« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
prestige. I don't think it adds an awful lot to the British and to the French to have what might be considered and what has been called, a flying white elephant.
Senator MAGNUSON. I don't know who made the statement but I would like to see it. The Senator from Colorado and I and our committee spent weeks on this. The word “Sputnik” might have been mentioned as a technological thing but surely wasn't any reason for us to go ahead on the SST.
As I have said many times, this started way back in the early 60's, as the general knows, 10 or 11 years ago.
Mr. QUESADA. It was about 10 years ago.
Chairman ELLENDER. Senator Percy, could you produce that for the record ?
(The information will be furnished to the committee.)
Senator Percy. I would like to ask about our being first. I like to be first as an American wherever it is possible. We were not first with the jet. The Comet, as I understand it was the first jet, and they sold five to Ghana, I believe, three to East Africa, and that was about it.
We then moved into the field. Can you give us a feeling as to what race was carried on at the time to be first in the jet race and how we overcame the lead that the British originally had ?
Mr. QUESADA. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a competitive atmosphere prevailing throughout the world at the time for one country or one company to be the first to produce the jet transport
. The British did, in this case to their sorrow and to our sorrow. I would imagine about 2 years elapsed before Boeing stepped forward with their 707. There is always going to be this competitive competition between nations,
This is why we are doing well, because this is where we are at our best, in competitive competition. I think this country thrives on it. I think our industry thrives on it. I think Boeing has thrived on it. It can get out of hand. It can result in failures. Certainly the British Comet was a failure, a sad failure for all of us.
I wish it had not been a failure, but it was. Boeing was not a failure.
CONCORDE DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION
Senator Percy. Is it at all possible that the Concorde could ever be a success! As I understand it, they will have $1,800 million in that plane. Is there any chance that the British and the French could ever sell that plane commercially so as to recover their investment plus production costs thereby enabling them to set a selling price so it would be commercially salable!
Mr. QUESADA. I doubt if the Concorde is ever going to be a compensatory effort on the part of those who developed it. I doubt it seriously
. I think they are going to adopt the philosophy that my father used to adopt when I was a kid. He used to say in his broken English he heard five, spent seven and saved two.
But I think that principle is going to apply to the Concorde.
Senator Percy. Lastly, if they are willing to sell them at a loss, and we continue to sell aircraft, as we are, at a profit, what is wrong with letting those abroad sell loss leaders if they want the prestige and we buy them at their cost minus whatever they can't get in a commercial selling price? They can't recover their full costs.
What is wrong with our buying them and testing out the market that way? Then if there is really a big market for it, go in with the right design at the right time?
Mr. QUESADA. As I said before, I see nothing wrong with us buying a Concorde if it is a better mousetrap. I can think of no reason why we shouldn't buy it if it is a better mousetrap.
The French and the British certainly bought our mousetrap when it was the best. The airplane and the engine have been our largest
exports. The benefits that have been derived from the ingenuity of our most industry are almost immeasurable.
It seems fair to me that we should buy a British or French airplane if they have bought ours. I don't think we should refrain from buying it because it is French and English.
Senator PERCY. Thank you very much, indeed.
STATEMENT OF PROF. REGINALD E. NEWELL, DEPARTMENT OF
Chairman ELLENDER. Dr. Newell, please step forward.
Dr. NEWELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am sure the hour is late and you would like to terminate as quickly as possible. I will start by giving a brief summary of some of the scientific arguments concerning pollution in the stratosphere and then go into details a little later.
I should mention first of all
Senator PROXMIRE. Could I ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent that if the witness doesn't read his complete statement, and apparently he is not going to, that the full statement will be printed in the record ?
Chairman ELLENDER. Without objection, that may be done.
I should like to include in the last statement, if possible, the three papers, namely, two articles in Nature and one in Scientific American, which are essentially part of my statement here. I am not going to reiterate the details in those articles.
Chairman ELLENDER. Are they different articles ?
Dr. NEWELL. They are all included here with the copy that you have.
Chairman ELLENDER. Suppose we put into the record your entire statement and file the rest of it with the committee.
Dr. NEWELL. Thank you.
Kings' School Peterborough, Oxford School Certificate,
Scientific Assistant, British Meteorological Office 1947-49
1961-66 Associate Professor, Meteorology, MIT
1966-69 Professor, Meteorology, MIT
American Geophysical Union
Member, International Commission on the Meteorology of the Upper
For the past eleven years my students and I have been studying plane
tary transport processes in the upper atmosphere and their relationship
to processes in the lower atmosphere.
These studies have been mainly
supported by the United States Atomic Energy Commission and had as their
practical goal an understanding of the transfer of radioactive material,
originating from nuclear weapons tests and satellite power plants, through
out the stratosphere and between the stratosphere and the troposphere.
Our answers to such questions as
how long will radioactive tungsten from
a test over the Pacific stay in the stratosphere?
why is there a maximum
of fallout at the earth's surface during the spring season?
why does the
maximum fallout occur at middle latitudes while most of the large tests
occur at high or low latitudes?
could only be given by attempting to
understand the fundamental questions
how does the stratosphere balance
1ts momentum, energy and mass budgets? This more fundamental understanding
can then be applied to other problems as well as the questions originally
posed and it is obviously pertinent to the global pollution problem under
I wish to apply the results of these studies to two
particular aspects of SST operations:
the introduction of water vapor and
the introduction of particulate matter (or gases from which particulates
items represent my views as an individual scientist rather than the views
of my institution, or sponsoring agency.
For those interested in the
details three of my published papers dealing with water vapor, volcanic
dust and the global pollution problem are attached.
The lowest 12-16 km of the atmosphere in which temperature decreases
with height is called the troposphere, a word really meaning "well stirred".
From 16 to
50 km the region is called the stratosphere and in this region
the vertical motions are much smaller relative to the horizontal motions,
than is the case in the troposphere. Temperature is either constant with
altitude or increases with altitude in the stratosphere.
between the regions is known as the tropopause and can easily be recognized
from a graph of temperature versus height.
It is thought that most of the
air in the stratosphere enters through the
tropical tropopause; because
this region is very cold moisture freezes out of the air there until the
moisture content corresponds to at most the saturated vapor concentration
at that temperature ( -80°C) which is close to 2 microgram of water vapor