Apr 29 1963
From The Space Library
NASA Deputy Director Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, at U.S. National Committee of International Scientific Radio Union meeting in Washington, referred to recent criticism of Project Apollo by scientists who had charged that scientific returns from manned lunar landing program did not justify $20 billion cost: "They've been setting up a straw man and knocking it down.... No one in NASA had ever said the program was decided upon solely on the basis of scientific return. . . ." He described the manned lunar program as "a technological program, though it does have some science content," and said it, like overall U.S. space program, was designed to give this country "mastery and pre-eminence" in space. Knowledge gained through Project Apollo, in rocket techniques as well as biosciences, would help prepare U.S. "for whatever we are called upon to do for both civil and military uses" of space. (AP, Balt. Sun, 4/30/63)
In editorial on "Apollo and Its Critics," Aviation Week and Space Technology Editor Robert Hotz said: "Like all great pioneering Ventures, the Apollo manned lunar landing program is the target of a continual barrage of carping. This anti-Apollo chorus usually reaches a crescendo in the spring, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration budget is facing significant congressional decisions, and dwindles to a barely audible pianissimo after every successful U.S. and Russian manned space flight. "This year the critics' chorus is louder than ever and studded with many familiar faces ranging from ex-president Eisenhower, who still wishes the space age would dry up and blow away, to an esoteric wing of the scientific community which appears to be disturbed by the fact that non-scientist types, such as engineers and pilots, have crept into the space program and are running their portion of it with vigor and enthusiasm directed toward specific goals that some scientists regard as unseemly. . . . "The scientific community has traditionally provided the most solid opposition to the manned space flight program, but there has been a steady rate of conversion from critics to supporters during the Mercury years. This has been helped by the fact that it has become obvious that NASA does not intend to neglect scientific exploration because of the Apollo priority. As the NASA program has unfolded with the years, it has become apparent that considerable scientific exploration by instrumented satellites and probes is a necessary preliminary to extending the parameters of manned space flight. It is also evident that manned space flight itself will offer a greater opportunity for scientific exploration of the universe than could ever be possible using only remotely controlled instruments and data transmission . . . . There are a great many valid, vital reasons why this nation must continue to press its exploration of space at the maximum feasible pace. "We intend to discuss them as the Apollo debate continues. But for the moment, there is no better summation of the purpose in this national effort than that stated by Brainerd Holmes, NASA's director of manned space flight and the chief engineer of the Apollo program, when he said in a recent speech `If we do not make these efforts we will not be first on the moon, we will not. be first in space and one day soon we will not be the first on earth."' (Av. Wk., 4/29/63,17)
AEC Chairman Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, speaking at Centennial Charter Day Convocation, Univ. of Massachusetts, said: "If we look back a number of centuries to the Middle Ages, we find that man and society in the Western World were dominated by rather static concepts. The individual was born into a world that was essentially unchanging by our standards. He was not very important. Poverty, disease, toil, and natural calamities were simply an inevitable part of life. He accepted the proffered explanations of the world and the universe, and his curiosity was not encouraged. Man was a fearful and superstitious plaything of his environment. The concept that man might improve his lot was not widely considered. Nor were the tools at hand for such a task. "The beginning of the changes in this outlook are generally identified with the Renaissance and the Reformation. The questioning and inquisitive human spirit could not be stifled forever. Men began to question old forms and beliefs-in religion, politics, and the law; in art and literature; and in science and philosophy. "The process of breaking out of a closed world and liberating the mind was a slow one, and it is by no means complete. There were many landmarks, established by many brave men in all walks of life, on the route to liberation. An example was the overthrow, by the evidence produced by Copernicus and Galileo, of the dogmatic concept that the earth is the center of the universe. It is difficult for us today to estimate the impact, on a closed system of thought, of the knowledge that the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun. If such an important belief could fall, were not others vulnerable? While science was opening man's eyes to the truth of his surroundings, a change was m the making concerning the concept of man himself. The themes of individual rights and freedom were being developed in the period of the enlightenment and the first crystallization of these revolutionary ideas was in the American Revolution-the first revolution of which I am to speak to you today. Beginning with the Declaration of Independence and culminating with the adoption of the Constitution, the place of the State was confined to protecting the rights of the individual and becoming the instrument for man's self-government .... "The freedom to embrace new ideas, the concept that men need not accept miserable conditions of life, and the hope inherent in science, unleashed as never before the economic energies of man. Our second revolution, the industrial revolution, and the rise of science and technology, saw a beginning of the realization of . . . a huge increase in industrial and agricultural production at a cost of less total labor, the conquest of many diseases, the lengthening of life, the improvement of health .... "As we now enter the early stages of the scientific revolution our third revolution-the full flower of creative evolution is bursting upon us. Yet powerful as the forces of science and technology have already demonstrated themselves to be; relatively speaking we are only beginning to feel their influence. Our Nation and the world are committed to an accelerating cycle of knowledge-gathering and knowledge-exploitation. We cannot visualize in detail the consequences for the future. We can, however, clearly see that we can, if we have the wisdom, create an environment essentially of our own choosing. The scientific revolution can provide for the essential needs o .men around the globe. Our small world will grow smaller. At the same time our perspective will be broadened unimaginably by the exploration of space. We can only guess at the distant impact of this dynamism on man, his institutions, the content of thought and the quality of life. We can be sure, however, that successful adaptation to the changing environment can be achieved, in an atmosphere of freedom, only through advancement of men generally to higher levels of education .... " (Text, in CR, 4/29/63, 6847-49)
Addressing the Senate space committee, Deputy Defense Secretary Roswell Gilpatric summed up DOD's philosophy on space "The United States has a single national space program.... Space, like other mediums, affords useful and often unique ways for achieving defense objectives. Some of these are by no means uniquely military . . . similar remarks would apply to machines and devices used in the air, on land and on sea, and space is no exception. . . . As a corollary to these observations, the totality of our military space efforts, assessed from a national rather than a departmental standpoint, greatly exceeds the efforts of the Department of Defense alone. Space systems and devices are not simply military or non-military merely because they are developed by one agency or another." (M&R, 5/6/63 )
General Bernard A. Schriever, Commander of the Air Force Systems Command, testifying before the House Science and Astronautics Committee, said that the Air Force was reviewing its space program, at the request of Defense Secretary McNamara, to determine how the Air Force might better achieve its military mission capabilities. Stressing the importance of both the Military Orbital Development Station (MODS) and Aerospace Plane (ASP), he said that MODS was "of fundamental importance to achieving various military capabilities in space, both manned and unmanned." (M&R, 5/6/63)
Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Gerrity (USAF), DCS Systems and Logistics, Hq. USAF, testifying before the Subcommittee on DOD Appropriations of the House Appropriations Committee, stated that USAF was going to modify as space boosters at least 15 of the 64 Thor IRBM's being withdrawn from the U.K. but was dismantling the 45 Jupiter missiles that were withdrawn from Turkey and Italy. Rep. Daniel J. Flood (D.-Penn.) recalled that this Subcommittee had been in the thick of the original Thor-Jupiter controversy, asked "what is the peculiar, special, and significant and distinct thin about the Thor missile which would argue that 15 at least be modified" while Jupiter missiles were being discarded as "garbage." Gen. Gerrity replied that the reason was quantity rather than quality, that USAF had had more experience with Thor, and "We have launch facilities for the Thor but do not have launch facilities for the Jupiter." Rep. Flood pressed Gen. Gerrity on "the marked physical distinction [between Thor and Jupiter] which would rush you into this conclusion?" The General did not recall a marked distinction. Rep. Flood asked "did NASA twist your arm and insist they get Thor instead of Jupiter?" Gen. Gerrity said he knew "of no such circumstances." (DOD Appropriations Hearings, House, 88th Congress, 1st Session, Pt. 5, 973)
Four-day meeting of U.S. National Committee of the International Scientific Radio Union opened in Washington. Six of the seven technical commissions met in simultaneous sessions at National Academy of Sciences. (NAS-NRC Release)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
