« 이전계속 »
least two purposes: First, to provide the vehicles for the transportation of scientific apparatus to whatever stations in space they must reach to perform the experiments; and, second, to develop and test new vehicles and flight techniques.
In considering the organization and program to accomplish all this, you must first note where our capabilities lie. Personally, I am one who believes that this country has very strong capabilities in this field and that our scientific, engineering, and industrial people will respond quickly to this challenge.
There are several sources of this needed talent. In the first place, within the Government we have the NACA with its laboratories and flight stations-Redstone Arsenal, and a large number of others, all of which have already conducted some important experimental work. There are other Government laboratories which have participated in the program of scientific experiment--the Naval Research Laboratory, the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, and others.
There are a large number of university scientific laboratories which have been involved in scientific experiments. And, finally, we have strong industrial concerns interested primarily in the vehicle developments, but which in fact have expanded their interests and strengths quite a bit beyond.
The Government organization set up to handle astronautics and space exploration must tap all of these strengths.
Without going into great detail on the possible organizations to do this job, let me say for several reasons I favor the use of NACA as a nucleus of a new organization to conduct our nonmilitary work in astronautics and space exploration.
In the first place, the NACA laboratories have already done and are continuing to do a great deal of work in this field, particularly in research on flight techniques. One cannot divide technical fields, and I believe that all of the problems of flight stretching over the spectrum from the low speed, low altitude flight in the atmosphere, to those of very high speed, high altitude flight outside of the atmosphere, are best solved in a single agency encompassing them all.
In the second place, NACĂ's relationship with the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences, and the scientific community at large, is such that they can use important scientific research capabilities outside of their own organization.
In the third place, NACA has a longstanding, close relationship with the military organizations. There is a great overlap in the military and the nonmilitary uses of equipment for space exploration and experimentation. The new organization can use these well-founded relationships: First, to help the military solve its problems; and, second, to help itself by occasionally using military equipment.
It is important to consider this a new organization rather than an expanded NACA, for it must have a capability to contract with industry and academic institutions on a scale far larger than NACA has had in the past.
Finally, there is one important point which is fundamental to this entire operation. It is a point which is more general than just space technology. It has to do with the delegation of authority and responsibility once the program is decided upon.
In those stages in which we are now-essentially discovering what our objectives are, what our organization should be, and what general
program should be followed—I think it is important to tap all of the ideas from all sources.
As we begin to carry out this program, we must continue to tap these ideas from capable organizations and individuals to find out what experiments to perform and to discover new techniques.
But, having decided upon an experiment or a program of experiments, a program of flights, I believe it is essential that the responsibility and authority be delegated to the working technical level. A very complicated superstructure of detailed technical management within the Government, I believe, has seriously hampered some of our most important projects in space technology to date.
I believe that the leaders within the current NACA understand this fundamental requirement for rapid progress in a technical venture.
Finally, I would like to give two reasons why I believe that the nonmilitary uses of space should be controlled by a civilian agency rather than the military agencies.
In the first place there is the reason that was given by Dr. Dryden: we should prove to the world that we are really interested in science for science's sake and for science to lay the foundation for long-term nonmilitary technical applications.
In the second place, I believe the Department of Defense has several space problems which are of such difficulty and on which so little progress has yet been made, that it will take all of their capabilities to master them.
Senator JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Dr. Stever.
RESPONSIBILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Doctor, I have a few questions,
The first one is: In your judgment does this bill adequately provide for the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense in connection with its responsibility to develop weapons systems, involving the use of outer space?
Dr. STEVER. Sir, I have not studied the bill in enough detail and I am not familiar enough with the legal procedures which must be gone through to insure this. I do know that cooperation must be very strong between them. I do know that the Department of Defense has some very important space technology programs over which they must have jurisdiction. But I believe that they should not have sole jurisdiction over the space program.
Senator Johnson. Do you think the bill adequately provides sufficient power to make decisions for the rapid development of nonmilitary space systems?
Dr. STEVER. By the new Agency; yes.
Senator Johnson. Do you believe the proposed legislation makes ample provision for international cooperation on nonmilitary space exploration?
Dr. STEVER. Again, I have not, primarily because of the lack of time, gone into the provisions of the bill on this point. I think that it is important if we are to accomplish the first objective which I stated, namely to prove to the world that we are interested in and will lead in the nonmilitary uses of space.
WEAPONS SYSTEMS RESEARCH
Senator Johnson. Should military weapons involving the use of outer space be researched to the stage of design development outside the Department of Defense?
Dr. STEVER. Should military weapons be designed?
I believe that military weapons should be designed within the Department of Defense or by contract to the Department.
Senator JOHNSON. Is it desirable to have a separate agency from the Department of Defense vested with total research power over all space systems, military and nonmilitary?
Dr. STEVER. No, sir; I believe that the military systems should be under the Department of Defense and the nonmilitary systems should be under the space agency, and that the overlap between them and this should be recognized to be great, involving research, ideas, techniques, equipment, bases, and so on-must be handled some way.
DETERMINATION OF PROJECTS AND SPACE POLICY
Senator JOHNSON. Under this bill who would determine which agency would handle which projects?
Dr. STEVER. Well, as I read the bill—again I am only repeating what I have just heard from Dr. Dryden-most of the cases presumably would be treated by mutual agreement; those that were not, would be referred to the President.
Senator JOHNSON. Where under the bill do you believe the determination of national space policy would take place: in the Department of Defense or in the new Space Agency?
Dr. STEVER. I think that this is a very important thing which must be looked to. There are a number of activities in space in which a national space policy would have to be developed.
For example, in our NACA space technology committee, we have recognized as a serious problem the surveillance of space; that is, keeping track of all of the experimental equipment and military vehicles up there. The responsibility for this must be worked out in more detail.
Senator JOHNSON. Do you endorse the bill as written and urge its approval?
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir.
Senator Saltonstall? Senator Saltonstall is the ranking member. But, since he must also leave shortly, I will ask Senator Mundt if he would preside. I have an 11:30 meeting.
I would like to announce we will not convene until 2:30 this afternoon. We have a White House meeting at noon and I know I cannot be here before 2:30. If I am a little late, I will ask any member who may be here to go ahead and open the meeting. Senator Saltonstall, do you plan to be here this afternoon?
Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, I plan to be here this afternoon.
Senator JOHNSON. Will you preside?
Senator SalToNSTALL. I will ask Senator Mundt to preside because I have another committee meeting.
I would like to ask a couple of questions first.
Senator MUNDT (presiding). Very well. I will preside and will recognize the Senator from Massachusetts.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chairman. I have just three questions, Dr. Stever.
RELATIONSHIP OF DIRECTOR TO BOARD Did I understand you to say in your testimony that you believe that the Director should be in charge and the Board just a consulting board, so the Director will have the ability to make quick decisions?
Dr. STEVER. Sir, I believe that this is a very important organizational feature of any group which has the responsibility to put into effect a program which is agreed upon by our Government.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Well, then, do you believe that one man should be in charge?
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SALTONSTALL. And that the Board should have no authority except a consulting authority?
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir. I believe that is good organizational procedure not only at the agency level but at all the operating levels beneath it.
SETTLING DISAGREEMENTS Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, you also brought out, when the chairman asked you a question, that when there is disagreement on a policy decision, as to whether a function is military or whether it is civilian, that decision ultimately, if there is a disagreement, has to be made by the President and nobody else, didn't you?
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir.
BASIC RESEARCH OUTSIDE THE MILITARY Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, you stated, I think, to the chairman that you thought that all work relating to military security should be done within the Defense Department. Now, assume that there is some research to be done on space that ultimately might lead to military applications, that research can be done outside the Defense Department, can't it?
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir. I would like to comment on that. Possibly I made some inaccurate statements. I referred, when I said that the military work should be done within the Department of Defense, to military weapons projects. I actually think that a great deal of technology which the new Space Agency should do will overlap the technology that the military organizations must work on. As in the past with NACA, I believe that the Department of Defense should ask the new Agency to cooperate when the new Agency's facilities are best equipped to do this work. On techniques, research, ideas, devel
opment of component equipment, I believe there should be cooperation. When it comes to weapons systems development for military purposes, then I think that the Department of Defense should be responsible, and when it comes to flights of space vehicles for nonmilitary uses, I think they should be under the control of the new Agency.
Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, the basic research is to be done outside the Department of Defense.
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir.
Senator SALTONSTALL. When that basic research begins to lead to a weapon's application then that should be taken over by the Department of Defense?
Dr. STEVER. When it is clearly a weapon; yes, sir.
Dr. STEVER. I think that the military departments will from time to time be doing work that NASA will be very interested in; I don't think that one can take science and engineering research completely out of the Department of Defense.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Well
Dr. STEVER. Some of their work is good for all sorts of peaceful uses.
Senator SALTONSTALL. You are a professor at MIT?
Senator SALTONSTALL. I am a Massachusetts citizen. I am very proud of MIT and what it is doing. Isn't it true that with respect to many contracts that MIT has, it can't be specified that this is purely for military and that is purely for civilian applications. They may run into both.
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Senator SALTONSTALL. And when it becomes apparent that a weapon may be developed from the research, then that should go over into the Defense Department.
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir.
QUESTION OF DEFINING MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PROJECTS
Mr. WEISL. Your definition of what is military and what is civilian is not consistent with the language of the bill, Dr. Stever. The bill defines as military anything that is peculiarly associated with or related to weapons systems or military operations.
Now, can you conceive of reconnaissance, weather, communications, not being related to military operations?
Dr. STEVER. Sir, I think and I am deviating a little bit from your question—I think that we could define and write forever and try to distinguish between technical activity which was military and technical activity which was nonmilitary. There is a large area of overlap in space technology. In some cases it just depends upon the application. I think also that there are technical activities that the Air Force and Navy at the present time carry on, which are applicable to