SCIENTISTS' TESTIMONY ON SPACE GOALS

MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 235, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Anderson, Symington, Young, Dodd, Edmondson, Case, Hickenlooper, and Keating.

Also present: Senator Paul H. Douglas.

Staff members present: Frank C. Di Luzio, staff director; Everard H. Smith, Jr., chief counsel; Col. Harry N. Tufts, facilities assistant; William J. Deachman and Dr. Glen P. Wilson, professional staff members; and Eilene Galloway, special consultant.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. The committee is presently considering NASA's request for funds for fiscal year 1964 in the amount of $5,712 million.

For the record, I should like to state the objective of these hearings, There have been a number of instances recently in which various phases of our Nation's space program have been questioned. The expansion of knowledge and collection of scientific data are among the many reasons why this Nation has embarked upon a program designed to insure preeminence in space. The committee considers that, in addition to witnesses from NASA, a useful purpose will be served by hearing testimony from other scientists at this time.

This testimony will provide further information to assist the committee in evaluating (a) the overall goals of our space exploration effort in comparison with scientific aspects of other national goals, and (b) the relative emphasis on the various projects within the space program in connection with its consideration of NASA's authorization request for fiscal year 1964.

The committee also believes that the information will be helpful in determining possible steps that might be taken (1) to increase the amount of scientific return and (2) to insure better utilization of our scientific and technological resources and also (3) to consider, in connection with the long-range goals of our national space program, whether or not the proper foundation is being laid for the implementation of these goals.

We realize that these witnesses will speak in two capacities-as experts in their various scientific disciplines and as citizens who, like all other citizens, may express opinions on problems of public interest.

1

I should like to propose that each witness will be given, as soon as possible, a set of galley proofs of these hearings. He will then be allowed to present an additional short statement, if he so desires, commenting on the original remarks of the other witnesses. Also, each witness may be requested to answer, for the record, further questions that the members of the committee may have after they have had a chance to study the testimony.1

1

Today, we will, in order, hear from:

Dr. Philip Abelson, director, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington;

Dr. Simon Ramo, vice chairman of the board, Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc.;

Dr. Harold Urey, professor of chemistry at large, University of California at San Diego;

Dr. Polycarp Kusch, Department of Physics, Columbia University; and

Dr. C. S. Pittendrigh, Department of Biology, Princeton University. Dr. Abelson, we will be very happy to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SMITH

I wanted to say before you begin, that Senator Margaret Chase Smith, one of our most faithful and conscientious Members, finds herself unable to be here today and has sent over a statement which I am going to take the privilege of reading into the record. She then has questions she wants asked and they will be asked of each witness on her behalf.

Her statement reads as follows:

I should like to join with the chairman in welcoming the distinguished witnesses who have come to contribute toward an understanding of some of the problems involved in authorizing funds to NASA for the coming fiscal year.

NASA's budget request is based upon a program to implement our national policy. In recent months one part of that policy has been seriously questioned, namely, the commitment to send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth during this decade. Since the major portion of NASA's budget for fiscal year 1962 is programed to achieve this particular objective on the highest priority basis, this committee seeks the informed opinions of those who can assist us in making a prudent judgment on the future development of our space activities.

I consider that we can achieve the maximum result from the hearings which are being held today and tomorrow by asking each witness to express his opinion on the main issues which have emerged on the manned lunar flight program. In addition, there are specific questions related to the respective fields of the individual experts who make up this group of outstanding witnesses. Beyond that, there are some questions concerning the relationship between Government and science which might be explored for the long-range benefit of the committee in obtaining advice from the scientific community. Thus I have some identical questions which I should like each witness to answer, while other questions are specifically directed to an individual because of his particular field of competence. I shall ask Mr. Di Luzio, our staff director, to ask those questions of each witness.

As each of our witnesses appears, we will put into the record a biographical sheet explaining who they are and what they have been doing. So, when we read the reports we will have some background information.

Dr. Abelson, we are glad to welcome you.

(Dr. Abelson's biography referred to follows:)

1 See p. 241 for an additional statement subsequently submitted for the record by the chairman. Also no additional statements were submitted by the witnesses.

PHILIP HAUGE ABELSON

Born: Tacoma, Wash., April 27, 1913. Married: 1936; 1 child.

Education: B.S. (chemistry), Washington State College, 1933; M.S. (physics), Washington State College, 1935; Ph. D. (nuclear physics under Prof. E. O. Lawrence), University of California, Berkeley, 1939.

Research Assistant, Physics Department, University of California, Berkeley, 1938-39; assistant physicist, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1939-41; Naval Research Laboratory, principal physicist and civilian-in-charge, NRL Branch, Navy Yard, Philadelphia, 1941-46; staff member, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1946-53; director, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1953-present.

Chairman, committee on radiation cataracts, National Research Council, 1949-57. Member, subcommittee on shock, National Research Council, 1950–53. Member, advisory board, "Journal National Cancer Institute," 1947-52. Member, National Institutes of Health biophysics and biophysical chemistry study section, 1956-59. Editor, "Researches in Geochemistry,' " John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1959. Coeditor, "Journal of Geophysical Research" since 1959. Editor, "Science," since July 1962. Member, National Institutes of Health Physical Biology Training Grants Committee 1958-60. Member, Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases since July 1960. Member, Atomic Energy Commission Plowshare Advisory Committee since November 1959; Member, Atomic Energy Commission General Advisory Committee since June 1960.

Member, National Academy of Sciences, American Philosophical Society, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and numerous other learned societies. Phi Beta Kappa: Sigma Xi; Cosmos Club.

Awarded Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Medal, 1945; annual award physical sciences, Washington Academy of Sciences, 1950; recipient, Distinguished Alumnus Award, Washington State University, 1962; recipient of Hillebrand Award, Chemical Society of Washington, for 1962.

Areas of research and specialized knowledge: Nuclear physics; radiochemistry, biochemistry, physiology; microbiology; geochemistry; paleobiochemistry.

STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP ABELSON, DIRECTOR, GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY, CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. ABELSON. Thank you.

It is a privilege to appear before this committee to present views on the space program. Today I shall speak in part as an active research scientist but principally in the role of editor of Science. This journal is a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Members total about 76,000 and are drawn from every area of science and include about half of the top scientific talent of the Nation.

STRAW POLL AGAINST PRESENT MANNED LUNAR PROGRAM

My comments will not be an official pronouncement of the organization, though they reflect what I believe to be views of our readers. As editor I am in touch with my audience by correspondence, by phone, and by personal contacts. I have conducted an informal straw poll among scientists not connected by self-interest to NASA. The vote was 110 to 3 against the present manned lunar program. This is a surprising result which I am loath to trust. However, I employ another indicator of sentiment, namely, the tone of correspondence to the editor. Our experience is that when readers disagree with us we get heated letters. When they approve, they usually don't bother to write. My recent stand questioning the manned

lunar program drew 12 written commendations but only 3 mildly disagreeing. Two of those demurring were from persons connected with NASA.

Today I will evaluate aspects of space research and comment on some effects of the space program on availability of scientific manpower. In making a judgment as to the scientific potential inherent in space studies, it is desirable to evaluate these opportunities against the background of challenges in other areas of science and technology. Such comparative judgments are difficult to make but perhaps because of a diverse background of experience my views have some relevance.

DR. ABELSON'S PROFESSIONAL CAREER

My professional career began at the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley in association with Ernest Lawrence. At that laboratory I was the first American in early 1936 to split the uranium atom, though at the time I did not realize I was doing it.

In 1939 I was the first American to identify radioactive uranium fission products, and in 1940 joined with Professor McMillan in the discovery of Neptunium, the parent of Plutonium.

During World War II I led a group in the development of a method for the separation of uranium isotopes and directed the design of a plant whose product went into the first atom bomb. It was indicated in congressional testimony by Colonel Petersen, then attached to the Manhattan District, that the product from the plant led to a shortening of the war.

In 1945 and early 1946 I was the Navy's chief scientific representative in the Manhattan District and participated in the first feasibility report for an atomic submarine. This secret report issued on March 28, 1946, was declassified in 1959.

Shortly after that report was prepared I left the Navy and began a series of biological researches which included some of the pioneering work in the application of radioactive tracers. For the last 10 years I have been director of the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. There I have been pioneering in studies of chemicals from ancient life and have conducted experiments on the origin of life.

During the last 4 years I have been coeditor of the Journal of Geophysical Research and have handled the material relevant to space research. This has included a substantial fraction of the important space contributions of this country. I have served for 3 years as a consultant to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These connections have given me an opportunity to follow developments closely and an incentive to consider values inherent to the space effort.

For the last year I have been editor of Science, which publishes material in virtually all areas of research, and this has led me to consider the role of space studies in the light of the needs in other I find that scientific exploration of space is one of today's great scientific challenges but that manned space exploration has limited scientific value and has been accorded an importance which is quite unrealistic.

areas.

ANALOGY TO COLUMBUS IS POOR

Enthusiasts have described space as an enormous frontier of vast potential and it has been stated frequently that we face an opportunity similar to that of Christopher Columbus when he sailed to discover a new world. The analogy is a poor one. Christopher Columbus was seeking economic returns; he wished to bring back the wealth of the Indies. He had no way of knowing that the Americas lay on his pathway the Americas with their vast wealth and areas of habitable land. We are in a different position for with our great telescopes and astrophysical measurements we can look out at space and make an estimate of what is there something that Columbus could not do. The high magnification of the Mount Palomar telescope brings the Moon within the equivalent of a few hundred miles of earth. The Moon has been weighed, its size is known, and the average density of its rocks determined. We already know that there will be no objects of economic value to be brought back from the Moon or any of the planets. These bodies consist of chemicals similar to those of common earth rocks.

We know that the other parts of the solar system are intrinsically less habitable than the most miserable spot on earth. Life on the top of Mount Everest would be sheer luxury in comparison with existence on the Moon, or even on Mars, the most habitable of the planets.

PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES INVOLVE NEAR-EARTH REGIONS

The practical consequences that may stem from space exploration principally involve regions near the Earth. Telstar and its successors seem destined to have important economic consequences. The weather satellites, Tiros and Nimbus, will surely lead to much better weather prediction which would have sizable economic value. A better understanding of solar-terrestrial relationships may permit us to understand how the Sun influences the weather and may also lead to better weather prediction.

UNMANNED VEHICLES DOING IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC WORK

Much of the science that is really important is already being done in the vicinity of earth using unmanned vehicles. Two very exciting prospects are the orbiting astronomical observatory and the orbiting solar observatories. These unmanned vehicles will permit a unique extension of observations that have been made from earth.

Most of the important scientific questions concerning the Moon and the other planets could be studied soon at relatively low cost employing unmanned vehicles. These questions, which are principally directed at an understanding of the origin and the history of the solar system, include the chemical composition of the solid bodies and of their atmospheres, if any; an investigation of surficial features; a determination of precise size and shape; and measurements intended to determine whether the solid object possesses a hot inner core.

From studies of meteorites, which give us a partial sample of the solar system, and from examination of the light emitted by the Sun we already can estimate that the chemical constitution of the Moon