[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 8577-8578]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               MISSILE DEFENSE, DIRECTION AND DEVELOPMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 18, 2000

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, America's national missile defense 
dominates policy issues. The question of how best to proceed seems to 
elude our country's security leaders. I am 100 percent convinced the 
United States must develop a reliable national missile defense (NMD) 
system. The question for me is not if, but what kind.
  Regarding the technical aspects of NMD technology, I have drafted a 
few questions concerning various options, missile defense systems, and 
scenarios. I have addressed the questions to Dr. Hans Mark, Director of 
Defense Research and Engineering at the Pentagon. Dr. Mark has briefed 
me before on the intricacies of missile defense technology and his 
counsel is greatly appreciated.
  A recent letter I posted to Dr. Mark follows. I urge our colleagues 
to review it and contact my office if interested in pursuing this topic 
in the House. I intend to submit Dr. Mark's reply in the Record at a 
later date.

                                                    April27, 2000.
     Dr. Hans Mark,
     Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Mark: You have proved yourself a friend of 
     advanced technology and space. You were extremely helpful 
     last year with your letter of March 2, 1999 and its 
     attachments. You were kind enough to meet with me, members of 
     my staff, friends, and other Members of Congress.
       I would value again the benefit of your expertise on the 
     subjects of ballistic-missile defense, space, and advanced 
     technology in the following areas. I trust the questions 
     posed will help develop issues involved, and prove beneficial 
     for public discussion.


                       Ballistic Missile Defense

       Under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) development 
     was completed on the Brilliant Pebbles Space Based 
     Interceptor. In 1992, Brilliant Pebbles was ready to move 
     into its acquisition phase having undergone its hover tests 
     and having been approved by the Defense Acquisition Board.
       To re-start Brilliant Pebbles, would it be advisable for 
     the United States to go back to the leading aerospace 
     contractors that were involved in its development back in the 
     early 1990's, and should we develop an independent, second 
     effort that would be less visible to Communist Chinese 
     military intelligence?
       In addition, would it be advisable to re-start Brilliant 
     Pebbles under streamlined acquisition procedures to avoid 
     unnecessary overhead, and costly and ineffective program 
     delays?
       SDI studied the possibilities of using Neutral Particle 
     Beams, which were regarded as a potent weapon for ballistic 
     missile defense applications. Under GPALS, Neutral Particle 
     Beams received de-emphasis because of a program focus on 
     near-term technologies (hit-to-kill and high energy lasers) 
     rather than future technologies.
       Allowing for a revived interest in ballistic missile 
     defense programs, how would you structure a Neutral Particle 
     Beam ballistic missile defense program, and what key areas of 
     research would you emphasize?


                             Survivability

       Space-based ballistic missile defense can provide 
     continuous, global coverage, and boost phase interception, 
     which are characteristics not generally available with ground 
     based defenses. Space based defenses can be built that are 
     hardened against electromagnetic pulse from nuclear 
     explosions or chemical emp warheads. In our meeting a year 
     ago, you showed great enthusiasm for computer chips 
     inherently resistant to emp.
       Space-based defenses may also be built with passive 
     countermeasures (detection and maneuver), redundancy, and 
     hardening against high-energy lasers. Nonetheless, a critical 
     area of survivability of space-based defenses will be their 
     defense against high energy lasers on the ground. Beyond 
     passive countermeasures or preemptive raids against high-
     energy laser facilities or platforms, what active defenses 
     would you recommend?
       Ostensibly, these active defenses could include kinetic 
     energy weapons (tungsten rods) directed against ground based 
     laser facilities, or a variant kinetic energy weapon using a 
     maneuverable reentry vehicle. These active defenses may also 
     include Space-Based Lasers of such a wavelength to enable 
     them to reach into the atmosphere and counterattack a ground 
     based laser. A review of the active defensive options we 
     could develop in the near-term (four years under active 
     program management) would be helpful.


                            Access to Space

       Rapid, low-cost access to space remains an active concern 
     for defense applications in spite of over two decades of 
     discussion. Without going into a full blown discussion of 
     reusable launch vehicles, two-stage reusable rockets, and 
     Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO), your ideas would be welcome on 
     how the United States can best develop the Rocket Based 
     Combined Cycle (RBCC) engine and implement it in several 
     innovative designs.
       In particular, your input is sought as to whether the 
     United States should run a parallel development program for 
     the RBCC using several private firms without NASA, which has 
     proved disappointing in its handling of the SSTO. Your advice 
     is sought as to the use of the RBCC in a HyperSoar 
     configuration (proposed by Lawrence Livermore's Preston H. 
     Carter II) compared to other possible configurations and 
     flight plans. In addition, your advice is sought on the 
     development of a military ``spaceplane'' capability, whether 
     it should use a rocket booster or an RBCC design.


                        Development of the Moon

       Your reference material in 1999 included plans for 
     developing the moon, which were drawn up in the early 1990's 
     before we knew the results of Project Clementine (1994) and 
     Lunar Prospector (1998) firmly establishing the presence of 
     water on the moon. The discovery of water on the moon is 
     monumental, holding promise for the exploration of space

[[Page 8578]]

     we have yet to grasp. Plans can be made for the mining of 
     water on the moon and its processing into rocket fuel. Your 
     advice is sought on the best type of lunar development and 
     rocket program that can take advantage of the discovery of 
     water on the moon.
       For example, a lunar development program could encompass 
     the parallel development of: a) the mining and processing of 
     water at the lunar poles, b) a lunar observatory on the 
     backside of the moon, c) the development of an earth-moon 
     transportation system going from the moon's surface to Low 
     Earth Orbit for the transport of water, rocket fuel (hydrogen 
     and oxygen), and other items. Of course, other facilities and 
     operations could be added later, once this basic 
     infrastructure is established. Your thoughts on this subject 
     would be most welcomed.


                             Nuclear Energy

       The commercial use of nuclear energy on earth has received 
     less than enthusiastic support in some quarters as the use of 
     nuclear energy brings with it legitimate safety and 
     environmental concerns. The use of nuclear energy in space, 
     however, appears to mark an appropriate and beneficial 
     application for nuclear energy.
       Most space systems will be closed environments where 
     nuclear reactors will have a natural, physical detachment, 
     softening safety and environmental issues. In many 
     circumstances nuclear waste products can be shipped to the 
     sun without excessive effort. Your advice is sought on the 
     types of nuclear reactors we should develop for use in space 
     and their potential application with a lunar base.
       Your advice is also sought on how we can achieve controlled 
     fusion energy. The continuation of existing programs and 
     appropriations will, apparently, not get the job done. The 
     promise of fusion energy remains unfulfilled. What types of 
     programs do we need to bring this hope to fulfillment? Please 
     bear in mind that the potential use of fusion energy may also 
     find its application in space. It has been pointed out how a 
     lunar economy could mine Helium-3 for fusion energy.


                             Naval Warfare

       The efforts of the United States in developing new aspects 
     of naval warfare appear to be constricted. Your advice is 
     sought on an expansion of the vision and imagination we have 
     for naval warfare to include new concepts (in some cases, old 
     concepts with new technology).
       Your advice is sought, for example, on the development of 
     diesel powered and AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) 
     submarines, in addition to nuclear powered submarines, that 
     would be used for anti-submarine warfare, and for training of 
     U.S. nuclear attack submarines in anti-submarine warfare.
       Your advice is also sought on the development of submarines 
     equipped with UAVs for reconnaissance, changing the Cold War 
     vision of a submarine as a permanently submerged vessel to a 
     vessel taking advantage of both the acoustic environment 
     found underwater and aerial reconnaissance independent of an 
     aircraft carrier.
       Your advice is also sought on the development of a ``quick 
     fix'' anti-aircraft defense against the supersonic cruise 
     missiles that attack a surface vessel by very low flight 
     above the water or by a last minute maneuver putting the 
     cruise missile above the surface vessel, attacking at an 
     angle of 90 deg. beyond the reach of Phalanx.
       In addition, your advice is sought on the development of 
     naval vessels equipped with high energy lasers or particle 
     beams capable of intercepting cruise missiles or bombs much 
     like the Nautilus laser being developed for Israel.
       Advanced technology can play a pivotal role in our 
     ballistic missile defense program and space program. It can 
     also provide spin-off applications to private industry. I 
     look forward to your response with genuine anticipation.

     

                          ____________________