The Practical Values of Space Exploration Report of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Eighty-Sixth Congress, Second Session — Text and Context

There was an occasion when the great Scottish physicist, James Clerk Maxwell, was asked this question concerning one of his classic discoveries in electromagnetism. Maxwell replied: "What good is a baby?"

Now, as then, it takes time for new knowledge to develop and become useful after its conception and birth.

SOME EXAMPLES OF THE UNEXPECTED

A graphic illustration of "unseen" benefits in regard to atomic energy has been expressed by an experienced researcher in this way:

I remember a conversation I had with one of our nuclear scientists when I was a member of the Weapons Systems Evaluations Group almost 10 years ago. We were talking about the possible peaceful applications of fission. We really could think of little that could be done with it other than making fissionable material into a form of destructive power. There had been some discussion about harnessing the power of fission, but this seemed to us to be quite remote. It seemed difficult to conceive of the atomic bomb as anything but sheer power used for destructive purposes. Yet today the products of fission applied to peaceful uses are many. The use of isotopes in industry, medicine, agriculture are well known. Food irradiation, nuclear power reactors, now reactors for shipboard use, are with us, and it is hardly the beginning. I frequently ask myself, of late, what 10 years from now will be the commercial, shall we call it, applications of our missile and rocket programs.[2]

There are innumerable examples of the way in which invention or discovery, or sometimes just simple human curiosity, result in useful payoff. And frequently no one suspects the direction the payoff finally takes. The point, of course, is that _any_ knowledge eventually pays dividends. The things we learn from our national space program will produce benefits in ways entirely unrelated to missiles or interplanetary travel. (See secs. III and IV.) The reverse is also true; knowledge gained in areas quite remote from outer space can have genuine value for the advance of space exploration.

Investigation into the skin of a fish provides a good case in point.

A German inventor who migrated to California after World War II had long been interested in ways to reduce the drag of friction produced by air or water on the surface of objects passing through them. One day, while watching a group of porpoises cavort past a speeding ship with the greatest of ease, it occurred to him that the skin of these animals, if closely studied, might shed light on ways of cutting surface friction. It was many years before the inventor was able to enlist the aid of aquarium managers in securing porpoise skins for study. In 1955, however, he obtained the necessary skins and found that dolphins, in fact, owe much of their great speed to a unique skin which markedly reduces the effect of turbulence against it. From this knowledge has come the recent development of a diaphragm-damping fluid surface which has real potential not only for underwater high-speed bodies, such as submarines, torpedoes and underwater missiles, but for any vehicle where fast-moving gases or fluids may cause drag.[3]

The implications of this knowledge for satellites near Earth or for reentering spacecraft are obvious.

Sometimes a reverse twist in reasoning by a speculative mind will result in enormous practical utility.

In Cambridge, Mass., a sanitary engineer teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to wonder about the principles of adhesion--why things stick to each other. Do they only stick together because some sticky substance is holding them, or are there other reasons? "If a person is sick," he asked himself, "is it because a cause of sickness is present or because a cause of health is absent? We now know that in infectious diseases the first alternative is true; the patient is ill because he harbors pathogenic germs. The opposite case prevails in deficiency diseases, where necessary vitamins are absent from food and illness is brought about by this absence. To which of the classes does adhesion belong? When we cannot produce a dependable bond, are we dealing with the lack of some adhesive force or with existence of an obstacle to sticking?"

Operating on the theory that adhesion might result not only from the presence of a sticky agent but from the removal of all impediments to sticking, this scientist has now managed to produce strong adhesion between the least sticky of substances--polyethylene plastics. He has done it by studying the molecular structure of polyethylenes and removing all impurities which normally find their way into the manufacture of such material. The next step: "We hope to prepare adhesive joints in which a noble gas acts as an adhesive. Noble gases are the least active substances known to chemistry; if they can adhere, it is clear that no specific forces are needed for adhesiveness."[4]

No great imagination is required to perceive the meaning which this new knowledge, if proved out, will have for our everyday lives--to say nothing of its usefulness in the making of astronautic equipment.

In any event, it is apparent that where research is concerned--and especially space research with its broad scale of inquiry--we cannot always see the value of scientific endeavor on the basis of its beginning. We cannot always account for what we have purchased with each research dollar.

The Government stated this proposition when it first undertook to put the space program on a priority basis:

Scientific research has never been amenable to rigorous cost accounting in advance. Nor, for that matter, has exploration of any sort. But if we have learned one lesson, it is that research and exploration have a remarkable way of paying off--quite apart from the fact that they demonstrate that man is alive and insatiably curious. And we all feel richer for knowing what explorers and scientists have learned about the universe in which we live.[5]

In this statement there is political support for what the historian, the anthropologist, the psychologist consider to be established fact--that some innate force in the human being makes him _know_, whatever his formal beliefs or whatever his unconscious philosophy, that he _must_ progress. Progress is the core of his destiny.

This is a concept which, in connection with space exploration, has been recognized for many years. One of the earliest and most perceptive of the space "buffs" stated it before the British Interplanetary Society in 1946 in these words: "* * * our civilization is no more than the sum of all the dreams that earlier ages have brought to fulfillment. And so it must always be, for if men cease to dream, if they turn their backs upon the wonder of the universe, the story of our race will be coming to an end".[6]

STEERING A MIDDLE ROAD

In any endeavor which is as futuristic as space exploration it is not difficult to become lost in the land of the starry-eyed prognosticators. Conversely, it is also easy to find oneself lining up with the debunkers and the champions of the status quo, for their arguments and views give the impression of being hard-headed, sensible.

If one must err in either direction, however, it is probably safer, where space is concerned, to err in the direction of the enthusiasts. This is because (and subsequent parts of this report will show it) the Nation cannot afford not to be in the vanguard of the space explorers.

Events today move with facility and lightning rapidity. Today, more than ever, time is on the side of the expeditious. We can no longer take the risk of giving much support to the scoffers--to that breed of unimaginative souls who thought Robert Fulton was a fool for harnessing a paddlewheel to a boiler, who thought Henry Ford was a fool for putting an internal combustion engine on wheels, who thought Samuel Langley was a fool for designing a contraption to fly through the air.

There are always those who will say it cannot be done. Even in this era of sophisticated flight there have been those who said the sound barrier would never be broken. It was. Others said later that space vehicles would never get through the heat barrier. They have. Now, some say men will never overcome the radiation barrier in space. But we can be sure they will.

It is undoubtedly wise for the layman, in terms of the benefits he can expect from the space program in the foreseeable future, to steer a reasonable course between the two extremes. Yet one cannot help remembering that the secret of taking practical energy from the atom, a secret which the human race had been trying to learn for thousands of years, was accomplished in less than a decade from the moment when men first determined that it was possible to split an atom. It is difficult to forget that even after World War II some of our most respected scientists sold short the idea of developing long-range missiles. Impractical, they said; visionary. But 6 years after the United States went to work seriously on missiles, an operational ICBM with a 9,000-mile range was an accomplished fact.

All of the glowing predictions being made on behalf of space exploration will not be here tomorrow or the next day. Yet this seems less important than that we recognize the significance of our moment of history.

We may think of that moment as a new age--the age of space and the atom--to follow the historic ages of stone, bronze, and iron. We may think of it in terms of theories, of succeeding from those of Copernicus to those of Newton and thence to Freud and now Einstein. We may think of our time as the time of exploiting the new fourth state of matter: plasma, or the ion. Or we may think of it in terms of revolutions, as passing from the industrial cycle of steam through the railroad-steel cycle, through the electricity-automobile cycle, into the burgeoning technological revolution of today.

However we think of it, it is a dawning period and one which--in its scope and potential--promises to dwarf much of what has gone before. Those who have given careful thought to the matter are convinced that while some caution is in order, the new era is not one to be approached with timidity, inhibited imagination or too much convention. Neither is there any point in trying to hold off the tempo of this oncoming age or, in any other way, to evade it.

Mark Twain once listened to the complaints of an old riverboat pilot who was having trouble making the switch from sail to steam. The old pilot wanted no part of the newfangled steam contraptions. "Maybe so," replied Twain, "but when it's steamboat time, you steam."[7]

Today is space time and man is going to explore it.

[2] Gavin, Lt. Gen. James M., U.S. Army (retired), speech to the American Rocket Society, New York City, Nov. 19, 1958.

[3] Kramer, Max O., "The Dolphins' Secret," New Scientist, May 5, 1960, pp. 1118-1120.

[4] Bikerman, Dr. Jacob J., reported in New Scientist, Mar. 3, 1960, p. 535.

[5] "Introduction to Outer Space," a statement by the President, the White House, Mar. 26, 1958.

[6] Clarke, Arthur C., "The Challenge of the Spaceships," Harper & Bros., New York, 1955, p. 15.

[7] Related by T. Keith Glennan, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in an address before the Worcester (Mass.) Economic Club, Feb. 15, 1960.

II. NATIONAL SECURITY VALUES

There is no longer doubt that space exploration holds genuine significance for the security and well-being of the United States as a nation.

It does so in at least three ways. One results from the uses which our Armed Forces can make of the knowledge gained from space exploration. A second results from the influence and prestige which America can exert within the world community because of her prowess in space exploration. A third results from the possibility that space exploration, eventually, may prove so immense and important a challenge that it will channel the prime energies of powerful nations toward its own end and thus reduce the current emphasis on developing means of destruction.

The first two values definitely exist. The third seems to be a reasonable hope.

From the beginning it has been recognized that space exploration, the research connected therewith, and the ability to operate therein is of more than passing interest to the military.

Congress recognized the fact when it passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 and directed that "activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States * * * shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense."[8] In the amendments to the Space Act proposed in 1960, this directive was strengthened: "The Department of Defense shall undertake such activities in space, and such research and development connected therewith, as may be necessary for the defense of the United States."[9]

It is possible to argue, and indeed it has been argued, that ballistic missiles such as IRBM's and ICBM's are not really "space" weapons, that they are simply an extension of the traditional art of artillery. For the purposes of this report, however, the argument appears to be largely a semantic one. Such missiles do traverse space, they are guided through space, and they employ the same engines and principles which are presently used for purposes of scientific space exploration. While more advanced "space" weapons may evolve in the future, the missile as we know it today cannot very well be divorced from our thinking about space and its practical uses.

Going on this assumption, and casting an eye in the direction of the Iron Curtain, it is obvious that the Soviet Union is going all-out to exploit space for military purposes.

Military men have known for years that the tremendously powerful booster which the Soviets have been using to launch their massive sputniks was originally designed to carry the primitive heavy version of the A-bomb across continents.

If there was ever doubt of the extent to which the Soviets intend to make space a selected medium for military purposes it was erased when Premier Khrushchev made his address to the Supreme Soviet early in 1960. He commented in part:

Our state has at its disposal powerful rocket equipment. The military air force and navy have lost their previous importance in view of the modern development of military equipment. This type of armament is not being reduced but replaced. Almost the entire military air force is being replaced by rocket equipment. We have by now sharply cut, and it seems will continue sharply to cut and even discontinue the manufacture of bombers and other obsolete equipment. In the navy, the submarine fleet assumes great importance, while surface ships can no longer play the part they once did. In our country the armed forces have been to a considerable extent transferred to rocket and nuclear arms. These arms are being perfected and will continue to be perfected until they are banned.[10]

While it is difficult to assess the actual extent of the Soviet preoccupation with missiles, it has been reported that the Russians are building upward of 100 IRBM and ICBM bases to be manned by about 200,000 men. Most of these, at least the intermediate range bases, are said to be along Russia's Baltic coast, in East Germany, in the southern Ukraine and in the Carpathian Mountains.[11]

In any event, the space age is clearly "here" so far as the military are concerned, and U.S. forces--particularly since the development of the much lighter atomic warheads--have been likewise diligent in their space efforts. This is because many military minds are now agreed that:

We are moving inevitably into a time of astropower. We face a threat beyond imagination, should events ever lead to open conflict in a world of hypersonic velocities and a raging atom chained as our slave. We must be strong, we must be able to change to meet change. What may come against our beloved America will not be signaled by one light from the North Church steeple, if they come by land, or two, if they come by sea. Never again. They will come through space, and their light of warning will be the blinding terror of a thermonuclear fireball.[12]

It is important to note, in connection with military matters, that pure rocket power, is not the only avenue to success in space use. The American Atlas missile, for example, which can carry a nuclear warhead and which operates on considerably less thrust than the powerful Soviet boosters thus far demonstrated, has nevertheless shown the capability of negotiating a 9,000-mile trek and landing in the target area. This is about 1,500 miles farther than any Soviet shots revealed to the public in the 2-1/2-year period following the first sputnik. It is also a sufficient range to permit reaching almost any likely target on the globe.

From the military point of view, the meaning thus brought out is that sophistication of missiles together with reliability and ease of handling is more important than pure power.

When we begin to consider both the civil and military aspects of space use in the decades ahead, however, rocket power acquires fresh importance. It is, as one expert says, "the key to space supremacy."[13] Not only is much heavier thrust required for ventures farther out into space, but probably thrust developed by different means as well, such as atom, ion, or even photon power.

This suggests the possibilities of weapons which today are considered to be "way out" or "blue sky"--in short, farfetched. Yet they include the ideas of men with solid scientific training as well as vision. For example, Germany's great rocket pioneer, Prof. Hermann Oberth, "has proposed that a giant mirror in space (some 60 miles in diameter) could be used militarily to burn an enemy country on Earth. For peaceful purposes, however, such a space mirror could be used to melt icebergs and alter temperatures."[14] Another reputable German scientist who has been working for a number of years on photon (electromagnetic ray) power as a source of propulsion, declares that if such power is possible so is "the idea of a 'death ray,' a weapon beam which burns or melts targets, such as enemy missiles, on which it is trained. The idea has been familiar in science fiction for a long time and has been scorned often enough. Yet, if the photon rocket is possible so is the ray gun."[15]

Still another proposal, one made to the Congress, involves use of the Moon as a military base. "It could, at some future date, be used as a secure base to deter aggression. Lunar launching sites, perhaps located on the far side of the Moon, which could never be viewed directly from the Earth, could launch missiles earthward. They could be guided accurately during flight and to impact, and thus might serve peaceful ends by deterring any would-be aggressor."[16]

In spite of the fact that ideas such as these are being sponsored by competent and responsible scientists, other scientists equally competent and responsible sometimes cry them down as impractical, impossible or even childish. One engineer, for instance, describes maneuverable manned space vehicles as having "no military value," bases on the Moon as having no military or communications use, and the idea of high velocity photon-power for space travel as "a fantasy strictly for immature science fiction." He also characterizes the reconnaissance satellite, which U.S. military authorities have long since programmed and even launched, as being "definitely submarginal * * *. A fraction of the cost of a reconnaissance satellite could accomplish wonders in conventional information gathering."[17]

Controversies such as these are difficult for the person who is neither a scientist nor a military expert to judge. One is inclined to recall, though, the treatment received by General Billy Mitchell for his devotion to nonconventional bombing concepts; the fact that the utility of the rocket as developed by America's pioneer, Dr. Robert H. Goddard, was generally ignored during World War II; the fact that it took a personal letter from Albert Einstein to President Roosevelt to get the Manhattan Project underway.

Yet today the bomber, the missile, and the nuclear weapon form the backbone of our military posture.

In other words, history seems to support the proposition that no matter how remote or unlikely new discoveries and approaches may first appear, the military eventually finds a way to use them.

Will it be any different with space exploration?

OUR POSITION IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Like the military values of space research, the practical value of space exploration in terms of world prestige has also been acknowledged almost from the beginning of the satellite era.

The White House, in its initial statement on the national space program, declared: