Mr. PARKER. Yes, they have continued. I can't give you an update today other than to say that there is a fairly extensive program that has been laid out primarily by the Navy which is taking the lead in DOD, doing some early things in some of the geothermal area, and looking at some particular locals down in the Southwest, for example, that would utilize the solar cells.

The level of funding in those activities is quite small, but they don't need large amounts of funding for the kind of demonstrations that you are talking about.

It is being done in close cooperation with ERDA, and I am not sure that we have a direct liaison with NASA on that kind of an activity, but it would probably be in committee activities where both NASA and ERDA are involved.

I would have to admit that there is probably some level of uncertainty and confusion in the program at this point because of some of the activities going on in the energy business and organization.

But there is a focal point within the DOD, and I believe it is Admiral Myers, in the Assistant Secretary for I. & L.'s office, and there is particular activity on the part of the Navy to get involved in some of these programs, be it geothermal, fuel cells, conversion of shale, and a variety of activities.

Senator SCHMITT. I guess the Navy is primarily concerned about remote base oprations and not being dependent on imported or shipping for fuel; is that correct?

Mr. PARKER. I don't know that there is a strong cause and effect in terms of why they are doing it. I think they believe that it is important for the services to get involved in these kinds of programs for the reasons I mentioned. They provide a very convenient and useful vehicle for some of the earlier demonstrations.

So I think that has been part of their thrust in this program. Senator SCHMITT. Mr. Chairman, part of the disadvantage when I was exploring this with NASA and with DOD, part of the disadvantage of some of these large demonstrations in the private sector comes from regulations and codes, building codes, and the like, that are things we don't have to go through when we demonstrate on a Federal facility.

It is, I think, an untapped resource to move these technologies more rapidly than some of them are going to move, if we depend on trying to get the private sector going.

It is just a very complex world out there in the private sector that is simplified in many respects by the Federal facility.

I would ask Mr. Parker if he would submit for the record maybe a further elaboration, not a great one, but a page or two, if you have it, on what the present level of activity is in this area.

Mr. PARKER. I would be happy to. If you are interested in more detail, I know we have a fairly thick book that indicates the programs that are going on in a fair amount of detail.

Senator SCHMITT. I think a summary would be good for the record. Mr. PARKER. Fine, if you would like a copy of the other personally, we would be glad to provide it.

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

SUMMARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE NATIONAL ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

The Department of Defense is a major participant in the Energy Research and Development Administration's National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program both in terms of energy R&D associated directly with the Defense mission which is of interest to the National Program and the providing of DOD resources to support the National Program under appropriate conditions and within DOD mission and resource constraints. The DOD relationship with ERDA was formalized in January 1977 with the consummation of a general DOD-ERDA Memorandum of Understanding.

The major national energy programs which DOD is currently involved in include:

Utilization of DOD buildings and installations to analyze and demonstrate energy conservation measures such as energy load management systems, total energy systems and use of alternate energy sources and conversion devices.

Demonstration of solar heating and cooling systems on DOD buildings. The current approved program calls for 130 residential demonstrations and six commercial demonstrations. In addition, DOD is currently working with NASA to provide buildings for the installation of new solar heating and cooling systems developed under NASA programs.

Demonstration of photovoltaic systems for near-term application as energy sources for DOD equipment and installations. Demonstration systems and technical support for the initial phases of this effort have been provided by NASA.

Test and evaluation of liquid hydrocarbon fuels derived from oil shale, coal and tar sands in military equipments. This program is conducted as a joint testing program with ERDA, NASA and FAA.

Development of more energy efficient military equipments such as aircraft with reduced drag and higher efficient engines, more efficient engines and drive systems for mobile ground vehicles and ocean vehicles.

Technical and management assistance in coal gasification and liquefaction programs.

Providing unique technical and facility support in a variety of areas such as ocean thermal power plants, fusion, MHD power generation, fuel cells, solar

furnaces and biomass.

The Director for Energy in the Office, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Installations and Logistics, is the DOD program coordinator for these activities and in cooperation with the Director, Defense Research and Engineering provides for close coordination with all government agencies involved in the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Program and private industry. Programs are carried out by all three Military Services in accordance with established assignments of responsibility.

Senator SCHMITT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENSON. Getting back to the vulnerability of the satellites, do the protective measures being considered or developed by DOD include offensive systems?

Mr. PARKER. [Deleted.]

Senator STEVENSON. A whole spectrum of [deleted].

Mr. PARKER. [Deleted.]

Senator STEVENSON. Is the DOD considering the use of the Space Shuttle for capturing satellites of other nations?

Mr. PARKER. Not to my knowledge.

Senator STEVENSON. Is that a possibility? It would have that capability.

Senator SCHMITT. It has the capability, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PARKER. I would say it is truly a possibility, because if we can recover our own, we ought to be able to recover somebody else's, but I think we would look at that as a fairly adventurous undertaking [deleted].

CLASSIFIED DOD MISSIONS

Senator STEVENSON. DOD missions are usually classified, aren't they? How are we going to work that out with NASA with respect to the Space Shuttle?

Mr. PARKER. That is a continuing effort between our organizations, to figure out how to make the best use of the Shuttle launches that

occur.

I believe the data to date would indicate that there are going to be enough payloads going into orbit and frequently enough to where one can tend to sort out the payloads and launch the classified payloads in one launch as opposed to mixing the satellites.

We are going to have to concern ourselves with the security problems and in particular at Kennedy there will be different problems than there are at the Vandenberg facility so far as those particular · payloads are concerned.

I don't anticipate that this will be a major problem. It is just something that we have to work out the details on.

Senator STEVENSON. Do those problems include treaty obligations? Mr. PARKER. I don't see anything associated with the classification of our satellites and our treaty obligations. Both we and the Soviets put classified satellites into orbit and I know of no treaties that would preclude us or cause us to do anything different here.

[The following was subsequently received for the record:]

However, we do have an obligation under the U.N. Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space that requires us to advise the United Nations of space launches in general so that they can be entered into the U.N. Registry.

Am I missing the point, Mr. Chairman? I am not sure I understood your question.

Senator STEVENSON. I am trying to find out what the point is. Senator SCHMITT. I think there would be a difficulty in launching payloads for foreign nations direct, because they would want involvement in that launch.

Mr. PARKER. That is clearly the case.

Senator SCHMITT. I suspect those payloads and Defense payloads would be mutually exclusive.

Mr. PARKER. Yes.

Senator SCHMITT. While the chairman is looking, in this same regard, do you see some kind of a contingency priority arrangement with NASA in case a particularly critical satellite system becomes inoperative, that you would be able to get on the next flight out?

Mr. PARKER. I don't know if the details have been worked out on that. There will have to be some sort of consideration, depending on the level of importance of the satellite.

I am sure if we had a minor problem, there would be a reluctance to bump somebody else off or reschedule an orbiter. I believe that we will be able to work out some sort of a reasonable agreement on how to take care of the emergencies.

Senator SCHMITT. If not the 508, at least the 915.
Mr. PARKER. Yes, something very similar to that.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF MAN IN SPACE

Senator STEVENSON. Mr. Parker, in your overview statement, you state that: "We are exploring the contributions which man can make in space by using his unique capabilities for time critical observations." How significant are these, and would you give us some examples of time critical observations which could be accomplished in this manner [deleted].

Mr. PARKER. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that these are very preliminary kinds of explorations along the line that Senator Schmitt was indicating, that we ought to be looking at, the unique capabilities of man. We are looking at the [deleted] structures in orbit. I think that is the kind of thing the Senator was referring to.

But my belief is that this is a fairly minimal activity, but clearly one of those options that is provided when we get the Space Shuttle. Senator SCHMITT. Mr. Chairman, if I may comment briefly on that, I can give you one example. Of course it depends on the sensitivity and sophistication of our [deleted] surveillence systems. But I can foresee situations where if you wanted to be sure an [deleted] signal was a launch, a man can provide you instant capability to determine that, whereas, going through a normal electronic system, including ground and computers and so on, would not give you instantaneous verification that it was an actual launch.

[Deleted] signals may appear. The question is, is it a launch of a hostile missile or something else? And the man gives you instant verification if he is looking at it, or if he gets a signal in space and can look at the point of the signal through some other verification means. That is very tough to do remotely.

Mr. PARKER. You know the approach we have taken in this area, of course, is that there is a man in the loop [deleted] to make a judgment as to whether or not there was an ICBM launch.

In addition, we have the normal computer sorting of the information to go along with it.

We are putting a fair amount of emphasis on some of the mosaic technologies to give more information and to give pore sensitivity [deleted].

I guess I personally believe that the coupling of these improvements in the sensors and the continued involvement of the man in the loop [deleted] on this is probably an adequate approach to the detection of these launches.

[Deleted.]

But clearly the problem always gets tougher because they understand your capability and do things that make your problem a little bit more difficult to deal with. We have attempted to counter that by basically making the sensors more capable and then giving that information back down to the ground.

SPACE TREATY OBLIGATIONS

Senator STEVENSON. With respect to future launchings of classified DOD space systems from the Space Shuttle, assisted by the interim. upper stage, what plans have been made to take care of international space treaty provisions?

Mr. PARKER. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I really don't get the connection between the IUS, the classified payloads, and our treaty obligations.

Senator STEVENSON. We will follow up on that in writing. We have an authority on treaties, on the laws of space, on the staff but she is not here. So we will follow up subsequently.

Mr. PARKER. The treaty obligations that we have just don't seem to fit into that question, because basically those treaty obligations seem to be all aimed at weapons of mass destruction in space, and the antiballistic missile deployment capabilities in space.

Senator STEVENSON. That is the reason, apparently, for our concern here. There may be a certain insensitivity in certain agencies of the Government to some of the provisions of the treaties. But I am not the authority on that subject, so we will follow up in writing on this and some other things, if we may.

Mr. PARKER. We are very sensitive, I believe, to the treaty obligations that we have, and in any of these activities we carefully consider both the real and perceived involvement in those treaty areas.

INTERIM UPPER STAGE

Senator STEVENSON. Now on the interim upper stage, can you give us an estimate of the total cost, and also the cost per flight?

Mr. PARKER. $173.1 million is the total development cost. I think I will have to provide the expendable cost. Let me check my notes a second.

I have indicated here that the cost of an IUS launch is $4.8 million approximately per launch. That would be over and above the other launch costs associated with the shuttle.

SOVIET USE OF SUPER CRITICAL WING

Senator STEVENSON. Very well.

In your statement you say the Soviets have indicated that the IL 86 transport should be operational in the early 1980's and use the supercritical wing.

That seems to indicate the Soviet Union will have a transport aircraft using the supercritical wing in service before the United States. Can you comment on that? The technology was apparently developed in the United States. How did they get it into service before we did?

Mr. PARKER. Well, I think in terms of getting it into service, the place that you are talking about is in a transport, and we have not developed any new transports lately.

The emphasis in our transport business has been in trying to get short takeoff and landing capabilities as opposed to the improved performance.

We do have the supercritical wing going into the advanced Harrier program. and that will be flying in a couple of years. I am not sure about the specific date, but it is at least in its advanced development form.

The way in which this technology gets away from us is one of concern to us. We have, as a result of a lot of history in the way in which we have gone about doing things, tended to control exports on a