Dimensions of a new age; Public education for the space

This is Dead Manchin's Ava New Age, from Radio Television, the University of Texas. We are all of us newly arrived in the age of space, and we have come so quickly. Swirling about us are powerful influences, likely to have upon our lives the most prodigious impact known to mankind in the last 500 years. Yet we can barely grasp the magnitude of these social forces. We can only guess at their meaning. What does it signify for us to live in a world of such suddenly extended proportions? Toward the answer, Radio Television, the University of Texas, has prepared this recorded radio series. Produced under a grant from the National Educational Television and Radio Center, in cooperation with the National Association of Educational Broadcasters, we present dimensions of a new age.

And now here is our moderator, Rod Reichmeyer. For the people to survive and live effectively in this tough, fast-moving age of space, it is essential that they be kept in continuous touch with major developments. On our program today, we will hear from three people closely involved with this prodigious task of public education. The first is administrator of the civilian agency charged with directing this country's space program. The others, the science editor of Associated Press, and the chief of the Office of Information for our Air Force Air Training Command Headquarters. On October 4, 1957, there occurred an event which pinpointed the competitive aspects of the space age, and set men thinking in terms of the space race. It was on that date, as part of the International Geophysical Year operations, that the Russians beat us into outer space with the successful launching of their Sputnik 1. They repeated this feat a month later with Sputnik 2.

Some weeks thereafter, we launched our first successful satellite Explorer 1. In this climate of aerodynamic agitation, some months later, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was born. Just what is NASA? NASA? It is a civilian agency established by Congress under a law that was passed and signed July 29, 1958. And in that law, siring this progeny of science and space, Congress declared it to be a policy of the United States that, and we quote, activities in space should be devoted to the peaceful purposes for all of mankind. End of quote. Administrator of the civilian agency, to which Congress has entrusted our space activities for humane and peaceful purposes, is Dr. T. Keith Glennon. To talk to us about the work of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, what it is doing, what it hopes to do, and why, here is Dr. Glennon. I would like to give you some feeling of confidence that perhaps we are, we have solved some of the problems which have beset the beginnings of the space age in this nation, and that we're well on our way to solving many of those still remain.

NASA is an agency that was built on the foundations of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, a 43-year-old organization which, throughout its years, had become the foremost aeronautical research establishment in the world. NASA is an organization which had to be running very fast when its feet first hit the ground. It had the problem of carrying out tasks which had been initiated by the military in that period when there was no National Aeronautics and Space Administration or civilian agency, and it has had the problem of organizing itself, providing management, and providing a national space program. What is that program?

It consists of several important parts. I'll sketch them very briefly for you. During the early years, the acquisition of knowledge and development of techniques and technology is of prime importance. We are going to be doing science and space. We're going to be active in fields of astronomy and learning something about the radiation fields that surround this Earth. We're going to learn something about gravitational and magnetic fields, the properties of materials and people in a weightless condition. Sounds a little bit impractical at times, doesn't it? Some people would say so. It's an impractical product of eggheads and long hairs. Believe me, without it, you will have nothing that will ultimately be useful in the space field. It's an underlying, strong program that is necessary if we are to get any place in the years ahead. In, as part of that program, we have experiments which would be going on in the lunar field, shots to the moon, soft landings on the moon. That is landing equipment on the moon that it won't be broken up in the landing process, but can be used in finding bits of material that will be analyzed and the information sent back to us. What does the moon consist of? That type of thing. After all, this is a body that's been there for a very long time and perhaps locked up in it. We'll be information that will tell us something about the origin of our own Earth.

We will have programs in meteorology and in communications and here again, we must have a great deal of fundamental information before we can develop the systems that will be useful to mankind in weather forecasting and in solving some of the problems that are going to be upon us within a very few years of having enough capacity to let all the people talk to all the other people in this world at the rate that they seem to be wanting to do these days. We have perhaps 40% of our effort in this broad field. A second major program is man in space. About 15% of our effort at the present time is in that area. You heard about it. Project Mercury. The X-15 is a small part of this program. It's the first vehicle where a man will start from the ground and will leap into space and come back like a fish jumping out of water. Man in space is well organized. It's on schedule so far as I am able to tell. A vehicle program must underlie all of the programs that I've spoken of.

People say we're behind and I admit we're behind in this business of being able to propel into space the things that we want to put in space anytime and to any distance. It's simply because the propulsion systems have not been available to us. This does not mean that the missile systems are not completely satisfactory for the task they have to do in a military sense. I want to make that just as clear as I possibly can. The guidance systems in those missiles are just as good as they need to be for the job that they have to do. Our vehicle program moves on over a period of several years to the Saturn. The device, a cluster of presently available rockets, which Dr. von Braun and his people are involved in working on. And finally, to a single chamber engine of a million and a half pounds thrust, which in itself can be clustered to give us nine to twelve million pounds of thrust. All of these things are going to be available to us as time goes on and in the meantime, we are using the systems that are able to be put together out of the devices that are on the shelf which allows us to do.

As good science as the Russians have done and probably better at the present time. There are other things that we need to do in terms of tracking and data acquisition systems. Now, he's putting them up there unless you can bring back from them the information that they are deriving from outer space. Now, why do we do all of this? I would answer this in two parts. One, why do we do it at all in a second? Why do we do it at the pace at which we're now going? The first reason is the conviction that I have, and I am sure is shared by almost every thinking person, that research and space will turn up great amounts of new information that ultimately will be used for the man. The point is often made, that man's progress to date is resulted from his search for new knowledge in the application of that knowledge to his benefit, in the eradication of oppressive conditions of labor, in the abolition of routine drudgery, and in the elimination of hunger and disease. The second of my reasons for a national space program concerns the matter of significant contributions to be made to the defensive strength of the United States.

Advances in knowledge and in the development of operational techniques necessary to the performance of difficult research tasks in space will surely contribute substantially to the defense program of the nation. This point becomes increasingly valid as the developing technology employed involves increasingly sophisticated methods of guidance and control, phenomenal sensing systems, and data acquisition systems. The third we have man's known unwillingness to leave on congregate a new and adventurous frontier, and thus this urge pushes him on toward man's spaceflight. We're confident in our conviction of course that unmanned, mechanized, and instrumented space vehicles will gain for us vast amounts of very useful information, but there's no substitute for man as an observer. He is nature's finest piece of instrumentation, if you will, plus his judgment. I think man's spaceflight is the immediate symbol of supreme achievement in the space field, and to me, success in this venture will be peculiarly a part of the pioneering tradition that has made this a nation of individuals,

freighter risk their futures as each may choose. My next reason concerns the possibility of discovery of life on the far off planets. Such a discovery could very well become the crowning achievement of man's quest for knowledge in space, an achievement that historically speaking could transcend any present considerations of competition with Russia, or any near future benefits from satellites in space probes. But now to get back to the compelling reason for doing this program now, and doing it with a sense of urgency, with a sense of purpose, and the pace that we're going already even an accelerated pace. It's clearly the competition that arises out of the USSR activities and the achievements that they have made in this field. Remember that for decades the world at large has regarded this country as preeminent and most scientific technological and industrial fields. They've known us by our works and they've considered them to be good.

But now the Soviet Sputnics are larger and they're heavier than our satellites. The Russian space probe went into orbit around the sun, millions of miles from Earth, two months before our small pioneer formed followed suit. There's no denying that the Russian successes in space have hit our prestige hard. But total success without some failures is contrary to scientific experience, and this is the part of their program in space that goes on publicize. For my part, I don't think that makes very much difference. It really doesn't. They've done the things they've done and they've done them ahead of us. The Soviets have managed to convince many, even in the relatively sophisticated western nations, and certainly in the less industrially developed nations, that Russian achievements in space are the true measure of scientific and technological advancement, and thus the measure of the strength of a culture. achievements in space appear to have made more credible Soviet statements in other fields, in the economic and the political and ideological spheres. This Soviet propaganda drive is especially impressive to the people of nations with little industry or technology of their own.

Millions are taking the technological accomplishments the Russians publicize so well and effectively, as models for their own ambitions. Not knowing fully how these advances were made, the reason that the Russian peasant hoisted himself by his bootstraps in less than a lifetime, lifting himself to technological peaks in all areas, uncritically, uncritically. They're wondering if other marginal peoples might not be well-advised to step in quietly, along behind the Communist bandwagon in the hope of being swept onto utopia overnight, and practically, painlessly. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the international problem we face, to counter the spreading communist influence that is based on Soviet space accomplishments, it is imperative that the United States pursue its own space program actively, effectively, and with all of the ingenuity that we can muster. Note that I said pursue its own problem vigorously and with determination to win. We have a mandate to be a leader in this field.

When there are only two people in a race, you can't run second very long and be a leader. We must, for the present, do what we can do. Logically, in accordance with the well-developed plan and an expanding program, we must do it urgently. Now, what does it mean to you? People like yourselves, this country over. First, it means we're in the space business, and you're going to be in the space business throughout your lifetimes. It's a great adventure in your time, exploration of limitless space. Second, and this is an important thing to you when you speak about citizenship seminars, a recognition of the place of government and undertakings of this magnitude, and with the immediate international implications this one has. No single company, no group of companies, would undertake, could undertake, with stockholders' money, the kinds of expenditures that we must undertake in this kind of an activity. And third, the recognition of the fact that government is people.

It's not some structure over here in the corner that you look at once in four years when you elect a president, or in two years when you elect a representative, it's people. And there is a need in this country for the young men and women to work in politics and in administrative areas of government to make it the proud profession that it really can be, you cannot continue to let George do it. And closing, let me sum up my own attitude on this space business, if I haven't made it apparent to you already, Mark Twain speaking to a boot captain on the Mississippi, made this statement when steamboats were about to come in. When it's steamboat time, you steamboat. This is space time, and we must seize this opportunity to regain and to continue to exert leadership in the many fields of science and technology that are involved. And finally, there's a passage in Shakespeare that I think particularly appropriate here. It's an act four of Julius Caesar, where Brutus says,

there's a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood leads on to fortune, omitted all the voyage of their life is bound in shadows and in miseries. On such a full sea, are we now afloat? And we must take the current when it serves or lose our adventure. Ladies and gentlemen, I propose that we, you and I, so conduct ourselves that we do not lose our adventure in the space competition on which we're embarked. From Dr. T. Keith Glennon's remarks concerning our complex space activities, it is clear that the public information specialist has no easy assignment. For firsthand information on the duties of such specialists and the difficulties involved in relaying space-aged developments to the public, we went to the Associated Press Building in New York. There we talked with Mr. Alton L. Blakely, the Associated Press Science Editor, and Colonel Willis Helmand-Toler, chief of the Office of Information for the Air Force Air Training Command Headquarters.

Just what are your problems, gentlemen, in arriving at statements, which will be readily understood by the public? Mr. Blakely? One of the basic problems is to translate any technical terms into basic English, which we all understand. Each one of us is a specialist in a great number of ways, and yet a chemist, for example, would not understand the terminology of an astronomer if the astronomer is talking purely in his own specialized language. So our problem is to translate technical terms into terms that are understandable by all intelligent people who are interested in a subject. Also to acquire the information, which makes it significant and meaningful, and here we need the cooperation of the scientist who is willing to explain these things in these ways. After a bit of experience with a physicist, you learn some of his terminology so that you don't have to ask such basic questions,

and you can understand these concepts that he is dealing with, and therefore the significance. We need their assistance very much in giving us this kind of background or requiring it ourselves, so that we can understand the significance of what some of you have in physics or space, age, means that we can translate it then to the general public. General Hamilton? I think one of the most difficult things that I have had to deal with is getting the statement by the scientist down to manageable size. If you try to simplify it to where a busy person would take time to read it, they say this is an oversimplification. Well, that's true to an extent certainly, but I don't think the average reader is going to be interested in the small niceties, as long as we try to get across an honest impression to him of what's going on. Girl, I think I agree with you fully on this.

The scientist must realize that he is just one segment of our population, that if you want to talk to a real estate dealer about his problems, and what he is doing, he could give you such a long story that he doesn't ask your question, what does the house sell for? He doesn't translate it to the terms that are meaningful to the average person. The scientist today, I think, has a great appreciation of this, and is making somewhat more effort to realize that things must be expressed simply without the great and core confusing detail. There are messages that he wants to get across, or meanings he wants to get across. I think another thing is that our scientists always like to do just a little more experimentation with what I give you, a firm statement, on the subject there, things are still tentative. The people like to know, well, at least I think you'd like to know, well, how are we doing tentatively, at least, and I think if I were the scientist, I'd feel much the same way, but it does present one of the difficulties that you bring up in trying to report

what is going on in this base age. Obviously, from the standpoint of security, do you find that the military sits on some things unnecessarily? I suspect they do very often that they're interested in, because they may not know I'd like to ask. Girl about this is to whether very often security regulations are brought to bear or carry too far because nobody is certain as to what the influence might be if this information came out. But I think that in the development of the atomic energy program that much information was kept secret, for example, that would have been very useful to other scientists within our country. They couldn't learn about this to perhaps make the discoveries out of their own original thinking had they been had access to the basic information which had been developed within the AEC. That was the same type of thing happening in the space program. Any time you restrict the flow of information, free flow of information,

you hamper whatever program you're trying to get along with. You make it more difficult to accomplish. It has to be a matter of judgment. And I just don't think anybody's got that perfect judgment. Chris, in the, in, in learning abroad for just a minute, in the case of the military, you've got so many people in on the judgment. Does it tend to be over conservative in this judgment that something is secretive because there are so many people involved in expressing opinions as to what the potential might be of this information? I would guess that would be true there would be. And I think there would be human nature for wanting to be conservative rather than risk putting it out. I think just say, well, it's there now and it's not hurting anybody particularly. Let's just leave it like that for a while. It's very difficult, though, in this age of space where everything that's being done as far as launching satellites or missiles or whatever. Everything's so big and it can be seen for miles, actually.

And it's got to be transported and for the most part it's transported over the roads because it won't fit on anything else. And it's being built maybe in an aircraft factory and there just are more places where leaks can occur that something is brewing. Nobody knows what and doesn't this just complicate your job. All of these things do complicate the job. And sometimes it's almost impossible to understand why we wouldn't go out with the information that it particular time. There's at least one theory that the gaining even months in a particular area of scientific effort, particularly in the military field, is very valuable to us. If we can withhold the information from our competitors and by our competitors, I mean unfriendly nations, that we have gained a military advantage. That's after all what we as military people get paid for is gaining a military advantage in this struggle in the world.

I don't think there's any questions of the loyalty of American newspapermen and radio, or TV people. And going along with all this very often there can be pressures of leaks of information which either intentional or put somebody at a disadvantage of not writing about a subject until the official word comes. In this I've heard a great deal of criticism of American policy, particularly during the IGI period and immediately after when the Russians set up their sputnik. That we had talked in advance of what we were going to do and made it look foolish because the Russians had simply succeeded. That was an IGI meeting in Washington just the week before sputnik went up, which time one Russian said, we don't brag about things in advance. We don't talk about them until they have been accomplished.

This also gives a marvelous opportunity not to talk about your misfires and Russia, you simply have no information coming up and officially controlled country that there were any misfires. This is an impression to give to the rest of the world, whereas we do talk openly about plans because we are under democratic support and we want to know where our money is going. And when we have misfires, this might be presented that we are inept for those fact of the matter is that the Russians entirely have had misfires as you will have in any new field of science or technology, things just don't go perfectly. Can we wind up this discussion by having each of you make a little comment previously on this program, Dr. T. Keith Glennon, the Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space Administration is stressed the need for public education and so that naturally is why we came to you, gentlemen, who are responsible really for informing the public. Do we either one of you have comments to make on this need for education?

The space age is going to have profound effects on human lives, I think, very much for the better, and the space program will be supported and encouraged and developed faster as the public understands potentials that can come from it. Not only weather satellites, communication satellites, but they can also appreciate some of the military possibilities in it, and that we simply can't stand here doing nothing for the works, one of the great human adventures of all time for man to put his senses out into space of satellites or to even go exploring himself to the moon or to other planets. And this is a human story which raises tremendous questions in the minds of people who hear about these things and then wonder how they happen, I think it's our responsibility to tell them. He's fascinating things that are going on in a clear and concise fashion that cannot help but be advantaged as they are told the story. Colonel Hermanteller? Well, as an Air Force information officer, I have an obligation to the public to try to inform them about what we're doing in the Air Force.

And I have a theory that isn't original at all, but it's one I operate under. A professor at Ross, a Harvard once, expounded this. He said, what people understand, they tend to trust and what they trust, they may support. Well, if they understand the Air Force program and what it's trying to do, they may trust us in doing this job, this very big job of satisfying the military requirements in space, and if they do trust us to do this job, they may support us. I think we have a common agreement here, we live in a democracy in which the democracy and its decisions are supported to the degree that people understand what the problem is and they can understand the problem without the information. From Mr. Altenell Blakesley, Science Editor of Associated Press, and Colonel Willis Hermanteller, Chief of the Office of Information for the Air Force Air Training Command Headquarters, we have learned some of the hurdles to be cleared in public education for the age of space.

We are indebted also to Dr. T. Keith Glennon, Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for his picture of our space activities. Next week at this time, Dr. Harry Wexler, Director of Meteorological Research for the United States Weather Bureau and Dr. John P. Hagen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will describe for us some of the important weather developments in the space age. These programs were produced and directed by Roderick D. Wright Meyer, who serves as moderator. Coordinator and writer, Mary D. Benjamin. The series was under the supervision of Robert F. Shaken. Jim Morris speaking.

Dimensions of an U.H. was produced and recorded by Radio Television, the University of Texas, under a grant from the National Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of Educational Broadcasters. This is the NAEB Radio Network.