there be two bands allocated particularly and exclusively for satellite communications, and

Mr. DAHLIN. It did not say whose satellites, though.

Mr. ROGERS. No. We want to see that these frequencies are used, exploited, by our defense systems very early.

The second thing I would say is that, particularly in the tactical area, there are important arguments for using frequencies much lower than the microwave frequencies to be used by the initial defense system. These arguments derive primarily from considerations of transmission loss and surface antennas. Consequently, this area is receiving a great deal of experimental study at this point in time.

Frankly, we do not know the extent of the concern that the design of satellite circuits at UHF would have in view of the present rather widespread occupancy of this part of the spectrum region by other users. But we are beginning to study the environment aboard ships, for instance, and the environment aboard aircraft in the UHF band, and we are beginning to think very carefully about what the advantages and limitations might be.

The third consideration is a very fundamental one. I believe that the communications engineering community should be encouraged to open up parts of the spectrum that are higher in frequency than the present allocations in the 7 and 8 kilomegacycle regions. There are studies being conducted now, to my knowledge, supported by the Department of Defense, to attempt to bring the use of frequencies between 10 and 20 kilomegacycles into use as soon as the technology is in hand.

Mr. DAHLIN. So far would you say has there been inadequate research money spent on the investigation of that area?

Mr. ROGERS. No, I do not think so. I think it will be some time before we will feel any serious sense of limitation in the use of the 7 and 8 kilomegacycle regions. And the higher regions are not as favorable to transmission as the 7 and 8 kilomegacycle bands. Also, it is expensive to develop the whole technology at a shorter wave length to the point where one can, with engineering confidence, see it used generally. Work is going on in components, work is going on in further detailed propagation studies, and I am satisfied that the present level of efforts is reasonable in the light of all these circumstances.

COORDINATION ON NASA ATS PROGRAM

Mr. DAHLIN. Mr. Rogers, I believe in your statement you said that the next meeting of the TCCS would include a presentation on NASA's ATS-B?

Mr. ROGERS. That is my understanding.

Mr. DAHLIN. Is there at present any plan to use the capability of ATS-B in operational use in a similar way that Syncom has been used after experimental activities are carried on?

Mr. ROGERS. Not to my knowledge; not to my knowledge. This is always a possibility in the event of a sufficiently important emergency, of course.

Mr. DAHLIN. Is there any different question involved in this satellite? Is there any incompatibility that would prevent that?

Mr. ROGERS. The reason that I am hesitating in my response is because I am not sure what frequencies are used on the ATS-B. If they were the frequencies employed in Syncom, for instance, this then would have the unattractive feature that our surface equipments would not match and we could not easily make use of it.

Mr. DAHLIN. Has your office been informed of those frequencies? Mr. ROGERS. Excuse me?

Mr. DAHLIN. Has your office been informed? There was some doubt in earlier hearings about the exchange of information on the use of those frequencies.

Mr. ROGERS. Oh, yes. They just do not come to my mind at this - moment, but I am sure that is so.

Mr. DAHLIN. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Horton, you have any questions?

Mr. HORTON. I do not have any questions.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Roback.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers, for your testimony this morning. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We will excuse you at this time and ask Maj. Gen. Otto J. Glasser, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Development for the U.S. Air Force, to come forward.

GENERAL GLASSER. Good morning.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Chairman, General Glasser has a biographical statement here, and in view of the fact that this is his first appearance before the committee and, for all I know, before the Congress, perhaps it ought to be placed in the record.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, it is a very fine biography, General, and I compliment you on all of your accomplishments and your background of qualifications and your service to the Nation, and we will put it in the record.

Mr. HORTON. Being a graduate of Cornell Law School, I want to compliment him on his degree from Cornell.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think that is in order. [Laughter.]

(The biographical sketch of General Glasser, follows:)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Otto John Glasser was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., on October 2, 1918. Upon graduation from Cornell with a degree of electrical engineering in 1940, he was employed by the General Electric Co. where he served as a student engineer in the GE test course.

In February 1941 he was ordered to active duty as a second lieutenant with the then new and highly secret radar program. Throughout the next several years he was occupied with the installation and operation of early warning radar sets on various islands in the Caribbean area.

Upon his return to the States, he entered flight training where he won his wings in 1944.

With the close of the war, he was assigned as Chief of the Radar Branch at Continental Air Forces, which shortly thereafter emerged as the Strategic Air Command.

In 1946 he undertook graduate training in electronic physics at the Ohio State University, where he majored in electromagnetic propagation. Graduation with his masters degree was followed by his assignment in December 1947 to the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project in Albuquerque, N. Mex., where he was assigned for duty with the Sandia Corp. of the Atomic Energy Commission. This assignment was followed in May 1951 by a tour at Headquarters USAF where he was responsible for the development, test, and evaluation of weapons for aircraft and missiles.

In 1954 he was selected for assignment to the Air Research and Development Command, to be one of the initial group assembled to conduct the development of the Nation's first ICBM. With the expansion of the ballistic missile program, in February 1956 he was named as program director for the Atlas, a post which he held until 1958. In October 1958 he was given responsibility for the same task on the Minuteman missile until his transfer to Headquarters Air Research and Development Command to Andrews Air Force Base in July

1959.

General Glasser was awarded the Legion of Merit for his unusual and significant contributions to the USAF ballistic missile program during the period August 15, 1954 to July 31, 1959.

Although he had several assignments primarily related to ballistic missile and space programs during the first year at Headquarters ARDC, his principal occupation was as a member of the working group to the Air Force Weapon System Management Study Group, which was seeking ways to improve program management within the Air Force. With that task completed, in July 1960 he was named Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Engineering, where he assisted in the direction of the overall research and development program of the Air Force.

In February 1961, General Glasser was designated special assistant to the commander, ARDC, with the additional duty as Chief of the Command Special Projects Office.

General Glasser was promoted to the rank of brigadier general on July 1, 1962 and transferred to Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Bedford, Mass., as the vice commander of AFSC's Electronic Systems Division.

In June 1965 he was promoted to major general and subsequently assigned on July 15, 1965 to Headquarters USAF with duty as Deputy Director of Operational Requirements and Development Plans.

In July 1966 General Glasser was assigned as Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff Research and Development, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You may proceed with your statement, General Glasser.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. OTTO J. GLASSER, ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE; ACCOMPANIED BY COL. MARION B. GIBSON, SYSTEM PROGRAM DIRECTOR, COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM PROGRAM OFFICE, SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION; COL. ALFRED J. DIEHL, AIR STAFF BOOSTER DEVELOPMENT OFFICER; AND LT. COL. NICHOLAS S. POLIO, AIR STAFF COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

General GLASSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased to be here this morning representing Dr. Flax who, unfortunately, could not be with the subcommittee this morning. I have with me Colonel Gibson, who is the program director for the Air Force Communication Satellite program; and Col. Nick Polio from our office in the Pentagon, and Colonel Diehl sitting directly behind me for the Titan III booster program.

I have a prepared statement, sir, if you would like me to proceed with it.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes, I would like for you to proceed with it.

General GLASSER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Military Operations Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today and describe the progress we have made in our communication satellite activities over the past 2 years. We in the Air Force value these

programs very highly and we welcome this opportunity to share our enthusiasm with you.

In response to your request, I will briefly treat the Air Force responsibilities in relation to other Government agencies and then I will describe our specific programs in this field.

As a point of departure, our responsibilities in this field have not changed appreciably from what they were 21/2 years ago when the Air Force last appeared before this committee on this subject. Our responsibilities include the development, orbital deployment and testing of the spaceborne portion of the military satellite communication systems. We are primarily responsible for the development of aircraft terminal equipment while the Army and Navy are primarily responsible for the development of ground and shipborne terminal equipment.

From an overall communication system point of view, we now view communication satellites in two broad categories. The first category includes satellite systems designed for the global point-to-point unique and vital communication needs of the Department of Defense and the National Communications System. This system is characterized by relatively simple satellites and transportable ground terminals that operate in fixed locations.

The second category includes satellite systems to improve command and control communications with mobile terminal equipment suitable for employment in tactical situations. This latter category leads to a more complex satellite that must do more of the job while the terminal equipment is weight and volume limited to afford mobility.

The differences in these categories-point-to-point and tactical-are reflected in somewhat different agency and service responsibilities in each category. The point-to-point systems are designed to improve the Defense Communications System (DCS), and overall system integration and program responsibility has been assigned to the DCA. We work together with the Army and Navy and in concert with DCA, in this joint development effort.

The assignment of responsibilities for tactical satellite development must accommodate terminal equipment that involves the possible modification and retrofit of combat vehicles under the cognizance of military field commands. In December 1965, the Office of the Secretary of Defense approved the management of tactical satellite development activities through a tri-service executive steering group (TSEG) composed of one secretarial executive and one military member from each service.

INITIAL DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE PROGRAM

In the point-to-point communications satellite area our major effort is the initial defense communications satellite program. As this committee is well aware, the first launch occurred on June 16, when a Titan III-C orbited a payload of seven spin stabilized communications satellites and one gravity stabilized satellite experiment. Secretary Brown asked that I thank you for your complimentary letter congratulating the Air Force on the success of our first launch. I am happy to report that all seven communication satellites are presently performing very

well, and we are getting valuable telemetry data from the gravity gradient test satellite.

The payload of the next launch, the second of three, will consist of eight more communication satellites. Our third launch, consisting of eight communication satellites, is planned for next year. We are considering the possibility of orbit testing a second gravity gradient satellite equipped with a faster damping device. We expect this second experimental satellite will achieve the desired stabilization after 10 to 12 days in orbit. The degree of improvement is apparent when compared to the 90 days required for the same performance by the gravity gradient satellite currently in orbit.

(The following information was later submitted for the record at the request of the subcommittee:)

FAST DAMPING GRAVITY GRADIENT DEVELOPMENT, TEST SATELLITE STATUS

The present status for this experiment is as follows: The fast-damping experiment was fabricated out of the residue of the gravity gradient test satellite development program. Three satellites were originally built, one for launch, one for launch backup, and one as a qualification and test model. One of these satellites was launched as part of the initial defense communications satellite program (IDCSP) launch last June 16, 1966, and is presently in orbit. This orbiting gravity satellite is slowly damping down to the predicted stable state and should settle down to±8 degree swing within 80 days after launch. As of July 25, 1966, the swing had diminished to ±6 degrees with a 15-degree bias. The qualification model which became surplus to the program after completing its test cycle, was made available to the contractor, General Electric, as Government furnished equipment to be modified to incorporate a fast-damping technique using liquid mercury inertial wheels. This simple method of quickly stabilizing the satellite has promise of providing a means of downward pointing the communication satellites even after they are perturbed as in station keeping. In addition, they appear to be less susceptible to solar flare caused magnetic disturbance, significant in long-term stability. The modified qualification model, designated GG-2 was shipped to Cape Kennedy for launch as part of the second IDCSP launch. Unfortunately, the satellite was received in damaged condition: i.e., some mercury had escaped from a damaged mercury wheel and was found in the bottom of the shipping container. Repair and replacement of the damaged mechanism required reshipment back to the General Electric plant and precluded the inclusion of this experiment aboard the second IDCSP launch. After the repairs were made, further qualification tests were conducted. While in the process of setting up the satellite for vibration testing, the vibration level was inadvertently set higher than the prescribed level, resulting in further damage to the satellite. Whether or not we will modify the back-up satellite for on-orbit testing is currently under study.

Another significant communication satellite technology development program we are investigating is electronic control of satellite antenna patterns. This development effort employs a satellite which is physically spin-stabilized, but with an antenna which electronically maintains a radiated energy pattern which is directed only toward the earth. By focusing the satellite-radiated power, we can expect greater efficiency and improved performance. A test satellite employing this so-called despun antenna technique is scheduled for on-orbit testing next year.

The gravity gradient technique and the despun antenna technique are competing designs for future satellite systems. Both of these techniques share the common objective of obtaining maximum benefit from directional focusing of satellite antenna-radiated energy. The choice of technology to be used on future satellites will be made easier by the test results from these competing experiments.