million and a half pound thrust Saturn I rocket; two lauches of Apollo model spacecraft into orbit; an orbital test of a Gemini model spacecraft; significant advances in the Rover nuclear rocket reactor program with five successful tests; the world's first closeup photographs of the moon's surface by Ranger VII; global nighttime cloud pictures by Nimbus I; orbiting of the first geophysical observatory; launching of Syncom III into a fixed position over the Pacific and providing space communications links between the Far East and the United States; continued progress in the X-15 experimental flights project; and attaining a major degree of success in improving our national security through the use of orbiting spacecraft.

During the year, the United States was successful in placing about 69 satellite payloads into earth orbit, raising the Nation's total from the beginning of the space age to approximately 248. Four payloads were sent to escape, raising the Nation's total to 10. In addition, with the assistance and cooperation of the United States, Italians constructed and launched a satellite from Wallops Island. This was numerically the most successful year for our space activity, and that is a source of encouragement. However, it should be noted that the year was by far the most active one in space for the Soviets, as they more than doubled the number of payloads orbited as compared with 1963. In fact, the relative acceleration of the Soviet space program was one of the most significant space features of the year 1964. Not only did they orbit the first multimanned spacecraft, but they accelerated their entire space program.

Although only the United States and the Soviet Union were officially committed to carry out ambitious space missions around the earth, to the moon or the planets, it is becoming apparent that these great powers will not be able to maintain for long a monopoly on the techniques of space travel. Comprehensive knowledge of space operations has become more and more widespread, and it can be anticipated that satellite and escape payload launches will be made by other nations. In this march toward space mastery, the U.S. goal is to become the leading spacefaring nation and in so doing rededicate its efforts to improving and maintaining the peace. It is by this premise that the National Aeronautics and Space Council has been consistently guided.

The space effort is the focal point of diverse efforts in many technical areas essential to national excellence. In no small measure it has been a catalyst and a stimulus to education at all levels, especially in science and engineering. Educational goals and standards have already been raised substantially as a result of the challenges of space. While the value of the educational benefits cannot be given a definite price tag, in the long run the realizations from this feature alone may exceed the total cost of the space effort.

Combining as it does the best talents in management, in engineering, and in science with the most modern facilities, the end result is the production of progress in education, research and development, productivity, employment, and the improvement of international relations.

Budgetary aspects of the space program received detailed critical review both within the executive branch and by the Congress. Significantly, both branches of the Government favored funding levels which represented continued support for a progressive space effort, even though the desired budgetary totals varied somewhat.

In the discharge of its responsibilities, the Council directly, and through its staff, engaged in a broad range of policy and coordinating activities. Among these were:

a. Supervised the preparation of the President's Annual Report to the Congress on Aeronautics and Space Activities for 1964.

b. Submitted frequent reports to the President on significant space activities. c. Increased the public understanding of the national space program through speeches, articles, public appearances, and interviews.

d. Participated in the analysis and development of the fiscal year 1966 budgets for aerospace.

e. Reviewed the coordination of the national geodetic satellite program and of the meteorological satellite systems, the radiation hazards of manned interplanetary flight, and the instrumentation ship support for space operations.

f. Assisted in the formulation of communications satellite policies, including governmental relationships with the Communications Satellite Corp., and the development of international agreements for a global Comsat system.

g. Coordinated the settling of policy issues regarding the launching of auxiliary nuclear-powered devices aboard spacecraft.

h. Made technical studies of propulsion technology, including high-energy upper stage air augmentation of launch vehicle and gaseous-core nuclear reactors. i. Visited space installations, examined facilities, and discussed space developments and problems with managerial and technical specialists.

j. Engaged in numerous interagency as well as Government-industry meetings and briefings on new developments in space technology and space benefits.

k. Participated in the decision to make facilities available for TV broadcast of the 1964 Olympics by communication satellite.

7. Assisted in technical studies of cooperative arrangements for the location of U.S. oversea space installations.

m. Cooperated with committees of the Congress in matters affecting space plans and programs.

n. Aided in the development of the U.S. positions on space-related matters in meetings of the United Nations.

o. Maintained a current record of U.S. and Soviet space launches, developed comparisons between U.S. and U.S.S.R. space activities, and reviewed space accomplishments and potentials of other nations.

The Space Council activity was not characterized by formal meetings during the year. This was due in large measure to the vacancy in the position of Chairman. Although the President had identified the Executive Secretary as Acting Chairman during this hiatus, the functioning was mostly on the basis of reports to the President, interagency staff contact, exchange of memorandum, informal meetings, and like measures.

The year 1964 revealed a much improved degree of cooperation and coordinating action as between the major agencies engaged in the national space program. Not only was there improvement in the exchange of information between such agencies, but there also was a useful interagency assignment of experienced personnel. Moreover, the space program stood as a symbol of close and effective Government-industry teamwork. It revealed effectively how vital elements of a free society could join together to meet major challenges and to meet them successfully.

The impact of the national space program upon man's standard of living, national security, education, and accumulation of knowledge is tremendous. Outstanding is the impact of the program upon man's way of living in peace and freedom. In fact, the benefits from the national space program run the gamut from new production processes to new approaches to world peace. Science and technology play a great role, not only in influencing public policy but in making intelligent policy decisions possible. The U.S. space program is now firmly established as a national asset of proven worth and incalculable potential.

Our national space program has reached such a stage of early maturity that the challenge is no longer whether to go into space, but rather is what should we do next and how soon.

(Information supplied by the Office of Science and Technology in response to the communication of February 24 follows:)

ACTIVITIES OF ICO WHICH PARALLEL THOSE OF NASC

The Interagency Committee on Oceanography, its panels, and its staff are engaged in a wide range of policy and coordinating activities. Many of these parallel the accomplishments of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, The NASC, in its 1964 report, lists in chapter II, pages 7 and 8, 15 items related to its operational and scientific accomplishments. The following actions taken by ICO, its panels, and staff are alphabetically related to the NASC listing: a. Prepared an annual report to the Federal Council for Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, which contained the actions and activities of the ICO.

b. Made special reports, on request, related to special programs in oceanography, to the Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, to be used in executive decisions and information dissemination. c. Acted as a focal point for oceanographic information by publishing infor

mative articles and pamphlets, and by speaking to private groups and to State and city governments about the relationships of the Federal oceanographic program to their individual requirements. Conducted interviews with magazines, newspapers, and radio networks about the national oceanographic program. Distributed a motion picture delineating the mission and functions of the ICO and its member agencies.

d. Participated in the analysis and development of the fiscal year 1966 budget for oceanography.

e. Aided in the coordination of standards for oceanographic instruments throughout the oceanographic community.

f. Assisted in the assignment of radio frequencies for international and national buoy networks, and attended meetings with NASA to develop and determine capabilities for oceanographic satellites.

g. ICO has no parallel function.

h. Began design studies (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries) on a nuclearpowered submarine for fishery and aquaculture research. Made a survey of the ocean engineering capabilities of the ICO member agencies and formed a new panel to recommend action in this area.

i. Visited Federal, academic, and industrial laboratories and facilities and discussed problems with lead scientists and program directors.

j. Engaged in numerous interagency as well as government-industry meetings and briefings on common problems and new developments in ocean technology and on the economic benefits that may be derived.

k. ICO has no parallel function.

1. Assisted in technical studies and cooperative arrangements for the aid and development of foreign fisheries in underdeveloped areas, and generally contributed to international scientific cooperation. (This includes the International Cooperative Investigation of the Tropical Atlantic, the International Indian Ocean Expedition, and the informal cooperative investigations with South American nations.

m. Cooperated extensively with committees of the Congress in matters affecting National and State oceanographic plans and programs.

n. Aided in the development of the U.S. positions on matters related to oceanography in meetings of United Nations-sponsored organizations (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO).

0. Developed comparisons between U.S. and foreign oceanographic activities, and examined oceanographic accomplishments and potentials of other nations. In addition to the above parallel items, the ICO, its panels and staff have: 1. Through the auspices of the Coast and Geodetic Survey initiated an operations research study of the entire national program of oceanographic surveys. This study, contracted to Operations Research, Inc., although not yet fully completed, has modified the future ship construction plans of the C. & G.S. As additional information is made available, modifications in other survey operations will ensue.

2. Attacked the problem of rapid and useful information exchange, in those areas directly related to the national program. A bibliography of marine sciences publications prepared and/or sponsored by the member agencies was compiled as part of the preliminary fiscal year 1966 program. This bibliography will be issued in 1965, either as a separate ICO pamphlet or as a widely distributed internal document. Another aspect of the information exchange problem is being attacked by the Navy's Oceanographic Instrumentation Center, which issued, as the first of a quarterly series, lists of instrumentation proposals submitted to any of the ICO agencies. The National Oceanographic Data Center has been issuing summaries of available data and material currently in their files. Finally. the ICO Staff is preparing a comprehensive description of all Federal research projects to be issued as ICO Pamphlet No. 19.

3. Aided in the relocation of oceanographic sections of four ICO member agencies to the Navy Yard Annex. This was accomplished in July and August of 1964. The groups which make up the new marine sciences complex are: Coast and Geodetic Survey, Coast Guard, Smithsonian Institution, and the ICO Staff. The placement of these bureaus in close proximity to the existing facilities of the National Oceanographic Data Center, the Naval Oceanographic Office, and the Biological Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, will create new opportunities for even closer agency cooperation.

4. Created a joint ICO/ICAS panel to study and coordinate air-sea interaction programs. This panel will effectively eliminate duplication between meteorologists and oceanographers working in this vital area.

SUBMERSIBLES

The ICO agencies, under the ICO unclassified budget, have not, with one exception, sponsored the development of any manned submersibles. The one exception is a small ($50,000) design study by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries for an atomic-powered submarine.

The ICO through its newly formed panel on ocean engineering will investigate the potential uses and designs of small manned submersibles. In addition the ICO agencies plan to rent the commercially available vehicles in order to determine requirements for future systems, thereby eliminating expensive prototype design and development costs.

STATUS REPORT ON U.S. BUOY DEVELOPMENT

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

Since the status report on U.S. buoy development was prepared in 1962, the activity in buoy design, development, and testing has been very aggressive. The shape, size, and application has also varied broadly and, in addition to Government-sponsored programs, industry has been very active on inhouse programs of its own. To monitor the development progress in a field as broad as "oceanographic buoys" is a very ambitious undertaking, again inhibited by the lack of a finite definition. Each oceanographer's definition of an "oceanographic buoy" is prejudiced by individual needs and requirements. This report is restricted to anchored (fixed) buoys for both surface and subsurface operation and since it is being prepared for a special requirement, it is not complete and is therefore an abbreviated supplement.

The U.S. Navy (BuWeps and H.O.) NOMAD program has continued with a goal of 14 operational units by the end of the year. One unit is presently equipped with a nuclear power generation being evaluated. The U.S. Weather Bureau is also continuing with their MAMOS program which is similar to the NOMAD system.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Scripps Institute of Oceanography are both continuing with buoy development. WHOI is concentrating particularly on buoys with long-range data-telemetering capability and performance records of moored buoy systems.

The Atomic Energy Commission has expanded its buoy program to a relatively large system for deep moorings in the depth area of about 20,000 feet. The system is a taut wire having an expendable anchor which holds a subsurface buoy, equipped with pressure sensors, at approximately 800 feet below the surface. The recording equipment is housed in a modified skiff on the surface and connected to the underwater package through a slack painter. Development and fabrication of this system is being conducted by National Marine Consultants, a subsidiary of Interstate Electronics.

The Public Health Service is continuing its program in Lake Michigan and has done considerable research and study with a variety of instrumented subsurface buoys equipped with release devices.

The Convair Division of General Dynamics is presently engaged in a testing development program under an ONR contract. The buoy system is the result of earlier studies which were conducted and consists of a 40-foot-diameter saucer instrumented with a variety of sensors and power generators. The unit is equipped with a deep-sea mooring which is also being tested at a relatively deep Atlantic mooring site.

The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey has obtained encouraging success with their three-point anchoring of a submerged buoy and collected data from previous plantings are in good agreement with the theoretical requirements for establishing a deep-sea, stabilized, magnetic platform. Plans are well underway for another planting, equipped with improved monitoring equipment, for early 1965 in 12,000-foot depths. A bottom-mounted buoy system equipped to monitor longperiod sea level variations has been successfully tested some 200 miles at sea in 1,000-foot depths. A continuation of this program is also planned for 1965 in 4,000-foot depths. A modification of existing buoys to contain newly developed equipment for inshore work is also underway and the systems will be tested during the 1965 season.

The U.S. Coast Guard is continuing a buoy developing program and although their buoys are usually designed to serve as markers, they have embarked on an energetic modification to accommodate environmental sensing units. Their present program of constructing offshore towers will also lend assistance to operating buoy systems.

A number of small buoys have been designed by industry to meet a variety of oceanographic requirements. Some of these are sophisticated units containing complete data recording and telemetering instrumentation, but in general, they are either tracking or location devices designed to operate free floating, with or without a drogue attached, or on the end of a mooring line. This latter type usually offer the options of DF, telemetering radio and lighting equipment.

(Inquiry also was made of Dr. Hornig of research and survey ships constructed since 1960 and completed, the number conversion of which has been completed during that period, the number presently under construction, and the number authorized but on which construction has not commenced.

(Dr. Hornig's office advised that such a breakdown would be included in testimony of Dr. Leland J. Haworth, Director of the National Science Foundation. The committee has not had an opportunity to hear Dr. Haworth.

(The Office of Science and Technology did supply, in response to a request from the committee, a breakdown of contract funding to industry by agencies participating in the oceanographic research and survey program. The table follows:)

Contract funding to industry by participating agencies 1

1

1 Smithsonian Institution has not engaged in contract funding in support of its oceanographic program. This includes contractors who apply fees to their contracts. It excludes nonprofit research institutions which only recently added fees to their contracts.

3 Incomplete.

4 Includes $100,000 spent on equipment subcontracts by a nonprofit prime contractor.

• Includes $34,000 spent on equipment subcontracts by a nonprofit prime contractor. Includes $31,000 spent on equipment subcontracts by a nonprofit prime contractor.

7 Includes $22,000 of contributed funds.

Includes contract funding to nonprofit institutions.

Includes ship construction, but not contract funding to nonprofit institutions. 10 Includes ship construction.

11 Estimated.

(The following information was supplied in response to the inquiry pertaining to ships of the research and survey fleets of Soviet Russia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan. The tables follow :)