the well-known point-to-point rocket techniques. The point is that an enemy can employ space techniques in a variety of ways that are inimical to our national interests. Therefore, we must develop the military capability not only to duplicate these techniques ourselves, but also to police them when employed by an enemy.

Now, when we look at this catalog of scientific, civil, and military potentialities of space, they look pretty impressive. But there is another motivation in space exploration that is so important that it cannot be ignored. That is the aspiration of men to reach out to the stars, to accomplish what men have not accomplished before. This is the very deep, driving force within man, responsible for his evolution from the animal and innate force that has caused him to rise to unparalleled social accomplishment. Now, some men would deny the reality of aspiration-the will to conquer the unconquered as a fundamental force of great human motivation. Submerged in the artificial and complex responsibilities of living, the basic motivations of the human spirit become clouded. Employing the method of autosuggestion of Monsieur Coué, they repeat at each opportunity: "Day by day, in every way, I am convinced that our effort in space can't amount to anything, and at great cost, too." And, after such self-induced brainwashing, they get to believe it. (This argument can, of course, be inverted. Yet, in support of its position, we have the extraordinary situation that man has uniquely emerged as a quasi-civilized being, in spite of recognizable contrary forces and the conspicuous lack of success of numerous other species).

But, the great bulk of the peoples of the world have not yet acquired this particular brand of sophistication. They appreciate and share our aspirations to reach to the stars, and find a satisfying excitement now that this seems almost within reach. This is the primitive instinct that has made man great. I cannot forget a night in the Mideastern desert, when a native grasped my sleeve and pointed excitedly to the sky, exclaiming: "Look, mister, look-American sputnik." You may argue that an American Peace Corpsman might do more for this man as an individual; yet, lurking in the background, is the realization that the Peace Corpsman may have no opportunity to function at all, if our privilege to lead is eroded. Here lies an irreversible value judgment that only history can test.

Because of this very primitive and deep-seated instinct to conquer the unconquered, the space race between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. is inevitable. Men everywhere see, in the conquest of space, the peaceful demonstration of the superiority of one of the two competing systems of economic organization-capitalism versus communism. The conquest of space has become a symbol of the challenge to each system to demonstrate its superiority-to "put up" or shut up. Now, some may deplore this situation as foolish, or ungentlemanly, or costly, or unintellectual-but that's the way it is, and we had better accept it if we want to retain our free system. The Russians recognize it with: first sputnik; first hit on the Moon; first man in space; first photographs of the back side of the Moon; first try (failed) to reach planets; first shot at Mars; and the heaviest payloadsall spectaculars. (I would add, parenthetically, moreover, that it may be better for both sides to shoot some dollars into space than to shoot them at each other.) I would emphasize that the contest is not a contest for "prestige," in the intangible sense of pride or self-admiration. Used in this context, that word, as an obective, is ridiculous. Rather, this contest is a genuine test of technological capability in the sense that two contestants size up the potentialities of the other before making a major move. It is a test of technological capability, also, in the sense that the peoples of emerging nations size up the developing potentialities and inevitably back the winner. The implications of allowing our technology to fall to second-rate stature, with respect to space, are less a matter of personal pride and more a matter of technological posture in a "cold war"-a posture that is recognizable on all sides. This posture involves "prestige" only in the sense that genuine military strength involves prestige.

Moreover, if tensions are to be reduced by negotation, we must recall that genuine negotiation is possible only among equals. In a power-balanced world, acquisition of significant demonstrated capability by one side can destroy all hope of reasonable negotiation—not just in space, but in the whole international arena. It is in the irreversibility of this situation that lies the danger of irresponsible decision. If the pace of the program is to be altered, this should be the subject of international negotiation, accompanied by insurable guaranties, and not the subject of unilateral abandonment of the space field.

So, in addition to the scientific, civil, and military values of space, the conquest of space has, at this time, acquired an enormous international political value. The nation that can achieve and retain space superiority will have won the equiva

lent of a war in demonstrating the superior viability of his system in the eyes of the world. In this context, unlike an athletic contest, to be first in one phase is of relatively little long-range importance. But you must be in the running in all important aspects, you must have at least some "firsts," and you can't afford to be very far behind in any department before you will be tagged as a second-rate and a failing power-an easy pushover with all the accompanying dangers. In accepting this challenge, America with its far more powerful economic apparatus, can maintain the pace of the contest with much less strain on its system.

Well, say the skeptics, why not accept the space race purely for the political race that it is, and forget all about the science and so on. See how much money you could save. This, I submit, is a most superficial and unrealistic attitude. First of all, exploration of space means, by definition, the scientific exploration of space-the precise measurement and definition of what you have found, and accomplished. I point out that each Russian space spectacular has been accomplished by efforts toward real scientific objectives. Without the employment of the most advanced conceivable science as the tool for exploration, the space race would degenerate into an athletic contest-a "phony" recognizable by all peoples. There is no advantage to winning a "phony war." The scientific objectives are real and powerful by themselves; but they are also an integral part of the political objectives. Moreover, support of the required space science is only a "drop-inthe-bucket" compared to total costs. Our country saw a closely analogous situation in colonial days, when in the 1760's the race to measure the transit of Venus assumed political importance. Then as now purely scientific objectives were also unavoidably integrated with political objectives. Incidentally, our scientific accomplishments, then, gave us no small measure of confidence in our independent capabilities during our quarrel with King George III (cf. Brooke Hindle "The Pursuit of Science in Revolutionary America," North Carolina Press, 1957).

But aside from the importance of the scientific exploration of space both for scientific and for political reasons, there is another impelling reason to maintain space science at a high level. A straight engineering approach to space exploration will work until you encounter a serious failure arising from natural causes you don't clearly understand. Then you are brought to a shuddering and expensive halt. Common sense dictates that we must extend our scientific understanding of space as far as possible prior to every step. Then the probability of disastrous and unretrievable failure is vastly reduced for we will understand the space medium with which we deal.

In balancing these complex policy goals-the scientific, the civil, the military, and the political-our Government with its Space Council and Space Agency, acting together with the Congress, proceeded with extraordinary maturity in formulating our basic space policy in 1961. That policy puts reasonable emphasis on each aspect of the program. That policy recognizes the civil opportunities for deployment of space capability in communications, in meteorology, in navigation, perhaps later in transportation. It comprehends the spur of an advanced technology, essential in creating an advanced educational and industrial posture. It foresees the ultimate return of the space investment in innovation of new industry and consequent generation of employment. The policy recognizes that no leading nation can allow its military posture in space to deteriorate, particularly during the contest with communism. The policy recognizes that no space program could hope to achieve its goals successfully without emphasis on science, not only to circumvent failure, but also to make our space goals the real goals of scientific exploration. The policy comprehends that unless there is a valid scientific objective, political objectives lose their reality. It thereby recognizes that imperative need to keep American space science at the forefront. Above all, that policy realizes that success in space, out of the sum of these elements, represents a recognizable level of technological dexterity from which the world will judge the efficacy of our national capabilities. Now particularly, it realizes that should the communist powers possess a real and significant advantage in this capacity, they might readily be encouraged into irresponsible international adventure, perhaps leading to war, out of a false sense of superiority and rash overconfidence engendered from such unique successes in space. Therefore, to counteract the potential of a unique Soviet success, the contest for every major space objective becomes unavoidable.

In annunciating this policy, our Government generated certain goals directed toward a properly balanced program. These goals embraced the scientific, civil, military, and political objectives. Among them, and quite properly, was the objective, to land a man on the Moon. This was a genuine goal in itself, further enforced by the earlier Soviet declaration of their intention of proceeding vigorously toward this objective, with the scientific objective of lunar exploration.

20-506-63- -8

In recent months there has been a growing tendency on the part of some to view this as the only goal of our space program. These views would force us to reduce and to warp the original goals, thus degenerating the space program to a mere athletic contest. Such degradation of the program could be extremely damaging to the whole Western position. Such action would ultimately lead to failure of the program.

As in all great social problems, it is impossible to unravel the complex interrelstions between science in space, the civil and the military objectives, and the political goals. You cannot say that one is worth this much, another that much. etc., and that the sum of given parts should represent the total cost or the total value. Each part of the package has strong reflections and interactions with the others so we cannot avoid commitment to the whole package. If science were the only objective of space exploration, the form of the debate would be quite different. It is not. Therefore the balance must be struck on space policy out of all factors, combining philosophical "value" judgments.

The only control available to us is the rate at which we can proceed. Our space leaders now say that our budgets are geared to "optimum" rate; that is the rate at which successive essential steps can reasonably and efficiently be taken without risking disastrous failure. The rate is geared to reasonably rapid test of ideas that can retain the interest of the "first team" of scientists and engineers. The only room for argument is about the application of the word "optimum" to specific programs embraced in our total space effort. Here is plenty of room for constructive and informed discussions.

The NASA and the DOD have both acted with mature consideration in balancing these objectives as defined by congressional and executive policy. Quite clearly, they are endeavoring to maintain the delicate balance between science, engineering, and application, leading to optimum speed and effectiveness toward the political goals. There has been close consultation with the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences on the basic scientific framework that constitutes an effective space science program. But a critical danger always lurks in the background that must be watched closely. Since to do a moon program at all, we must have a vehicle, budget cuts would tend to skim the cream of science off the top. I reiterate that this would ultimately deteriorate the program to an athletic contest, and end, either in complete failure for lack of ability to circumvent unforeseen roadblocks, or in failure with respect to both the scientific and the real political goals. Se we, as scientists, have a continuing responsibility to undertake quite critical analyses of the effects of such budget changes on the ultimate goals.

Let me turn then to one final policy matter. Many have said "Why send man on such a dangerous mission.' Wouldn't it be better to use instruments. Can't instruments do everything that man can do, and a lot cheaper. A man in space takes a huge weight in his life support systems-just think what you can do with instruments of the same weight. See how much money you could save. Of course, the preliminary unmanned surveys are planned with scientific instruments to define the frame of reference in which future work must be done. There are now planned a whole series of unmanned tests precedent to manned landing, and both unmanned and manned studies and circumlunar surveys of the lunar geography and environment. And, present scientific studies of our atmosphere and interplanetary space are providing the knowledge which will make the manned venture a safe one. Out of this knowledge later and more sophisticated studies will be conceived and conducted.

As we approach the more advanced studies we need means of broad comprehension to tell us which studies will be most productive in a relatively unknown horizon. We need a skilled interpretation of the broad situation from which alternative courses of action can be weighed objectively. If we were to try to design an instrument to exercises this broad comprehension, I suspect it would look surprisingly like a man. And we don't know how to make such an instrument. So we have little alternative at the more sophisticated experimental level but to use man, himself, to direct our own studies and experiments into the right frame of reference. Again, we see that political and scientific objectives overlap. In its report, last summer's Study Group of the National Academy of Sciences recommended that young but highly skilled scientists be included in the program for astronaut training. I believe this to be essential if space exploration is to be deeply scientific and not phony. Failure to do this in my opinion would turn out to be a major national "butch" for the sophisticated level of scientific judgment needed for this mission is not something that you learn in a few lessons, like flying an airplane. And there is no reason why highly skilled and carefully

selected scientists cannot be trained and qualified to take their place on the astronaut team.

To do a genuine job, the astronaut team must be a well-rounded team including great scientific skills. So we should get on with training some scientist-astronauts without delay. From my reading of the Russians, I am positive they will do so. Our failure to provide the maximum scientific capability on the astronaut teams— a capability whose comprehension and critical observations can steer future space science into the really effective channels-would greatly strengthen the argument of those who would do the job with instruments alone. For these reasons, the recent statement of the Administrator of NASA takes on the greatest significance: "It is apparent that the views of the scientists that trained scientific personnel should participate is valid, and that at the earliest appropriate stage in the program, scientists will be included on Apollo missions."

I believe that plans, selection, and training for scientific participation should be initiated at once. I could mention other specific weaknesses in the program that I feel sure can and will be worked out. For example, we have not brought the full power of the biological sciences to bear on either the problem of manned space flight, or on the major problems of exo-biology. Aerospace adds a third dimension to man's existence, and with that new dimension, altogether new orders of velocity, acceleration, temperature, and a host of other new ecologic limits. Where before, man's range of adaptation involved no serious limits, our new world of aerospace finds man's adaptive capability as a limiting parameter. Consequently, not only man's gross physiological and psychological response to extreme environments must be understood, but also the detailed comprehension of the underlying responses of each element of man's organization to extremes of environment, we can hope to perceive means of broadening his adaptive capability.

We must not be deluded by our successes into believing that we have these problems solved since we have scarcely ventured into this new environment.

We have not yet fully faced the difficult physiological problems of adaptation of man to his vehicle. We have not given sufficient thought to the psychological problems of the necessary ease and reliability of command of the vehicle, or of the confidence that must be engendered in the space explorer if he is to face the most difficult problems of all time without, just plain "going to pieces." We have not fully explored the problems of those men as they must go calmly about making critical and reliable observations and recording them in the face of a cruel environment. These, with a hundred other problems of space, should force us to ask quite new questions of space, should force us to ask quite new questions of nature, from which begin to view our natural environment in quite new perspectives. Therefore, I would hope for an alliance between NASA, the National Institutes of Health, and the biological strengths of our universities, in attacking these problems more adequately.

Nevertheless, important as these matters may be, they are details of a much more massive program.

In looking at our whole space program critically, one cannot but conclude that our Nation has approached and undertaken the program with great intelligence. With respect to the details, we have the opportunity to be be heard, and to have our case weighed. But considering our late start, considering the complexity of the problem and difficult technologies to be mastered, the program has been planned with extraordinary foresight. It seems to me that many of the critics of the program appear unduly harsh, and, I must say singularly uninformed, some in spite of positions of national leadership. Particularly in scientific circles, broad criticism seems appropriate only after most thorough study and mastery of the situation. I would hope that in the critical discussions of some of the alternative details of the space program, we do not seem to indict the whole program without thorough knowledge of it.

For example, we have always known that there are four major systems approaches to landing on the moon. There are proponents of each. Each system offers quite different difficulties and complexities, and they are difficult to compare until we have acquired actual experience in flying energy and rocket complexity but requires perfection of the major capability of rendezvous in lunar orbit. Likewise, each of the other systems require solution of major technological problems.

Now it is understandable that there should be justifiable differences of opinion regarding the selection of a particular system from among four possible systems. Quite obviously, since we can't use all four, for reasons of cost if nothing else, a selection of one has had to be made. The decision was made only after exhaustive study, and it is now time to unite behind that decision and get on with the job.

In my opinion NASA's decision was a wise decision, since it involves launching propulsion and lunar landing of a minimum of mass, and involves the most direct control methods. From my perspective it seems the cheapest, best, and safest method, and the one most likely to succeed.

Yet, this decision is still the target of vicious attacks by protagonists of other systems, who go so far as to accuse NASA of wickedly endangering human life for political reasons. (For example, see Harper's Magazine, March 1963.) This kind of discussion is utter nonsense. No matter what system NASA selects, major technological problems must be solved, and it is a matter of engineering judgment which solution is safest, quickest, and cheapest since these three criteria are not mutually incompatible. Moreover, it is unlikely that these critics have employed the capabilities and resources required to approach the exhaustive studies leading to the NASA decision. Far from being criticized, NASA should be complimented for its fortitude in making up its mind, promptly and decisively. A second major criticism is that for "political reasons", the manned space program is a "do-or-die" attempt. The fact is that those who have studied the program find it both orderly and reasonably well planned. Let me quote from the Administrator's recent statement (ibid.):

"Project Apollo is not a spectacular do-or-die attempt.

"It is a painstaking scientific and engineering effort in which we still have 5 years or more of work ahead of us.

"Our ability to get to the Moon and back safely will be developed and demonstrated in a series of careful steps. The completion of Project Mercury is a first step. Then come the 2-week flights and the rendezvous maneuvers in Project Gemini. Then the unmanned tests of the Saturn boosters and the Apollo spacecraft. Then flights of 3 weeks or more in the Apollo spacecraft in Earth orbit. Then the first flight to the vicinity of the Moon, without an attempt at landing. Finally, the lunar landing attempt. But even at the last moment before touchdown this can be broken off if the astronauts perceive an unexpected danger. "Furthermore, the lunar landing will be preceded by careful and detailed study of the Moon's surface and environment from unmanned spacecraft of the Ranger and Explorer type ***.

"It is not a question of whether we should stress manned or instrumented exploration of the Moon. We are doing both, and in proper sequence so that the unmanned scientific studies will be available to help assure the safety and success of our astronauts."

This statement is supported by study of the program plans. In the light of this kind of planning. I am at loss to understand the criticisms that talk about unnecessary exposure of human life. Of course, there are risks to be taken in any daring new program that radically advances our technology. Of course, failures can occur in the best planned and executed programs. All we ask is that every reasonable measure of planning and testing be done for anticipated and foreseeable eventualities, and that these eventualities be revealed by exploration, step by step. As nearly as we can now estimate, the present program seems to meet these critieria in its broad outlines, and certainly can be modified if unexpected difficulties arise.

Certainly, no one can object to informed discussion directed toward improving particular aspects of the program. Such thoughtful criticism is constructive, and indeed essential in a program so vast and complex. Broad philosophical discussions of the value of the objectives are worthwhile, in the full context of the total background of the undertaking. But to damn the program with mere cliches out of ignorance or misinformation, involves a form of irresponsibility that our national welfare can ill afford to indulge.

In concluding my comments on policy, one other remark seems appropriate. We hear it said, "Just think of what we could do with $20 billion if it were turned to man's immediate welfare-medical research, housing of the poor, and so on.' Thinking men recognize this argument as specious on a number of grounds. The same argument as can be used against expenditures for defense, or betting on horseracing, or against liquor, and chewing gum.

In response to this assertion that the space budget could better be diverted to other ends, we should not forget that we live in a dynamic civilization in which some aspects of technology must always lead the others. Failure to press these technological differentials will bring technology to a halt, and our space program is the greatest spur to technology today. Beyond this, in satisfying man's primitive aspirations to conquer the unconquered, we spur him to greater effort. Only 1 percent added effort will pay for the whole space program, and there is no doubt that the program exercises a mighty influence in advancement of both education