Dr. RAMO. As one example, over 3 years ago, we successfully launched Pioneer V, the first interplanetary probe, and maintained communications out to several tens of millions of miles, which established a record at that time, bringing back reams of interesting scientific data. I am not certain the data have all been analyzed yet. To this date, the Soviet Union has not equaled this. We had a whole Atlas in orbit back about 4 years ago, with a taped message from President Eisenhower, as some of you may recall. We beat the Russians to the first experiments on communications satellites. Between the Echo, the Telstar, and other communication programs, we have pioneered in communications, which is of obvious total benefit to the world at large. We have done the first work in meteorological satellites, so far as we know, and in navigation satellites. In all of these examples, it required a tremendous amount of engineering ingenuity, a large effort. It may be that these particular applications, in 10, or 20 years from now, will loom as much more important than the landing of a man on the moon. It is much too early to tell. It is not clear that the U.S.S.R. has even begun to duplicate these accomplishments. Senator CASE. I understand the point now. In what way could we do better or have done a better job in telling the world how important these things are? I think that is your point. Dr. RAMO. Yes, that is my point. We have had a tendency to be very stingy with the amount of information we give out on some programs, even though classified aspects were really not important. This has been one of the inhibiting factors. Senator CASE. This is perhaps a related question? I gather you think there is at least a good chance that a lunar landing is not a primary goal of the Soviets? We should make an effort to have the meaning of our unmanned space accomplishments better understood. Is that your general feeling? Dr. RAMO. Right now (and I think this question is really in the public relations field rather than in technology) I think the Russians have succeeded in making manned space flight the leading event in the public mind. Now, perhaps that could have been different had we done a better job of telling about our achievements in other aspects of space. It may well be that it is we, and not they, who are now engaged in making the lunar race the main event. It is not clear that the Russians have made this their No. 1 priority item, and I am suggesting (although it is classified, to go into detail) that it is possible to imagine Russian manned space projects which would lend them much more prestige per dollar spent and much more prestige earlier, than their trying to land a man on the moon ahead of us. WE MUST MOVE WITH ADEQUATE PREPARATION Senator CASE. On another point, do you think we have given and do you think our general approach is giving sufficient attention to research of a preliminary nature before we take these steps in the manned lunar program? Dr. RAMO. I am concerned that the program ahead might turn out to be one in which we will not lay an adequate preparation. We are dealing with many unknowns. Still, it is always possible to gamble that things will work out well, that we will find no peculiar, insoluble problems. If we run into trouble we can, in theory, retreat quickly, delay the program and add at that time the additional explorations by instrumented landings, for example, if the lunar environment becomes the problem. Incidentally, it is my understanding that NASA has further unmanned lunar explorations planned. But I think the relative priority may change if the public has the impression that we must by all odds land a man by the end of the 1960's, that we are in a desperate vital race, and that we cannot allow ourselves to lose. Then we may find ourselves moving without adequate preparation. Senator CASE. This is something to watch, I take it. Dr. RAMO. This is indeed something to watch. An inadequate program is something to which I am very much opposed. QUESTIONS BY SENATOR KEATING Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, Senator Keating asked me to ask two questions for him, if I may at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. COMMERCIAL USES OF SPACE Senator CASE. One of them relates to page 9 of your statement where you refer to the commercial uses of space. Senator Keating asked what benefit can you foresee in commercial uses of space and how could manned flight contribute to that? Dr. RAMO. As a primary example, we already have the beginnings of the communications system using space-mounted equipment as a better engineering economic solution to the problem of expanded worldwide communications. I refer here to communications not for the military, which should have the highest priority, but communications for the commercial enterprises of the world. Then we have navigation of all things that fly in the skies, the world airlines, with artificial stars that produce specially arranged signals to insure improved navigation, and for the navigation of surface craft as well. The field of weather observation and ultimately weather control, or the beginnings of it, has again obvious commercial application. Some of these programs, for practical completion, will require greater payload capability and other engineering advances that will fall out of the lunar program. PROGRAM PRODUCES AS WELL AS USES TALENT Senator CASE. Another question, the other question of Senator Keating, Dr. Abelson was primarily worried about the deflection of first-rate scientific brains as a result of the stepped-up manned lunar program. You say there are sufficient scientists and engineers without referring specifically to first-rate talents. How important are the few first-raters and what are the dangers of deflecting their interests? Dr. RAMO. This is not an important issue, I believe, as regards the engineer, or the scientist who is very closely related to the funda mentals behind the engineering. This is where the large requirements for manpower will come in the presently laid out manned lunar programs. As to the deflection of the brilliant, creative scientist, I feel that here we have two opposing factors, and it is pretty hard to tell how they will come out in the long run. The program uses up talent, but it also produces talent. I believe that there are today in the Nation young people who will not go into science, who will go into some other field, but who are capable of being high-grade scientists. I do not share what is, I think, a rather common conceit of most of us who are trained in the scientific and engineering field, that there are very few people capable of joining the "fraternity." I think there have been very few who have been discovered and given the training. I daresay there are in this room individuals without any degree in science or engineering who might have chosen the field and been successful in it. A properly handled large space program, with a specific and (I will say quite unashamedly) glamorous center point of attraction, may have a long-run benefit in improving those processes that cause us to select and to educate the youngsters of today into the highly creative scientists and engineers of the future. The increased future supply may outweigh in effect any imbalanced deflection to space programs. TOO MUCH TIME ATTENDING MEETINGS There is one final point that I think is worth emphasizing that I mentioned briefly in my earlier statement. Too large a fraction of the most gifted engineers and scientists applicable to this kind of work, that is, interested in this kind of project, is spending its time attending meetings, debating which project we should have and insuring that funds will go for the particular project that it favors. We could increase the really available number of our most creative people by a factor of 2, I believe, if we could make the necessary related social advance that would teach us how to choose a goal and get on with it once we have chosen it. DISCUSSION OF NASA SCHOLARSHIP AND RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAMS Senator CASE. Dr. Abelson on this point expressed concern and I think perhaps his greatest concern in regard the NASA programs is in regard to its scholarship program. Dr. RAMO. Yes. Senator CASE. Because of the danger he could see that it might very well soak up into the NASA program the greater part of the people being educated and because of its noncontroversial and its glamorous nature eliminate people from other Government projects such as defense, most particularly, and civilian, at least partly civilian, nondefense activities such as research in medicine and other things. Have you a comment on that? Dr. RAMO. Yes. Again I would not be concerned about the engineering aspects, arguing that a properly run space program has such breadth and potential; it ranges over all aspects of aeronautical, mechanical, electrical, thermodynamic, metallurgical, and chemical engineering. It is certain to enhance engineering. I would be concerned, however, about what the program might do to those who enter the truly scientific, pure research fields. But I think this is before us, and it depends on how the fellowship program is run. In principle, it ought to be possible to take advantage of public acceptance of the space program to have the best possible university program. That we can get public support for aid to universities under the heading of space is a realistic practical point, and there is no use even pretending for a moment that it isn't. We should exploit this opportunity to increase aid to universities and to increase the number of scholarships and grants for research, but do it with a great deal of freedom as to the areas of research. After all, under the heading of man in space, we can, if we choose, raise the most fundamental scientific questions. We have an intelligent life (or we have life of the form we like to consider intelligent, called human beings) here on earth because of the proper combination of environmental factors and radiation from space. In the manned lunar program, we put a man out into an unusual environment, which is different from earth's, which is shielded neither by the magnetic field of the earth nor its atmosphere. In detail, over a period of time, how does man react? It may be we don't, strictly speaking, need to investigate the most fundamental of biological questions in order to land a man on the moon, especially if we gamble on the very narrowest program to which I am opposed. But we have a choice to interpret the program in such a way as to use every possible excuse for breadth on the whole scientific front. There is no field of physics or biology virtually in which one cannot find an adequate excuse to sponsor pure research, to back pure research, even under the banner of space, if that offers sponsorship. After all, going back over the last several decades, there have been grants to universities by sponsors who had a basic confidence that research in the end pays off for human betterment, who put little specifications on the field of research. There is no basic reason why it cannot be done through this program. In fact, I think this is what we must urge, and this is again part of what I mean by a broad program. Finally, there is the impetus that I think should not be played down, to the interests of many people in choosing scientific careers, instead of something else because they can get a fellowship, and this increases the total talent and maybe in the end it increases it as much as or more than the amount that is allocated to the program. It is very difficult for any of us to predict here, because it involves psychological factors (to judge which the physical scientist and engineer are not equipped), and even the psychologists do not have the tools to measure this ahead of time. Senator CASE. Is it your observation that the program of NASA has been operated in the optimum fashion? One is a Dr. RAMO. I think I see two things happening at once. desire to operate in an optimum fashion and another is a desire to win that race. These two are bound to be somewhat in conflict and I think it is here that additional clarity of policy is desirable. The policy that has been announced that we should seek to land a man by 1970 needs to be interpreted in more detail, so that there will be a workable, practicable guide to making detailed decisions within NASA, something that does not follow by just a general statement that we are going to be first on the moon or we are going to get there before the end of the decade. Senator CASE. Just one final question: Does that suggest that possibly it might be better not to give the decision, final decision, to NASA but to put it in the hands, say, of a scientific agency such as the National Science Foundation. Dr. RAMO. I think the problem is much broader than that- Senator CASE. Yes. Dr. RAMO. I think that could very well be a good idea. But you would have to guard again to see that it was properly run. You know it is possible to speak of a "disinterested, scientific" agency only to find that it may be dominated by five or six people interested in one particular field. Senator CASE. We are all human. Dr. RAMO. It is not easy to find the objective man. Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Edmondson? MUST WATCH FOR IMBALANCE Senator EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, just one or two questions. As I understand your testimony, Dr. Ramo, the substance of it is, at least to this point, that you would favor a slowdown on the moon program if it caused an imbalance in the other aspects of our space effort? Dr. RAMO. That is correct, Senator. Senator EDMONDSON. Do you find that imbalance to exist at this time? Dr. RAMO. No, I do not, but I consider it too early to say, because the program really hasn't blossomed out to utilize fully the total facilities and resources it will require and the contracts have hardly begun to have their impact. The university programs are just beginning to be influential. We are in the first 10 percent of the program and I think it can go either way. Senator EDMONDSON. So you don't find any imbalance in the current situation but you are concerned that this is a definite possibility unless it is carefully watched? Dr. RAMO. That is correct, and when I make these statements I am thinking more of the engineering world, the industrial world and the military classified or security projects, rather than the university field in which I am only involved indirectly. Senator EDMONDSON. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will start this afternoon promptly at 2 o'clock. Dr. Urey, you will be the first witness. He has a relatively short statement. I only want to say Dr. Urey, we are extremely happy that you are here with us, realizing that while you may have celebrated recently your 70th birthday it is 40 years since you got your doctorate and nearly 30 years since you got a Nobel Prize for chemistry and many of us have watched you with a tremendous amount of interest. |