Page images

defense space program vulnerable to the loss of an orbiter or critical spare parts?

Dr. DELAUER. I think that there is some concern.

Senator GORTON. This is in the area to which you just testified to Senator Trible that we are better off having more than one way of doing things?

Dr. DELAUER. That is right, and, as you know, we are looking at what would be alternatives to the situation. But until we have more experience, we cannot really count on the STS, which I don't quite honestly believe we can at this point. I mean we have demonstrated the system and there is no question it can do the job, but now it is a question of getting it on a schedule that operationally you can count on, and I think we can do that. So we are counting on STS to do the job for us, but that doesn't mean from a continuous planning standpoint you don't look at alternative ways.

For instance, to give you an example, you know we are talking about taking the Titan II's out and deactivating them. We took a good look to see whether or not we could utilize them for space boosters. It doesn't look like we really can without added cost, but we will save all the fuel. The fuel will be stored. So considering a major cost element of implementing essentially a Titan III capability again, we will have all the fuel and that is a lot of fuel. It is storable and all we do now is just pay storage costs. So that is the kind of contingency we continue to look at.

We have also looked at applications of the MX as an emergency space booster-what size payloads would be required if you had to have emergency communications and things like that-because all of this is tied in with how do you really handle a lot of the ancillary kinds of capability, [deleted] and all the things that you may need to reconstitute under certain conditions. We have to do that anyway, even if you counted on the STS. What happens if you lost a launch pad or lost both pads? You know, both of them happen to be in a very convenient place for somebody if they wanted to take some action against them. It doesn't take much to put them out of action. So I think you have essentially both a wartime contingency as well as essentially your peacetime activity and I think they take different magnitudes of concern and we are looking at all of them. But we are spending most all of out money really on pursuing the program as now laid out.

Senator GORTON. NOAA has proposed to deploy only one polar weather satellite rather than two as originally planned. Does DOD depend on the NOAA weather satellites as a backup for its own system?


Senator GORTON. If so, has DOD assured that a one satellite civilian system provides the level of backup needed?

Dr. COOPER. Yes, we have looked at that and we believe that is adequate for our purposes. Mainly the NOAA weather satellites are used for backup in times when the DOD weather satellites are not available.

Now, unfortunately, in the past we have had some tough times with satellites not being available. So we have relied heavily for general weather information on the NOAA weather satellites.

We would hope that NOAA would keep a minimum of one satellite on orbit for backup purposes for defense in the foreseeable future.

Senator GORTON. Let's turn the question around. If the civilian polar satellite system were to stop functioning could the defense system provide backup information to the National Weather Service?

Dr. COOPER. No. There are key instruments on the commercial weather satellites which are not contained on the defense weather satellite that are required for certain kinds of weather prediction that is done only by NOAA for public, civil purposes.

Typical of military satellites, the defense meteorological satellite program has very specific uses as well as some general uses and by and large the complement of instruments on the two space craft is different and both are required.

Now that doesn't say anything about the synchronous meteorological satellites which are of some benefit to defense and which are crucial I believe to public, civil weather predictions. Those should be maintained. We hope that those will be maintained with the current complement.

Senator GORTON. The major new start in the NASA aeronautics program is the numerical aerodynamic simulator. Will the defense agencies be major users of this capability?

Dr. DELAUER. They intend to.

Senator GORTON. If so, are you satisfied that the NAS design is fully adequate for military aircraft design purposes?

Dr. DELAUER. Well, I think for what its use is now. We have high hopes for the future. We have a program just getting started under Bob's direction. The first funding will be in our submission in the 1985 POM. We are doing a little work now, what we call the nth generation, which is DOD's initiative to overcome the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the commercial side of the American industry to go after the fifth generation system. As a consequence, the nth generation supercomputer program has as one of its objectives in the military application a full three-dimensional computation for aircraft design, both Navier Stokes [deleted] as well as all the structural aspects of the thing. It has high hopes and this is one of our applications of what the nth generation supercomputer program might add to our capability.

Senator GORTON. We are generally familiar with the support by NASA of defense aeronautics programs. Do the DOD programs such as what you call modern technology demonstration engine program or metal matrix composite materials support NASA's propulsion and structures programs, and how do these DOD programs find their way into civilian aircraft applications?

Dr. DELAUER. Well, if you go back far enough, which I happen to be able to do, one of the original efforts on how to handle boron fibers came out of an Air Force planning exercise called Project Forecast in the early 1963-64 period which the Air Force Systems Command took on as a major plan. As a matter of fact, a lot of good concepts came out of it. The C-5 came out of it and a very large transport came out of it. They didn't plan to implement it like they did in the beginning, but the boron fibers came out of it.

Out of that came the whole question of composite technology and the military funded that and then it moved in a limited way into a lot of civilian economy, particularly in things that focused in the sporting goods end of it. But in the aeronautical end of it it showed up as elements of modern transports. The Boeing 757 and 767 have a lot of composite material in them. As a matter of fact, they are finally getting to where it is some composite primary structure. We used it as a secondary structure in the past.


You know I can predict that probably the next commercial airplane will have a [deleted] because you sell an airplane on cost per seat mile and that is going to make a hell of a difference, that plus the low specific fuel consumption engines which are now in exist ence. So we can make some improvements on that.

So between the two of them we have made commercial aviation. If we hadn't given away the CF-6 engine, we would still have had our hands on all of it, but that was something else. That is another subject for another time.

Senator GORTON. I am only about half way through the questions which I had prepared for you all. We, however, will have a series of rollcalls beginning at 11 o'clock. So I am going to submit the rest of my questions to you in writing and defer to Senator Heflin.

Senator HEFLIN. I will have to submit a major portion of my questions in writing, too, but let cover one or two areas.

What portion of the BMD budget in 1984 to 1988 is dedicated to space defense activities?

Dr. DELAUER. The BMD budget, Senator? If you take a combination of both what is in the Army BMD and what is in our ARPA program and put that together, I would say-

Dr. COOPER. I think we ought to go back and get those numbers for you in detail.

Dr. DELAUER. The laser program he talked about has some BMD aspects of it. As you know, they are looking at a homing vehicle which could be utilized in space. So we will get you the numbers on that.

[The following information was subsequently received for the record:]

Space defense, from boost phase until just prior to reentry, accounts for approximately 15 percent of the fiscal year 1984 BMD budget. This allocation is programed to increase to approximately 35 percent of the BMD budget by fiscal year 1988.

Senator HEFLIN. Why is SOFAS/FAST activity been reduced or terminated?


Senator HEFLIN. No, SOFAS, sofas as some of them call it.

Dr. DELAUER. You have got me, Senator. You caught me short. Senator HEFLIN. It is a forward acquisition sensor program. Dr. DELAUER. The forward acquisition sensor program. That beats me. I will go back and find out why we terminated it, if we did. First, I have got to find out what it is.

[The following information was subsequently received for the record:]

The budget for the Forward Acquisition System (FAS) Technology Development Program was reduced in fiscal year 1983 to make funds available for the higher priority Endoatmospheric Nonnuclear Kill Technology Development Program. Surviv

able Optical Forward Acquisition Sensor (SOFAS), an application of FAS technology to the tactical warning/assessment, was never approved or funded. Since FAS was reduced, the potential for near-term development of SOFAS was eliminated. We continue to believe that other technology areas warrant a higher priority than SOFAS/FAS; however, we are continuing a low-level of activity in the development of the critical signal and data processing technologies for FAS and SOFAS applications.

Senator HEFLIN. Well, would you describe the potential development for the exo-atmospheric defense of ballistic missiles?

Dr. DELAUER. The exo-atmospheric program?

Senator HEFLIN. Yes.

Dr. DELAUER. I know what that is. We have got the program now configured toward looking at what the most suitable defense of the concept of land-based missile systems that now exists, which is the closely spaced basing. Thus, we are looking within the atmospheric point defense more than we are looking exo-atmospheric. We had the homing vehicle that I talked about, which is exo-atmospheric. It is a [deleted] homing system. We have had one test with that out in the Pacific and we are continuing. We have got another test coming up shortly. But that homing vehicle program is on its way. We have let the contract with L.T.V. Vought on the vehicle itself. That contract is out, it is being negotiated but it has not been awarded. So that is the sensor part of it.

The overall systems aspects of it have been, other than this experimental work, somewhat reduced as we try to refocus the BMD aspects on things that have to do with point defense, and that goes into nonnuclear capability. We are putting some more effort into nonnuclear things, the things that Bob talked about. The electromagnetic gun, for instance, is one that can contribute to that.

So the Army is restructuring the BMD program at the present time to focus more on things that Senator Trible said, you know, looking at the defense of the land-based missile systems.

Senator HEFLIN. What are the major technical issues to be resolved in the exoatmospheric defense, and provide a timetable for potential deployment? Maybe you had better put that in writing. Dr. DELAUER. We will do that.

[The following information was subsequently received for the record:]

Exoatmospheric ballistic missile defense (BMD) could potentially provide high leverage, large payoff defense capability against ballistic missile attack. Intercepts in the exoatmosphere could be made with nonnuclear defense weapons, and could provide a large "foot print" of defended targets. The following specific efforts within the BMD program are/will be included in the exoatmospheric defense activity: [Deleted].


Senator HEFLIN. Let me ask on this antisatellite defense. I of course saw in this morning's paper that there will probably be a proposal for transfer of Government owenrship of satellites, some satellites to the private sector. If this is done, does this raise defense issues of those satellites, or are there military and space implications of those? Has the various ancillary issues relative to space and military been explored if there were to be a transfer relative to the satellites that are under consideration today?

Dr. DELAUER. Yes, sir. As I answered the chairman-
Senator Heflin. Has that already been asked?

19-200 0-83--3

Dr. DELAUER. No, not quite. I alluded to it. He asked particularly about the shuttle, wondering what the impact would be if you had private ownership of the shuttle which they are talking about for the extra one. I alluded to the fact at that time that we were concerned about proper safeguards and that falls right into this question you asked.

The paper article this morning had to do with the civil weather satellites. Our view is that with the proper safeguards, with access to data-you know really what we want to protect is the data stream-private ownership could work. So we would have to have an understanding in regard to its continuing availability and then access to the data stream. If we could be assured of those kinds of things, I think we wouldn't object.

Senator HEFLIN. I am told that the Landsat as well as weather satellites will be transferred to the private sector.

Dr. DELAUER. The Landsat?

Senator HEFLIN. Yes.

Dr. DELAUER. That is true. In the Landsat system again we use some data from it, and again we must be assured that we have that available. There is some very high technology in Landsat and we must protect that also.

Senator HEFLIN. Now from the DOD's standpoint what are the key issues to be decided in determining the feasibility of a manned space station for military activities? That may have to be more detailed in writing.

Dr. DELAUER. I think the first thing is what does the program entail and what is going to be the funding required because it is a resource allocation problem with us. I don't think there is a question in our view of the technical feasibility. It is the question of how fast and how much and then taking a look at how it fits into our other missions.

Do you have anything to add?

Dr. COOPER. I think the key issue here is the mission. That is, what is the military mission for a manned space platform. We have been working closely with NASA to try and determine what military potential this space platform might have and the participation by defense in such a program. The extent of that participation will really depend upon the outcome of our assessments of what military missions might be applicable there.

Senator HEFLIN. What are the major issues to be resolved in determining whether to concentrate on laser or particle beam capability as ASAT technology is developed and deployed?

Dr. COOPER. Well, both of those programs being ARPA programs and I am quite familiar with the issues there. I think the major issue is one of the vulnerability of the targets. The major differences between particle beams, that is delivering energy with particle beams, and delivering energy with light, photons, is the question of how the targets react to those two different kinds of energy. The issue basically is what is the technology that incorporates the widest range of targets within a lethal vulnerability. I think the issue will be resolved over the next few years as we are able to exercise our neutral particle beam weapon program against laboratory targets and as we look at the lethality of laser weapons against typical targets that might be found in space or transiting

« PreviousContinue »