ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

LIAISON WITH THE MILITARY

Senator JOHNSON. Dr. Pickering, we have been pleased to have your suggestions. Have you read the bill?

Dr. PICKERING. I have read the original version of the bill. I understand there are some changes, but I have not seen the latest version.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you think the new Space Agency_should have a military liaison committee between the Department of Defense similar to that between the Department and the AEC? Do you think the lines of demarcation are clearly sufficient to do the job?

Dr. PICKERING. The new Agency must obviously work very closely with the military. It must use military hardware at least in its initial steps. It must use military firing teams and probably military firing facilities, and therefore there must be close liaison with the military. I am not, however, certain as to just in what form that should be. legislated, but I am certain that it must somehow be effected. Senator JOHNSON. Senator Hickenlooper?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Dr. Pickering, I appreciate your answers to the questions that Senator Johnson just asked you. I am also very much interested in that phase of the matter, that is, the liaison between the military requirements that grow out of this operation and the overall space responsibility.

I point out that in the atomic energy legislation, the military liaison committee was created and given certain statutory rights protected by the right of appeal for a decision on matters which the military liaison committee might think were either good or bad for the security of the United States. Perhaps in the light of your answer to Senator Johnson you may not have formed any concrete ideas on the form of that association. I know you said that you thought it should be protected or that it should be safeguarded.

Dr. PICKERING. Yes.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. But I wonder if you have an opinion on whether or not that safeguard should be written into the law in a manner which would not necessarily let the tail wag the dog, or vice versa, but give protection in both fields.

Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir. I do. At least I would hope that we would end up with a situation where the military could not override the civilian program. At the same time, in order to not only protect the military interests but to assure military cooperation in the program, I believe that something should be written into the program so that the military felt that their interests were in fact protected.

Now, if this says the liaison committee with the right of appeal, perhaps that is the right answer. But I am sorry I just have no feeling in detail about the legislation.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I understand your attitude favors some device which would

Dr. PICKERING. Which would assure cooperation.

Senator HICKENLOOPER.-which would assure that the really essential military requirements of this country were not neglected. That would be acceptable.

Dr. PICKERING. Yes. When I look at the history of the NACA and its workings with the military, I find there a history of excellent relations. I find also the military assigning problems to the NACA

which they need help on. And I would like to think that a similar type of relationship could exist in this case.

I feel there is a difference in the AEC case in that the AEC's objectives, at least its initial objectives, were to provide the hardware or assist the military in providing hardware for them. And in this case it doesn't seem to me that it is quite the same problem. Here the civilian agency in its exploration of space is going to be conducting experiments, is going to be developing vehicles which the military I believe will not pick up directly, but the military will use these as a basis for developing weapons systems of their own.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Thank you, Dr. Pickering.

That is all I have.

Senator SYMINGTON (presiding). Senator Saltonstall?
Senator SALTONSTALL. No questions.
Senator SYMINGTON. Senator Bricker?

POSSIBLE DANGEROUS RADIATIONS

Senator BRICKER. Dr. Pickering, you mentioned a while ago this band of intense radiation at a certain distance out from earth that has been discovered by the satellites already there. Have you been able to ascertain yet the nature of that radiation, whether it is direct cosmic ray or the X-ray by the impact of the electrons on the surface of the satellite?

Dr. PICKERING. Well, sir, I think we can say that it is not the primary cosmic rays. Primary cosmic rays are of much greater energy and come down to the top of the atomosphere and, of course, even to the surface of the earth. This is a radiation which is being held perhaps a thousand miles above the earth by the action of the magnetic field of the earth, and therefore it is a radiation which is due to charged particles, probably electrons, of energies perhaps a hundred thousand volts. These electrons are, as it were, trapped by the magnetic field of the earth and are not able to come down close to the earth, but in some way circulate around the earth inside its magnetic field.

Dr. Van Allen, who I understand is to appear before this committee, is, of course, more competent to speak on this point than I am.

Senator BRICKER. Is there any possibility of shielding against such radiation?

Dr. PICKERING. Yes. The problem would be equivalent to shielding a person against X-rays of about a hundred-kilovolt energy. This would take perhaps a quarter of an inch or, say, a half inch of lead and that would provide adequate shielding.

Now, when one thinks of the difficulties of getting up a spaceship and the weights required just to keep a man up there, the prospect of adding that much lead is a little discouraging. Of course, as Dr. Van Allen will tell you, this is only the first experiment. It is clear we must do more experiments to find out more about this radiation. We just don't know yet. In fact, all we know is a lower limit to the intensity. It may be much stronger than we are now estimating, and we don't know how far out into space this radiation extends. It may be possible to pass through a band of radiation fairly quickly. Senator BRICKER. Thank you. That is all.

MILITARY AND CIVILIAN DEVELOPMENTS

Senator SYMINGTON. Dr. Pickering, it would be very difficult, would it not, to at this time decide what was military and what was not military in the way of space investigation?

Dr. PICKERING. Well, sir, if by military you mean what is a military weapons system or something which has a direct application to the military use as an end-point use, I can see such things, for example, as a reconnaissance satellite as being something about which the military can say, "Here is something we can use to see what the other fellow has."

When I think, on the other hand, of some other satellite experiments such as the meteorological experiment, I can visualize that the problem of finding out what satellites can contribute to our knowledge of meteorology and our knowledge of long-range weather forecasting, that I would regard as a scientific effort which might end up with a military end point.

It is true that in much of the science of the country now, we find the military supporting research programs of this type which will lead potentially into military applications. And, of course, if you wanted to draw the line at anything which could possibly have a military application, then practically everything one does in space I suppose would come under that category. But it appears to me that if a space agency is to be established for this purpose, one could draw the line more on the side of the applied research or the specific developments rather than the supporting research, the underlying developments, and the net

Senator SYMINGTON. The reason for my question is that under the premise in our Government, of civilian control, right now it would be difficult to take a list and say, "This is for the military and this is for civilian.”

Dr. PICKERING. Yes.

Senator SYMINGTON. Therefore if you have the head of a civilian agency with authority reporting to the President in this field, then the question as to just how the applied research should proceed would automatically come up later in discussion with the Secretary of Defense and the President plus any other advisers like Dr. Killian or anybody else with whom the President would want to discuss it.

Would that be a fair analysis of it? What I would oppose more than anything else in this bill would be any belief that in emphasizing civilian control, you are throwing a block on the military development for security. I don't think, as I read the bill, that that is characteristic of it. How do you feel about that?

Dr. PICKERING. No. I agree. It seems to me that there is no danger that military developments will be blocked. I think myself that it is perhaps a little bit the other way, that the interest in military developments may take such a large fraction of the available funds that a scientific program will have difficulty in proceeding.

Senator SYMINGTON. Well, if you do feel the latter way, is there anything in the bill that you would change to correct that? Or do you think that will just be the way it will go?

Dr. PICKERING. I think that is a problem for the Congress in allotting funds for the space activity.

Senator SYMINGTON. And not a problem of the bill, itself.

Dr. PICKERING. Not a problem of the bill, itself.

THRUST OF NEW SOVIET SPUTNIK

Senator SYMINGTON. Inasmuch as you are, certainly, one of the foremost, if not the foremost, experts in the field of jet propulsion, what thrust do you think was used to put this latest 2,900-pound sputnik in orbit?"

Dr. PICKERING. Well, sir, there has been a suggestion that the Russians have been working with quarter-of-a-million-pound thrust motors. To put this in orbit would probably require two of those or, say, half a million pounds thrust.

Senator SYMINGTON. So, you think it was a two-stage

Dr. PICKERING. Well, I don't know whether it was 2 parallel motors or 1 half-million-pound-thrust motor or something in between. Just as an order of magnitude, though, it would be in that category. In our experience, we can say that the weight in orbit is about one one-thousandth of the weight at takeoff.

Senator SYMINGTON. What was that again?

Dr. PICKERING. The weight in orbit is about one one-thousand th of the weight at takeoff. You see, for example, the Explorer has 30 pounds in orbit for about 60,000-pound takeoff. Well, that is less than one one-thousandth. The Vanguard is closer to one onethousandth of the weight. It is a little better than one one-thousandth, but it is somewhere in that order of magnitude, between onehundredth and one one-thousandth of the weight at takeoff.

On this basis, if you have 3,000 pounds of instruments in orbit plus, presumably, a final-stage rocket which, perhaps, weighs 2,000 or 3,000 pounds, 6,000 pounds in orbit, you have to have more than 600,000 pounds at takeoff, which would take more than half a million pounds thrust.

So, I think half a million pounds is probably a lower limit on the thrust.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Dr. Pickering.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, might I ask one question? Senator JOHNSON. Senator Saltonstall.

ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE NEW AGENCY

Senator SALTONSTALL. Dr. Pickering, do you approve of the method of selection of the Advisory Board, and do you approve of having a single director rather than a committee or commission responsible? I assume you are familiar with the act.

Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir. Well, sir, as far as the single Director is concerned, I do approve of this, rather than a commission. I believe that a program of this kind, which has to be very definitely oriented toward a specific experimental program, the single Director will be necessary in order to progress smoothly.

On the question of the Board and the extent of military control in the Board, I think this is related to the problem of what authority the Board is to have. As I read the bill, the Board is advisory to the Director, and, as an advisory board, it certainly should represent the military interest as well as the civilian interest. But, with the present makeup of the Board being 8 from the Government and 9 from private industry, from civilian life, it would seem to me that this is a reasonable makeup on the Board.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Well, the Government has now come forward and changed that, so it is now 9 from the Government and 8 civilian.

Dr. PICKERING. Oh, I see. Well, even so, I don't have any objection to that. I certainly think that the Government interest, the military interest, must be expressed on that Advisory Board. No question about that.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you.

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Symington?

VAST WEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOVIET AND AMERICAN SATELLITES

Senator SYMINGTON. Dr. Pickering, I want to ask another question, in an effort to be constructive.

When the first sputniks went up, some expenditure ceilings in the military were taken off. Unfortunately, these expenditure ceilings have been reapplied. Perhaps they will be taken off again, as a result of this latest Soviet accomplishment.

Nobody knows more about jet propulsion than you do, in my opinion. I have followed your career with great interest. But shouldn't the public be informed, officially, of the difference in defense significance between orbiting a 30-pound satellite and the orbiting, say, of a 3,000-pound satellite? Why is it that there has been no emphasis on that point? Frankly, the American people feel they got their sputnik up, and we got ours up. You agree with me on that, don't you, that that is the feeling?

Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir. I certainly do agree, and I do feel that the people have been becoming much too complacent when the score a little while ago was 3 to 2; and I couldn't agree more that we must appreciate the difference between, as you say, putting up 30 pounds and putting up 3,000 pounds.

Senator SYMINGTON. In other words, what worries me is I go back into my State and I find that people feel we are sort of on a par with the Soviets, when the facts are that what we have done to date has no military significance whatever, as far as thrust is concerned, and what they have done is conclusive proof that they have the thrust capable of launching an ICBM. Is that correct?

Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir; very definitely, sir. This 3,000-pound satellite, of course, I regard this as a tremendously important achievement in getting that magnitude of weight up there.

Senator SYMINGTON. Well, I would like to ask this question, then, at that point. This should end forever any doubt on our part with respect to their putting up any known warhead, hydrogen or otherwise, wouldn't you say, from a thrust standpoint?

Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir. Having the capability of putting 3,000 pounds in orbit, certainly, says they have the capability of firing ICBM's with very substantial warheads.

Senator SYMINGTON. For any distances of 5,000 miles or above? Dr. PICKERING. Or longer; yes, sir. I would also like to comment in this connection, sir, that in looking at the photographs of Sputniks I and II, you see, we have been able to take moderately good photographs as they go by, and in making calculations from the apparent brightness of these objects, and so forth, we have come to the conclusion that the size of the rocket which was in orbit with the Sputniks

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »