I and II was somewhat larger than the rocket which launched the Explorer. This is consistent with the weights which the Russians quoted for the instrument weights of Sputniks I and II, the instrument weights, and so if there is any question in anyone's mind as to whether or not the Russians are in fact giving us the truth on these weights, I would say as far as Sputniks I and II are concerned the answer is that we have indirect evidence which says that they are correct, that those weights are probably the correct weights. There

is no

Senator SYMINGTON. To be sure that I understand you, what you are saying is that because their second stage shows that they have a larger thrust than our first stage based on actual photographs, it is very clear that they are ahead in this missile field.

Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Is that correct?
Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Dr. PICKERING. That the rocket in orbit is comparable in size or perhaps larger than the Redstone rocket which launched the Explorer. Senator SYMINGTON. Why do you think it is that so many people consistently try to maintain the fiction, then, that our position is equal or ahead in this field?

Dr. PICKERING. I don't know, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. It is very difficult to understand. You are the expert in this field.

Dr. PICKERING. It would seem to me that anyone who reads the papers intelligently and sees the facts of what the Russians have done; they are not hiding this from the rest of the world. The satellite is not a matter of intelligence information or anything else. It is up there for all the world to see. At the same time we can read in our newspapers what goes on at Cape Canaveral and there it is.

PROPER MANAGEMENT OF A SPACE PROGRAM

Senator SYMINGTON. You are not only a scientist, a physicist, but you also have had management experience like Dr. Karl Compton and Dr. James Killian. Based on your present work, don't you think at this point it is very clear that we should take off all restrictions of any kind whatever in our defense developments in order to be as strong as we possibly can with these new weapons?

Dr. PICKERING. I think, sir, we certainly must put all the emphasis we can in our work in this large rocket field. At the same time, I do feel that the rate of progress in this field is not entirely a matter of funds. It is a matter of people and management. And management techniques are still evolving, as it were, in these large military systems. Likewise the problem of getting the trained scientists and engineers and using them effectively is a problem which faces us in this country.

Senator SYMINGTON. Have you any suggestions you would care to give to the committee as to what should be done along those lines? Dr. PICKERING. Well, sir, the only comment I would make is the rather obvious one that the education of scientists and engineers in the country has got to be encouraged. This is a long-term process. It is not something you get overnight. And the other comment I

would make is that when our weapons programs are once established, we should stay with them and bring them to completion. I think we have a tendency in this country to always want to develop the very latest thing. We are always afraid that we are developing something which is obsolescent. So we are in a state of always wanting to make changes in development programs as they go along. I have seen programs in which this has definitely been a difficulty.

We should establish objectives and then have the courage to believe that these are worthwhile objectives which will not be obsolete when we have accomplished them instead of always trying to bring the system up to date as we go.

Senator SYMINGTON. Would that be your comment with respect to the management field?

Dr. PICKERING. Yes; management of weapons systems.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JOHNSON. Senator McClellan?

Senator MCCLELLAN. No questions.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP

Senator JOHNSON. Dr. Pickering what recommendations would you make to the committee that would increase our opportunity to achieve scientific and technological leadership among the nations of the world in this field?

Dr. PICKERING. Well, sir, I feel that this is a problem which involves the whole national effort, that there must be an appreciation in the country of the significance of scientific and technological achievements, and an appreciation of the fact also that Russian technology is obviously advancing at a much faster rate than ours, and in some areas, at least, it is ahead of us. And that given this appreciation, then an acknowledgement of the fact that this is going to require a great deal of hard work on the part of our people and our technically trained people particularly. I feel this is something which has to be appreciated throughout the country and it is not something that can be done by legislative action or committee action of any sort, but it is just a general acknowledgment of the situation which we are in as far as the populace is concerned.

In other words, I think, as Senator Symington said a moment ago, that too many people in this country were prone to say that we have 3 satellites up there and they only had 2, and had no appreciation of the underlying facts, and this I believe is true in a great many technical fields. We are too complacent still. We feel that we are the technical leaders of the world, and in fact, we are now being challenged by the Russians and we must recognize the fact that we are being challenged.

Senator JOHNSON. Well, some of us do recognize it and some of us say so, and some of us advocate more vigorous action. But we still are confronted with the situation which you have outlined. Now, where do we go from there?

Dr. PICKERING. Well, sir, I feel that perhaps this latest Russian achievement is one of the things which will wake us up again, that if the people can realize the situation, then I believe that proper support for scientific and technological endeavor will be forthcoming.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you think the support for such an endeavor is inadequate at this moment?

Dr. PICKERING. In general I do not feel that the financial support of scientific work in this country is badly inadequate. We can always use more money, obviously, but it seems to me that we have the money available but somehow we are not accomplishing as much as should be done with the funds. In other words

Senator JOHNSON. You are saying it is not so much a state of the bank account as a state of mind?

Dr. PICKERING. It is a state of mind, I believe, more than anything else.

Senator JOHNSON. And what are your suggestions for improving the situation?

Dr. PICKERING. Well, sir, I have only this feeling, that it is a matter of the national spirit, as it were, and something which has to grow through the country, and there is nothing concrete that can be done except to keep these facts before the people.

Senator JOHNSON. Are there any other questions of Dr. Pickering? Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one more, if I may.

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Symington.

EXPENDITURE CEILINGS HAMPER DEFENSE EFFORT

Senator SYMINGTON. Dr. Pickering, based on work that you do as head of a great jet propulsion laboratory, it is a coincidence that we have you here this morning, the same day the Russians launched the sputnik.

I placed a statement in the record only yesterday. I will ask you a question about it after I read it.

With respect to what is going on now, I said in the record yesterday: Expenditure ceilings were determining our defense policy.

That was before sputnik. Shortly after sputnik, or thereabouts, and I quote:

With only minor deviations and modifications these expenditure ceilings are still hamstringing our defense activity and minimizing the constructive effect of needed defense expenditures upon the economy. These artificial controls over the use of money made available by the Congress continue to be enforced in spite of inflation, in spite of the recession, and in spite of the relative decline of our defense strength vis-a-vis the Soviet.

Now, I investigated the matter thoroughly before I made that statement and I am not asking you to comment on its accuracy, but if it is true, I would ask you, don't you think that we should stop establishing expenditure ceilings on money that has been appropriated for the purpose of improving our defenses, especially in the field of newer weapons?

Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir. It would seem to me when the Congress has appropriated money, this is an indication of the will of the people which should be carried out then by the military; yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Bricker?

COST OF THE SPACE PROGRAM

Senator BRICKER. You estimate the cost at a billion dollars. Dr. PICKERING. Yes, sir. There have been figures which have been quoted in the order of $100 million to a billion dollars a year for a substantial space program. My feeling is it will be closer to a billion than to a hundred million.

Senator JOHNSON. Any other questions?

Thank you very much, Dr. Pickering. You are excused. You have made a valuable contribution and we appreciate the suggestions you have given us. The committee will give serious attention to your recommendations. You are excused.

Dr. PICKERING. Thank you, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. Our next witness is Dr. James Van Allen, Chairman, Rocket and Satellite Research Panel, and professor of physics, at the University of Iowa.

Dr. Van Allen, will you please come to the microphone.

Dr. Van Allen, you have been active in rocket and upper atmosphere research since 1946. You have also done considerable work in the IGY program. We welcome you and express our gratitude for your coming here to give us the benefit of your experience.

Our esteemed colleague, Senator Hickenlooper, must leave because of an engagement he has previously made, but he has talked to me about your appearance.

I ask unanimous consent that we put a biographical sketch of Dr. Van Allen in the record at this point. Senator Hickenlooper, would you care to make a statement before Dr. Van Allen proceeds with his statement?

(The biography referred to is as follows:)

BIOGRAPHY OF DR. JAMES VAN ALLEN, PHYSICIST; CHAIRMAN, IGY SUBCOMMITTEE

Dr. Van Allen was born in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, on September 7, 1914. He attended Iowa Wesleyan College receiving his bachelor of science and doctor of science in 1931. From the State University of Iowa he received a master of science in 1936 and a doctor of philosophy in 1939.

He was with the Carnegie Institution of Washington from 1939-42 and with Johns Hopkins in 1942 and again from 1946-50. He was the leader of several scientific expeditions from 1949-52. He has been a professor of physics and head of the department at the State University of Iowa since 1951. He was also a research associate at Princeton University in 1953-54.

He served as a lieutenant commander in the United States Navy from 1942-46 and also worked with the OSRD during World War II. He has been a member

of a subcommittee of the NACA and has been active in rocket and upper atmosphere research since 1946 as a member and now Chairman of the Rocket and Satellite Research Panel. He also heads the Working Group on Internal Instrumentation of the IGY program.

He is a member of the American Physical Society, the American Geophysics Union, and Sigma Xi. He is author of many scientific articles on the upper atmosphere and earth satellites.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES VAN ALLEN, CHAIRMAN, ROCKET AND SATELLITE RESEARCH PANEL AND PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

Senator HICKENLOOPER. The only thing I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that Dr. Van Allen is a very renowned physicist and has done invaluable work, of course, on instrumentation and other necessary details of certain rocket and satellite operations.

2548458-pt. 2- 8

We are very proud of his work in Iowa. He is a native-born Iowa citizen, and I join with the chairman in welcoming you here, Doctor. Senator JOHNSON. Dr. Van Allen, do you have a prepared statement?

Dr. VAN ALLEN. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. Will you proceed in your own way.

Dr. VAN ALLEN. Yes. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a very great honor for me to have this occasion to appear this morning.

I thought I should first summarize my views in order that you may know in a general way where I stand and in order to give some background for questions.

In the first place, I do consider that a vigorous national program of outer space research is essential to our maintaining scientific and technological leadership among nations of the world.

Secondly, I heartily support the President's proposals for this purpose as embodied in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which is now pending before the Congress and before this committee. And I specifically urge that dominant authority and responsibility for the execution of this national program be vested in a civil agency.

In the way of general background on my experience in this field, I should like to say that since 1940 I have been closely associated with military weapons development. In fact, throughout World War II and for some time after that, that was my principal professional activity, working on military weapons systems and in their operational use in the Pacific Fleet and for our ground forces in Europe.

Since 1946 I have been primarily engaged in scientific work using high altitude rockets and most recently using satellites. So I feel that I do have some impression of both sides of this question, namely, the military operational and weapons requirements and the civilian scientific and educational aspects, and some impression of what the possibilities of space developments are for the general benefit of our citizenry at large.

I list the following purposes of a national space program in what I believe to be about the right order of importance for a civilian agency. In the first place, there is a vast amount of ignorance, just simple. ignorance, about what is going on in the upper atmosphere of the earth and in the space surrounding the earth. So I feel that the first, and the most basic undertaking of the civil Agency is the investigation of the phenomena of nature on a geophysical and astrophysical scale.

Second, there has been a great deal said about the aspect of human adventure and exploration. I have no special advocacy of "the man in space" undertaking. I feel that it is something which men will wish to do and in due time will do. I think the incentives are of the same nature that Magellan must have had in starting around the world, namely, just to see what is around the world; and I do believe that, in the long term, human exploration of space will possibly be a significant field of human activity.

Thirdly, there is the application of new knowledge and techniques resulting from these investigations to the promotion of the intellectual agricultural and industrial capabilities of the Nation.

Fourth, there is the aspect of the advancement of international understanding by cooperation in undertakings which are naturally