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 teamsa 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

and industry. The point is that the poverty is far more likely to disappear when men work vigorously under strong motivation. To quote Time magazine after Cooper's historic space voyage, these courageous excursions into the unknown "renew for millions a vision of victory for the human spirit" (Time, May 24, 1963). Our goals in space provide to our Nation that spirit and momentum that avoids our collapse into the easygoing days that tolerates social abuse.

Some insist that the public will react strongly to curtail the space budget out of revulsion for its demands on the public purse. We must remember that "revulsion" can work both ways through unilateral and unwise curtailment of the space program, our people would find themselves faced by an arrogant and overconfident foe, intoxicated by his unchallenged successes in the greatest technology of our times, the technology of space. Then the reaction arising out of fear and indignation for "too little and too late,” and the consequent loss of confidence in ourselves would outweigh all else.

But enough policy. Let us turn in conclusion to the exciting prospect of exploration of the Moon and the planets. What will we find when we get there? What will be the environment in which our instruments, or man himself must function? Will we find life-in known forms or in new forms? What experiments are most important? What precautions must be taken? And above all, just how important is the science to be done in space with respect to other scientific objectives?

While the whole of space science embraces a very broad spectrum of scientific problems, the case for manned exploration of the Moon and planets must rest primarily on two major objectives:

(a) Advancement of geophysical knowledge of the solar system of which we are a part-and ultimately, of the origins of the universe itself.

(b) Determination of the forms of life that can evolve in a radically different ecology. Either of these scientific objectives is as important to science as any scientific objectives that can be annunciated. Neither can be evaluated by anyone, however learned, in terms of the number of dollars that would justify the undertaking. We do know that lunar and planetary exploration offers opportunity to ask some altogether new scientific questions-questions which we could not intelligently ask, nor expect an answer, to were we confined to the earth. We know from experience that when radically new approaches to scientific questions are found, then our scientific knowledge advances by major steps.

Indeed, a rewarding solution of the more difficult but more promising scientific problems may well await the new perspective that space research will provide. În evaluating the scientific effort in space, we must contemplate the alternative of equivalent expenditures over many decades for regurgitation of experiments necessarily conceived from a more restricted perspective. No one can justifiably assert that the space effort can be wholly justified on the consequent scientific progress, since there is no certain basis for such an assertion relative to the unknown. Yet, such a massive repayment to society is well within the realm of possibility. More certainly, space exploration will give science altogether new perspectives in our day-to-day scientific endeavor here on earth.

The moon and the planets offer quite new geophysical opportunities to understand the origin and history of formation of the solar system. Each planetary object has quite different characteristics that can give new insights into the process of formation and evolution. We must not forget that on earth we are limited very severely in understanding the interior, its movements, and the factors underlying the concentration of its mineral wealth, the prediction and control of its great disasters. As we extend our knowledge of the formation, history, and behavior of our celestial neighbors, we can better turn our own earth to our advantage.

Geophysicists are now examining into the environmental aspect of the moon and the planets with real vigor. The accelerated geophysical studies of the moon and planets undertaken, since our national decision on space exploration in 1961, are beginning to culminate in a variety of illuminating scientific discussions. In the past 2 months, I have attended three major scientific meetings packed with critical discussions of the environmental problems of space. Work on the moon is progressing to the point where we ought to be ready for manned flights by the time vehicular technology permits. But the intervening unmanned flights are of the greatest import in settling major environmental problems that can be decided in no other way. Therefore, the scientific unmanned flights immediately ahead should, under no circumstances, be abandoned for fiscal reasons.

As we land on the moon, we believe we will find the relatively undisturbed primordial geology, much as the Earth appeared some 4-billion-odd years ago. This will enormously advance our comprehension of the organization and struc

ture of our own planet. Looking 50 years ahead it seems likely, indeed probable, that we will have established an advanced expeditionary base on the Moon to acquire a whole series of scientific and exploratory advantages.

The environmental problem of Venus is now raging. There is wide discussion on how the seemingly conflicting evidence is to be interpreted. Is the surface hot or cold, is there water or no water, what is the nature of Venus' cloud cover? What is its meteorology, does the planet rotate, does it have a magnetic field, is it viable for life? These questions and a dozen other major questions are now being formulated in terms of critical experiments to be done in the future so that the environmental situation on Venus can be defined. Certainly no thought of a manned expedition to the surface of Venus can be conceived until its environmental situation is far more clearly defined by astronomical methods and unmanned flights.

Mars is a viable planet, and a most interesting planet for exploration. Its temperature range and atmospheric conditions seem at this time to make manned exploration eventually possible. Mars seems to have a little water vapor but probably no significant quantities of oxygen in its atmosphere. It seems to have a meteorology with occasional dust storms, and frost or ice collects at the polar caps during the local winter. It may change color somewhat with seasons.

Does Mars have life? The answer is probably "Yes," but in primitive forms. The spectra of carbohydrate molecules is suspected from its surface. Moreover, we are now reasonably sure that life on the Earth evolved to the level of the organized cell, replete with photosynthesis and respiration before oxygen in significant quantities appeared in our atmosphere. Indeed, for early evolution to this cell level, atmospheric oxygen is forbidden as a significant constituent. We know that only after photosynthesis was available in great abundance could oxygen appear in our atmosphere as a major constituent. So the absence of Martian atmospheric oxygen certainly does not forbid Martian life. However, the absence of high oxygen levels seems to tell us that higher forms of life in abundance are improbable at this time. This may well be related to a shortage of water, with its widespread support of photosynthesis, which could give Mars an oxygen atmosphere as life evolved more abundantly and to higher forms.

The probability of studying the biophysics and biochemistry of life under an entirely isolated ecological situation is clearly a major scientific opportunity. In their gross aspects we might expect strange organisms, but basically we would expect their elementary organization and structure to be somewhat similar to that found on Earth. This expectation is based on our knowledge that the character of the atoms, themselves, places some critical limitations on the forms of the nucleotides, the enzymes, and the resultant proteins that nature can produce anywhere. But within these limitations, a tremendous range of vital questions can be asked. What are the basic differences in biophysical and biochemical activity? Will new forms of genetic combinations be found? Will unfamiliar amino acids, enzymes, or distinctive proteins be evident? In a radically different ecology, how will natural selection function? Will altogether different trace elements be employed in the synthesis of quite new living products? Will Martian photosynthesis be found in its Earthly prototype, or has nature on Mars found quite new methods of employing sunlight to supply the energy needs of its organisms? In this way could higher forms of life exist without much water or without producing much oxygen? What will these life forms look like and how do they compare and differ from those on Earth?

Quite clearly, Martian organisms, evolving in isolation from the Earth will have no initial or natural resistance to attack from terrestrial organisms. Likewise, in the same way, terrestrial organisms are open to possible attack by the Martian variety. Consequently, we have a particularly difficult job to face in dealing with terrestrial contamination of Mars, and Martian back-contamination on the Earth. This requires that each step in the exploration of Mars be done with the utmost care, advanced planning and circumspection. Every aspect of the problem of contamination and of back-contamination must be thoroughly examined and debated in advance in the scientific literature. Extensive experimental programs on contamination controls and standards are essential. The immense power offered to science of all time in examining life on Mars must not be destroyed for all time by the careless or impetuous action of the ignorant. Here, advanced and public examination and debate of the problem in the scientific literature is our best defense.

Certainly, the prospect of critically examining life on Mars is potentially the most exciting and potentially profitable scientific and philosophic vista of space exploration.

But looking beyond, can we visualize visiting other planets? Certainly Mercury is far too hot and must be limited to unmanned exploration. The crushing force of gravity on Jupiter is unthinkable to manned landing. But a satellite of Jupiter such as Europa, not much different from our Moon, might be within our ultimate reach. Certainly the exploration of Jupiter or even Saturn may thus, through their satellites, ultimately come within the reach of later centuries.

What about the stars? Here, within the limits of our scientific knowledge we can be quite positive. No known source of energy can carry us much beyond the limits of our planetary system, more especially within the lifespan of a man. Certainly, this lifespan, relative to a terrestrial frame of reference, can theoretically be enhanced indefinitely as the space vehicle closely approaches the velocity of light. But we just don't have any source of energy even distantly available to do this. So our study of the universe by space methods at least for the next few centuries, or at least until some entirely unanticipated scientific discovery, is forbidden by science and must depend on the powerful new methods of space astronomy, probably ultimately based on the moon.

In the achievement of these scientific objectives, there are a wide variety of opportunities for international collaboration. In tracking, readout of data, exchange experiments, and many other areas, space offers opportunity for durable international threads of personal and national communications that binds nations together and creates new systems of law and order. When we reach the stage of Martian landing, one can devoutly hope for an international venture that can bring the scientists of the world together in solving the most challenging and difficult scientific problems ever to be undertaken.

Are we rushing into this exploration of space too precipitously? I would say no. At any time, a great program must have goals. Without such goals, our efforts would be haphazard, spasmodic, and wasteful. And our program does have reasonable and well planned goals, organized in an orderly program toward their achievement. As our knowledge and experience advances, it may be necessary to modify these goals, but this can be done consciously as appropriate. Considering the vastness of the program, its intricacy, its complexity, and its motivations, I believe that we, as Americans, can be proud of its planning and of its achievements.

THREE OBJECTIVES IN SPACE

Dr. BERKNER. Thank you, sir.

In the time available today then I will endeavor to brief some of the highlights of this more extended statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Dr. BERKNER. I should like first to briefly review our substantive objectives in space. We can classify these into three categories: Scientific, civil applications, and military applications.

DOMINANT SCIENTIFIC OPPORTUNITIES

In the immediate future, certainly the scientific opportunities in space are dominant. Today we can scan these opportunities only superficially, but they are outlined in detail in the report of the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences, to which Dr. Seitz has already referred.

Basically, space offers a wide variety of opportunities to explore nature's secrets in altogether new ways, otherwise quite inaccessible to science.

The Earth, itself, is seen in quite a new light when explored from space. Its shape, its gravitational and magnetic fields, its atmosphere and the meteorology of that atmosphere, its coupling into the interplanetary medium as it courses in its orbit around the Sun-these and many other aspects of planet Earth are coming into much sharper focus as we advance our explorations into space.