know which of them to advocate, so I believe I would wish not to answer that question.

Senator KEATING. Well, I, of course, wouldn't press you, butwould it embarrass you to tell us whether you feel it is in equipment or in personnel or in priority or what?

Dr. ABELSON. When five out of five failures occur, there must be deficiencies in a number of areas. The last letter I had from one of the members of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory staff was to the effect that the failure was due to the launch vehicles not being as reliable as they might be.

You will note that with the Mercury program, launch vehicles all worked properly. They have been what they refer to as “mantested." In other words, this is a vehicle which has been tested in every possible way. Apparently the equipment for the Ranger program was not in that category of excellence.

Senator KEATING. Thank you, Dr. Abelson, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hickenlooper, do you desire to question. the witness?

MAN WILL EXPLORE THE UNKNOWN

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for deferring until I could read Dr. Abelson's statement.

I first want to say that I think, Doctor, you have demonstrated this morning the great advantage of a "devil's advocate." And I think you have introduced a refreshing note of thought here, at least, in these hearings. I am perfectly aware that there will be those who will disagree with your statement. I believe there is a lot of food for thought in your statement and in the past couple of weeks or so I have so expressed myself along this line.

May I ask you, if there is not a vast difference in scientific activity between scientific exploration and development which has a reasonably ascertained or prior ascertained purpose on the one hand, and scientific activity which one could put into the field of more pure research where the objective is not necessarily known but an interesting field for exploration.

There is that differentiation.

Dr. ABELSON. Yes, sir, quite a difference, yes.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Now, I also take it from your statement, that you don't believe that space experimentation, experimentation with space exploration, should be discontinued?

Dr. ABELSON. Oh, no. Man will explore the unknown, that is his

nature.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Yes, and it probably is the nature of all life, too, to go into the unknown further. But we are confronted here with something which might be described as a balance of benefits or something of that kind. Personally, I have been unable as a complete layman in this matter, wholly unable to make any independent judgment, of course, as to the scientific potentials of certain of these things, but I have been unable to sift out a reasonably profitable, in its broadest sense, objective of landing somebody on the moon or moon exploration leading to that end.

There may come a time when that answer may become perfectly apparent to everybody. I don't know. Up to this time I can't see it

myself. Is it possible Doctor, that scientists may have a little bit of what we might call the Parkinson's law philosophy, that given an area in which to operate they believe that that area should be extended ad infinitum with unlimited funds and so on for the purpose of developing their activities and so on?

Dr. ABELSON. I am afraid that this is so in a number of areas. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I am intrigued by your pointing out something which I think has been evident for a long time, that some of the really great fundamental discoveries in various fields of science, physics, and others, engineering, and so on, some of the great discoveries have been discovered with what we might call today in the face of some appropriations that are asked for, have been discovered for peanuts almost.

Dr. ABELSON. That is right.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. And it is not necessarily the amount of billions of dollars which we spent but the brains and the ingenuity which go into attaining an objective which is reasonably clear.

My great question does not involve money so much, because I think we are all willing to devote whatever amount of money is necessary to reach constructive objectives in the interests of our country and in the basic interest of science, but my concern is whether or not we, who are unschooled in this, I mean complete laymen and that is what we all are, whether we may not be led into appropriating vast sums of money which have really no presently ascertainable constructive developments as compared to many other things which we could devote that scientific money to and which have, maybe they are pedestrian in a way, but which have really constructive results that are fairly assured if we go at in that way.

It is When you get us into this kind of a problem here, we are indeed babes in the woods, and that is why I say, I think you have done a constructive beneficial posing of some very important questions here from a very competent scientific background and base.

Dr. ABELSON. Thank you, Senator.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I think it is something we have to explore more thoroughly.

As I understand it, you believe that the great portion of scientific knowledge which can be developed in, let's say, the foreseeable future, whatever that may be, can be really developed by less extravagant efforts and more direction to specific purposes which are more defineable than, for instance, trying to land somebody on the moon.

Dr. ABELSON. Yes. I think that we could make a great deal of progress with unmanned exploration, and that even if we were to follow it up with manned exploration that our background of knowledge would be so much more secure, we would be much more wise, in the equipment we sent out with that man.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Yes. I think I have no more questions at the moment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Abelson. It has been a long hour and a half. We appreciate your appearance before the committee and the contribution you have made.

Dr. Ramo.

Thank you, Doctor, for coming here. We are very happy to have you with us and we are very happy to have your testimony. (Dr. Ramo's biography follows:)

DR. SIMON RAMO

Dr. Simon Ramo has carved three successful careers out of one short lifetimeindustrialist, educator, scientist.

He is vice chairman of the board of Thompson Ramo Wooldridge Inc., one of the Nation's largest electronics, space, and missile firms. He was cofounder of the former Ramo-Wooldridge Corp., responsible for overall systems engineering for the Nation's ICBM programs. Prior to this he was vice president in charge of operations for Hughes Aircraft Co.

Dr. Ramo has been a steady contributor to the education field. He is the author of texts used widely in universities, as well as a Regents Lecturer at the University of California. He has a Ph. D degree, magna cum laude, in physics and electrical engineering from the California Institute of Technology, an honorary doctor of engineering degree from Case Institute of Technology, and an honorary doctor of science degree from the University of Utah.

Dr. Ramo's scientific and engineering experience includes development of the electron microscope and pioneer work in the generation of microwaves while with the General Electric Co. He has accumulated 25 patents and his articles on basic electromagnetic phenomena earned him the rank of fellow in the American Physical Society before the age of 30. He directed the Falcon missile program at Hughes and served as Chief Scientist for the Air Force's intercontinental ballistic missile programs, supervising the design and development of Atlas, Titan, Thor, and early space probes. He is a consultant to many groups in the U.S. Government, including the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board and the President's Scientific Advisory Committee.

Dr. Ramo is an active member of many civic and cultural organizations, including the Hollywood Bowl Association, the California Fund for Music, and the Los Angeles Music Center Building Fund Committee.

He lives with his wife and their two sons in Westwood, Calif.

STATEMENT OF DR. SIMON RAMO, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THOMPSON RAMO WOOLDRIDGE INC., REDONDO BEACH, CALIF.

Dr. RAMO. I am very happy to be here, Senator.

Mr. Chairman and Senators, I should like first to express my gratification as a citizen that the committee, through these hearings, is maintaining its strong interest in the goals of science. The wise establishment of goals clearly requires a concerted, even an increasing, effort if the potentials of science are to be utilized to the fullest in the national interest, and the Senate certainly is the logical center point for the needed, enlarged analysis and articulation of objectives.

SCIENCE HAS BECOME A DOMINANT FACTOR

That society is in rapid transition to a new, highly technological era is no longer a topic for conjecture. It is evident now that science is important not alone in supplying our material needs. It has become also a dominant factor in national security, in economic growth, in world position and prestige, in education, and, because of the size of many essential programs, in the relationship of government to free enterprise.

With your permission, I should like first to comment on this general matter of the use of science in the national interest, before discussing the space program itself, and, even more specifically, the large lunar program.

Certainly, the ideal way to arrive at constructive viewpoints concerning the program to land a man on the moon, or any other specific project, is to understand beforehand what we want from science, what it can do for us, and how much our resources enable

us to do. We should look at the possibilities, make our choices, then be decisive in implementation, eliminating on-and-off nervousness. But there are so many issues and alternatives. A 30-minute statement is highly inadequate; a full 2 days of hearings, even 200 days of hearings, cannot end the process. The selecting of national goals in the use of science will require a major, continuing study from now on.

I shall touch only on a few aspects that are especially pertinent, I think, to the space program, and that have not yet received the full public discussion their importance seems to warrant.

There are signs that as a nation we are still immature in our views regarding the reasons for large national projects in science.

We lack a clear enunciation and acceptance of some commonsense rules and facts.

WE ARE NOT THE ONLY NATION STRONG IN SCIENCE

For instance, one truism that we ought to learn to live with is that we are not the only nation strong in science and technology. With a number of nations all engaged competently in frontier work in science, we cannot expect to be first in everything. Our world will not necessarily fall apart if some other nation, even a potential enemy, sometimes does something important ahead of us. We must learn that the intelligent, reasoned approach for us is to choose always what we want to do, to select what is best for us, and to do that confidently and well.

NATIONAL SECURITY IS FIRST PRIORITY

The public does understand, I believe, that the most important rule of all in the use of science is that national security has to be first priority. With the insuring of national survival, nothing must be allowed to interfere. But, perhaps, because we understand this rule relatively well, we tend sometimes to overapply it in relating science to security.

We frequently act as though any worthwhile, national, science project needs to be defended on the basis of short-term, urgent, military requirements. If no immediate application to security is apparent, we tend to invent one. It ought to be recognized that this Nation has the technological resources to provide both for our urgent nearterm military needs and for numerous long-range benefits of science, including the long-range application of science to national security. Science programs may be deserving of strong support because they affect our position of leadership in the world, our prestige, or they may have to do with supporting our economy, or making social advance, all of which will in turn improve our position and hence, in the long run, our security as well.

We should learn not to oversimplify the banners we use for large science programs that involve security. If they are related to security only in an indirect and long-term way, let us say so. By now we have ample evidence that virtually all research into the unknown has the potential of long-term military application. We cannot afford to allow any major field of science to be explored alone by, or monopolized by, a potential enemy, because it is conceivable that even though we do not see the military application today, they might discover

something that could be of vital importance in a new military embodiment, and it might be too late before we discovered it.

One legitimate reason for advanced research, then, is its necessity for long-term military strength. Specifically, as we shall discuss a little later, some projects in space are clearly short range and vital in a military application. Other space research is related to security only in a nebulous, speculative, extremely long-range fashion.

In this second category, space is no different from much other pure research and deserves no special security claims automatically just because space is new and conspicuous internationally.

Perhaps one reason for confusion about the relation of science to security is the common misconception that underrates our technological resources more specifically the concern that longer-range research and engineering can only be performed at the expense of vital military development, owing to a shortage of engineers and scientists.

Admittedly, this Nation ultimately would be in serious danger if it lacked engineers and scientists compared with some highly unfriendly power, because then they presumably could put themselves eventually in a position to destroy us if they so chose.

NO SHORTAGE OF ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS AT PRESENT

At the present time, however, we are not limited by engineers and scientists in performing the typical engineering project which characterizes so much of the space program and almost all of the defense program. In fact, on the contrary, we have today an overexpanded capability with a surplus of organizations, large and small, equipped with experienced technical teams geared to handle more projects than the Nation has in the offing.

True, we have no oversupply of the great, creative genius. But groups capable of doing work of the quality that we have come to regard as typical and acceptable are apparently in abundance. If there were a short supply, the Government would have to plead with companies to take on portions of the space program.

The best scientists and engineers would be busy doing science and engineering.

The actual facts are that never has competition been so severe for government work, and, despite the relatively low profit margin, the best engineers and scientists are usually found selling hard on future programs in order to insure a stable backlog for the organizations that they represent.

I am personally involved with the management of a $500 million a year industrial operation that happens to be about one-half government or government-related business, and one-half nongovernment, purely commercial ventures. I have yet to find a single project of interest to us commercially that we cannot man because of a shortage of engineers and scientists.

The problem that limits advances along private lines has to do with an unsatisfactory relationship between anticipated return on investment and the risk in cost of embarking on new, difficult, speculative, technological_adventures. The bottleneck is not in availability of engineers and scientists.

A similar statement can be made, I believe, if one notes that the science and engineering "fruit cocktail" contains "apples" and