HOW DID MCDONNELL DOUGLAS GET INVOLVED WITH THE NEUTRAL PARTICLE BEAM CONCEPT OR SYSTEM? HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

Well, in late 1985, we here at McDonnell Douglas saw the possibility of looking at another kind of directed energy program other than a laser, which most of us have been familiar with over the years. And we looked into the area of the neutral particle beam as being a very viable tool that could serve this country quite well as a defensive-type tool.

HOW DO YOU WORK WITH THE, I MEAN, IS THERE AN EASY SEPARATION BETWEEN THE RESPONSIBILITIES, ANY WAY OF EXPRESSING THE DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN A WEAPONS LABORATORY AND A DEFENSE CONTRACTOR?

Well, of course, we all kind of rely upon, and especially on the neutral particle beam program, all the good work that's been done over the years at places like Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. They’ve kind of been the father of the technology here. Here within the aerospace corporation like McDonnell Douglas, we look at packaging their designs which are more heavyweight and do not have to operate in space. We package those, as you can see in the mockup, which is full scale here behind me, and we take that technology and apply it to a system which we can therefore fly into space and perform that necessary event for them.

IS IT ACCURATE TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION BY SAYING THE LABORATORIES ARE WORKING WITH PHYSICS AND YOU'RE WORKING WITH ENGINEERING? IS THAT NOT...?

Well, it’s somewhat correct, yes. We also need to apply a certain amount of physics ourselves, both our scientific and physics effort is very important to the design that we have come up with here. But we've used the overall technology base which has come from the Los Alamos, I'll call it ground test accelerator, in the efforts that they’ve been looking at. So there is a coordinated effort, and I'll call it a technology exchange. We exchange technology with them and they exchange technology with us and they do a complete review of the effort that we're talking about.

HAVE YOU BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ON THIS FROM THE BEGINNING?

Yes, the design you see here is a design which we call the LANL point design and it’s part of a nine month competition that the government did have, of which we were the winner. We did go to school on their design; we have applied it, we have made it where it needs to have changes to go into the space environment. Has to be completely operational in space and all of these kind of things we've had to engineer or to place into our design. And also to look at the few areas of the accelerator which they have not looked at up into the point of the request for proposal.

CAN YOU GIVE US ANY SENSE OF YOUR TIMETABLE ON THIS? I MEAN, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT SO FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED?

Right now, we have just recently completed the preliminary design. We had a complete review by the government. Our contract is with the Air Force. It’s managed out of Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the Air Force Base Technology Center. So the Air Force personnel, along with the people from Los Alamos and also the Army out of Huntsville, have all participated in our design review to date and we're ready to proceed on through into the CDR and then, of course, the culmination of building the hardware and flying it in the early 1990s.

WHAT'S CDR?

Critical design review.

MAYBE YOU BETTER GO BACK, I THINK, AND END THAT AGAIN USING THAT PHRASE. OR, MAYBE ANOTHER WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO TELL US, ARE THERE STAGES HERE? IS CDR ONE OF A SET OF STAGES?

Yes. After our preliminary design review, our next major milestone, of course, will be that of the critical design review. And at that point, we're about 90 percent released of all of our engineering drawings and some sub systems have been tested. And at that point, we're ready to commit the hardware to be built and ready to go through a ground test and then subsequently get ready to fly.

CAN YOU GIVE US ANY SENSE OF THE TIME TABLE ON THAT GIVEN CURRENT LEVELS OF FUNDING?

We should be in a PDR, excuse me, we should be in a CDR in about...

I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN WITHOUT USING THE ACRONYM?

Sure. We should be in our critical design review, oh approximately the summer of 1989. And then it would support a launch in the early ‘90s. Just between you and me, the launch date’s classified, okay?

OKAY, YES. PART OF THAT TIME TABLE DEPENDS ON HOW THINGS GO AT LOS ALAMOS. I MEAN, THEY'RE STILL TESTING THAT THING, RIGHT?

No, at this point the work you see going on at Los Alamos is for an advanced generation of the neutral particle beam accelerator to what you see behind me here. The one that we have here is their prior design. It’s the work that you have seen accomplished to date. It has been engineered and packaged into a flight configuration so there are the two concepts. There will be the groundwork of a follow on, or a future typeset of characteristics, a higher energy level system, coupled with the system that we have here which will be a lower energy system and one which we want to fly into space.

NOW AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU HAVE TWO EXPERIMENTS, PROPOSED EXPERIMENTS COMING UP. ONE IS BEAR, IS THAT RIGHT?

No, the government has two experiments. McDonnell Douglas in our St. Louis division is participating in the BEAR program, which is beam experiment aboard rocket, which is a suborbital flight scheduled to launch in about 18 months out of White Sands where a small element of an accelerator will be placed on the front of a rocket and launched into space on a suborbital flight and then recovered via parachute.

WHAT'S THAT DESIGNED TO TELL US?

It’s designed to get some early engineering data on such things as spacecraft charging and the operation of an accelerator in space; a very, very low energy level accelerator.

AND EVERYTHING IS READY FOR THAT EXPERIMENT TO GO FORWARD?

No, it’s kind of held up right now due to funding. And as soon as the 1988 budget in SDI is totally understood, then the time and completion of that will be, for the BEAR program, will be finished at that time.

NOW, THERE'S A SECOND EXPERIMENT SCHEDULED, I BELIEVE, OR AT LEAST TALKED ABOUT. THAT'S ISE. COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?

Yes. The integrated space experiment is the key one that we here at McDonnell Douglas of Huntington Beach are building. That is the one that should launch in the early 1990s. It is the full vehicle, weighs approximately 45,000 pounds of weight. It carries the three main satellites into orbit, as you can see in the total background here, one including the neutral particle beam space vehicle itself, which has the accelerator system on it. The other one being a target satellite at which we will use to propagate the beam onto the target and see what happens since we're looking at the beam firing in a far field distance. And the third satellite is a detector satellite, which is one that will be looking at the reflections off of the target satellite to determine what we really see in the x-ray, gamma ray, neutrons, and also the ultraviolet glow. These kind of characteristics are all things that we want to measure in space since the beam will not propagate on the ground when it’s in the atmosphere.

SO THE DEVICE WILL ACTUALLY HIT SOMETHING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY DESTROY IT? IT’LL BE AT LOW LEVELS OF POWER, IS THAT...?

Yes, we are at lower levels of power and we are a totally treaty compliant mission and we will be operating the beam over a short distance of approximately between 20 and 100 kilometers. And over that distance, we’ll be hitting a cooperative target with the beam and we’ll be measuring on a target scorecard the actual beam profile and performance.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS CLASSIFIED OR NOT OR WHETHER YOU'RE THE ONE TO ASK THIS, BUT WHAT DOES AN EXPERIMENT LIKE THIS COST?

Well, our contract with the Air Force is for $480 million and includes everything from design, development, testing, integration, operational support, and everything else that’s needed to conduct this mission. And that program follows the phase one of the program which we have just recently completed for $18 million which culminated in the preliminary design review that I just discussed a few minutes ago.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER, WHAT'S THE NEXT STAGE AFTER ISE? DO YOU GO BACK TO YOUR DRAWING BOARDS?

Well, we would hope that there would be a follow on to the ISE program, or an ISE II, one might call it, and that's where we’d take part of the technology of the advanced design system that's being built at Los Alamos and that would then be packaged into a flight very similar to ISE I, and we would call it ISE II. And that mission there would fly, depending upon its weight and our launch vehicle capability.

DO YOU HAVE ANY WILD PROJECTIONS ABOUT WHEN THAT MIGHT BE?

It would probably be in the mid 1990s, would be the timing of a particular program like that.

WHERE DOES THE NEUTRAL PARTICLE BEAM SYSTEM STAND NOW IN THE GALAXY OF SDI WEAPONS IN TERMS OF BEING PUSHED FORWARD OR NOT BEING PUSHED FORWARD, BEING EMPHASIZED?

Well, the neutral particle beam program is a part of the Directed Energy Office under Dr. Jack Hammond. And like the laser programs and the neutral particle beam program, none of those are in the current phase one or the six phase one programs. So there is a set of procedures and policies of which will be followed that show that before the phase two can proceed, the phase one of these kind of programs must be accomplished.

AND I SUPPOSE PROVE THAT IT’S WORTHWHILE GOING FORWARD?

Oh absolutely, yes.

IN GENERAL TERMS, WHAT WOULD BE, I MEAN, HOW WOULD ONE DETERMINE A SUCCESS FROM A FAILURE IN THIS ROUGH TIME PERIOD OF A PROGRAM LIKE THIS, SAY THROUGH ISE ONE? I MEAN, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IT’S WORTH GOING FORWARD?

Well, at this particular time I think we have accomplished enough development tests over the last two years, both at Los Alamos and as part of our contractor team, and I guess I can also say as part of our competitor’s team during the phase one competition, that it appears to now be just a matter of not a technical set of concerns, but more of a financial approach. We do not know of any technical constraints. It's a lot of hard work, lot of activities to go through, all of which this country has done more than once. We believe that we can get this all well accomplished and a successful flight in a few years.

REMIND ME AGAIN, WHEN DID THE IDEA OF A NEUTRAL PARTICLE BEAM SYSTEM FIRST BEGIN?

Well, I think neutral particle beams and linear accelerators have been around for many, many years. But a part of the activity of flying a neutral particle beam into space, I believe that probably started in late 1984, early 1985. It’s part of a series of government studies accomplished by the Air Force and people like Los Alamos National Lab. And it’s all been part of the SDI total project of things to look at. Like I said, it’s part of the kinetic energy program and it offers a chance to understand what happens in the midcourse part of the flight when you look at the whole spectrum of missions.

OBVIOUSLY THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE NEUTRAL PARTICLE BEAM CONCEPT GETS TO INVEST IN ITS DEVELOPMENT DEPENDS ON HOW, WOULD DETERMINE HOW FAST IT GETS DEVELOPED. BUT IS THERE A LEVEL OF FUNDING AT WHICH THE PROGRAM WOULD REALLY LANGUISH? I MEAN IT WOULD BE DAMAGED RATHER THAN SIMPLY SLOWED DOWN?

Yes. We're looking right now at a program of about 70 to 90 million dollars in fiscal year ’88. And if it runs around 100 or a little bit more than that, millions of dollars per year, we should have a very viable program. General Abrahamson, I think, would like to be able to have this launched earlier. But again, we're probably schedule-wise driven by the amount of funding that can be applied to this program along with all the other programs that he desires to have go.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN COMMENT ON THIS OR NOT, BUT THINKING IN TERMS OF THE ABM TREATY, WHEN WOULD THE NEUTRAL PARTICLE BEAM PROGRAM BE AT A POINT WHERE IT COULD NOT DEVELOP FURTHER WITHOUT A REINTERPRETATION OR A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE ABM TREATY?

The neutral particle beam, or integrated space experiment that we have and that we have contracted for according to all the people that I have talked with in the government say that we are totally treaty compliant. And the way we've designed this particular set of experiments is to be treaty compliant. So it’s been built in from the start, and therefore we have not heard of anything that says that we do not have a program that would meet the strictest of interpretations for treaty compliance.

IN GOING DOWN THE ROAD BEYOND ISE ONE, CAN YOU...?

Well, if we were to go out and develop it as a weapon system and therefore make it one that could operate in that category, I'm sure that people that are more experienced in whether it is or is not treaty compliant could answer that better than I can. But I would imagine when it is designed and flies as a weapon system, that would take a different look see at the program.

NOT IN TERMS OF THE TREATY, NOT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, BUT FROM A TECHNOLOGY STANDPOINT, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO MAKE THIS A VIABLE WEAPON?

That’s pretty hard for me to say. Again, it’s a function of what the final studies say we would need for size, the number of platforms and also the launch vehicles that would be available to allow us to package it to get it into space. The detector systems are also just as important as the accelerator system itself, and therefore one would have to look at both schedules.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION OF WHAT'S BETTER FOR US, A NEUTRAL PARTICLE BEAM SYSTEM OR A LASER SYSTEM OR DO YOU THINK THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR PLACES?

Well, I think both of them have their places. Of course, a system like a laser can operate in the atmosphere, as you have probably heard and seen. There's lots of literature out showing how they would have ground based free electron lasers pointing at mirrors and then transferring the beam that way. Where the neutral particle beam itself will not work here on Earth. It only works outside of the atmosphere, so 50, 60, 70 miles and on up is where the particle beam will work and that's the key difference between the two. A laser also hits the surface of an object and then bounces off, where a neutral particle beam is designed to have a true mass penetration and it measures the depth or the characteristics of the object itself by having it be a true mass checker, as I'll call it, or a true mass determination system.

AT THIS STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT, ARE YOU WORRYING ABOUT THINGS LIKE SURVIVABILITY IN SPACE AND THAT KIND OF QUESTION?

Oh, yes. We worry about that and this is a part of our program requirement, worry about a survivability of a system and we believe that a neutral particle beam is a very survivable system. We've taken that into careful consideration in the design and program activities.

BUT ANYTHING UP THERE IS ESSENTIALLY RELATIVELY VULNERABLE, ISN'T IT? I MEAN, AN ORBITING...?

Well, I would prefer not to describe it here on the tape to you if I can do it. But there are very secure things that we are doing here to make ourselves secure. I would like to not tell you why this is more survivable than something else. It would then give you the reverse answer.

I'D LIKE TO TURN TO ANOTHER AREA AND THAT’S, THAT MAY BE GOING BEYOND YOUR LEVEL OF COMPETENCE OR WHAT YOU FEEL FREE TO TALK ABOUT, SO TELL ME IF YOU ARE. BUT I JUST WONDER WHAT A PROJECT LIKE THIS MEANS TO AN AEROSPACE CORPORATION LIKE MCDONNELL DOUGLAS? HOW DO THEY FIT THAT INTO THEIR GENERAL SCHEME OF THINGS?

Well, every large aerospace corporation likes to also work in addition to production line type activities to have a lot of research and development work. And this particular kind of a program is a research and development program, is a one of a kind flight. It has a lot of science, it has a lot of physics. It has a lot of engineering applications involved with it. It’s packaging something that's very, very large that you have probably seen on the ground at Los Alamos. We have to be able to package all of this hardware into the environment and constraints of the space shuttle system, which is a cargo bay of about 15 feet in diameter and about 60 foot in length. We have to meet all the margins, so on, through. So it gives an aerospace company like ourselves and our teammates, and I'll discuss them in a second with you, but it gives us a chance to perform this feat of taking the physics and the science and putting it into an experiment and being able to conduct it. So as a part of a company like this, it’s very beneficial. We also think that large companies like ourselves and our teammate on this program, our teammates are our St. Louis division, also is very heavy in the accelerator work. We also have TRW and we have the Boeing Company, all of us are involved in this one aspect because there is a limited number of personnel that do understand and are expertise in neutral particle beams and how to work on accelerators and objects like this to be able to take that and to apply it. So we look at it as a good part of our business base and something that we can offer from a large aerospace company to be able to build large structures, large systems, operate them and so on through and make them all work. So, we consider it a rather excellent opportunity to have been selected as the company to pull this...

YOU JUST STRESSED, AT LEAST WHAT I HEARD YOU SAYING, IS YOU STRESSED WHEN I TALKED ABOUT, WHEN I ASKED YOU ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS AT MCDONNELL DOUGLAS AS A COMPANY, ESSENTIALLY KNOWLEDGE, THINGS YOU LEARN ABOUT, THINGS YOU CAN APPLY TO OTHER AREAS. BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN FINANCIALLY? HOW DOES IT HELP YOU THERE?

Well, of course after the initial flight, we would hope that a number of systems could be designed and built and go towards a full-scale development program. And by us being the pioneer on this first contract, then we would think we have an awful good position for the downstream selection for the future application of this system. And like I said before, since there's a limited number of people, our whole team has been pulled together to look at and pull together the resources that we can use as a team to make a large number of these systems should they be required. And we're trying to get ourselves in the total overall posture out through the years and the early 2000s where these systems would be designed and then deployed if we go into a full scale system.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE EARLY 2000S, THIS QUESTION ALMOST BECOMES MEANINGLESS. BUT DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT DEPLOYING A SYSTEM LIKE THIS MIGHT COST US IN THE EARLY 2000S?

Well, there's been studies performed by various system architectures for SDI. I cannot recall the exact numbers, but I'm sure it’s an affordable approach to be able to take these. There's not too many platforms would be required in space, and maybe for every platform would be a little bit larger number of detector satellites that go along with it. So the whole concept is to make it very affordable.

ARE THEY IN A LOW EARTH ORBIT OR A HIGH GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT? WHAT KIND OF A...?

Well, an operational system would probably be above 500 kilometers, maybe a thousand kilometers. And this first mission would be a low Earth orbit at about 160 miles because we're really trying to see what happens when we're as close to the atmosphere as possible.

DO YOU THINK IN THE LONG RUN SDI WILL GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT AND FUND THIS?

I believe they will. We just met with General Abrahamson again the other day and I think he is pleased with the progress to date, and I believe that SDI does want to have a particle beam system fly into space. That's why they're looking at both the BEAR and the ISE type program. And I believe that you only should do certain things like this on a space flight itself because you cannot do it on the ground. Vacuum chambers are not available, and therefore a space flight of this is needed to prove and complete the items that cannot be done like at a national lab.