, much greater operation by contract, it will be a different agency and, in fact, a new agency even though you call it by the same name.
CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN A SINGLE DIRECTOR
Mr. WEISL. Now, you testified that you believe in the power, authority, and responsibility of one director.
Dr. DRYDEN, Well, I said that this is a means of concentrating the power and line of authority so that you know who is responsible, There is no division of responsibility. It is the ordinary line operation of the Government. There is a Cabinet officer, a bureau chief, and so on.
This is the same type of operation. Mr. WEISL. But you say you believe in that type of operation?
Dr. DRYDEN. For procurement and operations, I think this is, undoubtedly essential.
Mr. WEISL. Do you believe that the authority and responsibility of such a powerful person should be clearly defined and limited by law?
Dr. DRYDEN. Again, I do not know exactly what you have in mind. I think it should be limited in the same sense that the powers of a Cabinet officer or anybody else are limited. I don't know what you have in mind, specifically sir.
Mr. WEISL. I have in mind the vesting of dictatorial and sole power in one man. Is there any other agency that vests such power in one man?
Dr. DRYDEN. I think every large operating agency in the Government operates with a single head.
Mr. WEISL. The Atomic Energy Commission has a Chairman with several members, but each member has a vote. The Chairman alone doesn't decide policy or direct the agency. The Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the Tariff Commission-every agency that I have heard about or read about—each has a board where no one person is the dictator or the sole authority.
Dr. DRYDEN. Of those you have mentioned, sir, the Atomic Energy Commission is, to my knowledge, the only operating agency, the only one carrying on hardware-type operations. Now, the Atomic Energy Commission, that type of organization, in my opinion, has some builtin problems. You have five
people with the authority very uncertain between them. The delineation of the authority of 5 people with respect to each other, I think, is much more difficult than the delineation of authority in 1 person. The Atomic Energy Commission, of course, has operated very well. I think any agency may be made to operate well if the people wish to make it operate well. The people are more important than the organization chart.
Mr. WEISL. Doesn't the Defense Department have hardware?